Management commitment to safety vs. employee perceived safety training and association with future injury

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to explore and examine, specific to the restaurant industry, two important constructs emerging from the safety climate literature: employee perceptions of safety training and management commitment to safety. Are these two separate constructs? Are there both individual- and shared group-level safety perceptions for these two constructs? What are the relationships between these two constructs and future injury outcomes?
A total of 419 employees from 34 limited-service restaurants participated in a prospective cohort study. Employees' perceptions of management commitment to safety and safety training and demographic variables were collected at the baseline. The survey questions were made available in three languages: English, Spanish, and Portuguese. For the following 12 weeks, participants reported their injury experience and weekly work hours. A multivariate negative binomial generalized estimating equation model with compound symmetry covariance structure was used to assess the association between the rate of self-reported injuries and measures of safety perceptions.
Even though results showed that the correlation between employees'perceived safety training and management commitment to safety was high, confirmatory factor analysis of measurement models showed that two separate factors fit the model better than as two dimensions of a single factor. Homogeneity tests showed that there was a shared perception of the factor of management commitment to safety for the restaurant workers but there was no consistent perception among them for the factor of perceived safety training. Both individual employees'perceived management commitment to safety and perceptions of safety training can predict employees' subsequent injuries above and beyond demographic variables. However, there was no significant relationship between future injury and employees' shared perception of management commitment to safety. Further, our results suggest that the variable of employees'perceived safety training could be a proximal predictor of future injury outcome which mediated the relationship between employees'perceived management commitment to safety (a distal predictor) and injury outcome. We propose that when employees perceive their management as having a high level of commitment to safety, they will also perceive that the safety training of the organization is good, which will then further predict future injury experience of the employees.

Full text

(This is a sample cover image for this issue. The actual cover is not yet available at this time.)
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy
Accident
Analysis
and
Prevention
47 (2012) 94–
101
Contents
lists
available
at
SciVerse
ScienceDirect
Accident
Analysis
and
Prevention
j
ourna
l
ho
me
pa
ge:
www.elsevier.com/locate/aap
Management
commitment
to
safety
vs.
employee
perceived
safety
training
and
association
with
future
injury
Yueng-Hsiang
Huanga,∗,
Santosh
K.
Vermab,d,e,
Wen-Ruey
Changc,
Theodore
K.
Courtneyb,d,
David
A.
Lombardib,d,
Melanye
J.
Brennanb,
Melissa
J.
Perrye,f
aCenter
for
Behavioral
Science,
Liberty
Mutual
Research
Institute
for
Safety,
Hopkinton,
MA,
USA
bCenter
for
Injury
Epidemiology,
Liberty
Mutual
Research
Institute
for
Safety,
Hopkinton,
MA,
USA
cCenter
for
Physical
Ergonomics,
Liberty
Mutual
Research
Institute
for
Safety,
Hopkinton,
MA,
USA
dDepartment
of
Environmental
Health,
Harvard
School
of
Public
Health,
Boston,
MA,
USA
eDepartment
of
Family
Medicine
and
Community
Health,
University
of
Massachusetts
Medical
School,
Worcester,
MA,
USA
fDepartment
of
Environmental
and
Occupational
Health,
George
Washington
University,
School
of
Public
Health
and
Health
Services,
Washington,
DC,
USA
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Article
history:
Received
22
June
2011
Received
in
revised
form
14
October
2011
Accepted
5
December
2011
Keywords:
Management
commitment
to
safety
Employee
perceived
safety
training
Future
injury
Restaurant
workers
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
Objectives:
The
purpose
of
this
study
is
to
explore
and
examine,
specific
to
the
restaurant
industry,
two
important
constructs
emerging
from
the
safety
climate
literature:
employee
perceptions
of
safety
training
and
management
commitment
to
safety.
Are
these
two
separate
constructs?
Are
there
both
individual-
and
shared
group-level
safety
perceptions
for
these
two
constructs?
What
are
the
relationships
between
these
two
constructs
and
future
injury
outcomes?
Methods:
A
total
of
419
employees
from
34
limited-service
restaurants
participated
in
a
prospective
cohort
study.
Employees’
perceptions
of
management
commitment
to
safety
and
safety
training
and
demographic
variables
were
collected
at
the
baseline.
The
survey
questions
were
made
available
in
three
languages:
English,
Spanish,
and
Portuguese.
For
the
following
12
weeks,
participants
reported
their
injury
experi-
ence
and
weekly
work
hours.
A
multivariate
negative
binomial
generalized
estimating
equation
model
with
compound
symmetry
covariance
structure
was
used
to
assess
the
association
between
the
rate
of
self-reported
injuries
and
measures
of
safety
perceptions.
Results:
Even
though
results
showed
that
the
correlation
between
employees’
perceived
safety
training
and
management
commitment
to
safety
was
high,
confirmatory
factor
analysis
of
measurement
models
showed
that
two
separate
factors
fit
the
model
better
than
as
two
dimensions
of
a
single
factor.
Homogeneity
tests
showed
that
there
was
a
shared
perception
of
the
factor
of
management
commitment
to
safety
for
the
restaurant
workers
but
there
was
no
consistent
perception
among
them
for
the
factor
of
perceived
safety
training.
Both
individual
employees’
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
and
perceptions
of
safety
training
can
predict
employees’
subsequent
injuries
above
and
beyond
demographic
variables.
However,
there
was
no
significant
relationship
between
future
injury
and
employees’
shared
perception
of
management
commitment
to
safety.
Further,
our
results
suggest
that
the
variable
of
employees’
perceived
safety
training
could
be
a
proximal
predictor
of
future
injury
outcome
which
mediated
the
relationship
between
employees’
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
(a
distal
predictor)
and
injury
outcome.
We
propose
that
when
employees
perceive
their
management
as
having
a
high
level
of
commitment
to
safety,
they
will
also
perceive
that
the
safety
training
of
the
organization
is
good,
which
will
then
further
predict
future
injury
experience
of
the
employees.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1.
Introduction
Restaurants
employ
about
6.4%
of
the
total
U.S.
work-
force,
approximately
9.7
million
workers,
according
to
the
2007
∗Corresponding
author
at:
Center
for
Behavioral
Science,
Liberty
Mutual
Research
Institute
for
Safety,
71
Frankland
Road,
Hopkinton,
MA
01748,
USA.
Tel.:
+1
508
497
0208;
fax:
+1
508
435
0482.
E-mail
address:
Yueng-hsiang.Huang@Libertymutual.com
(Y.H.
Huang).
occupational
employment
statistics
provided
by
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
(Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
2007).
BLS
projects
that
this
will
increase
by
396,000
workers
over
the
10-year
period
from
2008
to
2018,
the
fourth
largest
increase
among
occupational
cate-
gories
(Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
2007).
In
addition,
the
restaurant
industry
is
ranked
third
in
the
total
count
of
injuries
and
illnesses
for
industries
with
100,000
or
more
nonfatal
cases
(after
schools
and
hospitals)
(Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
2008).
Since
restaurant
workers
are
at
risk
of
injury
and
restaurants
represent
a
large
pro-
portion
of
the
total
workforce,
there
is
a
continuing
need
to
identify
0001-4575/$
–
see
front
matter ©
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.12.001

Author's personal copy
Y.H.
Huang
et
al.
/
Accident
Analysis
and
Prevention
47 (2012) 94–
101 95
ways
to
reduce
workplace
accidents
and
injuries
and
to
improve
overall
workplace
safety
for
restaurant
workers.
1.1.
Safety
perceptions
The
relationships
between
safety
attitudes/perceptions,
safety
behaviors
and
safety
outcomes
have
been
examined
and
demon-
strated
in
prior
research
across
different
cultures
and
various
industries
(Christian
et
al.,
2009).
