Accid, Anal. & Prev Vol. 1X. No. 6. pp. 455-470. 1986 ooo1-4575:86 $3.00 + .

oo
Printed in Great Britain. Q 1986Pergamon Journals Ltd.

THE USE OF A FACTOR-ANALYTIC PROCEDURE

FOR ASSESSING THE VALIDITY OF AN EMPLOYEE
SAFETY CLIMATE MODEL

R. L. BROWN
Department of Social Work. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A.

and

HAROLD HOLMES
Department of Educational Psychology, Loyoia University, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A

(Received 5 September 1985; in revised form I February 1986)

Abstract-This paper assesses the validity of a safety climate measure proposed by Zohar (Safety
climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. .I. Appl. Psycho~.65(1),
96-101, 1980.) on an American sample of production workers. Using LISREL, confirmatory
factor analyses were carried out to test the hypothesis of similar variance-covariance structures
(validation of the proposed model). The originally proposed climate model was not supported by
the data. An exploratory factor analytic algorithm is then discussed as a means of refining the
climate model. A smaller safety climate model was then extracted from the data, and comparisons
were made for two groups of employees (accidents versus no accidents). Factorial invariance tests
were conducted to test the hypotheses of similar factor patterns, equal units of measurement,
equal accuracy of measurement, and equal covariance across factors, between the two groups.
The results indicated that the climate structures did not differ between the two groups of interest,
subsequently providing a valid and reliable climate measure across the groups. Croups were then
compared on climate scores, with differences in climate perception being detected between the
groups.

INTRODUCTION

In certain schools of organizational psychology (e.g. Gestalt and Functionalism), per-

ceived work climate has been shown to serve as a stimulus for guiding appropriate, as
well as inappropriate adaptive employee behavior [Dieterly and Schneider, 1974; James
and Jones, 1974; Schneider, 19751. Climate is defined as a set of perceptions or beliefs
held by an individual and/or group about a particular entity. How one measures this
climate, or set of perceptions, is not well understood, especially when one discusses
psychological climate in the context of trauma etiology. Of major concern to the “safety”
practitioner is the recognition of climates and the relationship with employee performance.
If climate dimensions can be accurately assessed, one may use the measure to both
evaluate as well as recognize potential problem areas (Zohar, 1980). The accurate mea-
surement of a psychological climate then becomes crucial.
Zohar (1980) established a 40-item measurement model for specifically assessing
employee perceived safety climate in industry. He proposed to establish a safety climate
score and relate this score to employee performance, subsequently hoping to find strong
relationships between climate scores and actuai safety performance. While his study
extracted eight different climate factors (see Table l), based on eigenvalues greater then
1.00, his factor structure has never been replicated, and since it was developed on an
Israeli sample, its use on other populations must be questioned. While the measurement
model possessed theoretical validity, psychometrically it was not validated by the rec-
ommended replication of factor structures (Rummel, 1970). Zohar also did not have the
opportunity to correlate his climate scores with actual employee safety performance, so
one lacks information regarding the practical importance of obtaining a climate measure.
The purpose of this study was three fold: first, to attempt factorial validity of Zohar’s
original factor structure by replication; second, to establish a valid factor structure, if
Zohar’s failed; and third, to explore differences in climate perceptions between post-
traumatic (accident involved) and pre-traumatic (no accident involvement) employees.
4% R.1..
BKOWN and H. HOLMEL

An ancillary purpose of this study was to demonstrate a newly proposed psychometric

procedure for validating and testing factor structures.

METHODS

Data collection
Data were collected from ten state of Wisconsin and Illinois manufacturing and
produce companies. Company selection was based on organization legal approval. since
the researchers required access to accident records. A total of 425 employees were selected
from the companies. Then 200 employees were defined as post”tr~lum~~tic (cxpcr~enc~ng
a traumatic incident within the last year), and 225 as pre-traumatic (not experiencing
trauma over the same time period). Employee sampling was stratified for age. with a
post-traumatic mean age of 39.39. s.d. = 10.88. and a pre-traumatic mean age of 42.92,
s.d. = 11.51. Further refinement on the subject groups was not made due to limitation
on sample size.
Employees selected for study were asked for voluntary participation, with partici-
pation being taken as consent. Employees were given Zohar’s (1980) questionnaire and
provided with instructions for completion.

