Work safety climate. Comparison of selected occupational groups

and the conclusions formulated on their basis refer, therefore, only to the three occupational groups presented here. Table 1 shows the sociodemographic data of the respondents in total as a group and the data of individuals belonging to the individual occupational groups. An abridged version of the Safety Climate Questionnaire by Znajmiecka-Sikora [38], con- sisting of 50 questions (see S1 Appendix. Items.pdf), was used to measure the safety climate. The tool used a Likert scale from 1 to 5, with 1 meaning “strongly disagree”, 2 –“disagree”, 3 –“hard to say”, 4 –“agree”, and 5 –“strongly agree”. Some questions require inversion. The tool consists of 10 separate safety climate dimensions, distinguished on the basis of the- oretical analysis [6,12]. The contents of the individual items in the scales was evaluated by competent judges to assess the accuracy of individual questionnaire items, and the attribution of the specific items to the individual scales and dimensions was confirmed in the course of exploratory factorial analysis. Each scale is composed of 5 questions the minimum score on each scale is 5 points and the maximum score is 25 points. Table 2 contains a brief description of each of the scales and examples of questions which they include. The individual results show how specific workers perceive the work safety climate in the organization employing them in the individual dimensions. The overall result, obtained by all the employees, reflects the work safety climate in the organization, and makes it possible to

conclude on the level of safety culture in the company. It also allows comparisons to be made this respect with results obtained in other organizations and occupational sectors. Reliability of the entire Safety Climate Questionnaire, calculated using Cronbach’s alpha, is 0.93, ranging for the individual scales of the questionnaire between 0.68 and 0.89 [38], and for the presented study from 0.61 to 0.88. Table 3 indicates the Cronbach’s alpha values for the individual scales in the tested samples. Statistical data analysis methods In the first stage of the analysis, descriptive statistics of the variables and correlation coeffi- cients between the results of the individual Safety Climate Questionnaire scales were Table 1. Study sample description. Pro´ba Średnia wieku SD Płeć Wykształcenie Średni staż pracy w zakładzie i zawodzie SD All respondents (N = 2995) 33.31 10.43 (F)1881(62.8) (E)61(2.0%) 5.98 7.59 (V)403(13.5)% (M)1114(37.2) (S)1908(60.7%) (H)623(20.8%) Grupa A (Mnfc) (N = 1331) 36.44 12.05 (K)678(51%) (P)47(3.5%) 8.15 9.45 (Z)191(22%) (M)652(49%) (Ś)864(65%) (W)129(9.5%) Grupa B (Retl) (N = 1431) 29.31 7.24 (K)1201(84%) (P)14(1.0%) 2.95 2.85 (Z)87(6.0%) (M)230(16%) (Ś)929(65%) (W)401(28%) Grupa C (MnRsc) (N = 233) 39.83 7.19 (K)0(0%) (Z)25(10.5%) 11.61 7.59 (M)233(100%) (Ś)115(49.5%) (W)93(40%) SD–standard deviation; Gender: F-female, M-male; Education:E-elementary, V-basic vocational, S-secondary, H-higher Group: A(Mnfc)-production workers; B(Retl)-retail workers; (MnRsc)C-mine rescuers

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243056.t001 PLOS ONE Work safety climate PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243056 December 14, 2020 6 / 19