It
is
important
to
under-
stand/explore
the
safety
perceptions
of
employees
and
identify
ways
to
improve
their
attitudes,
perceptions,
and
potential
unsafe
behaviors.
Two
specific
safety
perceptions
(employees’
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
and
safety
training)
were
exam-
ined
in
the
current
study.
1.1.1.
Employees’
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
Safety
climate,
an
organizational
factor
that
refers
to
the
work-
ers’
shared
perception
of
the
organization’s
policies,
procedures,
and
practices
as
they
relate
to
the
value
and
importance
of
safety
within
the
organization,
is
commonly
cited
as
an
important
antecedent
of
safety
in
the
workplace
(e.g.,
Zohar,
1980,
2000,
2002,
2003;
Griffin
and
Neal,
2000;
Young,
2010).
Zohar
(2000)
suggests
that
safety
climate
is
a
construct
that
reflects
the
true
priority
of
safety
within
an
organization.
The
key
dimension
of
safety
climate
that
has
been
identified
most
often
is
employees’
perception
of
management
commitment
to
safety.
This
factor
has
been
measured
in
terms
of
manage-
ment
concern
for
employee
well-being
(Brown
and
Holmes,
1986)
and
management
attitudes
toward
safety
(Zohar,
1980,
2000;
Dedobbeleer
and
Beland,
1991;
Niskanen,
1994).
Other
stud-
ies
characterize
management
commitment
to
safety
in
terms
of
whether
workers
perceive
that
safety
is
important
to
management
(Diaz
and
Cabrera,
1997;
Gershon
et
al.,
2000).
Zohar
and
Luria
(2005),
based
on
theoretical
and
statistical
considerations,
pro-
moted
a
global
factor
relating
to
management
commitment
when
measuring
safety
climate.
Zohar
(2008)
concluded
that
the
core
meaning
of
safety
climate
concerns
managerial
commitment,
with
all
other
variables
that
have
been
associated
with
this
construct
assuming
a
secondary
role
both
theoretically
and
empirically
(Flin
et
al.,
2000;
Griffin
and
Neal,
2000;
Zohar
and
Luria,
2005;
Neal
and
Griffin,
2006).
1.1.2.
Employees’
perceived
safety
training
Although
prior
research
has
examined
different
dimensions
of
safety
climate
(e.g.,
Donald
and
Canter,
1994;
Hofmann
and
Stetzer,
1996,
1998;
Siu
et
al.,
2004;
Young,
2010),
consensus
on
dimen-
sions
other
than
management
commitment
to
safety
is
still
lacking.
However,
another
dimension,
which
has
been
examined
exten-
sively
in
the
safety
climate
literature,
is
employee’s
perceptions
of
the
company’s
safety
training
(e.g.,
Zohar,
1980;
Huang
et
al.,
2006).
This
construct
measures
the
effectiveness
of
formal
orien-
tation
programs
and
subsequent
follow-up
training
pertaining
to
safety
practices
at
work
(Huang
et
al.,
2006).
From
the
literature,
safety
training
has
positive
effects
in
increasing
safety
performance
in
prior
research
(e.g.,
Cohen
and
Jensen,
1984;
Reber
and
Wallin,
1984).
Several
articles
have
suggested
that
it
is
important
to
differenti-
ate
between
safety
climate
and
the
structural
elements
of
a
safety
management
system,
such
as
the
existence
of
policies
and
proce-
dures
(e.g.,
safety
training
or
available
safety
equipment)
(Hale,
2000;
Hahn
and
Murphy,
2008).
As
Hahn
and
Murphy
(2008)
men-
tioned
in
their
study,
“organizations
may
have
structural
policies,
such
as
safety
training
or
available
safety
equipment,
for
reasons
other
than
a
strong
belief
about
the
value
of
safety
(e.g.,
indus-
try
regulations).
Thus,
it
is
possible
that
organizations
may
have
safety
policies
‘on
the
books,’
but
that
these
policies
may
not
stem
from
an
organizational
belief
in
the
importance
of
safety.”
In
the
current
study,
we
took
the
approach
consistent
with
Hale
(2000)
and
Hahn
and
Murphy’s
(2008)
suggestion
and
defined
manage-
ment
commitment
to
safety
as
an
assessment
of
employee
attitudes
about
management’s
value
of
safety
rather
than
of
the
structural
elements
of
safety
provided.
Employees’
perception
of
safety
train-
ing
is
part
of
a
safety
management
system
evaluation,
and
may
be
different
from
the
safety
climate
perception.
The
current
study
explored
and
examined,
specific
to
the
restau-
rant
industry,
these
two
important
constructs
emerging
from
the
safety
climate
literature
(employee
perceptions
of
safety
training
and
management
commitment
to
safety).
We
explored
whether
the
safety
perceptions
of
these
two
factors
would
be
better
treated
as
two
dimensions
of
a
single
factor
(e.g.,
safety
climate)
or
as
two
separate
factors.
Purpose
1:
To
examine
whether
employees’
perceived
manage-
ment
commitment
to
safety
and
safety
training
are
two
dimensions
of
a
single
construct
or
two
separate
factors.
From
the
literature,
safety
climate
has
been
differentiated
into
two
levels,
shared-group
safety
climate
and
individual-
psychological
safety
climate
(Christian
et
al.,
2009).
Summarizing
from
the
literature
(e.g.,
James
et
al.,
1978;
James
and
Sells,
1981;
Jermier
et
al.,
1989;
Young,
2010),
Christian
et
al.
defined
psychological
safety
climate
as
individual
perceptions
of
safety-
related
policies,
practices,
and
procedures
pertaining
to
safety
matters
that
affect
personal
well-being
at
work.
When
these
perceptions
are
shared
among
individuals
in
a
particular
work
envi-
ronment,
a
group-level
climate
emerges
(e.g.,
James
et
al.,
1990;
Young,
2010).
Therefore,
group-level
safety
climate
is
defined
as
shared
perceptions
of
the
work
environment
and
characteristics
as
they
pertain
to
safety
matters
that
affect
a
group
of
individ-
uals
(e.g.,
Griffin
and
Neal,
2000;
Zohar
and
Luria,
2005;
Young,
2010).
Both
individual-
and
group-level
employee
perceptions
of
management
commitment
to
safety
and
company-provided
safety
training
for
restaurant
workers
were
examined
in
the
current
study.
Therefore:
Purpose
2:
To
explore
whether
the
safety
perceptions
of
these
two
factors
of
employees’
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
and
safety
training
are
shared
among
employees
working
for
the
same
restaurant
in
addition
to
individual
psychological
percep-
tions.
From
the
safety
climate
literature,
it
has
been
widely
shown
that
employees’
safety
climate
perceptions
can
predict
employees’
safety
outcomes,
such
as
safety
compliance,
safety
participation,
injury
and
accident
rates
(Christian
et
al.,
2009).
This
study
extends
the
literature
in
examining/exploring
whether
employees’
safety
perceptions
of
the
two
potential
dimensions
of
safety
climate
(perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
and
perceived
safety
training)
can
predict
future
safety
outcomes
specific
to
the
restau-
rant
environment.
The
third
purpose
of
the
current
study
was:
Purpose
3:
To
examine
whether
employees’
perceived
man-
agement
commitment
to
safety
and
safety
training
can
predict
employees’
future
injuries.
2.
Method
2.1.
Participants
and
procedures
A
prospective
cohort
study
was
conducted
with
employees
working
at
limited-service
(fast
food)
restaurants
in
the
U.S.
Sev-
eral
approaches
were
used
to
recruit
the
restaurants
for
this
study.
These
included
approaching
chains,
stores
or
franchisees
that
had
previously
been
receptive
to
research
studies
by
the
investigative
team
members,
approaching
restaurant
trade
asso-
ciations,
direct
solicitation
of
stores
or
franchisees,
and
outreach

Author's personal copy
96 Y.H.
Huang
et
al.
/
Accident
Analysis
and
Prevention
47 (2012) 94–
101
via
the
loss
control
department
of
a
large
worker’s
compensation
insurance
company.
Thirty-four
limited
service
restaurants
located
in
six
U.S.
states,
belonging
to
three
major
chains,
agreed
to
partic-
ipate.
The
project
team
spent
one
working
day
in
each
restaurant
collecting
baseline
data.
Participants
were
invited
to
complete
a
baseline
questionnaire
during
the
day
(from
9
am
to
5
pm)
as
they
were
available
(before,
after
or
during
their
work
shift).
The
survey
materials
were
made
available
in
three
languages:
English,
Spanish,
and
Portuguese.
After
completing
the
baseline
survey,
employees
were
asked
to
report
weekly,
for
the
following
12
weeks,
their
injury
expe-
rience
and
the
number
of
hours
they
worked
during
the
previous
week.
Participants
were
given
a
choice
of
reporting
their
weekly
experience
by
(1)
telephone
using
an
interactive
voice
response
(IVR)
system;
(2)
an
internet-based
survey;
or
(3)
filling
out
written
follow-up
survey
forms.
Participants
were
paid
$25
for
completing
the
baseline
survey
and
$10
for
each
weekly
follow-up
survey
as
incentives.
The
participation
was
voluntary
and
they
could
with-
draw
at
any
time.
Only
two
of
the
available
employees
declined
participation,
therefore,
the
response
rate
was
99.6%.
A
total
of
419
employees
participated
on
this
project,
representing
50%
of
the
total
employees
in
these
34
restaurants.
The
study
was
part
of
a
larger
research
project
on
restaurant
safety
and
was
approved
by
the
appropriate
Institutional
Review
Boards.
Details
of
the
proce-
dure
are
provided
in
Verma
et
al.
(2010).
2.2.
Measures
Demographic
variables:
Demographic
variables
included
in
the
current
study
were
gender,
ethnic
background,
age,
education
level,
job
tenure,
restaurant
chain
for
which
the
employee
works,
and
number
of
work
hours
per
week.
These
variables
are
commonly
examined
in
the
literature.
Perceived
management
commitment
to
safety:
Four
survey
items
adapted
from
Zohar
and
Luria
(2005)
and
Huang
et
al.
(2006)
were
used
to
measure
the
factor
of
employee
perceptions
of
manage-
ment
commitment
to
safety.
An
example
is,
“The
management
team
emphasizes
safe
behavior
above
all
other
activities.”
Each
item
used
a
5-point
Likert
scale.
The
Internal
Consistency
Reliability
Coefficient
(Alpha)
for
the
four
items
was
0.81.
Perceived
safety
training:
Two
survey
items,
adapted
from
Huang
et
al.
(2006)
were
used
to
measure
the
perception
of
safety
train-
ing.
These
two
items
were
“There
is
an
effective
safety
training
program
for
new
employees”
and
“Employees
receive
adequate,
ongoing
training
to
work
safely.”
Each
item
used
a
5-point
Likert
scale.
The
Alpha
for
the
two
training
items
was
0.85.
Future
injury
rate:
Every
week
for
the
12
weeks
following
the
baseline
survey,
employees
reported
their
injury
experience
and
the
number
of
hours
worked
during
the
previous
week
by
items
“How
many
hours
did
you
work
in
the
restaurant
in
the
last
week?”
and
“In
the
last
week,
did
you
get
injured
while
at
work?”
If
they
answered
“yes”
to
the
second
question,
a
follow-up
question
asked
about
frequency.
The
overall
injury
rate
was
calculated
as
the
total
number
of
injuries
reported
during
the
12-week
period,
divided
by
total
number
of
hours
worked.
2.3.
Data
analysis
procedure
2.3.1.
Confirmatory
factor
analysis
Confirmatory
factor
analysis
of
measurement
models
was
con-
ducted
by
using
AMOS
software
to
examine
the
factor
structures.
Fit
indices
of
goodness
of
fit
index
(GFI),
adjusted
goodness
of
fit
index
(AGFI),
Tucker
Lewis
index
(TLI),
comparative
fit
index
(CFI)
and
root
mean
square
error
of
approximation
(RMSEA)
were
used
to
examine
the
quality
of
the
model.
For
GFI,
AGFI,
TLI,
CFI,
0.95
or
greater
are
interpreted
as
evidence
of
appropriate
fit
(Hu
and
Bentler,
1999).
The
guidelines
for
interpreting
the
RMSEA
are
as
fol-
lows:
RMSEA
<
0.05
indicates
a
good
model
fit;
0.05
<
RMSEA
<
0.08
indicates
a
reasonable
model
fit,
and
RMSEA
>
0.10
indicates
a
poor
model
fit
(Browne
and
Cudeck,
1993;
Hair
et
al.,
1998).
2.3.2.
Homogeneity
tests
of
shared
employee
perceptions
of
management
commitment
to
safety
Homogeneity
tests
were
examined
by
calculating
Intraclass
Cor-
relation
Coefficient
1
and
2
(ICC1,
ICC2)
and
RwgJ
(Bartko,
1976;
James
et
al.,
1984,
1993;
Bliese,
2000)
to
check
whether
employees’
perceptions
at
the
same
restaurant
(within-group)
were
consistent
and
had
agreement.
The
criteria
to
determine
consensus
were
as
follows:
(1)
ICC1:
The
ICC1
indicates
the
extent
to
which
individu-
als
within
the
same
organization
assign
the
same
psychological
meaning
to,
or
agree
in
their
perceptions
of,
an
organizational
characteristic
(Ostroff
and
Schmitt,
1993).
There
are
no
definitive
guidelines
on
acceptable
ICC1
values.
In
past
research,
ICC1
values
have
ranged
from
0
to
0.50,
with
a
median
of
0.12
(James,
1982;
Ostroff
and
Schmitt,
1993).
(2)
ICC2:
The
ICC2
assesses
the
relative
status
of
between
and
within
variability
using
the
average
ratings
of
respondents
within
each
unit
(Bartko,
1976).
It
indicates
reliability
at
the
aggregate
level,
or
the
reliability
of
means
(Ostroff
and
Schmitt,
1993).
There
is
no
strict
standard
of
acceptability
of
ICC2
values.
Glick
(1985)
rec-
ommended
an
ICC2
minium
cutoff
of
0.60.
Schneider
et
al.
(1998)
suggested
that
a
moderate
value
of
ICC2
coupled
with
an
accept-
able
Rwg
score
is
sufficient
grounds
for
aggregation.
The
average
ICC2
value
for
their
study
was
0.47.
LeBreton
and
Senter
(2008)
sug-
gested
that,
depending
on
the
quality
of
the
measures
being
used
in
the
multi-level
analysis,
researchers
will
probably
want
to
choose
values
between
0.70
and
0.85
to
justify
aggregation.
(3)
RwgJ:
The
RwgJ
is
an
assessment
of
within-group
interrater
agreement
(James
et
al.,
1993).
A
median
of
RwgJ
larger
than
0.70
was
used
as
the
criteria.
2.3.3.
Multi-level
analyses
Restaurants
recruited
in
the
study
were
clustered
within
chains
and
workers
were
clustered
within
restaurants.
Multi-level
anal-
yses
were
conducted
to
examine
the
relationships.
To
account
for
clustering
of
participants
within
restaurants,
a
multivariate
neg-
ative
binomial
generalized
estimating
equation
(GEE)
model
with
compound
symmetry
covariance
structure
(Liang
and
Zeger,
1986;
Zeger
and
Liang,
1986)
was
used
to
assess
the
association
between
the
rate
of
self-reported
injuries,
and
measures
of
safety
perception.
The
GEE
model
with
compound
symmetry
covariance
structure
was
used
because
the
study
participants
were
nested
within
restau-
rants
and
could
not
be
assumed
to
be
independent
of
each
other.
The
generalized
estimating
equations
(GEE),
introduced
by
Liang
and
Zeger
(1986),
is
a
method
of
analyzing
correlated
data
which,
if
independent,
could
be
modeled
as
a
generalized
linear
model.
GEEs
have
become
an
important
strategy
in
the
analysis
of
corre-
lated
data.
Multivariate
negative
binominal
regression
was
used
because
our
study
outcome
was
injury
rate
–
this
method
is
com-
monly
used
when
the
outcome
is
a
rate.
In
terms
of
multilevel
analysis,
employee
shared
perceptions
within
the
same
restau-
rant
were
level
2
(group
level)
variables,
and
individual
employee
perceptions
were
level
1
(individual
level)
variables.
As
there
were
only
three
chains,
two
dummy
variables
for
chains
were
included
in
the
regression
model
to
account
for
clustering
of
restaurants
within
chains.
Factors
not
statistically
significant
at
the
0.05
level
in
the
univariate
model
were
not
included
in
the
multivariate
model.
All
statistical
analyses
were
conducted
using
the
SAS
system
version
9.1
(SAS
Institute,
Inc.,
Cary,
NC).

Author's personal copy
Y.H.
Huang
et
al.
/
Accident
Analysis
and
Prevention
47 (2012) 94–
101 97
Table
1
Descriptive
information
of
respondents.
Employees
Job
title
Crew
member 170 (40.6%)
Cashier 58
(13.8%)
Cook
15
(3.6%)
Others 176
(42.0%)
Total
participants
419
Gender
Male
145
(34.6%)
Female 274 (65.4%)
Total
participants
419
Ethnic
background
White
226
(53.9%)
Hispanic/Latino
65
(15.5%)
Black
88
(21.0%)
Other 40
(9.6%)
Total
participants 419
Education
level
Never
attended
school 4 (1.0%)
Grade
1–11
146
(34.9%)
High
school
graduate 170
(40.7%)
Some
college
and
above
98
(23.4%)
Total
participants
418
(missing
1)
3.
Results
Table
1
displays
detailed
information
about
the
demographic
characteristics
of
the
participating
employees.
In
summary,
65.4%
of
the
419
participating
employees
were
female;
53.9%
classified
themselves
as
White,
21%
as
Black,
and
15.7%
as
Hispanic.
Of
the
survey
versions,
89.5%
of
the
participants
chose
the
English,
7.64%
the
Spanish,
and
2.86%
the
Portuguese.
The
mean
age
of
employees
was
29.8
years
(range
15–78
years),
34.8%
had
not
completed
high
school
while
40.6%
were
high
school
graduates.
Participants
aver-
aged
32.8
work
hours
per
week
and
had
been
working
at
the
same
restaurant
for
about
33
months.
The
average
injury
rate
for
employ-
ees
in
the
12
weeks
following
completion
of
the
initial
survey
was
5.8
injuries
per
2000
work
hours
(one
full-time
equivalent).
Burns,
cuts,
and
contusions
were
typical.
Detailed
information
regarding
loss
to
follow-up
was
discussed
in
Verma
et
al.
(2011).
Among
all
participants,
11%
of
respondents
did
not
report
any
weekly
survey.
Table
4
Homogeneity
test
to
examine
whether
safety
perceptions
are
shared
among
employees
working
for
the
same
restaurant.
Employees’
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
Employees’
perceived
safety
training
ICC1 0.097
(F
=
2.441,
p
<
0.01)
0.076
(F
=
2.10,
p
<
0.01)
ICC2
0.59
0.52
RwgJ
(median)
0.78
(−1
to
0.98)
0.41
(−0.85
to
0.96)
Note.
There
are
no
definitive
guidelines
on
acceptable
ICC1
values.
In
past
research,
ICC1
values
have
ranged
from
0
to
0.50,
with
a
median
of
0.12
(James,
1982).
There
is
no
strict
standard
of
acceptability
of
ICC2
values.
A
median
of
RwgJ
larger
than
0.70
was
used
as
the
criteria
to
determine
consensus.
Among
those
who
returned
at
least
one
follow-up
survey,
60%
com-
pleted
12
weekly
surveys,
28%
completed
6–11
weekly
surveys
and
12%
completed
1–5
weekly
surveys.
If
participants
did
not
return
any
surveys,
they
were
excluded
from
the
analysis.
If
they
returned
1–12
weekly
surveys,
their
injuries
and
work
hour
were
counted
for
those
weeks.
Correlations
between
study
variables
from
employee
surveys
are
provided
in
Table
2.
Purpose
1:
Results
from
Table
2
show
that
the
correlation
between
employees’
perceived
safety
training
and
management
commitment
to
safety
was
high
(r
=
0.72,
p
<
0.01).
Therefore,
con-
firmatory
factor
analyses
of
measurement
models
were
further
used
to
compare
the
fit
of
the
models
as
two
separate
factors
or
as
two
dimensions
of
a
single
factor.
Results
from
Table
3
show
that
two
separate
factors
(2(8)
=
28.17,
p
<
0.01,
GFI
=
0.98,
AGFI
=
0.94,
TLI
=
0.97,
CFI
=
0.99,
RMSEA
=
0.079)
fit
the
model
sig-
nificantly
better
than
one
factor
(2(9)
=
114.90,
p
<
0.01,
GFI
=
0.91,
AGFI
=
0.80,
TLI
=
0.88,
CFI
=
0.93,
RMSEA
=
0.17).
The
chi-square
difference
between
the
two-factor
and
one-factor
models
was
sta-
tistically
significant
(2=
86.73,
p
<
0.01).
As
a
result,
we
decided
to
continue
treating
employees’
perceived
management
commit-
ment
to
safety
and
safety
training
as
two
separate
factors
instead
of
as
two
dimensions
of
one
factor.
Purpose
2:
Were
the
two
factors
of
employees’
perceived
safety
training
and
management
commitment
to
safety
shared
among
employees
working
for
the
same
restaurant?
Homogeneity
tests
of
ICC1,
ICC2
and
RwgJ
were
conducted.
Results
from
Table
4
Table
2
Intercorrelations
among
study
variables
from
employee
surveys.
Variables
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.
Gender −0.07
−0.07
−0.11*0.08
0.13** 0.04
0.06
−0.02
2.
Age
–
0.20** 0.50** 0.15** 0.19** 0.01
0.01
−0.19**
3.
Education
–
0.05
0.07
0.26** −0.01
−0.03
−0.05
4.
Tenure
(month)
–
0.06
0.04
0.00
0.06
−0.07
5.
Work
days
per
week
–
0.54** 0.05
0.07
−0.07
6.
General
work
hours –
0.09
0.06
−0.11*
7.
Perceived
safety
training
–
0.72** −0.13*
8.
Perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
–
−0.11*
9.
Injury
rate
in
the
following
12
weeks
–
Male
was
coded
as
1
and
female
was
coded
as
0.
Injury
rate
was
calculated
as
injury
frequency
controlled
by
work
hours
in
the
following
12
weeks
after
completing
the
surveys.
** Correlation
is
significant
at
alpha
<
0.01,
two-tailed.
