Journal of Quality and Reliability Engineering

Journal of Quality and Reliability Engineering / 2011 / Article
!This article has been Retracted. To view the To view the article details, please click the ‘Retraction’ tab above.

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2011 |Article ID 379129 |

Liang Wang, Yaohua Wang, Xiaoqiang Yang, Kai Cheng, Haishan Yang, Baoguo Zhu, Chengfei Fan, Xinwei Ji, "Coding ATC Incident Data Using HFACS: Intercoder Consensus", Journal of Quality and Reliability Engineering, vol. 2011, Article ID 379129, 8 pages, 2011.

Coding ATC Incident Data Using HFACS: Intercoder Consensus

Academic Editor: Kai Yuan Cai
Received26 Apr 2011
Accepted26 Sep 2011
Published20 Nov 2011


Reliability studies for coding contributing factors of incident reports in high hazard industries are rarely conducted and reported. Although the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) appears to have a larger number of such studies completed than most other systems doubt exists as the accuracy and comparability of results between studies due to aspects of methodology and reporting. This paper reports on a trial conducted on HFACS to determine its reliability in the context of military air traffic control (ATC). Two groups participated in the trial: one group comprised of specialists in the field of human factors, and the other group comprised air traffic controllers. All participants were given standardized training via a self-paced workbook and then read 14 incident reports and coded the associated findings. The results show similarly low consensus for both groups of participants. Several reasons for the results are proposed associated with the HFACS model, the context within which incident reporting occurs in real organizations and the conduct of the studies.

1. Introduction

There are numerous techniques available for the classification of incident and accident contributing factors into codes that are fundamental to trend analyses and the mitigation of human error (e.g., TRACEr, [1]; SECAS, [2]; HFACS, [3]). Many of these techniques are in the form of taxonomies, containing separate categories and codes from which coders select and then apply to incident contributing factors. However, few taxonomies have been subject to independent reliability studies to provide evidence that the classification system can provide consistent coding over time and consensus amongst different coders. Such evidence is important because contributions to trend analysis are made via incident reports investigated by different safety investigators or analysts, often from different departments within the one organisation. The accuracy of the resultant analyses, which are key to the development of accident prevention measures, is therefore dependent on the ability of those contributors to achieve consensus on their classification decisions across all contributing factors highlighted in the reports [4].

Ross et al. [5] drew attention to the fact that reliability studies of taxonomies can be overlooked, use inappropriate methods, and be reported ambiguously. These faults are indeed prevalent in the relatively few reliability studies conducted on incident classification systems. For example, there is often inadequate reporting of the methodology in cited reliability studies and the studies frequently lack the scrutiny of independent peer review, instead being unpublished university reports and dissertations. Furthermore, many reliability studies lack independence from the developers’ influence, casting doubt on whether the system being tested can produce similar results when the developers are not part of the study methodology (e.g., instruction in the technique, analysis of results, oversight of discussion groups) or analysis of the results. For example, publications of studies into the use of HFACS in medicine [6] and ATC [7, 8] include at least one of the developers as coauthors, though the extent of their involvement in the research is not detailed.

The use of sometimes inappropriate and inconsistent methodology in the conduct and analysis of reliability studies also raises questions about the accuracy and comparability of published data. In the first instance, it is important that studies are conducted as much as is possible using representative real-world scenarios. For example, Wiegmann and Shappell [3] state that HFACS is designed for use by practitioners in the field of aviation safety (pages xii-xiii), and, as pilots have been used in a number of their papers for classifying reports for trend analyses (including [911]), presumably pilots and other line workers are encompassed within their definition of “practitioner.” However, no published reliability studies could be sourced using pilots, the majority of their reliability studies having been conducted using graduate students or one or more specialists in human factors or aviation psychology. Considering the employment of behavioral, cognitive, and information processing models as the basis of many classification systems, it is possible that the use of HF specialists rather than pilot practitioners may skew the results of reliability trials. It is likely that these concepts are better understood by HF specialists than by pilots, line controllers, and maintainers although there appears to be no evidence to verify this suggestion.

