Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 65 references

The status quo of fire evacuation drills in nursery schools

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Surveying 1,151 Czech nursery schools, the paper argues that schools which drill less than once a year report more evacuation problems than schools that drill at least annually, and that slow movement because children need help is the…

desk verdict A valuable national survey dataset undercut by a causal claim that the cross-sectional, self-report design cannot support. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16848 v1 pith:NDWUAQ7Q submitted 2025-06-20 physics.soc-ph

Hana Najmanová , Petr Novák , Enrico Ronchi This is my paper
classification physics.soc-ph
keywords firesafetydrillsnurseryschoolspreschoolchildrenevacuationsurveyresearchCzechiahumanbehavior
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to establish what fire-drill practice actually looks like in Czech nursery schools and whether drill frequency is tied to how smoothly evacuations go. Drawing on an online survey of 1,151 nursery-school leaders (23.5% of those invited), it claims that schools drilling less than once a year report on average 1.45 distinct problems during drills, against about 1.0 for schools drilling annually or more often (p=0.023). It also argues that ground-floor-only schools encounter fewer problems, that slow movement because children need assistance is the single most common issue, and that drills should be embedded in age-specific fire-safety education rather than treated as isolated events. A careful reader would care because preschool children are a vulnerable population whose evacuation depends on adult decisions, and there is little standardized guidance for drills in such settings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the survey instrument: a 20-question anonymous online questionnaire in two parts, the first probing building, occupancy and operational conditions of 1,151 Czech nursery schools and the second asking the 880 schools that do drill about frequency, announcement, warning signals, movement organization, route use, evaluation and a fixed list of ten possible issues. The argument is carried by a count of issues per school and by non-parametric comparisons (Wilcoxon, Kruskal-Wallis, chi-square and Spearman tests) of that count and of individual issues against drill frequency, floor level, staff-to-child ratio and other indicators. That machinery turns self-reported practice into a quantitative frequency-issues association.

What would settle it

Compare the survey's self-reported drill frequencies and issue counts against official fire-safety documentation or school drill logs for a random sample of both respondents and non-respondents. If non-respondent schools or logged records show no gap in problems between less-than-annual and annual-or-more drillers, or reveal that reported frequencies are inaccurate, the central association would not survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that drill frequency predicts evacuation problems in nursery schools: schools that held drills less often than once a year reported a mean of 1.45 issues during drills, compared with 1.03 for annual drills and 1.01 for more frequent drills (Kruskal-Wallis p=0.023). The same pattern appears for children's fear, with frightened children reported as an issue in 37.9% of schools drilling less than annually, 23.5% of annual-drill schools and 17.6% of more-frequent ones (p=0.015). The paper also reports that slow movement because children required assistance was the most common problem (41% of respondents), that children often needed help on stairs, and that schools with all children's spaces on the ground floor had fewer issues (mean 0.94) than schools with spaces on the first floor (1.10) or higher (1.26, p=0.010).

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that the 23.5% of invited nursery-school leaders who answered are representative of all Czech nursery schools and that their self-reported drill frequencies and problem lists are accurate enough for the comparisons to reflect real practice, not who chose to respond or how they wished to appear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If drill frequency is genuinely protective, annual drills should be a floor, not a ceiling, for nursery schools; the paper recommends going beyond the common annual schedule.
  • Buildings with children's rooms above the ground floor should expect more problems and likely need additional training on stair evacuation and stricter design requirements.
  • Because slow movement due to child assistance is the most frequent problem, drills should specifically rehearse stair movement and assistance strategies for younger children.
  • Standardized post-drill evaluation and reporting should be part of the drill routine, since only about 61.6% of schools evaluate in writing.
  • Fire drills should be one component of a systematic, age-appropriate fire-safety education program rather than standalone events.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test would link self-reported drill frequency to independently timed evacuations or drill logs; the survey's reliance on self-report is the main open flank.
  • If the frequency-issues relationship generalizes, policy bodies could pilot different drill frequencies across comparable schools and compare issue counts or evacuation times.
  • The announcement effect (unannounced drills showing less slow movement) may reflect that unannounced drills are run by more experienced or better-prepared schools; this confound is not resolved by the survey.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an online survey of 1,151 Czech nursery schools (23.5% response rate) on fire-drill practices, operational conditions, and reported evacuation problems. The authors describe drill frequency, announcement practices, warning signals, movement organization, and issues such as slow movement and frightened children. They test associations between school characteristics and drill outcomes, finding that schools drilling less than annually report more issues (mean 1.45 vs 1.03 and 1.01), that ground-floor schools report fewer issues, and that specific issues (e.g., waiting for a free staircase) relate to building height and escape-route availability. The paper concludes with recommendations for more frequent, purpose-designed, and child-adapted fire drills. The abstract states that 'more frequent fire drills led to significantly fewer issues during evacuation.'