*Correlation
is
significant
at
alpha
<
0.05,
two-tailed.
Table
3
Results
of
confirmatory
factor
analysis
of
measurement
models
to
compare
the
fit
of
the
models
with
one
and
two
factors.
2(df)
GFI
AGFI
TLI
CFI
RMSEA
(90%
C.I.)
One-factor
model
114.90
(9)
0.91
0.80
0.88
0.93
0.170
(0.143–0.198)
Two-factor
model
28.17
(8)
0.98
0.94
0.97
0.99
0.079
(0.048–0.111)
Note.
Two-factor
model
included
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
and
perceived
safety
training.
For
GFI,
AGFI,
TLI,
CFI,
0.95
or
greater
are
interpreted
as
evidence
of
appropriate
fit
(Hu
and
Bentler,
1999).
The
guidelines
for
interpreting
the
RMSEA
as
follows:
RMSEA
<
0.05
indicates
a
good
model
fit;
0.05
<RMSEA
<
0.08
indicates
a
reasonable
model
fit,
and
RMSEA
>
0.10
indicates
a
poor
model
fit
(Browne
and
Cudeck,
1993;
Hair
et
al.,
1998).

Author's personal copy
98 Y.H.
Huang
et
al.
/
Accident
Analysis
and
Prevention
47 (2012) 94–
101
Table
5
Univariate
analyses
of
the
relationships
between
employee
safety
perceptions
and
injury
outcome.
Number
of
participants
Relative
risk
95%
C.I.
p-Value
DV:
Injury
rate
–
employee
injury
experience
in
the
following
12
weeks
(controlled
for
work
hours)
Analysis
1
IV:
Individual
employee
perception
of
management
commitment 419
0.75** 0.58
0.96
0.02
Analysis
2
IV:
Individual
employee
perception
of
safety
training 419
0.74** 0.60
0.91
0.01
Analysis
3
IV:
Shared
employee
perception
of
management
commitmen
34
0.71
0.37
1.38
0.32
** p
<
0.01.
show
that
for
the
factor
of
employees’
perception
of
safety
training,
there
was
no
consensus/agreement
among
restaurant
employ-
ees
(median
of
RwgJ
=
0.41),
even
though
ICC1
and
ICC2
may
be
considered
to
meet
the
criteria.
On
the
other
hand,
for
the
vari-
able
of
employees’
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety,
results
showed
that
there
were
shared
perceptions/agreements
for
employees
working
at
the
same
restaurant
(ICC1
=
0.097;
ICC2
=
0.59;
median
of
RwgJ
=
0.78).
Therefore,
the
mean
scores
of
management
commitment
to
safety
were
calculated
for
each
restau-
rant
to
represent
the
shared
perception
for
multilevel
analyses
(as
a
level
2,
group-level
variable).
Purpose3:
Data
were
analyzed
to
answer
the
question
of
whether
employees’
safety
perceptions
predict
employees’
future
injury
experience.
Results
from
the
univariate
analyses
in
Table
5
show
that
employees’
shared
perception
of
management
commitment
to
safety
was
not
a
significant
predictor.
Results
showed
that
only
employees’
individual
safety
perceptions
of
both
management
com-
mitment
to
safety
and
safety
training
were
significantly
associated
with
the
rate
of
injury.
Multivariate
analyses
of
the
relationships
between
employees’
individual
safety
perceptions
of
both
management
commitment
and
safety
training
and
injury
rates
were
analyzed
as
both
variables
showed
significant
associations
in
the
univariate
analyses.
Results
from
Table
6
show
that,
regarding
employees’
individual
percep-
tions,
only
safety
training
(relative
risk
=
0.75,
p
<
0.05)
was
still
a
significant
predictor
of
injury
rate,
but
not
management
commit-
ment
to
safety
(relative
risk
=
0.96,
p
>
0.05)
when
both
variables
were
tested
in
the
same
equation.
In
addition
to
the
above
univariate
and
multivariate
analyses,
we
further
investigated
whether
individual
employees’
perceptions
of
management
commitment
to
safety
and
safety
training
could
predict
future
injury
outcomes
above
and
beyond
demographic
variables.
Age,
general
weekly
work
hours
(as
these
two
variables
were
correlated
to
future
injury
outcome
in
Table
2)
and
for
which
restaurant
chain
the
employee
worked
(three
restaurant
chains
were
represented
by
two
dummy
vectors)
were
entered
in
the
equation
as
control
variables.
Results
from
Table
7
show
that
both
individual
employees’
perceptions
of
management
commitment
to
safety
and
safety
training
were
still
significant
predictors
of
future
injury
rate
after
controlling
for
these
demographic
variables
in
these
two
univariate
analyses
and
the
rate
ratios
were
very
sim-
ilar
to
those
found
in
the
previous
univariate
analyses
without
the
demographics
(Table
5).
For
each
one
unit
increase
in
individ-
ual
employees’
perceptions
of
management
commitment
to
safety,
rate
of
injury
decreased
23%
(95%
CI
1–41%)
and
for
each
one
unit
increase
in
employees’
perceptions
of
safety
training,
rate
of
injury
Table
6
Multivariate
analyses
of
the
relationships
between
employee
safety
perceptions
and
injury
outcome.
Number
of
participants
Relative
risk
95%
C.I.
p-Value
DV:
Injury
rate
–
employee
injury
experience
in
the
following
12
weeks
controlled
for
work
hours
for
the
12
weeks
IVs:
Individual
employee
perception
of
management
commitment
to
safety
419
0.96
0.73
1.28
0.80
Individual
employee
perception
of
safety
training
419
0.75*0.59
0.95
0.02
*p
<
0.05.
Table
7
Multivariate
analyses
of
whether
individual
employee
perceptions
of
management
commitment
to
safety
and
safety
training
predict
future
injury
outcomes
above
and
beyond
demographic
variables.
Number
of
participants
Relative
risk
95%
C.I.
p-Value
(1)
Whether
employees’
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
predict
future
injury
rate
above
and
beyond
demographic
variables?
DV:
Injury
rate
–
employee
injury
experience
in
the
following
12
weeks
controlled
for
work
hours
for
the
12
weeks
IVs:
Age
(10
years) 419
0.57** 0.44
0.75
0.001
General
weekly
work
hours
(5
h)
419
0.91
0.80
1.05
0.19
Chain
1
vs.
2
419
0.86
0.42
1.79
0.69
Chain
1
vs.
3
419
1.06
0.56
2.00
0.86
Individual
employee
perception
of
management
commitment
to
safety
419
0.77*0.59
0.99
0.04
(2)
Whether
employees’
perceived
safety
training
predict
future
injury
rate
above
and
beyond
demographic
variables?
DV:
Injury
rate
–
employee
injury
experience
in
the
following
12
weeks
controlled
for
work
hours
for
the
12
weeks
IVs:
Age
(10
years)
419
0.59** 0.44
0.76
0.001
General
weekly
work
hours
(5
h)
419
0.92
0.80
1.06
0.24
Chain
1
vs.
2
419
0.85
0.40
1.83
0.68
Chain
1
vs.
3
419
1.00
0.53
1.91
0.99
Individual
employee
perception
of
safety
training 419
0.78*0.62
0.99
0.04
*p
<
0.05.
** p
<
0.01.

Author's personal copy
Y.H.
Huang
et
al.
/
Accident
Analysis
and
Prevention
47 (2012) 94–
101 99
→
Employees’ perceived
management commitment to
safety
Employees’ perceived
safety training
Future injury
→
Fig.
1.
A
proposed
path
model
among
employees’
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety,
perceived
safety
training,
and
future
injury
from
post
hoc
analysis.
decreased
22%
(95%
CI
1–38%).