In the second instance, analysis using frequency as a test of consensus (i.e., where the percentage of people that agreed on codes rather than the percentage of agreement between people choosing codes is used) has been criticised as an inappropriate method of analysis for reliability studies of taxonomies [2, 12]. Similarly, correcting for “chance” agreement, as in Cohen’s [13], Kappa statistic has also been argued as flawed [4, 1416]. The Kappa statistic was developed based on the argument that coders who are coding randomly will agree by chance some of the time and that this should be deducted from the agreement that is not achieved by chance. However, in incident classification systems where taxonomic coding is done decisively, coders do not start from an independent position and randomly assign codes but rather an informed point of view which they use to make their coding decisions, and therefore agreements are not chance events but rather the aim of what the coders are trying to do [4]. Refer to Stanton and Steverage [17] and Wallén-Warner and Sandin [18] for examples of using frequencies as a test of consensus. Wiegmann and Shappell [3], Shappell and Wiegmann [19], and Li and Harris [20] provide examples of correcting for chance in reliability studies.

A final point of confusion occurs when consistency is confused with consensus and the term reliability begins to be used interchangeably between the two. Classically, reliability referred to the consistency with which coders chose the same codes for a data set [21]. However, this definition is flawed when used in taxonomic coding as it is necessary to differentiate between the choices for each code and not the set as a whole. Therefore, reliability should properly refer to the ability of coders to agree on the code applied to individual factors or events [21] and not just apply on average the same range or number of codes across the entire data set. For example, if individual coders applied a selected code 4 out of 10 times across the data set, this alone would not constitute a reliable result unless they had applied those 4 codes to the exact same 4 events out of the total of 10 events.

Martin and Bateson [22] and Ross et al. [5] state that the correct method for calculating intercoder consensus is to calculate the index of concordance by applying the formula , where is the total number of agreements and is the total number of disagreements.

This method has several benefits:(1)it avoids the above criticisms by not correcting for “chance” agreement;(2)the agreement for each code is considered individually rather than agreement on the set of codes;(3)it is not sensitive to prevalence (methods subject to prevalence, like kappa, vary with the distribution of cases to be coded and therefore are rarely able to be compared across different studies); (4)disagreement is limited to the instance where one coder chooses a code and another does not (rather than when a code is not chosen at all).

This paper reports a study into the reliability of an incident classification technique—the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS)—which is widely used but has been questioned in terms of reliability [23, 24]. The next section outlines HFACS and then briefly summarizes the previous reliability studies conducted on the technique.

2. The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS)

The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) is a taxonomic incidentcoding system developed for the US Marine Corps aviation sector and for application by practitioners to aid in investigating and analysing the role of human factors in accidents and incidents [3]. HFACS comprises four taxonomies: “unsafe acts,” “preconditions of unsafe acts,” “unsafe supervision,” and “organisational influences.” The structure of these taxonomies is based on Reason’s [25] “Mark 1” Swiss Cheese Model, with elements of Bird [26] loss causation model. The taxonomies contain 17 categories among them which are used for coding contributing factors. Examples of these categories include “skill-based error,” “violation-routine,” “adverse mental state,” and “inadequate supervision.”

HFACS’s development has been consistently documented in publications, including the publication of error trends from aviation incident reports using the HFACS coding methodology and a wide ranging number of reliability studies. Many studies have reported a successful level of reliability for HFACS with “success” ranging from a percentage agreement (or Cohen’s Kappa in many instances) of 60% to 85%. However, many of these studies are based on unpublished graduate research data and are reported using potentially inappropriate statistics for taxonomic reliability studies. Unpublished studies are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as published studies and may not be as detailed and accurate in their reporting. Furthermore, they are less accessible to researchers who may want to check the details of completed trials for reproduction.

Wiegmann and Shappell [3] cite five unpublished graduate studies for varying versions of HFACS during its development. Johnson [27] tested a version called the Failure Analysis and Classification System (FACS). This version was identical to the current version of HFACS at the “unsafe supervision” and “unsafe acts” taxonomies however did not contain the “environmental factors” category in the “preconditions of unsafe acts” taxonomy or any part of the “organisational influences taxonomy.” The reported Kappa statistic for the reliability of the system was 0.93–0.95.

