Jourml ofSa& Research Vol. 22, pp. 97-103.1991 0022-4375/91$3.00 + .

OO
Q 1991 National Safety Council and Pergamon Press plc Rited in the USA

A Safety Climate Measure

for Construction Sites

Nicole Dedobbeleer and FranCok Beland

This study tests Brown and Holmes’ (1986) three-factor safety climate
model on construction workers. In this model, climate was viewed as molar
perceptions people have of their work settings. Data were collected by a self-
administered questionnaire in a cross-sectional survey conducted among 384
workers employed in nine nonresidential construction sites in Baltimore, MD.
The response rate was 71%. Results using two linear structural relations
(LISREL) procedures (maximum likelihood used by Brown and Holmes and
weighted least squares) indicated a good model fit. The weighted least
squares procedure, which is more appropriate for our data, revealed that a
two-factor model provided an overall better fit. The two factors were (a)
management’s commitment to safety and (b) workers’ involvement in safety.
This model emphasizes management and workers’ involvement in safety
matters. Results also suggest the necessity of addressing concerns of these two
groups in safety policies.

Although the concept of climate has appropriateness of behavior. Based on a vari-

appeared in the literature for over 20 years,
disputes still rage about what it means and
how it is measured, In industrial organizations,
safety climate models have been constructed
for production workers by Zohar (1980) and
Brown and Holmes (1986). In these two mod-
els, climate was viewed as molar perceptions
people have of their work settings. Following
Ryan (1970), and Dieterly and Schneider
(1974), these models assumed that these per-
ceptions are developed because they are neces-
sary as a frame of reference for gauging the
Nicole Dedobbeleer, Sc.D., is an Assistant Professor,
Department of Preventive and Social Medicine and member
of the Inte.rdisciplinary Research Group in Health (GRIS),
Universitk de Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
Francois Beland, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor.
Deparkent of Health Admmistration and member of the
(GRIS), Universid de Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
Portions of this paper have been presented at the
International Conference on Strategies for Occupational
Prevention, Stockholm, Sweden, 21-22 September 1989.
Summer 1991Molume 22lNunrber 2
ety of cues present in their work environment,
employees were believed to develop coherent
sets of perceptions and expectations regarding
behavior-outcome contingencies and behaving
accordingly (Frederiksen, Jensen, & Beaton,
1972, and Schneider, 1975a, 1975b). As in
both models, safety climate was viewed as an
individual attribute as opposed to an organiza-
tional attribute, the term psychological climate
was applied to the two models (James &
Jones, 1974).
According to James and Jones, psychologi-
cal climate is subject to serious theoretical
and methodological questions. With respect
to safety climate, these questions may be
raised about the number of dimensions rele-
vant to the safety climate domain. Zohar’s
model, constructed on an Israeli population,
included eight dimensions: (a) importance of
safety training programs; (b) management
attitudes toward safety; (c) effects of safe
conduct on promotion; (d) level of risk at
97
workplace; (e) effects of required work pace
on safety; (f) status of safety officer; (g)
effects of safe conduct on social status; and
(h) status of safety committee. This model
was validated by Brown and Holmes on an
American sample of production workers and
was reduced from an eight-factor to a three-
factor model. In this three-factor model, the
following dimensions were retained: (a)
employee perception of how concerned man-
agement is with their well-being; (b) employ-
ee perception of how active management is in
responding to this concern; and (c) employee
physical risk perception.
As the validity of a safety climate model
depends in part on its applicability to groups
other than production workers, we tested
Brown and Holmes’ three-factor model on
construction workers. To perform this test, we
used two (LISREL) procedures: (a) the maxi-
mum likelihood method chosen by Brown and
Holmes, and (b) the weighted least squares
method, which is now available and is more
appropriate for polychotomous ordinal level
variables. We will compare the results
obtained with these two procedures.
h4ETHODS
Setting and Subjects
The study was conducted on nine nonresi-
dential construction sites located in the
Baltimore, MD, Metropolitan Area. These
sites were selected from Reports on
Metropolitan Building Permit Activity devel-
oped by the Regional Planning Council
according to the following criteria: (a) con-
struction ranging from the framing stage to the
stage prior to the finishing stage; (b) new pro-
jects or new projects with alterations: and (c)
projects valued at $500,000 or more. Fifteen
contractors had construction projects conform-
ing to these criteria from August to December
1983, all were contacted. Seven contractors
refused to collaborate (i.e., problem with insur-
ance coverage for observers, fear of work dis-
ruption, and labor time costs induced by the
administration of the questionnaire), eight
agreed, and two were found ineligible (i.e., site
did not correspond to criteria). Among the six
remaining contractors, three had two sites and
three had one site, for a total of nine sites.
98
The study population was a sample of 384
eligible workers drawn from the 572 workers
employed at the nine sites. Workers were eligi-
ble if they were allowed to participate in the
study by their employer and if at least 50% of
the safety practices examined were applicable
to their work. These safety practices were a
sampling of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) safety standards relat-
ed to ladder use, scaffold use, and personal pro-
tective device use (i.e., hard hats, safety shoes,
and safety belts). The survey response rate was
71%, or 272 workers. Eighteen workers were
excluded because of response omission to the
majority of the questions, particularly to ques-
tions on safety practices.
Instruments and Data Collection
A self-administered questionnaire was used
to collect data from workers at the worksite.
The closed-format questionnaire incorporated
items on socio-demographic and employment
characteristics, safety practices, safety train-
ing, safety instructions at initial employment,
knowledge about safety practices, attitudes
toward safety practices, perceptions of the
workplace, and other social-psychological
factors. The researcher was present while the
respondents filled out the questionnaire at six
sites. A detailed consent form was given to
the workers before they started the question-
naire to insure that they fully understood the
nature of their participation in the study.
Measures
The three dimensions of Brown and
Holmes’ safety climate model were measured
with nine variables. These variables were cho-
sen to represent safety concerns in the con-
struction industry and were not all identical to
those included in Zohar’s questionnaire. Each
dimension included three variables. Appendix
1 presents the questions used to measure the
nine variables.
Employee perception of management con-
cerns was based on items indicating employ-
ee’s perceptions of management’s attitude
toward safety practices, and employee’s per-
ceptions of management’s attitude toward
workers’ safety and foremen’s behavior.
Management’s attitude toward safety practices
(MANA. PRACTICES) was derived from the
worker’s perception of the importance of safe-
Journal of Safety Research
 FIGURE 1
TWO MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD SOLUTIONS FOR THE SAFETY CLIMATE
MODEL IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
A) Three-factor model (total coefficient of determination: .884)

.46

Management
Factors:
concerns

Indicators: Practices Safety Foreman Instructions Mectings Equip

.48 1 .14 1 .61 t .I9t .L8j .34 1

Errors: el ez e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9

B) Two-factor model (Total coefficient of determination: 850)

.63

Factors: Management 5 Workers

commitment involvement

Indicators: Practices Safety Foreman Instructions Equip

Errors: 5 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 e7 e8 e9

(1) The measure of association shown on the mows between the factors are correlation coerficients

(2) The measure of association between the factors and their indicators are regression coefficients

(3) The measures of association between the indicator: and the ‘e’ can be interpreted as the error of prediction in regression equations

Summer 1991lVolwne 22INumber 2 99

ty practices to top management and was mea-
sured by a four-point rating scale ranging
from “very important” to “not at all impor-
tant.” Management’s attitude toward workers’
safety (MANA. SAFETY) was derived from
the worker’s perception of this attitude and
was measured by an itemized rating scale.
Foreman’s behavior (FOREMAN) was
derived from the worker’s perception of the
actions taken by the foreman to enforce safety,
and was measured by an itemized rating scale.
Employee perception of management safety
activities included safety instructions, safety
meetings, and employee’s perceptions of the
availability of proper equipment. Safety
instructions (INSTRUCTIONS) referred to
the employee’s self-reported exposure to
instructions on the safety policy of the compa-
ny at the time of initial employment. Safety
meetings (MEETINGS) was the worker’s per-
ception of the presence of regular safety meet-
ings at the worksite. Proper equipment
(EQUIP) was the worker’s perception of the
availability of proper equipment at the work-
site, and was measured by a five-point rating
scale ranging from “always” to “never.”
Employee’s physical risk perception includ-
ed employee’s perceived control, perception of
risk-taking, and perceived likelihood of
injuries. Perceived control (CONTROL) was
defined as the worker’s perception of control
over his/her own safety on the job, and mea-
sured by a four-point rating scale. Perception
of risk-taking (RISK) referred to the worker’s
perception of the extent to which risk-taking is
part of the job, and was measured by a three-
point rating scale ranging from “very much” to
“not at all.” Perceived likelihood of injuries
(INJURIES) was defined as the worker’s pcr-
ception of his/her susceptibility to work-relat-
ed injuries in the next 12 months, and was
measured by a four-point rating scale ranging
from “very likely” to “not at all likely.”
TABLE 1
TEST OF THE HOLMES AND BROWN’S SAFETY CLIMATE MODEL USING THE
WEIGHTED LEAST SQUARES METHOD
Model df X2 pValues
1 factor 27 43.65 0.022
2 factor 26 21.19 0.732
3 factor 24 16.45 0.871
100
Analysis
To test for the replication of Brown and
Holmes’ three-factor structures in our data,
two LISREL procedures were applied to the
nine variables described above. The maximum
likelihood method chosen by Brown and
Holmes was used first. Our second step was to
use the weighted least squares method to esti-
mate the parameters of the model (Joreskog
and Sorbom, 1988), as the data analyzed in
this study are made up of polychotomous
ordinal level data. This method is more appro-
priate for our data than the maximum likeli-
hood method, which is recommended for nor-
mally distributed and continuous variables.
Because we had ordinal variables, we also
entered polychoric correlations in the LISREL
model. In the second step, the three-factor
model was tested against a two-factor model
and a one-factor model using the X2 statistics.
RESULTS
Results from the maximum likelihood
method indicated that Brown and Holmes’
model was supported by our data (X2 = 28.67,
df = 24, p = .233). Further tests of this model
were then conducted by reducing the number
of factors from three to two (Figure 1, Panel
A and B for a description of the models), and
then from two to one. The two-factor model
was barely acceptable (X2 = 36.57, df = 26,
p = 0.082). The one factor model was rejected
according to the X2 criterion (X2 = 51.07, df =
27, p = 0.003). The difference between the
three-factor and two-factor models was then
tested. Results indicated that there was a sta-
tistically significant difference between the
two models (AX2 = 7.90, Adf = 2, p = 0.019).
Subsequently, Brown and Holmes’ safety cli-
mate model was retained as the best fit model.
X2 df p Values
22.46 1 O.ooO
4.74 2 0.093
Journal of Safety Research
 FIGURE 2
TWO WEIGHTED LEAST SQUARES SOLUTIONS FOR THE SAFETY CLIMATE
MODEL IN CONSTRU~ION INDUSTRY

