|
|
|
|
A variety of methodologies were adopted in order to reflect the different aspects of construction sites and to reflect overall project objectives. A pilot study was carried out and the necessary amendments were made to the instruments before the main research started. The pilot study was conducted in one large construction site. The safety compliance measure was tested using several independent ratings and criteria for ratings were agreed. The questionnaire and interview methodologies were also examined with samples of managers, workers and a safety representative. Adjustments to the procedure for administering these were made to ensure effective data collection.The four methodologies used were:
Duff et al. developed a 41-item safety audit checklist for assessing safety and health performance on construction sites as part of a safety management intervention program carried out in 1993. This tool was chosen as it had been validated in Duff et al. study and it most closely resembled the objectives and conditions preview in our research. The safety audit checklist was piloted on a large Dublin construction site. Based on this pilot study, a modified 18-item safety audit checklist was produced covering site safety situations and behavior encountered under the general headings of Housekeeping, Scaffolding and work platforms, Access to heights, and Personal protective equipment (see table 8 below).
All 18 items were rated on a percentage scale of compliance with recommended site safety practice. The procedure for the observational study carried out on each site visited was as follows:
The Operative Survey A total of 244 questionnaires were completed across 18 sites. At the beginning of each site visit the number of operatives and subcontractors on site was sought. It was decided to sample approximately 20% of all operatives on site (including both company operatives and subcontractor operatives). Two researchers were involved in administering the survey. Each researcher approached an operative, outlined the aims of the study and asked if they would be interested in participating in the survey. On each site a representative sample of both the company operatives and the subcontractors' operatives were covered as well as all areas on the site. Completion of the survey took approximately 15-20 minutes. An important purpose of the project was to explore the safety antecedents at the individual level. The main agents to report on safety in the workplace at that level are those people working in the ‘front line', which means the operatives. As the literature and statistics highlight the category of falls from height as accounting for the most frequent and severe accidents in the construction sector, the instrument was developed to explore this category. Three aspects of working at heights were identified as being particularly of high-risk. These are working on scaffolds, using ladders and working on roofs. From these situations our final behavioral protocol was developed. This was made up of nine high-risk situations. A brief description of the situations chosen follows: Front-line workers (they will be referred as ‘operatives' in this report) were interviewed following a structured interview protocol. A selection of nine high-risk situations was presented. Each participant was requested to give his opinion about perception of risk, frequency and preferred behavior in the face of risk for each of the situations presented. a) WORKING ON SCAFFOLDS: Situation 1: Working on scaffolds not totally boarded. Situation 2: Working on scaffolds with missing guardrails. Situation 3: Climbing up or down a scaffold when a ladder has not been provided. b) USING LADDERS: Situation 4: Using a ladder not tied or secured. Situation 5: Using a ladder broken or somehow defective. Situation 6: Using a ladder shorter than 1 metre above landing place. c) WORKING ON ROOFS: Situation 7: Working on fragile roofs without crawling boards Situation 8: Working on roofs without edge protection (and not harness provided). Situation 9: Working on roofs with bad weather. For each of the nine situations, the operative was requested to analyze them on three levels. They had to:
Workers' attitudes and perception of the organizational system were also assessed through a 20-item questionnaire. Workers were required to agree or disagree with each of the questions in a Likert-type scale with four possible anchors from ‘Strongly disagree' to ‘Strongly agree' with each item. Safety Management Interviews A total of 59 structured interviews were conducted across 18 sites with a range of managers and personnel responsible for safety. The sample included Company Directors, Contracts Managers, Site Managers, Engineers, Safety Officers, Project Officers, Safety Reps and Foremen. Table below provides a breakdown of how many of each personnel were interviewed.
At the beginning of each site visit relevant personnel were identified and asked if they were willing to take part in the interview. Two researchers conducted each interview, one asking questions and the other taking notes. Each interviewee was briefed on the research objectives. The safety management system was the target of the interview, and the following areas were explored:
All managers' interviews were transcribed, and a content analysis was carried out on each of them. A single and comprehensive description of the safety management system was then generated from the content analysis of all the interviews in each site. Each interview protocol had also several quantitative measures built into the protocol. These measures were intended to translate the qualitative impressions gathered after each interview into measurable rating scales. The final ratings should be considered relative to the participant sites, rather than as an evaluation of their level of safety in absolute terms. Analysis of Safety Documentation The management interviews established the type and availability of safety documentation on site. After completing the interviews on each site, one of the researchers conducted a general assessment on the site safety documentation. This assessment consisted of verifying the availability of documentation. All site safety documentation was inspected using the following assessment criteria:
A group of inspectors were approached for interview. The HSA and HSE selected and provided the inspectors. In the case of the Republic, the HSA wanted to provide those inspectors with more experience in the field, while in Northern Ireland, all the inspectors in the HSE were interviewed. The sample of inspectors was not intended to be random due above constrains. Six inspectors from the Health and Safety Authority (HSA) and four inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Northern Ireland, were interviewed. The interviews lasted from 40 minutes to an hour. Interviews with inspectors were conducted following the completion of data collection across all sites. A semi-structured approach was taken which covered the following topics:
The objectives of this study were to examine compliance with safety requirements, to investigate the behaviors, perceptions and attitudes associated with safety, to investigate management practices and associated documentation, and to establish what factors are significantly associated with safe behaviors or safety compliance. There was a particular focus in the behavioral ratings on factors associated with falling from heights. The design adopted was a cross-sectional one based on a comparison of a representative sample of 18 sites in Ireland. The sample included large and smaller sites, housing and general contracting, and metropolitan and regional areas in the Republic and Northern Ireland. An eighteen-item safety audit checklist was used to as a protocol for measuring safety compliance. A survey of construction operatives addressed the perception of risk, behavior in risk situations, attitudes and safety climate. Site management and others (including safety representatives) who have a role in safety management were interviewed concerning a range of safety management functions and effectiveness and safety documentation on site was examined. Finally, a sample of inspectors were interviewed. Back to Contents This paper appears in the eLCOSH website with the permission of the author and/or copyright holder and may not be reproduced without their consent. eLCOSH is an information clearinghouse. eLCOSH and its sponsors are not responsible for the accuracy of information provided on this web site, nor for its use or misuse. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||