Two unpublished studies have been found and conducted independently of the developers. The first was completed on the application of HFACS to aviation accidents in the Royal Air Force of Oman [28], using a human factors specialist, an aviation psychologist and the Masters student author to rate 49 reports covering a 22-year period. Using percentage agreement and reporting on each category separately, results were detailed as between 65% and 100% for intercoder reliability and between 75% and 100% for intracoder reliability. The author also noted that agreement was higher between the two professionals than between either of the professionals and the student. The second tested the use of HFACS in the construction industry [29] with results published reporting a percentage agreement of 40% to 100% (average 75.8%). This led to the student redesigning HFACS to be more suitable for use in the construction industry (HFACS-C) with some improvement in the percentage agreement, now ranging from 45% to 100% (average 85.9%). The author also published results in the form of the kappa statistic, regularly indicating negative values of kappa (e.g., −0.25). This indicates that the observed agreement in those categories was less than that which was expected by chance [13].

A small number of published reliability studies could be found for HFACS. These studies were also conducted independent of the developers and used percentage agreement to analyze the results of the study. The first study involved 523 accident reports over a 24-year period from the Republic of China Air Force database [20]. An instructor pilot and an aviation psychologist were used as coders. Both percentage agreement and Kappa were used to analyze the results although the author noted that Kappa was not useful in situations where contributing factors were assigned only a small number of times as it caused the value of Kappa to become distorted. Percentage agreement was reported individually for each category with results of between 70% and 96%.

A second published study was performed on a derivative of HFACS, HFACS-ADF (Australian Defense Force) [24]. At the category level percentage agreement was reported as 39.9% using line controllers from a military ATC unit who were responsible for coding incident reports. Very low reliability (19.8%) was also found at the “descriptor” level for HFACS-ADF. These descriptors provide a finer-grained analysis of the incident by coding, for example, what type of a “skill-based error” has occurred rather than stopping the analysis at this level.

HFACS-ADF and HFACS-C are among a long list of derivatives that have been borne from the HFACS produced by Wiegmann and Shappell [3]. HFACS versions are now used in maintenance (HFACS-ME, [30]), mining (HFACS-MI, [31]), railway operations (HFACS-RR, [32, 33]), surgery [6], air traffic control (HFACS-ATC, [8]), and shipping [34]. With the exception of the HFACS-ADF reliability study noted above only one other such study has been published on a derivative of HFACS. O’Connor [23] conducted a study of the interrater reliability of HFACS-DoD (Department of Defense), which in addition to the standard categories contained in most versions of HFACS, including the original version, also contains a set of “descriptors” for each category. Using the within-group interrater reliability coefficient [35], reliability ranged from 0.06 to 0.94 at the category level (average 0.38) and from 0 to 0.99 at the descriptor level (average 0.67).

It appears that derivatives of HFACS that include the additional level of “descriptors” have not been successful. Additionally, studies at the category level of HFACS’ derivatives also suggest a lack of consensus. Olsen and Shorrock [24] stated that the reasons for the unreliability of HFACS-ADF could be in the structure and description of the categories and descriptors but suggested that this may not be limited to the derivative versions and may extend to the original HFACS technique as well. Certainly while studies of the original version of HFACS appear to produce a greater level of consensus than the derivatives, the shortage of published results, lack of independence from the developers, possibly inappropriate and incomparable methodologies, and the lack of emphasis on conducting testing within the environment that the system is to be used also bring into question the reliability of the technique.

Following on from the concerns raised in Olsen and Shorrock [24], this paper presents a study testing HFACS (original version) using both independent air traffic control and HF specialist coders, with standardized instruction. The study aimed to determine if HFACS can be used reliaby to code actual incident reports in the environment it is designed to be used, using typical organization practitioners with a level of training achievable with small organization resources. Additionally, the study investigated whether HF specialists coded more or less reliably than air traffic control officers occupying a safety officer position.

3. Trial

3.1. Method
3.1.1. Design

The trial employed a within- and between-groups design. The first group comprised active air traffic controllers from military ATC units in Australia who are practitioners in incident investigation within the military units. The second group comprised human factors specialists employed in civil ATC organizations.

3.1.2. Participants

Group one was a convenience sample of 4 air traffic controllers (ATCOs) from three Royal Australian Air Force ATC sections. These participants were selected due to their possession of training officer/supervisor experience in both terminal and approach/departures environments and having Aviation Safety Officer experience (a position held in addition to controlling duties) during their career. This is representative of the more experienced half of all controllers employed within the Royal Australian Air Force. All participants had experience with a derivative of HFACS known as HFACS-ADF (see [24]). Although formal instruction on HFACS-ADF had never been provided, participants had experience using the taxonomy ranging from 4 to 7 (average 5) years use.

Group two was a convenience sample of 3 human factors specialists working in ATC organizations in Europe. None of the HF specialists had experience using HFACS. They had held HF specialist positions ranging from 10 to 40 (average 21) years and had had experience in other incident coding systems including TRACEr [1] and HERA [36].

The participants were only divided into two groups for the purpose of analyzing the results. All participants participated in the training and coding portions of the trial individually.

3.1.3. Materials

A training workbook was provided in a distance-learning, self-paced format. The workbook included definitions of all the terms used in the HFACS taxonomy (from [3]), some worked examples and a practice scenario for coding, for which the answers were provided at the back of the book. The book was 21 pages long and took between 2 and 7 (average 4) hours to complete.

A trial paper consisting of 14 incident reports were also provided, chosen randomly from all incident reports in the Royal Australian Air Force reporting system. The reports therefore encompassed incidents from ATC, flying squadrons, maintenance, and air defense (tactical fighter control) units. Each report was no more than one typed page length and contained a short paragraph narrative summarizing the report, the analysis of the investigation, and findings preidentified by the author, with a space provided beside each one for coding. A short questionnaire accompanied the paper to gather demographic information necessary for assigning participants to each of the groups.

3.1.4. Procedure

Participants completed the training workbook and then the trial paper. Participants could use the information in their coding workbook to aid them in completing the trial paper but were instructed to not use any other person or source. For the trial paper, participants read each report and then provided one code only to each of the preidentified findings using the categories from the HFACS taxonomy. All returned papers were usable and were included in the data set.

3.1.5. Method of Analysis

The “index of concordance” described in Ross et al. [37] was used to analyze the data set. Results were tabulated for comparison of agreement between participants in each group at the category level and then again at the higher taxonomy level (which comprised four codes—unsafe acts, preconditions to unsafe acts, unsafe supervision and organizational influences). An overall calculation of agreement was completed for all participants combined, within each group, and the standard criterion of 70% agreement was adopted as a reasonable minimum level of agreement between coders as proposed by Wallace and Ross [4].

3.2. Results

The percentage agreement for each of the groups at the category level and the taxonomy level are tabulated in Table 1 below and for each category individually in Table 2 below. Percentage agreement at the category level was 36.1% for the ATCO group and 34.5% for the HF specialist group. At the taxonomy level, the results indicate a percentage agreement of 64.8% for the ATCO group and 56.4% for the HF specialist group. None of the results for either group, whether at the category level or the taxonomy level, reach the 70% criterion, suggesting inadequate intercoder consensus.

ATCO groupHF specialist group

Category level36.1%34.5%
Taxonomy level64.8%56.4%

ATCO groupHF specialist group

Decision error34.6%13.6%
Skill based error31.1%31.7%
Perception error0%0%

Physical environment28.6%100%
Technological environment20%29.4%
Adverse mental states41.2%29.7%
Adverse physiological states0%Not Selected
Physical/mental limitations30.8%11.1%
Personal readiness0%Not Selected

Inadequate supervision9%33.3%
Planned inappropriate actions0%14.3%
Failed to correct a problem0%Not Selected
Supervisory violations0%0%

Resource management14.3%25%
Organizational climate0%0%
Organizational processes0%7.7%

The overall percentage agreement for all participants over all reports was 35.6% at the category level and 62% at the taxonomy level.

Table 2 shows the percentage agreement for each category when the category was chosen at least once for a finding. All categories were chosen at least once by the ATCO group; however, only 16 of the 19 categories were selected once by the HF specialist group. This was calculated by determining the number of times there was an agreement for a particular category compared with the number of total possible agreements that could have occurred provided the category was selected once. Low agreement was found in all categories with at least a third of the categories resulting in no agreement at all.