Confirmator~l factoranalysts
Since the initial hypothesis was to check the factorial validity of the Zohar mea-
surement model, replication of factor structures was considered indicative of this validity
(Rummel, 1970). The current method for assessing factorial validity is through hypothesis
confirmation of a priori defined factor structures (Kroonenberg and Lowis. 1982). This
method, which has been termed Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) by Jiireskog (1971),
and Sorbom and Joreskog (1981). is based on a general model which incorporates the
specification of a measurement model, specifying the relationships between measurable
items and unobservable constructs (factors or latent variables). Although the procedure
for confirmatory factor analysis is too involved to discuss at length, a brief description
foiiows. The interested reader is referred to excellent overviews by Jiireskog (Ic)hc)) or
Long (1983) for more detail.
The confirmatory factor analytic model as proposed by Joreskog (1969) can bc given
as

where x is a vector of k observed measures, and 5 is a vector of m underlying. or latent

factors such that m < k. A is a (k x m) matrix of factor loadings relating the observed
x to the latent factors 5, with 6 a vector of k variables representing random measurement
error. The covariance matrix for x may be defined as

where Q, is the (m x tn) covariance matrix of 5, and 8, is the diagonal (k x k) covariancc

matrix of 6. One then defines a priori the structure of the factor analytic model and
submits the measurements. usually in a covariance matrix format, for parameter esti-
mation on the matrices. One then tests the appropriateness of the factor structure by
attempting to replicate the covariance matrix. So an initial hypothesis is established for
test of fit (H,,: S = $), where S = original covariance matrix, and 2 = recovered cov-
ariance matrix.
While a number of methods exist for the estimation of the parameters (e.g. un-
weighted least squares, maximum likelihood, etc.), this paper will explore the maximum
likelihood method, which minimizes

L(0) = log/XzI/-+ tr(SY’) - log/S/ - (JI + y). (3)

This positive loss function approaches zero as I: and S become identical.

 Assessing an employee safety climate model 457

For testing the recovery of the covariance matrix, numerous indices of goodness-of-
fit exist, but the most widely used is the likelihood ratio test (L’), as proposed by Lawley
and Maxwell (1971), which is based on the chi-square distribution.

L* = nL(8). (4)
WITH, df = Sk(k + 1) - r,
WHERE, k = number of observed variables in the analysis,
t = number of independent parameters to be estimated.

“If L2 is large compared with the degrees of freedom, one concludes that the model does
not appropriately mirror the process that generates the data in the population” (Bentler
and Bonett, 1980, p. 591). Subsequently, a nonsignificant L’ is indicative of an appro-
priately fit model, which in a CFA situation confirms the proposed factor structure, thus
providing factorial validity to the model. The L’ measure should also be supported by
other measures of fit, since the L* statistic is sensitive to deviations from normality and
sample size. Other popular measures are Joreskog and Sorbom’s (1982) goodness-of-fit
index (GFI), and root mean square residual (RMSR).
The GFI measures the relative amount of the covariance matrix accounted for in
the model, with a range of the index between zero and one. The goodness-of-fit index
is

GFI = tr(Z-‘s - I)?

tr(Z-‘S)l ’
(5)

where S is the covariance matrix, and % is the fitted covariance matrix. This measure of
fit, unlike the L’, is independent of the sample size and relatively robust against departures
from normality (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1982).
The root mean square residual index may be defined as

RMSR = (? + 2 (S,, - &,)‘/k,k + 1))“‘. (6)

This index provides an average measure of residual variance and covariances.

Prior to parameter estimation, the identification of the model must be established.
If the model is not identified, an indeterminancy will exist, which will allow for a non-
unique solution for the parameter estimates. Long (1983) succinctly articulates the prob-
lem of nonidentification: “Attempts to estimate models that are not identified result in
arbitrary estimates of the parameters and meaningless interpretations” (p. 35). Using
Joreskog’s (1969) algorithm for model identification, a necessary and sufficient condition
was met, and the model was considered identified. The reader is referred to Long (1983)
for an excellent review of model identification and a discussion of Joreskog’s algorithm.
A second point of discussion should be covered before estimation of parameters is
considered. The point relates to the level of data used in the analysis. The data analyzed
in this study are made up of polychotomous ordinal level data. Work by Olsson (1979)
and Olsson, Drasgow and Dorans (1982) has indicated a potential problem in using
product moment-based correlations between variables with ordinal data levels. Olsson
(1979) has shown that application of factor analysis to such data may lead to incorrect
conclusions regarding the number of factors extracted, as well as possibly biasing param-
eter estimates. It is recommended that when one is analyzing ordinal level variables, one
use polychoric correlations instead of the product moment correlations (Olsson, 1979;
Olsson, Drasgow and Dorans, 1982; Joreskog and S&born, 1984). While this suggestion
seems quite attractive, especially from an accuracy standpoint, it is not without some
limitations. First, it has been frequently demonstrated that when such correlations are
used for parameter estimation, the chances of the polychoric correlation matrix being
non-Gramian are quite high, making a maximum likelihood estimation impossible.
35x R. L. BK~WN and H. HOLMES

