POSH01 – SC850A RESEARCH PROJECT

Student Name: Ir. CHAN Yiu-hon

Submission Date: 2 November 2003

Supervisor Name: Dr. Kam Chi Kit, Charles

Project Title

”The Exploration of the Determinants Leading to the Adoption of

Safety Behavioural Intention of Registered Electrical Workers“

Background

Over 42,000 buildings in Hong Kong

Most of the fixed electrical installations in buildings are subject to a yearly or 5-yearly periodic test

Newly constructed buildings, deliberated improvement, and renovation in existing buildings and units

Risk of getting an electrical accident increases with longer exposure to hazardous electrical energy

Consequences of Electrical Accident

Electric shock

- Body injury

- Electrocution

Explosion and subsequent fire

- Damage to properties

- Loss of life

Safety Approaches

Legislative Approach

Electricity Ordinance - Electricity (Wiring) Regulations - Electricity (Registration) Regulations

Factories and Industrial Undertaking Ordinance - Factories and Industrial Undertaking (Electricity) Regulations - Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations

Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance

Registration of Electrical Worker

Safety Approaches

Safety Communication

Safety Promotion

Occupational Safety Charter

Safety Training and Education

Other Safety Approaches

Electrical Accident Statistic

0

20

40

60

80

100

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

No. of Accident

No. of Death

Significance of the Research

88% of accident causation due to unsafe behaviour (Viner 1996)

96% of Dupont’s workplace accidents were due to unsafe behaviour rather than unsafe condition (Mcsween 1995)

Inadequacy of Existing Strategy

Enforcement approach does not help to build up the safety behaviour of registered electrical workers

Enforcement approach is becoming out-dated

Fines for breaching the safety law are always low

What have been missed ?

The current strategy on occupational safety in Hong Kong was not effective

Electrical accidents still happen resulting from unsafe behaivour

Unsafe behaivour could not be improved by law enforcement

Aims of this Project

To study the safety perceptions of register electrical workers by reference to the multi-dimensional safety behavioural model

To determine the key factors which are effective for changing the safety behaviour of registered electrical workers with a view to preventing electrical accidents from happening

To explore a multi-dimensional model that explains the causal relationships between the safety behaviour and the identified factors

Objectives of this Project

To effectively reduce the recurrence of electrical accidents

To improve: - the safety behaviour of registered electrical workers

- the safety perceptions of registered electrical workers

To reduce: - the turnover, absenteeism and errors

To assess:

Literature Review

Key Concepts of the Contemporary Theories, Approaches and Models have

been Studied

What is Safety Bahaviour

“Behaviour” refers to actions by an individual that can be observed by others, it is what a person will do or say but not what the person’s thinking, feeling or belief. (Geller 1996)

“Behaviour” is the action(s) or reaction(s) of person or things under specified circumstances. (American Heritage Dictionary)

Human behaviour is surely the most fascinating of all subjects matters….. It is the almost exclusive concern of the great literatures of the world. (Skinner 1968)

Why Interest in Behavioural Approach

The application of behavioural research to the solution of human problems has been successful (Boyce et al. 2002)

Behaviour-based safety has provided a platform for constructive debate and contributed significantly to the workplaces safety. (Geller 2002)

The successful introduction of a behavioural safety process, focusing on identifying and reinforcing safe and reducing unsafe behaviour, is one means of improving safety performance. (Watson Walker 1997)

Psychological Theories Reviewed

- Social Cognitive Theory- Health Belief Model- Theory of Reasoned Action/ Theory of Planned Behaviour

The following theories were reviewed:

Summary of Key Concepts Theory/Model Key Concept

Social Cognitive Theory Reciprocal Determination Symbolizing Capability Vicarious Capability Forethought Capability Self-Regulatory Capability Self-Reflective Capability

Health Belief Model Perceived Susceptibility Perceived Seriousness Perceived Benefits of Taking

Action Barriers to Taking Action Cues to action Self-efficacy

Summary of Key Concepts

Theory/Model Key Concept

Theory of ReasonedAction / Theory ofPlanned Behaviour

Behavioural Beliefs Attitude Towards Behaviour Normative Beliefs Subjective Norms Control Beliefs Perceived Behavioural Control Intention Volitional Control

Key Factors

KEY FACTORS IDENTIFIED

Past Experience

Management Support

Peer Support

Safety Climate

Safety Culture

Behavioural Intention

Research Method

Design of Research Instrument(Questionnaire)

Sampling

Data Collection

Validity Test

Reliability Test

Formulation of Research Hypothesis

Hypothesis Model for Goodness of Fit Test

Design of Questionnaire

Anonymous

A questionnaire was designed based on

the identified behavioural factors

Questionnaire items were developed alongside the established inventories

• Diagnostic Instruments for the Prevention of Work Accidents (Melia 2003) • Safety Climate Assessment Toolkit (Cox & Cheyne 2000)• Stress LessTM-Stress Assessment and Personalized Program (SLI 2000)

Design of Questionnaire

Simple words

Translated into Chinese version

- Safety professional

- Language teacher

- Site safety manager

Six-point Likert-type response scale

“0” - Never to “5” - Always

“0” - None to “5” - Very High

Design of Questionnaire

Part I & Part II : Demographic Data

General & Job Description

Part III : Safety Behaviour Related Questions

Past Experience

Management Support

Peer Support

Behavioural Intention

Safety Climate

Safety Environment

Questionnaire

Past Experience

A.1 Considering your experience and the safety measures

that you take, what real risk do you have of suffering an

accident?

A.2 Taking into account your training, your experience and

the way in which you really work, what real risk do you

have of suffering a very grave or fatal accident?

A.3 Considering your work habits, to what degree do you feel

sufficiently protected against a possible accident?

A.4 Taking into account the conditions of your workplace and

the measures of protection taken, what real risk do you

have of suffering from electrical work related illness?

Questionnaire

Management Support

B.1 Your superior strives to do his/her electrical work in a safe

way.

B.2 Your superior strives to show his/her subordinates the safe

electrical work methods.

B.3 If somebody does not follow a safety rule, your superior will

rebuke him.

B.4 Your superior gives you clear instructions about how to do

electrical work safely.

Questionnaire

Peer Support

C.1 Safety is a priority for my colleagues.

C.2 If somebody does not fulfill a safety rule, your colleagues

would worry and bring it to their attention.

C.3 Your colleagues strive to fulfill the safety rules.

C.4 Your colleagues help you to work in a safe way.

C.5 Your colleague will inform you about the safety rules that

you should fulfill.

Questionnaire

Behavioural Intention

D.1 You follow the safety rules and instructions to carry out

electrical work.

D.2 When unsafe situations or risks arise, you report to my

superiors.

D.3 When you work without fulfilling a safety rule, you feel

worried.

D.4 You work on energised electrical installation.

D.5 You arrange power company to stop the electricity supply

before you carry out electrical work on a main

switchboard.

Questionnaire

Safety Climate

E.1 You have received training in your company about

accident prevention and health and safety at work.

E.2 Your company arrange safety inspection to your work

place.

E.3 You receive cash incentives for working fast regardless of

whether you work safely or not.

E.4 Your company will rectify the discovered unsafe work

items promptly.

Questionnaire

Safety Culture

F.1 Your company arranges talks and seminars to promote

safety awareness and prevent accident.

F.2 Your company provides appropriate personal protective

equipment.

F.3 There are meetings where you are informed about work

safety practices.

F.4 The environment of workplace and condition of machines

are complying with safety requirements.

F.5 Your company uses promotional campaigns to encourage

work safety.

Recruitment of Participants andData Collection

Registered electrical workers

Verbal explanation

Completed questionnaire were returned by:

- Dropping in the collection box

- Mailing to the corresponding address

- Facsimile to the designated number

Data Collection

Pilot Data Collection

- 60 successfully completed questionnaires were used

- Validity test

- 65 questionnaires were collected

- As 5 questionnaires were rejected

By factor analysis

Validity Test for Pilot Data - Pattern Matrix showing the spread of 27 questionnaire items

Pattern Matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6ITEM 1 .957ITEM 2 .959ITEM 3 .952ITEM 4 .784ITEM 5 .904ITEM 6 .921ITEM 7 .856ITEM 8 .953ITEM 9 -.750ITEM 10 -.853ITEM 11 -.937ITEM 12 -.820ITEM 13 -.872ITEM 14 .943ITEM 15 .947ITEM 16 .880ITEM 17 .851ITEM 18 .909ITEM 19 -.894ITEM 20 -.821ITEM 21 -.763ITEM 22 -.703ITEM 23 .954ITEM 24 .892ITEM 25 .758ITEM 26 .669ITEM 27 .594Extraction Method : Principal Component Analysis.Rotation Method : Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.a. Rotation converged in 9 iterations.Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy .710

Validity Test for Pilot Data - Pattern Matrix showing the spread of 26 questionnaire items

Pattern Matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6ITEM 1 .956ITEM 2 .957ITEM 3 .951ITEM 4 .784ITEM 5 .898ITEM 6 .923ITEM 7 .868ITEM 8 .955ITEM 9 .848ITEM 10 .929ITEM 11 .820ITEM 12 .861ITEM 13 .944ITEM 14 .950ITEM 15 .869ITEM 16 .852ITEM 17 .910ITEM 18 -.987ITEM 19 -.925ITEM 20 -.870ITEM 21 -.803ITEM 22 .962ITEM 23 .902ITEM 24 .720ITEM 25 .657ITEM 26 .547Extraction Method : Principal Component Analysis.Rotation Method : Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.a. Rotation converged in 9 iterations.Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy .705

Reliability TestSafety Determinant

ElementsItem Number Alpha

CoefficientPast Experience 1,2,3,4 0.923

Management Support 5,6,7,8 0.935

Peer Support 9,10,11,12 0.921

Behavioural Intention 13,14,15,16,17 0.938

Safety Climate 18, 19, 20, 21 0.936

Safety Environment 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 0.873

- An alpha coefficient of value equal to or higher than 0.7 indicates that the questionnaire items within each sub-scale of measure are highly consistency. (young 1996)

- As all alpha coefficients were higher than 0.7, the consistency of the sub-scales was confirmed.

Modification of Questionnaire & Collecting Full Data

Validity and reliability were established

The questionnaire was modified

Another survey was conducted

135 questionnaires were collected and 12 questionnaires were rejected

123 successfully completed questionnaires were used

Validity Test - Pattern Matrix showing the spread of 26 questionnaire items

Pattern Matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6ITEM 1 .960ITEM 2 .963ITEM 3 .967ITEM 4 .890ITEM 5 .906ITEM 6 .972ITEM 7 .937ITEM 8 .986ITEM 9 -.881ITEM 10 -.956ITEM 11 -.887ITEM 12 -.911ITEM 13 .976ITEM 14 .972ITEM 15 .926ITEM 16 .902ITEM 17 .940ITEM 18 -.959ITEM 19 -.921ITEM 20 -.895ITEM 21 -.860ITEM 22 .958ITEM 23 .927ITEM 24 .704ITEM 25 .794ITEM 26 .579Extraction Method : Principal Component Analysis.Rotation Method : Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.a. Rotation converged in 9 iterations.Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy .798

Reliability TestSafety Determinant

ElementsItem Number Alpha

CoefficientPast Experience 1,2,3,4 0.925

Management Support 5,6,7,8 0.95

Peer Support 9,10,11,12 0.935

Behavioural Intention 13,14,15,16,17 0.946

Safety Climate 18, 19, 20, 21 0.973

Safety Environment 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 0.837

- An alpha coefficient of value equal to or higher than 0.7 indicates that the questionnaire items within each sub-scale of measure are highly consistency. (young 1996)

- As all alpha coefficients were higher than 0.7, the consistency of the sub-scales was confirmed.