Significance. If the descriptive findings stand, the paper is a useful contribution to the limited empirical literature on fire evacuation in preschools, particularly for Czechia. The large sample, regional coverage, and transparent reporting of the survey instrument and limitations are strengths, and the non-parametric methods are appropriate for the count and categorical data. However, the headline causal claim is not supported by the cross-sectional, self-report design; the descriptive mapping is the more solid and valuable part of the paper.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sections 3.3.2, 4.1, 5] The abstract states that 'more frequent fire drills led to significantly fewer issues during evacuation,' and Section 4.1 repeats this as 'our results confirmed that nursery schools that performed fire drills annually or more often encountered significantly fewer problems during the drills.' These causal statements are not warranted by the study design: the data are a cross-sectional survey of self-reported drill frequency and self-reported past issues, collected at a single time point from the same respondents. The limitations section (Section 2.3) explicitly acknowledges non-response and response bias, which makes a causal reading even less defensible. I request that all causal wording be replaced with associational wording (e.g., 'was associated with,' 'reported by schools with'), or that the authors provide a specific design-based argument for causal identification, which is not currently present.
  2. [Table 9 (Section 3.3.2); also Tables 6-11] The headline result—that schools with less frequent drills report more issues—rests on a single Kruskal-Wallis test with p=0.023. The paper performs many such tests without any adjustment for multiple comparisons. For example, correcting only for the categorical comparisons in Tables 8 and 9 (12 tests) would require p<0.0021, and correcting across all tests in Tables 6-11 would make p=0.023 clearly non-significant. In addition, the effect is driven by the small group of schools that drill less than once a year (n≈58, 6.7% of Part II respondents); the annual and more-than-annual groups have nearly identical means (1.03 vs 1.01), so there is no evidence of a dose-response gradient. The authors should either apply a multiple-testing correction (or a preregistered family of tests), explicitly label the analyses as exploratory, and/or present effect sizes with confidence intervals. The current formulation overstates the evidential strength.
  3. [Sections 3.2.2 and 3.3.2; Questions #11 and #20] Both the predictor (frequency of fire drills, Question #11) and the outcome (number of issues, Question #20) are self-reported by the same respondent in the same survey, and the outcome is a count of predefined issue categories rather than an objective measure. This invites common-method bias—for example, respondents with a more systematic approach to fire safety might report both more frequent drills and a higher number of noticed issues, or social desirability might lead to underreporting of issues. Section 2.3 lists response bias as a general limitation but does not discuss its likely direction or magnitude for the frequency–issues association. The authors should add a sensitivity discussion, or a simple tipping-point analysis, and should explicitly frame the association as self-reported and subject to unmeasured confounding.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2.1 and Section 3.3.3] Typos appear in the text and figure captions, including 'T op left' in Section 3.2.1, 'W arning' in Table 5 variable labels, and 'frightene' in Section 3.3.3; a full proofread is recommended.
  2. [References] Reference [52] is a placeholder ('J. Doe') and lacks a title and source; this should be replaced with the actual citation for early childhood education in Czechia.
  3. [Tables 5 and 9] Table 9 uses the labels 'Less often,' 'Annually,' and 'More often' that are less specific than the categories in Table 5; the grouping rule (e.g., 'Less often' means less than once a year, 'More often' means twice a year or more) should be stated in the table note or text.
  4. [Abstract and Section 2.1] The abstract's statement of '23.5% of nursery schools invited to participate' is ambiguous because the methods clarify that this is the percentage of successfully delivered invitations (4,903); consider saying 'of invited schools that received the invitation.'
  5. [Throughout] The repeated header note 'This is a preprint version of the article accepted to Safety Science with DOI...' appears at the top of the abstract and again at the end; in the final published version this should be standardized or removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the survey analysis is derived from new primary data, and self-citations appear only as background and corroboration, not as load-bearing inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—such as the association between drill frequency and the number of reported evacuation issues (Section 3.3.2, Table 9)—are computed directly from the newly collected survey responses using standard non-parametric tests. There is no equation in the paper that is fitted to a subset of the data and then renamed as a prediction, no indicator defined in terms of the outcome it is said to predict, and no load-bearing appeal to a prior result by the same authors. The self-citations (e.g., Najmanová and Ronchi's earlier evacuation experiments, references [19], [26], [27]) are used as contextual or corroborating literature in the introduction and discussion, not as inputs to the statistical analysis. The acknowledged limitations in Section 2.3—non-response bias, response bias, and social desirability bias—are genuine threats to causal interpretation of the cross-sectional frequency–issues association, and the abstract's 'led to' wording may overstate the evidence, but these are concerns about inferential validity and study design, not about circularity. The skeptical observation that the p=0.023 result may not survive multiple-testing correction is likewise a statistical robustness concern, not a circularity concern. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the data collected for this study, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters or invented entities. The paper is a descriptive and inferential survey analysis; the key implicit inputs are reliability, representativeness, and coding of self-reported data.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption School leaders' self-reports accurately represent actual fire drill frequency, procedures, and encountered issues.
    All data come from an anonymous online survey (Sections 2.1-2.3); the paper itself lists response bias and social desirability bias as limitations.
  • domain assumption The 1,151 responding schools are sufficiently representative of all Czech nursery schools for the reported associations to generalize.
    The response rate is 23.5%; Section 2.3 raises non-response bias and notes that non-respondents may be less likely to perform drills.
  • domain assumption Reclassifying free-text 'Other' answers into the predefined categories does not systematically distort issue frequencies.
    Section 2.2 states that 'Other' responses were reviewed and re-categorized by the researchers, which introduces a subjective judgment step.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The status quo of fire evacuation drills in nursery schools." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NDWUAQ7Q

