Todd D Smith1, David M DeJoy2, Mari-Amanda Dyal3, Yongjia Pu4, Stephanie Dickinson4. 1. Indiana University School of Public Health - Bloomington, Department of Applied Health Science, Bloomington, IN, USA. Electronic address: smithtod@indiana.edu. 2. Workplace Health Group, Department of Health Promotion and Behavior, University of Georgia, College of Public Health, Athens, GA, USA. 3. Kennesaw State University, Department of Health Promotion and Physical Education, Kennesaw, GA, USA. 4. Indiana University School of Public Health - Bloomington, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Bloomington, IN, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Limited research associated with safety climate has been completed within the fire service. Given this dearth of information, the present study sought to identify a valid and reliable measure of safety climate at both the workgroup and organizational levels within the fire service. METHODS: Researchers surveyed 994 firefighters in two large metropolitan fire departments. Preliminary analyses including psychometrics, confirmatory factor analyses, and shared perception analyses were completed. A linear mixed model analysis was then completed to assess the relationships between workgroup safety climate, organizational safety climate, and safety behaviors, including both safety compliance and safety citizenship behaviors. RESULTS: Measures of safety climate at the workgroup (WGSC) and organizational levels (OSC) were derived. WGSC factors include supervisor support (α = 0.92), vertical cohesion (α = 0.89), and horizontal cohesion (α = 0.94). OSC factors include management commitment (α = 0.91), safety programs/policies (α = 0.89), perceived fairness (α = 0.86) and incident command (α = 0.90). Confirmatory factor analyses confirmed our multi-factor models were a good fit to the data. The linear mixed model analysis found that WGSC positively predicted safety compliance behavior (B = 0.13, p < .001) and safety citizenship behavior (B = 0.22, p < .001) and OSC positively predicted safety compliance behavior (B = 0.16, p < .001) and safety citizenship behavior (B = 0.15, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This work presents reliable and valid measures of both workgroup and organizational safety climate, which have positive relationships with safety behavior outcomes. Practical application: The measures, which were developed through an extensive multi-method process, provide a means for researchers and practitioners to assess safety climate in the fire service and provides guidance for future safety climate research, including informing intervention research, which could potentially bolster safety climate and enhance safety in the fire service.
INTRODUCTION: Limited research associated with safety climate has been completed within the fire service. Given this dearth of information, the present study sought to identify a valid and reliable measure of safety climate at both the workgroup and organizational levels within the fire service. METHODS: Researchers surveyed 994 firefighters in two large metropolitan fire departments. Preliminary analyses including psychometrics, confirmatory factor analyses, and shared perception analyses were completed. A linear mixed model analysis was then completed to assess the relationships between workgroup safety climate, organizational safety climate, and safety behaviors, including both safety compliance and safety citizenship behaviors. RESULTS: Measures of safety climate at the workgroup (WGSC) and organizational levels (OSC) were derived. WGSC factors include supervisor support (α = 0.92), vertical cohesion (α = 0.89), and horizontal cohesion (α = 0.94). OSC factors include management commitment (α = 0.91), safety programs/policies (α = 0.89), perceived fairness (α = 0.86) and incident command (α = 0.90). Confirmatory factor analyses confirmed our multi-factor models were a good fit to the data. The linear mixed model analysis found that WGSC positively predicted safety compliance behavior (B = 0.13, p < .001) and safety citizenship behavior (B = 0.22, p < .001) and OSC positively predicted safety compliance behavior (B = 0.16, p < .001) and safety citizenship behavior (B = 0.15, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This work presents reliable and valid measures of both workgroup and organizational safety climate, which have positive relationships with safety behavior outcomes. Practical application: The measures, which were developed through an extensive multi-method process, provide a means for researchers and practitioners to assess safety climate in the fire service and provides guidance for future safety climate research, including informing intervention research, which could potentially bolster safety climate and enhance safety in the fire service.