Laufer, A and Ledbetter, W B (1986) Assessment of safety performance measures at construction sites. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 112(4), pp. 530-542. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Various methods for the measurement and classification of safety performance at construction sites, e.g., timing relative to the moment of accident, data collection method, safety effectiveness criterion, performance measure, and frequency and severity of the measured event, are analyzed. The effectiveness of the various methods and the extent of their use at construction sites are examined. Attributes that are investigated include efficiency, reliability, and validity and diagnostic capacity of the measure in order to identify the cause for success or failure, respectively, of the safety program at a site. The data for the study were collected through questionnaires which were addressed to the largest construction companies in the United States. The most effective and the most widely employed measurement methods were lost-day cases, doctor's cases, and cost of accidents. The least effective and most limited in use were the no-injury cases.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | questionnaire, program, measurement method, safety performance, injury, United States, construction company, performance measure, construction site, effectiveness, efficiency, validity |
| Subjects: | occupational health and safety management, health conditions and diseases, Geography, performance measurement, software systems, performance management, financial and cost management, work location, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, organization |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Quality Management, Digital Applications, Site Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here