Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems

ISSN: 1028-6608 (Print) 1029-0249 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcee20

Relationships among factors affecting

construction safety equipment selection:
structural equation modelling approach

Thanwadee Chinda & Pimnapa Pongsayaporn

To cite this article: Thanwadee Chinda & Pimnapa Pongsayaporn (2020): Relationships among
factors affecting construction safety equipment selection: structural equation modelling approach,
Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, DOI: 10.1080/10286608.2020.1729754

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2020.1729754

Published online: 18 Feb 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gcee20
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
https://doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2020.1729754

Relationships among factors affecting construction safety

equipment selection: structural equation modelling approach
Thanwadee Chinda and Pimnapa Pongsayaporn
Transportation Research Center, Sirindhorn International Institute of Technology, Thammasat University,
Bangkok, Thailand

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The construction industry is ranked the first in terms of accidents. Received 14 January 2018
Use of appropriate construction safety equipment helps reduce Accepted 11 February 2020
accidents. This study utilises the structural equation modelling to
KEYWORDS
examine relationships among key factors affecting construction Construction safety
safety equipment selection. The approach considers equipment; selection factors;
measurement- and structural-models. The measurement-model structural equation
confirms key factors and their relationships, while the structural- modelling; Thailand
model examines relationships directions. Questionnaire survey is
utilised to collect data. Respondents include managers and
operators from medium- and large-sized construction companies.
Six key factors are confirmed with the measurement-model
results, including (1) Safety-related Policy, (2) Equipment Design,
(3) Personal, (4) Supplier Agreement, (5) Supplier Support, and (6)
Cost Value factors. They relate with employers, employees, and
suppliers to select construction safety equipment that match with
company’s policy and employees’ need to reduce chances of
accidents. The structural-model results reveal directions of
relationships among key factors. Safety-related Policy is the most
important factor, as it influences other factors. Equipment Design
and Personal factors are crucial when selecting construction safety
equipment, as they influence Supplier Agreement and Supplier
Support factors, which in turn, affect Cost Value factor.
Construction companies can utilise the results to understand key
factors affecting construction safety equipment selection, and
make better decisions.

Introduction
Thai economy has been rapidly developed in the past decades. The infrastructure and civil
construction segment is one of the most developed industries in Thailand. The industry
runs a solid growth, with a compound annual growth rate of 6% from 2009 to 2013
(Herrera 2016). To enhance the country’s economic strength, the role of the construction
industry is indisputable. This, however, makes the industry one of the most hazardous
industries, with high risk of accident occurrences (Hamid, Majid, and Singh 2008). Accord-
ing to Occupational Safety and Health Bureau (2015), the accident statistics in the con-
struction industry is in the first rank among all industries, as shown in Figure 1 and

CONTACT Pimnapa Pongsayaporn pimnapa@siit.tu.ac.th

© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 T. CHINDA AND P. PONGSAYAPORN

Table 1. It could be seen that almost half of the construction accidents result in leave work
of more than three days, loss of organ and disability, and death.
The accident statistics bring the industry an attention to improve its safety records.
Hamid, Majid, and Singh (2008), however, stated that most of the managers in the con-
struction companies ignore safety, as they focus mainly on completing project on time,
within the budget, and in the stated quality. To improve the accident records, therefore,
an intensive attention on safety must be considered.
Many research studies attempt to identify root causes of construction accidents. Srina-
vin (2007), for example, mentioned that major causes of construction accidents are from
unsafe working conditions and behaviours. Promsorn et al. (2015), on the other hand,
examined root causes of construction accidents in a non-human error aspect, and con-
cluded the ergonomic design, equipment selection, supporting policy, and environment
issues, such as ventilation, light, equipment design, and site layout as critical factors in
improving accident records. Khodabandeh, Kabir-Mokamelkhah, and Kahani (2016) men-
tioned that workers’ characteristics and work-related variables could be used to discrimi-
nate among different severity levels of occupational fatal accidents. Williams, Hamid, and
Misnan (2018) studied the construction participants and site environmental factors as
agents of accident on sites, and concluded five key factors, namely (1) client-related, (2)
consultant-related, (3) contractor-related, (4) construction workers-related, and (5) con-
struction site-related factors. Shang, Low, and Howe (2018) identified the systemic
lapses as the main causes of accidents in the construction industry using the Systems The-
oretic Accident and Processes models, and concluded that people and incentive factors
should not be isolated from the policy and process factors, as a comprehensive approach
is needed to improve the overall safety performance. Lamonsoff (2019) mentioned that
insufficient safety practices, inadequate training, dangerous conditions, and flawed or out-
dated equipment are causes of construction site injuries.

Figure 1. Accident statistics in the industries in Thailand (Social Security Office 2013).
 CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS 3

Table 1. Types of construct accidents in Thailand (Occupational Safety and

Health Bureau 2015).
Types of illness Number of cases Proportion (%)
Death 104 0.9
Loss of organ and disability 73 0.6
Leave work more than 3 days 4456 38.3
Leave work up to 3 days 7004 60.2
Total 11,637 100

Construction safety equipment is identified in many studies as a key criterion in mini-

mising construction accidents. Selection of construction safety equipment is crucial in
ensuring workers’ safety. Gibb et al. (2005) stated that construction equipment is an over-
looked factor contributing to construction accidents in U.K., and that better design and
management of their supply and care on sites must be acknowledged by construction
managers. Chinda (2016) stated that construction safety equipment is an important tool
to help reduce construction accidents and enhance safety and health practices. EFAS
(2019) stated the importance of safety equipment, and mentioned that having the right
safety equipment is important to ensure the overall health and safety of workers on
sites. By wearing the appropriate safety equipment, workers can decrease the number
of preventable accidents on sites. Proper selection of personal protective equipment
(PPE), for example, could help motivating workers to wear it. Equipment should be well
designed and suitable for the job to minimise the accidents. Clear safety signs could effec-
tively warn workers on possible risks that might occur on site. Bhole (2016) stated that
inadequate safety equipment and improper safety equipment design are major causes
of accidents and safety problems on construction sites. Smibert (2014) studied the
relationships between individual differences and safety performance. He mentioned
that low safety performance may come from unrealistic safety equipment requirements.
Tam and Fung (2008) stated that feedback from workers regarding construction safety
equipment must be considered, as it reflects problems under real conditions of use.
Wagner, Kim, and Gordon (2013) agreed that it is important to consider workers’
specific requirements when selecting safety equipment.
Employers play an important role in the construction safety equipment selection to
ensure employees’ safety. The developments in engineering controls, PPE, machinery and
processes, and regulations and labour inspections decrease the incidences of occupational
injuries and diseases (Kim, Park, and Park 2016). The use of appropriate safety equipment
could help lower the risks of workers (Mutwale-Ziko, Lushinga, and Akakandelwa 2017).
Ali, Kamaruzzaman, and Sing (2010) added that many accidents are contributed to by the
use of poor and unsafe safety equipment. Employers should assess the workplace to deter-
mine if hazards are present, or are likely to be presented. If such hazards are present, or likely
to be presented, employers should select the types of PPE that will protect the affected
employees from the hazards identified in the hazard assessment, and communicate the
selection decisions to their employees. Employers should also provide trainings to employees
who require to use PPEs (Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration 2018).
HSE (2013) mentioned that safety equipment is a key issue on construction sites, and
that the replacement for the used ones should always be available. Management
should, therefore, have a number of suppliers to ensure reliable supplies of safety
4 T. CHINDA AND P. PONGSAYAPORN

