Effectiveness of Safety Culture Survey in Evaluating the ...

Effectiveness of Safety Culture Survey in Evaluating the Overall Safety Performance

of an Organization: A Case Study

by

Natalie Hope Miller

A THESIS

submitted to

Oregon State University

University Honors College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the

degree of

Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Chemical Engineering

(Honors Associate)

Presented March 3, 2017

Commencement June 2017

AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF

Natalie Hope Miller for the degree of Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Chemical

Engineering presented on March 3, 2017.

Title: Effectiveness of Safety Culture Survey in Evaluating the Overall Safety

Performance of an Organization: A Case Study

Abstract approved: _____________________________________________________

Ean H. Ng

Safety culture is a vital part of any organization. It describes how employees, on all

levels, perceive safety at the particular organization. Measuring safety culture is

fundamental to determining the environment of the organization. Using different

measurement methods, including surveys, changes can be made to increase safety and

improve safety attitudes. The goal of this study is to create a safety culture survey and

compare the survey results to the safety performance data provided from an industrial

company, as this comparison has not yet been done. A small sized industrial company

was selected for this study and surveys were administered. The Company has provided

safety documentation and data that includes plant location, different departments

within the plant, injury and near hit frequencies. From this performance data and the

survey responses, it was concluded that the survey could be a valid tool for

measurement of safety culture to predict safety performance. Future work includes

creating a safety data composite index and comparing that index to the safety culture

questionnaire index created in this study.

Key Words: safety survey, validation

Corresponding e-mail address: [email protected]

©Copyright by Natalie Hope Miller

March 3, 2017

All Rights Reserved

Effectiveness of Safety Culture Survey in Evaluating the Overall Safety Performance

of an Organization: A Case Study

by

Natalie Hope Miller

A THESIS

submitted to


University Honors College

in partial fulfillment of

the requirements for the

degree of

Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Chemical Engineering

(Honors Associate)

Presented March 3, 2017

Commencement June 2017

Honors Baccalaureate of Science in Chemical Engineering project of Natalie Hope

Miller presented on March 3, 2017.

APPROVED:

Ean H. Ng, Mentor, representing Industrial Engineering

Karl F. Schilke, Committee Member, representing Chemical Engineering

Ganapathy S. Natarajan, Committee Member, representing Industrial Engineering

Javier Calvo-Amodio, Committee Member, representing Industrial Engineering

Toni Doolen, Dean, University Honors College

I understand that my project will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon

State University, University Honors College. My signature below authorizes release

of my project to any reader upon request.

Natalie Hope Miller, Author

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I thank my parents for their unconditional support and guidance in all I do. When I

grow up, I hope to be as hardworking, determined, generous and loving as you both

are.

To my brother, thank you for always reminding me that there is hope in the world when

I lose mine.

Thank you, Dr. Ng, for your mentorship and help throughout this entire process. You

pushed me to do things I had no idea I was capable of and because of that I learned so

much more about the world of research and myself. I could not have done this without

you.

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Safety culture has gained momentum over the last 20 years, however, there is no universally

accepted definition of safety culture or safety climate. The differences between safety culture and

safety climate have been addressed in previous research, Wiegmann, Zhang, Thaden, Sharman and

Gibbons (2004) state that safety culture is a characteristic of the organization that stays mainly the

same throughout time while safety climate changes with different circumstances like operational

or economic changes. For this research and questionnaire, the focus will be on safety culture

because changing the culture of an organization has a much larger impact that merely changing

the climate.

While there is no universally accepted definition of safety culture, many definitions of safety

culture contain the same characteristics. Kines, et al. (2011) defines safety culture as:

Workgroup members’ shared perceptions of management and

workgroup safety related policies, procedures and practices. (Kines

et al., 2011, p. 634).

The safety culture definition for this research, includes a slight change to Kines et al. (2011),

one that addresses personal safety. Therefore, the formal definition for safety culture is as follows:

Employees’ shared perceptions of management and safety related

policies, trainings, procedures and practices as well as individual

perceptions of safety in the workplace.

There are many ways to measure safety culture both qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitative

methods include observations and interviews while quantitative methods include surveys. Surveys

have been described as the “quick and dirty” (Guldenmund 2007, p. 725) method because they are

good for getting a large number of employees involved quickly and efficiently. Surveys also ask

employees about their perceptions, which makes them useful, as stated by Ostrom, Wilhelmsen,

and Kaplan (1993). Safety culture questionnaires are one of the main resources used by industries

to measure the safety climate at a specific company or organization. While there are many

questionnaires that focus on different industries, there are not any that compare the survey results

to the actual company data.

2

CURRENT STUDY

Safety culture questionnaires are one of the main resources used by industries to measure the safety

climate at a specific company or organization. While there are many validated and published

questionnaires from different industries, there are not any that compare the survey results to the

actual safety performance data. This comparison can determine the accuracy and validity of the

survey as well as the safety culture present. The aim of this research was to create a safety culture

questionnaire and a method to compare the survey to the performance data from a specific

organization.

3

CHAPTER TWO

PUBLISHED CONFERENCE PAPER

This paper was published and presented at the American Society for Engineering Management

International Annual Conference in Charlotte, North Carolina in October of 2016. The ASEM

paper focused on the literature review and creation of the safety culture survey. The analysis of

the responses and the safety data had not been completed at that time.

4

EFFECTIVENESS OF SAFETY CULTURE SURVEY IN EVALUATING

THE OVERALL SAFETY PERFORMANCE OF AN ORGANIZATION: A

CASE STUDY

Natalie Miller

Ean H. Ng, Ph.D.*


[email protected]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract Safety culture is important for many companies and industries as it tells the employer what kind of attitudes and

perceptions employees, including management personnel, have towards safety within their company. Companies

generally use the information obtained from the survey to make the appropriate changes so that the safety culture is

impacted in a significant way to improve the lives of the employees. Research has shown that safety culture affects

the overall safety of an organization. A number of safety culture surveys have been created, claiming to be able to

measure the safety culture of an organization. However, no research has been performed to compare the scores of the

safety culture survey to the actual safety performance of an organization. The objective of this study was to evaluate

the correlation between the safety culture survey results and the actual safety performance of an organization. A safety

culture survey will be administered to a medium-sized manufacturing organization. The results of the survey will be

sorted by the plant location, job specific departments, and compared to the injury and accident reports from the

different plant location and departments of the company.

Keywords Safety culture, surveys, manufacturing industry

Background Throughout research within safety culture and climate, there is no universally accepted definition of either. As there

is no standardized definition for either, differentiating between the two can be difficult. Wiegmann, Zhang, Thaden,

Sharman and Gibbons (2004) discuss the difference between safety culture and climate through their literature review

of past research. Wiegmann et al. (2004) found that safety culture is a trait specific to an organization that does not

change frequently over time, whereas safety climate can change depending on the circumstances an organization is

facing. Wiegmann et al. (2004) also lists similarities found between the different definitions of safety culture.

Definitions usually define safety culture as something shared with all employees in an organization that focuses on

the formal safety systems in place. Many times it is defined as something that impacts employee’s attitudes towards

safety. Other similarities in the definitions include emphasize on the contribution of everyone in the company no

matter the level of employment and reflects on the organization’s flexibility to change procedures following mistakes

of the past. Lastly, definitions usually reflect the idea that safety culture is permanent (Wiegmann et al. 2004).

Methods to study and measure cultures that had been used by researchers include survey, interview,

observation, and ethnography. Since survey is the least time consuming and easier to administer comparing to other

methods, numerous research has been done in regards to creating surveys that measure safety culture in different

industries, as presented in the next section. Safety culture surveys have been completed for many different industries

and focused on different aspects of safety including the nuclear industry, the manufacturing industry, construction as

well as nursing and the hospital industry. Different aspects of safety that safety cultures have focused on include fleet

safety, participatory ergonomics, as well as an overall sense of safety in the company. Constraints tests have focused

heavily on management priority to safety as well as the employees own participation in safety. The methodology for

validating surveys varies as well.

5

Literature Review: Measuring Safety Culture

There are many different ways to measure safety culture, but one of the most effective, fastest and easiest ways is

through safety surveys. Ostrom, Wilhelmsen and Kaplan (1993) state that safety surveys are good for measuring

effectiveness of safety efforts and changes because employees are asked what their perceptions are. Ways surveys are

also useful include discovering the strengths and weaknesses of an organization’s safety process as well as differences

in perception of safety between management and employees. If surveys are administered on a standard interval basis,

changes in the culture can be seen.

Ostrom et al. (1993) measures the norms of safety within the organization, EG&G Idaho, Inc., a Department

of Energy Contractor at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. The survey was created from interviews, manager

meetings as well as a literature review. The norms included in the survey were safety awareness, teamwork, pride and

commitment, excellence, honesty, communications, innovation, training, customer relations, procedure compliance,

safety effectiveness and facilities. Ostrom et al. (1993) analyzed the results from this survey using the Cronbach Alpha

analysis as well as other variables to prove consistency and therefore validity. Cronbach Alpha values range from zero

to one with one proving perfect consistency and zero proving poor consistency (Ostrom et al., 1993). This survey was

analyzed with the Cronbach Alpha and presented a value approaching 0.96. Ostrom et al. (1993) also analyzed the

results with Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients and most questions proved to fit into the survey and

question groupings well.

Kines et al. (2011) created and tested the validity of the Nordic Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-

50). The survey was created with the intention of being used across different industries while presenting a consistent

factor structure. Constraints tested by Kines et al. (2011) included: management safety priority, commitment and

competence, management safety empowerment, management safety justice, workers’ safety commitment, workers’

safety priority and risk non-acceptance, safety communication, learning, and trust in co-workers’ safety competence,

and workers’ trust in the efficacy of safety systems. The different industries the NOSACQ-50 was tested in include

the construction industry, the Swedish food industry, nursing, occupational safety and health inspectors and airport

staff in varying positions. After each industry was studied, the survey was revised and edited to fix consistency and

validity. Kines et al. (2011) calculated the NOSACQ-50 Cronbach Alpha values after each industry as well as the final

version. The final Cronbach Alpha values were all above 0.79 for each construct.

Matthews, Gallus and Henning’s (2010) created a survey that measured employees’ views of the participatory

ergonomics programs effectiveness. The survey was first administered to a large manufacturing plant for initial data

and then to a multitude of employees with varying jobs. The constructs for the survey were chosen after a literature

review and were: employee involvement, knowledge base, managerial support, employee support, and strain related

to ergonomic changes (Matthews et al. 2010). The Cronbach Alpha values found for Matthews’ et al. (2010) survey

varied from 0.67 to 0.83, showing some constraints had moderate reliability while others had exceptional reliability.

Bosak, Coetsee and Cullinane (2013) created a survey, a version of the Offshore Safety Questionnaire, to

find the relationships between different dimensions of safety culture. The dimensions tested were management

commitment to safety, priority of safety, and pressure for production (Bosak et al. 2013). The dimensions’ relationship

to risk behavior of employees was also tested. The survey was administered to a chemical manufacturing plant in

South Africa. Bosak et al. (2013) found that employees’ risk behaviors were negatively related to management

commitment to and priority of safety and positively related to pressure for production (Bosak et al. 2013). Statistical

testing was done to calculate the chi-square values and factor loadings to show validity as well as simple slope analysis

to prove the relationships between the safety dimensions and risk behavior.

Mitchell, Friswell and Mooren (2012), studied five constraints specific to fleet safety. These constraints were:

management systems and processes, monitoring and assessment, employee recruitment, training and education,

vehicle technology, selection and maintenance and vehicle journeys. The purpose for this survey is to become a

benchmark tool for industries to measure their improvement and progress. The study was created with a mix of

interviews, literature reviews and a usability test sent fleet managers. The survey itself is designed to compare results

to best practices in fleet safety. A usability study was completed to initially test this survey and identify any changes

to be made. The reliability and consistency of the scores of this survey still need to be tested and validity of the

effectiveness of the survey should be tested by comparing fleet crashes numbers and the audit scores.

Current Study A medium-sized manufacturing company (“The Company”) in the US west coast has agreed to provide their safety

records and allow the researcher to administer the modified safety culture survey questionnaire created for this study.

The Company consists of three separate manufacturing facilities located within the same state, and consists of four

distinct job-specific department, and the administrative support unit. As part of the overall safety program review, The

6

Company will implement the safety culture survey to all its employees. The Company will also provide the most

recent one-year safety records, sorted by the individual units, and also by the manufacturing facility.

Administering Safety Culture Survey Questionnaire The safety culture survey was translated professionally to Spanish, and were offered in both English and Spanish, as

well as paper-based and electronic version. The electronic-based survey was administered through Qualtrics. For the

paper-based version, employees were given envelopes to seal their completed survey, and drop the envelope in one of

the lock boxes around the break room. The Safety Director of The Company personally talked to all employees, and

emphasized that the survey is voluntary, and their responses are anonymous.

The survey was administered from mid September through mid October. The data collection on the survey

questionnaire had just concluded. The paper-based survey responses were manually entered into the online survey

system (Qualtrics), and were shredded according to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol approved for this

study.

Safety Record The Company had provided the safety record for the past one year, in the form of incident report. The safety record

data that was provided by The Company contains all the information that is needed for this study. However, the data

will need to be captured into excel spreadsheet for data analysis since it was provided in PDF format.

Future Work The future work includes data analysis on the safety culture survey questionnaire, the data capture for the safety record,

and further data analysis. The correlation between the survey results with the departmental safety data of The Company

will be conducted. The survey results will be ranked in order of their safety culture results from the survey and

compared to the ranking of near hits or near misses specific to different departments. Depending on the results or the

correlation analysis, implications of this case study could include validating the use of survey to estimate the safety

performance, or to re-evaluate the effectiveness of safety culture survey.

References Bosak, J., Coetsee, W. J., & Cullinane, S.-J. (2013). Safety climate dimensions as predictors for risk behavior.

Accident Analysis & Prevention, 55, 256–264. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.02.022

Kines, P., Lappalainen, J., Mikkelsen, K. L., Olsen, E., Pousette, A., Tharaldsen, J., … Törner, M. (2011). Nordic

Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50): A new tool for diagnosing occupational safety climate.