Secondly, Joreskog and S&born (1984) recommend that one use an unweighted least
squares parameter estimation procedure instead of the maximum likelihood procedure.
since the polychoric correlations are “. unlikely to behave like ordinary sample mo-
ments even asymptotically” (p. lV.6). Subsequently, one should not use the estimated
standard errors and L’ goodness-of-fit measure. These limitations are debilitating if one
is concerned with invariance testing across two or more groups. since hypothesis testing
using the L’ test is not recommended. In addition, at the time of this writing. hypothesis
testing using the other indicies of goodness-of-fit cannot be carried out. since distributions
for these other indicies are u~lkn~~wll (JCireskog and S&born. 1984). Based on these
limitations, and the comment by Ofsson (1979) that if the data arc well behaved, in terms
of skewness, one may consider analyzing the observed scores. we decided to sacrifice
some accuracy in parameter estimation in the models for the use of invariance hypothesis
testing. Subsequently, a data matrix based on the product moment correlation was used
to create a covariance matrix for parameter estimation. Using Jdreskog and Siirbom’s
computer program LISREL VI (Linear Structural Relationship program version VI)
(19X4), the factorial model was defined for parameter estimation. The LISREL VI (here-
after known only as LISREL) program requires specification on three matrices. The rl
matrix of factor weights. the c9 tnatrix containing the covariances between the factors,
and the 0, matrix containing the uniqueness (error) for each measured variable.
Zohar‘s (1980) original model was constructed using his 40 item ~luesti~~nnaire on
400 Israeli production workers. Zohar established an eight factor completely orthogonal
structure (Table 1). Subsequently. ;Z was a 40 x 8 matrix of factor loadings, with @
constrained as a diagonal matrix, to provide for orthogonality. The American sample,
consisting of 425 production workers, was given Zohar’s 40 item questionnaire. This
produced a 40 x 40 covariance matrix of results. The covariance matrix is not provided,
due to space limitations (the matrix may be obtained from the authors). Data were also
collected on select demographic variables (i.e. age, gender, years worked for the company.
years on the current job, and marital status).
The -4. a, and 8, matrices were defined on the American sample in accordance
with Zohar’s factor structure (IYW). Parameter estimates were then requested using the
maximum likelihood method in LISREL, along with the previously discussed supporting
goodness-of-fit indices.

INITIAL RESULTS

Results indicated a poor model fit, with L’ = 1664.20 with df = 751,1? < .05, with
GFI = .525, and a root mean square residual of .210. Subsequently, the validity of

Table 1, Lohar’s safety climate factor model

FACTOR DESCRIPTION EIGENVALUE % OF NUMBER

VARIANCE OF ITEMS

Importance of safety training 9.84 40.9

Management attitudes toward safety 4.63 19.3

Effects of safe conduct on promotion 2.53 10.6

Level of risk at work place 2.34 9.7

Effects of work pace on safety 1.66 6.9

Status of safety officer 1.17 4.8

Effects of safe conduct on social status 1.07 4.4

Status of safety committee .84a 3.4

LsFactor eight was retained even though the eigenvalue was less than 1.80.
 Assessing an employee safety climate model 459
Zohar’s completely orthogonal factor structure was not supported by the American sample
of production workers (H, : S = 2, rejected). A second model was attempted, in which
Q, was defined as a symmetric matrix with fixed ones in the diagonal (completely oblique
structure). Results using the maximum likelihood method still indicated a poor model
fit, with L* = 1479.14, with df = 723,~ < .05, with GFI = .539, and a root mean square
residual of .181 (H, : S = 2, rejected). Although the results indicated a poor fit, the
model was improved by not being restricted to complete orthogonality (sL2 = 185.06,
“df = 28,~ < .05, where aL2 and Adf is the difference between the models). This relaxing
of the orthogonality restriction seems to indicate an area of better fit.
While one may speculate on the reasons for the lack of overall fit-cultural differ-
ences, work environment, etc.-it can be said that the Zohar measurement model, as
originalIy proposed, was not supported in measuring similar latent structures in the Amer-
ican sample, if one assumes our sample is unbiased. Therefore, the initial hypothesis of
factorial validity was not supported (H, : S = 2).

Exploratory factor analysis

Since the Zohar (1980) measurement model did not adequately represent the pre-
defined safety climate in the American sample, the next step was to use the existing
American data to refine the model using an exploratory approach to factor analytic model
building (Dwyer, 1983; Joreskog and Sorbom, 1984). Since Zohar’s theoretical devel-
opment failed to be supported, we set out searching for climate structures in our data
that could possibly be used in defining an American safety climate model. Kroonenberg
and Lewis (1982) and Hanna (1984) have proposed that LISREL may be used as an
iterative approach for conducting exploratory factor analysis by providing tests across
different factor structures.
Kroonenberg and Lewis (1982) propose the following exploratory algorithm using
LISREL:

(1) Perform a maximum likelihood factor analysis plus varimax rotation.

(2) Define the rotation to be used by LISREL by finding the largest absolute loading
per factor and zeroing all other loadings in the same row.
(3) Simplify the model by zeroing small loadings, based on the “r-statistic,” with
values less than 22.58.
(4) Examine the appropriateness of the simplified model by examining the first
derivatives of the log likelihood with respect to all other loadings.
(5) Free parameters for estimation if a simpler model is indicated by less restrictions.
(6) Stop if a simpler model is satisfied. This decision may be based on differences
between overall model L? values.

While we agree with this position, extensive iterative use of the algorithm using the
LISREL computer program has been found to be very costly, especially with larger
modeIs. This has also been pointed out by Dwyer (1983).
With this in mind, we sought a less expensive exploratory algorithm. Our primary
question was how many factors should be extracted from our data. Since the procedure
commonly used for the number of factor extractions based on eigenvalues of greater than
one is questioned (pummel, 1970; Howarth and Browne, 1972; Howarth, 1976), we
sought a more refined approach. The approach selected was a combination of an iterative
factor comparison technique first proposed by Cattell and Baggaley (1960), and most
recently discussed by Walkey and McCormick (1985), with Kroonenberg and Lewis’ (1982)
LISREL algorithm. Our modified exploratory algorithm was analogous to a combination
of reliability testing using a measure of association and a hypothesis testing procedure.

Modified exploratory algorithm

(1) Randomly sample two groups from the database.

(2) Obtain starting factor models for both groups using a maximum likelihood ex-
460 R. L. BROWN and H. HIXMES

traction method, with an oblique rotation. Rotation selection is based on the remarks of
Kroonenberg and Lewis (1982).
(3) Compare factor loadings using Cattell and Baggaley’s (1960) salience coefficients.
(4) Refine the model by restricting parameters based on salience coefficients.
(5) Submit final refined factor model to LISREL for parameter estimation, specifying
rotation by zeroing rows where highest factor loadings occur.
(6) Simplify model by zeroing nonsignificant parameters, using t-values less than
absolute 2.58.
(7) Resubmit restricted model to LISREL and test for significant improvement in
the model by use of the L’ test.
(8) Attempt a reduction in the number of factors if the difference is significant
between the original and the more restrictive model. Test the difference in models with
fewer factors, accept the new model if significant improvement is discovered.
(9) Attempt to refine the model once a specific number of factors is obtained by
freeing parameters for estimation by using Joreskog and Sorbom’s (1982) highest mod-
ification index.
(10) Stop if no further improvement can be made with the model.

Modified exploratory algorithm procedures

A salience coefficient (w) was established for the comparison of factor loadings based
on two random samples obtained from our data. The salience coefficient is a nonpara-
metric statistic similar in form to the chi-square (Walkey and McCormick, 1985). The
calculation involves placing the results of a comparison between two factor patterns, into
a three by three contingency table. depending on whether each is a positive salient, a
nonsalient (hyperplane loading). or a negative salient variable. Cattell and Baggaley’s
(1960) salience coefficient is defined as

with cells defined as

PS = positive salient variable, H = hyperplane

variable. NS = negative salient variable, f,, is a joint
frequency. The sanx ,I variables in both rcscarchcs.

A computer program was written that calculates a salience matrix fi and then plots
the matrix in three dimensions (sample 1 factors by sample 2 factors by the salience
coefficient value [0 5 0 1 1 .OO]).
Two random samples were drawn from the pretraumatic employee responses and
submitted to a typical factor analysis routine. using a maximum likelihood extraction,
with an oblique rotation (SPSS Inc.. 1983). Fifteen factors were extracted for both sam-
ples, based simply on eigenvalues greater than one. An fl matrix was then calculated on
the two samples. Figure 1 shows the relationship between the two factor structures.
Ideally, if the two samples were perfectly similar in factor structure loadings, one would
expect primary diagonal values of 1.00 with off diagonals of zero. One may notice that
this is not the case with these two samples. We found very high off diagonal w coefficients,
indicating poor factor replicability. Further exploration of the graphic reveals that the
primary diagonal seems to indicate the possibility of replicable extraction at the seven-
dimension level.
 Assessing an employee safety climate model

Fig. 1. Salience matrix of 15 factors

A second, more restrictive factor analysis was then fit to the data, based on the
seven-dimension structure. The Q matrix again indicated that a replicable fit was not
obtained at the seven-dimension level (Fig. 2). One will notice the three large primary
diagonal values, indicating the possibility of a strong three-dimensional replication. A
third factor analysis was conducted based on three dimensions, in which a very good
replicable fit was obtained (Fig. 3). Here we can see strong primary diagonal w coefficients
with essentially zero value off diagonals. This indicated that a three-dimensional safety
climate measure might be the most appropriate to further investigate using our algorithm.
The three-factor oblique model was then submitted on the combined samples to
LISREL, initially specifying A free for parameter estimation except to restrict rows where
the highest loadings occurred (STEP 5). This model was then simplified by restricting
parameter estimation on nonsignificant loadings (STEP 6). The final three-factor model
indicated a good fit, (L2 = 43.57, 35 df, p = .lS). The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and
the root mean square residual (RMSR) also supported the three-factor structure with
values of .931 and .06.5, respectively (H, : S = 2, retain). Tests for improvement on the
model were then conducted by reducing the number of factors from three to two, and
then from two to one, as discussed in step eight of our algorithm. The two-factor model
indicated a moderate fit, with L2 = 50.77, df = 36, p > .05. This was also supported by
a GFI of .919 and a RMSR of .07. Improvement/impairment between the two models
(three-factor versus two-factor) was then tested by assessing a AL2 statistic, where
‘L = L5,i, - Lfj,) with Adf = dfo,,g - df,,, (Bentler and Bonett, 1980).
The two-factor model indicated a significant worsening over the three-factor structure
in fit (‘L’ = 7.20, df = 1, p < .05). A unifactor structure was also attempted which
indicated a poor fit (L2 = 71.06, df = 37, p < .05, GFI = .889, RMSR = .097). The
difference between the unifactor and the two- and three-factor models was significant,
indicating that the unifactor was a poorer model, with AL2 = 20.29, *df = 1, p -C .OS,
and *L* = 27.49, *df = 2, p < .05, respectively. Subsequently, the three-factor model
was retained as the best fit model. It was noticed in this three-factor model that the
 R. L. and H. HOLMtS
BKCIWN

Fig. 3. Salience matrix of three factors.

 Assessing an employee safety climate model 463

covariance estimate between factors two and three was nonsignificant (t = - 2.069), and
it was subsequently restricted to zero. The re-estimation of the model increased the model
degrees of freedom from 35 to 36, with an L? = 43.59, p = .18, with GFI = .930 and
RMSR = .064.
The three-factor model was then further refined by freeing each fixed parameter
with the largest modification index (STEP 9). The modification index for each fixed
parameter is defined by Joreskog and S&born (1982) as “. . . (N/2) times the ratio
between the squared first-order derivative and the second-order derivative” (p. 408).
Thus the freeing of a fixed parameter with the highest modification index will result in
an improvement in the maximal fit of the model by a reduction in the L2 value equivalent
to the index value. Table 2 shows the iterations of improvement on the three-factor
model. By freeing parameter Xz3for estimation the model was significantly improved,
‘L’ = 4.18, idf = 1, p < .05. A second attempt at improvement was not supported,
AL2 = .91, Adf = 1,p > .05.
Table 3 shows the final parameter estimates for the three factor model, for both the
pre-traumatic as well as the post-traumatic samples. A model with 10 manifest and three
common factor latent variables was established (Fig. 4).
It may be seen that the model was drastically reduced from Zohar’s (1980) original
eight-factor configuration. The three-factor structures that were retained were defined
as (5,) employee perception of how concerned management was with their well-being,
(.$) employee perception of how active management was in responding to this concern,
and (.&) employee physical risk perception. All but factors (.$) and (.&) were significantly
correlated.

Factorial invariance
Once factor structures have been obtained and have shown some stability, a major
question regarding their use is related to the stability of the structures across different
populations. A basic question would be does the measurement model measure the same
construct across groups, or does it measure different constructs? If the factor structures
are the same for different groups (factorial invariance), then one can assume with some
confidence that differences in the measurement of such constructs are not due to mea-
surement error, but to some phenomenon under study. Since one is interested in dis-
covering any differences between post-traumatic and pre-traumatic individuals relative
to climate measures, in our case three specific climate dimensions, one needs to test for
the adequacy of such a model first.
The three-factor safety climate model was fit to both post-traumatic and pre-traumatic
samples, using the following covariance matrices (Table 4). Joreskog (1971) and Sorbom
(1974) have demonstrated that factorial invariance may be cast in a hypothesis testing
framework, in which a hierarchy of hypotheses may be tested (Alwin and Jackson, 1981).
In this study, four hypotheses were generated and tested in sequence.

Table 2. Changes in the three-factor model

mEL df * df ~2 ALL PT GFI RMm Rpyyu(s

ORIGINV, 36 43.59 .lS .930 .064 3FRcroRKDEL

AI-TE 1 35 39.41 .279 .937 .054 FREEA

LZ
1 4.18 c.05 SIGNIFICANT-

ALlwRNvE2 34 38.50 .273 .938 .055 FREEA

*3
1 .91 >.05 N31-
464 R.L.BRowN andH.Ho~~~s
Table 3. Three-factormodel parameter estimates

PRE-TRAUMATIC SAMPLE POST-TRAUMATIC SAMPLE

Parameter Estimate T-value Estimate T-value

l.OOoa 0.000 1.000a 0.000

.733 9.566 .852 11.201

-.176 -2.097c .a14 .985b

,696 9.885 .848 11.250

.658 9.219 .823 12.257

,577 6.948 .785 9.805

.647 8.238 .758 9.518
1.000= 0.000 1.000a 0.000

.693 7.187 .731 6.868

l.OOoa 0.000 1.00oa 0.000

.875 5.549 .408 3.135

.779 10.130 .987 10.521

-.363 -3.701 -.071 -.877b

.354 5.355 .559 6.800

.292 5.449 .445 6.602

-345 6.078 .440 6.598

.371 6.273 .317 6.204

-567 6.741 .551 7.007

.466 5.605 .708 7.457

.432 4.341 .745 5.358

.476 6.506 .555 7.072

.830 4.827 ,420 2.243'

.687 3.228 .881 7.370

c
a estimate fixed at 1.000. marginal significance retained.
b
nonsignificant parameter estimate.

