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: millnata@oregonstate.edu

©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

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
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.
 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.

1
 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.

2
 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.

3
 EFFECTIVENESS OF SAFETY CULTURE SURVEY IN EVALUATING
THE OVERALL SAFETY PERFORMANCE OF AN ORGANIZATION: A
CASE STUDY

Natalie Miller
Ean H. Ng, Ph.D.*
Oregon State University

ean.ng@oregonstate.edu

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

4
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

5
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.

6
 Appendix A
Excerpt of Safety Culture Survey

Question 6:

Question 10:

Question 16:

7
 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, 𝜎𝑦2𝑖 is the variance associated
with each item, i, and 𝜎𝑥2 is the the variance associated with the total observed scores.
𝑘 ∑𝑘 2
𝑖=1 𝜎𝑦 𝑖
𝛼 = (𝑘−1) (1 − ) (Goforth, 2015)
𝜎𝑥2

8
 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 • Innovation

• Teamwork • Training
• Pride and commitment • Customer relations
• Excellence • Procedure compliance
• Honesty • Safety effectiveness
• Communications • Facilities
• Leadership and supervision

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

9
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.

10
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.

11
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

12
 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.

13
 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.

14
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).

15
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 Total Number Response Rate

Employees of Responses
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.

30
Rebar
25 Maintenance
Yard
20
QC Lab
Frequency

Production
15
Other
10

0
Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4

Plant Location

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

16
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.

25

Less than 1 year

20
1 to 3 years
Frequency 3 to 5 years
15
5 to 10 years

10 More than 10 years

0
Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4
Plant Location

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.

17
 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, 0.9222 0.9254
Commitment and Competence
Management Safety Justice 0.8865 0.9320
Workers' Commitment to 0.8883 0.9650
Safety and Training
Individual Responsibility for a 0.8819 0.9423
Safe Work Environment

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

Constructs Question Rewrites for the Total Number Cronbach’s

Number
Management Safety,
Priority, Commitment and
Competence
Management Safety
Justice
Workers' Commitment to
Safety and Training
Individual Responsibility
for a Safe Work
Environment
same question of Questions Alpha
1 3 4 𝛼 = 0.7637
2 2 3 𝛼 = 0.9382
4 3 4 𝛼 = 0.8155
5 3 4 𝛼 = 0.7968
6 3 4 𝛼 = 0.9621
8 3 4 𝛼 = 0.7300
9 3 4 𝛼 = 0.8037
10 3 4 𝛼 = 0.9522
11 3 4 𝛼 = 0.7948
12 3 4 𝛼 = 0.7648
13 2 3 𝛼 = 0.7808
14 3 4 𝛼 = 0.8363
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.

18
 Table 6: The safety culture survey results by constructs.

Constructs Cronbach’s Total Number Average Likert Scale

Alpha of questions score for the construct
Management Safety, Priority,
α = 0.8285 15 5.95
Commitment and Competence
Management Safety Justice α = 0.8319 12 5.73
Workers' Commitment to Safety
α = 0.8265 19 5.97
and Training
Individual Responsibility for a
α = 0.8486 12 6.37
Safe Work Environment

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 Cronbach’s

Response Alpha
Base Question:
• Fear of sanctions (negative consequences) from 4.67
management discourages employees here from
reporting near-miss accidents
Rewrites:
• Employees understand that reporting near-miss 5.44
accidents will not result in negative 0.7272
consequences.
• Management does not punish employees for 5.39
reporting near-miss or near-hit accidents.
• Reporting near-miss accidents puts the 5.37
employee’s jobs at risk.

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

19
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.

80
Injury
70
First-Aid
60
Near Hit
50
Frequency

Potential
40 Hazard

30

20

10

0
Grand Total for all Locations

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

20
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.

Injuries per 100 full-time employees

Location
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.

Near Hits and Potential Hazards First-aids per 100 full-time

Location (NHPH) per 100 full-time employees 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.

21
 Table 10: Combining Safety Culture Survey Results and Safety Performance Data

Construct Survey Safety Data Analysis

Results
Employees are reporting incidents as they
High number of
Management Safety, Priority, Commitment and

happen because they trust that management

reporting for will acknowledge the problem and work to
Near Hit and resolve the causes for NHPH.
Potential Employees who are reporting have
Hazards (NHPH) confidence towards management and believe
(Table 9) that management will do what it takes to keep
Competence

α = 0.8285 the environment they work in safe.

Mean = 5.95 An increase in Management across the region all have the
St. Dev. = reporting of same commitment and goals towards safety
0.511 NHPH for the that is effectively communicated to
region from 2014 employees.
to 2016
The program stresses teamwork, training and
safety. Management created this program to
Code 100
reinvigorate employees’ interests in safety
Introduction
and shows the commitment and priority
management has towards safety.
The main root causes for three of the four
Root causes of recordable injuries were a lack of risk
recordable assessments. After the majority of these
injuries from incidents, management did not blame the
incident reports victim but considered how management’s
procedures could have caused the injury.
After there were 7 hand and finger injuries in
Management Safety Justice

2014, management looked at the accidents to

find opportunities for improvement. From this
α = 0.8319 Decrease in analysis, the hand and finger Behavior Based
Mean = 5.73 finger and hand Safety Observation (BBSO) was created and
St. Dev. = injuries from in 2015 there were no serious finger or hand
0.617 2014 to 2015 injuries, only first aids. Management
reviewed safety procedures and implemented
a program to bring awareness to hand
placement at work.
A management that does not victim blame
when an incident occurs will lead to more
Increase in first-
reporting as seen in the first-aids reports.
aids from 2015
Workers feel comfortable going to
to 2016
management with minor first-aids and feel
confident they will not lose their jobs.

22
Construct Survey Safety Data Analysis
Results
Workers are communicating any risks they
may discovered to management because of
High number of their training and commitment to safety. The
reporting for high number is a result of the diligence in
NHPH (Table 9) reporting and is an indication of a positive
Workers’ Commitment to Safety and Training

safety culture.
Workers were reporting more NHPH in 2016
Increasing then 2015. In 2016, the S.L.A.M. campaign
reporting of was introduced that focused on Stop Look
NHPH from Analyze and Manage. Through this, workers
2015 to 2016 were encouraged to report and were retrained
α = 0.8265
on what to look for with NHPH.
Mean = 5.97
In 2014, there were 5 first-aids and 7 injuries
St. Dev. =
of the hands and fingers. In 2015, there were
0.399
Decrease in 10 first-aids and 0 injuries. The BBSO
finger and hand Program began in 2015 which helped
injuries from workers’ communication with each other
2014 to 2015 about hand placement during work. More
attention and training was introduced,
focusing specifically on hands.
The safety buddies and “brother’s keeper”
aspect of the program works to create a sense
Code 100
of community and brotherhood within the
Program
company, leading to teamwork and more
involvement.
Individually, workers feel responsible for the
High number of safety environment at their location. They
reporting for would like to work in a safe area and are
Individual Responsibility for a Safe Work

NHPH (Table 9) willing to report NHPH to make sure that

their environment is the safest possible.
The program encourages individuals to
critically analyze their environment and speak
S.L.A.M.
Environment.

up about their findings. This increases the

α = 0.8486 Program
responsibility and accountability individuals
Mean = 6.37
have.
St. Dev. =
The program encourages individual safety
0.331
program ownership and engagement in safety.
This increases the individual responsibility
and accountability within the organization.
Code 100
Employees feel they are contributing to the
Program
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.

23
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

24
 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.

25
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

26
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.

27
 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.

28
 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 Ean.Ng@oregonstate.edu 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
IRB@oregonstate.edu

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

1
Page intentionally left blank.

2
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

3
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 Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree nor agree agree
disagree
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.

4
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 Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree nor agree agree
disagree
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.

5
 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 Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree nor agree agree
disagree
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 Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree nor agree agree
disagree
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.

6
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 Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree nor agree agree
disagree
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.

7
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.

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree nor agree agree
disagree
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.

8
 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.

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree nor agree agree
disagree
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.

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.

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree nor agree agree
disagree
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.

9
 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.

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree nor agree agree
disagree
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 Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree nor agree agree
disagree
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.

10
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 Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree nor agree agree
disagree
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.

11
 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 Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree nor agree agree
disagree
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 Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree nor agree agree
disagree
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.

12
 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 Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree nor disagree agree 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 Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree nor agree agree
disagree
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.

13
 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 Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree nor agree agree
disagree
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 Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree nor agree agree
disagree
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.

14
 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 Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree nor agree agree
disagree
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

If you answer “Yes” to this question, please proceed. Otherwise, you have completed the survey.
We thank you for your participation.

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.

15
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 Somewhat Neither Somewhat Agree Strongly

disagree disagree agree nor agree agree
disagree
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.
Thank you for participating in this study.

16