<difference-title>

Version actuelle en date du 13 avril 2017 à 10:16

The desired accepted value for Cronbach �� is 0.70, but when there are five or fewer items, the acceptable level is 0.60 [42]. Safety prioritization excluded from the final scale because of a low reliability. Histone demethylase The reliability measure for the final 45-item scale was 0.96, and the reliability coefficients of the dimensions ranged from 0.63 to 0.93 (Table?3). Table?3 Cronbach �� values, mean and standard deviations for the safety climate dimensions As shown in Fig.?1, the safety climate dimensions were considered as latent variables in CFA. The result of CFA showed that the model that previously identified by EFA is satisfactory (��2(931)?=?1907.72, p?check details [3]. The comparative fit index (CFI) was 0.85, and incremental fit index (IFI) was 0.85. These values were reasonable compared with the acceptable value of two fit indices that are �� 0.90 [3]. The modification indices were assessed to determine the possible modifications in the initial safety climate model. The results showed that 11 error terms were allowed to correlate, and the modified model was satisfactory [��2(920)?=?1723.02, p?see more satisfactory. Therefore, the scale proved to be a valid and reliable tool to measure the safety climate. It is important to note that the assessment of the concurrent validity between the safety climate and participants' accident experience did not provide a significant result. It may result from the point that respondents asked for their�� experience of accidents in the past 3 years. The EFA was performed to reduce the safety climate attributes into dimensions. The safety climate dimensions were labeled as safety commitment and communication, safety involvement and training, positive safety practices, safety competency, safety procedures, accountability and responsibility, and supportive environment.