4. Discussion

The percentage agreement achieved by both ATCOs and HF specialists using HFACS categories was very low and well below the recommended criterion of 70% agreement as a reasonable level of reliability. For both groups, agreement also did not reach the 70% criterion even using four simple supercategories representing the elements of the HFACS model, corresponding to the “Mark I” Swiss cheese model [25].

An analysis of results shows there was some confusion over when to use similar categories. For example, confusion arose between “Physical/Mental States” and “Adverse Physiological States” and “Adverse Mental States.” Confusion also arose between “Technological Environment” and “Physical Environment.”

Another area of confusion resulted from the use of “Technological Environment” and “Resource Management.” Some participants decided that the lack of provision of an item of equipment, or the fact that it was outdated, should be coded as “Technological Environment” because an error resulting from this precondition was an environmental condition. However, other participants believed that it should be coded as “Resource Management” because equipment was not allocated or maintained properly. The definitions alone did not appear to be sufficient to ensure mutual exclusivity.

One air traffic control participant stated that he experienced some confusion as to whether an error committed by a supervisor should be considered as an unsafe act by that person or a supervisory error when the error was committed by a controller who was occupying the supervisory position at the time. An example of this is when a controller fulfilling the role of supervisor instructs a subordinate tower controller to clear an aircraft to land without being aware that a runway separation standard does not exist. This may be considered an unsafe act committed by the supervisor (as well as the tower controller) or a supervisory violation, or both.

The trial’s evaluation of differences in agreement between ATCO’s and HF specialists reveal no differences between the two groups. The ATCO group produced a slightly higher agreement than the HF specialist group of 2% at category level and 8% at the taxonomy level. This could be explained by the ATCO’s previous experience with the HFACS-ADF version.

Reasons for the low agreement may be associated with the HFACS model itself. Discussions with participants suggest that the reliability of the model may be affected by (1) where errors can be considered from two different points of view (as in the supervisor and resource management examples above); (2) where errors are a result of mental perception (the model only provides a category for errors in perception that arise from physical phenomena). Development of the definitions may reduce confusion and has been done in several studies. Pounds et al. [8] tested HFACS in the US FAA ATC and developed a derivative known as HFACS-ATC. The resultant changes were largely confined to renaming the taxonomies, categories, and providing new examples.

The results do not compare with those published studies that have reported a high percentage agreement when using the HFACS model [20, 28]. In such cases reliability at the category level was between 65% and 100%; however, in both publications, all categories were calculated separately and an overall result was not reported.

Taking such an approach in this trial resulted in agreement that varied from 0% to 100% (median 16.5%) for each category separately. Only 1 category achieved the 70% criterion out of a total of 35 categories selected (19 selected by ATCOs and 16 selected by the HF specialists).

One comparable independent study [23], using the derivative HFACS-DoD (US Department of Defense), found insufficient reliability at the category level. Similarly this author’s previous study [24] reported a percentage agreement overall of 39.9% at the category level when testing HFACS-ADF. The results for trials conducted on derivatives of HFACS mirror the present results. It is suggested therefore that the slight changes to the category levels of HFACS-DoD and HFACS-ADF do not account for the reduced reliability results alone.

Although several other published and unpublished studies have been conducted, some demonstrating high reliability, the way that the studies have been conducted, and reported casts doubt over the results. In a number of papers, the studies are not completed independently of the developers, and this may lead to the results being skewed either because the developers have an advanced understanding of the system or due to unintentional bias. Similarly in the case where students have published results of trials (e.g., [27]), potential biases are possible due to lack of independence. Furthermore, many studies may report skewed results due to the use of Kappa. Correcting for chance is still highly debated, and the use of it in one particular study invalidated the results to the degree that the results indicated it was more likely the participants randomly coded findings rather than make informed decisions about the codes in order to reach agreement (e.g., the negative figures quoted in [29]). Lastly, participants are often selected from specialist or academic areas—aviation psychologists, human factors specialists, graduate students, and aviation or human factors university lecturers [20, 28]. These are not representative of the target audience for HFACS. Such decisions may lead results to be more favorable or unfavorable than accurate.

