Bergman Mindy E, Payne Stephanie C, Taylor Aaron B, Beus Jeremy M
Department of Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX USA.
Columbus, OH USA.
J Bus Psychol. 2014;29(4):519-540. doi: 10.1007/s10869-013-9337-2.
This study investigates safety climate as both a leading (climate → incident) and a lagging (incident → climate) indicator of safety-critical incidents. This study examines the "shelf life" of a safety climate assessment and its relationships with incidents, both past and future, by examining series of incident rates in order to determine when these predictive relationships expire.
DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A survey was conducted at a large, multinational chemical manufacturing company, with 7,467 responses at 42 worksites in 12 countries linked to over 14,000 incident records during the 2 years prior and 2 years following the survey period. Regressions revealed that safety climate predicts incidents of varying levels of severity, but it predicts the most severe incidents over the shortest period of time. The same is true for incidents predicting safety climate, with more severe incidents having a shorter predictive window. For the most critical relationship (climate predicting more severe incidents), the ability of a safety climate assessment to predict incidents expires after 3 months.
The choice of aggregation period in constructing incident rates is essential in understanding the safety climate-incident relationship. The common yearly count of incidents would make it seem that more severe incidents cannot be predicted by safety climate and also fails to show the strongest predictive effects of less severe incidents.
ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This research is the first to examine assumptions regarding aggregation periods when constructing safety-related incident rates. Our work guides organizations in planning their survey program, recommending more frequent measurement of safety climate.
本研究将安全氛围作为安全关键事件的先行指标（氛围→事件）和滞后指标（事件→氛围）进行调查。本研究通过检查一系列事故发生率来考察安全氛围评估的“保质期”及其与过去和未来事件的关系，以确定这些预测关系何时失效。
设计/方法/途径：在一家大型跨国化学制造公司进行了一项调查，在调查期间之前的2年和之后的2年里，来自12个国家42个工作地点的7467份回复与超过14000条事故记录相关联。回归分析表明，安全氛围能够预测不同严重程度的事件，但它在最短的时间内预测最严重的事件。对于预测安全氛围的事件也是如此，更严重的事件预测窗口更短。对于最关键的关系（氛围预测更严重的事件），安全氛围评估预测事件的能力在3个月后失效。
在构建事故发生率时，聚合期的选择对于理解安全氛围与事故的关系至关重要。常见的年度事故计数会让人觉得安全氛围无法预测更严重的事件，也无法显示不太严重事件的最强预测效果。
原创性/价值：本研究首次检验了在构建与安全相关的事故发生率时关于聚合期的假设。我们的工作指导组织规划其调查计划，建议更频繁地测量安全氛围。
