Abstract:

As part of an effort to advance safety in the oil and gas industry, the study utilized industry experts to develop a set of evidence-based assessment tools to diagnose, measure, and track major factors that influence safe behavior and culture for individuals, teams, and organizations. The assessment tools featured three measures: Safety Emphasis, Safety Awareness, and Team Safety Climate. The Safety Emphasis measured 15 items that ask what is valued or emphasized at a work facility pertaining to specific safety themes (e.g., handling mistakes, responding to/anticipating problems, use of stop work authority). The items employed an 11-point (0-10) non-linear scale (i.e., higher scores are not always better) and the scoring is based on SME input. The Safety Awareness measured 9 items that examined perceptions of the percent (0-100%) of people on a team/crew/facility who are aware of general safety and fire safety hazards (e.g., signs, expected responses). The Team Safety Climate measured 16 items that asked respondents to indicate the extent to which they agree with statements aligned to 7 team safety climate factors (e.g., Cooperation, Communication, Cognitions) and team safety climate overall. The items were assessed with a traditional 5-point agreement scale (1=Strongly Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree). To examine the psychometric characteristics and validity of the measures, the measures were administered in the form of a voluntary online survey referred to as the “Supporting and Facilitating Effective Teams, Organizations, and People (SAFE-TOP) Survey.” This survey was given to employees at two organizations within the oil and gas industry over the course of several months beginning in the middle of 2021 through early 2023. The data collected included survey responses from 179 employees at the first organization and 1473 employees from the second organization, where the survey was administered twice. Information about respondent work function, facility, and shift/crew are also represented in the data. All data has been encrypted for purposes of respondent confidentiality.

Suggested Citation:

Tannenbaum, Scott, Jamie Levy, Rebecca Beard, John Mathieu, and Adam Roebuck. 2024. Supporting And Facilitating Effective Teams, Organizations, and People (SAFE-TOP) survey data. Distributed by: GRIIDC, Harte Research Institute, Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi. doi:10.7266/ar5xe015

Purpose:

The purpose of this data collection effort was to evaluate the psychometric characteristics and diagnostic effectiveness of the Safety Emphasis, Safety Awareness, and Team Safety Climate measures with data gathered from samples from individuals within the oil and gas industry.

Data Parameters and Units:

(Note: See README file for more details) Response ID, Administration (1-2), Company (1-2), Function (1-7), Facility (1-20), Shift_Crew (1-7), Safety_Emphasis_A to Safety_Emphasis_O (0-10), Safe_Aware_Gen_Safe_a to Safe_Aware_Gen_e (0-100), Safe_Aware_Fire_Haz_a to Safe_Aware_Fire_Haz_d (0-100), Team_Safe_Clim_1 to Team_Safe_Clim_16 (1-5), Safety_Awareness_General (0-10), Safety_Awareness_Fire (0-10), Safe_Aware_AGG (0-10), Safety_Climate_Capabilities (1-5), Safety_Climate_Cooperation (1-5), Safety_Climate_Coordination (1-5), Safety_Climate_Communication (1-5), Safety_Climate_Cognition (1-5), Safety_Climate_Coaching (1-5), Safety _Climate_Conditions (1-5), Safety _Climate_Overall (1-5), Team_Safe_Clim_AGG (1-5).

Methods:

Oil and gas industry personnel were invited to voluntarily complete an online survey during a work break. The opening section of the survey described the project, explained the informed consent process, and introduced the survey purpose. After participants consented to complete the survey, they were given access to continue to the survey questions. The survey took approximately 30 minutes to complete. All responses were kept confidential. Key questions examined included: a) Will respondents acknowledge a deficiency or show unrealistic leniency, and can the measure detect leniency and inattentiveness? b) Does the measure offer ample diagnosticity across units (i.e., consistent responses within a unit and variability across units)? c) Can the measure detect changes over time or as the result of an organizational change? d) What is appropriate level of granularity for interpreting the results (facility, shift/crew, team)? e) Are the findings perceived as useful and actionable by decision makers? f) Do the data show logical patterns (e.g., expected differences between trained and untrained respondents)? g) Are there differences between general and more specific scales (e.g., General Safety vs. Fire Safety)? The data were gathered with an online survey referred to as the “Supporting and Facilitating Effective Teams, Organizations, and People (SAFE-TOP) Survey”. The survey featured three measures: Safety Emphasis, Safety Awareness, and Team Safety Climate. The Safety Emphasis measure includes 15 items that ask what is valued or emphasized at a work facility pertaining to specific safety themes (e.g., handling mistakes, responding to/anticipating problems, use of stop work authority). The items employ an 11-point (0-10) non-linear scale (i.e., higher scores are not always better) and the scoring is based on SME input. The Safety Awareness measure includes nine items that examine perceptions of the percent (0-100%) of people on a team/crew/facility who are aware of general safety and fire safety hazards (e.g., signs, expected responses). The Team Safety Climate measure includes 16 items that ask respondents to indicate the extent to which they agree with statements aligned to 7 team safety climate factors (e.g., Cooperation, Communication, Cognitions) and team safety climate overall. The items are assessed with a traditional 5-point agreement scale (1=Strongly Disagree; 5=Strongly Agree).

Individual Files: