Paul and Maiti (2008)

This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]
On: 22 October 2014, At: 04:59

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Ergonomics
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/terg20
The synergic role of sociotechnical

and personal characteristics on work
injuries in mines
a b
P. S. Paul & J. Maiti
a
Department of Mining Engineering , Indian School of Mines
University , Dhanbad, 826 004, Jharkhand, India
b
Department of Industrial Engineering & Management , Indian
Institute of Technology , Kharagpur, 721 302, West Bengal, India
Published online: 23 Apr 2008.
To cite this article: P. S. Paul & J. Maiti (2008) The synergic role of sociotechnical and
personal characteristics on work injuries in mines, Ergonomics, 51:5, 737-767, DOI:
10.1080/00140130701747483
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140130701747483
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Ergonomics
Vol. 51, No. 5, May 2008, 737–767
The synergic role of sociotechnical and personal characteristics

on work injuries in mines
P.S. Paula and J. Maitib*
a
Department of Mining Engineering, Indian School of Mines University, Dhanbad, 826 004,
Jharkhand, India; bDepartment of Industrial Engineering & Management, Indian Institute of
Technology, Kharagpur, 721 302, West Bengal, India
Downloaded by [Stony Brook University] at 04:59 22 October 2014
Occupational injuries in mines are attributed to many factors. In this study, an attempt
was made to identify the various factors related to work injuries in mines and to
estimate their effects on work injuries to mine workers. An accident path model was
developed to estimate the pattern and strength of relationships amongst the personal
and sociotechnical variables in accident/injury occurrences. The input data for the
model were the correlation matrix of 18 variables, which were collected from the case
study mines. The case study results showed that there are sequential interactions
amongst the sociotechnical and personal factors leading to accidents/injuries in mines.
Amongst the latent endogenous constructs, job dissatisfaction and safe work behaviour
show a significant positive and negative direct relationship with work injury,
respectively. However, the construct safety environment has a significant negative
indirect relationship with work injury. The safety environment is negatively affected by
work hazards and positively affected by social support. The safety environment also
shows a significant negative relationship with job stress and job dissatisfaction.
However, negative personality has no significant direct or indirect effect on work injury,
but it has a significant negative relationship with safe work behaviour. The endogenous
construct negative personality is positively influenced by job stress and negatively
influenced by social support.
Keywords: occupational injury; sociotechnical model; structural equation modelling
1. Introduction
Mining has been accepted the world over as a hazardous profession and involves a
continuous struggle by the work force with unpredictable forces of nature (Biswas 2001).
These hazards pose a serious problem of managing the safety and health risks of mine
workers. As a result, accidents/injuries are prevalent across all commodities in
underground mining. The hazardous nature of Indian coal mine operations can easily
be depicted from the national statistics of mine accident and injuries. For example, the
number of fatalities and serious bodily injuries in 2004 and 2005 in Indian coal mines were
96, 120 and 991, 1125, respectively. Similarly, the fatality and serious bodily injury rates
per 1000 persons employed for the years 2004 and 2005 are 0.24, 0.30 and 2.45, 2.78,
respectively (Directorate General of Mines Safety 2005). When one compares these
*Corresponding author. Email: jmaiti@iitkgp.ac.in
ISSN 0014-0139 print/ISSN 1366-5847 online

Ó 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/00140130701747483
http://www.informaworld.com
738 P.S. Paul and J. Maiti
statistics with the world mining scenario, it is found that the number of fatalities and
serious injuries in Indian mines is quite high. For example, the number of fatalities in
United States coal mines for the year 2004 is 28 with a fatality rate per 1000 persons
employed of 0.30 (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 2007). Although
the fatality rate in Indian coal mines is on a par with that of US coal mines, the number of
deaths per year in Indian coal mines is more than three times as many. The socio-economic
impact of such a high number of deaths and serious injuries is very adverse for a labour
surplus economy such as India. More accidents and injuries lead to a decrease in output
per man-shift, due to loss of production and thereby an increase in cost of production.
Early research in the field tended to treat safety primarily as a technical problem that
could be ‘engineered out’ through improved design of workplace settings (Pidgeon 1991,
Donald and Canter 1993, Donald and Young 1996). More recently, it is becoming widely
accepted that technical approaches alone are inadequate to reduce accident rates to desired
levels. That is, even when the purely technical problems associated with work settings are
addressed, unacceptably high accident rates often persist (Pidgeon 1991, Reason 1997,
Maiti and Dasgupta 2003). This has led many organisational researchers and theorists to
explore alternative perspectives that take into account the broader social context in which
accidents occur. Three viewpoints provide alternative perspectives to the employee- or
person-based hypothesis about unsafe acts and accidents (Brown et al. 2000). First, Kamp
and Krause (1997) uphold that there are very few situations in safety (and in life) in which
different people behave in the same way. Although on some occasions, people behave
differently and this variability is due to differences between people, such as abilities,
attitudes, values, beliefs, emotional states or the characteristics of personality itself. A
person with a high level of job satisfaction holds positive attitudes towards the job; a
person who is dissatisfied with his/her job holds negative attitudes about the job (Robbins
1997). Second, Deming (1986) stated that accidents stem almost entirely from the system.
The third viewpoint falls between the person- and system-based positions and is
represented by the arguments of authors such as Perrow (1984), DeJoy (1994, 1996) and
others. They pointed out that most industrial accidents are caused by an interacting system
of social and technical forces. They argue that employees just happen to find themselves at
the end of a series of interrelated events. The purpose of this paper is to compare and
contrast the three alternative hypotheses (system, person, system–person sequence)
incorporating the synergic role of sociotechnical and personal characteristics on work
injury in mines.
1.1. Perspectives on workplace safety

Proponents of system-person sequence perspective see the technical and social components
of a system as entities that interact with human thought processes and attitudes to
influence outcomes. Central to this view of the world is the notion that system factors
influence safety outcomes through people (Brown et al. 2000). The system–person
sequence perspective differs from the system design approach in three important ways
(Brown et al. 2000). First, it brings social and technical systems together. Second, it
acknowledges the role of personal predispositions. Third, it holds that system factors, both
social and technical, can partially influence personal predispositions. Therefore, based on
the studies on mining and non-mining industries (Bennett 1982, Bennett and Passmore
1986, Demichiei et al. 1982, Cooper and Sutherland 1987, Dhar et al. 1997, Iverson
and Erwin 1997, Frone 1998, Brown et al. 2000, Maiti et al. 2004, Paul and Maiti 2005,
2007, Paul et al. 2005), the variables considered in this study are personal-based,
Ergonomics 739
sociotechnical-based and work injury. The general categories with their specific variables
are depicted in Figure 1. Brief summaries of the variables and how they are related to work
injuries are described below.
1.2. Personal variables

Personal characteristics have been implicated as a potentially important risk factor for
work injuries (Frone 1998). Workers with certain personal characteristics have a higher
risk of work injuries because they can be more careless, reckless and distractible (Iverson
and Erwin 1997). The present study focuses on nine personal variables, namely, age,
experience, impulsivity, negative affectivity, depression, risk-taking attitude, job dis-
satisfaction, job stress and safe work behaviour.
Many studies were conducted to observe the effect of age on accident rate. The US
National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences (1982) found a strong negative

correlation between age and disabling injury rate in coal mining. It was concluded that
younger miners experience a much higher disabling injury rate than the older miners.
Shafai-Sahrai (1973), Oi (1974) and Root (1981) showed that the injury frequency rate
decreases with age; whereas, Drury (1965), Bennett and Passmore (1986) and Paul and
Maiti (2007) observed the opposite trend. Bennett (1982), Kenney (1993) and Maiti and
Bhattacherjee (1999) found no relationship between age and work injuries. Experience has
Figure 1. Determinants of work injuries in mines.

received major attention in prior research on work injuries in mines, as experience makes
workers more aware of the physical hazards of the mining environment and thereby is
crucial for the full reorganisation of the extent and range of hazards. However, conflicting
results emerged in prior studies. Experience represents the amount of time employees have
been engaged in their work. This may be their total mining experience or the job
experience. Experience has been argued to have a positive relation with injury (Hansen
1989, Iverson and Erwin 1997). Although job experience had a strong negative
relationship with accident rate, the total mining experience was not significant regarding
accident occurrences (Theodore Barry and Associates 1971, 1972). However, Bennett and
Passmore (1986), Phiri (1989) and Maiti and Bhattacherjee (1999, 2001) found that injury
severity was not related to a miner’s total mining experience.
Negative affectivity refers to the chronic experience of negative emotional states and
lack of emotional stability (Frone 1998). Iverson and Erwin (1997) suggested that such
tendencies might lead to lapses in attention or to higher levels of distractibility, thereby