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 41(6), 634–646.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2011.08.004

Matthews, R. A., Gallus, J. A., & Henning, R. A. (2011). Participatory ergonomics: Development of an employee

assessment questionnaire. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(1), 360–369.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.09.004

Mitchell, R., Friswell, R., & Mooren, L. (2012). Initial development of a practical safety audit tool to assess fleet

safety management practices. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 47, 102–118.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.01.021

Ostrom, L., Wilhelmsen, C., & Kaplan, B. (1993). Assessing safety culture. Nuclear Safety, 34(2), 634-646.

Wakita, T., Ueshima, N., Noguchi, H. (2012). Psychological Distance Between Categories in the Likert Scale:

Comparing Different Numbers of Options. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(4), 533-546.

Wiegmann, D. A., Zhang, H., Thaden, T. L. von, Sharman, G., & Gibbons, A. M. (2004). Safety Culture: An

Integrative Review. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 14(2), 117–134.

About the Author(s)

Natalie Miller is a senior in the chemical engineering program at Oregon State University. She is a part of the

Honors College and expects to graduate with an honors degree in June of 2017. After graduation, she plans to

continue her education with a master’s degree related to health and safety. Her research interests include industrial

health and safety culture.

Ean H. Ng is an assistant professor/senior researcher at Oregon State University. She received her Ph.D. in

Systems and Engineering Management from Texas Tech University. Her research interests include engineering

economic analysis, high reliability organization, safety engineering, organization behavior and performance

measurement.

7

Appendix A

Excerpt of Safety Culture Survey

Question 6:

Question 10:

Question 16:

8

CHAPTER 3

PAPER TO BE SUBMITTED TO

JOURNAL OF SAFETY, HEALTH, AND ENVIRONMENTAL (SH&E) RESEARCH

This paper will be submitted to the Journal of SH&E Research published by the American

Society of Safety Engineers. This paper briefly touches on the literature before discussing the

current safety culture survey that was created as well as the results and conclusions of the study.

The data analysis for the survey centered around the Cronbach’s Alpha. The Cronbach’s

Alpha value was used to determine the internal consistency of the survey. This value can range

from 0 to 1 and measures the consistency of the question sets by looking at the variances of the

responses. A score of one is perfect internal consistency and indicates that the questions are

measuring the same concept. A score of zero indicates the questions in each set are not

measuring the same concept. The Cronbach’s Alpha is calculated with the following equation,

where 𝛼 is the Cronbach’s Alpha, k is the number of scale items, 𝜎𝑦𝑖2 is the variance associated

with each item, i, and 𝜎𝑥2 is the the variance associated with the total observed scores.

𝛼 = (𝑘

𝑘−1) (1 −

∑ 𝜎𝑦𝑖2𝑘

𝑖=1

𝜎𝑥2 ) (Goforth, 2015)

9

CASE STUDY: CORRELATING THE SAFETY CULTURE SURVEY RESULTS TO

THE OVERALL SAFETY PERFORMANCE OF AN ORGANIZATION

Literature Review

Within the safety culture research, there are many validated surveys in existence. Ostrom

et al. (1993) created a survey focusing on the ‘norms’ within a culture, or the “unspoken rules.”

These norms were determined through safety related interviews of employees and manager’s

personal safety credos. The norms that were determined from interviews, credos, as well as a

literature review were used as input to create their 88 statement survey questionnaire with a five

point Likert scale. The 88 statements were organized into the following categories:

• Safety awareness

• Teamwork

• Pride and commitment

• Excellence

• Honesty

• Communications

• Leadership and supervision

• Innovation

• Training

• Customer relations

• Procedure compliance

• Safety effectiveness

• Facilities

Another validated survey is Kines et al.’s (2011) Nordic Safety Climate Questionnaire

(NOSACQ-50). Kines et al. (2011) had seven different dimensions, or constructs, that the survey

focused on. These dimensions were split between management and worker group safety. These

dimensions were chosen because of their proven importance and impact to safety culture. The

survey was tested multiple times in different industries to determine its consistency in measuring

safety culture in diverse settings. The questionnaire initially used a five point Likert scale but after

multiple testing it was changed to a four point Likert scale. This change was due to the high

frequency of reversed thresholds. The final questionnaire had 50 questions, used a four point Likert

scale and was found to be a good measurement tool for safety culture.

Navarro, Garcia Lerín, Tomás, Peiró Silla (2013) focused on group safety climate in the

nuclear sector. Navarro et al. (2013) states that there are three different approaches to the formation

of safety culture. These three approaches are: the realistic approach, the leader approach, and the

interactive approach. Navarro et al. (2013) modified an existing safety culture survey, the Group

Safety Climate Scale, to better reflect the nuclear sector. The final survey proved to be a good

measurement of group safety climate.

Miller and Ng (2016) conducted a literature review on published and validated safety

culture survey and the methods to measure safety culture. Miller et al. (2016) found that a number

of validated safety culture survey had been published in the literature, however, each survey

10

focuses on similar yet different constructs, with some constructs omitted in one survey but is the

focus of another survey.

Current Study

To include all the constructs identified in the existing safety culture surveys, a new survey was

created for the current study. The survey was created by first selecting the constructs. The four

constructs selected were:

• Management Safety, Priority, Commitment and Competence

• Management Safety Justice

• Workers’ Commitment to Safety and Training

• Individual Responsibility for a Safe Work Environment.

While there are many validated surveys for use available, a new survey was created because of the

constructs selected. Questions were taken from validated surveys if the construct was heavily

researched previously. These questions were regrouped and rewritten to help the flow and

consistency of the survey. The surveys questions were pulled from Kines et al.’s (2011) NOSACQ-

50 and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Safety Culture Survey. In the survey, each

of the four constructs had between 15 to 20 questions total with three to four base questions being

written two-three times. Table 1 shows the number of questions per construct. Each question used

the 7 point Likert Scale because of the neutral anchor and granularity of options. Appendix A has

excerpts from the survey, depicting the format of the questions. The questions for each construct

were presented together. The safety culture survey had three demographic questions asking how

long the respondent had been working in the company, the location they work at and the

department they work in.

Table 1: Constructs and the layout of the safety culture survey. Each construct had three or four

base questions with those rewritten two to three times each. The total of the base and rewrites is

provided in the table.

Construct Number of Questions

Management Safety, Priority, Commitment and Competence 15

Management Safety Justice 12

Workers' Commitment to Safety and Training 19

Individual Responsibility for a Safe Work Environment 12

Constructs for the Survey Questionnaire

The four constructs were selected based on the literature findings. Following sections provide an

in-depth description of the construct and the reasoning for the construct selection. These constructs

were selected for multiple reasons. Past research has shown that each of these constructs has a

major impact on safety culture within an organization.

11

Management Safety, Priority, Commitment and Competence

Wiegmann et al. (2004) found five global indicators of safety culture, one of which was

management involvement. Management involvement, and attitude has a direct impact on the way

employees will view safety, how resources will be delegated to safety programs and the support

those programs will have. Bosak et al. (2013, p. 257) states that “management commitment to

safety is the strongest predictor to safety performance.”

Management Safety Justice

The management safety justice construct was separated from the management safety and

commitment construct because safety justice has a major impact on the culture present. An

example of management safety justice, is reward systems. These systems encourage safe behavior

and discourage risk taking. Reward systems alone was another global indicator of safety culture

found by Wiegmann et al. (2004). Reward systems can include “monetary incentives, or public

praise and recognition by management and peers” (Wiegmann et al. 2004, p. 127). In The

Company specifically, free catered lunches are provided for the employees if the location has zero

injuries for a specified time frame. Management safety justice also accounts for the way

management handles reporting of incidents and victims of an incident.

Workers’ Commitment to Safety and Training

Sammer et al. (2010) states that teamwork and communication leads to a better patient safety

culture within a hospital setting. This can be carried over to industry safety as well, which is why

workers’ commitment was chosen as a construct in this survey.

Individual Responsibility for a Safe Work Environment

Individual responsibility for a safe work environment was not as well researched of a construct but

vital for determining a safety culture present. Ostrom et al. (1993) found individual responsibility

to be a major theme from manager interviews and safety credos. Bosak et al. (2003) defined safety

culture with a focus specifically on individual perceptions.

Methodology

To compare the safety culture survey results to actual company performance, permission to

administer the survey and to view safety performance data were obtained from a small sized

manufacturing company (“The Company”). The following sections provide The Company profile,

administration of the survey, and the safety performance data that was obtained from The

Company.

12

The Company Profile

The Company is a concrete product manufacturing company with four manufacturing plants

located across the northern California region and approximately 200 employees. These four plants

vary in size ranging from 25 to 80 employees. Each plant has the same organizational structure in

terms of safety, although some have different final products. Each location has the same

departments. These include maintenance, yard, production, QC Lab, Rebar, and Other, which

mostly accounts for the management positions. These departments vary in size and duties. Table

2 shows the four locations of The Company and the associated number of employees.

Table 2: The Company’s plant location and number of full time employees

Location Number of Employees

Plant 1 44

Plant 2 31

Plant 3 74

Plant 4 56

Administering Safety Culture Survey

The Company’s four plants are located across northern California, which in addition to English,

Spanish is another widely spoken language in that geographical region. To accommodate native

Spanish speakers that work in The Company, the safety culture survey was professionally

translated into Spanish.

Both paper surveys and an online, electronic version were used at all locations. The Safety

Coordinator for the region oversaw distributing both versions of the survey and stressing the

voluntary and confidential nature of it. The online version of the survey was created and

administered using Qualtrics. Employees with access to a company computer and email address

were sent the online version.

Employees that did not have access to a computer were given an envelope and a paper

survey. They were instructed to complete the survey, seal it in the envelope provided and submit

it in a locked box placed in the lunch room. Responses were collected for about a month. After

the responses were finished being collected, the paper based surveys were transcribed online and

shredded.

Safety Performance Data Details

The safety data that was received from The Company included near hits and potential

hazard identification forms as well as accident and injury reports.

Potential hazards are defined as:

No actual “near-injury” event occurs or is experienced. An

employee simply identifies and reports a condition in the work

environment that is potentially hazardous; Example: Leaning a

13

pallet stack about to fall, or loose machine guarding (“an accident

waiting to happen”).

This definition is similar to OSHA. OSHA defines potential hazards, or simply hazards, as “simply

a condition or a set of circumstances that present a potential for harm” (Center for Dairy Farm

Safety, 2011).

Near hits are defined as:

A “near-injury-event” that actually takes place. No injuries or

damage occurred, but something happened, witnessed or

experienced by an employee that nearly caused an injury to

themselves or others.

OSHA defines near hits as “an unplanned event that did not result in injury, illness, or damage –

but had the potential to do so” (National Safety Council, 2013). The definition from The Company

is similar to OSHA and highlights the fact that an event was witnessed but it did not lead to an

injury or loss. In this study, near hits and near misses are used interchangeably.

Injuries are defined at The Company using the OSHA definition:

• “Any work-related fatality.

• Any work-related injury or illness that results in loss of

consciousness, days away from work, restricted work, or transfer to

another job.

• Any work-related injury or illness requiring medical treatment

beyond first aid.

• Any work-related diagnosed case of cancer, chronic irreversible

diseases, fractured or cracked bones or teeth, and punctured

eardrums.

• There are also special recording criteria for work-related cases

involving: needlesticks and sharps injuries; medical removal;

hearing loss; and tuberculosis” (United States Department of Labor,

n.d.).

The Company’s definition of injuries also includes:

• A written medical prescription from a doctor.

First aids are defined as:

An incident that can be treated on site and does not require a doctor’s

visit.

14

These reports are completed by the safety coordinator on site, but are open to any employee

who notices any unsafe conditions. Identical documentation is completed at each location making

comparison across the different plants easier. Information in these documents include:

• Hazard/Incident, incident type (injury, hazard, etc.) and severity

For this section of the report, employees are to write a short summary on the event that

took place. Depending on what kind of event (near hit, potential hazard, injury report)

occurred this section may vary.

o For injuries, the type of injury is reported. The different options available for injury

categorization include first aid, abrasions, amputations, burns, contusions,

dislocations, fractures, inflammation, injury, laceration, multiple injuries, puncture,

sprain and strain. Major equipment involved is reported and if safety devices were

provided, used at the time of the incident and type.

o For near hits or potential hazards, the risk category is selected, for example,

electrical injury potential is a risk category. These are selected by whoever is filling

out the hazard form. Incident types can include slips and falls, struck/caught, strain,

cuts, foreign body in eye, repetitive motion, object being lifted or handled or other.

• Results of incident type (e.g. where on body injury occurred, hospital visits,

recordable injury)

The extent of medical treatment is provided on the report. Body parts where the injury

occurred are grouped into different categories that include hands & fingers, back, legs &

feet, arms, trunk, head & neck and multiple parts. The type of medical treatment provided

like none, minor on site, or hospital visits is recorded. Additional information surrounding

the incident is recorded, like if the injury was a recordable and if it resulted in days off or

modified/restricted duty.

• Root cause of incident

The root cause of each incident is recorded. This section allows those reporting to write in

their response. These responses range from a few words to multiple sentences. For

example, the root cause may be “repetitive working,” “Forklift driver did not stop and

remove the ext. cord,” or “cutting cable and grinder bound up and came back towards the

operator when it released.”

• Recommended change or corrective action

This section gives freedom to the submitter to write in their response. This can range from

hosting refresher training, rearranging the work space or procedure in place, to conducting

new evaluations and assessments to determine the conditions.

• Date the corrective actions were completed

Once the date the corrective action is completed and filled in the report is closed. Open

reports do not have the date the corrective action was completed filled out.

15

In addition to the reports, The Company safety programs and initiatives for the past 3 years were

included in the safety performance data analysis. The three programs include the S.L.A.M

program, Code 100 and Hand and Finger Behavioral Based Safety Observations (BBSO).

Safety Program Details

S.L.A.M.

This program stands for Stop, Look, Analyze, and Manage. It was introduced by management in

2016 and encourages reporting of near hits and potential hazards. It also increases the

accountability worker groups and individuals have in regards to safety. The program retrained

employees on the process of identifying and reporting near hits and potential hazards.

Code 100

The Code 100 program was introduced by management in 2015. It encourages 100% in almost all

aspects of safety including team work, involvement, accountability, engagement, compliance and

training. The program stressed an individual responsibility and accountability when it comes to

safety. This is done through safety program ownership where an employee becomes the “expert”

on that specific safety program, leads the training and answers questions fellow employees may

have. The program also includes “safety buddies” or “brother’s keepers” which focuses on

increasing the sense of community worker groups have. It creates a more open channel for

conversation about safety and best practices.

