Structural model of factors contributing to the motivational problem of taking shortcuts at construction workplaces in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Abstract

An unsafe act is a type of work that involves some risk. Since more than a decade, unsafe act has accounted as a foremost cause of work-related accident, especially in the field of construction. Several attempts have been made to reduce the causes of unsafe acts; however, shortcut, which is a notable type of unsafe act, has received little attention in previous works, even though some of causal effects have been attributed to this habit. This paper aims to reveal an unexplained proportion that can be explained by different underlying causes of motivational problems to shortcuts rather than by habit. Accordingly, two structural models have been proposed based on quantitative and qualitative data from previous reviews associated with the effects on negative feeling and thinking on risk management. These models were tested using on Exploratory Factor analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) on data collected from a cross-section survey conducted at construction sites in largest cities within the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), where large number of accidents in these cities occurred. Data of 204 respondents of the mailed questionnaires were analyzed after screening all responses. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (version 22) was used to test for Structural Equation Model (SEM) assumptions. The developed hypotheses were tested and model with the best fit was identified. Findings revealed that 45%-55% of the motivational problems to shortcuts were explained by the selected structural model.

Keywords: Psychology; Safety engineering; Sociology.

Fig. 1

Overview of suggested theory on motivational problem to shortcut and it is developed based on supplied information from literature.

Fig. 2

Details of basic conceptual model as theoretical framework developed from literature findings.

Fig. 3

The alternative conceptual model having moderated mediation effects.

Fig. 4

Development of the basic model for the Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Fig. 5

Unstandardized regression weights of the estimated basic structural model.

Fig. 6

Graphical representation of model with interacted latent factor.

Fig. 7

Interaction in causal path between: A) STE and RPBE comparison with B) STE and MPS.

Fig. 8

Graphical representation of the standardized estimates of the confirmed basic model.