@misc{pith2026250616848,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The status quo of fire evacuation drills in nursery schools},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NDWUAQ7Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16848}
}
read the original abstract

Fire drills are a commonly-used training method for improving how people act in emergency situations. This article deals with fire drills in early childhood education facilities and analyses data gathered from an online survey of 1151 Czech nursery schools (23.5% of nursery schools invited to participate, 21.5% of all officially registered nursery schools in Czechia). It provides recommendations for improving the effectiveness of fire drills in nursery schools. Results suggest that regular (typically annual) fire drills are common training practices at these schools, but more frequent fire drills led to significantly fewer issues during evacuation. The most frequent evacuation issue encountered during fire drills, according to our data, was slow movement. Many children needed assistance, notably on stairs; nursery schools located only on the ground floor reported fewer issues during evacuation than other schools. The purpose, design, and implementation of fire drills with our study confirming results from prior studies must be properly integrated into complex and systematic fire safety education programs that specifically reflect the characteristics, needs, and possible limitations of preschool children.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16848 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Response rate for each Czech region survey questions listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Capacity and occupancy of nursery schools in this study. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Issues encountered during fire drills in nursery schools: (A) Number of issues; (B) Frequency of various issues [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparing numeric indicators for schools which do and do not perform drills (significant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Proportion of nursery schools within specific categories that encounter issues (significant relations only) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gehandler, The theoretical framework of fire safety design: Reflections and alternatives, Fire Safety Journal 91 (2017) 973–981

    J. Gehandler, The theoretical framework of fire safety design: Reflections and alternatives, Fire Safety Journal 91 (2017) 973–981. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2017.03.034

    work page doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2017.03.034 2017

  2. [2]

