to Measure Training Effects on The Culture of Safety Mark McLellan Utah State University CULTURE of SAFETY What is it How To Change It How Do We Measure It Where Does it Come From ID: 615582
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Development and Testing of a Survey" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Development and Testing of a Survey to Measure Training Effects on The Culture of SafetySlide2
Mark McLellan
Utah State UniversitySlide3
CULTURE of SAFETY
What is it?
How To Change It?
How Do We Measure It?
Where Does it Come From?Slide4
Research PedigreeDr. Goldberger
Dr. Evans
Dr.
Dauben
Dr.
Poulter
MeSlide5
Pellagra1912
Dr. Joseph GoldbergerSlide6
Experiment 1OrphanageSlide7
Experiment 2Mental AsylumSlide8
Experiment 3Filth PartiesSlide9
Culture of SafetyKnowledge
Attitude
Behavior
MeasurementSlide10
Knowledge AcquisitionSlide11
Attitude Toward SafetySlide12
Predicting BehaviorSlide13
VignetteYou are working alone in you lab when you find a 4-L amber glass bottle sitting on another persons lab bench labeled as “Experiment 113-bdj”. The
container is hissing (venting gas) from around the lid. Slide14
Expert Panel
Name
Affiliation
e-mail address
Michael
Blaney
Northwestern University
Michael.blayney@northwestern
Jeff Christensen
University of Arizona
jgchrist@email.arizona.edu
Kent Clawson
King Abdula University
kent.clawson@kaust.edu.sa
Sean Collins
Santa Clara University
spcollins@scu.edu
Joy A. DiazWhitworth University
jdiaz02@whitworth.eduMary DudaCreighton Universitymjduda@creighton.eduMichele Edenfield
Emory University
Michele.edenfield@emory.edu
Gordon Evans
Texas A&M
gevans@tamus.edu
Jerry Gordon
Cornell University
jpg29@cornell.edu
Heather Jackson
University of Illinois/Chicago
heather9@uic.edu
Hans Nielsen
Hawaii University
hansn@hawaii.edu
Fred Miller
Whitman College
millerfl@whitman.edu
Laurie St. Clair
Oklahoma State University
laurie.stclair@okstate.eduSlide15
Pilot Survey Section Number of QuestionsDemographics 5Learning Style 4Course Evaluation 12Attitude Toward Safety 12Behavior Vignettes 24
4 Scenarios each with 6 solutionsSlide16
Likert ScaleStrongly Disagree Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Agree StronglyDisagree Disagree Agree Agree
A Discrete 7-point Likert Scale can be considered an Interval scale rather than
Ordinal for statistical calculationsSlide17
Pilot Survey
School
Out
Returned
Rate
USU (as part of RLST)
116
72
62.1%
USU Chemistry Department (9 months)
50
22
44%
UofU (6 months)
75
30
40%
UofH (12 months)25
1352%Total26613149.2%Slide18
Survey Section Number of QuestionsDemographics 4Course Evaluation 10Attitude Toward Safety 10Behavior Vignettes 9
3 Scenarios each with 3 solutionsSlide19
Survey
School
Out
Returned
Rate
Auburn
75
35
46.7%
BYU
40
15
37.5%
LSU
200
81
40.5%
UIC
1004444.0%UNR10047
47.0%
USU
341
171
50.1%
Total
856
393
45.9%Slide20
Number of Science Courses
20%MS/PhD
30%
4yr Degree
30%
Upper Level
Undergrads
14%
UndergradsSlide21
Major
60%Physical Sciences
17%
EngineeringSlide22
Laboratory Experience
55% Research
Laboratory
ExperienceSlide23
Previous Lab Safety Training
42% Previous RLST
31% Teaching
Laboratory
13% NoneSlide24
Accidents
62% Never34%
Minor
2% Near Miss
1% SeverSlide25
Course EvaluationCronbach’s α – 0.853Slide26
AttitudeCronbach’s α –
0.732Slide27
Behavior PredictionsCronbach’s α –
0.704Slide28
Overall SurveyCronbach’s α –
0.824Slide29
Factor Analysis
SRMR – 0.0669
CFI – 0.904Slide30
Criterion Validity
Rank
Number sent
Returned
%
Labs
People
10
0
0
0
9
(1BE/1Bio)
65
83.38 (2Bio)20735.0
7
(3Bio)
11
7
63.6
6
(3Bio/1ME)
13
7
53.8
5
(4?Bio)
12
7
58.3
4
(3Bio/1ME)
16
6
37.5
3
(2Bio/2ME)
19
13
68.4
2
(2ME)
9
4
44.4
1
(2ME)
7
6
85.7
Total
28
113
62
54.9
BE – Biological Engineering, Bio – Biology, ME – Mechanical EngineeringSlide31
Criterion Validity
r
- 0.615
r
2
– 0.379 Slide32
http://rgs.usu.edu/ehs/ehs-tools/Slide33
SummaryReliability is High, α – 0.824Content Validity Approved by the Expert Panel
Criterion ValidityPearson Correlation – r = 0.615, p=0.0001Construct ValidityCFA – 3 factors, 37.9 % of Variance ExplainedFinal TestNeed a Large Scale Broad Spectrum Experiment500 Volunteers at 10 Different Institutions