建筑施工班组安全氛围量表设计与应用

为有效测量建筑工程施工班组安全氛围,预防安全事故,设计建筑工程施工班组安全氛围量表。通过文献回顾和专家访谈,确定安全氛围测量指标;利用问卷调查建筑工人对其所在班组和项目安全情况的认识;采用探索性因子分析方法确定班组安全氛围维度;编制施工班组安全氛围量表;最后,将量表应用于南京某项目架子工班组进行安全氛围测量与分析。结果显示,建筑工程施工班组安全氛围影响因素主要来自班组成员、项目部和工作环境。该架子工班组成员安全施工合作与项目部的安全监管表现不好,仍需要加强。从施工班组的角度进行安全氛围测量与分析,有助于管理者开展施工安全管理,提高施工安全水平。     

员工不安全行为意向的影响因子研究

为探究员工不安全行为意向的主要前因变量,基于计划行为理论(TPB),结合矿山企业安全管理实际,编制了包含21个项目的不安全行为意向量表。通过对240名煤矿一线作业人员进行调查和探索性因子分析(EFA),形成不安全行为意向的正式量表和探索性因子结构模型;再对7个煤矿735名一线作业人员进行调查并进行验证性因子研究(CFA)。结果表明:编制修订的不安全行为意向量表信度、效度较高;员工不安全行为意向受不安全行为态度、班组安全氛围、行为风险认知偏差等3个因子的影响;企业应从行为态度改变、班组安全氛围构建、行为风险认知偏差校正等方面,干预员工不安全行为意向,控制不安全行为的发生。     

建筑施工企业安全氛围量表初步开发—基于天津市建筑施工企业样本的研究

安全氛围是近年来安全领域关注的重要概念,对安全氛围的测量是其定量研究的基础。首先对国内外学者的研究成果进行了梳理,在此基础上,通过访谈获取的第一手资料,采用质性研究方法得到建筑施工企业安全氛围的初始量表。最后,通过412份有效问卷的定量分析确定了建筑施工企业安全氛围最终维度及测量量表,验证了量表的信度与效度。研究结果表明:建筑施工企业安全氛围具有二阶维度结构:管理者关注、监督者态度、工友行为影响、安全意识、安全沟通与参与,其中管理者关注包括管理者态度、安全规程、安全培训、工作环境4个子维度。     

人不安全行为的心理测量与分析

分析人不安全行为心理测量与一般心理测量的区别;阐述人不安全行为心理测量量表的编制依据和具体的编制方法;给出了人不安全行为心理测量的初步施测量表,即包括8个分量表的总计750条指标项目。在确定施测范围、选取测量对象的基础上,实施对人不安全行为初步施测量表的心理测量,通过对初试量表测定数据的统计与分析,从750条指标项目中约减择取152条重要性程度较大的指标,组成人不安全行为心理测量的综合量表。通过对综合心理测试量表的现场施测,结果表明:该综合量表具有较高的信度和效度,可满足人不安全行为心理测量的要求。     

空管安全文化量表设计

为探究我国空管安全文化现状,设计了一种评价量表。在安全文化定义、国内外相关文献及安全相关规章的理论指导下,结合专家咨询与实地调研,从安全文化建设和安全文化养成两个维度建立符合我国空管安全文化特点的关键元素集,从而编制初始安全文化量表。然后通过随机抽样方法,对20个空管单位展开测试,利用SPSS 19. 0对测试结果进行项目分析以确保题项的合理性、探索性因子分析以保证量表结构效度、信度分析以确保量表的可信度,剔除无效题项后,最终确立了正式量表。正式量表的信效度能够达到要求,可以对空管单位的安全文化进行有效测量。     

水利工程建设施工班组安全氛围量表研究

为有效提高水利工程建设的安全管理能力,基于SHEL(软件、硬件、环境、人员)模型,从4个角度划分出7个维度,设计了水利工程建设施工班组安全氛围量表;对湖南省湘江流域数个大型航电枢纽项目的各施工班组的工人进行问卷调研,并利用相关软件分析所收集的数据,采用探索性因子分析法确定安全氛围的维度.结果 表明:水利工程建设施工班组安全氛围的主要影响因素包括安全制度建设、设备设施管理、安全教育考核、事故预防与处理、人员沟通与态度5个方面;该量表从施工班组的角度出发,对安全氛围进行有效测量,可为水利建设单位的安全管理工作提供依据,提高安全管理水平.     

我国企业领导者安全奖惩缺失量表编制

为了准确评价我国企业领导者安全奖惩缺失水平,首先,参考多因子领导问卷(MLQ)、领导者奖惩问卷(LRPQ)和领导者奖惩缺失问卷(LRPOQ)的相关研究成果,确定适合我国安全生产管理情境的领导者安全奖惩缺失(SLRPO)的两个维度——领导者安全奖励缺失和安全惩罚缺失,并采用李克特7级量表,编制SLRPO初始题项;然后,基于高危行业557份有效调查样本,对初始量表进行项目分析、探索性因子分析、验证性因子分析及校标关联效度检验.结果表明,由两个维度构成的SLRPO量表具有很好的信度和效度,可有效测量各类高危行业企业领导者安全奖励与惩罚缺失水平.     

消防员运动性疲劳监测量表的评价

为了预防战训损伤,利用消防员运动性疲劳监测量表,研究评价消防员训练疲劳。通过基层消防救援队伍量表数据的统计分析,探讨量表的题目编制,包括题目区分度分析和辨别力分析,检验量表的信效度,进而构建量表的参考常模,评价消防员疲劳等级及类型。研究结果表明:量表题目及结构符合标准,根据量表得分确定消防员是否疲劳,并将消防员疲劳划分为轻度疲劳、过度疲劳2个等级,以及应激过度主导和恢复不足主导2个类别,从而有效监测消防员战训情况,提高消防救援队伍战斗力。     

组织氛围对建筑工人不安全行为的影响机理及实证研究

为了研究组织氛围对建筑工人不安全行为的影响,从班组级安全氛围、班组级安全教育和项目级安全氛围三个层面测量组织氛围,基于组织氛围与安全态度、不安全动机及安全能力之间的关系,构建建筑工人不安全行为发生的机理。通过23个项目267份有效问卷收集数据,采用结构方程模型（SEM）进行验证,采用决策试验和评价实验室（DEMATEL）进一步计算和分析各潜变量之间的影响度和被影响度。研究结果表明:班组级安全氛围对安全态度、班组级安全教育对安全态度、安全能力对安全态度、安全态度对安全动机的影响显著;安全动机和安全能力对不安全行为的影响显著;班组级安全氛围、班组级安全教育和项目级安全氛围之间相互关系显著;班组级安全氛围、班组级安全教育和项目级安全教育是典型的原因影响因素,通过安全态度共同影响不安全行为。根据研究结果,提出应对措施,可为安全管理工作提供理论指导。     

煤矿员工风险感知量表开发与应用

为检验矿工风险感知水平,提升其对风险的认知和应对能力,基于文献分析和访谈研究提取矿工风险感知初始测量指标,并编制测量量表,通过对162份调查数据的项目分析、探索性因子分析,净化测量指标体系,并明确矿工风险感知的测量结构;然后采用AMOS21.0软件对226份调查数据进行验证性因子分析;最后采用描述性统计和差异性分析等方法对该量表进行具体应用。研究结果表明：所构建的矿工风险感知测量体系包含风险知识和态度、风险后果认知2个维度、10个测量指标;所编制的矿工风险感知测量量表具有较好的信度、内容效度、聚合效度和区分效度;本量表在不同年龄、学历、婚姻状况、工种和工作年限的矿工群体间具有普遍适用性。量表可为煤矿员工的风险感知水平测量提供可行工具。     

矿工个体变量与安全认识水平的关系研究

使用中国矿业大学安全管理研究所设计的安全认识测量量表（SCSS）,抽样调查某矿关于38个安伞相关问题的认识,并将统计结果与事故经历、年龄、工龄、文化程度和职务等5个体变量因素进行分析。结果发现安全管理部门员工的总体安全认识水平比生产区队高（Sig．=0．006）,年龄越大、工龄越长员工的总体安全认识水平也越高（Sig．分别为0．050和0．017）,没有工伤经历比有过工伤经历的员对安全相关问题的看法更积极（Sig．=0．042）,而文化程度、职务等变量对总体安全认识水平的影响则没有达到显著程度（Sig．分别为0．566和0．067）。论文所揭示的变量与安全认识的关系,有助于相关研究的深入。     

From safety culture to safety orientation: Validation and simplification of a safety orientation scale using a sample of seafarers working for Norwegian ship owners

Measuring safety performance is becoming increasingly important in many high-risk industries such as atomic power, the chemical industry, offshore oil production, air traffic control and construction. Much has been done to study the antecedents/factors that shape the safety culture and safety climate in these types of industries, but almost no research has been conducted into another high-risk industry – shipping. Based on the safety orientation model (SOM) and a review of items and scales used in surveys of safety climate and safety culture, a safety orientation scale (SOS) was developed and refined through the use of multivariate statistics. This study was conducted with a sample of seafarers sailing on Norwegian-owned vessels. A total of 2558 questionnaires were returned from 141 vessels and 16 shipping companies, giving a calculated response rate of 70%.The study showed that replicating previous studies on the sample of seafarers demonstrated a large degree of stability in scales and items across both industries and nations.Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is the most commonly adopted approach to the development of scales of safety climate and culture scale reported in the literature, and factor retention seems to be the most important decision in EFA. In the present study several rules to determine the number of factors and items retained are applied, and a comparison is made of a short form of latent root criterion (SFLRC) and parallel criterion (PC). SFLRC is found to be the superior method for the present data set.Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) did not support the preliminary SOM of 12 dimensions (13 dimensions, since one of the 12 dimensions was split during the CFA procedure); however, a re-specification of the model on the basis of the CFA for four different behavioural measures gave a simplified and well-defined model with seven factors and 22 items.     

Safety Climate in Finnish- and Swedish-Speaking Companies

The aim of this study was to compare assessments made by Finnish- and Swedish-speaking workers in Finland about the safety climate in their companies, because an earlier study showed that the accident frequency of Swedish-speaking workers was one third lower than that of Finnish-speaking workers. 148 Finnish-speaking and 138 Swedish-speaking workers from 14 small and medium-sized companies participated in this study. They filled out a Finnish safety climate questionnaire, the reliability of which was above the acceptable level. There were no differences between the language groups in the total variables of safety climate and safety action. Based on the differences in single items, we interpreted that Swedish-speaking workers stressed collective safety more, whereas Finnish-speaking workers put more emphasis on their personal responsibility for safety.     

Safety climate in Finnish- and Swedish-speaking companies.

The aim of this study was to compare assessments made by Finnish- and Swedish-speaking workers in Finland about the safety climate in their companies, because an earlier study showed that the accident frequency of Swedish-speaking workers was one third lower than that of Finnish-speaking workers. 148 Finnish-speaking and 138 Swedish-speaking workers from 14 small and medium-sized companies participated in this study. They filled out a Finnish safety climate questionnaire, the reliability of which was above the acceptable level. There were no differences between the language groups in the total variables of safety climate and safety action. Based on the differences in single items, we interpreted that Swedish-speaking workers stressed collective safety more, whereas Finnish-speaking workers put more emphasis on their personal responsibility for safety.     

The development of a measure of safety climate: The role of safety perceptions and attitudes

In understanding the safety climate or culture of a workplace, the perceptions and attitudes of the workforce are important factors in assessing safety needs. Safety solutions may fail if they do not take into account these prevailing attitudes and perceptions. Also, changes in attitudes and perceptions about safety are often likely outcomes of safety interventions. The aim of this study was to develop a measure of perception and attitudes about safety as an indicator of safety culture for use with working populations. After reviewing the structure and content of a number of older, related measures of safety attitudes, a 67-item questionnaire was developed. The questionnaire was distributed in a self-administered form to 1560 workers in a wide variety of types of jobs and 660 questionnaires were returned from 7 workplaces with a response rate of 42%. Items were evaluated by Cronbach alpha which showed that the item set shared considerable common variance. Scale development was approached in two ways. First items which were highly skewed were removed, resulting in removal of around half of the items, with very little loss in alpha. The remaining items were then subjected to factor analysis which revealed five factors; personal motivation for safe behaviour, positive safety practice, risk justification, fatalism and optimism. This factor structure showed acceptable psychometric properties. Second, in an effort to produce a unidimensional scale with a small, but representative set of items, additional items were removed which had high correlation with other items. This resulted in loss of around half of the remaining items. The short scale contained 17 items with again overall acceptable psychometric properties. The most striking finding in the development of this questionnaire was that there was little variation between respondents on a very large proportion of the questions originally selected. Clearly there are well-known beliefs about safety in the working community which need to be understood in order to progress the concept of safety culture.     

企业安全文化评估与企业安全行为的质化研究

通过总结国内外各种不同的安全文化概念,归纳分析了国内外较为流行的近10种安全文化建立模式。在研讨文献的基础上,通过深入访谈、焦点小组与参与观察,归纳构造了一套共11个维度,总题项为152题的安全文化评估量表。通过对选定企业的实证问卷调查,进行统计分析,采用多元逐步回归分析等方法对安全文化各评核因素及整体安全文化进行预测,并以百分数呈现其整体的安全文化现状水平。通过基于扎根理论的各种质化研究方法,对案例企业的安全文化建设和企业安全行为进行研究,得到了7点关于企业安全行为的研究发现,并提出了相应的改进建议。     

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.     

Evaluation of a healthcare safety climate measurement tool

Problem

Psychometrically validated measurement tools are needed to evaluate an organization's safety climate. In 2000, Gershon and colleagues published a new healthcare safety climate measurement tool to determine its relationship to safe work behavior (Gershon, R., Karkashian, C., Grosch, J., Murphy, L., Escamilla-Cejudo, A., Flanagan, P., et al. (2000). Hospital safety climate and its relationship with safe work practices and workplace exposure incidents. American Journal of Infection Control, 28, 211-21). The present study evaluated the psychometric properties of the Gershon tool when modified to address respiratory rather than bloodborne pathogen exposures.

Method

Medical practitioners, nurses, and nurse aides (n = 460) were surveyed using the modified Gershon tool. Data were analyzed by factor analysis and psychometric properties of the tool evaluated.

Results

Eight safety climate dimensions were extracted from 25 items (Cronbach's alpha range: 0.62 - 0.88). Factor extractions and psychometric properties were reasonably consistent with those of the Gershon tool.

Impact on Industry

The Gershon safety climate tool appears to have sufficient reliability and validity for use by healthcare decision makers as an indicator of employee perceptions of safety in their institution.     

Mental models of safety: do managers and employees see eye to eye?

PROBLEM: Disagreements between managers and employees about the causes of accidents and unsafe work behaviors can lead to serious workplace conflicts and distract organizations from the important work of establishing positive safety climate and reducing the incidence of accidents. METHOD AND RESULTS: In this study, the authors examine a model for predicting safe work behaviors and establish the model's consistency across managers and employees in a steel plant setting. Using the model previously described by Brown, Willis, and Prussia (2000), the authors found that when variables influencing safety are considered within a framework of safe work behaviors, managers and employees share a similar mental model. The study then contrasts employees' and managers' specific attributional perceptions. Findings from these more fine-grained analyses suggest the two groups differ in several respects about individual constructs. Most notable were contrasts in attributions based on their perceptions of safety climate. When perceived climate is poor, managers believe employees are responsible and employees believe managers are responsible for workplace safety. However, as perceived safety climate improves, managers and employees converge in their perceptions of who is responsible for safety. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: It can be concluded from this study that in a highly interdependent work environment, such as a steel mill, where high system reliability is essential and members possess substantial experience working together, managers and employees will share general mental models about the factors that contribute to unsafe behaviors, and, ultimately, to workplace accidents. It is possible that organizations not as tightly coupled as steel mills can use such organizations as benchmarks, seeking ways to create a shared understanding of factors that contribute to a safe work environment. Part of this improvement effort should focus on advancing organizational safety climate. As climate improves, managers and employees are likely to agree more about the causes of safe/unsafe behaviors and workplace accidents, ultimately increasing their ability to work in unison to prevent accidents and to respond appropriately when they do occur. Finally, the survey items included in this study may be useful to organizations wishing to conduct self-assessments.