A) Three-factor model (total coefficient of determination: .943)

Management
Factors:
concerns

Indicators: Practices Safety Foreman Instructions Meetings Equip Control Risk Injuries

.55 t 23 t .53 t ,601 .72t .41 t ,591 ,761 .&St

Errors: 5 e2 e3 e4 e5 e6 el e8 e9

B) Two-factor model (Total coefficient of determination: .923)

.61

Factors: blanagementn Workers

commitment involvement

Indicators: Practices Safety Foreman Instructions Equip

Errors:

(1) The measure of association shown on the arrows between the factors are correlation coeficients

(2) The measure of association between the factors and their indicators ar_ regression coefficients

(3) The measures of association between the indicators and the ‘e’ can be interpreted as the error of prediction in regression equations

Results using the weighted least squares (see Figure 2, Panel A for a description of this
method are given in Table 1. The three-factor model). The fit for this model is a p value of
Brown and Holmes model was not rejected 371. Further tests of this model were con-
Summer 19911Volume 22lNumber 2 IO1
ducted by reducing the number of factors
from three to two, and then from two to one.
The two-factor model was tested and indicat-
ed a p value of .732 (Figure 2, Panel B). The
model with one-factor was rejected according
to the X2 criterion.
The three-factor and two-factor models were
tested for differences (Table 1). The difference
between the X2 of these two models was 4.74
with 2 degrees of freedom, which isn’t a signif-
icant difference. Thus, the two-factor model
was retained because it was as efficient as the
three-factor model in describing the safety cli-
mate and was the best fitting model according
to the difference between X2%.
The two-factor model is described in Figure
2, Panel B. The first factor comprised workers’
perceptions of management’s attitude toward
safety practices and workers’ safety, workers’
perception of foreman’s behavior, and avail-
ability of proper equipment and safety instruc-
tions at the time of initial employment. As the
variables included in this dimension are work-
ers’ perceptions of management’s safety atti-
tudes and actions, it was labelled “manage-
ment commitment to safety.” The second fac-
tor included workers’ perceptions of suscepti-
bility to injuries in the next 12 months, risk-
taking at work, perception of control over
one’s own safety on the job, and presence of
regular safety meetings. And as workers’ per-
ception of risk was related to items expressing
workers’ perceptions of control over their own
safety, the second factor was labelled “work-
ers’ involvement in safety.”
DISCUSSION
The results of this study provide some sup-
port for the Brown and Holmes safety climate
model, though the nine variables included in
this study were adapted to the construction
industry. Results using the maximum likeli-
hood and weighted least squares procedures
indicated a good model fit. The Brown and
Holmes model was, however, not retained in
our study because the more appropriate pro-
cedure for our data, the LISREL weighted
least squares procedure, revealed that a two-
factor safety climate model provided an over-
all better fit. Now we are left debating if
Brown and Holmes would have found a simi-
102
lar result had they used the weighted least
squares procedure.
The first factor in the two-factor model
measured management’s commitment to safe-
ty in terms of management’s safety attitudes
and practices. Contrary to production workers,
construction workers perceived management’s
words and deeds as a single dimension.
The second factor was labelled workers’
involvement in safety. This label was given
because indicators of worker’s physical risk
perception that defined the third factor of the
Brown and Holmes model were associated in
this study with indicators of workers’ percep-
tions of control. This association led us to
speculate that workers’ perceptions of risk
and control may be highly related to workers’
involvement or responsibility for safety. This
result is consistent with those of other stud-
ies. Walter and Haines (1988) indicated that
workers frequently emphasize individual
responsibility for occupational health and
safety. Frenkel et al. (1980) and Nelkin and
Brown (1984) further noted that workers
often rely on individual, private efforts to
cope with occupational problems rather than
raising the problem with a union representa-
tive or pursuing it through other channels.
However, contrary to these views, the results
obtained in this study with the two-factor
model indicate that construction workers per-
ceive safety as a joint responsibility between
individuals and management.
Safety climate, as defined in this two-factor
model, has some practical implications for
practitioners who use a safety climate survey to
evaluate and recognize potential problem areas.
The proposed model can be particularly useful
in the design of such safety climate surveys in
construction industry. The data imply that spe-
cific questions on both workers’ perceptions of
management’s commitment to safety and work-
ers’ involvement or responsibility in safety
should be included in such surveys.
Our results also have implications for the
development of safety policies. Workers’ per-
ceptions of safety climate indicate that these
policies should address both management and
workers’ safety concerns. Management’s safe-
ty concerns and actions should be highly pub-
licized among the workers; safety meetings
can be a proper means for involving workers
in safety matters. Workers’ involvement can
Journal of Safety Research
include participation in the development of
safety programs, conduct of safety audits, and
identification of solutions.
They arc concerned about safety but they could
do more than they are doing to make the job safe. 0
They are really only interested in getting the
job done as fast and cheaply as possible. 0