The evidence from this study and some previous studies suggests that it is doubtful whether the model itself and models built on similar taxonomies are suitable for real-world environments. Therefore, it is worth considering at this point whether improvements can be made to HFACS. HFACS was developed after analysing the causal factors of hundreds of incident reports and fitting them into a framework based on the Reason [25] Swiss Cheese Model. While this method appears comprehensive and systematic, Beaubien and Baker [38] questioned whether HFACS is suitably comprehensive and organised to provide clues for remedial action or separate causes from effects. The lack of high consensus in studies suggests that the structure, terminology, and/or available categories may be deficient. While changes to the terminology or the way the taxonomies are used by clients may increase the consensus a little, the taxonomy format itself is still likely to contain ambiguity for users, particularly as attempts to ensure mutual exclusivity of categories and even at the model level in this study (comprising only 4 codes) appear to be largely unsuccessful. It would be worthwhile reviewing reliability results from a number of systems using taxonomies for coding in hazardous industries.

Like similar reliability studies on HFACS, this study design has had several limitations that may have affected the results; however, attempts have been made to eliminate some of those limitations that have affected previous studies. These attempts have included preidentifying the findings or contributing factors associated with the incident reports in order so that participants were not required to both attempt to identify factors and then also provide a code. Wallace et al. [2] suggest that this method of preidentifying the factors to be coded may increase the reliability by as much as 20%. However, by providing participants with the factors preidentified, their ability to code the factors reliably, rather than their ability to identify factors from an incident report text, was tested. Furthermore, the method ensured that participants could not identify an unequal number of codes, which would be calculated as a disagreement and lower the reliability according to the index of concordance methodology.

Additionally, this study attempted to ensure that participants had standardized training and similar experience with the HFACS system prior to conducting the coding exercises. This however created other limitations that could have affected the results. A “distance-learning” workbook format was employed for this trial due to the international locations and shift-work patterns of the participants. Although in most small organizations it would be preferred that coders attend a course, this is unrealistic for some organizations due to schedules, manning and distance, and cost of travel. The workbook method is an alternative for such organizations to produce consistent and flexible training and coupled with a closed-book exam or online tutorials would be an effective training system. It is possible that working at different paces and with varying attention to detail in completing the workbook, participants were not all completely understanding of HFACS prior to commencing the coding exercises. While this may have affected the results, this method of training is representative of the real world context of use of HFACS in small organizations and the training that those organizations could provide.

Similarly representative of the use of the real world context of small organizations is the limitation in the number of suitably experienced and qualified personnel available who may occupy positions in which incident investigation and coding tasks are completed. This study was aimed at practitioners with training officer/supervisor experience who had aviation safety officer experience and HF specialists with at least several years of professional HF employment. With these prerequisites, the additional limitation of finding personnel who had the time to complete the study in an increasingly undermanned industry and the time permitted for study completion resulted in only seven participants in the study. This number, however, is typical of similar studies where practitioners and/or specialists have been used (e.g., [9, 20, 28, 39]). While possibly a greater number of participants could add confidence to the robustness of the results, it is unlikely to have changed the result of low consensus in this study.

These shortcomings are actually representative of the real environment, and the results are considered valid. Indeed, they concur with Olsen and Shorrock [24] and O’Connor [23] where air traffic controllers, pilots, and unit level HF specialists (aviation safety officers) were used to determine the reliability of HFACS derivatives in real world environments. Certainly, the HFACS developers suggest that the system is intended to be used in similar real world scenarios having published a number of articles using pilots, and actual reports to determine trends using HFACS [911]. Therefore, the use of line controllers and unit HF specialists is considered a valid representation of the practitioners for which this particular system has been designed for use. It is important to remember therefore that systems designed for use in real world environments, including HFACS, need to be designed in such a way that reasonable reliability can be achieved despite the limitations of those environments (i.e., limitations in training time and resources or position and experience of personnel conducting coding). Furthermore, the importance of conducting reliability studies should not be overlooked. Neither should the importance of conducting reliability studies in such a way that their results are comparable between studies, that they emulate real-world environments as much as is possible, and that the intended users of the system, not the developers, specialists, or students, are used to provide an accurate and valid assessment of the system’s reliability.

5. Conclusions

As a result of the research doubt exists as to the reliability of HFACS by human factors specialists and ATCOs using real incident reports and standardized instruction. If coders cannot agree, without group discussion, on what codes to assign to the same or similar findings across an organization then the codes are ineffective. It is suggested that HFACS itself may not be suitable for reliable coding in a real-world, small organization environment. If HFACS cannot be used reliably for real-world operations, then this has significant implications on trend analyses, and the resultant remedial action which, if based on unreliable coding, may well be misguided. Considering the prevalence of HFACS around the world in multiple industries and organizations, this is an issue that merits further attention.

HFACS proved to be a useful taxonomy for classifying the causal factors associated with operational errors. A greater percentage was classified as skill-based errors as compared to decision errors. In addition, our results demonstrated that the “causal factors” listed in the current operational error reporting system is lacking in information concerning organizational factors, unsafe supervisory acts, and the preconditions of unsafe acts. It is recommended that greater attention be placed on developing a more comprehensive human factors assessment of operational error causes across all levels.

As with any study, when interpreting these results, one should consider the quantity and quality of the operational error data available. Any post hoc analysis depends on the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the data. In this study, we did not distinguish between facility types, that is, Air Traffic Control Towers (ATCTs), Terminal Radar Approach Control facilities (TRACONs), or Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs). Also, we did not examine the causal factors based on who was deemed to be primarily responsible for the operational error versus who played a contributing role. We also used only a subset of the data from the 7210-3.

Since the nature of this study was to identify a candidate taxonomy or model and then to test the strongest candidate using operational error data, the above limitations do not weaken the conclusion that HFACS, or some variation of it, could profitably be incorporated into the operational error reporting process. However, for those who wish to draw additional conclusions from the material presented, the above limitations should be considered.


