..


  AUTHORS SAFELY TRAVEL TO UNKNOWN AREA BUT THE CONCEPT THAT APPLY ARE
TOO NEW TO THEM - IT SEEMS TO BE OUTSIDE OF THEIR
AREA OF EXPERTISE. CONCEPTS ARE POORLY REFERENCED.

THERE IS MORE IN THE FIELD WHEN ENVIROMENTALISTS OR FORESTS/T
SPECIALISTS NEED THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONCEPTS. IT COULD BE THAT
PSYCHOLOGY IS A LITTLE BEHIND THE NEED AND DID NOT TEAM UP YET
WITH ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND SAFETY AND SECURITY SPECIALISTS AS
(LAW ) ENFORCEMENT.

  WHICH PSYCHOLOGY SUB-DIVISON IS CLOSEST TO CALL - SEEMS
ALL :PERCEPTUAL, CLINICAL AND SOCIAL; NOT ANY EASY CLUSTER QUESTIONS.

"A cross-validation of safety climate scale using confirmatory factor
analytic approach

References and further reading may be available for this article. To
view references and further reading you must purchase this article.


Dong-Chul Seo, , Mohammad R. Torabi, Earl H. Blair and Nancy T.
Ellis   [Author vitae]

Department of Applied Health Science, Indiana University, HPER 116,
1025 E. 7th Street, Bloomington, IN 47405-7109, United States

Received 6 January 2004;  accepted 30 April 2004.  Available online 7
October 2004.

Abstract

Problem: Given the lack of a consistent factor structure of safety
climate, this study tested the stability of a factor structure of a
safety climate scale developed through an extensive literature review
using confirmatory factor analytic approach and cross-validation.

DO NOT BE MISLED - THIS IS ONLY OLD FASHIONED FACTOR ANALYSES THAT HAS
A DREAMER BELIEVE THAT THE MAGIC HIDES INSIGHT.

 Methods:A cross-sectional sample of 722 U.S. grain industry workers
participated in the questionnaire survey.

Results: The safety climate scale developed through the generation of
an item pool based on a table of specifications, subsequent scientific
item reduction procedures, reviews from experts, and pilot test
yielded adequate reliabilities for each dimension. Each item showed
proper discriminative power based on both internal and external
criteria. Criterion validity was manifested by the significant
positive correlation of the scale with five criteria.

Evidence of construct validity was provided by both exploratory and
confirmatory factor analyses.

.....
I MUST ADMIT - I DO NOT UNDERSTAND; BUT DO THAT THE AUTORS OVERSTATE -
BIAS TO SELF SO TO SAY.
.....

 Both calibration and validation samples supported a consistent factor
structure.
....
THEY DID?
....
Management commitment and supervisor support were found to influence
other dimensions of safety climate.

Discussion:This study provides an insight into the primary reason why
previous attempts have failed to find a consistent factor structure of
safety climate:

No specification of the influence of management commitment and
supervisor support on other dimensions of safety in their models.
Impact on industry:

 The findings of this study provide a framework upon which accident
prevention efforts can be effectively organized and underscore the
importance of management commitment and supervisor support as they
affect employee safety perceptions." END OF ABSTRACT.
...
I AM STILL IN TROUBLE - IN OLD TIMES WE CALLED THAT HYPOSTECIZING ,
NAMELY, I ALREADY THINK THAT THEY MADE IT ALL UP. I MIGHT BE WRONG.
...

POSIBILITY OF CROSS-SCIENCE OPERATIONAL FORMAL KNOWLEDGE CONCEPTS
ACCROS SCIENCES

At the FIVU we are dealing with the formal aspects of what is common
in the process, thus we stay within that science that describes the
process; Varius sciences deal with process issues if not the most of
them. Process here is not a procedure but the flow
of the circular events as they evolve and their consequnces as
expressed in  the common theoretical terms.

While capturing the whole or centered issues, we run to overlaping
sciences that congregate around the common conceptual center or
question - we call such inner adhesiveness around it and in-between
sciences - Cluster Science.

We have identifies 7 such clusters. Mother of them  all is the meta-
science cluster
aka theory of knowledge, matched from the top down and down up till
etey meet;
that is policy meets the convention; convention lends self to the way
we shape
the policy; to give the very general sense of such inner netting in
the science cluster.

The most proned to self regulatory process, the Human Ethos Cluster
seems to be less attended to for no objective reason. There is a
transfer from technocrats that they hold the superority over the human
thought, practice and condition; that is got to be seen.

More and more is observed that  the anti-self bias devcelopes with
thenconsequence of relying the prowes elswhere. If contageus, such
shift in self regulatory processes
has a chance to impact the culture.

Squed viewes carry self made counter-balacing and makes us returning
to the
center; as personal or as social.  That center is very valuable
personalized and individualized. In no way it is not affected by what
technocrats succeeded
to have us believe.

Happy further explorations.