A growing body of research suggests that national injury surveillance data significantly underestimate the true number of non-fatal occupational injuries due to employee under-reporting of workplace accidents. Given the importance of accurately measuring such under-reporting, the purpose of the current research was to examine the psychometric properties of two different techniques used to operationalize accident under-reporting, one using a free recall methodology and the other a recognition-based approach. Moreover, in order to assess the cross-cultural generalizability of these under-reporting measures, we replicated our psychometric analyses in the United States (N = 440) and Italy (N = 592). Across both countries, the results suggest that both measures exhibited similar patterns of relationships with known antecedents, including job insecurity, production pressure, safety compliance, and safety reporting attitudes. However, the recall measures had more severe violations of normality and were less correlated with self-report workplace injuries. Considerations, implications, and recommendations for using these different types of accident measures are discussed.

A growing body of research suggests that national injury surveillance data significantly underestimate the true number of non-fatal occupational injuries due to employee under-reporting of workplace accidents. Given the importance of accurately measuring such under-reporting, the purpose of the current research was to examine the psychometric properties of two different techniques used to operationalize accident under-reporting, one using a free recall methodology and the other a recognition-based approach. Moreover, in order to assess the cross-cultural generalizability of these under-reporting measures, we replicated our psychometric analyses in the United States (N = 440) and Italy (N = 592). Across both countries, the results suggest that both measures exhibited similar patterns of relationships with known antecedents, including job insecurity, production pressure, safety compliance, and safety reporting attitudes. However, the recall measures had more severe violations of normality and were less correlated with self-report workplace injuries. Considerations, implications, and recommendations for using these different types of accident measures are discussed.

Comparing recall vs. recognition measures of accident under-reporting. A two-country examination / Tahira M., Probst; Petitta, Laura; Barbaranelli, Claudio. - In: ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION. - ISSN 0001-4575. - STAMPA. - 106:(2017), pp. 1-9. [10.1016/j.aap.2017.05.006]

Comparing recall vs. recognition measures of accident under-reporting. A two-country examination

PETITTA, LAURA;BARBARANELLI, Claudio
2017

Abstract

A growing body of research suggests that national injury surveillance data significantly underestimate the true number of non-fatal occupational injuries due to employee under-reporting of workplace accidents. Given the importance of accurately measuring such under-reporting, the purpose of the current research was to examine the psychometric properties of two different techniques used to operationalize accident under-reporting, one using a free recall methodology and the other a recognition-based approach. Moreover, in order to assess the cross-cultural generalizability of these under-reporting measures, we replicated our psychometric analyses in the United States (N = 440) and Italy (N = 592). Across both countries, the results suggest that both measures exhibited similar patterns of relationships with known antecedents, including job insecurity, production pressure, safety compliance, and safety reporting attitudes. However, the recall measures had more severe violations of normality and were less correlated with self-report workplace injuries. Considerations, implications, and recommendations for using these different types of accident measures are discussed.
2017
A growing body of research suggests that national injury surveillance data significantly underestimate the true number of non-fatal occupational injuries due to employee under-reporting of workplace accidents. Given the importance of accurately measuring such under-reporting, the purpose of the current research was to examine the psychometric properties of two different techniques used to operationalize accident under-reporting, one using a free recall methodology and the other a recognition-based approach. Moreover, in order to assess the cross-cultural generalizability of these under-reporting measures, we replicated our psychometric analyses in the United States (N = 440) and Italy (N = 592). Across both countries, the results suggest that both measures exhibited similar patterns of relationships with known antecedents, including job insecurity, production pressure, safety compliance, and safety reporting attitudes. However, the recall measures had more severe violations of normality and were less correlated with self-report workplace injuries. Considerations, implications, and recommendations for using these different types of accident measures are discussed.
accident under-reporting; measurement validation; surveillance
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Comparing recall vs. recognition measures of accident under-reporting. A two-country examination / Tahira M., Probst; Petitta, Laura; Barbaranelli, Claudio. - In: ACCIDENT ANALYSIS AND PREVENTION. - ISSN 0001-4575. - STAMPA. - 106:(2017), pp. 1-9. [10.1016/j.aap.2017.05.006]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Probst_Comparing_2017.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Note: Articolo principale
Tipologia: Documento in Post-print (versione successiva alla peer review e accettata per la pubblicazione)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 743.95 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
743.95 kB Adobe PDF   Contatta l'autore

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/973744
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 9
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 7
social impact