REI;ERENcES Foreman’s behavior

How much emphasis does the foreman place on safety practices on
the job? (Please check one answer)
Brown, R. L., & Holmes, H. (1986). The use of a factor- He regularly and frequently makes us aware of dangerous
analytic procedure for assessing the validity of an work practices and conditions, and praises us for safe

employee safety climate model. Accident Analysis & conduct. cl

Prevention, 18(6), 445470.
He regularly and frequently makes USaware of dangerous
Dieterly, D., & Schneider, B. (1974). The effect of
work practices and conditions. 0
organizational environment on perceived power and
climate: A laboratory study. Organizational Behavior He occasionally points out the most dangerous work practices
and &man Petformance, II, 316-337. and conditions. 0
Frederiksen, N., Jensen, O., & Beaton, A. E. (1972).
Prediction of organizational behavior. New York: He seldom mentions danger or safety practices. Cl
Pergamon Press.
Frenkel, R. L., Priest, W. C., & Ashford, N. A. (1980). He never mentions danger or safety practices 0
Occupational safety and health: A report on worker
perceptions. bogey Labor&view, I&11-14.
Safety instructions
James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational climate:
When you were hired by your present employer, were you given
A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, instructions on the safety policy. safety requirements of the
81,1098-1112. company?
Jor&kog & Sbrbom. (1988). LISREL VU: A guide to the Yes 0 NO0
program and application (Computer program). Chicago,
a: SPSS Incorporated.
Nelkin, D., & Brown, M. S. (1984). Workers at risk. Safety meetings
Chicago, EL:University of Chicago Press. Are there regularjob safety meetings at your present job site?
Ryan, T. A. (1970). Intentional behavior: An approach to Yes 0 No0
human motivation. New York: Ronald Press.
Schneider, B. (1975a). Organizational climate: Individual
Proper equipment
preferences and organizational realities revisited. IS the proper equipment for your tasks available at your job site?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 60.457-465. Always
Schneider, B. (1975b). Organizational climate: An essay. Most of the lime :
Personnel P~c~iogy, 28,447479. Occasionally cl
Walter, V., & Haines, T. (1988). Workers’ perceptions, Rarely a
knowledge and responses regarding occupational health NcV.3 cl
and safety: A report on a Canadian study. Social Science
and Medicine, 27 (II), 1189-1196.
Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Perceived control
How much control do you feel you have yourself over what hap-
Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied
pens to your safety on the job?
Psychology, 65(I), %-101. Almost no controi
Almost total control :
Primary catrol but luck is a factor Cl
Little conaol, mostly a matter of luck Cl
APPENDIX 1

Perceptlon of risk-taking
Management’s attitude toward safety practkes: Is takingrisks part of the job?
How important do you W the workers’ safety practices are to Very much
the rn~~ement of your company? (Please check one answer) Somewhat
vayixzpmnt Not at all
Relatively important 5:
Highly important 0
Not at all important cl Perceived likelihood of InJuries
How likely do you thii it is that you might be injured on the
job in the next 1Zmonth period? Would you say it is
Management’s attitude toward workers’ safety: Very likely 0
How much do supervisors and other top management seem to care Somewhat likely 0
about your safety? (Please check one answer) Not very liiely
They do as much as possible to make the job safe. 0 Not at all Likely