Development of Scales to Measure and Analyse the Relationship of Safety Consciousness and Safety Citizenship Behaviour of Construction Workers: An Empirical Study in China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Safety Consciousness
2.2. Safety Citizenship Behaviour
2.3. Dimensions
2.4. Research Hypotheses
3. Methodology
3.1. Development of Scales
3.2. Questionnaire Survey
3.3. Data Analysis
4. Results
4.1. Factor Analysis for Scale Development
4.2. Test of Reliability and Validity
4.3. Correlation Analysis
4.4. Regression Model Establishment
4.5. Subgroup ANOVA
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Category | Frequency | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 316 | 82.72% |
Female | 66 | 17.28% | |
Age (years) | <20 | 34 | 8.90% |
20–30 | 169 | 44.24% | |
30–40 | 120 | 31.41% | |
40–50 | 35 | 9.16% | |
≥50 | 24 | 6.28% | |
Educational background | Junior middle school or below | 40 | 10.47% |
High school | 214 | 56.02% | |
Technical school | 63 | 16.49% | |
Undergraduate or above | 65 | 17.02% | |
Length of service (years) | <3 | 97 | 25.39% |
4–6 | 76 | 19.90% | |
7–9 | 82 | 21.47% | |
10–12 | 83 | 21.73% | |
13–15 | 30 | 7.85% | |
≥16 | 14 | 3.66% | |
Working hour per week (hours) | <40 | 82 | 21.47% |
40–45 | 65 | 17.02% | |
45–50 | 68 | 17.80% | |
50–55 | 46 | 12.04% | |
≥56 | 121 | 31.68% |
Concept | Dimension | Items | Scale |
---|---|---|---|
Safety consciousness | Training and education of safety skills | Q1: You think training and education of worker’s safety knowledge is important. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. |
Q2: You often participate in safety-related skills training and education consciously, even if it may sacrifice your personal time. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | ||
Q3: You think safety skills training is useless and without any practical meaning. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | ||
Dependency level of working experience | Q4: You are usually accustomed to the old way of working without considering the latest safety issues. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | |
Q5: You think an experienced or skilled construction worker does not need to take safety measures during his work. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | ||
Risk prevention ability | Q6: You insist on working protection even if the safety measures will prolong the construction period. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | |
Q7: You may neglect wearing the safety equipment (such as a safety helmet) if there is no supervision on the construction site. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | ||
Q8: You think you should strengthen personal safety consciously during the construction process. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | ||
(Removed item) | Q9: In your opinion, it is necessary to sign a labour contract with the construction company to avoid potential risk caused by illegal working load. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | |
Familiarity with safety regulations | Q10: You are well aware of the terms of the building industry standards. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | |
Q11: With regard to common laws and regulations (such as the Convention on Safety and Health in the Construction Industry, the Building Law, etc.), how many laws and regulations do you know? | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | ||
Q12: You often think “Is it in line with the rules?” before you act | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | ||
Safety citizenship behaviour | Mutual aid among the workers | X1: You will help new workers to get familiarised with the working environment at the construction site. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. |
X2: Sometimes you do not pay much attention to the safety of your co-workers. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | ||
X3: When your co-workers are working in dangerous situations, you will stop them. | 1= highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | ||
Relationship between superior and subordinate | X4: You think a good relationship between supervisors and subordinates will make safer behaviour during the construction process. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | |
X5: You are more inclined to comply with the regulations and meet the safety precautions made by your preferred superior. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | ||
X6: You will pay more attention to your own personal safety if the superior is concerned about you. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | ||
Participation in suggestion making | X7: When you encounter safety hazards, you usually do not report it to your superior. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | |
X8: When facing potential risks in the construction process, you will discuss with your colleagues to find a safer way to conduct the work. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | ||
X9: During the construction procedure, you will put forward some suggestions to improve the safety circumstances. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | ||
Self-control | X10: You always wear safety equipment (such as wearing a safety helmet) during your work even though your co-workers do not, whether supervised or unsupervised. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | |
X11: You often take part in safety exercises or safety information activities (accident simulation rehearsals and safety banner learning) even though your co-workers ignore these opportunities. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. | ||
X12: You will take the initiative to comply with the safety regulations even though your co-workers ignore them. | 1 = highly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = highly agree. |
References
- International Labour Organization. Available online: https://www.ilo.org/global/lang--en/index.htm (accessed on 31 November 2018).
