Volume 8, Issue 2 (Spring 2019 2019)
Arch Hyg Sci 2019, 8(2): 109-118 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Khandan M, Koohpaei A, Farshad A A, Hamta A, Danesh F, Vosoughi S. Developing a Questionnaire to Assess Safety Climate at Universities of Medical Sciences. Arch Hyg Sci 2019; 8 (2) :109-118
URL: http://jhygiene.muq.ac.ir/article-1-388-en.html
URL: http://jhygiene.muq.ac.ir/article-1-388-en.html
Mohammad Khandan1 
, Alireza Koohpaei1 , Ali Asghar Farshad2 , Amir Hamta3 , Fatmeh Danesh2 , Shahram Vosoughi * 2
, Alireza Koohpaei1 , Ali Asghar Farshad2 , Amir Hamta3 , Fatmeh Danesh2 , Shahram Vosoughi * 2
1- Department of Occupational Health and Safety, School of Health, Qom University of Medical Sciences
2- Occupational Health Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences
3- Department of Social Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Qom University of Medical Sciences
2- Occupational Health Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences
3- Department of Social Medicine, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Qom University of Medical Sciences
Abstract: (3057 Views)
Background & Aims of the Study: The implementation of safety principles in work environments can directly benefit both employees and the organization by reducing the mental and physical strain, reducing the risk of work-related injuries, and performance improvement. Thus, with the consideration and implementation of safety principles, and the creation of a positive safety climate, organizations can improve their performance and the welfare and safety of their employees. The purpose of this study was to design and provide a domestic questionnaire of safety climate assessment at universities of Health Ministry in 2018-19.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive-analytical study was carried out with the participation of health and safety specialists, methodologists and personnel of the universities of medical sciences. Universities and people were selected randomly. The validity of the questionnaire was measured by CVI and CVR analysis and then the structural validity was studied by factor analysis using R، MPLUS and SmartPLS softwares. Also, to test the reliability of the questionnaire, test-retest test and Cronbach's alpha coefficient used. The analytic methods T and Mann–Whitney were used in SPSS V20 software to measure predictive value.
Results: By forming a group, the Focus Group methodology was used and reached to 37 questions. The test-retest showed a correlation of 0.96 with a one-week interval. Then, data from 265 people were analyzed for exploratory factor analysis. Two questions were deleted. Therefore, a final questionnaire includes 35 questions with five-point Likert scale responses, was obtained. The output of this analysis identified seven subscales for the questionnaire. The reliability of the questionnaire was tested with Cronbach's alpha and was 0.909. The analysis of predictive validity of difference in safety climate and its components between two groups of with and without experience of occupational accident indicated that commitment and performance of management in the field of safety, and environment and conditions of work was significant (P<0.05).
Conclusion: The findings indicated that the questionnaire was acceptable. Since human resources are the main and vital part of organizations, recognizing the status of the organization from their viewpoint is important to them. In the area of safety, it is also necessary to have an instrument for assessing its available atmosphere. This instrument can help managers to plan for the future. It is worth noting that other factors and places can also be investigated in future studies.
Materials and Methods: This descriptive-analytical study was carried out with the participation of health and safety specialists, methodologists and personnel of the universities of medical sciences. Universities and people were selected randomly. The validity of the questionnaire was measured by CVI and CVR analysis and then the structural validity was studied by factor analysis using R، MPLUS and SmartPLS softwares. Also, to test the reliability of the questionnaire, test-retest test and Cronbach's alpha coefficient used. The analytic methods T and Mann–Whitney were used in SPSS V20 software to measure predictive value.
Results: By forming a group, the Focus Group methodology was used and reached to 37 questions. The test-retest showed a correlation of 0.96 with a one-week interval. Then, data from 265 people were analyzed for exploratory factor analysis. Two questions were deleted. Therefore, a final questionnaire includes 35 questions with five-point Likert scale responses, was obtained. The output of this analysis identified seven subscales for the questionnaire. The reliability of the questionnaire was tested with Cronbach's alpha and was 0.909. The analysis of predictive validity of difference in safety climate and its components between two groups of with and without experience of occupational accident indicated that commitment and performance of management in the field of safety, and environment and conditions of work was significant (P<0.05).
Conclusion: The findings indicated that the questionnaire was acceptable. Since human resources are the main and vital part of organizations, recognizing the status of the organization from their viewpoint is important to them. In the area of safety, it is also necessary to have an instrument for assessing its available atmosphere. This instrument can help managers to plan for the future. It is worth noting that other factors and places can also be investigated in future studies.
Type of Study: Original Article |
Subject:
Occuptional Health
Received: 2019/05/29 | Accepted: 2019/06/11 | Published: 2019/08/15
Received: 2019/05/29 | Accepted: 2019/06/11 | Published: 2019/08/15
References
1. 1- Dennis A. Attwood, Joseph M. Deeb and Mary E. Danz-Reece. Ergonomic Solutions for the Process Industries (1st Ed.). Elsevier, USA; 2004. [DOI:10.1016/B978-075067704-2/50003-9]
2. Khandan M. Survey relationship between safety climate and ergonomics behavior in workplace. Thesis in Master of Science in ergonomics. University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, 2010. [In Persian]
3. Hassanzadeh Rangi N, Allahyari T, Khosravi Y, Zaeri F, Saremi M. Development of an Occupational Cognitive Failure Questionnaire (OCFQ): Evaluation validity and reliability. Iran Occupational Health Journal 2012; 9(1):29-40.
4. Brancato G, Macchia S, Murgia M, Signore M, Simeoni G. Blanke K, et al. Handbook of Recommended Practices for Questionnaire Development and Testing in the European Statistical System. 1st version. Italy: National Statistical Institute, 2006.
5. Giesen D, Meertrns V, Vis-Visschers R, Beukenhorst D. Questionnaire development. Statistics Netherlands, 2012.
6. Rattray J, Jones MC. Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. J Clin Nurs 2007;16(2):234-43. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01573.x]
7. Stanton NA, Hedge A, Brookhuis K, Salas E, Hendrick HW. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods. USA: CRC Press, 2004. [DOI:10.1201/9780203489925]
8. M.N. Vinodkumar and M. Bhasi. Safety climate factors and its relationship with accidents and personal attributes in the chemical industry. Safety Science. 2009; 47: 659-667. [DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2008.09.004]
9. Tsung-Chih Wu, Sen-Yu Shiau, Gwo-Yi Lee, Chi-Min Shu, Interaction Effects of Organizational and Individual Factors on Safety Climate in College and University Laboratories. Journal of Occupational Safety and Health, 2009; 17: 265-282.
10. Wu TC, Liu CW, Lu MC. Safety climate in university and college laboratories: impact of organizational and individual factors. J Safety Res. 2007;38(1):91-102. Epub 2007 Feb 15. [DOI:10.1016/j.jsr.2007.01.003]
11. Dominic Cooper. Improving Safety Culture: A Practical Guide. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. UK; 2001.
12. Hoffmeister K, Gibbons A, Schwatka N, Rosecrance J. Ergonomics Climate Assessment: A measure of operational performance and employee well-being. Applied Ergonomics. 2015; 50: 160-169. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.03.011]
13. Stanton N, Hedge A, Brookhuis K, Salas E, Hendrick H. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics methods (first edition). Crcpress, USA. 2005; P: 633. [DOI:10.1201/9780203489925]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Owned by Qom University of Medical Sciences
Published by Qom University of Medical Sciences Press
eISSN: 2322-4916
pISSN: 2251-9203
Email: arch.hygiene[at]muq.ac.ir
arch.hygiene[at]gmail.com
