POSH01 – SC850A RESEARCH PROJECT
Student Name: Ir. CHAN Yiu-hon
Supervisor Name: Dr. Kam Chi Kit, Charles
Submission Date: 2 November 2003
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
Other Safety Approaches
 Safety Communication
 Safety Promotion
 Safety Training and Education
 Occupational Safety Charter
Electrical Accident Statistic
100
No. of Accident
80
No. of Death
60
40
20
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
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 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
 To study the safety perceptions of register
electrical workers by reference to the
multi-dimensional safety behavioural model
Objectives of this Project
 To effectively reduce the recurrence of
electrical accidents
 To improve:
- the safety behaviour of registered
electrical workers
 To assess:
- the safety perceptions of registered
electrical workers
 To reduce:
- the turnover, absenteeism and errors
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
The following theories were reviewed:
- Social Cognitive Theory
- Health Belief Model
- Theory of Reasoned Action/
Theory of Planned Behaviour
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
Theory of Reasoned
Action / Theory of
Planned Behaviour
Key Concept
 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
 Six-point Likert-type response scale
“0” - Never to “5” - Always
“0” - None to “5” - Very High
 Translated into Chinese version
- Language teacher
- Site safety manager
- Safety professional
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 and
Data 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
- 65 questionnaires were collected
- As 5 questionnaires were rejected
- 60 successfully completed questionnaires
were used
- Validity test
 By factor analysis
Validity Test for Pilot Data Pattern Matrix showing the spread of 27 questionnaire items
Pattern Matrix
1
2
3
4
ITEM 1
.957
ITEM 2
.959
ITEM 3
.952
ITEM 4
.784
ITEM 5
.904
ITEM 6
.921
ITEM 7
.856
ITEM 8
.953
ITEM 9
ITEM 10
ITEM 11
ITEM 12
ITEM 13
ITEM 14
.943
ITEM 15
.947
ITEM 16
.880
ITEM 17
.851
ITEM 18
.909
ITEM 19
ITEM 20
ITEM 21
ITEM 22
ITEM 23
.954
ITEM 24
.892
ITEM 25
.758
ITEM 26
.669
ITEM 27
.594
Extraction 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
5
6
-.750
-.853
-.937
-.820
-.872
-.894
-.821
-.763
-.703
Validity Test for Pilot Data Pattern Matrix showing the spread of 26 questionnaire items
Pattern Matrix
1
2
3
4
ITEM 1
.956
ITEM 2
.957
ITEM 3
.951
ITEM 4
.784
ITEM 5
.898
ITEM 6
.923
ITEM 7
.868
ITEM 8
.955
ITEM 9
ITEM 10
ITEM 11
ITEM 12
ITEM 13
.944
ITEM 14
.950
ITEM 15
.869
ITEM 16
.852
ITEM 17
.910
ITEM 18
ITEM 19
ITEM 20
ITEM 21
ITEM 22
.962
ITEM 23
.902
ITEM 24
.720
ITEM 25
.657
ITEM 26
.547
Extraction 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
5
6
.848
.929
.820
.861
-.987
-.925
-.870
-.803
Reliability Test
Safety Determinant
Elements
Item Number
Alpha
Coefficient
Past Experience
1,2,3,4
0.923
Management Support
5,6,7,8
0.935
9,10,11,12
0.921
Behavioural Intention
13,14,15,16,17
0.938
Safety Climate
18, 19, 20, 21
0.936
22, 23, 24, 25, 26
0.873
Peer Support
Safety Environment
- 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
ITEM 1
.960
ITEM 2
.963
ITEM 3
.967
ITEM 4
.890
ITEM 5
.906
ITEM 6
.972
ITEM 7
.937
ITEM 8
.986
ITEM 9
ITEM 10
ITEM 11
ITEM 12
ITEM 13
.976
ITEM 14
.972
ITEM 15
.926
ITEM 16
.902
ITEM 17
.940
ITEM 18
ITEM 19
ITEM 20
ITEM 21
ITEM 22
.958
ITEM 23
.927
ITEM 24
.704
ITEM 25
.794
ITEM 26
.579
Extraction 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
5
6
-.881
-.956
-.887
-.911
-.959
-.921
-.895
-.860
Reliability Test
Safety Determinant
Elements
Item Number
Alpha
Coefficient
Past Experience
1,2,3,4
0.925
Management Support
5,6,7,8
0.95
9,10,11,12
0.935
Behavioural Intention
13,14,15,16,17
0.946
Safety Climate
18, 19, 20, 21
0.973
22, 23, 24, 25, 26
0.837
Peer Support
Safety Environment
- 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 of
Model’s “Goodness-of-Fit”
Interpreting the Testing Result
Discussion of Findings
The 6 Identified Behavioural
Determinants
Management
Support
Peer
Support
Past
Experience
Safety
Climate
Safety
Environment
Behavioural
Intention
Hypothesis Model
Management
Support
Peer
Support
Safety
Climate
Safety
Environment
1
Social
Support
Past
Experience
1
Safety
Culture
Behavioural
Intention
Hypothesis Model
Management
Support
Peer
Support
Safety
Climate
Safety
Environment
1
1
x
Social
Support
Past
Experience
x
Safety
Culture
Behavioural
Intention
Hypothesis Model
Management
Support
Peer
Support
Safety
Climate
Safety
Environment
1
1
x
Social
Support
Past
Experience
x
Safety
Culture
Behavioural
Intention
Selection of Model Fit Index
Model fit index
Minimum acceptable value
for model fitness
Relative chi-square, (Cmin/df)
Goodness-of-fit index, (GFI)
<5
GFI >= 0.9
Adjusted goodness-of-fit index,
(AGFI)
AGFI >= 0.9
Stability Index, (SI)
1 >= SI >= -1
Hypothesis Model
c
b
a
1
1
1
Management
Support
d
Peer
Support
1
Safety
Climate
Safety
Environment
1
1
X
Social
Support
X
Safety
Culture
1
1
g
f
Past
Experience
Behavioural
Intention
1
1
h
e
The model
Cmin/df=3.177, GFI=.940, AGFI=0.90
SI = 0.134
Output of the Model
a
b
.73
mgtsupp
.15
.88
.43
safeclim
peersupp
.86
d
c
Safeenvt
.94
.65
.39
.45
.29
.52
Social
Support
.52
Safety
Culture
g
f
.55
.05
passexpt
h
.03
.31
Intent
e
Comparison of Model Fit Indexes
Model fit index
Relative chisquare,
(Cmin/df)
Goodness-of-fit
index, (GFI)
Adjusted
Goodness-of-fit
index, (AGFI)
Stability Index,
(SI)
Minimum
acceptable value
for model fitness
<5
Model
output
value
Cmin/df =
3.177
Model fitness
accepted
(Y/N)
Y
GFI >= 0.9
GFI = 0.94
Y
AGFI >= 0.9
AGFI = 0.9
Y
1 >= SI >= -1
SI = 0.134
Y
 The hypothesis safety perception model for
registered electrical workers was accepted
Discussion of Findings
Observation 1.
“Social Support” and “Safety Culture” are reciprocal
behavioural determinants
0.52
Social Support
0.52
Safety Culture
Discussion of Findings
Observation 2.
“Past Experience” is an essential element for
determining the “Safety Behaviour” of registered
electrical workers
Past Experience
0.31
Safety Behaviour
Discussion of Findings
Observation 3.
“Safety Culture” is an essential element for
sharpening the “Safety Behaviour” of registered
electrical workers
Safety Culture
0.55
Safety Behaviour
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 multidimentional behavioural model have been studied
Limitations & Further Research
- 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 extend the study to electrical workers who are
yet registered with the Electrical and Mechanical
Services Department
- To formulate a safety enhancement programme
based on the observations, and apply it practically
to registered electrical workers
Conclusion
 The relationship between behavioural determinants
for sharpening safety behaviour is complex and it
could be assessed and evaluated by forming
conceptual safety behavioural model
 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
End of Presentation
Thank you