- Meng, W.L.; Shen, S.; Zhou, A. Investigation on fatal accidents in Chinese construction industry between 2004 and 2016. Nat. Hazards 2018, 94, 655–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development of China. Available online: http://www.mohurd.gov.cn/ (accessed on 22 October 2018).
- Fang, D.P.; Wu, C.L.; Wu, H.J. Impact of the supervisor on worker safety behaviour in construction projects. J. Manage. Eng. 2015, 31, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lingard, H.; Cooke, T.; Blismas, N. Coworkers’ response to occupational health and safety: An overlooked dimension of group-level safety climate in the construction industry. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2011, 18, 159–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conrad, P.; Bradshaw, Y.S.; Lamsudin, R.; Kasniyah, N.; Costello, C. Safety helmets, injuries and cultural definitions: Motorcycle injury in urban Indonesia. J. Accident. Anal. Prev. 1996, 28, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oxley, J.; O’Hern, S.; Jamaludin, A. An observational study of restraint and helmet wearing behaviour in Malaysia. Transp. Res. Part F. Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2018, 56, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jefferson, R.; Fredenck, R.; Philip, S.; Robert, S.; Ronald, M.; Thomas, K. Motorcycle safety helmet use and injury outcome and hospitalization costs from crashes in Washington State. Am. J. Public Health 1996, 86, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Westaby, J.D.; Lee, B.C. Antecedents of injury among youth in agricultural settings: A longitudinal examination of safety consciousness, dangerous risk taking, and safety knowledge. J. Saf. Res. 2003, 34, 227–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chan, A.P.; Wong, F.K.; Yam, M.C.H.; Chan, D.W.M.; Ng, J.; Tam, C.M. From attitude to culture—Effect of safety climate on construction safety. In Construction Safety Research Group; Hong Kong Polytechnic University: Hong Kong, China, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Z.; An, S.H. A comparative analysis of the safety awareness of Korean and Chinese construction workers. J. Korean Inst. Build. Cons. 2011, 12, 433–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Koster, R.B.M.; Stam, D.; Balk, B.M. Accidents happen: The influence of safety-specific transformational leadership, safety consciousness, and hazard reducing systems on warehouse accidents. J. Oper. Manag. 2011, 29, 753–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradford, H.F.; Amy, E.W.; Eric, E.B.; John, W.J. Creating a safer working environment through psychological assessment: A review of a measure of safety consciousness. J. Prev. Interv. Community 2001, 22, 53–65. [Google Scholar]
- Misiurek, K.; Misiurek, B. Methodology of improving occupational safety in the construction industry on the basis of the TWI program. Saf. Sci. 2017, 92, 225–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hinze, J.; Gambatese, J. Addressing construction worker safety in the design phase designing for construction worker safety. Autom. Constr. 1999, 8, 643–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roth, J.L.; Brooks-Gunn, J. Youth development programs: Risk, prevention and policy. J. Adolesc. Health 2003, 32, 170–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dudley, N.M.; Orvis, K.A.; Lebiecki, J.E.; Cortina, J.M. A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: Examining the inter-correlations and the incremental validity of narrow traits. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 40–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Siu, O.L.; Phillips, D.R.; Leung, T.W. Age differences in safety attitudes and safety performance in Hong Kong construction workers. J. Saf. Res. 2003, 34, 199–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, W.K.; Wang, B.C. Research on the relationship between unsafe behaviour and cognition of subway construction based on SEM. J. Saf. Sci. Tech. 2015, 11, 155–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Javed, A.A.; Zhang, W.; Pan, W. A system dynamics framework of drivers and constraints to enhancing productivity of the Hong Kong construction industry. In Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate; Chau, K., Chan, I., Lu, W., Webster, C., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2018; ISBN 978-981-10-6189-9. [Google Scholar]