  1. S. T. Shorrock and B. Kirwan, “Development and application of a human error identification tool for air traffic control,” Applied Ergonomics, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 319–336, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. B. Wallace, A. Ross, J. Davies, L. Wright, and M. White, “The creation of a new minor event coding system,” Cognition, Technology and Work, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  3. D. Wiegmann and S. Shappell, A Human Error Approach to Aviation Accident Analysis: The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, UK, 2003.
  4. B. Wallace and A. Ross, Beyond Human Error: Taxonomies and Safety Science, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 2006.
  5. A. J. Ross, B. Wallace, and J. B. Davies, “Technical note: measurement issues in taxonomic reliability,” Safety Science, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 771–778, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. A. W. ElBardissi, D. A. Wiegmann, J. A. Dearani, R. C. Daly, and T. M. Sundt, “Application of the human factors analysis and classification system methodology to the cardiovascular surgery operating room,” Annals of Thoracic Surgery, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 1412–1419, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. A. Pape, D. Wiegmann, and S. Shappell, “Air Traffic Control (ATC) related accidents and incidents: a human factors analysis,” in Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  8. J. Pounds, A. Scarborough, and S. Shappell, “A human factors analysis of air traffic control operational errors,” Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, vol. 71, pp. 329–332, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  9. S. Shappell, C. Detwiler, K. Holcomb, C. Hackworth, A. Boquet, and D. A. Wiegmann, “Human error and commercial aviation accidents: an analysis using the human factors analysis and classification system,” Human Factors, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 227–242, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. D. Wiegmann, T. Faaborg, A. Boquet, C. Detwiler, K. Halcomb, and S. Shappell, “Human error and general aviation accidents: a comprehensive, fine-grained analysis using HFACS,” Department of Transportation, FAA Report, DOT/FAA/AM-05/24, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  11. S. Shappell and D. Wiegmann, “A human error analysis of general aviation controlled flight into terrain accidents occurring between 1990–1998,” Department of Transportation, FAA Report, DOT/FAA/AM-03/4, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  12. J. Davies, A. Ross, B. Wallace, and L. Wright, Safety Management: A Qualitative Systems Approach, Taylor and Francis, London, UK, 2003.
  13. J. Cohen, “A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 37–46, 1960. View at: Google Scholar
  14. W. M. Grove, N. C. Andreasen, P. McDonald-Scott, M. Keller, and R. Shapiro, “Reliability studies of psychiatric diagnosis. Theory and practice,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 408–413, 1981. View at: Google Scholar
  15. A. E. Maxwell, “Coefficients of agreement between observers and their interpretation,” British Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 130, no. 1, pp. 79–83, 1977. View at: Google Scholar
  16. E. L. Spitznagel and J. E. Helzer, “A proposed solution to the base rate problem in the kappa statistic,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 725–728, 1985. View at: Google Scholar
  17. N. A. Stanton and S. V. Steverage, “Learning to predict human error: issues of acceptability, reliability and validity,” Ergonomics, vol. 41, no. 11, pp. 1737–1756, 1998. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. H. W. Wallén-Warner and J. Sandin, “The intercoder agreement when using the driving reliability and error analysis method in road traffic accident investigations,” Safety Science, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 527–536, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. S. Shappell and D. Wiegmann, “Applying Reason: the human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS),” Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 59–86, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  20. W. Li and D. Harris, “HFACS analysis of ROC Air Force aviation accidents: reliability analysis and crosscultural comparison,” International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 65–72, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  21. S. W. J. Kozlowski and K. Hattrup, “A disagreement about within-group agreement: disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 77, no. 2, pp. 161–167, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  22. P. Martin and P. Bateson, Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993.
  23. P. O'Connor, “HFACS with an additional layer of granularity: validity and utility in accident analysis,” Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, vol. 79, no. 6, pp. 599–606, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. N. S. Olsen and S. T. Shorrock, “Evaluation of the HFACS-ADF safety classification system: inter-coder consensus and intra-coder consistency,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 437–444, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. J. Reason, Human Error, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 1990.
  26. F. Bird, Management Guide to Loss Control, Institute Press, Atlanta, Ga, USA, 1974.
  27. W. Johnson, “Classifying pilot human error causes in A-10 class A mishaps,” Graduate Research Project, Embrey-Riddle Aeronautical University, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  28. Y. AlWardi, Applying human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS) to aviation accidents in the Royal Air Force of Oman (RAFO): a cross cultural comparison, M.S. thesis, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, UK, 2006.
  29. D. Walker, “Applying the human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS) to incidents in the UK construction industry,” Graduate Research Project, Cranfield University, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  30. D. C. Krulak, “Human factors in maintenance: impact on aircraft mishap frequency and severity,” Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 429–432, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  31. J. M. Patterson and S. A. Shappell, “Operator error and system deficiencies: analysis of 508 mining incidents and accidents from Queensland, Australia using HFACS,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 1379–1385, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. S. Reinach and A. Viale, “Application of a human error framework to conduct train accident/incident investigations,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 396–406, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. M. T. Baysari, C. Caponecchia, A. S. McIntosh, and J. R. Wilson, “Classification of errors contributing to rail incidents and accidents: a comparison of two human error identification techniques,” Safety Science, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 948–957, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. M. Celik and S. Cebi, “Analytical HFACS for investigating human errors in shipping accidents,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 66–75, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. L. R. James, R. G. Demaree, and G. Wolf, “Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 69, no. 1, pp. 85–98, 1984. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. A. Isaac, M. Lyons, T. Bove, and D. Van Damme, “Validation of the human error in ATM (HERA-JANUS) technique,” EUROCONTROL, HRA/HSP-002-REP-04, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  37. A. J. Ross, B. Wallace, and J. B. Davies, “Technical note: measurement issues in taxonomic reliability,” Safety Science, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 771–778, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. J. Beaubien and D. Baker, “A review of selected aviation human factors taxonomies, accident/incident reporting systems and data reporting tools,” International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 11–36, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  39. M. Dambier and J. Hinkelbein, “Analysis of 2004 German general aviation aircraft accidents according to the HFACS model,” Air Medical Journal, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 265–269, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2011 Liang Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

Article of the Year Award: Outstanding research contributions of 2020, as selected by our Chief Editors. Read the winning articles.