Hand and Finger Behavioral Based Safety Observations (BBSO)

This program was created in 2015 and brought a larger focus to hand placement at work. Through

BBSO’s employees watch and critique each other while they work, focusing on their hands and

fingers. This program also creates a more open channel for communication and encourages

employees to look out for one another and think critically of best practices for hand and finger

placement at work.

Data Used for Current Study

The frequency at which each of the incidents occurs within the departments will be the basis for

comparison against the survey results. The comparison and correlation between the survey results

and the safety data centers around the plants.

Both the survey results and the company’s safety data needed to be analyzed to determine

the safety culture present. The general hypothesis is that the survey is a good predictor of safety

culture within a small manufacturing industry. As part of data analysis, the Cronbach’s Alpha was

calculated for each construct.

Cronbach Alpha is a measurement of internal consistency and is one way to evaluate

whether the survey is measuring what it is designed to measure. It measures the correlations

between different questions within the same construct. An Alpha range of 0.7 to 0.8 is deemed

satisfactory (Connelly 2011).

16

Results

The demographic question responses from the safety survey reveal the differences the locations

had in terms of employee characteristics. Table 3 shows the response rate for the safety culture

survey questionnaire by plant and for the overall company.

Table 3: Safety Culture Survey Response Rate

Plant Total Number of

Employees

Total Number

of Responses

Response Rate

Plant 1 44 17 36.6 %

Plant 2 31 23 74.2 %

Plant 3 74 48 64.9 %

Plant 4 56 15 26.8 %

Total for The Company 205 103 50.2 %

The department responses, organized by plant location is presented in Figure 1. Plant 3’s

largest department was the “other” category. This could be due to the high amount of upper

management and sales members who work at that location. Management and sales were two

departments that were not accounted for when creating the department demographic question. The

second highest for Plant 3, and the highest at all three other plants was production.

Figure 1: Responses to the department demographic question in the safety culture survey.

Responses were organized by plant location.

The amount of time the respondent has been working in the company is presented in Figure

2. At almost every location, employees who worked in the company for more than 10 years ranked

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4

Fre

quen

cy

Plant Location

Rebar

Maintenance

Yard

QC Lab

Production

Other

17

the highest. Plant 2’s largest time frame was less than 1 year, followed by more than 10 years

indicating a wide gap in the respondents’ demographics.

Figure 2: Responses to the amount of time working at the company question in the safety culture

survey. Responses were organized by plant location for the year of 2016.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha) of the Survey Questionnaire

The Cronbach’s Alpha values calculated for each question and overall construct are shown

in Table 5 and Table 6 respectively. Eleven questions out of 58 were omitted from subsequent

calculations as their Cronbach’s Alpha values were below 0.7. This leaves 40 questions that

provide sufficient internal consistency and a valid survey.

In this study, Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated using Minitab. Each question within the

construct was included in the calculations and the Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated for each

construct.

The Cronbach’s Alpha was also calculated for the paper based and online based surveys to

see if there were any major differences between the two. The only difference between the two

versions are the delivery methods. The survey questions and order are the same between the two.

The results are seen in Table 4. The paper based surveys had a slightly lower Cronbach’s Alpha

compared to the online version but each are much higher than the 0.7 cut off.

0

5

10

15

20

25

Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4

Fre

quen

cy

Plant Location

Less than 1 year

1 to 3 years

3 to 5 years

5 to 10 years

More than 10 years

18

Table 4: Cronbach’s Alpha for each construct for paper based and online based surveys.

Construct Cronbach’s Alpha

Paper Based Online Based

Management Safety, Priority,

Commitment and Competence

0.9222 0.9254

Management Safety Justice 0.8865 0.9320

Workers' Commitment to

Safety and Training

0.8883 0.9650

Individual Responsibility for a

Safe Work Environment

0.8819 0.9423

Table 5: Cronbach’s Alpha for the questions that are retained for the safety culture survey.

Constructs Question

Number

Rewrites for the

same question

Total Number

of Questions

Cronbach’s

Alpha

Management Safety,

Priority, Commitment and

Competence

1 3 4 𝛼 = 0.7637

2 2 3 𝛼 = 0.9382

4 3 4 𝛼 = 0.8155

5 3 4 𝛼 = 0.7968

Management Safety

Justice

6 3 4 𝛼 = 0.9621

8 3 4 𝛼 = 0.7300

9 3 4 𝛼 = 0.8037

Workers' Commitment to

Safety and Training

10 3 4 𝛼 = 0.9522

11

12

3

3

4

4 𝛼 = 0.7948

𝛼 = 0.7648

13 2 3 𝛼 = 0.7808

14 3 4 𝛼 = 0.8363

Individual Responsibility

for a Safe Work

Environment

15 3 4 𝛼 = 0.8308

16 3 4 𝛼 = 0.8003

18 3 4 𝛼 = 0.9148

Analysis

The analysis consists of three sections: the safety culture survey result, safety performance data

analysis, and correlating the safety culture survey results and the safety performance data analysis.

Safety Culture Survey Result Analysis

Table 6 shows the results of the safety culture survey grouped by constructs. The Cronbach’s Alpha

for each construct is included as well to show the internal consistency.

19

Table 6: The safety culture survey results by constructs.

Constructs Cronbach’s

Alpha

Total Number

of questions

Average Likert Scale

score for the construct

Management Safety, Priority,

Commitment and Competence α = 0.8285 15 5.95

Management Safety Justice α = 0.8319 12 5.73

Workers' Commitment to Safety

and Training α = 0.8265 19 5.97

Individual Responsibility for a

Safe Work Environment α = 0.8486 12 6.37

Questions with an average response below 5.5, indicating a response average below

somewhat agree, were marked as areas of interest. One set of questions had average responses

below 5.5 and is provided in Table 7.

Table 7: Area of interest questions from the safety culture survey.

Question Average

Response

Cronbach’s

Alpha

Base Question:

• Fear of sanctions (negative consequences) from

management discourages employees here from

reporting near-miss accidents

Rewrites:

• Employees understand that reporting near-miss

accidents will not result in negative

consequences.

• Management does not punish employees for

reporting near-miss or near-hit accidents.

• Reporting near-miss accidents puts the

employee’s jobs at risk.

4.67

5.44

5.39

5.37

0.7272

This set of questions has a somewhat low Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.7272, with the cutoff of 0.7 for

internal consistency in this research. This low Cronbach’s value indicates that the four questions

might not be measuring the same construct. One of the potential reason for the low Cronbach’s

Alpha is the phrasing of the questions: half of the questions in the set are negative, while the other

half are positive, which could have led to respondents’ confusion when completing the survey.

During the data analysis, the negative worded question responses were scaled in reverse for proper

calculations.

Another potential reason for having the low average in the response could be attributed to

the choice of words in the questions. Survey design should use wording that are easy to understand

20

and avoid confusion. The choice of the words “sanctions” and “consequences” should be avoided

in the design of this survey as these are not commonly used words among the respondents.

All questions in this set used the phrase “near-miss.” At The Company, the phrase “near-

hit” is used on the forms and training provided to the workers. Respondents may have been

confused on if near-misses were the same as near-hits or if they were different. The question did

not have the phrase “potential hazard” included which may have led respondents to believe the

questions were only concerned with the near-misses and not both.

Safety Performance Data Analysis

An analysis of the safety data provided by The Company shows that fingers are the body

part most likely to be injured at work. The top three types of injuries include lacerations, contusion

and strains. First aids had a higher, or equal frequency than injuries. These first aids could be acting

as warning signs of processes that have the potential to cause more serious incidents that may

results in injuries.

For all four locations, for 2015, there were more near hits and potential hazards reported

than injuries and first-aids. Figure 3 depicts this trend. One possible explanation for this is that

reporting near hits and potential hazards were helping to reduce the number of first-aids and

injuries that occur, as management was able to address near-miss and potential hazards before any

injury occurs.

Figure 3: The total frequency for first-aids, all injuries, near hits, and potential hazards for all

locations for the year of 2015.

Table 8 shows the number of reported recordable injuries per 100 full-time employees, by

location. This number was then compared to the National Bureau of Labor Statistics benchmark

value for construction companies in California which is 3.6 injuries per 100 full-time workers. All

plants were below this California average for 2015, but Plant 3 was higher in 2016. This indicates

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Grand Total for all Locations

Fre

quen

cy

Injury

First-Aid

Near Hit

Potential

Hazard

21

that the majority of the plants are performing well in regard to safety in comparison to other

companies in California. The total for the region is also much lower than the California benchmark,

indicated that overall the region is performing well. Management should look more in detail into

the Plant 3 location to determine why their injuries are much higher than the other locations and

for the total region.

Table 8: The number of reported recordable injuries per 100 full-time employees for each plant.

Location Injuries per 100 full-time employees

2014 2015 2016

Plant 1 0.00 0.00 2.27

Plant 2 3.23 3.23 0.00

Plant 3 4.05 1.35 4.05

Plant 4 8.93 3.57 0.00

Total 4.39 1.95 1.95

The near miss and potential hazard data as well as the first-aids were analyzed the same

way as the injuries. This was done by taking the sum of the frequencies for each and dividing that

by the number of employees. The results are provided in Table 9.

The first-aids recorded have a wide range for the different plants. Plant 4 consistently had

the most across all three years, while Plant 2 had the lowest. Near hits and potential hazard (NHPH)

reporting is large for every location. This is considered to positively impact safety and show a

positive safety culture because employees are reporting events they see.

Table 9: The number of near hits and potential hazards as well as first-aids per 100 full-time

employees for each plant.

Location

Near Hits and Potential Hazards

(NHPH) per 100 full-time employees

First-aids per 100 full-time

em1ployees

2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016

Plant 1 52.27 59.09 93.18 2.27 11.36 9.09

Plant 2 70.97 103.23 151.61 0.00 6.45 0.00

Plant 3 41.89 39.19 50.00 6.76 10.81 21.62

Plant 4 60.71 53.57 139.29 21.43 33.93 41.07

Total 53.66 57.07 99.02 8.78 16.59 20.98

Combining Safety Culture Results and Safety Performance Data

Given that the survey was administered in four plant locations, the data is inconclusive to allow

ranking and comparison among the plants. A closer look at the safety performance data as well as

reviewing the safety campaigns that are ongoing and/or completed shows that there are some

correlations between the safety culture survey outcomes and the safety performance. Table 10

presents the analysis that link the safety data and safety campaigns to the safety survey results.

22

Table 10: Combining Safety Culture Survey Results and Safety Performance Data

Construct Survey

Results

Safety Data Analysis

Man

agem

ent

Saf

ety, P

riori

ty,

Com

mit

men

t an

d

Com

pet

ence

α = 0.8285

Mean = 5.95

St. Dev. =

0.511

High number of

reporting for

Near Hit and

Potential

Hazards (NHPH)

(Table 9)

Employees are reporting incidents as they

happen because they trust that management

will acknowledge the problem and work to

resolve the causes for NHPH.

Employees who are reporting have

confidence towards management and believe

that management will do what it takes to keep

the environment they work in safe.

An increase in

reporting of

NHPH for the

region from 2014

to 2016

Management across the region all have the

same commitment and goals towards safety

that is effectively communicated to

employees.

Code 100

Introduction

The program stresses teamwork, training and

safety. Management created this program to

reinvigorate employees’ interests in safety

and shows the commitment and priority

management has towards safety.

Man

agem

ent

Saf

ety J

ust

ice

α = 0.8319

Mean = 5.73

St. Dev. =

0.617

Root causes of

recordable

injuries from

incident reports

The main root causes for three of the four

recordable injuries were a lack of risk

assessments. After the majority of these

incidents, management did not blame the

victim but considered how management’s

procedures could have caused the injury.

Decrease in

finger and hand

injuries from

2014 to 2015

After there were 7 hand and finger injuries in

2014, management looked at the accidents to

find opportunities for improvement. From this

analysis, the hand and finger Behavior Based

Safety Observation (BBSO) was created and

in 2015 there were no serious finger or hand

injuries, only first aids. Management

reviewed safety procedures and implemented

a program to bring awareness to hand

placement at work.

Increase in first-

aids from 2015

to 2016

A management that does not victim blame

when an incident occurs will lead to more

reporting as seen in the first-aids reports.

Workers feel comfortable going to

management with minor first-aids and feel

confident they will not lose their jobs.

23

Construct Survey

Results

Safety Data Analysis W

ork

ers’

Com

mit

men

t to

Saf

ety

and T

rain

ing

α = 0.8265

Mean = 5.97

St. Dev. =

0.399

High number of

reporting for

NHPH (Table 9)

Workers are communicating any risks they

may discovered to management because of

their training and commitment to safety. The

high number is a result of the diligence in

reporting and is an indication of a positive

safety culture.

Increasing

reporting of

NHPH from

2015 to 2016

Workers were reporting more NHPH in 2016

then 2015. In 2016, the S.L.A.M. campaign

was introduced that focused on Stop Look

Analyze and Manage. Through this, workers

were encouraged to report and were retrained

on what to look for with NHPH.

Decrease in

finger and hand

injuries from

2014 to 2015

In 2014, there were 5 first-aids and 7 injuries

of the hands and fingers. In 2015, there were

10 first-aids and 0 injuries. The BBSO

Program began in 2015 which helped

workers’ communication with each other

about hand placement during work. More

attention and training was introduced,

focusing specifically on hands.

Code 100

Program

The safety buddies and “brother’s keeper”

aspect of the program works to create a sense

of community and brotherhood within the

company, leading to teamwork and more

involvement.

Indiv

idual

Res

ponsi

bil

ity f

or

a S

afe

Work

Envir

onm

ent.

α = 0.8486

Mean = 6.37

St. Dev. =

0.331

High number of

reporting for

NHPH (Table 9)

Individually, workers feel responsible for the

safety environment at their location. They

would like to work in a safe area and are

willing to report NHPH to make sure that

their environment is the safest possible.

S.L.A.M.

Program

The program encourages individuals to

critically analyze their environment and speak

up about their findings. This increases the

responsibility and accountability individuals

have.

Code 100

Program

The program encourages individual safety

program ownership and engagement in safety.

This increases the individual responsibility

and accountability within the organization.

Employees feel they are contributing to the

safety environment in a positive way when

they own a program and feel empowered to

make recommendations to management to

create a safer environment if necessary.

24

Safety Culture Survey Composite Index

In safety culture survey literature, the results and responses are generally presented by the survey

questions, i.e. if a safety culture survey consists of 20 questions, the author(s) would generally

present the average score of each of the 20 questions. Even though the detailed results of the

responses provide in-depth information about the safety culture of the organization, it does not

facilitate the comparison of safety culture survey results across different units.

To facilitate comparison of safety culture survey results across different units, a safety culture

composite index is created from the results of the current study. A composite index does not require

statistical analysis to evaluate the statistical significance between the variables (Natarajan, 2012).

In this case, a composite index is suitable for the Safety Culture Survey created in this study as it

does not require any statistical knowledge for any analyst who wish to use the survey created in

this study.

To create a composite index of the safety culture survey response data, the average of the responses

of each construct were calculated for each location. The averages were converted into ratios,

between 0 and 1, with one being a positive score. The individual ratios are then summed together

to get a composite score between 0 and 4. The index for each location are in Table 11. A score of

4 indicates a positive safety culture and a score of 0 indicates a poor culture.

Table 11: The final safety culture survey composite index of each location. The index for each

location was found by converting the average of the responses to ratios and summing the

construct values together. This led to a score between 0 and 4.

Location Safety Culture Survey Composite Index

Plant 1 3.64

Plant 4 3.57

Plant 3 3.30

Plant 2 3.23

Total for The Company 3.44

25

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

The average response for each location and construct were summed together to get a composite

index between 0 and 4. A composite index of 0 indicates a poor safety culture while a score of 4

indicates a very positive culture. All four locations have an index above 3, indicating a positive

safety culture.

It was determined that overall, The Company has a positive safety culture with a few areas of

interest for management to consider. These include the fear of sanctions and how management

treats employees after an incident occurs. Plant 3 also had a high number of injuries per 100 full

time employees, indicating that management should investigate this plant specifically to

determine why there are more injuries at that location.

To enable comparing and correlating the actual safety performance to the safety culture survey

results, a method to convert the actual safety performance data to a composite index is necessary.

A composite index for actual safety performance data needs to factor in the fact that high number

of near-miss reporting and potential hazards reporting is desirable whereas injury and first aids

are undesirable. A composite index for the performance data was unable to be created due to the

small data sample in this study.

To further evaluate whether the safety culture survey created in this study could be used to

predict the actual safety performance, the survey needs to be administered on a larger scale,

including more plants and obtain the associated safety data from each plant. This would be

beneficial in the data analysis and create a more reliable index. Administering the edited survey

again, to a larger group of respondents in tandem with the large scale safety data analysis would

lead to the comparison of the two to determine the safety culture present. Future work includes

differentiating between scores that are within the range of zero to four but do not fall at the

extremes.

If The Company wanted to determine if their safety culture changed after implementing changes

found from this study, the survey could be administered on a yearly basis. This would allow for

the composite index to become a benchmark value for comparisons of different years.

26

References

Bosak, J., Coetsee, W. J., & Cullinane, S.-J. (2013). Safety climate dimensions as predictors for

risk behavior. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 55, 256–264.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.02.022

Center for Dairy Farm Safety - University of Wisconsin - River Falls & Wisconsin Extension.

(2011). Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment. Retrieved January 17, 2017, from

https://www.osha.gov/dte/grant_materials/fy11/sh-22318-

11/Mod_3_HazardIDInstructorNotes.pdf

Connelly, L. M. (2011). Research Roundtable. Cronbach's Alpha. MEDSURG Nursing, 20(1),

45-44.

Goforth, C. (2015, November 16). Using and Interpreting Cronbach’s Alpha. Retrieved March

11, 2017, from http://data.library.virginia.edu/using-and-interpreting-cronbachs-alpha/

Guldenmund, F. W. (2007). The use of questionnaires in safety culture research – an evaluation.

Safety Science, 45(6), 723–743. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.04.006

Kines, P., Lappalainen, J., Mikkelsen, K. L., Olsen, E., Pousette, A., Tharaldsen, J., ... Törner,

M. (2011). Nordic Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50): A new tool for

diagnosing occupational safety climate. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,

41(6), 634–646. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2011.08.004

Miller, N., & Ng, E. (2016). Effectiveness of Safety Culture Survey in Evaluating the Overall

Safety Performance of an Organization: A Proposed Case Study. Charlotte, NC:

American Society for Engineering Management 2016 Annual International Conference.

Natarajan, G. S. (2012). Developing an Environmental Sustainability Index (EnvSI) for Small

and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in the United States: The Case of West Texas

(Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University)

National Safety Council. (2013). Near Miss Reporting Systems. Retrieved January 17, 2017,

from http://www.nsc.org/WorkplaceTrainingDocuments/Near-Miss-Reporting-

Systems.pdf

Navarro, M. F. L., Gracia Lerín, F. J., Tomás, I., & Peiró Silla, J. M. (2013). Validation of the

group nuclear safety climate questionnaire. Journal of Safety Research, 46, 21–30.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2013.03.005

Ostrom, L., Wilhelmsen, C., & Kaplan, B. (1993). Assessing safety culture. Nuclear Safety,

34(2), 163–172

Sammer, C. E., Lykens, K., Singh, K. P., Mains, D. A., & Lackan, N. A. (2010). What is Patient

Safety Culture? A Review of the Literature. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 42(2), 156–

165. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01330.x

United States Department of Labor. (n.d.). OSHA Injury and Illness Recordkeeping and

Reporting Requirements. Retrieved March 11, 2017, from

https://www.osha.gov/recordkeeping/

Vaske, J., Beaman J., Sponarksi, C. (2016): Rethinking Internal Consistency in Cronbach's

Alpha, Leisure Sciences, DOI: 10.1080/01490400.2015.1127189

27

Wiegmann, D. A., Zhang, H., Thaden, T. L. von, Sharman, G., & Gibbons, A. M. (2004). Safety

Culture: An Integrative Review. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 14(2),

117–134.

28

Appendix

Safety Culture Survey

A total of 58 questions, excluding control (demographic) and safety committee involvement

questions, were included in the original survey.

11 questions will be removed from future survey due to internal consistency errors, and one

question will be reworded for future survey.

• Questions that will be deleted from future survey are shaded in grey.

• Question that will be reworded is shaded in grey, bolded and italicized.

1

Safety Culture Survey Purpose: You are being asked to take part in a research study. The purpose of this research study is to learn more about the safety

practices in your workplace and comparing the results to the safety records. Additionally, the findings may be used for honors thesis

research. The student researcher on this study is an intern in The Company.

Activities: The study activities include answering questions in a questionnaire.

Time: Approximately 10 minutes per questionnaire.

Risks: We do not anticipate any risks to you, however, the security and confidentiality of information collected from you online cannot

be guaranteed. Confidentiality will be kept to the extent permitted by the technology being used.

Benefits: We do not anticipate any immediate benefits, however we anticipate you might benefit over the long run.

Confidentiality: All information gathered from this questionnaire will remain confidential. There is a chance you may be identified

through the basic demographic information collected for descriptive purposes, however, your individual responses will not be shared

with the The Company. We will write a report when the study is over, and we will share a final report with the safety team. This report

will not identify you.

