CROSSTABS

/TABLES=AccidentType BY ResponsibleDepartment ResourceManagement Organizatio

nalClimate
OrganizationalProcess UnsafeSupervision EnvironmentalFactors PersonnelFact
ors Errors Violations
/FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES
/STATISTICS=CHISQ PHI LAMBDA
/CELLS=COUNT
/COUNT ROUND CELL.

Crosstabs

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Accident Type * 97 100.0% 0 0.0% 97 100.0%
Responsible Department
Accident Type * Resource 97 100.0% 0 0.0% 97 100.0%
Management
Accident Type * 97 100.0% 0 0.0% 97 100.0%
Organizational Climate
Accident Type * 97 100.0% 0 0.0% 97 100.0%
Organizational Process
Accident Type * Unsafe 97 100.0% 0 0.0% 97 100.0%
Supervision
Accident Type * 97 100.0% 0 0.0% 97 100.0%
Environmental Factors
Accident Type * Personnel 97 100.0% 0 0.0% 97 100.0%
Factors
Accident Type * Errors 97 100.0% 0 0.0% 97 100.0%
Accident Type * Violations 97 100.0% 0 0.0% 97 100.0%

Accident Type * Responsible Department

Page 1
 Crosstab
Count
Responsible Department
Engineering External Mechanical Traffic Unidentified
Accident Type Collision 6 24 1 8 2
Derailment 11 2 8 20 5
Locomotive Failure 0 0 1 0 2
SPAD 0 1 1 4 1
Total 17 27 11 32 10

Crosstab
Count

Total
Accident Type Collision 41
Derailment 46
Locomotive Failure 3
SPAD 7
Total 97

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 49.555 12 .000

Likelihood Ratio 50.670 12 .000

N of Valid Cases 97

a. 13 cells (65.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .31.

Page 2
 Directional Measures
Asymptotic
Standard Error a
Value
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .345 .072
Accident Type Dependent .431 .075
Responsible Department .277 .076
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent .271 .062
Responsible Department .149 .039
Dependent

Directional Measures

Approximate Tb
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric 4.182
Accident Type Dependent 4.800
Responsible Department 3.251
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent
Responsible Department
Dependent

Directional Measures

Approximate
Significance
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .000
Accident Type Dependent .000
Responsible Department .001
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent .000 c
Responsible Department .000 c
Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on chi-square approximation

Page 3
 Symmetric Measures
Approximate
Value Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi .715 .000
Cramer's V .413 .000
N of Valid Cases 97

Accident Type * Resource Management

Crosstab
Count
Resource Management
Budget- Equipment- Human-
Restriction Issues Resource NA
Accident Type Collision 8 0 3 30
Derailment 0 15 1 30
Locomotive Failure 0 2 1 0
SPAD 0 0 0 7
Total 8 17 5 67

Crosstab
Count

Total
Accident Type Collision 41
Derailment 46
Locomotive Failure 3
SPAD 7
Total 97

Page 4
 Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 38.831 9 .000

Likelihood Ratio 47.051 9 .000

N of Valid Cases 97

a. 12 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .15.

Directional Measures
Asymptotic
Standard Error a
Value
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .148 .096
Accident Type Dependent .196 .149
Resource Management .067 .046
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent .201 .024
Resource Management .143 .020
Dependent

Directional Measures

Approximate Tb
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric 1.409
Accident Type Dependent 1.187
Resource Management 1.429
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent
Resource Management
Dependent

Page 5
 Directional Measures

Approximate
Significance
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .159
Accident Type Dependent .235
Resource Management .153
Dependent
c
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent .000
c
Resource Management .000
Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on chi-square approximation

Symmetric Measures
Approximate
Value Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi .633 .000
Cramer's V .365 .000
N of Valid Cases 97

Accident Type * Organizational Climate

Crosstab
Count
Organizational Climate
Company Structure of
Culture NA Command Total
Accident Type Collision 3 36 2 41
Derailment 10 36 0 46
Locomotive Failure 2 1 0 3
SPAD 1 5 1 7
Total 16 78 3 97

Page 6
 Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 13.435 6 .037

Likelihood Ratio 12.260 6 .056

N of Valid Cases 97

a. 7 cells (58.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .09.

Directional Measures
Asymptotic
Standard Error a
Value
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .043 .122
Accident Type Dependent .039 .165
Organizational Climate .053 .089
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent .046 .022
Organizational Climate .074 .054
Dependent

Directional Measures

Approximate Tb
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .342
Accident Type Dependent .233
Organizational Climate .578
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent
Organizational Climate
Dependent

Page 7
 Directional Measures

Approximate
Significance
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .732
Accident Type Dependent .816
Organizational Climate .563
Dependent
c
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent .041
c
Organizational Climate .027
Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on chi-square approximation

Symmetric Measures
Approximate
Value Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi .372 .037
Cramer's V .263 .037
N of Valid Cases 97

Accident Type * Organizational Process

Crosstab
Count
Organizational Process
Deadline-
Pressure NA Oversight SOPs Total
Accident Type Collision 0 37 4 0 41
Derailment 1 44 0 1 46
Locomotive Failure 0 3 0 0 3
SPAD 0 4 1 2 7
Total 1 88 5 3 97

Page 8
 Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 23.653 9 .005

Likelihood Ratio 17.976 9 .035

N of Valid Cases 97

a. 13 cells (81.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .03.

Directional Measures
Asymptotic
Standard Error a
Value
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .083 .040
Accident Type Dependent .098 .049
Organizational Process .000 .000
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent .073 .023
Organizational Process .102 .075
Dependent

Directional Measures

Approximate Tb
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric 1.926
Accident Type Dependent 1.926
Organizational Process .c
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent
Organizational Process
Dependent

Page 9
 Directional Measures

Approximate
Significance
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .054
Accident Type Dependent .054
Organizational Process .c
Dependent
d
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent .013
d
Organizational Process .001
Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
d. Based on chi-square approximation

Symmetric Measures
Approximate
Value Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi .494 .005
Cramer's V .285 .005
N of Valid Cases 97

Accident Type * Unsafe Supervision

Crosstab
Count
Unsafe Supervision
Failed-to- Planned-
Correct-a- Inadequate- Inappropriate-
Problem Supervision NA Operations
Accident Type Collision 5 2 26 5
Derailment 2 19 15 5
Locomotive Failure 1 2 0 0
SPAD 0 0 5 2
Total 8 23 46 12

Page 10
 Crosstab
Count
Unsafe ...

Supervisory-
Violation Total
Accident Type Collision 3 41
Derailment 5 46
Locomotive Failure 0 3
SPAD 0 7
Total 8 97

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 30.427 12 .002

Likelihood Ratio 34.969 12 .000

N of Valid Cases 97

a. 14 cells (70.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .25.

Directional Measures
Asymptotic
a
Standard Error
Value
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .196 .101
Accident Type Dependent .275 .127
Unsafe Supervision .118 .111
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent .156 .051
Unsafe Supervision .115 .034
Dependent

Page 11
 Directional Measures

b
Approximate T
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric 1.827
Accident Type Dependent 1.871
Unsafe Supervision 1.005
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent
Unsafe Supervision
Dependent

Directional Measures

Approximate
Significance
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .068
Accident Type Dependent .061
Unsafe Supervision .315
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent .000 c
Unsafe Supervision .000 c
Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on chi-square approximation

Symmetric Measures
Approximate
Value Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi .560 .002
Cramer's V .323 .002
N of Valid Cases 97

Accident Type * Environmental Factors

Page 12
 Crosstab
Count
Environmental Factors
Physical- Technological-
NA Environment Environment Total
Accident Type Collision 40 0 1 41
Derailment 30 3 13 46
Locomotive Failure 1 0 2 3
SPAD 6 0 1 7
Total 77 3 17 97

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 19.557 6 .003

Likelihood Ratio 21.781 6 .001

N of Valid Cases 97

a. 7 cells (58.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .09.

Directional Measures
Asymptotic
a
Standard Error
Value
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .155 .111
Accident Type Dependent .196 .147
Environmental Factors .050 .084
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent .114 .037
Environmental Factors .160 .058
Dependent

Page 13
 Directional Measures

b
Approximate T
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric 1.299
Accident Type Dependent 1.204
Environmental Factors .578
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent
Environmental Factors
Dependent

Directional Measures

Approximate
Significance
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .194
Accident Type Dependent .229
Environmental Factors .563
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent .000 c
Environmental Factors .000 c
Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on chi-square approximation

Symmetric Measures
Approximate
Value Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi .449 .003
Cramer's V .318 .003
N of Valid Cases 97

Accident Type * Personnel Factors

Page 14
 Crosstab
Count
Personnel Factors
Crew-
Resource- Personal-
Management NA Readiness Total
Accident Type Collision 12 25 4 41
Derailment 8 38 0 46
Locomotive Failure 0 3 0 3
SPAD 4 2 1 7
Total 24 68 5 97

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 14.017 6 .029

Likelihood Ratio 16.272 6 .012

N of Valid Cases 97

a. 8 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .15.

Directional Measures
Asymptotic
a
Standard Error
Value
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .125 .062
Accident Type Dependent .157 .088
Personnel Factors .069 .082
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent .063 .028
Personnel Factors .094 .049
Dependent

Page 15
 Directional Measures

b
Approximate T
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric 1.858
Accident Type Dependent 1.656
Personnel Factors .819
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent
Personnel Factors
Dependent

Directional Measures

Approximate
Significance
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .063
Accident Type Dependent .098
Personnel Factors .413
Dependent
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent .006 c
Personnel Factors .006 c
Dependent

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Based on chi-square approximation

Symmetric Measures
Approximate
Value Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi .380 .029
Cramer's V .269 .029
N of Valid Cases 97

Accident Type * Errors

Page 16
 Crosstab
Count
Errors
Decision NA Perceptual Skill-Based Total
Accident Type Collision 9 16 14 2 41
Derailment 1 35 5 5 46
Locomotive Failure 1 2 0 0 3
SPAD 0 7 0 0 7
Total 11 60 19 7 97

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 26.235 9 .002

Likelihood Ratio 29.723 9 .000

N of Valid Cases 97

a. 11 cells (68.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .22.

Directional Measures
Asymptotic
Standard Error a
Value
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .193 .049
Accident Type Dependent .333 .086
Errors Dependent .000 .000

Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent .160 .057

Errors Dependent .127 .043

Page 17
 Directional Measures

b
Approximate T
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric 3.333
Accident Type Dependent 3.333
Errors Dependent .c

Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent

Errors Dependent

Directional Measures

Approximate
Significance
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .001
Accident Type Dependent .001
c
Errors Dependent .
d
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent .000
d
Errors Dependent .000

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
d. Based on chi-square approximation

Symmetric Measures
Approximate
Value Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi .520 .002
Cramer's V .300 .002
N of Valid Cases 97

Accident Type * Violations

Page 18
 Crosstab
Count
Violations
Exceptional NA Routine Total
Accident Type Collision 3 29 9 41
Derailment 4 31 11 46
Locomotive Failure 0 3 0 3
SPAD 2 0 5 7
Total 9 63 25 97

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Significance (2-
Value df sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 15.369 6 .018

Likelihood Ratio 18.038 6 .006

N of Valid Cases 97

a. 8 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .28.

Directional Measures
Asymptotic
Standard Error a
Value
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .059 .024
Accident Type Dependent .000 .000

Violations Dependent .147 .061

Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent .023 .015

Violations Dependent .113 .025

Page 19
 Directional Measures

b
Approximate T
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric 2.296
c
Accident Type Dependent .

Violations Dependent 2.296

Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent

Violations Dependent

Directional Measures

Approximate
Significance
Nominal by Nominal Lambda Symmetric .022
Accident Type Dependent .c

Violations Dependent .022

d
Goodman and Kruskal tau Accident Type Dependent .363
d
Violations Dependent .001

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.
c. Cannot be computed because the asymptotic standard error equals zero.
d. Based on chi-square approximation

Symmetric Measures
Approximate
Value Significance
Nominal by Nominal Phi .398 .018
Cramer's V .281 .018
N of Valid Cases 97

Page 20