The
multivariate
analysis
was
not
rerun
controlling
for
the
demographic
variables
because
the
results
from
Table
6
showed
that
employee’s
perceived
management
com-
mitment
to
safety
was
not
a
significant
predictor
of
injury
rate
when
both
variables
were
tested
in
the
same
equation.
4.
Discussion
The
current
study
examined
two
important
constructs
of
safety
perceptions
emerging
from
the
safety
climate
literature
(employee
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
and
perceptions
of
safety
training)
for
restaurant
workers.
Results
indicated
that
employees’
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
and
safety
training
fit
better
as
two
separate
factors
instead
of
as
two
dimen-
sions
of
one
factor
in
a
restaurant
environment.
The
results
provide
support
to
prior
articles
which
suggest
that
it
is
important
to
dif-
ferentiate
between
safety
climate
and
the
structural
elements
of
a
safety
management
system
(Hale,
2000;
Hahn
and
Murphy,
2008).
Further
evidence
of
this
notion
was
provided
in
that
the
results
of
the
homogeneity
tests
showed
that
there
was
a
shared
perception
of
the
factor
of
management
commitment
to
safety
for
restaurant
employees
but
there
was
no
consistent
perception
among
restau-
rant
employees
for
the
factor
of
safety
training.
The
evidence
for
employees
having
a
shared
perception
of
management
commitment
to
safety
(as
a
global
factor
of
safety
climate)
provided
support
for
the
notion
of
group-level
safety
climate
(e.g.,
James
et
al.,
1990;
Christian
et
al.,
2009;
Young,
2010)
for
the
restaurant
environment.
When
these
perceptions
are
shared
among
individuals
in
a
partic-
ular
work
environment,
in
this
case,
the
restaurant
environment,
a
group-level
climate
does
emerge.
On
the
other
hand,
results
showed
that
for
restaurant
employ-
ees,
even
though
they
worked
in
the
same
place,
had
similar
jobs,
and
were
supposed
to
have
the
same
training,
their
perceptions
of
the
quality
of
safety
training
were
not
consistent.
Without
fur-
ther
investigation,
we
are
not
able
to
provide
actual
reasons
as
to
why
employees
are
having
different
opinions
on
safety
training.
One
possibility
may
be
that
different
employees
define
and
inter-
pret
the
training
program
and
training
material
in
different
ways.
For
example,
based
on
researchers’
informal
investigation
during
these
field
visits,
some
employees
considered
new
employee
ori-
entation
as
part
of
the
safety
training,
but
others
disagreed.
Future
study
can
further
investigate
how
to
implement
training
programs
consistently,
communicate
the
program
well,
and
define
clearly
to
all
employees
what
it
encompasses.
The
results
of
the
current
study
showed
that
employees’
indi-
vidual
perceptions
of
management
commitment
to
safety
and
safety
training
were
both
significant
predictors
of
future
injury
outcome;
however,
the
finding
of
a
non-significant
relationship
between
employees’
shared
perception
of
management
commitment
to
safety
and
injury
was
a
result
that
is
contradictory
to
the
safety
climate
literature
(e.g.,
Christian
et
al.,
2009).
Based
on
commonly
accept-
able
criteria
(Glick,
1985;
Schneider
et
al.,
1998),
even
though
the
ICC2
score
was
moderate
in
the
current
study,
the
results
of
the
homogeneity
tests
provided
sufficient
grounds
for
aggregation.
It
could,
therefore,
be
reported
that
there
was
a
shared
perception
of
management
commitment
to
safety
for
restaurant
employees.
On
the
other
hand,
some
studies
in
the
literature
have
suggested
that
more
stringent
criteria
should
be
used
when
discussing
ICCs.
For
example,
LeBreton
and
Senter
(2008)
suggested
researchers
should
choose
values
between
0.70
and
0.85
to
justify
aggregation.
In
our
case,
if
these
more
stringent
criteria
were
chosen,
the
results
of
the
current
study
would
be
that
there
were
no
group-level
shared
employee
perceptions
on
management
commitment
to
safety;
there-
fore,
there
was
no
need
to
test
whether
there
was
a
relationship
between
group-level
perception
and
future
injury.
As
there
are
no
strict
standards
of
acceptability
for
the
ICC2
value,
the
contradic-
tory
results
of
the
current
study
may
provide
illustration
that
more
stringent
criteria
may
be
more
appropriate
when
judging
ICCs.
This
debate
provides
a
new
direction
in
terms
of
the
need
to
explore
what
is
the
appropriate
ICC
value
when
conducting
multi-level
research.
We
do
not
know,
without
further
investigation,
whether
or
not
the
specific
characteristics
of
the
restaurant
industry
(e.g.,
high
turnover
rate,
generally
not
a
career
job)
had
an
impact
on
group
level
safety
climate.
Also,
the
restaurants
participating
in
the
study
belonged
to
three
large
chains
and
may,
in
general,
have
had
good
safety
climate
levels
and,
therefore,
smaller
variances
between
restaurants
to
be
linked
to
injury
experience.
In
addition,
there
were
only
34
groups
(restaurants)
and
self-reports
of
injury
may
have
introduced
non-differential
misclassification.
These
factors
may
have
had
an
impact
on
why
no
significant
association
was
found
between
shared
employee
perceptions
and
rate
of
injury.
From
the
multivariate
analyses,
when
both
perceptions
are
in
the
equation,
only
employees’
perceived
safety
training
is
still
a
significant
predictor
of
future
injury,
but
not
their
perceptions
of
management
commitment
to
safety.
In
the
current
safety
literature,
employees’
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
is
the
most
important
dimension
of
safety
climate
(e.g.,
Zohar
and
Luria,
2005;
Young,
2010).
Our
study
provides
support
that
it
is
very
important
to
examine
employees’
perceived
safety
training
as
a
predictor
of
workplace
injuries
as
well.
Summarized
results
showed
that
employees’
individual
percep-
tions
of
management
commitment
to
safety
and
safety
training
were
both
significant
predictors
of
future
injury
outcomes
in
the
univari-
ate
analyses;
however,
when
perceived
safety
training
was
included
in
the
same
equation
in
the
multivariate
analysis,
the
significant
association
between
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
and
injury
outcome
disappeared.
These
results
suggested
a
poten-
tial
mediating
effect
of
perceived
safety
training
on
the
relationship
between
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
and
future
injury
outcome.
According
to
Baron
and
Kenny
(1986),
a
variable
functions
as
a
mediator
when
it
meets
the
following
conditions:
(1)
variations
in
levels
of
the
independent
variable
significantly
account
for
the
variations
in
the
presumed
mediator,
(2)
variations
in
the
mediator
significantly
account
for
the
variations
in
the
dependent
variables,
(3)
when
both
independent
variable
and
the
mediator
are
in
the
equation,
a
previously
significant
relationship
between
the
inde-
pendent
and
dependent
variables
is
no
longer
significant.
In
the
current
study,
employees’
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
(the
potential
independent
variable)
significantly
accounted
for
the
variation
in
perceived
safety
training
(the
potential
media-
tor)
as
these
two
variables
were
highly
correlated
(met
condition
1).
Results
from
the
univariate
analyses
showed
that
variations
in
employees’
perceived
safety
training
(the
potential
mediator)
significantly
accounted
for
the
variations
in
injury
outcome
(the

Author's personal copy
100 Y.H.
Huang
et
al.
/
Accident
Analysis
and
Prevention
47 (2012) 94–
101
dependent
variable)
(met
condition
2).
