Upload
aletha
View
48
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Safety climate– cross-validation, strength and prediction of safety behaviour. Anders Pousette , Susanna Larsson and Marianne Törner National Institute for Working Life , Sweden [email protected]. Safety climate. Dimensionality of safety climate - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Safety climate– cross-validation, strength and prediction of safety behaviour.
Anders Pousette, Susanna Larsson
and Marianne Törner
National Institute for Working Life, Sweden
2 A. Pousette
Safety climate
•Dimensionality of safety climate
•Sharedness as a property of safety climate
•Longitudinal prediction of safety behaviour
3 A. Pousette
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).
4 A. Pousette
Safety management in large construction projects with a complex organisation 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
5 A. Pousette
The GötatunnelOpening ceremony 16th June 2006
6 A. Pousette
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. Pousette7
Instrument - overviewSafety climate organizational level
Safety behaviour
Individual attitudes to safety
”How do managers handle safety?”
”What is your opinion with regard to safety? ”
”How do you do with regard to safety?”
Safety climate group level
”How is it in your workgroup with regard to safety?”
8 A. Pousette
Safety climate•Management safety priority 4 items•Safety management 16 items•Safety communication 8 items
•Workgroup safety involvement 5 items
Organizational level
Group level
9 A. Pousette
Individual attitudes to safety•Safety motivation 7 items, alfa=0,78
•Safety knowledge 4 items, alfa=0,82
10 A. Pousette
Safety behaviour(self rated) Average score of three measures
• Structural safety behaviour 5 items, alfa=0,88
• Interactional safety behaviour items, alfa=0,79
• Personal safety behaviour 6 items, alfa=0,86
11 A. Pousette
Analysis
•Confirmatory factor analysis (AMOS 4)
•ICC (1,1), ICC (1,k) (Schrout & Fleiss , 1979)
•Hierarchical regression analysis
12 A. Pousette
Confirmatory factor analysis
Specified model
Theory
Measurement
Sample covariance
matrix
Model based covariance matrix
Measures of fit
Parameter estimates
A. Pousette13
chi2=1287,760df=489p=,000relativ chi2=2,633NFI=,948CFI=,967RMSEA=,082AIC=1497,760
SMgmt
Nv1_22
e1
Nv1_13
e2
Nv1_9
e3
v1_21
e4
,78
v1_20
e5
,73
v1_19
e6
,69
v1_18
e7
,81
v1_17
e8
,83
v1_14
e9
,70
v1_10
e10
v1_8
e11
v1_7
e12
v1_6
e13
v1_5
e14
SGroup
v1_39 e15
,70 v1_40 e16,71
v1_42 e17,66v1_44 e18,63
SComm
v1_15e23v1_25e24v1_27e25v1_28e26v1_29e27
Nv1_30e28Nv1_32e29v1_31e30
,71,73,65,86
,81,60,60,62
SPrio
Nv1_4
e31
Nv1_3
e32
,77
Nv1_2
e33
,83
Nv1_1
e34
Nv1_23
e35
Nv1_24
e36
,72
,85
,73
,66,76
,79
,72,67,55,65,59,68,71,64,68,67
,87 ,82
v1_43 e37
ALLAStandardized estimates
,52
Results aim 1: CFA of four safety climate factors
A. Pousette14
Results aim 1: Second order CFA of safety climate dimensions
SPrio SMgmt SComm WSI
1 1 1 1 1
SCg
.77 .96 .92 .79
2 = 2113
df= 491
NFI = .98
CFI = .98
RMSEA = .064
A. Pousette15
Results, aim 2: Sharedness. Agreement among raters
Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 2 Sample 3
Type ICC(1,1) ICC(1,1) ICC(1,k) ICC(1,k)
Management safety priority
C .24 .22 .87 .86
Safety management
C .26 .27 .88 .89
Safety communication
C .28 .30 .89 .90
Workgroup safety involvement
C .12 .13 .74 .77
Safety motivation
A .03 .09 .40 .67
Safety knowledge
A .02 .07 .35 .62
Note: C: Climate A: Attitude
A. Pousette16
Results, aim 3: Predicting Safety behaviour at T2 (T1+7months)
Model 1 Model 2
Predictor at T1
B SE B Beta B SE B Beta
Safety behaviour
.74 .05 .74*** .64 .07 .64***
Safety climate
.11 .04 .17*
R2 .55 .57
F for change in R2
196.1*** 6.7*
* p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p.001 N=166
A. Pousette17
Results, aim 3: Predicting Safety behaviour at T3 (T2+7months)
Model 1 Model 2
Predictor at T2
B SE B Beta B SE B Beta
Safety behaviour
.79 .05 .76*** .71 .06 .68***
Safety climate
.10 .04 .14*
R2 .58 .59
F for change in R2
222.8*** 5.8*
* p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p.001 N=174
18 A. Pousette
Conclusions (aim 1)•Safety climate scales by 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
19 A. Pousette
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. Pousette20
Foremen
Workgroup
Management
Company /site
R12
3
1 I observe myself
2 I observe my group
3 I observe my company (including the management)
R=Respondent, always the observer
Social unit
Climate= aggregated responses of several R evaluating (2) group climate or (3) organizational climate
Object of evaluation
21 A. Pousette
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
Thank you for your attention!
National Institute for Working Life, Sweden