increasing the risk of injury. Paul et al. (2005) and Paul and Maiti (2007) found that
negative affectivity is positively related with accident occurrences in mines. Impulsivity
represents the propensity to get things done quickly and to act suddenly with little
forethought for the consequences of one’s behaviour (Plutchik and van Pragg 1995).
Therefore, impulsive employees may rush to complete a task without adequate
consideration of following safe operating procedures, resulting in increased risk of injury
(Frone 1998). Risk taking refers to such undesired behaviours, which may have bad
consequences, such as work injuries, but the workers occasionally repeat this behaviour to
complete the work quickly or with other deliberate intentions, whilst knowing the
outcomes of such behaviour. Numerous studies have demonstrated that individuals differ
in their willingness to take risks (MacCrimmon and Wehrung 1986, Brown et al. 2000).
Maiti et al. (2004) found that risk-taking behaviours significantly led workers to be
accident prone. Depression represents the frequencies with which individual symptoms
such as a depressive mood, feelings of worthlessness, feelings of hopelessness, poor
concentration, loss of appetite and sleep disturbance occurred. Depression has a strong
positive relationship with work injuries (Radloff 1977). Measures of safety performance
are necessary for almost all industrial organisations. While an employee’s safe work
behaviour is usually revealed by measuring the outcome (frequency of injuries/illness),
such measures do not always reveal the true safety behaviours of the victims. Laurence
(2002) developed an empirical model of safe work behaviour on mine sites. The criteria for
the model were developed from a rules and regulations survey. The model provided an
objective measure of the existing safety behaviour on a mine site and thus maps out a
strategy of improvement.
Job stress, defined as work attributes that pose threats or risks to an employee, results
from a poor person–environment fit (Rahim and Psenicka 1996). The indices of role
conflict and ambiguity developed by Kahn et al. (1964) and Rizzo et al. (1970) have been
used in a number of studies to measure stress. Job dissatisfaction represents an individual’s
overall feelings towards his/her job (Quinn and Staines 1979). A person with a high level of
job satisfaction holds positive attitudes towards the job; a person who is dissatisfied with
his/her job holds negative attitudes about the job (Robbins 1997). Several researchers have
examined the relationship between the variable job dissatisfaction and work injuries.
These studies have reported a positive relationship (Cooper and Sutherland 1987, Holcom
et al. 1993 Zwerling et al. 1996). However, Savery and Wooden (1994) and Frone (1998)
found no relationship. Maiti et al. (2004) and Paul and Maiti (2007) found that job
dissatisfaction is a strong indicator of job stress.
Ergonomics 741
1.3. Sociotechnical variables

Sociotechnical variables comprise social and technical forces that have a substantial role in
accident/injury occurrences in mines. Technical causal factors are those that result from
the characteristics of installations and equipment or of pre-established work methods and
their application in a system (Fernandez et al. 1976). Technical factors considered here are
physical hazards, production pressure, safety training, overall safety practices of the mine
and safety equipment availability and maintenance. These are sometimes identified as
unsafe or dangerous conditions or as ‘technical faults’. Social factors are those that
establish the healthy relationship between the employees, supervisors and management.
Physical hazards represent the extent to which individuals are exposed to dangerous
equipment, unsafe working conditions and poor environmental conditions (Dawson et al.
1983, Frone and McFarlin 1989). Prior research supports a positive relationship between
physical hazards and work injuries (Hansen 1989, Harrell 1990, Savery and Wooden 1994,
McDonald 1995, Frone 1998). Hazards do not always result in accident or injuries, but
they lurk in work environments, waiting for the right combination of circumstances to
come together (Brown et al. 2000). Regarding production vs. safety, the National
Research Council/National Academy of Sciences (1982) stated that a management that
plans well to increase production could also plan well to improve safety. Sanders et al.
(1976) stated that production pressure appears to lead to an increase in disabling injuries,
which in turn results in a decrease in production pressure. Safety training is important;
workers, who are aware of safety issues and well trained for the tasks they are to perform,
may avoid injury on a dangerous job, whilst untrained and careless workers may be
injured under the safest possible conditions (Maiti et al. 2004). Given the frequent lack of
control risks, it is very difficult to evaluate the effect of training on accident/injury
reduction. Studies in this field are rather few. Notable studies were done by Pfeifer et al.
(1976), Demichiei et al. (1982), Bhattacherjee et al. (1997), Maiti et al. (2004) and Paul and
Maiti (2005). Demichiei et al. (1982) stated that new miners in high-accident rate mines
were less informed on how to do their jobs than new miners in low-accident rate mines.
Bhattacherjee et al. (1997) found that the training given to miners is mostly classroom
oriented and on-the-job training and specific tasks training needs to be implemented to
improve the safety of workers. Maiti et al. (2004) found that healthy social support and a
stable personality lead workers to perform safely, which has an indirect relationship with
work injury. Mine workers are often required to determine their own work practices with
due regard to legislative restrictions for managing their workplaces. Proper safety practices
lead to fewer accidents/injuries in mines. Safety practices here represent the overall safety
practice of the mine according to existing rules and regulations. Safety equipment
availability and maintenance have immediate effects on safety performance and they are
usually not good in high-accident rate mines (Pfeifer et al. 1976; Demichiei et al. 1982).
In any industrial setting, social factors are key elements in describing the overall safety
climate and are composed of three variables, namely: management worker interaction;
supervisory support; and co-workers’ support. Management–worker interaction includes
the variables such as the overall labour relations climate, management concern for labour
and labour support for safety disciplinary actions. A considerable amount of evidence is
accumulating to suggest that there is a significant positive relationship between poor
management–worker interaction and work injuries (Gaertner et al. 1987, Maiti et al.
2004). Pfeifer et al.’s (1976) analysis suggested that supervisors in low-accident rate mines
‘more often show real concern for workers’ welfare’. Their results are based on the
perception of underground hourly employees. Demichiei et al.’s (1982) questionnaire
results suggested that the section supervisors in low-accident rate mines received more
support from safety personnel when reprimanding miners for unsafe acts. Supervisory
support is the degree of consideration expressed by the immediate supervisor for sub-
ordinates (Michaels and Spector 1982) and it has a negative relationship with work injury.
Co-worker support is defined as the degree of consideration expressed by co-workers.
Sanders et al.’s (1976) and Demichiei et al.’s (1982) questionnaire results suggested a
negative relationship between co-worker support and work injuries.
1.4. Work injury

The variable work injury provides a direct quantitative evidence of an employee’s safety
performance. It also provides information related to costs of accidents such as worker’s
compensation payments, reduced production rates and social costs, such as longer periods
of physical rehabilitation for severe injuries (Maiti and Bhattacherjee 1999).
2. Methods
2.1. Sample
The study was conducted in two neighbouring underground coal mines within a large
public sector organisation in the eastern part of India. The mines were selected because
the work injury rates of these mines are high. Data were collected through accident/
injury reports available at the mines and through a questionnaire survey. Accident/
injury data for the period of 1998–2002 (5 years) were collected. The reports contain the
age, experience and occupation of injured workers, their date of injury, date of joining,
cause of injury and body parts injured. It can be seen from the accident/injury statistics
of the two mines that 183 and 103 workers faced a minimum of one accident/injury
during the last five years in Mines 1 and 2, respectively. Interviews were conducted with
individual miners through a random sampling from different categories of workers from
both of the mines. The workers were approached individually at the mines. Two groups,
namely, a non-accident group (NAG) and an accident group (AG) of workers were
identified to study the influence of different factors contributing to mine accident/injury
amongst the workers. AG workers were defined as workers in the mine who had
sustained a prior mine-related injury during the last five years, while NAG workers were
defined as those with no history of a prior mine-related injury during the last five years.
In this study, AG workers are treated as cases and NAG workers as controls. Initially,
a random selection amongst the cases was done for interview. A few interested,
experienced mine workers, who were fluent in reading and writing, were asked to help in
conducting the questionnaire survey for others. Questionnaires for most of the mine
workers who were not fluent in reading and writing were read out. It took 45–60 min to
fill in the questionnaire forms for an individual participant. Out of 175 participants
from the case group, 150 miners’ answers matched the inclusion criteria of the study.
Inclusion criteria consist of proper identifying information and a proper response to
each of the questions. Through frequency matching, 150 participants were chosen
randomly from the participants in the control group, whose answers matched the
inclusion criteria of the survey. Overall, of the 375 participants, 175 miners participated
from the case group and 200 miners participated from the control group with an overall
response rate of 80%. Of the 150 cases, 85 workers were from Mine 1 and 65 were from
Ergonomics 743
Mine 2. The control group was composed of 90 workers from Mine 1 and 60 workers
from Mine 2.
2.2. Instruments
Measures used in this research were miners’ age, experience, impulsivity, negative affecti-
vity, depression, risk taking, safety training, safety practice, safety equipment availability
and maintenance, job stress, co-worker support, supervisory support, management–
worker interaction, job dissatisfaction, physical hazards, production pressure, safe work
behaviour and work injury. The age and experience of each participant were computed
from date of birth and date of joining the mine, obtained from the mines’ personnel
logbook. The variables impulsivity, negative affectivity, depression, risk taking, safety
training, safety practice, safety equipment availability and maintenance, job stress, co-
worker support, supervisory support, management worker interaction, job dissatisfaction,

physical hazards, production pressure and safe work behaviour were measured through
the questionnaire survey. A multi-item survey measure for each of the 15 constructs was
administered to the participants during their working hours. The participants’ responses
on each item of the 15 constructs were measured by a three-point Likert-type scale format
(Kothari 2000). Work injury was measured through a dichotomous variable (1 ¼ injury,
0 ¼ no injury) obtained from each respondent’s personnel records. The following section
describes the details of the reliability and validity of the collected data.
2.3. Validity and reliability of the collected data

The quality of a questionnaire survey can be assessed by examining its validity and
reliability. Validity refers to the content of the measurement. Two forms of validity are
considered important (Nunnally 1978): content validity; and construct validity. The
content validity of a measurement instrument can be established by examining the domain
represented by the questions. It is a subjective criterion and can be best judged with
experts’ opinions and published literature. Therefore, the questionnaire items for each of
the 15 constructs were constructed based on past studies in the relevant fields
(DeMichichie et al. 1982, International Survey Research Corporation 1992, Dhar et al.
1997, Frone 1998, Mines Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board (MOSHAB)
1998, Paul and Maiti 2007) and in consultations with mine safety personnel and social
scientists as and when required. The construct validity of a measurement instrument can
be established by statistically analysing the measures through factor analysis. Initially, a
factor analysis was done to explore the factor loadings of each of the items to the construct
(factor) of interest. A loading of 0.3 or more was considered significant (Rahman 2000)
and items with a factor loading of less than 0.3 were discarded. Then, item correlations of
the remaining items were examined and items with low (50.3) correlations were deleted.
Finally, the items that met the factor loading and item correlation criteria were considered
as significant indicators of the construct. The reliability of the collected data through the
questionnaire survey is measured by looking at the internal consistency of questions that
are supposed to measure the same concept. A measure that is often used to evaluate
internal consistency is Cronbach’s alpha (SPSS 1999). It is a measure of the homogeneity
of a group of items in a survey or questionnaire. In this study, the internal consistency
reliability of each of the constructs was measured based on Cronbach’s alpha. An
acceptable alpha value is 0.7 or greater, but 0.6 is occasionally acceptable, especially for an
exploratory study (Nunnally 1978). For example, risk taking was measured through 11
items. A factor analysis revealed that two items showed a factor loading of 50.3 and were
discarded. Then, the item correlations of the remaining nine items were tested and all the
correlations satisfied the inclusion criterion (item correlation 0.30). So, nine items were
considered as the significant indicators of risk taking. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.82. Similarly,
negative affectivity, job dissatisfaction, impulsivity and depression were treated through
factor loadings and item correlations. Four items for negative affectivity, one item for job
dissatisfaction and four items for impulsivity were discarded. Finally, negative affectivity,
job dissatisfaction, impulsivity and depression were measured by 11, 12, eight and five
questions, respectively. The Cronbach’s alphas were 0.83, 0.83, 0.71 and 0.65, respectively.
Similarly, safety training, safety practice, safe work behaviour and safety equipment
availability and maintenance were treated through factor loadings and item correlations.
Two items for safety training, eight items for safety practice and one item for safety
equipment availability and maintenance were discarded. Finally, safety training, safety
practice, safe work behaviour and safety equipment availability and maintenance were
measured by six, 19, eight and eight questions, respectively. The Cronbach’s alphas were
0.66, 0.80 and 0.72, respectively.
Supervisory support is the degree of consideration expressed by the immediate
supervisor for his/her subordinates (Michaels and Spector 1982). Supervisory support was
measured through seven items. A factor analysis revealed that all the items showed a factor
loading of 0.3 and the item correlations were 0.3. Finally, all the items were considered
as significant indicators of supervisory support. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.71. Similarly, the
management–worker interaction and co-worker support were treated through factor
loadings and item correlations. Four items for management–worker interaction and
two items for co-worker support were discarded. Finally, the management–worker
interaction and co-worker support were measured by 10 and five questions, respectively.
The Cronbach’s alphas were 0.84, and 0.64, respectively.
Job stress, physical hazards and production pressure were measured through 12, 15 and
four items. Four items each for job stress and physical hazards were discarded. Finally, job
stress, physical hazards and production pressure were measured by eight, 11 and four
questions, respectively. The Cronbach’s alphas were 0.67, 0.65 and 0.79, respectively. The
final scale items, means, standard deviations of each of the 15 variables after validity and
reliability test and their respective Cronbach’s alphas are shown in Appendix 1.
2.4. Hypotheses
Epidemiological studies revealed that there are significant differences between socio-
technical and personal characteristics of accident-involved and non-involved employees at
work. These differences may lead to accident/injury occurrences in mines. The present
study explored the differences between AG and NAG of workers based on their
sociotechnical and personal characteristics through structural equation modelling. The
following hypotheses were tested through structural equation modelling:
H1: It is hypothesised that work hazards, social support and demographic characteristics are
three exogenous or independent constructs, which have direct and indirect effects on six
endogenous or dependent constructs, namely, safety environment, job stress, negative
personality, job dissatisfaction, safe work behaviour and work injury.
H2: The construct safety environment is affected negatively by work hazards and positively by
social support.
Ergonomics 745
H3: The construct job stress is predicted by all three exogenous constructs and the safety
environment. The construct work hazard is hypothesised to have a positive relationship with
job stress, whereas social support has a negative relationship with job stress. The demographic
construct, estimated by variables such as age and experience, bears no definite relationship as
conflicting results have been reported in different studies. Job stress is also negatively predicted
by safety environment.
H4: The construct negative personality is predicted by the constructs, social support,
demographic factors and job stress. The constructs social support and job stress have a
negative and positive relationship respectively with negative personality. The literature
suggests that the construct demographic factors has no definite relationship with negative
personality.
H5: The construct job dissatisfaction is affected by two exogenous constructs, work hazards
and demographic factors, and two endogenous constructs, namely, safety environment and
job stress. Job dissatisfaction is predicted positively by work hazards and job stress, and
negatively by safety environment. The construct demographic factor bears no definite
relationship.
H6: The construct safe work behaviour is predicted positively by the construct safety
environment and negatively by negative personality.
H7: Job dissatisfaction and job stress trigger work injury, whereas good safe work behaviour is
assumed to decrease work injuries in mines.
2.5. Analysis
The model depicted in Figure 2 was tested using LISREL 8.3 (Joreskog and Sorbom 1998)
by employing the two-stage approach suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). In this
approach, the first step involves testing a measurement model via confirmatory factor
Figure 2. Hypothesised accident model path diagram.

analysis and the second involves testing a series of structural models including the
hypothesised model. The purpose of a measurement model is to describe how well
the observed or measured variables (indicators) serve as measurement instruments for the
underlying latent variables (Sumer 2003). The measurement model also estimates the non-
directional relationships (correlations) among the latent variables. The purpose of a
structural model is to test a general model that prescribes the relationships among the
latent variables. The relationships between the exogenous and endogenous variables are
denoted by gamma (g) parameters and between endogenous variables are denoted by beta
(b) parameters. Zeta (z) parameter represents the residual variance (Hansen 1989).
3. Results
3.1. Evaluation of model fit
There is no consensus among researchers concerning how best to evaluate the extent to
which a proposed model fits the data (Sumer 2003). Based on some publications in this
area (e.g. Hansen 1989, Joreskog and Sorbom 1998), a set of fit indices was used in this
study. Of the absolute indices, the chi-square (w2), the goodness of fit index (GFI) and the
root mean square residual (RMR) were used. Fit measures that are based on w2 statistics
typically estimate the ‘badness of fit’, and optimal fit is indicated by a value of zero with
increasing values indicating greater departure of the implied (estimated) covariance matrix
from the observed covariance matrix (Hoyle 1995). Therefore, non-significant or smaller
w2 value is desired. In addition, model fit is judged to be good if the w2 is not too large
relative to the degrees of freedom (d.f.). It has been suggested that w2 :d.f. ratios of 2:1 to
5:1 indicate an acceptable fit (Marsh and Hocevar 1988). But, the w2 value will be more
sensitive when the sample value is either more than 200 or less than 100. So, a w2 test will
be suitable for the sample value 100 to 200 (Hair et al. 1995). Ideally, the GFI should be
between 0.90 and 1.00 and the RMR small relative to the size of the diagonal elements of
the correlation matrix (Hansen 1989). However, for the RMR, no threshold level can be
established. Researchers can assess the practical significance of the magnitude of the RMR
in light of the overall objectives and the observed/actual covariance or correlation
(Bagozzi and Yi 1988). Comparative fit index (CFI) and incremental fit index (IFI) values
of 0.90 and greater indicate adequate model fit (Bollen 1989). Hu and Bentler (1995),
however, reported emerging evidence that 0.90 might not always be a reasonable cut-off
for all adjunct fit indexes under all modelling circumstances, but a choice of a cut-off value
lower than 0.90 may be justified.
3.2. Measurement model

Means, standard deviations and partial correlations between the indicator variables are
presented in Table 1. As illustrated in Figure 3, the measurement model consists of nine
latent constructs, which are represented in the figure by ellipses. The indicator variables
are represented by traditional rectangles. Work hazards, social support and demographic
variables represent the latent exogenous constructs, whereas safety environment, job
stress, negative personality, job dissatisfaction, safe work behaviour and work injury
variables represent latent endogenous constructs. Two indicator variables, namely age
and experience, measured the demographics. The negative personality latent construct was
measured by four indicator variables: impulsivity; negative affectivity; depression; and risk
taking. Safety training, safety practice and safety equipment availability and maintenance
were used when estimating the safety environment. Co-worker support, supervisory
Table 1. Correlations amongst the variables for accident path model.

Age 1.000
Experience 0.816 1.000
Work injury 0.271 0.249 1.000
Impulsivity 70.143 70.085 0.214 1.000
Negative 70.114 70.078 0.373 0.600 1.000
affectivity
Depression 70.046 70.059 0.084 0.183 0.409 1.000
Risk taking 70.001 0.033 0.349 0.467 0.586 0.224 1.000
Safety training 0.074 0.060 70.251 70.577 70.444 70.112 70.464 1.000
Safety practice 0.052 0.040 70.358 70.607 70.521 70.251 70.668 0.523 1.000
SEAM 70.024 70.056 70.296 70.350 70.404 70.277 70.557 0.344 0.653 1.000
Job stress 70.103 70.054 0.169 0.630 0.672 0.375 0.568 70.543 70.600 70.460 1.000
Co-worker 0.118 0.087 70.078 70.456 70.315 70.084 70.349 0.300 0.501 0.368 70.375 1.000
support
Supervisory 0.042 70.001 70.269 70.600 70.547 70.285 70.660 0.631 0.716 0.560 70.660 0.357 1.000
support
M_W_INT 0.053 0.012 70.292 70.588 70.515 70.295 70.627 0.543 0.799 0.673 70.659 0.451 0.817 1.000
Ergonomics
Job dissatisfaction 0.001 0.026 0.306 0.386 0.475 0.347 0.524 70.436 70.573 70.625 0.617 70.215 70.653 70.665 1.000
Physical 0.094 0.107 0.238 0.301 0.329 0.211 0.424 70.200 70.497 70.514 0.455 70.251 70.465 70.511 0.482 1.000
hazards
Production 0.113 0.124 0.169 0.119 0.240 0.413 0.424 70.293 70.362 70.385 0.398 70.099 70.542 70.466 0.507 0.459 1.000
pressure
Safe work 0.055 0.010 70.217 70.368 70.303 70.362 70.370 0.166 0.539 0.307 70.258 0.361 0.396 0.387 70.288 70.172 70.181 1.000
behaviour
Mean 37.34 14.58 0.50 16.02 20.88 8.707 18.58 13.22 39.67 15.73 16.82 12.86 14.91 20.36 23.54 24.10 8.78 20.27
SD 9.01 9.25 0.50 4.12 5.95 2.55 5.41 3.27 7.53 3.93 3.99 2.18 3.68 5.44 6.16 4.36 2.82 2.99
SEAM ¼ safety equipment availability and maintenance; M_W_INT ¼ management workers interaction.
Correlation coefficient 0.113 indicates 0.05 probability level of significance.
747
Figure 3. Path diagram of measurement model showing constructs and their indicators with
loadings. *Indicates 0.05 probability level of significance.
support and management–worker interaction were used to measure social support

and, finally, two indicator variables, namely physical hazards and production pressure,
measured the work hazards. The variables job stress, job dissatisfaction, safe work
behaviour and work injury were used as the single indicator of the latent constructs of job
stress, job dissatisfaction, safe work behaviour and work injury, respectively. Self-reported
number of accidents during the last five years was used as the single indicator of the
outcome latent variable, work injury. The error variance of these four (single indicators)
variables was fixed to zero in these analyses.
GFIs for the measurement model are shown in Table 2. The measurement model
provided very good fit to the data (w2 (n¼300) ¼ 257.24, d.f. ¼ 99, p50.001,
Ergonomics 749
RMR ¼ 0.06, GFI ¼ 0.98, normed fit index (NFI) ¼ 0.97, CFI ¼ 0.99, IFI ¼ 0.99).
Although the w2 statistics indicated significant differences between the observed and the
estimated matrices, the w2:d.f. ratio is well below the suggested 5:1 ratio. This indicates that
all of the latent constructs are reliably measured by the indicator variables. Correlations
between the latent constructs are shown in Table 3. As can be seen in Figure 3, all the
indicator variables are loaded significantly on the appropriate latent constructs (ranging
from 0.40 for depression to 0.99 for age). Most of the variables seemed to be strong
indicators of their latent constructs. All loadings were statistically significant and
modification indices suggested minor modifications regarding the original specification of
the model.
As seen in Table 3, as expected, latent constructs in the exogenous context (except
demographic) are strongly correlated with those in the endogenous context. Especially,
social support is found to be strongly correlated with both safety environment (0.83) and
negative personality (–0.91). Investigation of within context correlations reveals that the
highest correlation was between social support and work hazards (–0.78) in the exogenous
context and between safety environment and negative personality (–0.94) in the
endogenous context. Finally, confirming the relationship between work hazards/negative
affectivity and work injury, all the latent constructs in both contexts are found to be
significantly correlated with work injury. Of those links, however, the highest correlations
are with safety environment (–0.42) and negative personality (0.41).
Table 2. Goodness-of-fit indices for the measurement model.
Parameter Values
Chi-square with 99 degree of freedom 257.24
Root mean square residual 0.06
Root mean square error of approximation 0.07
Goodness of fit index 0.98
Normed fit index 0.97
Comparative fit index 0.99
Incremental fit index 0.99
Table 3. Structural correlations amongst the latent constructs measured through the measurement
model.
Demographic 1.00
Work injury 0.29* 1.00
Negative 70.10* 0.41* 1.00
personality
Safety 0.04 70.42* 70.94* 1.00
environment
Job stress 70.09 0.17* 0.86* 70.73* 1.00
Social support 0.06 70.30* 70.91* 0.83* 70.75* 1.00
Job 0.01 0.31* 0.65* 70.75* 0.62* 70.70* 1.00
dissatisfaction
Work hazards 0.17 0.30* 0.67* 70.77* 0.63* 70.78* 0.73* 1.00
Safe work 0.04 70.22* 70.51* 0.49* 70.26* 0.48* 70.29* 70.26* 1.00
behaviour
*Indicates 0.01 probability level of significance.

3.3. The structural model

The measurement model indicates that the latent constructs necessary for testing the
proposed path model are estimated successfully from the indicator variables. Evaluation
of a structural equation model requires comparing the GFIs of several nested models in
order to clearly identify where lack of fit arises within a model. As suggested by Mulaik
and James (1995), a series of nested models were estimated before testing the proposed
model. As expected, the results of all the nested model analyses indicated that the models
did not fit well or the significant path relationships between the latent constructs could not
be achieved.
The hypothesised structural model was tested next by fixing the paths as depicted in
Figure 2. The proposed structural model yielded reasonable fit to the data (w2
(n ¼ 300) ¼ 212.23, d.f. ¼ 15, p 5 0.001, RMR ¼ 0.06, GFI ¼ 0.87, NFI ¼ 0.88, CFI ¼
0.88, IFI ¼ 0.88) and significant path relationships between the latent constructs were
achieved. The accident path model as investigated through structural equation modelling
is shown in Figure 4. GFIs for the accident path model have been shown in Table 4.
Although the w2 statistics were significant and the w2:d.f. ratio was more than the suggested
5:1 ratio, recent research, however, argues that the w2 statistic is not the preferred measure
to evaluate model fit when the sample size is more than 200 (Hair et al. 1995). GFI, NFI,
CFI and IFI are the preferred statistics to evaluate a model. For the proposed accident
path model, the GFI, NFI, CFI and IFI are marginally less than the suggested values
between 0.90 and 1.00. As stated earlier, Hair et al. (1995) and Hu and Bentler (1995)
reported emerging evidence that 0.90 might not always be a reasonable cut-off for all fit
indexes under all modelling circumstances, but a choice of a cut-off value lower than 0.90
Figure 4. Final accident model path diagram. *Indicates 0.05 probability level of significance.
Ergonomics 751
may be used. Therefore, the structural model (accident path model) of this study provided
a reasonably good fit to the data.
Parameter estimation with their standard errors and t-values for the structural model
has been shown in Table 5. As can be seen in Table 5, seven out of the nine path
coefficients between the endogenous constructs as depicted in Figure 4 are significant and
conceptually correct. Investigation of the structural path parameters indicated that five
out of nine paths (Figure 4) from the exogenous constructs to the endogenous constructs
are significant. Demographic variables did not significantly predict all the latent
constructs; job stress, negative personality and job dissatisfaction. Exogenous constructs,
namely, social support and work hazards, have significant path relationships with
Table 4. Goodness-of-fit indices for the structural model.

Parameter Values
Chi-square with 15 degree of freedom 212.23
Root mean square residual 0.06
Goodness of fit index 0.87
Normed fit index 0.88
Comparative fit index 0.88
Incremental fit index 0.88
Square multiple correlations for structural equation
Safety environment 0.78
Job stress 0.60
Negative personality 0.92
Job dissatisfaction 0.63
Safe work behaviour 0.24
Work injury 0.13
Table 5. Parameters with their standard errors and t-values for the structural model.
Parameter Estimate Standard error t-values

g1 1 70.24* 0.06 73.78
g1 2 0.69* 0.06 11.01
g2 1 0.05 0.09 0.63
g2 2 70.39* 0.12 73.15
g2 3 70.06 0.05 71.28
g3 2 70.65* 0.05 713.11
g3 3 70.04 0.03 70.85
g4 1 0.38* 0.08 4.79
g4 3 70.03 0.05 70.56
b2 1 70.37* 0.12 73.09
b3 2 0.37* 0.05 7.54
b4 1 70.40* 0.09 74.34
b4 2 0.08 0.07 1.05
b5 1 0.26* 0.12 2.07
b5 3 70.25* 0.12 72.04
b6 2 70.01 0.08 70.14
b6 4 0.29* 0.08 3.59
b6 5 70.13* 0.07 72.11

the endogenous constructs except the path between work hazards and job stress (path
relationship ¼ 0.05). Direct effects of social support on the safety environment
(path coefficient ¼ 0.69), job stress (path coefficient ¼ –0.39) and negative personality
(path coefficient ¼ –0.65) were highly significant. Work hazards displayed a positively
significant effect on job dissatisfaction (path coefficient ¼ 0.38) and a negatively significant
effect on safety environment (path coefficient ¼ –0.24). Safety environment also directly
increases safe work behaviour (path coefficient ¼ 0.26) and decreases both the job
dissatisfaction (path coefficient ¼ –0.40) and job stress (path coefficient ¼ –0.37). Job
stress has significant positive relationships with negative personality (path coefficient
0.37) and negative personality displayed a significant negative effect on safe work
behaviour (path coefficient ¼ –0.25). Job stress positively predicted job dissatisfaction
(path coefficient ¼ 0.08), but the relationship was not significant. Job dissatisfaction (path
coefficient ¼ 0.29) and safe work behaviour (path coefficient ¼ –0.14) both displayed a
significant effect on work injury.

