Skip to main content
Log in

Immersive virtual reality as an empirical research tool: exploring the capability of a machine learning model for predicting construction workers’ safety behaviour

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virtual Reality Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, research has found that people have stable predispositions to engage in certain behavioural patterns to work safely or unsafely, which vary among individuals as a function of their personality features. In this regard, an innovative machine learning model has been recently developed to predict workers’ behavioural tendency based on personality factors. This paper presents an empirical evaluation of the model’s prediction performance (i.e. the degree to which the model can generate similar results compared to reality) to address the issue of the model’s usability before it is implemented in real situations. As virtual reality allows a good grip on fidelity resembling real-world situations, it can stimulate more natural behaviour responses from participants to increase ecological validity of experimental results. Thus, we implemented a virtual reality experimentation environment to assess workers’ safety behaviour. The model’s prediction capability was then evaluated by comparing the model prediction results and workers’ safety behaviour as assessed in virtual reality. The comparison results showed that the model predictions on two dimensions of workers’ safety behaviour (i.e. task and contextual performance) were in good agreement with the virtual reality experimental results, with Spearman correlation coefficients of 79.7% and 87.8%, respectively. The machine learning model thus proved to have good prediction capability, which allows the model to help identify vulnerable workers who are prone to undertake unsafe behaviours. The findings also suggest that virtual reality is a promising method for measuring workers’ safety behaviour as it can provide a realistic and safe environment for experimentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

All data and material that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Code availability

C# code generated during the development of the virtual reality scenarios is available from the corresponding author upon request.

References

Download references

Funding

This research is supported by Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at The University of Auckland.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yifan Gao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A: The work-specific big five inventory

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).

I see myself as someone who…

 

Q1: is talkative at worka

Q18: is generally trusting at workb

Q2: tends to find fault with others at workb

Q19: tends to be lazy at workc

Q3: does a thorough job at workc

Q20: is emotionally stable at workd

Q4: is depressed at workd

Q21: has an assertive personality at worka

Q5: is reserved at worka

Q22: can be cold and aloof at workb

Q6: is helpful and unselfish with others at workb

Q23: perseveres until the task is finished at workc

Q7: can be somewhat careless at workc

Q24: can be moody at workd

Q8: handles stress well at workd

Q25: is sometimes shy at worka

Q9: is full of energy at worka

Q26: is considerate and kind to almost everyone at work. (b)

Q10: starts quarrels with others at workb

Q27: does things efficiently at workc

Q11: is a reliable worker at workc

Q28: remains calm in tense situations at workd

Q12: can be tense at workd

Q29: is outgoing at worka

Q13: generates a lot of enthusiasm at worka

Q30: is sometimes rude to others at workb

Q14: has a forgiving nature at workb

Q31: makes plans and follows through with them at workc

Q15: tends to be disorganised at workc

Q32: gets nervous easily at workd

Q16: worries a lot at workd

Q33: likes to cooperate with others at workb

Q17: tends to be quiet at worka

Q34: is easily distracted at workc

  1. aExtraversion; bAgreeableness; cConscientiousness; dNeuroticism

Appendix B: The safety behaviour scale

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).

I see myself as someone who…

Q1: overlooks safety procedures in order to get my job done more quicklya

Q2: follows all safety procedures regardless of the situation I am ina

Q3: handles all situations cautiously to not take shortcut as if there is a possibility of having an accidenta

Q4: uses safety equipment required by safety practicesa

Q5: keeps workplace cleanb

Q6: helps co-workers to be safeb

Q7: follows safety practices to keep my work equipment in safe working conditiona

Q8: takes shortcuts to safe working behaviours in order to get the job done fastera

Q9: does not follow safety practices that I think are unnecessarya

Q10: reports safety problems to my supervisor when I see safety problems performed by co-workersb

Q11: corrects co-workers’ unsafe acts to ensure accidents will not occurb

  1. aTask performance; bContextual performance

Appendix C: Machine learning model weights and biases

See Table

Table 4 Weights and Biases

4.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gao, Y., González, V.A., Yiu, T.W. et al. Immersive virtual reality as an empirical research tool: exploring the capability of a machine learning model for predicting construction workers’ safety behaviour. Virtual Reality 26, 361–383 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00572-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00572-9

Keywords

Navigation