Measuring safety climate: identifying the common features

In UK industry, particularly in the energy sector, there has been a movement away from ‘lagging’ measures of safety based on retrospective data, such as lost time accidents and incidents, towards ‘leading’ or predictive assessments of the safety climate of the organisation or worksite. A number of different instruments have been developed by industrial psychologists for this purpose, resulting in a proliferation of scales with distinct developmental histories. Reviewing the methods and results from a sample of industrial surveys, the thematic basis of 18 scales used to assess safety climate is examined. This suggests that the most typically assessed dimensions relate to management (72% of studies), the safety system (67%), and risk (67%), in addition themes relating to work pressure and competence appear in a third of the studies.     

Measuring safety climate in aviation: A review and recommendations for the future

This paper reviews 23 studies that have examined safety climate within commercial and military aviation. The safety climate factors identified in the aviation safety climate questionnaires were found to be consistent with the literature examining safety climate in non-aviation high reliability organizations. Therefore, it was concluded that the aviation safety climate tools had some construct validity (the extent to which the questionnaire measures what it is intended to measure). However, the majority of the studies made no attempt to establish the discriminate validity (the ability of the tool to differentiate between organizations or personnel with different levels of safety performance) of the tools. It is recommended that rather than constructing more aviation safety climate questionnaires, researchers should focus on establishing the construct and discriminate validity of existing measures by correlating safety climate with other metrics of safety performance. It is recognized that the accident rate in commercial aviation is too low to provide a sufficiently sensitive measure of safety performance. However, there are other measures of safety performance, collected as part of a company’s Aviation Safety Action Program or Flight Operational Quality Assurance, which could be used to assess the discriminate validity of an aviation safety climate tool.     

Multi-level safety climate associations with safety behaviors in the fire service

Introduction: Limited research associated with safety climate has been completed within the fire service. Given this dearth of information, the present study sought to identify a valid and reliable measure of safety climate at both the workgroup and organizational levels within the fire service. Methods: Researchers surveyed 994 firefighters in two large metropolitan fire departments. Preliminary analyses including psychometrics, confirmatory factor analyses, and shared perception analyses were completed. A linear mixed model analysis was then completed to assess the relationships between workgroup safety climate, organizational safety climate, and safety behaviors, including both safety compliance and safety citizenship behaviors. Results: Measures of safety climate at the workgroup (WGSC) and organizational levels (OSC) were derived. WGSC factors include supervisor support (α = 0.92), vertical cohesion (α = 0.89), and horizontal cohesion (α = 0.94). OSC factors include management commitment (α = 0.91), safety programs/policies (α = 0.89), perceived fairness (α = 0.86) and incident command (α = 0.90). Confirmatory factor analyses confirmed our multi-factor models were a good fit to the data. The linear mixed model analysis found that WGSC positively predicted safety compliance behavior (B = 0.13, p < .001) and safety citizenship behavior (B = 0.22, p < .001) and OSC positively predicted safety compliance behavior (B = 0.16, p < .001) and safety citizenship behavior (B = 0.15, p < .001). Conclusions: This work presents reliable and valid measures of both workgroup and organizational safety climate, which have positive relationships with safety behavior outcomes. Practical application: The measures, which were developed through an extensive multi-method process, provide a means for researchers and practitioners to assess safety climate in the fire service and provides guidance for future safety climate research, including informing intervention research, which could potentially bolster safety climate and enhance safety in the fire service.     

Association between safety leading indicators and safety climate levels

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the association of leading indicators for occupational health and safety, particularly safety inspections and non-compliances, with safety climate levels.MethodsNordic Occupational Safety Climate Assessment Questionnaire was employed to evaluate safety climate in cross-sectional design. The geographically diverse population of the inspection body made it possible to conduct the survey across 10 provinces in Iran. 89 completed questionnaires were obtained with a response rate of 47%. Except for management safety justice, the internal consistency of other six dimensions was found to be acceptable (α ≥ 0.7).ResultsMean scores of dimensions ranged from 3.50 in trust in the efficacy of safety systems (SD = 0.38) to 2.98 in workers' safety priority and risk non-acceptance (SD = 0.47). Tukey HSD tests indicated a statistically significant difference of mean scores among groups undergoing different number of safety inspections and those receiving different number of non-compliances (p < 0.05), with no significant differences based on safety training man-hours and sessions (p > 0.05). Spearman's rank-order correlation showed no relationship between work experience and number of non-compliances (correlation coefficient = − 0.04, p > 0.05) and between safety training man-hours and number of non-compliances (correlation coefficient = − 0.15, p > 0.05).ConclusionsOur results indicate that safety climate levels are influenced by number of safety inspections and the resultant non-compliances.Practical applicationsFindings suggest that safety non-compliances detected as a result of conducting safety inspections could be used to monitor the safety climate state. Establishing plans to conduct scheduled safety inspections and recording findings in the form of safety non-compliance and monitoring their trend could be used to monitor levels of safety climate.     

Safety climate,safety management practice and safety performance in offshore environments

Safety climate surveys were conducted on 13 offshore oil and gas installations in separate years (N=682 and 806, respectively), with nine installations common to both years. In addition, data on safety management practices were collected by questionnaire from senior management on eight installations in each year. The associations between management practices and climate scores with official accident statistics and self-reported accident involvement were tested via a series of hypotheses. Associations were found between certain safety climate scales and official accident statistics and also the proportion of respondents reporting an accident in the previous 12 months. Proficiency in some safety management practices was associated with lower official accident rates and fewer respondents reporting accidents.     

The predictive validity of safety climate

PROBLEM: Safety professionals have increasingly turned their attention to social science for insight into the causation of industrial accidents. One social construct, safety climate, has been examined by several researchers [Cooper, M. D., & Phillips, R. A. (2004). Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety behavior relationship. Journal of Safety Research, 35(5), 497-512; Gillen, M., Baltz, D., Gassel, M., Kirsch, L., & Vacarro, D. (2002). Perceived safety climate, job Demands, and coworker support among union and nonunion injured construction workers. Journal of Safety Research, 33(1), 33-51; Neal, A., & Griffin, M. A. (2002). Safety climate and safety behaviour. Australian Journal of Management, 27, 66-76; Zohar, D. (2000). A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 587-596; Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2005). A multilevel model of safety climate: Cross-level relationships between organization and group-level climates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 616-628] who have documented its importance as a factor explaining the variation of safety-related outcomes (e.g., behavior, accidents). Researchers have developed instruments for measuring safety climate and have established some degree of psychometric reliability and validity. The problem, however, is that predictive validity has not been firmly established, which reduces the credibility of safety climate as a meaningful social construct. The research described in this article addresses this problem and provides additional support for safety climate as a viable construct and as a predictive indicator of safety-related outcomes. METHODS: This study used 292 employees at three locations of a heavy manufacturing organization to complete the 16 item Zohar Safety Climate Questionnaire (ZSCQ) [Zohar, D., & Luria, G. (2005). A multilevel model of safety climate: Cross-level relationships between organization and group-level climates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 616-628]. In addition, safety behavior and accident experience data were collected for 5 months following the survey and were statistically analyzed (structural equation modeling, confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis, etc.) to identify correlations, associations, internal consistency, and factorial structures. RESULTS: Results revealed that the ZSCQ: (a) was psychometrically reliable and valid, (b) served as an effective predictor of safety-related outcomes (behavior and accident experience), and (c) could be trimmed to an 11 item survey with little loss of explanatory power. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: Practitioners and researchers can use the ZSCQ with reasonable certainty of the questionnaire's reliability and validity. This provides a solid foundation for the development of meaningful organizational interventions and/or continued research into social factors affecting industrial accident experience.     

Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety behavior relationship

Problem: Safety climate refers to the degree to which employees believe true priority is given to organizational safety performance, and its measurement is thought to provide an “early warning” of potential safety system failure(s). However, researchers have struggled over the last 25 years to find empirical evidence to demonstrate actual links between safety climate and safety performance.Method: A safety climate measure was distributed to manufacturing employees at the beginning of a behavioral safety initiative and redistributed one year later.Results: Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that perceptions of the importance of safety training were predictive of actual levels of safety behavior. The results also demonstrate that the magnitude of change in perceptual safety climate scores will not necessarily match actual changes (r=0.56, n.s.) in employee's safety behavior.Discussion: This study obtained empirical links between safety climate scores and actual safety behavior. Confirming and contradicting findings within the extant safety climate literature, the results strongly suggest that the hypothesized climate-behavior-accident path is not as clear cut as commonly assumed.Summary: A statistical link between safety climate perceptions and safety behavior will be obtained when sufficient behavioral data is collected.Impact on Industry: The study further supports the use of safety climate measures as useful diagnostic tools in ascertaining employee's perceptions of the way that safety is being operationalized.     

The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior

Relatively little previous research has investigated the meechanisms by which safety climate affects safety behavior. The current study examined the effects of general organizational climate on safety climate and safety performance. As expected, general organizational climate exerted a significant impact on safety climate, and safety climate in turn was related to self-reports of compliance with safety regulations and procedures as well as participation in safety-related activities within the workplace. The effect of general organizational climate on safety performance was mediated by safety climate, while the effect of safety climate on safety performance was partially mediated by safety knowledge and motivation.     

Attitude to safety rules and reflexivity as determinants of safety climate

IntroductionWe present two studies that focus on the relationship between safety rules and the safety climate. It is expected that a reasoned acceptance, namely one based on an understanding of the bases for the rules and a collective management of the rules, should benefit the climate. Method: In an initial study (N = 202) employees replied to a questionnaire that measured the safety climate, the level of the relationship with the safety rules, and the understanding of their bases. The results highlighted the fact that a reasoned acceptance of the rules is associated with an understanding of their bases and predicts the level of safety. In a second study (N = 258) employees replied to a questionnaire measuring team reflexivity, the safety climate, and the level of relationship with the safety rules. We observed that collective management of the rules mediated the relation between team reflexivity and the safety climate. Results: The results are discussed from the point of view of their practical implications. Developing safety climate requires that operators are trained to understand the basis of safety rules and team reflexivity.     

A short scale for measuring safety climate

A 6-item measure that assesses global work safety climate was validated using multiple samples each from a hospital and a nuclear energy population. Across all 14 samples the 6-item measure had acceptable internal consistency. The measure was associated with better adherence to safe work practices, reduced exposure to environmental stressors, the presence of more safety policies and procedures, a positive general organizational climate, and decreased accidents. As evidence for discriminant validity, safety climate was unrelated to most demographic measures and had relatively small relationships with sleeping problems and negative mood. Evidence suggests that this measure is a reliable and valid way to assess global safety climate.     

Leadership skills for strengthening jobsite safety climate

Introduction: Construction foremen may lack the leadership skills needed to create a strong jobsite safety climate. Many construction companies address this by sending their lead workers to the OSHA 30-h course; however the course does not include a leadership training module. This article describes the development and pilot testing of such a module and evaluation surveys designed to address this training gap. Methods: A 17-member curriculum development team, numerous subject matter experts, and an instructional design company helped us develop a comprehensive set of teaching resources and a set of survey instruments for evaluating the materials' effectiveness on improving safety leadership and safety climate. All materials and surveys were pilot tested with representative members of the target population. Results: Pilot surveys showed high reliability and data collected on the resulting Foundations for Safety Leadership (FSL) module indicated that the majority of foremen thought the training was helpful or valuable, particularly the discussion questions. The majority said they intended to use the skills on the jobsite. With the exception of the role-play activities, the trainers rated highly all other components, especially the videos and discussion questions. Modifications were made to the training materials and surveys based on pilot test findings. The most important result of the development and pilot testing efforts is that the OSHA Training Institute (OTI) included the FSL as an elective in the OSHA 30-h course. Conclusions: The FSL module fills a needed skills gap by providing safety leadership training to all foremen who might otherwise not have access to it through their company or union. The continued success of the FSL training will be ensured by dissemination via the OSHA 30-h course, an established nationwide safety training program. Practical applications: The FSL training module has already been widely accepted by the construction industry as a useful approach for providing construction foremen/See new abstract lead workers with the knowledge and skills they need to become more effective jobsite safety leaders.     

Exploratory study on safety climate in Chinese manufacturing enterprises

This study was conducted in eastern cities of China; 1060 employees were sampled from 144 enterprises located in East China, and 796 (75.1%) responded validly. The level of safety climate of Chinese manufacturing enterprises as well as the differences in safety climate between large enterprises and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) were examined. This study revealed that the safety climate level that the employees’ perceived was rather low in Chinese manufacturing enterprises, and differences in terms of mean scores of total safety climate, factors composing the safety climate, and items to measure this climate between large enterprises and SMEs were statistically significant (at p < 0.05). Among all the factors, the largest difference between large enterprises and SMEs was the employees’ perception of safety training, followed by management support. It suggests that SMEs should pay more attention to safety training and management support to improve the safety climate.     

安全氛围对企业安全行为的影响研究

国外大量研究表明,安全氛围调查在改进企业的安全行为方面有积极的作用,为组织制订未来的安全政策提供依据。本研究通过查阅文献、国外类似的诊断调查工具及软件,根据所提出的理论假设,采用线性结构方程建模的方法,构建了本研究的LISREL理论模型,并设计了相应的调查问卷和量表。从所建立的安全氛围的三个构面(安全管理、安全认知、安全态度)入手探讨企业的安全氛围对企业的安全行为(两个构面:安全执行、安全处理)的影响。本研究采用问卷调查的方式采集数据,将所得资料用SPSS11.0和LISREL8.3软件来分析处理和检验研究假设,研究结果为实证单位改进企业的安全行为提供了帮助。     

