Nordic Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50): A new tool for diagnosing occupational safety climate

Abstract

Although there is a plethora of questionnaire instruments for measuring safety climate or culture, very few have proven able to present a factor structure that is consistent in different contexts, and many have a vague theoretical grounding. The Nordic Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50) was developed by a team of Nordic occupational safety researchers based on organizational and safety climate theory, psychological theory, previous empirical research, empirical results acquired through international studies, and a continuous development process. Safety climate is defined as workgroup members’ shared perceptions of management and workgroup safety related policies, procedures and practices. NOSACQ-50 consists of 50 items across seven dimensions, i.e. shared perceptions of: 1) management safety priority, commitment and competence; 2) management safety empowerment; and 3) management safety justice; as well as shared perceptions of 4) workers’ safety commitment; 5) workers’ safety priority and risk non-acceptance; 6) safety communication, learning, and trust in co-workers’ safety competence; and 7) workers’ trust in the efficacy of safety systems. Initial versions of the instrument were tested for validity and reliability in four separate Nordic studies using native language versions in each respective Nordic country. NOSACQ-50 was found to be a reliable instrument for measuring safety climate, and valid for predicting safety motivation, perceived safety level, and self-rated safety behavior. The validity of NOSACQ-50 was further confirmed by its ability to distinguish between organizational units through detecting significant differences in safety climate.

Relevance to industry

NOSACQ-50 will enable comparative studies of safety climate between and within companies, industries and countries. It is suitable for research purposes as well as for practical use in evaluating safety climate status, as a diagnostic tool, and in evaluating the effect of safety climate interventions.

Introduction

Occupational accidents give rise to much human suffering as well as high costs for society, companies and individuals. Although in Europe the frequency of occupational accidents decreased steadily over a number of decades (Hudson, 2007), it still constitutes a substantial problem, and in the last two decades the decrease has leveled out (Regeringskansliet, 2006).

In recent years the awareness of the importance for safety performance of organizational, managerial and social factors, has increased. Safety climate, an aspect of organizational climate, offers a route for safety management, complementing the often predominant engineering approach. In addition, safety climate investigations are more sensitive (e.g. multi-faceted) and proactive bases for developing safety, rather than reactive (after the fact) information from accident rates and accident and incident reports (Seo et al., 2004). Although longitudinal studies are still few, there is growing evidence of safety climate as an antecedent of safety performance (Clarke, 2010, Clarke, 2006a, Pousette et al., 2008, Kuenzi and Schminke, 2009, Nielsen and Lyngby Mikkelsen, 2007, Wallace et al., 2006, Neal and Griffin, 2006, Zohar, 2002). Previous research has, however, largely failed to identify common factor structures in measuring safety climate (e.g. Brown and Holmes, 1986, Dedobbeleer and Béland, 1991, Coyle et al., 1995). Often an inductive rather than a deductive approach has been applied, and factor labeling and item contents are generally inconsistent in safety climate measures (Flin et al., 2000, Seo et al., 2004). Griffin and Neal (2000) stated that for some purposes it may be sufficient to use a global measure of safety climate, but that more specific, first-order safety climate factors will provide more detailed diagnostic information.

In a small number of recent studies, factor structure replication in different contexts has been successfully accomplished. Cheyne et al. (1998) presented a safety climate model based on a study in the British and French manufacturing industry, which comprised shared perceptions of management standards and goals; safety management; workplace hazards; personal involvement (capturing workgroup involvement); and individual responsibility. This factor structure was confirmed in a study of safety climate in the Swedish construction industry (Pousette et al., 2008, Törner et al., 2002). Seo et al. (2004) identified five dimensions of safety climate from their literature review of 16 safety climate scales, namely management commitment to safety, supervisor safety support, co-worker safety support, employee participation in safety related decision making and activities, and competence level of employees with regard to safety. This dimensionality was confirmed through explorative and confirmative factor analyses in two different sub-samples of grain industry workers. These results support the existence of some generic features of safety climate, and further underline the need for building on previous results in questionnaire development. Hale (2000) stated the need for questionnaires that had been systematically refined through research efforts by several research teams. Glendon (2008a) stated that although there is a plethora of instruments for measuring safety climate or culture, further refinements of climate scales and items are needed. The lack of safety climate instruments that have been validated in different contexts motivated the present work.

The aim of the present work was to develop a Nordic questionnaire for measuring safety climate, covering dimensions based on organizational and safety climate theory, psychological theory, previous empirical research, and empirical results acquired through a developmental process. In order to be suitable for comparative studies between nations and contexts, the questionnaire should be found reliable and valid when tested in all five Nordic countries in their respective native languages, initially in the construction industry, but with additional testing in other occupational branches. The questionnaire should also be available in English. It should be suitable for research purposes as well as for practical purposes to evaluate the safety climate standard, pinpoint safety climate areas for improvement, and to evaluate the effect of safety climate interventions.