equipment. Full information about the equipment must be provided from suppliers,
together with warranty and aftersales service information. Ulang et al. (2014) added
that aftersales service, delivery time, and supplier relationships are key criteria in construc-
tion safety equipment selection.
The above studies address the importance of construction safety equipment selection
to reduce construction accidents, and enhance safety standards. To build a safe environ-
ment, though, not only key factors affecting construction safety equipment selection are
considered, but also their interrelationships should be examined to effectively select the
construction safety equipment. This study, thus, aims to examine causal relationships
among key factors affecting construction safety equipment selection utilising the struc-
tural equation modelling (SEM) approach. It is expected that the study results assist con-
struction organisations to better understand factors affecting construction safety
equipment selection, and make the best decision regarding construction safety equip-
ment selection.

Research methodology
The research steps used to conduct this study are summarised in Figure 2. Key factors
affecting construction safety equipment selection are extracted based on a number of lit-
erature reviews in the area of construction safety and related studies. The questionnaire
survey is then developed to gather necessary data for the analyses. The data collected
are screened, using a number of preliminary analyses, including the normality, multivariate
normality, outlier, multivariate outlier, and reliability tests, before performing with the SEM

Figure 2. Research steps in this study.

 CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS 5

analysis. The relationships among key factors affecting construction safety equipment
selection are finally examined through the measurement and structural models in the
SEM analysis.

Key factors affecting construction safety equipment selection

Chinda (2016) utilised an exploratory factor analysis to extract 20 items, retrieved from a
number of construction safety-related literatures, into six key factors affecting construction
safety equipment selection, namely (1) Equipment Design, (2) Personal, (3) Cost Value, (4)
Supplier Agreement, (5) Supplier Support, and (6) Safety-related Policy factors (see
Table 2). The Equipment Design, Personal, Supplier Agreement, and Supplier Support
factors are associated with four items each, while the Safety-related and Cost Value
factors consists of two associated items each. To explain, the Equipment Design factor,
for example, consists of four associated items, including comfortability, design of the
equipment, ease of use, and accident record. Gibb et al. (2005) emphasised that the
safety equipment should be designed to make it comfortable and easy to use. The Sup-
plier Agreement factor is also associated with four items, including supplier relationship,
term of payment, supplier stability, and supplier delivery time. The Cost Value factor, on
the other hand, is associated with two items, including compatibility and equipment
cost. Cameron, Gillan, and Duff (2007) stated that cost is often recognised as a key criterion
in equipment selection. Wagner, Kim, and Gordon (2013) mentioned that PPEs should be
designed to be compatible with other construction equipment.

Table 2. Six key factors affecting construction safety equipment selection and their 20 associated items
Chinda (2016).
Factor Associated Item Abbreviation Reference
Supplier Agreement Supplier relationship SRL Ho, Nguyen, and Shu (2007), Aguezzoul (2012)
(SA) Term of payment TOP Beil (2009)
Supplier stability STB Benton and Mchenry (2010), Prasad and Rao
Supplier delivery time SDT (2013)
Supplier Support (SS) Aftersales service ASS Ho, Nguyen, and Shu (2007), Prasad and Rao
Equipment warranty WRT (2013)
Availability of safety ASE Aguezzoul (2012), Prasad and Rao (2013)
equipment EQL Ghodsypour and O’Brien (2001)
Equipment quality Gibb et al. (2005), Wagner, Kim, and Gordon
(2013)
Personal (PF) Workers’ attitude ATT Tam and Fung (2008)
Feedback FBK Widerszal-Bazyl and Warszewska-Makuch
Language barrier LNG (2008),
Workers’ physical condition PHY Wagner, Kim, and Gordon (2013)
Cameron, Gillan, and Duff (2007), Tam and Fung
(2008)
Gibb et al. (2005), Lombadi, Verma, and Brennan
(2009)
Equipment Design Comfortability CFT Wagner, Kim, and Gordon (2013)
(ED) Design of equipment DES Gibb et al. (2005), Fung et al. (2014)
Ease of use EOU Tam et al. (2003)
Accident record REC Gibb et al. (2014)
Safety-related Policy Site condition SCD Cameron, Gillan, and Duff (2007)
(SP) National law and regulation NRL International Safety Equipment Association
(2007)
Cost Value (CV) Compatibility function CPT Occupational Safety and Health Bureau (2015)
Cost CST Gibb et al. (2005)
6 T. CHINDA AND P. PONGSAYAPORN

The six key factors with their 20 associated items are used to develop a questionnaire
survey to collect the data for the analyses.

Questionnaire survey development and data collection

The questionnaire survey consists of three parts. Part I considers demographic information
of the respondents, such as position and working experience. Part II consists of 20 state-
ments relating to items influencing construction safety equipment selection decision. The
respondents are asked to rate their agreement with each statement using a five-point
Likert scale, with point 1 representing ‘strongly disagree’ and point 5 representing
‘strongly agree’. Examples of statements are: ‘Equipment design influences purchasing
decision of construction safety equipment’, ‘Availability of safety equipment influences
purchasing decision of construction safety equipment’, and ‘National law and regulation
influences purchasing decision of construction safety equipment’. Part III is a suggestion
and recommendation part.
Target group is medium- and large-sized construction companies in Bangkok, Thailand,
as they contribute about 60% of the total industry’s GDP (National Statistical Office 2016).
Target respondents are both managers and operators to gain mixed perceptions of con-
struction safety equipment selection. A total of 800 questionnaire surveys are launched,
with 203 returns. However, 36 responses are removed due to data incompleteness, result-
ing in 167 data sets for further analyses.
Around 40% of the respondents are in management position, including managing
directors, project managers, and safety managers. Almost all of the respondents have
been working in the construction industry for at least five years. More than half of them
experience at least one safety-related training.
Majority of the respondents suggest that construction workers should be involved in
the construction safety equipment selection processes, as they can provide practical feed-
back to enhance the design and compatibility of the equipment. Most of them also
mention that long-term relationships with the suppliers are crucial in improving the
quality of the construction safety equipment.

Data screening
According to Bentler and Chou (1987), a ratio of five data per variable is sufficient to
perform the SEM analysis when latent variables have multiple indicators. Pallant (2005)
agreed that five cases for each item are adequate in most cases. Coakes and Steed
(2003), in contrast, mentioned that a sample size of 100 cases is acceptable, with a
sample size of 200 or more cases being preferable. The 167 data sets are thus considered
adequate for the analyses. They are screened with a number of preliminary analyses,
including normality, multivariate normality, outlier, multivariate outlier, and reliability
tests, to increase confidence in the data.
An assessment of the normality of data is a prerequisite for many statistical tests, as
normal data is an underlying assumption in parametric testing (Lund Research 2013).
Skewness and kurtosis are two key measures used in a normality test. Skewness relates
to the symmetry of the distribution, while kurtosis examines the peak of a distribution
(Pallant 2005). According to Williams, Brown, and Onsman (2010), skewness and kurtosis
 CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS 7

values of less than 2 and 7, respectively, are recommended for a normal distribution. The
results reveal that the 20 items affecting construction safety equipment selection decision
show normal distribution, with the highest skewness and kurtosis values of 0.97 and 1.53,
respectively. The multivariate normality is also performed to screen the data. Many stat-
istical tests and graphical approaches are available to check the multivariate normality
assumption, such as the Q–Q plot, box-plot, stem and leaf plot, chi-square Q–Q plot, Roy-
ston’s and Henze-Zirkler’s test, and Mardia’s multivariate skewness and kurtosis statistics
test. In this study, the Q–Q plot is performed, and the results confirm the normal distri-
bution of the 20 items affecting construction safety equipment selection.
The outlier and multivariate outlier tests are conducted to detect possible outliers in the
data collected. In this study, the box-plot is used to identify potential outliers. The results
remove four data sets, from a total of 167 data sets, as they show signs of outliers. This
results in the remaining 163 data sets for the analyses. According to Filzmoser (2005),
multivariate outliers are not necessarily characterised by extremely high or low values
along single coordinates; rather, their univariate projection on certain directions separates
them from the mass of the data. One way to check for multivariate outliers is with Maha-
lanobis Distance (MD) (Mahalanobis 1927). It is a metric for estimating how far each case is
from the centre of all the variables’ distributions (i.e. the centroid in multivariate space).
The robust MD is based on the minimum covariance determinant estimate. In this
study, the remaining 163 data sets show no sign of outliers, with the maximum MD
value not greater than the critical chi-square value.
The reliability test is performed, using the Cronbach’s alpha value, to ensure the appro-
priateness of groupings of the six key factors affecting construction safety equipment
selection with their associated items. According to Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), the
alpha value of at least 0.5 is sufficient for a scale to be considered reliable, with the
value of more than 0.7 indicates more reliable. Ghazanfarpour et al. (2014), however, men-
tioned that the alpha value of at least 0.4 is considered acceptable. In this study, the six key
factors affecting construction safety equipment selection have the alpha values ranging
from 0.42 to 0.84, thus, increasing confidence in the contribution of the 20 items to the
six key factors affecting construction safety equipment selection (see Table 3).
In summary, a total of 163 data sets are confirmed with the preliminary analyses, and are
used to perform the SEM analysis to examine the relationships among the six key factors, as
well as their 20 associated items, affecting construction safety equipment selection.

Construction safety equipment selection model development

The SEM approach is used in this study to examine relationships among the six key factors
affecting construction safety equipment selection decision. It is a method that utilises a

Table 3. The reliability test results.

Factor Cronbach’s alpha value
Equipment Design 0.65
Personal 0.75
Cost Value 0.42
Supplier Agreement 0.84
Supplier Support 0.74
Safety-related Policy 0.73
8 T. CHINDA AND P. PONGSAYAPORN

linear equation system to explain the relationships between observed and latent variables
(Zhao and Song 2012). Compared with first generation statistical tools, the SEM can
measure and accommodate errors of observed variables (measured variables), represent
ambiguous constructs in the form of unobserved variables (latent variables) using
several observed variables, and simultaneously estimate both causal relationships
among latent variables and measured variables (Kline 2011). This method is preferred in
many studies, as it estimates multiple and interrelated dependences in a single analysis
(Dan and Ijeoma 2013). MacCallum and Austin (2000) described that the SEM has the
ability to test hypothesised patterns of directional and non-directional relationships
among a set of observed and unobserved variables.
The SEM method is widely used in construction-related studies, such as construction
performance, construction safety, and construction delay. Chinda and Mohamed (2008),
for example, examined relationships among six key factors influencing a construction
safety culture in Thai construction industry. The six key factors, including the Leadership,
Policy and strategy, People, Partnerships and resources, Processes, and Goals factors are
found having the relationships with each other. It was found that the Leadership factor
directly influences the implementation of the Policy and Strategy factor, however, its
effect on the Partnerships and Resources factor appears to be an indirect one. It was
also found that the People factor plays a key role in the success of safety implementation,
as seen by a direct link from the People to Processes factors. Li, Arditi, and Wang (2013)
examined factors influencing transaction costs in American transportation projects, and
concluded four factors, including (1) the predictability of owner’s behaviour, (2) uncer-
tainty in transaction environment, (3) predictability of contractor’s behaviour, and (4)
project management efficiency. Xia et al. (2015) mentioned four factors for a construction
project performance, namely the project definition, project communication, design
quality, and project performance factors. Vitharana and Chinda (2019) examined key
factors affecting lower back pain due to whole-body vibration exposure using the explora-
tory factor analysis and structural equation modelling. The results confirm five key factors
(equipment, job-related, organisational, personal, and social-context) with their 17 associ-
ated items to be used to plan for a better health improvement programme.
Theoretically, the SEM consists of two analyses, namely the measurement-model and
structural-model analyses. The measurement model is performed to confirm correlations
among key factors affecting construction safety equipment selection decision, while the
structural model examines directions of their relationships (Chinda and Mohamed
2008). A double-headed arrow is used to represent a correlation between the two
factors in the measurement model. A single headed arrow is, on the other hand, used
for a directed path representation in the structural model (McDonald and Ho 2002).
To assess a model fit, four fit indices are used in this study, including the normal chi-
square (CMIN/DF), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA). The CMIN/DF and CFI are affected by the
sample size, while the TLI is less affected by the sample size. The definitions and accepta-
ble ranges of each fit index are shown in Table 4.
Model adjustment can also be performed to increase the model fit using the modifi-
cation indices (MI) provided in the model output. Correlation and path coefficients with
high MI values should be added to the model to improve model fit, while those with
low MI values should be removed from the model (Hox and Bechger 1998). Hair et al.
 CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS 9