基于Meta分析的安全氛围与安全绩效的关系研究*

为更系统地归纳安全氛围与安全绩效的关系,探究安全氛围、安全绩效及安全结果间的影响机制,采用Meta分析方法,通过2000—2020年54篇文献的55个独立研究样本进行定量综合分析,并进一步探讨安全氛围与安全绩效各维度间的关系,同时运用Meta二元回归探究潜在调节变量对2者间关系的调节作用。结果表明:安全氛围显著正向影响安全绩效,在高危行业中安全氛围对安全绩效影响更大;安全氛围与安全参与、安全遵守均显著正相关,且安全氛围对安全参与的影响强于对安全遵守的影响;安全氛围和安全绩效均与安全结果显著负相关,且安全绩效对安全结果的影响强于安全氛围对安全结果的影响。     

Validation of the group nuclear safety climate questionnaire

IntroductionGroup safety climate is a leading indicator of safety performance in high reliability organizations. Zohar and Luria (2005) developed a Group Safety Climate scale (ZGSC) and found it to have a single factor.MethodThe ZGSC scale was used as a basis in this study with the researchers rewording almost half of the items on this scale, changing the referents from the leader to the group, and trying to validate a two-factor scale. The sample was composed of 566 employees in 50 groups from a Spanish nuclear power plant. Item analysis, reliability, correlations, aggregation indexes and CFA were performed.ResultsResults revealed that the construct was shared by each unit, and our reworded Group Safety Climate (GSC) scale showed a one-factor structure and correlated to organizational safety climate, formalized procedures, safety behavior, and time pressure.“Impact on IndustryThis validation of the one-factor structure of the Zohar and Luria (2005) scale could strengthen and spread this scale and measure group safety climate more effectively.     

Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory

This paper reports the development and psychometric validation of a multi-dimensional measure of facet-specific climate for innovation within groups at work: the Team Climate Inventory (TCI). Brief reviews of the organizational climate and work group innovation literatures are presented initially, and the need for measures of facet-specific climate at the level of the proximal work group asserted. The four-factor theory of facet-specific climate for innovation, which was derived from these reviews, is described, and the procedures used to operationalize this model into the original version measure described. Data attesting to underlying factor structure, internal homogeneity, predictive validity and factor replicability across groups of the summarized measure are presented. An initial sample of 155 individuals from 27 hospital management teams provided data for the exploratory factor analysis of this measure. Responses from 121 further groups in four occupations (35 primary health care teams, 42 social services teams, 20 psychiatric teams and 24 oil company teams; total N=971) were used to apply confirmatory factor analysis techniques. This five-factor, 38-item summarized version demonstrates robust psychometric properties, with acceptable levels of reliability and validity. Potential applications of this measure are described and the implication of these findings for the measurement of proximal work group climate are discussed. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Deriving the factor structure of safety climate scales

Since the original formulation of the notion of safety climate, many people have developed safety climate measures and conducted factor analyses to identify distinct dimensions. Typically, these analyses were based on samples of workers in a limited number of workplaces, but since they did not allow for the non-independence of the data, they are incorrect. An appropriate analysis should use a multi-level method. This flaw in the analyses to date may at least partly explain the different factor structures of safety climate reported in the literature.     

An empirical investigation of safety climate in container terminal operators

INTRODUCTION: This study empirically evaluates the crucial dimensions of safety climate from a container terminal operator's perspective, specifically in the Port of Kaohsiung. METHOD: Seven safety climate dimensions are identified based on factor analysis: (a) supervisor safety, (b) job safety, (c) coworkers' safety, (d) safety management, (e) safety training, (f) safety rules and special safety training, and (g) job pressure. Cluster analysis is subsequently performed to form worker groups. Respondents are categorized into four groups on the basis of their factor scores in safety climate dimensions: (a) safety management oriented terminal operators, (b) safety training and management oriented terminal operators, (c) job safety and supervisor safety oriented terminal operators, and (d) coworkers' safety oriented terminal operators. RESULTS: Results indicate that safety training and management oriented terminal operators have the best safety performance, followed by safety management oriented terminal operators, job safety and supervisor safety oriented terminal operators, and coworkers' safety oriented terminal operators. Theoretical and practical implications of the research findings are discussed.     

Towards a model of safety climate measurement.

In this study, a survey instrument was developed to measure safety climate. A review of the scientific literature as well as consultation with an expert panel was used to determine the survey's dimensions. Next, the survey was administered, first as a pilot study (n = 15) and then as a full scale study (n = 229), to employees of the City of Cincinnati Department of Public Works. The psychometric integrity of the survey was assessed according to validity, reliability and utility criteria. Results are presented and discussed.