- Hofmann, D.A.; Morgeson, F.P. Safety-related behaviour as a social exchange: The role of perceived organizational support and leader-member exchange. J. Appl. Psychol. 1999, 84, 286–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shama, D.; Kathryn, M.; Rhona, F. Safety citizenship behaviour: A proactive approach to risk management. J. Risk Res. 2009, 12, 475–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conchie, S.M.; Donald, I.J. The functions and development of safety-specific trust and distrust. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 92–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Du, X.; Zhao, X. An empirical investigation of the influence of safety climate on safety citizenship behaviour in coal mine. Procedia Eng. 2011, 26, 2173–2180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turner, N.; Chmiel, N.; Walls, M. Railing for safety: Job demands, job control, and safety citizenship role definition. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2005, 10, 504–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Curcuruto, M.; Griffin, M.A. Prosocial and proactive “safety citizenship behaviour” (SCB): The mediating role of affective commitment and psychological ownership. Saf. Sci. 2018, 104, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerstner, C.R.; Day, D.V. Meta-analytic review of leader-member exchange theory: Correlates and construct issues. J. Appl. Psychol. 1997, 82, 827–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reader, T.; Mearns, K.; Lopes, C.; Kuha, J. Organizational support for the workforce and employee safety citizenship behaviours: A social exchange relationship. J. Hum. Relat. 2017, 70, 362–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharon, C. Safety leadership: A meta-analytic review of transformational and transactional leadership styles as antecedents of safety behaviours. J. Occup. Organ. Psych. 2013, 86, 22–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heatherton, T.F.; Baumeister, R.F. Self-regulation failure: Past, present, and future. Psychol. Inq. 1996, 7, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hagger, M.S.; Zhang, C.; Kangro, E.; Ries, F.; Chan, D.K.C.; Wang, J.C.K.; Heritage, B. Trait self-control and self-discipline: Structure, validity, and invariance across national groups. Curr. Psychol. 2018, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barling, J.; Loughlin, C.; Kelloway, E.K. Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. J. Appl. Psychol. 2002, 87, 488–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wright, K.B. Researching internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2005, 10, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seki, Y.; Matsuura, K.; Sano, M.; Ueta, T. A questionnaire system with an authentication framework considering online activities of users. J. Trans. Electr. Electr. Eng. 2018, 13, 1071–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, L.A.; Watson, D. Construct validity basic issue in objective scale development. Psychol. Assess. 1995, 7, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.C.; Paul, E.M. Construct validity in psychological tests. J. Psychol. Bull. 1955, 52, 281–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choe, A.S.; Nebel, M.B.; Barber, A.D.; Cohen, J.R.; Xu, Y.; Pekar, J.J.; Lindquist, M.A. Comparing test-retest reliability of dynamic functional connectivity methods. NeuroImage 2017, 158, 155–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cronback, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16, 297–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pintrich, P.R.; Smith, D.A.F.; Garcia, T.; Mckeachie, W.J. Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1993, 53, 801–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Prooijen, J.W.; van der Kloot, W.A. Confirmatory analysis of exploratively obtained factor structures. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2001, 61, 777–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anna, B.C.; Jason, W.O. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2005, 10, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schreiber, J.B.; Stage, F.K.; King, J.; Nora, A.; Barlow, E.A. Reporting structural equation modelling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. J. Educ. Res. 2006, 99, 323–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Francisco, H.T.; Salvador, M.; Isabel, B.; Enrique, V. Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. J. Qual. Quant. 