Table 4. Fit indices to measure a model fit.

Acceptable
Fit index Definition value Reference
CMIN/DF The chi-square fit index divided by degree of freedom ≤2 Joreskog and
Sorbom (1993)
CFI An index that compares the existing model fit with a null model ≥0.90 Bentler (1990)
TLI A goodness of fit index that compares null model fit with proposed ≥0.90 Kula (2011)
model fit by taking the degrees of freedom of both models into
account
RMSEA It analyses a discrepancy between the hypothesised model, with <0.10 Steiger (1990)
optimally chosen parameter estimates and the population covariance
matrix.

(2005), Hung and Lu (2008), and Lattin, Carroll, and Green (2009) added that the standar-
dised regression weights (or factor loadings) of less than 0.10 should be rejected.

Measurement model of construction safety equipment selection

The six key factors affecting construction safety equipment selection, as well as their
associated items, are performed with the measurement model to confirm the correlations
among them. The analysis results reveal a need to adjust the model, as fit indices are not in
the acceptable ranges (see Table 5). Based on the MI values, the correlations between the
error terms of the ‘supplier delivery time’ (SDT, an item in the Supplier Agreement factor)
and ‘equipment warranty’ (WRT, an item in the Supplier Support factor) items, and
between the ‘supplier delivery time’ (SDT, an item in the Supplier Agreement factor)
and ‘availability of safety equipment’ (ASE, an item in the Supplier Support factor) items
are added. Based on Division of Statistics and Scientific Computation (2012), the corre-
lation of the error terms between two different latent factors is possible. The correlated
error terms are supported by Ghodsypour and O’Brien (2001), for example, that manage-
ment should consider reliable suppliers who can supply and deliver the construction
safety equipment on time.
In addition, the correlations between the ‘attitude’ (ATT, an item in the Personal factor)
and ‘feedback’ (FBK, an item in the Personal factor) items, and between the ‘feedback’
(FBK, an item in the Personal factor) and ‘compatibility’ (CPT, an item in the Cost Value
factor) items are also suggested to be added, based on high MI values.
After the modifications, the best-fit measurement model is achieved, as shown in
Figure 3 and Table 5.
The best fit measurement model shows that all path coefficients are in acceptable
ranges, and are significant at 0.001 and 0.1 probability level, respectively (Hair et al.
2005; Hung and Lu 2008; Lattin, Carroll, and Green 2009; Pappachan and Koshy 2016).
Moreover, all of square multiple correlations (R 2) of the 20 items affecting construction
safety equipment selection, except that of the ‘cost’ item, have the values of greater
than 0.2, which is the minimum accepting level, thus confirming a good convergent val-
idity for the model (see Table 6) (Rosenfeld 2018).
There are strong correlations between the Supplier Agreement and Personal factors,
the Supplier Support and Equipment Design factors, the Supplier Agreement and
Safety-related Policy factors, and the Personal and Safety-related Policy factors, with the
correlation coefficients of 0.71, 0.65, 0.52, and 0.50, respectively.
10 T. CHINDA AND P. PONGSAYAPORN

Figure 3. Best fit measurement model. Note: See full names of abbreviations in the appendix.

Structural model of construction safety equipment selection

To further examine directions of relationships among the six key factors affecting construc-
tion safety equipment selection decision, the structural model is performed. In this study, a
total of 11 paths are hypothesised based on a number of construction-related literatures,
see Figure 4.

. H1: The Safety-related Policy factor influences the Equipment Design factor (Inter-
national Labor Organization 2009).

Table 5. Fit indices values of the measurement and structural models.

Fit index Base model Best fit measurement model Best fit structural model
CMIN/DF 2.06 1.65 1.53
CFI 0.85 0.91 0.92
TLI 0.82 0.90 0.92
RMSEA 0.08 0.06 0.05
 CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS 11

Table 6. Standardised loadings, unstandardised loadings, standard errors, critical ratios, p-values, and
R 2 of the best fit measurement model.
Factor Associated item Standardised loading Unstandardised loading SE CR p-value R2
SRL ← SA 0.86 1.00 – – – 0.75
TOP ← SA 0.76 0.87 0.08 10.91 *** 0.59
STB ← SA 0.82 0.97 0.08 12.00 *** 0.68
SDT ← SA 0.55 0.61 0.08 7.77 *** 0.32
ASS ← SS 0.76 1.00 – – – 0.56
WRT ← SS 0.87 1.04 0.11 9.14 *** 0.79
ASE ← SS 0.63 0.85 0.12 7.03 *** 0.47
EQL ← SS 0.44 0.54 0.08 5.88 *** 0.20
ATT ← PF 0.48 1.00 – – – 0.27
FBK ← PF 0.54 1.03 0.17 6.09 *** 0.31
LNG ← PF 0.74 1.06 0.29 5.61 *** 0.57
PHY ← PF 0.76 1.01 0.28 5.61 *** 0.57
CFT ← ED 0.45 0.88 – – – 0.20
DES ← ED 0.66 1.00 0.26 4.57 *** 0.38
EOU ← ED 0.60 1.00 0.28 4.40 *** 0.34
REC ← ED 0.55 1.02 0.29 4.49 *** 0.33
SCD ← SP 0.66 1.00 – – – 0.41
NRL ← SP 0.88 1.31 0.22 5.86 *** 0.79
CPT ← CV 0.98 1.00 – – – 0.91
CST ← CV 0.25 0.32 0.16 1.97 0.10 0.11
Note: The factor covariance is significant when the critical ratio is more than 1.96.
***Represents significance level of less than .001.