Apart from direct influences, the exogenous constructs, social support (indirect path
coefficient ¼ –0.14) and work hazards (indirect path coefficient ¼ 0.15) have significant
indirect influences on work injury. The endogenous construct, safety environment (indirect
path coefficient ¼ –0.16) also has significant indirect influences on work injury. The
indirect influences of social support, work hazards and safety environment on work injury
were achieved through the linkages as given in Table 6. For example, the indirect
Table 6. Linkages through which the indirect effect of social support, work hazards and safety
environment on work injury were achieved.
Construct Indirect linkages

Social support 1. social support ! negative personality ! safe work behaviour ! work injury
2. social support ! job stress ! negative personality ! safe work behaviour !
work injury
3. social support ! job stress ! job dissatisfaction ! work injury
4. social support ! job stress ! work injury
5. social support ! safety environment ! job stress ! negative personality !
safe work behaviour ! work injury
6. social support ! safety environment ! job stress ! job dissatisfaction !
work injury
7. social support ! safety environment ! job dissatisfaction ! work injury
8. social support ! safety environment ! job stress ! work injury
Work hazards 1. work hazards ! safety environment ! job dissatisfaction ! work injury
2. work hazards ! safety environment ! safe work behaviour ! work injury
3. work hazards ! safety environment ! job stress ! job dissatisfaction !
work injury
4. work hazards ! safety environment ! job stress ! negative personality !
safe work behaviour ! work injury
5. work hazards ! safety environment ! job stress ! work injury
6. work hazards ! job stress ! negative personality ! safe work behaviour !
work injury
7. work hazards ! job stress ! job dissatisfaction ! work injury
8. work hazards ! safety environment ! job stress ! work injury
Safety 1. safety environment ! job stress ! negative personality ! safe work
environment behaviour ! work injury
2. safety environment ! job stress ! job dissatisfaction ! work injury
3. safety environment ! job dissatisfaction ! work injury
4. safety environment ! job stress ! work injury
Ergonomics 753
influences of social support were achieved through the linkages of social support!nega-
tive personality!safe work behaviour!work injury, social support!job stress!negative
personality!safe work behaviour!work injury, social support!job stress!job dis-
satisfaction!work injury, social support!job stress!work injury, social support!safety
environment!job stress!negative personality!safe work behaviour!work injury,
social support!safety environment!job stress!job dissatisfaction!work injury, social
support!safety environment!job dissatisfaction!work injury, social support!safety
environment!job stress!work injury. The direct, indirect and total effects of the
significant variables on work injury are shown in Table 7. Table 7 also shows that the
indirect effect of social support on work injury is –0.14 and the total (direct þ indirect)
effect is also –0.14, as there is no direct effect of social support on work injury. Similarly,
work hazards and safety environment have a significant indirect effect of 0.15 and –0.16,
respectively, and a total effect of 0.15 and –0.16, respectively on work injury.
The direct, indirect and total effects of the significant variables on safe work behaviour
and job dissatisfaction are shown in Table 8 and Table 9, respectively. It can be seen from
Table 8 that three latent constructs work hazards (indirect path coefficient ¼ –0.07), social
support (indirect path coefficient ¼ 0.40) and job stress (indirect path coefficient ¼ –0.09)
have significant relationships with safe work behaviour. Although job stress and negative
Table 7. Total effect of the significant variables on work injury.
Variables Direct Indirect Total Rank order

Work hazards – 0.15* 0.15* 3
Social support – 70.14* 70.14* 4
Safety environment – 70.16* 70.16* 2
Job dissatisfaction 0.29* – 0.29* 1
Safe work behaviour 70.14* – 70.14* 4
Table 8. Total effect of the significant variables on safe work behaviour.

Work hazards – 70.07* 70.07* 5
Safety environment 0.26* 0.03 0.29* 2
Job stress – 70.09* 70.09* 4
Negative personality 70.25* – 70.25* 3
Table 9. Total effect of the significant variables on job dissatisfaction.

Work hazards 0.38 0.11* 0.49 1
Safety environment 70.40* 70.03 70.43* 2

personality have no significant direct or indirect relationships with work injury, they have
significant indirect and direct relationships with safe work behaviour, respectively. Table 9
shows that social support (indirect path coefficient ¼ –0.33) displayed significant indirect
relationship with job dissatisfaction.
3.4. Significance of the structural equation modelling results

The structural model results show that social support, work hazards and safety
environment, i.e. the sociotechnical variables, are the major concerns for safety
improvement in the mines under study. The construct work hazards is negatively related
with safety environment. It implies that safety training, overall safety practices in the mine
and safety equipment availability and maintenance are not adequate to cope with the
existing working environment (work hazards). The construct work hazards is also
positively related to job dissatisfaction. Workers exposed to heavy workloads, extortionate

physical hazards and production pressure are dissatisfied with their work. The construct
work hazard also has an indirect effect on safe work behaviour and work injury. The work
hazards can be eliminated/mitigated by employing a better engineering solution. However,
engineering solutions alone are not adequate for improving the safety performance of the
mines. This study shows that there are several significant routes involving personal and
social factors explaining injury in mines. For example, social support has strong indirect
effects on job dissatisfaction, safe work behaviour and work injury. Social support also has
direct effects on job stress and negative personality. The indirect effect of social support on
work injury can be interpreted as follows. Poor social support makes a person more
negatively personified directly, as well as indirectly, through increasing job stress and
negatively personified individuals exhibit more unsafe behaviours during their work, which
in turn make them more injury prone. The safety environment has direct effects on job
stress and job dissatisfaction, and indirect effects on safe work behaviour and work injury.
These direct and indirect routes (relationships), as indicated earlier, are shown in Table 7
(see Figure 4). It can be concluded from the results that healthy social interactions among
the workers with supervisors and management make the workers less job-stressed, less
dissatisfied with their work through the improvement of training methods, adoption of
better safety practices in the mines and proper supply and maintenance of equipment.
Better social supports usually improve safe work behaviours through a decrease in job
stress and negative personality, which is revealed in this study. Social support can therefore
indirectly motivate workers to behave safely during work and to reduce work injury.
As stated earlier, job stress and negative personality have no significant direct or
indirect relationships with work injury, but they have significant indirect and direct
relationships with safe work behaviour, respectively. Further, the accident model path
analysis (Figure 4) shows that job dissatisfaction increases work injury and that safe work
behaviour decreases work injury. So, job stress and negative personality of the mine
workers encourages avoiding safe work behaviours and thereby increases their work
injuries. The construct, negative personality was measured through four indicator
variables such as impulsivity, negative affectivity, depression and risk-taking behaviour.
The measurement model (Figure 3) shows that, except for depression, the other three
variables strongly measured negative personality. The impulsive and negatively affected
individual fails to keep attention during work. It can also make an individual prone to take
risks and behave unsafely. As seen in Tables 7, 8 and 9, all three constructs, namely work
hazards, social support and safety environment, have a significant direct or indirect
influence on work injury, safe work behaviour and job dissatisfaction. As mentioned
Ergonomics 755
earlier, safety environment is significantly influenced by two exogenous constructs,

namely social support and work hazards. It can also be seen from Figure 3 that all three
indicator variables, namely safety training, overall safety practice of the mines and safety
equipment availability and maintenance, strongly measured the safety environment of the
mines. This result indicates that injured workers are not satisfied with their existing
training method, safety practices in the mines and safety equipment availability and
maintenance.
The construct social support is measured by three indicator variables, such as co-
worker support, supervisory support and management worker interaction. Of these
indicator variables, management worker interaction (path coefficient ¼ 0.90) and super-
visory support (path coefficient ¼ 0.88) are strongly related with social support. So, the
result suggests that better management–worker interaction and strong supervisory support
will improve the social support of the mines. Two indicator variables, such as production
pressure (significant path coefficient ¼ 0.65) and physical hazards (significant path
coefficient ¼ 0.71), measured the latent construct work hazards, which has a strong
indirect effect on work injury, as discussed earlier. It can be concluded from the results that
the working environment of this mine is not up to standard and needs to be upgraded
carefully. It can also be concluded from the result that the constructs, namely social
support, work hazards and safety environment, are strong predictors of work injury in the
mines studied.
The negative personality of the mine workers requires careful and focused attention, as
revealed in this study. Negatively personified individuals are unable to extend safe work
behaviours in their work. The results of this study reveal that behavioural factors such as
impulsivity, negative affectivity, depression and risk-taking behaviours significantly
differentiate between the safe and unsafe work behaviour of employees, which can
eventually lead to accident/injury occurrences in mines. Moreover, employees with high
negative personality venture into risk-taking behaviours, which makes them more
susceptible to accidents. The results establish the fact that higher risk-taking behaviour
causes more accidents, as it strongly increases negative personality of the workers. The
workers who are inclined to take more risks to complete their work quickly, to produce
more, and with other deliberate intentions are found to be susceptible to more injuries.
These findings contribute to the design of safety training, which should be focused to take
care of the personal characteristics of workers, such as negative personality. The safety
management of the mines should discard their age-old belief that accidents/injuries are due
to the hazardous nature of mining and only engineering control and regulatory monitoring
are sufficient for improving the safety of the mines. Elimination of negative behaviours
must be focused on and appropriate remedial measures need to be taken by the mine safety
management.
4. Conclusions
The accident model developed in this study showed its importance in evaluating the
structural relationships in a safety system. The LISREL is a very innovative tool in
handling the complex multivariate relationships of the various variables in a structural
framework, which is a significant phenomenon in a mine’s system safety evaluation.
Structural equation modelling consists of measurement and structural models. A
measurement model is used to identify and estimate the relationships between latent
constructs and their indicators, whereas the structural model is used to determine the
pattern and strength of relationships between these constructs.
The application of the accident path model in the mine safety system has been
demonstrated through a case study. The case study results showed that there are sequential
interactions amongst the sociotechnical and personal factors leading to accidents/injuries
in mines. The structural model results show that social support, work hazards and safety
environment have a significant, either direct or indirect, effect on work injuries, safe work
behaviour and job dissatisfaction. Safe work behaviour and job dissatisfaction also have
significant direct effects on work injury. So, it can be concluded from the results of the
accident path model that social support, work hazards and safety environment are the key
factors in occurrences of accidents/injuries in mines. Work hazards can be eliminated/
mitigated through: (i) proper identification of the hazards by regular inspection by
technical persons; (ii) adoption of necessary steps to overcome these physical hazards. The
results also suggest that better management–worker interaction and strong supervisory
support will improve the social support of the mines. This study further reveals that better
social support usually improves safe work behaviours by lessening job stress and negative
personality. So, social support can indirectly motivate workers to behave safely during
work and reduce work injury. The construct safety environment can be improved through:
(i) new and innovative training for the workers to improve their safety performance in the
existing working environment; (ii) workers’ active involvement in Pit Safety Committee
meetings; (iii) proper supply and adequate maintenance of necessary safety equipment. A
better safety environment will decrease the workers’ job dissatisfaction and job stress and
also increase their safe behaviour during work.
Further, the negative personality of the mine workers requires careful and focused
attention, as revealed in this study. Although negative personality has no significant direct or
indirect relationships with work injury, it has a significant direct relationship with safe work
behaviour. Elimination of negative behaviours must be focused and effected by the mine
safety management. However, no short-term solution, as usually done in the mining industry
through mere incentives or punishments, will be effective. Long-term planning through: (i)
identification of negative individuals; (ii) proper counselling of adverse effects of negative
behaviours; (iii) special training with psychological treatment is urgently required.
Several methodological limitations of the present study should be acknowledged. First,
although the hypothesised relations were conceptualised as causal relations, the use of cross-
sectional correlation data does not allow for causal inferences. The second limitation was that
all of the reported accidents were treated as the same accident category, ignoring the type of
accidents. The accident types, such as minor, reportable and serious accidents, may be related
to certain safety behaviour and personality characteristics. Third, the data collected in this
study, which were based on the self-report of the participants, were in some respect indirect
and, hence, they are partially subject to bias and measurement errors.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their thanks to the management of the case study mines for their kind
cooperation during the course of the study. The financial help of University Grant Commission, New
Delhi through a major research project is highly appreciated. The authors are also thankful to the
learned reviewers for their valued comments and suggestions in enriching the quality of the paper.
References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modelling in practice: a review and a
recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–425.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y., 1988. On the use of structural equation models in experimental designs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 271–284.
Ergonomics 757
Bennett, J.D., 1982. Relationship between workplace and worker characteristics and severity of injuries
in U.S. underground bituminous coal mines, 1975–81. Thesis (PhD). The Pennsylvania State
University.
Bennett, J.D. and Passmore, D.L., 1986. Multinomial logit analysis of injury severity in U.S.
underground bituminous coal mines. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 17, 399–408.
Bhattacherjee, A., et al., 1997. Design of safety system for Jamadoba group of collieries.
A Consultancy Project Report. Kharagpur: Department of Mining Engineering and Electrical
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology.
Biswas, A., 2001. Analysis of accidents in India. Journal of Mines. Metals and Fuels, 49, 50–57.
Bollen, K.A., 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Brown, K.A., Willis, P.G., and Prussia, G.E., 2000. Predicting safe employee behavior in the steel
industry: development and test of a sociotechnical model. Journal of Operations Management, 18,
445–465.
Cooper, C.L. and Sutherland, V.J., 1987. Job stress, mental health, and accidents among
offshore workers in the oil and gas extraction industries. Journal of Occupational Medicine,
29, 119–125.
Dawson, S., Poynter, P., and Stevens, D., 1983. How to secure an effective health and safety program
at work. Omega, 11, 443–446.
Dejoy, D.M., 1994. Managing safety in the workplace: an attribution theory analysis and model.
Journal of Safety Research, 25, 3–17.
Dejoy, D.M., 1996. Theoretical models of health behaviour and workplace self-protection. Journal of
Research Safety, 27, 61–72.
Demichiei, J., et al., 1982. Factors associated with disabling injuries in underground coal mines.
Arlington, VA: Mine Safety and Health Administration. Report No. NP – 3902952.
Deming, W.E., 1986. Out of the crisis quality, productivity and competitive position. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dhar, B.B., Singh, A.P., and Ratan, S., 1997. Socio-psychological correlation of coal mine accidents.
In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference of safety in mines research institutes, 20–22
February, vol. II. New Delhi, India, 1239–1252.
Directorate General of Mines Safety, 2005. Statistics in mines: Vol. 1 – Coal. Dhanbad, India:
DGMS.
Donald, I. and Canter, D., 1993. Psychological factors and breaking the accident plateau. Health,
Safety, and Environment Bulletin, 215, 5–8.
Donald, I. and Young, S., 1996. Managing safety: an attitudinal-based approach to improving safety
in organizations. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 17 (4), 13–20.
Drury, D.M., 1965, A study on the literature on accidents in coal mines of the United States with
comparisons of the records in other coal-producing countries. Thesis (PhD). University of Indiana.
Fernandez Herce, J.A., Domingo Comeche, S., and Manchado Trujillo, J.L., 1976. Investigación de
accidentes: criterios de determinación y selección de causas. Salud y Trabajo, 4, 40–49.
Frone, R.M., 1998. Predictors of work injuries among employed adolescents. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, 565–576.
Frone, M.R. and McFarlin, D.B., 1989. Chronic occupational stressors, self-focussed attention,
and well-being: Testing a cybernetic model of stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 876–883.
Gaertner, G.H., et al., 1987. Determining the effects of management practices on coal mines safety.
Minneapolis, MN: US Bureau of Mines. Ref. No. OFR 39–88.
Hair, J.F., et al., 1995. Multivariate data analysis with readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenctice Hall.
Hansen, C.P., 1989. A causal model of the relationship among accidents, biodata, personality and
cognitive factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 81–90.
Harrell, W.A., 1990. Perceived risk of occupational injury: control over pace of work and blue-collar
versus white-collar work. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 1351–1359.
Holcom, M.L., Lehman, W.E.K., and Simpson, D.D., 1993. Employee accidents: influence of
personal characteristics, job characteristics, and substance use in jobs differing in accident
potential. Journal of Safety Research, 24, 205–221.
Hoyle, R.H., 1995. The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental
issues. In: R.H. Hoyle, ed. Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1–15.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M., 1995. Evaluating model fit. In: R.H. Hoyle, ed. Structural equation
modeling: Concepts, issues, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Iverson, R.D. and Erwin, P.J., 1997. Predicting occupational injury: The role of affectivity. Journal
of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 70, 113–128.
Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D., 1998. LISREL 8: Structural equation modelling with the SIMPLIS
command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kamp, J. and Krause, T.R., 1997. Selecting safe employees: a behavioral science perspective.
Professional Safety, 42 (4), 24–28.
Kenney, J.M., 1993. Haulage related accident in metal and non-metal surface mines. Minneapolis,
MN: US Bureau of Mines. Rep. No. USBM IC 9365.
Khan, R.L., et al., 1964. Organisational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. New York:
Wiley.
Kothari, C.R., 2000. Research methodology – Methods and techniques, 2nd ed. Kolkata: Wishwa
Prakashan.
Laurence, D., 2002. Learning safe work behaviour – A new tool for the mining industry. Available
from: http://www.mines.unsw.edu.au/publications/publications_staff/Paper_Laurence_OHS_
2002.htm [Accessed 1 October 2007].
McCrimmon, K.R. and Wehrung, D.A., 1986. Taking risk: The management of uncertainties.
New York: The Free Press.
McDonald, S., 1995. The role of drugs in workplace injuries: is drug testing appropriate? Journal of
Drug Issues, 25, 703–722.
Maiti, J. and Bhattacherjee, A., 1999. Evaluation of risk of occupational injuries among
underground coal mine workers through multinomial logit analysis. Journal of Safety Research,
30, 93–101.
Maiti, J. and Bhattacherjee, A., 2001. Predicting accident susceptibility: a logistic regression analysis
of underground coal mine workers. Journal of the South African Institute and Metallurgy, 101,
203–208.
Maiti, J., Chatterjee, A., and Bangdiwala, S.I., 2004. Determinant of work injury – an application of
structural equation modelling. Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 10, 29–37.
Maiti, J. and Dasgupta, S., 2003. Mine safety management – recent trend in accident analysis and
control. 19th World Mining Congress, 1–5 November, New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing
Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Marsh, H.W. and Hocevar, D., 1988. A new, more powerful approach to multitrait-multimethod
analyses: application of second order confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Applied
Michaels, C.E. and Spector, P.E., 1982. Causes of employee turnover: A test of the Mobley, Grifith,
Hand and Meglino model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 53–59.
Mines Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board (MOSHAB), 1998. Risk taking behaviour in
the Western Australian underground mining sector. Risk taking behaviour working party report
and recommendations, 1–75.
Mulaik, A.M. and James, L.R., 1995. Objectivity and reasoning in science and structural equation
modeling. In: R.H. Hoyle, ed. Structural equation modeling: Concept, issues, and application.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 118–137.
National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences, 1982. Towards safer underground coal
mines. Washington, DC: Material Academics Press.
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, 2007. Mining statistics (online). Available
from: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/statistics/tables/r3.html [Accessed 1 October 2007].
Nunnally, J., 1978. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
Oi, W.Y., 1974. Economic and empirical aspects of underground safety. Rochester, NY: Graduate
School of Management, University of Rochester. NTIS PB 254 736.
Ergonomics 759
Paul, P.S. and Maiti, J., 2005. Development and test of a sociotechnical model for accident/injury
occurrences in underground coal mines. The Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, 105, 43–55.
Paul, P.S. and Maiti, J., 2007. The role of behavioural factors on safety management in underground
mines. Safety Science, 45, 449–471.
Paul, P.S. et al., 2005. An epidemiological study of injury in mines: implications for safety
promotion. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 12, 157–165.
Perrow, C., 1984. Normal accidents. New York: Basic Books.
Pfeifer, C., Stefanski, J. and Grether, C., 1976. Psychological, behavioral and organisational factors
affecting coal miner safety and health. Contract HSM 99–72–151. Dept. of Health, Education and
Welfare, NTIS PB 275 599.
Phiri, J., 1989. Development of statistical indices for the evaluation of hazards in longwall face
operations. Thesis (PhD). Pennsylvania State University.
Pidgeon, N.F., 1991. Safety culture and risk management in organizations. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Plutchik, R. and Van Pragg, H.M., 1995. The nature of impulsivity: definitions, ontology, genetics,
and relations to aggression. In: E. Hollander and D.J. Stein, eds. Impulsivity and Aggression.
New York: Wiley, 7–24.
Quinn, R.P. and Staines, G.L., 1979. The 1977 Quality of Employment Survey. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
Radloff, L.S., 1977. The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general
population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Rahim, M.A. and Psenicka, C., 1996. A structural equations model of stress, locus of control, social
support, psychiatric symptoms, and propensity to leave a job. The Journal of Social Psychology,
136, 69–84.
Rahman, S., 2000. Towards developing an international market selection decision framework. In:
Proceedings of ANZMAC 2000 Visionary Marketing for the 21st Century: Facing the Challenge.
Reason, J.T., 1997. Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Rizzo, J.K., House, R.J., and Lirtzman, S.I., 1970. Role conflict and ambiguity in complex
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150–163.
Robbins, S.P., 1997. Organisational behaviour – concepts, controversies and applications 7th ed.
London: Prentice Hall.
Root, N., 1981. Injuries at work are fewer among older employees. Monthly Labor Review, 104,
30–34.
Sanders, M.S., Patterson, T.V., and Peay, J.M., 1976. The effect of organisational climate and policy
on coal mine safety. Contract HO242039. Crane, IN: Naval Weapons Support Center and
Bureau of Mines, OFR 108–77.
Savery, L.K. and Wooden, M., 1994. The relative influence of life events and hassles on work-related
injuries: some Australian evidence. Human Relations, 47, 283–305.
Shafai-Sahrai, Y., 1973. Determinants of occupational injury experience: A study of matched pairs
companies. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
SPSS, 1999. SPSS 10 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
Sumer, N., 2003. Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: testing a contextual
mediated model. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 949–964.
Theodore Barry and Associates, 1972. Industrial engineering study of hazards associated with
underground coal mine production, vols. I and II, Report on Contract S0110601. (Los Angeles,
CA: U.S. Bureau of Mines, PB 207 226 and PB 207 227).
Zwerling, C., et al., 1996. Risk factors for occupational injuries among older workers: an analysis of
the health and retirement study. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 1306–1309.
Appendix 1. Final scale items, means and standard deviations.

760
SI Summed item Construct

No. Construct Scale items means (SD) reliability Sources*
1 Impulsivity Do you think about the good and bad things in your 2.00 (0.97) 0.71 Frone 1998
life before concentrating on any work?
Can you take quick decisions? 1.99 (0.93)
Do you see yourself as an emotional person? 2.22 (0.91)
Do you do your work in the nick of time? 1.67 (0.86)
Do you get excited when a new idea comes into 2.13 (0.93)
your head?
Do you like a job that needs concentration all the 2.33 (0.86)
time?
Have you self-control to keep yourself free? 2.20 (0.91)
Do you like the very job that has to be done quickly? 1.46 (0.74)
2 Risk taking Do you like to take risks? 2.20 (0.94) 0.82 Demichiei et al. 1982;
Do you think life is dull if there is no danger in life? 1.99 (0.91) Dhar 1997;
Are you ready to take risks in order to increase your 2.04 (0.96) MOSHAB 1998;
income? Paul and Maiti 2007
Do you take risks to reach your goal? 2.20 (0.91)
Do you take risks to achieve other objectives? 1.95 (0.96)
Do you have a tendency to work quickly? 2.31 (0.94)
P.S. Paul and J. Maiti
Are you ready to work in a daring situation? 2.33 (0.83)

Would you venture knowingly into an unsupported 2.29 (0.59)
place?
Have you ever been motivated to take risks while 1.84 (0.88)
seeing others taking risks?
3 Negative affectivity Do you become disappointed easily when your 2.29 (0.91) 0.83 Demichiei et al. 1982;
thinking does not match a colleague’s? Dhar 1997; Paul and
Do you have problems expressing your thoughts? 1.78 (0.94) Maiti 2007
Do you become restless from unimportant matters? 1.55 (0.79)
Do you feel guilty when others blame you for 1.83 (0.93)
something that is your fault?
When your officer wants to meet with you, do you 1.92 (0.88)
worry that you have committed some mistakes?
(continued)
Appendix 1. (Continued).

Sometimes, do you feel angry without good reason? 1.92 (0.94)
Do you sometimes feel happy or frustrated without 1.69 (0.85)
good reason?
Does your behaviour change without good reason? 1.76 (0.79)
Do you take your task lightly? 1.73 (0.91)
Do unwanted thoughts enter your mind and 2.09 (0.89)
harrass you?
Do you feel tense when you think about your future? 2.30 (0.84)
4 Depression Do you get depressed when you are unsuccessful at 2.37 (0.78) 0.65 Frone 1998; DMSP
work?
Do you feel happy or depressed without good reason? 1.66 (0.86)
Do you feel your life is full of sorrow? 1.73 (0.87)
Do you feel lonely even when someone is 1.29 (0.63)
accompanying you?
Do you always feel as if nothing is possible without 1.67 (0.79)
Ergonomics
getting help from others?

5 Safe work behaviour Do you use a cap lamp regularly? 2.72 (0.69) 0.80 DMSP
Do you check your lamp before going underground? 2.78 (0.50)
Do you always use a helmet at work? 2.53 (0.70)
Do you always wear safety shoes at work given to you 2.52 (0.70)
by the company?
Do you always go to the safety area before blasting? 1.94 (0.80)
Do you follow the signals during working or walking 2.55 (0.66)
on the haulage roadway?
Do you consult with your immediate supervisor 2.56 (0.72)
about the dangers/hazards before taking
any decision underground?
After blasting, do you wait for fume clearance before 2.71 (0.59)
going back to the face?
(continued)
761
762

6 Job dissatisfaction Do you think your life has become tiresome because 1.59 (0.81) 0.83 International Survey
of this job? Research Corporation
Would you change your job if you were offered 2.01 (0.86) 1992; Paul and
an opportunity elsewhere? Maiti 2007
Are you doing this job because you are getting a 2.04 (1.10)
sufficient salary, despite your dislike of this
job?
Do you feel that your co-workers are not motivated 2.09 (0.85)
due to overly repetitive work?
Are you satisfied with the conditions at your workplace? 2.12 (0.95)
Do your officers appreciate your skills and the quality of 1.82 (0.74)
your work?
If you were an officer would you behave in the same 2.43 (0.80)
manner as your officers do?
Do you think that people get promotion here 2.28 (0.88)
through favouritism only?
Do you think this job is a source of respect for a person 1.82 (0.87)
like you?
Do other people respect your job? 1.79 (0.73)
Are there any prospects in your job? 1.74 (0.85)