1. That the two groups have the same three semicorrelated common factors of the
form:

WHERE:
H,, : II = 2= X = Estimated parameter
0 = Fixed parameter

This hypothesis stating that the factor structure pattern was the same for both pre-
and post-traumatic groups was supported, with an L’ = 65.96 with df = 68. p = ,548.
2. That, given that the two groups have the same factor model, the corresponding
factor loadings for the two groups are equal (i.e. the latent structures are measured in
 Assessing
an employeesafety
climate
model

Fig. 4. Three-factor safety climate model.

Table 4. Covariance matrices

forpre-and post-traumatic
samples

#14 3 Q2-f

Ql4 1.318
427 0.794 1.144
Ql8 0.655 0.671 1.133
Q36 0.668 0.691 0.680 0.970
@ 0.689 0.626 0.680 cJ,65l 1.144
Q12 0.337 0.310 0.355 0.302 0.274 0.847
Qll 0.711 0.647 0.668 0.627 0.520 0.260 1.259
QZI. 0.657 0.607 0.642 0.583 0.543 0.316 0.577 1.108
015 -0.057 -0.004 -0.056 -0.014 -0.017 0.046 -0.004 0.071 1,459
Q26 -0.193 -0.182 -0.164 -0.257 -0.138 0.026 -0.205 -0.118 0.459 1.386

Q26
QIt4 1.100
0.910
z o*6g3 0.511 0.797
0.590
Q36 0,495 0.463 0.464 0.174
0.411 0.266 0.361 0.877
:2 ::55; 0.382 0,303 0.279 0.208 0.820
Qll 0.452 0.391 0.311 0.394 0.290 0.401 0.891
Q2l 0.460 0.471 0.467 0.455 0.370 0.306 0.319 0.866
QJ.5 -0.212 -0.320 -0.161 -0,114 -0.082 -0.149 -0.089 -0.113 1.441
QZ6 -0.271 -0.377 -0.282 -0.163 -0.288 -0.193 -0.146 -0,241 0.672 1.438
466 R. L. BROWN and H. HOLMES

the same units for both groups)

The units of measurement for each latent structure (factor) were determined by fixing
the first factor loading, per factor to unity (i.e. A,,, A,,:, and hqj). The test of this position
revealed that there was equality in the units of measurement (i.e. L’ = 13.11, df = 8,
p > .05).
3. That. assuming both hypotheses H,, : FI = 2 and H,, : A. the estimated errors in
measurement for the two groups are equal (i.e. latent structures are measured with the
same accuracy).

The accuracy of measurement across both pre- and post-traumatic groups was the
same (L’ = 15.87, df = 10, p > .OS).
4. That, assuming hypotheses H,, : tz = 2. H,, : A, and H,, : A@,, the covariances
between the latent structures for the two groups are equal (i.e. both groups possess
semioblique latent structures)

Both groups shared similar covariance structures between latent variables (15’ = 3.40.
df = 3, p > .OS); subsequently. the semiobijque representation was the best modei.
The simultaneous analysis across the two groups demonstrated that both groups had
the same factor models. were measured in the same units, were equally accurate and
possessed correlated factor structures. From this analysis it may be concluded that score
differences between the two groups measured on the three latent structures would not
be indicative of model/measurement error.

Based on the three extracted factor structures (climate dimensions), raw employee
scores were transformed into standardized factor scores (Rummei, 1970). Factor scores
were then tested across pre- and Pabst-tr~tumatic samples to separate the influence of this
conditi~~n.
Initially, dimension effects were assessed between groups by simple mean compar-
isons of the standardized factor scores. It was discovered that the post-traumatic group’s
level of risk perception was significantly lower (t = 2.23, df = 331. p < .OS) than that
of the pre-traumatic group. This would lead one to believe that the level of risk perception
may be group oriented and not group contingent, meaning that the level of risk may be
an etioiogical agent in the trauma group and not a product. This finding must be viewed
cautiously. since an etiological statement should not be made on nonlongitudinal data.
The groups also differed significantly in mean perception of management concern
and management action. with the post-traumatic group providing a significantly lower
perception in both dimensions, f = - 3.22. df = 331, p < .OSand I = - 2.98, df = 33 I,
p < .OS. respectively. One may speculate that those jndividuaIs who have expcrienccd
some trauma in the workplace may blame management for this occurrence. To obtain
more d&ail. the relationships between the three dimensions was explored using simple
linear regression analysis. The linear functions were based on regressing one dimension’s
factor scores on the others. Table 5 provides both slope and intercept parameters for
each function, along with significance tests.
Figure 5 shows a plot of two linear functions relating risk perception to perception
of management concern for both groups. It may be noted that the significant negative
slope for the pre-traumatic group is also significantly steeper than the nonsignificant post-
traumatic group slope (Z = 3.9087, p < .05, test for equality of slopes). This may indicate
a lack of faith in management for those employees who experience trauma, regardless
 Assessing an employee safety climate model 467
Table 5. Linear regression parameter estimates