    Gwynne, E

    S. Gwynne, E. Kuligowski, K. Boyce, D. Nilsson, A. Robbins, R. Lovreglio, J. Thomas, A. Roy- Poirier, Enhancing egress drills: Preparation and assessment of evacuee performance, Fire and Ma- terials 43 (6) (2019) 613–631. doi:10.1002/fam.2448

    work page doi:10.1002/fam.2448 2019

  3. [3]

    2021 International Fire Code (IFC), International Code Council, 2020

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    S. M. V. Gwynne, Improving the Collection and Use of Human Egress Data, Fire Technology 49 (1) (2013) 83–99. doi:10.1007/s10694-010-0210-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s10694-010-0210-9 2013

  5. [5]

    Lovreglio, E

    R. Lovreglio, E. Kuligowski, S. Gwynne, K. Boyce, A pre-evacuation database for use in egress simulations, Fire Safety Journal 105 (2019) 107–128. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2018.12.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2018.12.009 2019

  6. [6]

    S. M. V. Gwynne, K. E. Boyce, E. Kuligowski, D. Nilsson, A. Robbins, R. Lovreglio, Pros and Cons of Egress Drills, in: Interflam, London, UK, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    Catovic, C

    L. Catovic, C. Alniemi, E. Ronchi, A survey on the factors affecting horizontal assisted evacuation in hospitals, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1107 (7) (2018) 072001, publisher: IOP Publishing. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1107/7/072001

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1107/7/072001 2018

  8. [8]

    Kinateder, C

    M. Kinateder, C. Ma, S. Gwynne, M. Amos, N. B´ enichou, Where drills differ from evacuations: A case study on Canadian buildings, Safety Science 135 (2021) 105114. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2020. 105114

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2020 2021

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    L. W. Menzemer, E. Ronchi, M. M. V. Karsten, S. Gwynne, J. Frederiksen, A scoping review and bibliometric analysis of methods for fire evacuation training in buildings, Fire Safety Journal 136 (2023) 103742. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2023.103742

    2023

  2. [10]

    Lovreglio, V

    R. Lovreglio, V. Gonz´ alez, R. Amor, M. Spearpoint, J. Thomas, M. Trotter, R. Sacks, The Need for Enhancing Earthquake Evacuee Safety by Using Virtual Reality Serious Games (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    M. Amos, N. B´ enichou, S. Gwynne, M. Kinateder, NEED: Networking Activities for Enhanced Evacuation Drills: roadmap for enhanced evacuation drills, Tech. rep., National Research Council of Canada. Construction, artwork Size: 31 p. (Sep. 2019). doi:10.4224/40001242

    2019 doi

  4. [13]

    K. Baig, M. Amos, S. Gwynne, N. B´ enichou, M. Kinateder, Empirical evolution of an evacuation reporting template, Safety Science 175 (2024) 106496. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106496

    2024

  5. [15]

    L. E. Berk, Child development, 7th Edition, Pearson/Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 2006

    2006

  6. [16]

    V. G. Payne, L. D. Isaacs, Human Motor Development: A Lifespan Approach, 8th Edition, McGraw- Hill, New York, 2012

    2012

  7. [17]

    Kholshevnikov, D

    V. Kholshevnikov, D. Samoshin, A. Parfyonenko, I. Belosokhov, Study of children evacuation from pre-school education institutions, Fire and Materials 36 (5-6) (2012) 349–366. doi:10.1002/fam. 2152

    2012 doi

  8. [18]

    Z. M. Fang, L. X. Jiang, X. L. Li, W. Qi, L. Z. Chen, Experimental study on the movement characteristics of 5–6 years old Chinese children when egressing from a pre-school building, Safety Science 113 (2019) 264–275. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2018.11.022

    2019 doi

  9. [20]

    I. Page, D. Norman, New Zealand Fire Service Commission, BRANZ Group, The prevalence and fire safety implications of early childhood centres in multi-story buildings, 2015, oCLC: 931686394

    2015

  10. [21]

    Larusdottir, A

    A. Larusdottir, A. Dederichs, A Step Towards Including Children’s Evacuation Parameters and Behavior in Fire Safe Building Design, Fire Safety Science 10 (2011) 187–195. doi:10.3801/IAFSS. FSS.10-187

