Advertisement

Aggregate-Level Data Characteristics of Safety Climate with Different Likert-Type Scales

  • Siu Shing Man
  • Jacky Yu Ki NgEmail author
  • Kar Ying Law
  • Alan Hoi Shou Chan
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 969)

Abstract

Safety climate is an important construct for determining construction safety. This study aims to examine the validity and reliability of a safety climate scale on the basis of its aggregate-level data characteristics, with the use of 5-, 7-, and 10-point Likert-type scales, and to investigate the influence of the number of response categories on the validity and reliability of a safety climate scale. A total of 104 construction workers participated in this study. Results showed that the mean, variance, and internal consistency reliability of the 5-, 7-, and 10-point Likert-type scales had no considerable difference. Among the three scales, the responses for the 7-point Likert scale tended to be normally distributed. Therefore, this study provides theoretical contributions to the literature on construction industry safety climate and suggests the use of the 7-point Likert scale in measuring safety climate in the construction industry.

Keywords

Construction safety Likert-type scale Safety climate 

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Mroszczyk, J.W.: Improving construction safety: a team effort. Prof. Saf. 60, 55–68 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leung, M.-Y., Liang, Q., Olomolaiye, P.: Impact of job stressors and stress on the safety behavior and accidents of construction workers. J. Manag. Eng. 32, 04015019 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Man, S.S., Chan, A.H.S., Wong, H.M.: Risk-taking behaviors of Hong Kong construction workers - a thematic study. Saf. Sci. 98, 25–36 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alruqi, W.M., Hallowell, M.R., Techera, U.: Safety climate dimensions and their relationship to construction safety performance: a meta-analytic review. Saf. Sci. 109, 165–173 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zohar, D.: Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications. J. Appl. Psychol. 65, 96–102 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christian, M.S., Bradley, J.C., Wallace, J.C., Burke, M.J.: Workplace safety: a meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 1103–1127 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beus, J.M., Payne, S.C., Bergman, M.E., Arthur Jr., W.: Safety climate and injuries: an examination of theoretical and empirical relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 95, 713–727 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nahrgang, J.D., Morgeson, F.P., Hofmann, D.A.: Safety at work: a meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 96, 71–94 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dedobbeleer, N., Béland, F.: A safety climate measure for construction sites. J. Saf. Res. 22, 97–103 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wu, C., Song, X., Wang, T., Fang, D.: Core dimensions of the construction safety climate for a standardized safety-climate measurement. J. Constr. Eng. Management. 141, 04015018 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huang, Y., Lee, J., Chen, Z., Perry, M., Cheung, J.H., Wang, M.: An item-response theory approach to safety climate measurement: the liberty mutual safety climate short scales. Accid. Anal. Prev. 103, 96–104 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Likert, R.: A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 140, 44–53 (1932)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boone, H.N., Boone, D.A.: Analyzing Likert data. J. Ext. 50, 1–5 (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bendig, A.W.: Reliability and the number of rating-scale categories. J. Appl. Psychol. 38, 38–40 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dawes, J.: Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? an experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. Int. J. Mark. Res. 50, 61–104 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krosnick, J.A., Presser, S.: Question and questionnaire design. Handb. Surv. Res. 2, 263–314 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Preston, C.C., Colman, A.M.: Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol. 104, 1–15 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Leung, S.O.: A comparison of psychometric properties and normality in 4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-point Likert scales. J. Soc. Serv. Res. 37, 412–421 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cummins, R.A., Gullone, E.: Why we should not use 5-point Likert scales: the case for subjective quality of life measurement. In: Second International Conference on Quality of Life in Cities, pp. 74–93. National University of Singapore, Singapore (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Arbuckle, J.L.: IBM SPSS Amos 19 User’s Guide. Amos Development Corporation, Crawfordville (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Siu Shing Man
    • 1
  • Jacky Yu Ki Ng
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kar Ying Law
    • 1
  • Alan Hoi Shou Chan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Systems Engineering and Engineering ManagementCity University of Hong KongHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations