2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2009.04.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measurement techniques for organizational safety causal models: Characterization and suggestions for enhancements

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As a compensation for limitations of traditional safety indicators, some alternative measures are increasingly used to provide enough information or insight to predict the future level of safety performance. Specifically, various measures for determining safety status proactively have been developed at three levels: the measurement of the immediate causes of accidents, such as unsafe acts and unsafe conditions [32]; safety-related organizational activities and safety management systems, such as health and safety training, safety inspections and audits [11,23,25,29]; and a safety climate survey to measure workers' attitudes and perceptions of the work environment [7,33]. With the development of these alternative measures, the terms "lagging" and "leading" have been used to distinguish two types of indicators.…”
Section: Leading and Lagging Safety Indicatorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a compensation for limitations of traditional safety indicators, some alternative measures are increasingly used to provide enough information or insight to predict the future level of safety performance. Specifically, various measures for determining safety status proactively have been developed at three levels: the measurement of the immediate causes of accidents, such as unsafe acts and unsafe conditions [32]; safety-related organizational activities and safety management systems, such as health and safety training, safety inspections and audits [11,23,25,29]; and a safety climate survey to measure workers' attitudes and perceptions of the work environment [7,33]. With the development of these alternative measures, the terms "lagging" and "leading" have been used to distinguish two types of indicators.…”
Section: Leading and Lagging Safety Indicatorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Organizational and management factors (e.g. organizational culture, organizational structure/practices, and organizational climate) play an important role among the factors affecting operator performance (Mohaghegh and Mosleh, 2009b). There are models to link hardware failures and organizational performance in risk analysis (Mohaghegh et al, 2009;Mohaghegh and Mosleh, 2009a).…”
Section: Human Factors Aspects Of Amstsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Langford et al (2000) found that when employees believe management cares about their personal safety, they are more willing to co-operate to improve safety performance. In addition, such meaningful management actions in support of safety help to create the positive working environment that motivates safe work behaviour and raises safety expectations (DeJoy et al 2010;Mohaghegh, Mosleh 2009b). Under such circumstances, these will enable employees transform from only compliance-based behaviour to safety citizenship behaviour; that is intending to work more than what is simply prescribed by safety regulations (Gvekye, Salminen 2007;Mearns, Reader 2008).…”
Section: Management Commitmentmentioning
confidence: 99%