When
both
employees’
per-
ceived
management
commitment
to
safety
(independent
variable)
and
employees’
perceived
safety
training
(the
mediator)
were
in
the
equation,
a
previously
significant
relationship
between
employees’
perceived
management
commitment
and
injury
outcomes
was
no
longer
significant
(met
condition
3).
From
this
post
hoc
analysis,
our
results
suggest
that
the
variable
of
employees’
perceived
safety
training
could
be
a
proximal
predictor
of
future
injury
outcome
which
mediated
the
relationship
between
employees’
perceived
management
commitment
(a
distal
predictor)
and
injury
outcome
(see
Fig.
1).
It
proposes
that
when
employees
perceive
their
man-
agement
as
having
a
high
level
of
commitment
to
safety,
they
will
also
perceive
that
the
safety
training
of
the
organization
is
good,
which
will
further
predict
future
injury
experience
of
the
employees.
In
summary,
the
results
showed
the
importance
of
dif-
ferentiating
and
examining
the
two
types
of
safety
perceptions
(management
commitment
to
safety
and
safety
training)
on
injury
outcomes.
The
results
also
showed
that
the
individual
employees’
perceptions
of
management
commitment
to
safety
and
safety
training
can
predict
future
injury
outcomes
above
and
beyond
demographic
variables.
There
are
several
limitations
in
the
current
study.
We
used
a
relatively
sensitive
case
definition
of
injury.
Such
a
case
defini-
tion
could
lead
to
non-differential
misclassification
of
outcome
and
could
bias
the
results
to
the
null.
However,
despite
this
poten-
tial
influence,
individual
perception
of
management
commitment
to
safety
assessed
at
baseline
showed
a
significant
association
with
prospectively
collected
self-reported
injury
rates.
In
addition,
although
the
current
study
collected
weekly
self-reported
injury
information
for
12
weeks,
which
has
less
recall
bias
than
a
typical
cross-sectional
survey,
there
are
still
some
limitations
regarding
this
study
design.
Future
studies
should
try
to
include
objec-
tive
records
of
injury
incidence
when
examining
safety
outcomes.
Future
study
could
also
collect
measures
of
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
and
employee
perceived
safety
training
in
the
follow-up
surveys
to
examine
the
changes
over
time.
Some
limita-
tions
with
self-reported
data
(e.g.,
social
desirability
effects)
may
occur
and
the
data
needs
to
be
interpreted
with
caution.
Also,
our
study
did
not
provide
actual
reasons
why
employees
at
the
same
restaurant
may
have
different
opinions
concerning
the
same
safety
training.
Finally,
restaurants
belonging
to
three
major
chains
and
from
six
different
states
participated
in
the
study.
The
survey
material
was
made
available
in
three
different
languages,
thus
increasing
the
generalizability
of
the
study
findings.
However,
since
restau-
rants
were
mainly
owned
by
large
employers,
generalizability
of
some
of
the
findings
may
be
limited
for
small
employers.
Cau-
tion
should
also
be
taken
when
generalizing
these
results
to
other
industries.
5.
Conclusion
In
conclusion,
this
study
supported
the
two
important
con-
structs
of
safety
perceptions
emerging
from
the
safety
climate
literature
(employee
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
and
perceptions
of
safety
training)
as
two
separate
factors
instead
of
as
two
dimensions
of
one
factor
in
a
restaurant
environment.
There
was
a
shared
perception
of
management
commitment
to
safety
for
the
restaurant
workers
but
no
consistent
perception
for
perceived
safety
training.
Individual
employees’
perceptions
can
predict
employees’
subsequent
injuries
above
and
beyond
demo-
graphic
variables.
Further,
employees’
perceived
safety
training
could
be
a
proximal
predictor
of
future
injury
which
medi-
ated
the
relationship
between
employees’
perceived
management
commitment
to
safety
(a
distal
predictor)
and
injury
outcome.
The
findings
of
the
current
study
highlight
the
importance
of
incorporating
organizational
factors
and
relevant
organiza-
tional
constructs
when
attempting
to
reduce
employees’
future
injuries.
References
Baron,
R.M.,
Kenny,
D.A.,
1986.
The
moderator–mediator
variable
distinction
in
social
psychological
research:
conceptual,
strategic,
and
statistical
considera-
tions.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology
51,
1173–1182.
Bartko,
J.J.,
1976.
On
various
intraclass
correlation
reliability
coefficients.
Psycho-
logical
Bulletin
83,
762–765.
Bliese,
P.,
2000.
Within-group
agreement,
non-independence,
and
reliability.
In:
Klein,
K.,
Kozlowski,
S.
(Eds.),
Multi-Level
Theory,
Research,
and
Methods
in
Organizations.
Jossey-Bass,
San
Francisco,
CA,
pp.
349–381.
Brown,
R.L.,
Holmes,
H.,
1986.
The
use
of
factor-analytic
procedures
for
assessing
the
validity
of
an
employee
safety
climate
model.
Accident
Analysis
and
Prevention
18,
455–470.
Browne,
M.W.,
Cudeck,
R.,
1993.
Alternative
ways
of
assessing
model
fit.
In:
Bollen,
K.A.,
Long,
J.S.
(Eds.),
Testing
Structural
Equation
Models.
Sage,
Beverly
Hills,
CA,
pp.
136–162.
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
2007.
Occupational
Employment
Statistics.
United
States
Department
of
Labor,
U.S.
Government
Printing
Office,
Washington,
DC,
available
at:
http://www.bls.gov/oes/oes
dl.htm
(accessed
2009).
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
2008.
Census
of
Fatal
Occupational
Injuries
(CFOI)
– Cur-
rent
and
Revised
Data,
http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm.
Christian,
M.S.,
Bradley,
J.C.,
Wallace,
J.C.,
Burke,
M.J.,
2009.
Workplace
safety:
a
meta-analysis
of
the
roles
of
person
and
situation
factors.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology
94,
1103–1127.
Cohen,
H.H.,
Jensen,
R.C.,
1984.
Measuring
the
effectiveness
of
an
industrial
lift
truck
safety
training
program.
Journal
of
Safety
Research
15
(3),
125–135.
Dedobbeleer,
N.,
Beland,
F.,
1991.
A
safety
climate
measure
for
construction
sites.
Journal
of
Safety
Research
22,
97–103.
Diaz,
I.R.,
Cabrera,
D.D.,
1997.
Safety
climate
and
attitude
as
evaluation
measures
of
organizational
safety.
Accident
Analysis
and
Prevention
29,
643–650.
Donald,
I.,
Canter,
D.,
1994.
Employee
attitudes
and
safety
in
the
chemical
industry.
Journal
of
Loss
Prevention
in
Process
Industries
7
(3),
203–208.
Flin,
R.,
Mearns,
P.,
O’Connor,
R.,
Bryden,
R.,
2000.
Measuring
safety
climate
identi-
fying
the
common
features.
Safety
Science
34,
177–192.
Gershon,
R.R.,
Karkashian,
C.D.,
Grosch,
J.W.,
Murphy,
L.R.,
Escamilla-Cejudo,
A.,
Flanagan,
P.A.,
Bernacki,
E.,
Kasting,
C.,
Martin,
L.,
2000.
Hospital
safety
climate
and
its
relationship
with
safe
work
practices
and
workplace
exposure
incident.
American
Journal
of
Infection
Control
28,
211–221.
Glick,
W.H.,
1985.
Conceptualizing
and
measuring
organizational
and
psychological
climate:
pitfalls
in
multilevel
research.
Academy
of
Management
Review
10,
601–616.
Griffin,
M.A.,
Neal,
A.,
2000.
Perceptions
of
safety
at
work:
a
framework
for
linking
safety
climate
to
safety
performance,
knowledge,
and
motivation.