2010, 44, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, T.K. Understanding one-way ANOVA using conceptual figures. Korean J. Anesth. 2005, 70, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eiris, R.; Gheisari, M.; Esmaeili, B. PARS: Using augmented 360-degree panoramas of reality for construction safety training. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, P.; Wu, P.; Wang, J.; Chi, H.L.; Wang, X. A critical review of the use of virtual reality in construction engineering education and training. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matt, W.S.; Katharine, A.K.; Kent, R.O.; Kathleen, C.B.; Lee, S.D. Effect of state workplace safety laws on occupational injury rates. J. Occup. Environ. 2001, 43, 1001–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, K.J. Improving safety culture through the health and safety organization: A case study. J. Saf. Res. 2014, 48, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ken, P. The impact of workplace support and identity on training transfer: A case study of drug and alcohol safety training in Australia. Int. J. Train. Dev. 2004, 8, 274–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riedel, N.; Siegrist, J.; Wege, N.; Loerbroks, A.; Angerer, P.; Li, J. Does effort and reward at work predict changes in cognitive function? First longitudinal results from the representative German socio-economic panel. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jacqueline, H.W. “Allowed into a man’s world” meanings of work–life balance: Perspectives of women civil engineers as ‘minority’ workers in construction. J. Gender. Work. Organ. 2009, 16, 37–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldenhar, L.M.; Swanson, N.G.; Hurrell, J.J.; Ruder, A.; Deddens, J. Stressors and adverse outcomes for female construction workers. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 1998, 3, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huang, Y.H.; Lee, J.; McFadden, A.C.; Murphy, L.A.; Robertson, M.M.; Cheung, J.H.; Zohar, D. Beyond safety outcomes: An investigation of the impact of safety climate on job satisfaction, employee engagement and turnover using social exchange theory as the theoretical framework. Appl. Ergon. 2016, 55, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sojo, V.E.; Wood, R.E.; Genat, A.E. Harmful workplace experiences and women’s occupational well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Women Q. 2016, 40, 10–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sousa, V.; Almeida, N.M.; Dias, L.A. Risk-based management of occupational safety and health in the construction industry-Part 1: Background knowledge. Saf. Sci. 2014, 66, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardison, D.; Behm, M.; Hallowell, M.R.; Fonooni, H. Identifying construction supervisor competencies for effective site safety. Saf. Sci. 2014, 65, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dembe, A.E. The impact of overtime and long work hours on occupational injuries and illnesses: New evidence from the United States. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2005, 62, 588–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Skogstad, M.; Mamen, A.; Lunde, L.K.; Ulvestad, B.; Matre, D.; Aass, H.C.D.; Øvstebø, R.; Nielsen, P.; Samuelsen, K.N.; Skare, Ø.; et al. Shift work including night work and long working hours in industrial plants increases the risk of atherosclerosis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alameddine, M.; Otterbach, S.; Rafii, B.; Sousa-Poza, A. Work hour constraints in the German nursing workforce: A quarter of a century in review. Health Policy (New York) 2018, 122, 1101–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowen, P.; Edwards, P.; Lingard, H.; Cattell, K. Occupational stress and job demand, control and support factors among construction project consultants. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 1273–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paulhus, D.L. Measurement and Control of Response Bias, 3rd ed.; Academic Press, Inc.: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013; ISBN 0-12-590241-7 (Hardcover); 0-12-590244-1 (Paperback). [Google Scholar]
Construct | Dimensions | References |
---|---|---|
Safety consciousness | Familiarity with safety regulations | [11,12] |
Training and education of safety skills | [13,14,15] | |
Conscientiousness | [16,17] | |
Dependency level of work experience | [18,19,20] | |
Safety citizenship behaviour | Mutual aid among the workers | [24,25,26] |