    2011 doi

  11. [22]

    Latosinski, A

    F. Latosinski, A. Cuesta, D. Alvear, Assessing self-preservation capabilities in toddlers during evac- uations, Safety Science 132 (2020) 104983. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104983

    2020

  12. [23]

    Larusdottir, A

    A. Larusdottir, A. Dederichs, Evacuation of Children: Movement on Stairs and on Horizontal Plane, Fire Technology 48 (1) (2012) 43–53. doi:10.1007/s10694-010-0177-6

    2012 doi

  13. [24]

    Kholshevnikov, D

    V. Kholshevnikov, D. Samoshin, Pre-school and school children building evacuation, in: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Human Behaviour in Fire, Robinson College, Cambridge, UK, 2009, pp. 243–254

    2009

  14. [25]

    Cuesta, S

    A. Cuesta, S. M. Gwynne, The collection and compilation of school evacuation data for model use, Safety Science 84 (2016) 24–36. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2015.11.003

    2016 doi

  15. [26]

    Najmanov´ a, E

    H. Najmanov´ a, E. Ronchi, An Experimental Data-Set on Pre-school Children Evacuation, Fire Technology 53 (4) (2017) 1509–1533. doi:10.1007/s10694-016-0643-x

    2017 doi

  16. [27]

    Najmanov´ a, E

    H. Najmanov´ a, E. Ronchi, Experimental data about the evacuation of preschool children from nurs- ery schools, Part II: Movement characteristics and behaviour, Fire Safety Journal 139 (2023) 103797. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2023.103797

    2023

  17. [29]

    Taciuc, A

    A. Taciuc, A. S. Dederichs, Determining Self-Preservation Capability in Pre-School Children, SpringerBriefs in Fire, Springer New York, New York, NY, 2014.doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-1080-9

    2014 doi

  18. [30]

    Haghani, Empirical methods in pedestrian, crowd and evacuation dynamics: Part II

    M. Haghani, Empirical methods in pedestrian, crowd and evacuation dynamics: Part II. Field meth- ods and controversial topics, Safety Science 129 (2020) 104760. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104760

    2020

  19. [31]

    Chen, T.-Q

    L. Chen, T.-Q. Tang, H.-J. Huang, Z. Song, Elementary students’ evacuation route choice in a classroom: A questionnaire-based method, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 492 (2018) 1066–1074. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2017.11.036

    2018 doi

  20. [32]

    Elzie, A

    T. Elzie, A. J. Collins, Groups in pedestrian evacuation: Survey data on attitudes, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 96 (2023) 103916. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103916

    2023

  21. [33]

    Nilsson, H

    D. Nilsson, H. Frantzich, E. Ronchi, K. Fridolf, A. Lindgren Walter, H. Modig, Integrating evacuation research in large infrastructure tunnel projects - Experiences from the Stockholm Bypass Project, Fire Safety Journal 97 (2018) 119–125. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2017.07.001

    2018 doi

  22. [34]

    L. M. Hulse, S. Deere, E. R. Galea, Fire safety in construction: Site evacuation and self-reported worker behaviour, Safety Science 145 (2022) 105482. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105482

    2022

  23. [35]

    G. Wang, T. Chen, H. Zheng, J. Wang, X. Hu, K. Deng, Z. Tao, N. Luo, Heterogeneous crowd dynamics considering the impact of personality traits under a fire emergency: A questionnaire & simulation-based approach, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 610 (2023) ...

    2023

  24. [36]

    Lovreglio, E

    R. Lovreglio, E. Dillies, E. Kuligowski, A. Rahouti, M. Haghani, Exit choice in built environment evacuation combining immersive virtual reality and discrete choice modelling, Automation in Con- struction 141 (2022) 104452. doi:10.1016/j.autcon.2022.104452

    2022

  25. [37]

    Smedberg, G

    E. Smedberg, G. De Cet, J. Wahlqvist, G. Carlsson, G. Gefenaite, B. Slaug, S. Schmidt, E. Ronchi, The impact of people with mobility limitations on exit choice, Fire Safety Journal 140 (2023) 103900. doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2023.103900

    2023

  26. [38]

    Clark, L

    T. Clark, L. Foster, A. Bryman, L. Sloan, Bryman’s Social Research Methods, Oxford University Press, 2021

    2021

  27. [39]

    Wasserman, All of Nonparametric Statistics, 1st Edition, Springer Publishing Company, Incorpo- rated, 2010

    L. Wasserman, All of Nonparametric Statistics, 1st Edition, Springer Publishing Company, Incorpo- rated, 2010

    2010

  28. [40]

    URL https://www.R-project.org/

    R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for Statis- tical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2024). URL https://www.R-project.org/

    2024

  29. [42]

    Topuzovska Latkovikj, M

    M. Topuzovska Latkovikj, M. Borota Popovska, Online research about online research: advantages and disadvantages, E-methodology 6 (6) (2020) 44–56. doi:10.15503/emet2019.44.56

    2020 doi

  30. [43]

    Andrade, The Limitations of Online Surveys, Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine 42 (6) (2020) 575–576, publisher: SAGE Publications India

    C. Andrade, The Limitations of Online Surveys, Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine 42 (6) (2020) 575–576, publisher: SAGE Publications India. doi:10.1177/0253717620957496. URL https://doi.org/10.1177/0253717620957496

    2020 doi

  31. [44]

    A. Atif, D. Richards, A. Bilgin, Estimating Non-Response Bias in a Web-based Survey of Technology Acceptance: A Case Study of Unit Guide Information Systems, ACIS 2012 Proceedings (Jan. 2012)

    2012

  32. [45]

    Furnham, Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation, Personality and Individual Differ- ences 7 (3) (1986) 385–400

    A. Furnham, Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation, Personality and Individual Differ- ences 7 (3) (1986) 385–400. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(86)90014-0

    1986 doi

  33. [46]

    Bogner, U

    K. Bogner, U. Landrock, Response Biases in Standardised Surveys (GESIS Survey Guide- lines)Response Biases in Standardised Surveys (GESIS Survey Guidelines), Tech. rep., GESIS - Leib- niz Institute for the Social Sciences, version Number: 2.0 (2016). doi:10.15465/GESIS-SG_EN_016

    2016 doi

  34. [47]

    Tempelaar, B

    D. Tempelaar, B. Rienties, Q. Nguyen, Subjective data, objective data and the role of bias in predictive modelling: Lessons from a dispositional learning analytics application, PLOS ONE 15 (6) (2020) e0233977. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0233977

    2020 doi

  35. [48]

    Andrews, B

    D. Andrews, B. Nonnecke, P. Assistant, J. Preece, Conducting Research on the Internet: Online Sur- vey Design, Development and Implementation Guidelines, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 16 (2003) 185–210

    2003

  36. [49]

    Tourangeau, L

    R. Tourangeau, L. J. Rips, K. A. Rasinski, The psychology of survey response, 10th Edition, Cam- bridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2009

    2009

  37. [50]

    Jeong, S

    D. Jeong, S. Aggarwal, J. Robinson, N. Kumar, A. Spearot, D. S. Park, Exhaustive or exhausting? Evidence on respondent fatigue in long surveys, Journal of Development Economics 161 (2023) 102992. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2022.102992

    2023

  38. [51]

    561/2004 Coll

    Act No. 561/2004 Coll. on Pre-school, Basic, Secondary, Tertiary Professional and Other Education in the Czech Republic (the Education Act)] (2004)

    2004

  39. [52]

    Doe, Early Childhood Education and Care, library Catalog: eacea.ec.europa.eu (Oct

    J. Doe, Early Childhood Education and Care, library Catalog: eacea.ec.europa.eu (Oct. 2017)

    2017

  40. [53]

    L. W. Menzemer, M. M. Vad Karsten, S. Gwynne, J. Frederiksen, E. Ronchi, Fire evacuation training: Perceptions and attitudes of the general public, Safety Science 174 (2024) 106471. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106471

    2024

  41. [54]

    F. H. Marques, M Corticeiro, P. H. Marques, Key Elements to Effective Emergency Management in a School Complex (2014). doi:10.13140/2.1.1298.9440

    2014

  42. [56]

    D. G. Singer, T. A. Revenson, A Piaget Primer: How a Child Thinks, rev. ed Edition, Plume, New York, 1996

    1996

  43. [57]

    A. Chalmers, Improving the fire safety knowledge and practices of vulnerable groups: year one report, New Zealand Council for Educational Research, Wellington, N.Z., 2000, oCLC: 50740034

    2000

  44. [58]

    Rigos, E

    A. Rigos, E. Mohlin, E. Ronchi, The cry wolf effect in evacuation: A game-theoretic approach, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 526 (2019) 120890. doi:10.1016/j.physa. 2019.04.126

    2019 doi

  45. [59]

    Lehna, E

    C. Lehna, E. G. Janes, S. Rengers, J. Graviss, D. Scrivener, T. Knabel, J. A. Myers, Impact of Children With Special Needs on Differences in Fire-Safety Education Priorities, Preferred Method of Education, and Parent Actions, Journal of Burn Care & Research 35 (2) (2014) 162–1...

    2014 doi

  46. [60]

    D. A. Cohen, Children with Autism and fire drills and fire alarms, Tech. rep., Mountain Brook Fire Department, Alabama (2012)

    2012

  47. [61]

    Capuano, R

    N. Capuano, R. King, Knowledge-based assessment in serious games: an experience on emergency training, 1 11 (3) (Sep. 2015). doi:10.20368/1971-8829/1058

    2015 doi

  48. [62]

    AL-Smadi, N

    M. AL-Smadi, N. Capuano, C. Guetl, Decoupling assessment and serious games to support guided exploratory learning in smart education, J Ambient Intell Human Comput 9 (3) (2018) 497–511. doi:10.1007/s12652-016-0436-6

    2018 doi

  49. [63]

    Beckett, T

    K. Beckett, T. Goodenough, T. Deave, S. Jaeckle, L. McDaid, P. Benford, M. Hayes, E. Towner, D. Kendrick, Keeping Children Safe Programme study group, Implementing an Injury Prevention Briefing to aid delivery of key fire safety messages in UK children’s centres: qualitative s...

    2014 doi

  50. [64]

    133/1985 Coll

    Act No. 133/1985 Coll. Act of the Czech National Council on Fire Protection (1985)

    1985

  51. [65]

    A. E. Powell, Fire and life safety education: Theory and techniques, in: A. E. Cote (Ed.), Fire protection handbook, 18th Edition, National Fire Protection Assoc, Quincy, Mass, 2002

    2002

  52. [66]

    Borzekowski, E

    D. Borzekowski, E. Clearfield, R. Rimal, A. Gielen, Young Children’s Perceptions of Fire-Safety Messages: Do Framing and Parental Mediation Matter?, Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 35 (Jul. 2013).doi:10.1097/BCR.0b013e31829afe6c

    2013 doi

  53. [67]

    R. S. Siegler, Children’s Thinking, 3rd Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J, 1998

    1998

  54. [68]

    D. R. Shaffer, K. Kipp, Developmental Psychology: Childhood and Adolescence, 8th Edition, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, Belmont, CA, 2010

    2010

  55. [69]

    C. F. McConnell, F. C. Leeming, W. O. Dwyer, Evaluation of a fire-safety training program for preschool children, Journal of Community Psychology 24 (3) (1996) 213–227. 28 This is a preprint version of the article accepted to Safety Science with DOI 10.1016/j.ssci.2025.106915

    1996

  56. [70]

    Se¸ cer, L

    I. Se¸ cer, L. Satyen, Fire safety training: Its importance in enhancing fire safety knowledge and response to fire, Australian Journal of Emergency Management 21 (2006) 48–53

    2006

  57. [71]

    Pooley, S

    K. Pooley, S. Nunez, M. Whybro, Evidence-based practices of effective fire safety education pro- gramming for children, Australian Journal of Emergency Management 10.47389/36 (2021) 34–41. doi:10.47389/36.2.34. 29

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.