Taylor Jennifer A, Pandian Ravi
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Drexel University School of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
BMC Res Notes. 2013 Jul 31;6:302. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-6-302.
Our previous analyses using the Stress Recognition subscale of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) resulted in significant effect estimates with equally opposing explanations. We suspected construct validity issues and investigated such using our own data and correlation matrices of previous published studies.
The correlation matrices for each of the SAQ subscales from two previous studies by Speroff and Taylor were replicated and compared. The SAS Proc Factor procedure and the PRIORS = SMC option were used to perform Common Factor Analysis.
The correlation matrices of both studies were very similar. Teamwork, Safety Climate, Job Satisfaction, Perceptions of Management and Working Conditions were well-correlated. The correlations ranged from 0.53 to 0.76. For Stress Recognition correlations ranged from -0.15 to 0.03. Common Factor Analysis confirmed the isolation of Stress Recognition. CFA returned a strong one-factor model that explained virtually all of the communal variance. Stress Recognition loaded poorly on this factor in both instances, and the CFA indicated that 96.4-100.0% of the variance associated with Stress Recognition was unique to that subscale, and not shared with the other 5 subscales.
We conclude that the Stress Recognition subscale does not fit into the overall safety climate construct the SAQ intended to reflect. We recommend that this domain be omitted from overall safety climate scale score calculations, and clearly identified as an important yet distinct organizational construct. We suggest that this subscale be investigated for its true meaning, characterized as such, and findings conveyed to SAQ end users. We make no argument against Stress Recognition as an important organizational metric, rather we suggest that as a stand-alone construct its current packaging within the SAQ may be misleading for those intent on intervention development and evaluation in healthcare settings if they interpret Stress Recognition results as emblematic of safety climate.
我们之前使用安全态度问卷(SAQ)中的压力识别子量表进行的分析得出了具有同等相反解释的显著效应估计值。我们怀疑其结构效度问题,并使用我们自己的数据以及先前发表研究的相关矩阵对此进行了调查。
复制并比较了Speroff和Taylor之前两项研究中SAQ各子量表的相关矩阵。使用SAS Proc Factor程序和PRIORS = SMC选项进行共同因素分析。
两项研究的相关矩阵非常相似。团队合作、安全氛围、工作满意度、对管理的认知和工作条件之间相关性良好。相关性范围为0.53至0.76。压力识别的相关性范围为-0.15至0.03。共同因素分析证实了压力识别的独立性。验证性因素分析得出了一个强大的单因素模型,该模型几乎解释了所有的共同方差。在这两种情况下,压力识别在该因素上的载荷都很低,验证性因素分析表明,与压力识别相关的方差中有96.4 - 100.0%是该子量表独有的,而不是与其他5个子量表共享的。
我们得出结论,压力识别子量表不符合SAQ旨在反映的整体安全氛围结构。我们建议在整体安全氛围量表得分计算中省略该领域,并明确将其确定为一个重要但独特的组织结构。我们建议对该子量表的真实含义进行调查,如此加以描述,并将结果传达给SAQ的最终用户。我们并不反对将压力识别作为一个重要的组织指标,相反,我们建议,作为一个独立的结构,如果医疗环境中那些致力于干预开发和评估的人员将压力识别结果解释为安全氛围的象征,那么它目前在SAQ中的呈现方式可能会产生误导。