Voluntary: Participation in this study is voluntary. Consent will not impact your status as an employee in the company, and you may

choose to stop at any time during the questionnaire. Study contacts: If you have any questions about this research project, please

contact Professor Ean Ng at [email protected] or (541) 737-0570. If you have questions about your rights or welfare as a

participant, please contact the Oregon State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) Office, at (541) 737-8008 or by email at

[email protected]

Completing this survey indicates that you are 18 years of age or older, and indicates your consent to participate in this survey.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2

Page intentionally left blank.

3

How long have you been working in this company?

Less than 1 year

1 to 3 years

3 to 5 years

5 to 10 years

More than 10 years

The location of your plant:

Plant 1

Plant 2

Plant 3

Plant 4

The department that you work in:

QC Lab

Maintenance

Yard

Production

Rebar

Other

For the following questions, base your answer on your own personal experience and beliefs about management commitment,

priority, and competence towards safety. Although some questions may appear very similar, please answer each one of them.

4

Strongly

disagree Disagree Somewhat

disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Agree Strongly agree

Management encourages employees here to work in accordance with safety rules - even when the work schedule is tight.

Management places safety above production.

Management accepts employees here taking risks when the work schedule is tight.

Even when the work schedule is busy, management understands that staying safe means not being rushed.



5

Strongly


disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree


Management ensures that everyone receives the necessary information on safety.

We who work here trust in management to give us all the necessary information on safety.

Management communicates the necessary information on safety to all employees.

Management tells the employees, they feel will benefit the most, necessary information on safety.



6

Strongly


disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree


Management looks the other way when an employee is careless with safety.

We who work here have confidence in the management's ability to deal with safety.

Management is unequipped to deal with safety properly.

Management is able to deal with safety properly and efficiently.

For the following questions, base your answer on your own personal experience and beliefs about management commitment, priority,

and competence towards safety. Although some questions may appear very similar, please answer each one of them.

Strongly


disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree


Management ensures that safety problems discovered during safety rounds/evaluations are corrected immediately.

Safety communications are a part of my daily work activities.

When a safety problem is found, management addresses the problem in a timely manner.

Management knows what kind of safety problems to look for during safety rounds/evaluations and how to correct them.



7

Strongly


disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree


Management strives to design safety routines that are meaningful and work well.

Management is unconcerned whether the safety routines work to improve safety.

The safety routines and policies in place are valuable and work to improve safety.

Management will update a safety routine or policy to make sure it stays relevant, purposeful and works well.

For the following questions, base your answer on your own personal experience and beliefs about management justice with safety.

Although some questions may appear very similar, please answer each one of them.

8

Strongly


disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree


Management collects accurate information during accident investigations.

Management listens carefully to all who have been involved in an accident.

Management talks to the employees involved when gathering information about an accident.

After an accident, management performs an investigation that includes collecting all the necessary information.



9

Strongly


disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree


Fear of sanctions (negative consequences) from management discourages employees here from reporting near-miss or near-hit accidents.

Employees understand that reporting near-miss or near-hit accidents will not result in negative consequences.

Management does not punish employees for reporting near-miss or near-hit accidents.

Reporting near-miss or near-hit accidents puts the employee's job at risk.



Strongly


disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree


Management does not blame the victim when accidents occur.

Management believes that accidents can be at the error of the victim .

Management understands that accidents are not the failings of the victim.



10

Strongly


disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree


Management applies the lessons it has learned from past operating experience.

Management believes that accidents are a good opportunity to look at the safety procedures in place.

Management is open to fixing safety procedures if they are the cause of unsafe work practices.

After an accident, management takes the opportunity to review the safety procedures in place.

For the following questions, base your answer on your own personal experience and beliefs about workers' commitment to safety and

training. Although some questions may appear very similar, please answer each one of them.

Strongly


disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree


We have received the training necessary to perform our jobs.

The training I receive meets my expectations about safety.

Training is provided in a manner (e.g., classroom, on the job, required reading, briefing) that helps me understand how to apply safety principles and controls to my work.

We who work here learn safety related concepts and ideas during the safety training.

For the following questions, base your answer on your own personal experience and beliefs about workers' commitment to safety

and training. Although some questions may appear very similar, please answer each one of them.

11

Strongly


disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree


We who work here take joint responsibility to ensure that the workplace is always kept tidy.

We who work here clean after ourselves and make sure our workplace is kept clean.

We who work here do NOT make a joint effort to keep the workplace orderly.

We who work here feel that a tidy work environment is NOT an important part of safety.



12

Strongly


disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree


We who work here avoid tackling safety risks that are discovered.

We who work here want safety risks to be addressed and taken care of.

We who work here make an effort to communicate risks that are discovered.

We who work here address risk with management to make sure they are taken care of.

For the following questions, base your answer on your own personal experience and beliefs about workers' commitment to safety and

training. Although some questions may appear very similar, please answer each one of them.

Strongly


disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree


In my work group, we plan, control, and execute work activities such that safety is the overriding priority.

In my work group, we routinely identify and manage risk as part of our work processes.

Safety is our top priority when we are completing work tasks.



13

Strongly


disagree Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree


We communicate with others in our work group to ensure safety is emphasized.

We who work here hold our coworkers accountable for staying safe on the job.

We who work here believe that coworker safety is very important.

We who work here encourage everyone to think safely and be accountable for safety.

For the following questions, base your answer on your own personal experience and beliefs about your own responsibility to create a safe

work environment. Although some questions may appear very similar, please answer each one of them.

Strongly


disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree


I understand it is my responsibility to complete my work safely.

When I am at work, I make an effort to stay safe.

When I am at work, I am always thinking about safety and making sure what I'm doing is safe.

While I am at work, safety is my top priority.

For the following questions, base your answer on your own personal experience and beliefs about your own responsibility to create a

safe work environment. Although some questions may appear very similar, please answer each one of them.

14

Strongly


disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree


I am responsible for taking action when I see potentially unsafe behaviors or conditions.

I feel comfortable telling management if I feel like my work space is an unsafe work environment.

I would not work in an unsafe environment.

I feel like I have a voice in this workplace in regards to safety.

For the following questions, base your answer on your own personal experience and beliefs about your own responsibility to create a safe

work environment. Although some questions may appear very similar, please answer each one of them.

Strongly


disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree


I do whatever I can to make sure my work environment is safe.

I accept unsafe work environments.

I make it a priority to have a safe work environment.



15

Strongly


disagree Neither

agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree


I understand the importance of safety rules in my work.

I understand the safety policies and safety related goals of the company.

I am aware of safety related goals and policies as determined by the company.

I feel a responsibility to follow the company's safety policies and goals.

To the best of your knowledge, is there a safety committee in your workplace?

Yes

No

I am not sure

Are you involved in the safety committee in any way? For example, being a leader, a committee member, job safety evaluation, a

reviewer etc.

Yes

No

If you answer “Yes” to this question, please proceed. Otherwise, you have completed the survey.

We thank you for your participation.

If you answer “Yes” to this question, please proceed. Otherwise, you have completed the survey.

We thank you for your participation.



16

Thank you for participating in this study.

Strongly disagree

Disagree Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree


I am involved with safety committees because I want to work in a safe environment.

I am involved with job safety evaluations.

I am involved with job safety evaluations because I want to work in a safe environment.

Effectiveness of Safety Culture Survey in Evaluating the ...

Documents

Transcript of Effectiveness of Safety Culture Survey in Evaluating the ...