Download
safety climate cross validation strength and prediction of safety behaviour n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Safety climate– cross-validation, strength and prediction of safety behaviour. PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Safety climate– cross-validation, strength and prediction of safety behaviour.

Safety climate– cross-validation, strength and prediction of safety behaviour.

194 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Safety climate– cross-validation, strength and prediction of safety behaviour.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Safety climate– cross-validation, strength and prediction of safety behaviour. Anders Pousette, Susanna Larsson and Marianne Törner National Institute for Working Life, Sweden anders.pousette@arbetslivsinstitutet.se

  2. Safety climate • Dimensionality of safety climate • Sharedness as a property of safety climate • Longitudinal prediction of safety behaviour A. Pousette

  3. Aims • Cross-validate a factor structure reported by Cheyne et al (1998), as well as to test the existence of a hypothesised second order safety climate factor; • Explore whether degree of agreement (sharedness) differentiated between safety climate factors and measures of individual attitudes towards safety • Test the predictive validity of safety climate (at time 1) on self-reported safety behaviour (at time 2). A. Pousette

  4. Safety management in large construction projects with a complexorganisation National Institute for Working Life, Göteborg, SwedenFinancial support: National Road Administration, Vinnova, AFA-TFA, SBUF Map of central parts of Gothenburg The Götatunnel Göteborg, Sweden A. Pousette

  5. The GötatunnelOpening ceremony16th June 2006

  6. The present study • Three samples • 7 months interval • N1 = 242, N2 = 275, N3 = 284 • Matched obs. N1-2 = 166, N2-3 = 174 • Four different companies and their subcontractors • Response rate 95%, 87% and 84% A. Pousette

  7. Instrument - overview Safety climate organizational level ”How do managers handle safety?” Safety climate group level ”How is it in your workgroup with regard to safety?” Individual attitudes to safety ”What is your opinion with regard to safety? ” ”How do you do with regard to safety?” Safety behaviour A. Pousette

  8. Safety climate • Management safety priority4 items • Safety management16 items • Safety communication 8 items • Workgroup safety involvement5 items Organizational level Group level A. Pousette

  9. Individual attitudes to safety • Safety motivation7 items, alfa=0,78 • Safety knowledge4 items, alfa=0,82 A. Pousette

  10. Safety behaviour(self rated) Average score of three measures • Structural safety behaviour5 items, alfa=0,88 • Interactional safety behaviouritems, alfa=0,79 • Personal safety behaviour6 items, alfa=0,86 A. Pousette

  11. Analysis • Confirmatory factor analysis(AMOS 4) • ICC (1,1), ICC (1,k) (Schrout & Fleiss , 1979) • Hierarchical regression analysis A. Pousette

  12. Confirmatory factor analysis Theory Specified model Measurement Sample covariance matrix Model based covariance matrix Measures of fit Parameter estimates A. Pousette

  13. Results aim 1: CFA of four safety climate factors A. Pousette

  14. Results aim 1: Second order CFA of safety climate dimensions 2 = 2113 df= 491 NFI = .98 CFI = .98 RMSEA = .064 A. Pousette

  15. Results, aim 2: Sharedness. Agreement among raters Note: C: Climate A: Attitude A. Pousette

  16. Results, aim 3: Predicting Safety behaviour at T2 (T1+7months) * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p.001 N=166 A. Pousette

  17. Results, aim 3: Predicting Safety behaviour at T3 (T2+7months) * p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p.001 N=174 A. Pousette

  18. Conclusions (aim 1) • Safety climate scalesby by Cheyne et al. (1998) was successfully replicated in three samples, in a new context • Support the construct validity and generalizability of the scales • Factor loadings were invariant. The scales proved suitable for measuring safety climate in longitudinal studies. • A higher order safety climate was identified. An overall safety climate measure is meaningful A. Pousette

  19. Conclusions (aim 2) • Measures of sharedness (ICC(1,1) and ICC(1,k)) was higher for safety climate factors than for individual safety attitude factors • Support the theoretically suggested distinction between safety climate (as a property of a social unit) and individual safety attitudes (as a property of the individual person) • Implications for scale construction: calls for strictness concerning the object of evaluation. Do not mix climate items and attitudinal items within the same scale! A. Pousette

  20. R=Respondent, always the observer Object of evaluation Management 1 I observe myself 2 I observe my group 3 I observe my company (including the management) Climate= aggregated responses of several R evaluating (2) group climate or (3) organizational climate Foremen 2 1 R Workgroup 3 Company /site Social unit A. Pousette

  21. Conclusions (aim3) • Safety climate predicted change in safety behaviour (self rated) in longitudinal data, 7 months later • Support the hypothesis of a causal relationship between safety climate and safety behaviour • Implication for safety interventions: successful intervention in the safety climate area is likely to affect safety behaviour A. Pousette

  22. Thank you for your attention! National Institute for Working Life, Sweden