. H2: The Safety-related Policy factor influences the Personal factor (International Labor
Organization 2009).
. H3: The Safety-related Policy factor influences the Supplier Agreement factor (Benton
and Mchenry 2010; Prasad and Rao 2013).
. H4: The Equipment Design factor influences the Cost Value factor (Gibb et al. 2005).
. H5: The Equipment Design factor influences the Supplier Support factor (Gibb et al.
2005).
. H6: The Personal factor affects the Equipment Design factor (Widerszal-Bazyl and Wars-
zewska-Makuch 2008).

Figure 4. Hypothesised directions of the six factors affecting construction safety equipment selection.
12 T. CHINDA AND P. PONGSAYAPORN

. H7: The Personal factor affects the Supplier Support factor (Gibb et al. 2005).
. H8: The Personal factor affects the Supplier Agreement factor (Gibb et al. 2005).
. H9: The Supplier Agreement factor affects the Supplier Support factor (Prasad and Rao
2013).
. H10: The Supplier Agreement factor affects the Cost Value factor (Ho, Nguyen, and Shu
2007; Aguezzoul 2012).
. H11: The Supplier Support factor affects the Cost Value factor (Ho, Nguyen, and Shu
2007; Aguezzoul 2012).

The 11 hypothesised directions are tested with the structural model. The results suggest
the additions of the correlations between the error terms of the ‘aftersales service’ (ASS, an
item in the Supplier Support factor) and ‘equipment quality’ (EQL, an item in the Supplier
Support factor) items, and between the ‘equipment warranty’ (WRT, an item in the Supplier
Support factor) and ‘availability of safety equipment’ (ASE, an item in the Supplier Support
factor) items, based on the MI values.
After the modifications, the best fit structural model is achieved, as shown in Table 5,
leading to the final model of factors affecting construction safety equipment selection
decision, see Figure 5.
The best fit structural model shows that all path coefficients, except that between
the Personal and Supplier Support factors, are significant at 0.001 and 0.1 probability
level, respectively (Hair et al. 2005; Hung and Lu 2008; Lattin, Carroll, and Green 2009;
Pappachan and Koshy 2016). These confirm all hypothesises (H1–H11), except H7 (see
Figure 5 and Table 7). All of square multiple correlations (R 2) of the 20 items affecting con-
struction safety equipment selection, except that of the ‘cost’ item, also have the values of
greater than 0.2, thus passing the minimum acceptable level (see Table 8) (Rosenfeld
2018).

Figure 5. Final model of factors affecting construction safety equipment selection decision. Note: Dash
line represents insignificant path.
 CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS 13

Table 7. Path coefficients of the final model of factors affecting

construction safety equipment selection decision.
Hypothesis Decision Path coefficient
H1 Support 0.30
H2 Support 0.51
H3 Support 0.24
H4 Support 0.27
H5 Support 0.67
H6 Support 0.22
H7 Not support 0.02
H8 Support 0.61
H9 Support 0.22
H10 Support 0.20
H11 Support 0.20

Discussion
The final model of factors affecting construction safety equipment selection shows that
safety-related policy must be considered before deciding on the construction safety
equipment. This could be seen from direct paths from the Safety-related Policy to Per-
sonal, Equipment Design, and Supplier Agreement factors, with the path coefficients
of 0.51, 0.30, and 0.24, respectively. Interestingly, an indirect influence The Safety-
related Policy factor has on the Supplier Agreement factor through the Personal factor
implementation is stronger than its direct effect. This is confirmed by International
Safety Equipment Association (2007), for example, that safety policy on sites should
support workers to work safely. Respondents participated in the questionnaire survey
also mentioned that feedback on safety-related issues should be communicated with
suppliers when design the equipment, especially the PPEs. The Safety-related Policy

Table 8. Standardised loadings, unstandardised loadings, standard errors, critical ratios, p-values, and
R 2 of the best fit structural model.
Factor Associated item Standardised loading Unstandardised loading SE CR p-value R2
SRL ← SA 0.86 1.00 – – – 0.75
TOP ← SA 0.77 0.86 0.08 10.97 *** 0.58
STB ← SA 0.82 0.96 0.08 11.99 *** 0.68
SDT ← SA 0.51 0.58 0.08 7.56 *** 0.32
ASS ← SS 0.82 1.00 – – – 0.58
WRT ← SS 0.80 0.97 0.11 8.95 *** 0.79
ASE ← SS 0.53 0.82 0.12 7.03 *** 0.43
EQL ← SS 0.44 0.41 0.07 5.92 *** 0.20
ATT ← PF 0.50 1.00 – – – 0.27
FBK ← PF 0.55 1.03 0.17 5.93 *** 0.31
LNG ← PF 0.75 1.70 0.30 5.62 *** 0.55
PHY ← PF 0.75 1.70 0.30 5.63 *** 0.56
CFT ← ED 0.47 1.00 – – – 0.20
DES ← ED 0.64 1.30 0.29 4.57 *** 0.41
EOU ← ED 0.57 1.33 0.30 4.40 *** 0.35
REC ← ED 0.59 1.29 0.30 4.36 *** 0.35
SCD ← SP 0.67 1.00 – – – 0.43
NRL ← SP 0.87 1.33 0.23 5.91 *** 0.76
CPT ← CV 0.99 1.00 – – – 0.98
CST ← CV 0.26 0.21 0.16 1.97 0.10 0.11
Note: The factor covariance is significant when the critical ratio is more than 1.96.
***Represents significance level of less than .001.
14 T. CHINDA AND P. PONGSAYAPORN