Relationship between superior and subordinate | [27,28] | |
Participation of suggestion making | [29,30] | |
Self-control | [31,32] |
Number | Content |
---|---|
H1 | Significant positive correlations exist between safety consciousness and safety citizenship behaviour. |
H2 | The greater the familiarity with safety regulations, the higher the level of safety citizenship behaviour. |
H3 | The greater the attention paid to safety skills training, the higher the level of safety citizenship behaviour. |
H4 | The stronger the conscientiousness, the higher the level of safety citizenship behaviour. |
H5 | The higher the dependency on construction experience, the lower the level of safety citizenship behaviour. |
H6 | The influence of safety consciousness on safety citizenship behaviour is reflected in the extent of workers’ mutual aid. |
H7 | The influence of safety consciousness on safety citizenship behaviour is reflected in the feedback relationship between superior and subordinate. |
H8 | The influence of safety consciousness on safety citizenship behaviour is reflected in the participation of suggestion making. |
H9 | The influence of safety consciousness on safety citizenship behaviour is reflected in self-control. |
KMO and Bartlett Test of Sphericity | ||
---|---|---|
KMO measure of sampling adequacy | 0.795 | |
Approximate chi-square | 1244.674 | |
Freedom | 55 | |
Significant | 0.000 |
KMO and Bartlett Test of Sphericity | ||
---|---|---|
KMO measure of sampling adequacy | 0.889 | |
Approximate chi-square | 1740.348 | |
Freedom | 66 | |
Significant | 0.000 |
The Component Matrix After Rotation | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Items | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Factor 5 | |
Factor 1 | Q1 | 0.850 | 0.172 | −0.041 | 0.131 | −0.148 |
Q3 | 0.808 | −0.023 | −0.091 | 0.112 | 0.216 | |
Q2 | 0.805 | −0.212 | 0.182 | 0.214 | 0.171 | |
Factor 2 | Q5 | 0.225 | 0.826 | 0.244 | 0.193 | −0.271 |
Q4 | 0.137 | 0.783 | 0.031 | −0.234 | −0.335 | |
Factor 3 | Q6 | −0.278 | 0.134 | 0.839 | −0.355 | 0.126 |
Q7 | −0.303 | −0.312 | 0.772 | −0.231 | 0.376 | |
Q8 | −0.135 | 0.215 | 0.645 | 0.134 | −0.398 | |
Factor 4 | Q11 | 0.032 | 0.251 | 0.012 | 0.825 | −0.315 |
Q10 | −0.217 | −0.182 | 0.011 | 0.628 | −0.012 | |
Q12 | −0.104 | −0.083 | −0.082 | 0.533 | 0.231 | |
Factor 5 | Q9 | −0.211 | 0.216 | 0.218 | 0.091 | 0.571 |
The Component Matrix After Rotation | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Items | Factor 6 | Factor 7 | Factor 8 | Factor 9 | |
Factor 6 | X1 | 0.788 | 0.032 | −0.145 | 0.268 |
X2 | 0.775 | 0.122 | 0.027 | −0.273 | |
X3 | 0.756 | −0.117 | −0.213 | 0.083 | |
Factor 7 | X6 | 0.192 | 0.803 | 0.341 | 0.034 |
X4 | −0.162 | 0.729 | −0.213 | 0.193 | |
X5 | 0.013 | 0.707 | −0.124 | 0.117 | |
Factor 8 | X7 | −0.214 | 0.341 | 0.748 | 0.022 |
X8 | −0.301 | −0.112 | 0.723 | 0.128 | |
X9 | 0.277 | −0.362 | 0.614 | −0.214 | |
Factor 9 | X12 | 0.371 | −0.231 | 0.034 | 0.867 |
X10 | 0.246 | 0.341 | 0.215 | 0.662 | |
X11 | −0.012 | 0.012 | 0.211 | 0.645 |
Portion | Dimensions | Cronbach Coefficient | Total Cronbach Coefficient | Number of Items |
---|---|---|---|---|
Safety consciousness | Familiarity with safety regulations | 0.721 | 0.751 | 11 |
Training and education of safety skills | 0.692 | |||
Conscientiousness | 0.792 | |||
Dependency level of work experience | 0.799 | |||
Safety citizenship behaviour | Mutual aid among the workers | 0.823 | 0.813 | 12 |
Relationship between superior and subordinate | 0.806 | |||
Participation in suggestion making | 0.773 | |||
Self-control | 0.851 |
Questionnaire | χ2/df | RMR | GFI | IFI | CFI | PGFI | RMSEA | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Safety consciousness | 1.968 | 0.051 | 0.883 | 0.917 | 0.923 | 0.658 | 0.057 | 0.612 |
Safety citizenship behaviour | 1.827 | 0.043 | 0.912 | 0.942 | 0.951 | 0.679 | 0.042 | 0.741 |
Standard | 1–2 | <0.05 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.5 | <0.05 | >0.5 |
Variables | Safety Citizenship Behaviour | Safety Skills Training | Dependency of Experience | Conscientiousness | Familiarity with Safety Regulations |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pearson correlation | 1 | 0.403 ** | 0.258 ** | 0.597 ** | 0.551 ** |
Significance (double tailed) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Case number | 382 | 382 | 382 | 382 | 382 |
Variables | Safety Consciousness | Mutual Aid | Relationship between Superior and Subordinate | Participation of Suggestion Making | Self-Control |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pearson correlation | 1 | 0.616 ** | 0.112 | 0.568 ** | 0.586 ** |
Significance (double tailed) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Case number | 382 | 382 | 382 | 382 | 382 |
Variables | Safety Skills Training | Dependency on Experience | Conscientiousness | Familiarity with the Laws and Regulations |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mutual aid | 0.427 ** | 0.390 ** | 0.582 ** | 0.455 ** |
Relationship between superior and subordinate | 0.030 | 0.131 * | 0.123 * | 0.247 ** |
Making suggestion | 0.385 ** | 0.413 ** | 0.504 ** | 0.479 ** |
Self-control | 0.473 ** | 0.211 ** | 0.641 ** | 0.597 ** |
Model | χ2/df | RMR | GFI | IFI | CFI | PGFI | RMSEA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SC and SCB | 1.768 | 0.057 | 0.851 | 0.828 | 0.827 | 0.658 | 0.057 |
Standard | 1–2 | <0.05 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.9 | >0.5 | <0.05 |
Path | Estimate | Significant | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
SCB | <--- | SC | 0.834 | *** |
experience | <--- | SC | 0.538 | *** |
conscientiousness | <--- | SC | 0.867 | *** |
education | <--- | SC | 0.572 | *** |
regulation | <--- | SC | 0.616 | *** |
help | <--- | SCB | 0.835 | *** |
relation | <--- | SCB | 0.359 | |
suggestion | <--- | SCB | 0.764 | *** |
self-control | <--- | SCB | 0.763 | *** |
Model | Unstandardised Coefficient | Standardised Coefficient | Col-Linearity Statistics | Significance | R2 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | Standard Deviation | Beta | Tolerance | VIF | |||
(Constant) | 1.436 | 0.156 | 0.000 | 0.681 | |||
Safety skills training | 0.084 | 0.035 | 0.111 | 0.662 | 1.510 | 0.017 | |
Dependency of experience | −0.029 | 0.023 | −0.060 | 0.616 | 1.624 | 0.214 | |
Conscientiousness | 0.338 | 0.042 | 0.423 | 0.513 | 1.949 | 0.000 | |
Familiarity with the laws and regulations | 0.260 | 0.035 | 0.329 | 0.741 | 1.350 | 0.000 |
Feature | Quadratic Sum | Degree of Freedom | Mean Square | F | Significance | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Between-column | Gender | 0.982 | 1 | 0.982 | 3.142 | 0.032 (<0.05) |
Within-group | 118.564 | 380 | 0.312 | |||
Between-column | Age | 2.782 | 4 | 0.696 | 2.241 | 0.065 |
Within-group | 116.981 | 377 | 0.310 | |||
Between-column | Educational background | 3.730 | 3 | 1.243 | 4.051 | 0.007 (<0.05) |
Within-group | 116.033 | 378 | 0.307 | |||
Between-column | Length of service | 1.767 | 5 | 0.353 | 1.126 | 0.346 |
Within-group | 117.996 | 376 | 0.314 | |||
Between-column | Weekly working hours | 3.652 | 4 | 0.913 | 2.966 | 0.047 (<0.05) |
Within-group | 116.116 | 377 | 0.308 |
Feature | Subgroup | Average Score of SCB |
---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 4.18 |
Female | 3.97 | |
Educational background | Junior middle school or below | 3.72 |
High school | 3.93 | |
Technical school | 4.15 | |
Undergraduate or above | 4.21 | |
Weekly working hours | <40 | 4.17 |
40–45 | 4.20 | |
46–50 | 4.24 | |
51–55 | 4.12 | |
>55 | 3.96 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Meng, X.; Zhai, H.; Chan, A.H.S. Development of Scales to Measure and Analyse the Relationship of Safety Consciousness and Safety Citizenship Behaviour of Construction Workers: An Empirical Study in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1411. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16081411
Meng X, Zhai H, Chan AHS. Development of Scales to Measure and Analyse the Relationship of Safety Consciousness and Safety Citizenship Behaviour of Construction Workers: An Empirical Study in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(8):1411. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16081411
Chicago/Turabian StyleMeng, Xiangcheng, Huaiyuan Zhai, and Alan H. S. Chan. 2019. "Development of Scales to Measure and Analyse the Relationship of Safety Consciousness and Safety Citizenship Behaviour of Construction Workers: An Empirical Study in China" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 8: 1411. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16081411
APA StyleMeng, X., Zhai, H., & Chan, A. H. S. (2019). Development of Scales to Measure and Analyse the Relationship of Safety Consciousness and Safety Citizenship Behaviour of Construction Workers: An Empirical Study in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(8), 1411. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16081411