Hazard Management Dealt by Safety Professionals in Colleges: The Impact of Individual Factors

Tsung-Chih Wu, Chi-Hsiang Chen, Nai-Wen Yi, Pei-Chen Lu, Shan-Chi Yu and Chien-Peng Wang
Additional contact information
Tsung-Chih Wu: Department of Industrial Education and Technology, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua 50074, Taiwan
Chi-Hsiang Chen: Department of Industrial Education and Technology, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua 50074, Taiwan
Nai-Wen Yi: Department of Industrial Education and Technology, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua 50074, Taiwan
Pei-Chen Lu: Department of Industrial Education and Technology, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua 50074, Taiwan
Shan-Chi Yu: Department of Industrial Education and Technology, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua 50074, Taiwan
Chien-Peng Wang: Department of Industrial Safety, Ju-Kao Engineering Co., Ltd., Taichung 43541, Taiwan

IJERPH, 2016, vol. 13, issue 12, 1-14

Abstract: Identifying, evaluating, and controlling workplace hazards are important functions of safety professionals (SPs). The purpose of this study was to investigate the content and frequency of hazard management dealt by safety professionals in colleges. The authors also explored the effects of organizational factors/individual factors on SPs’ perception of frequency of hazard management. The researchers conducted survey research to achieve the objective of this study. The researchers mailed questionnaires to 200 SPs in colleges after simple random sampling, then received a total of 144 valid responses (response rate = 72%). Exploratory factor analysis indicated that the hazard management scale (HMS) extracted five factors, including physical hazards, biological hazards, social and psychological hazards, ergonomic hazards, and chemical hazards. Moreover, the top 10 hazards that the survey results identified that safety professionals were most likely to deal with (in order of most to least frequent) were: organic solvents, illumination, other chemicals, machinery and equipment, fire and explosion, electricity, noise, specific chemicals, human error, and lifting/carrying. Finally, the results of one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated there were four individual factors that impacted the perceived frequency of hazard management which were of statistical and practical significance: job tenure in the college of employment, type of certification, gender, and overall job tenure. SPs within colleges and industries can now discuss plans revolving around these five areas instead of having to deal with all of the separate hazards.

Keywords: safety professional; hazard management; individual factors (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/13/12/1201/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/13/12/1201/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:13:y:2016:i:12:p:1201-:d:84376

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().