Journal
of
Occupational
Health
Psychology
5,
347–358.
Hahn,
S.E.,
Murphy,
L.R.,
2008.
A
short
scale
for
measuring
safety
climate.
Safety
Science
46,
1047–1066.
Hair
Jr.,
J.F.,
Anderson,
R.E.,
Tatham,
R.L.,
Black,
W.C.,
1998.
Multivariate
Data
Anal-
ysis,
5th
ed.
Prentice
Hall,
Upper
Saddle
River,
NJ.
Hale,
A.R.,
2000.
Editorial:
culture’s
confusions.
Safety
Science
34,
1–14.
Hofmann,
D.A.,
Stetzer,
A.,
1996.
A
cross-level
investigation
of
factors
influencing
unsafe
behaviors
and
accidents.
Personnel
Psychology
49
(2),
307–339.
Hofmann,
D.A.,
Stetzer,
A.,
1998.
The
role
of
safety
climate
and
communication
in
accident
interpretation:
Implications
for
learning
from
negative
events.
Academy
of
Management
Journal
41
(6),
644–646.
Hu,
L.,
Bentler,
P.M.,
1999.
Cutoff
criteria
for
fit
indexes
in
covariance
structure
analy-
sis:
Conventional
criteria
versus
new
alternatives.
Structural
Equation
Modeling
6,
1–55.
Huang,
Y.H.,
Ho,
M.,
Smith,
G.S.,
Chen,
P.Y.,
2006.
Safety
climate
and
self-reported
injury:
assessing
the
mediating
role
of
employee
safety
control.
Accident
Anal-
ysis
and
Prevention
38,
425–433.
James,
L.R.,
1982.
Aggregation
bias
in
estimates
of
perceptual
agreement.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology
67
(2),
219–229.
James,
L.R.,
Demaree,
R.G.,
Wolf,
G.,
1984.
Estimating
within-group
interrater
reli-
ability
with
and
without
response
bias.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology
69,
85–98.
James,
L.R.,
Demaree,
R.G.,
Wolf,
G.,
1993.
rwg:
An
assessment
of
within-group
inter-
rater
agreement.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology
78,
306–309.
James,
L.R.,
Hater,
J.J.,
Gent,
M.J.,
Bruni,
J.R.,
1978.
Psychological
climate
Implications
from
cognitive
social
learning
theory
and
interactional
psychology.
Personnel
Psychology
31,
783–813.
James,
L.R.,
James,
L.A.,
Ashe,
D.K.,
1990.
The
meaning
of
organizations:
the
role
of
cognition
and
values.
In:
Schneider,
B.
(Ed.),
Organizational
Climate
and
Culture.
Jossey-Bass
Publishers,
San
Francisco,
CA,
pp.
40–84.
James,
L.R.,
Sells,
S.B.,
1981.
Psychological
climate:
theoretical
perspectives
and
empirical
research.
In:
Magnusson,
D.
(Ed.),
Toward
a
Psychology
of
Situations:
An
Interactional
Perspective.
Erlbaum,
Hillsdale,
NJ,
pp.
275–295.
Jermier,
J.M.,
Gaines,
J.,
McIntosh,
N.J.,
1989.
Reactions
to
physically
dangerous
work:
a
conceptual
and
empirical
analysis.
Journal
of
Organizational
Behavior
10
(1),
15–33.

Author's personal copy
Y.H.
Huang
et
al.
/
Accident
Analysis
and
Prevention
47 (2012) 94–
101 101
LeBreton,
J.M.,
Senter,
J.L.,
2008.
Answers
to
twenty
questions
about
interrater
reli-
ability
and
interrater
agreement.
Organizational
Research
Methods
11,
815–852.
Liang,
K.Y.,
Zeger,
S.L.,
1986.
Longitudinal
data
analysis
using
generalized
linear
models.
Biometrika
73,
13–22.
Neal,
A.,
Griffin,
M.A.,
2006.
A
study
of
the
lagged
relationships
among
safety
climate,
safety
motivation,
safety
behavior,
and
accidents
at
the
individual
and
group
levels.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology
91,
946–953.
Niskanen,
T.,
1994.
Assessing
the
safety
environment
in
the
work
organization
of
road
maintenance
jobs.
Accident
Analysis
and
Prevention
26,
27–39.
Ostroff,
C.,
Schmitt,
N.,
1993.
Configurations
of
organizational
effectiveness
and
effi-
ciency.
The
Academy
of
Management
Journal
36
(6).
Reber,
R.A.,
Wallin,
J.A.,
1984.
The
effects
of
training,
goal
setting,
and
knowledge
of
results
on
safe
behavior:
a
component
analysis.
Academy
of
Management
Journal
27,
544–560.
Schneider,
B.,
White,
S.S.,
Paul,
M.C.,
1998.
Linking
service
climate
and
customer
per-
ceptions
of
service
quality:
test
of
a
causal
model.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology
83,
150–163.
Siu,
O.,
Phillips,
D.R.,
Leung,
T.,
2004.
Safety
climate
and
safety
performance
among
construction
workers
Hong
Kong:
the
role
of
psychological
strains
as
mediators.
Accident
Analysis
and
Prevention
36
(3),
359–366.
Verma,
S.K.,
Chang,
W.,
Courtney,
T.K.,
Lombardi,
D.A.,
Huang,
Y.H.,
Brennan,
M.J.,
Perry,
M.J.,
2010.
Workers’
experience
of
slipping
in
US
limited
service
restau-
rants.
Journal
of
Occupational
&
Environmental
Hygiene
7
(9),
491–500.
Verma,
S.K.,
Chang,
W.R.,
Courtney,
T.K.,
Lombardi,
D.A.,
Huang,
Y.H.,
Brennan,
M.J.,
Mittleman,
M.A.,
Ware,
J.H.,
Perry,
M.J.,
2011.
A
prospective
study
of
floor
surface,
shoes,
floor
cleaning
and
slipping
in
U.S.
limited-service
restaurant
workers.
Occupational
and
Environmental
Medicine
68
(4),
279–285.
Young,
B.,
2010.
Press
release:
CWCI
Scorecard
Examines
Restaurant
Claims
in
the
California
Workers’
Comp
System.
California
Workers’
Compensation
Institute
Oakland,
CA,
available
on-line
at:
http://www.cwci.org/press
release.
html?id=149.
Zeger,
S.L.,
Liang,
K.Y.,
1986.
Longitudinal
data
analysis
for
discrete
and
continuous
outcomes.
Biometrics
42
(1),
121–130.
Zohar,
D.,
1980.
Safety
climate
in
industrial
organizations:
theoretical
and
applied
implications.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology
65,
96–102.
Zohar,
D.,
2000.
A
group-level
model
of
safety
climate:
testing
the
effects
of
group
climate
on
microaccidents
in
manufacturing
jobs.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology
85,
587–596.
Zohar,
D.,
2002.
Modifying
supervisory
practices
to
improve
subunit
safety:
a
leadership-based
intervention
model.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology
87
(1),
156–163.
Zohar,
D.,
2003.
Safety
climate:
conceptual
and
measurement
issues.
In:
Quick,
J.C.,
Tetrick,
L.E.
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
Occupational
Health
Psychology.
American
Psy-
chological
Association,
Washington,
DC,
pp.
123–142.
Zohar,
D.,
2008.
Safety
climate
and
beyond:
a
multi-level
multi-climate
framework.
Safety
Science
46,
376–387.
Zohar,
D.,
Luria,
G.,
2005.
A
multilevel
model
of
safety
climate:
cross-level
rela-
tionships
between
organization
and
group-level
climates.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology
90,
616–628.