Dimensionalrelationship Intercept t-value probability SlOpe t-value probability

E%t-tramatic Groupa

Risk vs Namgemmt Concern -.1653 -2.95 p < .05 -.069 -.71 p > .05

Risk vs l&nagenentAction -.1?06 -3.02 p < .05 -.021 -.22 p > *OS

Kgmt Action *s m Concern .0028 SO p > -05 ,990 133.57 p < .05

Pretraumtic Group b

Risk "s Managemnt Concern .0250 .45 p > .05 -.594 -6.45 p < .05

Risk vs ManagementAction .0045 .05 p > .05 -.482 -5.60 p < .05

,&mt Action vs Mgmt Concern .0353 1.33 p> .05 ,993 26.68 p < .05

a " = 171, bn = 162

of the level of perceived risk (6,,, = - .069, t = - .71, p > .05). One may speculate
that these individuals have either lost or have no confidence in management as a protector
of their environment, whereas the pre-traumatic group maintains confidence in manage-
ment when risk is perceived low. The post-traumatic group also demonstrated a signifi-
cantly overall lower functional level of perception of management concern, relative to
levels of risk, than did the pre-traumatic group (2 = - 2.403, p < .05, test for equality
of intercepts). This was also supported previously by the mean difference in overall
perception of management concern between the two groups, regardless of perceived risk
(I = -3.22, df = 331,~ < .05).
Similar findings were found in the relationship between perceived risk and the per-

HIGH
*. -.
-. -.
-. -.
-.
l-._
=._
-.
-.

11 ---- PM-TRAUMATIC
‘.
-.
-.
-.
-. -.
-.
-. -.
-.
101
I.01 0 HIGH

PERCEIVED RISK DINEH~IDN

Fig. 5. Perceived management dimension regressed on perceived risk dimension.

468 R. L. BROWN and H. HOLMES

ception of management action (Fig. 6). This finding should not be surprising given the
high covariance between the two management dimensions. The pre-traumatic group again
had a significantly steeper negative slope than the post-traumatic group (2 = 3.522,
p < .05, test for equality of slopes). Again the nonsignificant slope for the post-traumatic
group indicated that this group’s perception of management action was little influenced
by their level of risk perception (h,,,,,, = - .02, t = - .22, p > .OS). The post-traumatic
group also demonstrated a significantly overall lower functional level in the perception
of management action than did the pre-traumatic group (Z = -2.278, p < .05, test for
equality of intercepts). The simple mean difference in overall perception of management
action between the two groups also indicated that the post-traumatic group demonstrated
a significantly lower perception than the pre-traumatic group.
The strong relationship between the two management dimensions over the two groups
was also explored (Fig. 7). The two groups coincided in both slope and level of perception
(Z = .23, p > .05, test for equality of slopes, and Z = .19. p > .05, test for equality of
intercepts). The relationship for both groups was strongly positive, indicating that high
levels of perception in management concern also related to high levels of perception in
management action.

CONCLUSIONS

Examining the responses of 425 American production workers by means of Zohar’s

(1980) safety climate questionnaire, using confirmatory factor analysis, the originally
proposed measurement model was not supported by the findings. This was not a surprising
finding, since the model was originally constructed on a different population (i.e. Israeli).
An exploratory factor analytic approach conducted on the American sample revealed a
much smaller safety climate model. The model did meet many of the concerns relative
to reliability and validity and was subsequently used in an analysis of the American sample.
The study reached the following conclusions.

1. The blind acceptance of a measurement model for the assessment of unmea-

sureable (latent) constructs can be dangerously in error. One must have some indication
of the reliability and validity of such a model before assessments can be made.

--__
--._
--._
--._
-.
--._
--._
--._
--._
--._
--._
-.
O- --._
- -._
--._
--._
--._
--._
--._
- POST-TRAUYATIC --._
-.
---- PRE-TRAUMATIC --._
--._ .

LOW 0 HIGH

PERCEIVED RISK DIMENSION

Fig. 6. Perceived action dimension regressed on perceived risk dimennmn
 Assessing an employee safety climate model 469

tow II HIGH

PERCEIVEDACTIORDIMERSIOH
Fig. 7. Perceived management dimension regressed on perceived action dimension.

2. The use of the exploratory factor analysis algorithm that we have proposed seems
to provide an efficient means for understanding data. This subsequently provides statistical
support for the reliability and validity of a proposed model.
3. Differences in levels of perception between pre- and post-traumatic employees
was definitely uncovered.
4. While it seems reasonable that the level of risk perceived may be an etiological
agent in the production of trauma, this study was not able to provide such a concrete
statement of causality.
5. While it also seems reasonable that physical trauma may influence employees’
perceptions of how much management is concerned about their well being, one cannot
state this for certain, since this study was purely relational. One must conduct a longi-
tudinal assessment of climate relative to the onset of physical trauma for such a conclusion
to be generated.

While one is left debating the chicken-egg position relative to safety climate, this
study has provided the means by which such a “causal” question could be answered,
based on the extracted perceptual dimensions.

Ackrrowlrakemenfs-The authors wish to express their appreciation to David Cipra, Department of Transpor-
tation, State of Wisconsin and James M. Leaver, University of Wisconsin, for their assistance with this man-
uscript.

REFERENCES

Alwin D. F. and Jackson D. J., Applications of simultaneous factor analysis to issues of factorial invariance.
In Factor Analysis and Measurement in Sociological Research (Edited by D. J. Jackson and E. F. Borgatta),
Sage Studies in International Sociology 21, 249-280, 1981.
Bentler P. M. and Bonett D. G., Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Pry&l. Bull. L@(3), 5888606, 1980.
Catteil R. B. and Baggaley A. R., The salient variable similarity index for factor matching. Br. J. Stat. Psychol.
13, 33-46, 1960.
Dieterly D. and Schneider B., The effect of organizational environment on perceived power and climate: A
laboratory study. Organiz. Eehav. Human Perform. 11, 316-337, 1974.
470 R. L. BROWN and H. HOLMES

Dwyer J. H., Statistical Models for the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Oxford University Press. New York.
1983.
Hanna G., The use of a factor-analytic model for assessing the validity of group comparisons. J. Eductr. Meas.
21(2), 191-199. 1984.
Howarth E., A psychometric investigation of Eysenck’s personality inventory. .I. Personality Ass. 40. 173-185,
1976.
Howarth, E.. and Browne. J. A.. An item factor analysis of the Eysenck personality inventory. Br. .I. Social
Clin. Psychol. 11, 162-174, 1972.
James L. R. and Jones A. P.. Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. P.sychol. Bull. Xl.
1096-1112, 1974.
JZireskog K. G.. A general approach to confirmatory factor analysis. Psychometrika 34. 183-202. 1YhY.
JZireskog K. G., Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika 36, 509-426, 1971.
Jijreskog K. G. and Stirborn D.. Recent developments in structural equation modeling. J. ,Marketing Res. 14,
404-416. 1982.
Jareskog K. G. and Stirborn D., LISREL VI Analysis of Linear Structural Re1ation.ship.r by the Method oj
Maximum Likelihood. Scientific Software. Inc., Mooresville. Indiana. 19X4.
Kroonenberg P. M. and Lewis C., Methodological issues in the search for a factor model: Exploration through
confirmation. J. Educut. Stat. 7(2). 69-90. 1982.
Lawley D. N. and Maxwell A. E.. Facror At~r1y.G Ac a Statistical Method. 2nd edn. Butterworths, London.
1971.
Long J. S., Confirmatory Fuctor Anulysis, Sage University Paper. Beverly Hills, CA. 19X3.
Olsson U.. Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation coefficient. P.sychometriku 44. 443-
460. 1979.
Olsson U., On the robustness of factor analysis against crude classification of the observations. Multil,ariatc
Behav. Res.14, 4X5-500. 1979.
Oisson U., Drasgow F. and Dorans N. J., The polyserial correlation cocfficicnt. P.~~chornetnka 47(3). 337-
347. 19x2.
Rummel R. J.. Applied Factor Analysis. Northwestern University Press. Evanston. IL. lY70.
Schneider B., Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel P.sycholo~y 28. 417-37’). 1975.
SGrbom D.. A general method for studying differences in factor means and Cactor structures between groups.
Br. J. Math. Stat. Psvchol. 28, 138-151. 1974.
Siirbom D. and JOreskog K. G.. The use of LISREL in sociological model building. In Factor Am~l,vtiv and
Meusurement in Sociolorzal Reseurch (Edited bv D. J. Jackson and E. F. Boreatta). i I Sagec Studies in
International Sociology, 21, 179-199. 19i(l. .
SPSS Inc.. SPSSx User’s Guide. McGraw-Hill. New York. lYX3.
Walkey F. H. and McCormick I. A.. Multiple replication of factor htructurc: A logical solution for a number
of factors problem. Multivuriate Bekav. Re.r. 20, 57-67. 1985.
Zohar D., Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. J Appl. Psychol.
65(l). Y6-101. 1980.