Structural Equation Modeling

The identified key factors (determinants) were put together into a conceptual model and to be tested by Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

Model Testing

Formulation of Hypothesis

Selection Model Fit Index

Model Testing and Evaluation ofModel’s “Goodness-of-Fit”

Interpreting the Testing Result

Discussion of Findings

The 6 Identified BehaviouralDeterminants

BehaviouralIntention

Management Support

Peer Support

Safety Climate

Safety Environment

Past Experience

Hypothesis Model

BehaviouralIntention

Management Support

Peer Support

Safety Climate

Safety Environment

PastExperience

Social Support

Safety Culture

1 1

Hypothesis Model

Behavioural Intention

Management Support

Peer Support

Safety Climate

Safety Environment

Past Experience

Social Support

Safety Culture

1 1

x

x

Hypothesis Model

BehaviouralIntention

Management Support

Peer Support

Safety Climate

Safety Environment

Past Experience

Social Support

Safety Culture

1 1

x

x

Selection of Model Fit Index

Relative chi-square, (Cmin/df)

Goodness-of-fit index, (GFI)

Adjusted goodness-of-fit index, (AGFI)

Stability Index, (SI)

< 5

GFI >= 0.9

AGFI >= 0.9

Minimum acceptable valuefor model fitness Model fit index

1 >= SI >= -1

Hypothesis Model

BehaviouralIntention

Management Support

Peer Support

Safety Climate

Safety Environment

Past Experience

e

1

Social Support

Safety Culture

1 1

a1

b1

c1

d1

f

1

X

X

g

1

h

1

The model Cmin/df=3.177, GFI=.940, AGFI=0.90

SI = 0.134

Intent

.03

mgtsupp

.73

peersupp

.43

safeclim

.88

Safeenvt

.15

passexpt

.05

.31

e

Social Support

.29

Safety Culture

.45

.86 .65 .94 .39

.55

a b c d

f

.52

.52

g

h

Output of the Model

Comparison of Model Fit Indexes

Model fit index Minimumacceptable valuefor model fitness

Modeloutputvalue

Model fitnessaccepted

(Y/N)

Relative chi-square,(Cmin/df)

< 5 Cmin/df =3.177

Y

Goodness-of-fitindex, (GFI)

GFI >= 0.9 GFI = 0.94 Y

AdjustedGoodness-of-fitindex, (AGFI)

AGFI >= 0.9 AGFI = 0.9 Y

Stability Index,(SI)

1 >= SI >= -1 SI = 0.134 Y

The hypothesis safety perception model for registered electrical workers was accepted

Discussion of Findings

Social Support Safety Culture0.52

0.52

Observation 1.“Social Support” and “Safety Culture” are reciprocal behavioural determinants

Discussion of Findings

Past Experience Safety Behaviour 0.31

Observation 2.“Past Experience” is an essential element for determining the “Safety Behaviour” of registered electrical workers

Discussion of Findings

Safety Culture Safety Behaviour 0.55

Observation 3.“Safety Culture” is an essential element for sharpening the “Safety Behaviour” of registered electrical workers

Achievement from this Study

The key factors which are effective for changing the safety behaviour of registered electrical workers have been determined

A multi-dimentional model that explains the causal relationships between the safety behaviour and the identified factors has been established

The safety perceptions of registered electrical workers by reference to the established multi- dimentional behavioural model have been studied

Limitations & Further Research

- To extend the study to electrical workers who are yet registered with the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department

- To increase the number of participants in the survey

- To refine the research by categorising the safety behaviour of different grades of registered electrical workers

- To formulate a safety enhancement programme based on the observations, and apply it practically to registered electrical workers

Conclusion

Traditional safety approaches would not be effective without taking into consideration of the identified safety behavioural determinants

Behaviour-based approach is and will remain an important solution for the safety of registered electrical workers

The relationship between behavioural determinants for sharpening safety behaviour is complex and it could be assessed and evaluated by forming conceptual safety behavioural model

End of Presentation

Thank you