Is there any opportunity for promotion? 1.78 (0.90)
7 Job stress Do you face problems completing an excess amount 2.40 (0.86) 0.67 Demichiei et al. 1982;
of work hurriedly? DMSP
Do you have to work hard in your job? 1.60 (0.78)
Are you unable to give time to yourself and your 1.90 (0.89)
family as you are very busy in your job?
Do the members of your family depend on you? 1.92 (0.94)
Do you have to walk quickly to reach your workplace 2.23 (0.86)
underground?
Do your job demands and responsibilities conflict with 2.02 (0.91)
your domestic work?
(continued)
Do you think your work is difficult and arduous? 2.50 (0.84)
Do you face problems completing your work quickly? 2.26 (0.88)
8 Co-worker support Does an extremely friendly atmosphere prevail 2.73 (0.58) 0.64 MOSHAB 1998;
among the workers in this mine? Demichiei et al. 1982;
Do you get involved in arguments with your co-workers 2.52 (0.77) DMSP
often?
Do your colleagues help to solve your problems at 2.64 (0.63)
work?
Is your colleagues’ behaviour friendly and 2.50 (0.65)
cooperative?
Do your colleagues try to portray you as an unsuccessful 2.47 (0.76)
man?
9 Supervisory support Do supervisors instruct and guide their subordinates? 2.35 (0.85) 0.71 MOSHAB 1998;
Do supervisors support your decisions concerning 1.87 (0.89) Demichiei et al. 1982;
safety? DMSP
Do supervisors actively discourage your unsafe 2.11 (0.89)
Ergonomics
behaviour?
Are you satisfied with your supervisor’s performance 2.16 (0.86)
and qualifications?
Do you get involved in arguments with your supervisors 2.28 (0.82)
often?
Does the supervisor keep close tabs on your work? 2.19 (0.87)
Does the supervisor remind you to work safely? 1.94 (0.90)
10 Management– Do you report hazards and hazardous 2.07 (0.87) 0.84 MOSHAB 1998;
worker interaction incidents to your management? Demichiei et al. 1982;
Are you discouraged from reporting or bringing safety 1.88 (0.89) DMSP
issues to the attention of the management?
Do the officers look after the needs of the workers? 1.94 (0.84)
Does the management consult miners prior to 2.43 (0.84)
making decisions concerning safety and
productivity?
763
(continued)
764
Does management support your decisions concerning 1.89 (0.84)
safety?
Are the workers treated like human beings? 2.10 (0.83
Do the officers look after their own well-being only? 1.79 (0.88)
Do the officers treat you with respect? 1.93 (0.89)
Do you think the workers behave properly with 2.10 (0.87)
management?
Do the officers admire your capabilities and qualities? 2.22 (0.72)
11 Safety training Do you think that the safety training facilities 2.03 (0.99) 0.66 Demichiei et al. 1982;
provided to you are adequate? DMSP
Do you feel that training is effective? 2.58 (0.72)
Do you believe that your training in the safety 2.23 (0.74)
regulations is adequate?
Are you adequately trained to perform your assigned 2.09 (0.92)
tasks underground?
Do you feel that you require more training? 2.14 (1.04)
Most of the mines now use written tasks and 2.15 (0.90)
procedures for training.
Does your mine follow such procedures?

12 Safety practices Does the supervisor always check that miners wear 2.45 (0.73) 0.80 DMSP
the special shoes given by the company before
going underground?
Does everybody utilise their knowledge of first aid 1.89 (0.87)
training?
Does the overman/mine sirdar check that everybody 2.56 (0.66)
reaches a safe area before blasting?
Does the ventilation officer regularly check the 2.21 (0.93)
ventilation system?
Does the mine sirdar/overman regularly test the roofs 2.21 (0.90)
and travelling roadways?
(continued)
Does the shot firer give a warning before blasting? 2.83 (0.54)
Are the winding engine and winding ropes regularly 2.06 (0.83)
examined?
Does everybody attend the safety week held by the 1.94 (0.91)
safety department?
Have you seen anybody doing risky work in the 1.73 (0.86)
mine?
Do safety personnel inspect regularly to ensure that 2.14 (1.03)
safe practices are being followed?
Are most of the areas in your mine inspected 2.12 (0.92)
regularly?
Do the safety inspectors make use of a written 2.19 (0.89)
checklist?
Are safety meetings conducted by the mine sirdar/ 1.98 (0.88)
overman/section-in-charge with the workers?
Ergonomics
Are the investigation results at the mine printed in 1.46 (0.77)

newsletters?
Does a higher authority in your mine reward good 1.77 (0.88)
safety performance?
Has your mine initiated or aided family or 1.57 (0.82)
community work to instil safety consciousness
in workers?
Are the workers praised openly for their safety 2.14 (0.89)
performance?
Have you been penalised for carrying out any work 2.27 (0.93)
that was considered unsafe?
Are any disciplinary actions taken against the 2.15 (0.82)
workers who do not use the required protective
devices?
(continued)
765
766

13 Safety equipment Are fire-fighting instruments readily available when 1.95 (0.88) 0.72 DMSP
availability and and where they are necessary?
maintenance Are the required amounts of helmets, boots and cap 1.78 (0.91)
lamps available in your mine?
Do you feel unsafe due to lack of illumination at your 1.66 (0.90)
workplace?
Are there proper lighting arrangements at the required 2.11 (0.79)
places in your mine?
Do safety personnel approve newly installed 2.37 (0.81)
equipment before use?
Does management supply necessary equipment and 1.82 (0.79)
tools to the employees so that they can complete
their jobs efficiently and safely?
Is the condition of personal protective devices 1.87 (0.83)
regularly checked in your mine?
Are there sufficient first aid facilities when 2.18 (0.85)
anybody gets hurt?
14 Physical hazards Is underground mining a hazardous occupation? 2.52 (0.86) 0.65 DMSP
Is the physical environment in this mine unusually 2.46 (0.73)

adverse and dangerous?
Are these conditions responsible for injury to mine 2.33 (0.75)
employees?
Are hazards eliminated promptly at your workplace? 1.93 (0.88)
Are loose chunks of coal on the roof and side wall 2.11 (0.83)
seen frequently in your mine?
Is the working place hot and humid? 2.30 (1.07)
Is the ventilation system in the mine good enough? 2.24 (0.81)
Is seepage water effectively drained out from your 1.96 (0.88)
mine?
Are the galleries and other places filled with coal 2.03 (0.81)
dust?
(continued)
Is there any chance of slipping on the roadways or 1.71 (0.77)
galleries due to accumulation of water?
Do the workers have to work under a large 2.51 (0.74)
unsupported roof?
15 Production pressure Are workers in this mine under a lot of pressure to 2.37 (0.86) 0.79 MOSHAB 1998;
finish their work? DMSP
Ergonomics
Is there excessive work pressure in your mine? 2.16 (0.90)

Have you ever been pressurised into meeting 2.13 (0.92)
production targets to the detriment of safety?
Are there problems caused by having to complete 2.11 (0.93)
the job within a fixed time frame?
*Guided in framing questionnaire; Bold-faced questions are reverse scored; DMSP ¼ discussions with mine safety personnel.
767

Paul and Maiti (2008)

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Paul and Maiti (2008)

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

This article was downloaded by: [Stony Brook University]

On: 22 October 2014, At: 04:59

The synergic role of sociotechnical

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140130701747483

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The synergic role of sociotechnical and personal characteristics

*Corresponding author. Email: jmaiti@iitkgp.ac.in

ISSN 0014-0139 print/ISSN 1366-5847 online

1.1. Perspectives on workplace safety

1.2. Personal variables

National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences (1982) found a strong negative

Figure 1. Determinants of work injuries in mines.

tendencies might lead to lapses in attention or to higher levels of distractibility, thereby

1.3. Sociotechnical variables

1.4. Work injury

of physical rehabilitation for severe injuries (Maiti and Bhattacherjee 1999).

worker support, supervisory support, management worker interaction, job dissatisfaction,

2.3. Validity and reliability of the collected data

Figure 2. Hypothesised accident model path diagram.

3.2. Measurement model

Table 1. Correlations amongst the variables for accident path model.

support and management–worker interaction were used to measure social support

Table 2. Goodness-of-ﬁt indices for the measurement model.

*Indicates 0.01 probability level of signiﬁcance.

3.3. The structural model

Table 4. Goodness-of-ﬁt indices for the structural model.

Parameter Estimate Standard error t-values

*Indicates 0.05 probability level of signiﬁcance.

signiﬁcant eﬀect on work injury.

Construct Indirect linkages

Table 7. Total eﬀect of the signiﬁcant variables on work injury.

Variables Direct Indirect Total Rank order

*Indicates 0.05 probability level of signiﬁcance.

Table 8. Total eﬀect of the signiﬁcant variables on safe work behaviour.

Variables Direct Indirect Total Rank order

*Indicates 0.05 probability level of signiﬁcance.

Table 9. Total eﬀect of the signiﬁcant variables on job dissatisfaction.

Variables Direct Indirect Total Rank order

*Indicates 0.05 probability level of signiﬁcance.

3.4. Signiﬁcance of the structural equation modelling results

positively related to job dissatisfaction. Workers exposed to heavy workloads, extortionate

earlier, safety environment is signiﬁcantly inﬂuenced by two exogenous constructs,

Psychology, 22, 129–140.

Appendix 1. Final scale items, means and standard deviations.

SI Summed item Construct

Are you ready to work in a daring situation? 2.33 (0.83)

SI Summed item Construct

getting help from others?

SI Summed item Construct

Are there any prospects in your job? 1.74 (0.85)

Does your mine follow such procedures?

Are the investigation results at the mine printed in 1.46 (0.77)

SI Summed item Construct

Is the physical environment in this mine unusually 2.46 (0.73)

Is there excessive work pressure in your mine? 2.16 (0.90)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai