Probst Tahira M, Petitta Laura, Barbaranelli Claudio
Washington State University Vancouver, USA.
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.
Accid Anal Prev. 2017 Sep;106:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2017.05.006. Epub 2017 May 23.
A growing body of research suggests that national injury surveillance data significantly underestimate the true number of non-fatal occupational injuries due to employee under-reporting of workplace accidents. Given the importance of accurately measuring such under-reporting, the purpose of the current research was to examine the psychometric properties of two different techniques used to operationalize accident under-reporting, one using a free recall methodology and the other a recognition-based approach. Moreover, in order to assess the cross-cultural generalizability of these under-reporting measures, we replicated our psychometric analyses in the United States (N=440) and Italy (N=592). Across both countries, the results suggest that both measures exhibited similar patterns of relationships with known antecedents, including job insecurity, production pressure, safety compliance, and safety reporting attitudes. However, the recall measures had more severe violations of normality and were less correlated with self-report workplace injuries. Considerations, implications, and recommendations for using these different types of accident measures are discussed.
越来越多的研究表明，由于员工对工作场所事故的漏报，国家伤害监测数据严重低估了非致命职业伤害的真实数量。鉴于准确衡量此类漏报的重要性，当前研究的目的是检验用于将事故漏报操作化的两种不同技术的心理测量特性，一种使用自由回忆方法，另一种使用基于识别的方法。此外，为了评估这些漏报措施的跨文化普遍性，我们在美国（N = 440）和意大利（N = 592）重复了我们的心理测量分析。在这两个国家，结果表明，这两种措施与已知的前因（包括工作不安全感、生产压力、安全合规性和安全报告态度）呈现出相似的关系模式。然而，回忆测量的正态性违反更为严重，并且与自我报告的工作场所伤害的相关性较低。讨论了使用这些不同类型事故测量方法的考虑因素、影响和建议。