factor also has no direct, but indirect, relationships with the Supplier Support and Cost
value factors. Equipment design, price, and aftersales services and warranties terms
should be clearly stated in the safety-related purchasing documents to avoid possible
disputes (Cameron, Gillan, and Duff 2007; Prasad and Rao 2013; Wagner, Kim, and
Gordon 2013).
The Personal factor directly and indirectly influences the other four factors. The strong
direct relationship is found between this factor and the Supplier Agreement factor. This is
consistent with Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2018) and the
suggestions provided by the respondents in the questionnaire survey that employers
should select PPEs that properly fit the affected employees. Physical condition of each
worker (an item in the Personal factor) should be considered when designing a construc-
tion safety equipment to enhance comfortability (items in the Equipment Design factor).
Lombadi, Verma, and Brennan (2009) added that eyesight affects workers who have to
wear protective eyewear. Lack of prescript safety eyewear may result in some workers
not using it.
The Equipment Design factor strongly influences the Supplier Support factor, with the
path coefficient of 0.67. Wagner, Kim, and Gordon (2013), for example, mentioned that
many construction workers have access to work-specific safety equipment, but they
refuse to use them as they lack quality and durability. Selection of suppliers who
provide good quality equipment, with aftersales services and warranties are, therefore,
crucial in enhancing safety and health standards on construction sites. Gibb et al. (2005)
stated that many accidents are contributed with poor design and quality safety equip-
ment. Fung et al. (2014) added that a safety helmet without a chinstrap could easily
drop off, and lead to deadly consequences. Goggles with distorted lenses may cause head-
aches, dizziness, and nausea that workers eventually omitted to wear them (Gibb et al.
2005).
The Equipment Design factor also has both direct and indirect relationships with the
Cost Value factor. An indirect relationship this factor has on the Cost Value factor is
through the Supplier Support factor (with the path coefficient of 0.13). This is supported
by Ghodsypour and O’Brien (2001), for example, that some safety equipment is designed
to be single-use (an item in the Equipment Design factor). A replacement for the used ones
must be available to ensure safety (an item in the Supplier Support factor), and that any
shortage of construction safety equipment could affect cost (an item in the Cost Value
factor) (Gibb et al. 2005).
The Supplier Agreement factor has direct effects on the Supplier Support and Cost
Value factors. Unreliable supplier, for instance, could severely affect the availability and
quality of safety equipment, resulting in higher cost (Ghodsypour and O’Brien 2001; Beil
2009).
Direct, indirect, total influences among the six key factors are summarised in Table 9. It
can be concluded that the Safety-related Policy factor is the most important factor, as it
has both direct and indirect relationships with the other five factors, with the total
influence of 2.17. The strongest direct path coefficient of 0.67 is, on the other hand,
found between the Equipment design and Supplier Support factors, whereas the strongest
indirect effect (path coefficient = 0.40) is found between The Safety-related Policy and
Supplier Support factors through the implementation of the Equipment, Personal, and
Supplier Agreement factors.
 CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS 15

Table 9. Direct and indirect influences.

Variable Direct influence Indirect influence Total influence
Dependent variable: ED
Independent variable: 0.30 0.11** 0.41
SP 0.22 – 0.22
PF
R 2 = 0.22
Dependent variable: PF
Independent variable: 0.51 – 0.51
SP
R 2 = 0.28
Dependent variable: SA
Independent variable: 0.24 0.31** 0.55
SP 0.61 – 0.61
PF
R 2 = 0.56
Dependent variable: SS
Independent variable: 0.67 – 0.67
ED 0.22 – 0.22
SA – 0.40** 0.40
SP – 0.28*** 0.28
PF
R 2 = 0.53
Dependent variable: CV
Independent variable: 0.27 0.13** 0.40
ED 0.20 – 0.20
SS 0.20 – 0.20
SA – 0.30** 0.30
SP – 0.24*** 0.24
PF
R 2 = 0.24
**Represents significance level of .01.
***Represents significance level of less than .001.

Conclusion
Construction industry is an industry with high accident rates. To help reduce a number of
accidents, an effective use of construction safety equipment is crucial. This study utilises an
SEM approach to confirm the six key factors affecting construction safety equipment selec-
tion decision, namely (1) the Safety-related Policy factor, (2) the Equipment Design factor,
(3) the Personal factor, (4) the Supplier Agreement factor, (5) the Supplier Support factor,
and (6) the Cost Value factor. The interrelationships among the six key factors are also
examined, and the results conclude 10 direct and seven indirect relationships. It is
found that the Safety-related Policy factor is the most important factor, as it influences
the implementation of the other five factors, directly and indirectly. It is, thus, necessary
that the construction safety equipment used on construction sites conform to the
safety-related laws and regulations, especially in terms of design and conditions of use.
The Equipment Design and Personal factors are also important in making decision
regarding construction safety equipment selection. Feedback from users should be
used to ensure that the construction safety equipment is designed to match with
different physical conditions, comfortable to use, and compatible with other equipment.
It is also suggested that their instructions of uses are written in multiple languages to
enhance the understanding.
The relationships with suppliers are crucial when making the construction safety equip-
ment selection decision. This is shown by the influences the Supplier Agreement and
16 T. CHINDA AND P. PONGSAYAPORN

Supplier Support factors have on the Cost Value factor. Hence, the issues related to after-
sales service, equipment warranty, term of payment, and delivery time should be con-
sidered before making the decision, as they affect the cost of the construction safety
equipment.
This research study contributes to the construction industry in many ways. The six
factors represent key criteria the construction companies use to make the decision regard-
ing the construction safety equipment selection. Those factors consider both internal per-
spectives, such as workers’ feedback and attitude, and external perspectives, such as
supplier- and design-related issues. This makes them appropriate to be used as a guideline
for the selection process. Direct and indirect relationships among the six key factors
affecting construction safety equipment selection are also explored to understand the
influences a factor has on the other factors. This helps construction companies to better
select the construction safety equipment.
There are limitations in this study. Data used for the analyses are from construction
companies located in Bangkok, Thailand. Used of data from different geographical areas
might yield different results.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Pimnapa Pongsayaporn http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0883-8505

References
Aguezzoul, A. 2012. “Overview on Supplier Selection of Goods Versus 3PL Selection.” Journal of
Logistics Management 1 (3): 8–23.
Ali, A. S., S. N. Kamaruzzaman, and G. C. Sing. 2010. “A Study on Causes of Accident and Prevention in
Malaysian Construction Industry.” Journal of Design and Built 3 (1): 95–104.
Beil, D. 2009. Supplier Selection. Ann Arbor, MI: Open University Press. Stephen M. Ross School of
Business.
Bentler, P. M. 1990. “Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models.” Psychological Bulletin 107 (2):
238–246.
Bentler, P. M., and C. Chou. 1987. “Practical Issues in Structural Modeling.” Sociological Methods and
Research 16: 78–117.
Benton, W. C., and L. F. Mchenry. 2010. Construction Supplier Selection and Evaluation: Construction
Purchasing and Supply Chain Management. Denton, TX: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Bhole, S. A. 2016. “Safety Problems and Injuries on Construction Sites: A Review.” International Journal
of Engineering and Techniques 2 (4): 24–35.
Cameron, L., G. Gillan, and A. R. Duff. 2007. “Issues in the Selection of Fall Prevention and Arrest
Equipment.” Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 14 (14): 363–374.
Chinda, T. 2016. “Factors Influencing Construction Safety Equipment Selection.” International Journal
of Structural and Civil Engineering Research 5 (4): 333–336.
Chinda, T., and S. Mohamed. 2008. “Structural Equation Model of Construction Safety Culture.”
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 15 (2): 114–131.
Coakes, S. J., and L. G. Steed. 2003. SPSS Analysis Without Anguish Version 11.0 for Windows. Milton,
Qld: John Wiley & Sons QLD.
 CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS 17

Dan, E. D., and O. A. Ijeoma. 2013. “Statistical Analysis/Methods of Detecting Outliers in a Bivariate
Data in a Regression Analysis Model.” International Journal of Education and Research 1 (4): 1–25.
Division of Statistics and Scientific Computation. 2012. Structural Equation Modelling Using AMOS: An
Introduction. The University of Texas at Austin. Accessed March 12, 2019. https://stat.utexas.edu/
images/SSC/Site/AMOS_Tutorial.pdf.
EFAS. 2019. Why Safety Equipment is Important. Accessed October 1, 2019. https://efassafety.com/
safety-news/safety-equipment-important/.
Filzmoser, P. 2005. “Identification of Multivariate Outliers: A Performance Study.” Australian Journal of
Statistics 34 (2): 127–138.
Fung, I. W. H., Y. Y. Lee, V. W. Y. Tam, and A. Fung. 2014. “Feasibility Study of Introduction Chin Straps
of Safety Helmets as a Statutory Requirement in Hong Kong Construction Industry.” Safety Science
65: 70–78.
Ghazanfarpour, M., M. Kaviani, M. Rezaiee, E. Ghaderi, and F. Zandvakili. 2014. “Cross Cultural
Adaptation of the Menopause Specific Questionnaire Into the Persian Language.” Annals of
Medical and Health Sciences Research 4 (3): 325–329.
Ghodsypour, S. H., and C. O’Brien. 2001. “The Total Cost of Logistic in Supplier Selection.” International
Journal of Production Economics 73: 15–27.
Gibb, A., S. Hide, R. Haslam, D. Gyt, T. Pavitt, S. Atkinson, and R. Duff. 2005. “Construction Tools and
Equipment – Their Influence on Accident Causality.” Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology
3 (1): 12–23.
Gibb, A., H. Lingard, M. Behm, and T. Cooke. 2014. “Construction Accident Causality: Learning from
Different Countries and Differing Consequences.” Construction Management and Economics 32
(5): 446–459.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham, and W. C. Black. 2005. Multivariate Data Analysis. 5th ed. Second
Indian Reprint. New Delhi: Pearson Education.
Hamid, A. R. A., M. Z. A. Majid, and B. Singh. 2008. “Causes of Accidents at Construction Sites.”
Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 20 (2): 242–259.
Herrera, J. 2016. Infrastructures and Civil Construction in Thailand 2016. Bangkok: Jus Laws and Consult
Company Limited.
Ho, C., P. Nguyen, and M. Shu. 2007. “Supplier Evaluation and Selection Criteria in the Construction
Industry of Taiwan and Vietnam.” International Journal of Information and Management Sciences 18
(4): 403–426.
Hox, J. J., and T. M. Bechger. 1998. “An Introduction to Structural Equation Modelling.” Family Science
Review 11: 354–373.
HSE. 2013. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) at Work – A Brief Guide. London: Health & Safety
Executive.
Hung, Y. C., and Y. H. Lu. 2008. “The Inhibitory Factors of Implementing Internet Banks.” International
Journal of Electronic Finance 2 (4): 419–432.
International Labour Organization. 2009. Guideline on Occupational Safety and Health Management
Systems: ILO-OSH 2001. 2nd ed. Geneva: PCL Presses Centrales SA.
International Safety Equipment Association. 2007. Safety Equipment Standards: Your Keys to Business
Success. United States of America.
Joreskog, K., and D. Sorbom. 1993. LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modelling with the SIMPLIS Command
Language. Chicago, IL: SSI Inc.
Khodabandeh, F., E. Kabir-Mokamelkhah, and M. Kahani. 2016. “Factors Associated with the
Severity of Fatal Accidents in Construction Workers.” Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of
Iran 30: 1–7.
Kim, Y., J. Park, and M. Park. 2016. “Creating a Culture of Prevention in Occupational Safety and Health
Practice.” Safety and Health at Work 7 (2): 89–96.
Kline, R. B. 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd. New York: Guilford
Press.
Kula, S. 2011. Statistical Analysis Criteria for Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Accessed March 6,
2019. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269808882_STATISTICAL_ANALYSIS_CRITERIAS_
FOR_STRUCTURAL_EQUATION_MODELING_SEM.
18 T. CHINDA AND P. PONGSAYAPORN

Lamonsoff, M. S. 2019. What Are the Main Causes of Accidents on Construction Sites? Accessed March 4,
2019. https://www.msllegal.com/construction-accidents/main-causes-accidents-construction-sites/.
Lattin, J., J. D. Carroll, and P. E. Green. 2009. Analyzing Multivariate Data. 2nd ed. Indian Reprint. New
Delhi: Cengage Learning.
Li, H., D. Arditi, and Z. Wang. 2013. “Factors That Affect Transaction Costs in Construction Projects.”
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 139: 60–68.
Lombadi, D. A., S. K. Verma, and M. J. Brennan. 2009. “Factors Influencing Worker Use of Personal
Protective Eyewear.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 41: 755–762.
Lund Research. 2013. Testing for Normality using SPSS Statistics. Accessed September 9, 2013. https://
statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/testing-for-normality-using-spss-statistics.php.
MacCallum, R. C., and J. T. Austin. 2000. “Applications of Structural Equation Modeling in
Psychological Research.” Annual Review of Psychology 51: 201–226.
Mahalanobis, P. C. 1927. “Analysis of Race Mixture in Bengal.” Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal 23: 301–333. Accessed March 5, 2019. http://www.unt.edu/rss/class/Jon/
MiscDocs/1927_Mahalanobis.pdf.
McDonald, R. P., and M. R. Ho. 2002. “Principles and Practice in Reporting Structural Equation
Analyses.” Psychological Methods 7: 64–82.
Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 2018. Department of Licensing and
Regulatory Affairs Director’s Office General Industry Safety and Health Standard. Accessed March
6, 2019. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_WSH_part433Rev_53316_7.pdf.
Mutwale-Ziko, J., N. Lushinga, and I. Akakandelwa. 2017. “An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of
Health and Safety Induction Practices in the Zambian Construction Industry.” International Journal
of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering 11 (3): 596–600.
National Statistical Office, Ministry of Information and Technology. 2016. The 2014 Construction
Industry Survey. Bangkok: Statistical Forecasting Bureau National Statistical Office.
Nunnally, J. C., and I. H. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Occupational Safety and Health Bureau. 2015. National Profile on Occupational Safety and Health of
Thailand, 2015. Bangkok: Ministry of Labour.
Pallant, J. 2005. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows
(Version 12). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Pappachan, J., and M. P. Koshy. 2016. “Moderation Effect of Travel Context in the Linkage Among
Employee Service-quality, Satisfaction and Trust on Word-of-mouth of Airline Passengers in
India.” Amity Journal of Marketing 1 (1): 75–92.
Prasad, S. V. S. R., and Y. V. S. S. V. P. Rao. 2013. “Study on Validation of Wholesaler Selection of PPE.”
International Journal of Management Value and Supply Chains 4 (2): 17–24.
Promsorn, P., P. Soponsakulrat, C. Adulyanukosol, P. Kaiyarit, and T. Chinda. 2015. “Identifying Root
Causes of Construction Accidents: Non-human Error Factors.” Proceedings of the 2015
International Conference on Innovative Technologies and Advanced Computing, 28-29 July
2015, Phuket, Thailand.
Rosenfeld, M. J. 2018. Notes on the Mean, the Standard Deviation, and the Standard Error. Practical
Applied Statistics for Sociologists. Accessed March 7, 2019. https://web.stanford.edu/~mrosenfe/
soc180B_notes_mean_variance.pdf.
Shang, G., S. P. Low, and H. J. A. Howe. 2018. “Systemic Lapses as the Main Causes of Accidents in the
Singapore Construction Industry.” Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems. doi:10.1080/
10286608.2018.1518437.
Smibert, D. P. G. 2014. "The Identification of Individual Differences in Safety Performance:
Development and Validation of a Safety Values Instrument." Thesis (Master’s). Halifax, Nova
Scotia: Saint Mary’s University.
Social Security Office. 2013. Accident Statistics in the Industries in Thailand. Bangkok: Ministry of
Labour.
Srinavin, K. 2007. Characteristics of Accidents on Construction Work in Thailand and Prevention Guide.
Rotterdam: IB World Building Congress.
Steiger, J. H. 1990. “Structural Model Evaluation and Modification.” Multivariate Behavioral Research
25: 214–212.
 CIVIL ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS 19

Tam, V. W. Y., and I. W. H. Fung. 2008. “A Study of Knowledge, Awareness, Practice and
Recommendations among Hong Kong Construction Workers on Using Personal Respiratory
Protective Equipment at Risk.” The Open Construction and Building Technology Journal 2: 69–81.
Tam, C. M., I. W. H. Fung, T. C. L. Yeung, and C. F. Tung. 2003. “Relationship Between Construction
Safety Signs and Symbols Recognition and Characteristics of Construction Personnel.”
Construction Management and Economics 21 (7): 745–753.
Ulang, N. M., N. S. Salim, F. Baharum, and N. A. A. Salim. 2014. “Construction Site Workers’ Awareness
on Using Safety Equipment: Case Study.” Proceedings of Building Surveying, Facilities
Management and Engineering Conference, EDP Sciences, 15. Perak, Malaysia
Vitharana, V. H. P., and T. Chinda. 2019. “Structural Equation Modelling of Low Back Pain Due to
Whole Body Vibration Exposure.” International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics 25
(2): 257–267.
Wagner, H., A. J. Kim, and L. Gordon. 2013. “Relationship Between Personal Protective Equipment,
Self-efficacy, and Job Satisfaction of Women in the Building Trades.” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 139 (10): 04013005-1–04013005-7.
Widerszal-Bazyl, M., and M. Warszewska-Makuch. 2008. “Employee Direct Participation in
Organization Decisions and Workplace Safety.” International Journal of Occupational Safety and
Ergonomics 14 (4): 367–378.
Williams, B., T. Brown, and A. Onsman. 2010. “Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Five-step Guide for
Novices.” Australasian Journal of Paramedicine 8 (3): 1–13.
Williams, O. S., R. A. Hamid, and M. S. Misnan. 2018. “Accident Causal Factors on the Building
Construction Sites: A Review.” International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability 5 (1):
78–92.
Xia, B., B. Xiong, M. Skitmore, P. Wu, and F. Hu. 2015. “Investigating the Impact of Project Definition
Clarity on Project Performance: Structural Equation Modeling Study.” Journal of Management in
Engineering 32 (1): 04015022.
Zhao, Y., and S. Song. 2012. “An Empirical Research of Correlation Analysis on Engineering
Construction Safety Influencing Factors.” Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and
Technology 5 (6): 2067–2072.

Appendix
Full names of abbreviations are as listed below.
ASE = Availability of safety equipment
ASS = Aftersales service
ATT = Attitude
CFT = Comfortability
CPT = Compatibility
CST = Cost
CV = Cost Value factor
DES = Equipment design
ED = Equipment Design factor
EOU = Ease of use
EQL = Equipment quality
FBK = Feedback
LNG = Language barrier
NRL = National law and regulation
PF = Personal factor
PHY = Physical condition
REC = Accident record
SA = Supplier Agreement factor
SCD = Site condition
SDT = Supplier delivery time
20 T. CHINDA AND P. PONGSAYAPORN

SP = Safety-related Policy factor

SRL = Supplier relationship
SS = Supplier Support factor
STB = Supplier stability
TOP = Term of payment
WRT = Equipment warranty