SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Karaelmas İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

Normative Perceptions of Management Responsibilities in Occupational Health and Safety: A Scale Development Study Among Undergraduate Students of a Faculty of Health Sciences

İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliğinde Yönetim Sorumluluklarına İlişkin Normatif Algı Ölçeği: Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Lisans Öğrencilerinde Ölçek Geliştirme Çalışması

Mehpare Tatlı Yöndem(ZONGULDAK BÜLENT ECEVİT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-0919-162X
Pages
133–147
Publication Date
2026-08-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The internal consistency of the scale was found to be high at both the overall scale and sub-dimension levels, and the criteria for convergent and discriminant validity were satisfied.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Bu The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable scale to measure undergraduate health sciences students’ normative perceptions regarding the responsibilities they attribute to organisational management levels in the field of occupational health and safety (OHS).
📊
Key Findings & Data:In examining the construct validity of the measurement instrument, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, as well as reliability analyses, were conducted using data obtained from 252 undergraduate health sciences students.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The internal consistency of the scale was found to be high at both the overall scale and sub-dimension levels, and the criteria for convergent and discriminant validity were satisfied.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği · Yönetim Sorumluluğu · Normatif Algı

Abstract

Bu The aim of this study is to develop a valid and reliable scale to measure undergraduate health sciences students’ normative perceptions regarding the responsibilities they attribute to organisational management levels in the field of occupational health and safety (OHS). Within the scope of the study, the scale item pool, structured on the basis of the safety culture literature, approaches to managerial responsibilities, and relevant legislation, was examined in terms of face, content, and construct validity. In examining the construct validity of the measurement instrument, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, as well as reliability analyses, were conducted using data obtained from 252 undergraduate health sciences students. The results of the confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the model demonstrated acceptable to good fit. All factor loadings were statistically significant and above the recommended threshold values. The internal consistency of the scale was found to be high at both the overall scale and sub-dimension levels, and the criteria for convergent and discriminant validity were satisfied. As a result of the analyses, the measurement model of the Normative Perception of Management Responsibilities in Occupational Health and Safety (NMPR-OHS) Scale, consisting of 18 items and four sub-dimensions, was confirmed. The sub-dimensions of the scale were identified as Management Systems and Policies (MSP), Personnel Training and Information (PTI), Safety Culture Behaviour (SCB), and Equipment and Resource Management (ERM). The findings indicate that health sciences students evaluate managerial responsibility in occupational health and safety within a multidimensional and structured normative framework. The developed scale provides a valid measurement tool that may be useful for evaluating educational content and for examining relationships between normative perceptions and variables such as safety behaviours and organisational attitudes.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, sağlık disiplini lisans öğrencilerinin iş sağlığı ve güvenliği (İSG) konusunda, kurumların yönetim kademelerine atfettikleri sorumluluklara ilişkin normatif algılarını ölçmeye yönelik geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek geliştirmektir. Çalışma kapsamında, güvenlik kültürü yazını, yönetim sorumluluklarına ilişkin yaklaşımlar ve mevzuatlar temelinde yapılandırılan ölçek madde havuzu; yüzey, içerik ve yapı geçerliliği bakımından incelenmiştir. Ölçüm aracı yapısal geçerliliğinin incelenmesinde 252 sağlık disiplini lisans öğrencisinin verileri üzerinden açımlayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri ile güvenilirlik analizleri gerçekleştirilmiştir. Doğrulayıcı faktör analizi bulguları, modelin kabul edilebilir–iyi düzeyde uyum sergilediğini göstermiştir. Tüm maddelerin faktör yükleri, anlamlı ve önerilen eşiklerin üzerindedir. Ölçeğin iç tutarlılığı ölçek geneli ve alt boyutlar düzeyinde yüksek bulunmuş, yakınsak ve ayrışan geçerlilik kriterleri sağlanmıştır. Analizler sonucunda 18 madde ve dört alt boyuttan oluşan İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliğinde Yönetim Sorumlulukları’na ilişkin Normatif Algı (İSG-YSNA) Ölçüm Modeli doğrulanmıştır. Ölçek alt boyutları, Yönetim Sistemleri ve Politikalar (YSP), Personel Eğitimi ve Bilgilendirme (PEB), Güvenlik Kültürü Davranışı (GKD) ile Ekipman ve Kaynak Yönetimi (EKY) olarak saptanmıştır. Araştırma sonuçları, sağlık disiplini öğrencilerinin iş sağlığı ve güvenliğinde yönetim sorumluluğunu çok boyutlu ve yapılandırılmış bir normatif çerçeve içinde değerlendirdiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Geliştirilen ölçek, eğitim içeriklerinin değerlendirilmesi ve normatif algılar ile güvenlik davranışları ve örgütsel tutumlar gibi değişkenler arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesinde kullanışlı olabilecek geçerli bir ölçüm aracı sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Yöndem, M. T. (2026). Normative Perceptions of Management Responsibilities in Occupational Health and Safety: A Scale Development Study Among Undergraduate Students of a Faculty of Health Sciences. Karaelmas İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 133–147. https://doi.org/10.33720/kisgd.1893847

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (41)

  1. J. Reason, Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents, London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, ilk baskı: 1997, yeniden basım: 2016. doi: 10.4324/9781315543543
  2. C. E. Sammer, K. Lykens, K. P. Singh, D. A. Mains ve N. A. Lackan, “What is patient safety culture? A review of the literature,” Journal of Nursing Scholarship, c. 42, sy. 2, ss. 156–165, 2010, doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2009.01330.x.
  3. International Labour Organization, Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems (ILO-OSH 2001), Geneva: ILO, 2001.
  4. N. Ulutasdemir, M. Cirpan, E. Ozturk Copur, and F. Tanir, “Occupational risks of health professionals in Turkey as an emerging economy,” Annals of Global Health, vol. 81, no. 4, pp. 522–529, Jul.–Aug. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.aogh.2015.08.019.
  5. G. Alpagut, “6331 Sayılı İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Kanunu’nun genel esasları,” Journal of Istanbul University Law Faculty, c. 72, sy. 2, ss. 31–45, 2014.
  6. S. Eyi ve İ. Eyi, “Nursing students’ occupational health and safety problems in surgical clinical practice,” SAGE Open, c. 10, sy. 1, 2020, doi: 10.1177/2158244020901801.
  7. M. Talas, “Occupational exposure to blood and body fluids among Turkish nursing students during clinical practice training: frequency of needlestick/sharp injuries and hepatitis B immunisation,” Journal of Clinical Nursing, c. 18, sy. 10, ss. 1394–1403, 2009, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02523.x.
  8. Z. Irmak ve M.S. Baybuga, “Needlestick and sharps injuries among Turkish nursing students: A cross-sectional study,” International Journal of Nursing Practice, c. 17, sy. 2, ss. 151–157, 2011, doi: 10.1111/j.1440-172X.2011.01920.x
  9. X. Xu, Y. Yin, H. Wang ve F. Wang, “Prevalence of needle-stick injury among nursing students: A systematic review and meta-analysis,” Frontiers in Public Health, c. 10, Makale no. 937887, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.937887.
  10. E. Vaquero-Álvarez, A. Cubero-Atienza, M. P. Martínez-Jiménez, M. Vaquero-Abellán, M. D. Redel-Macías ve P. Aparicio-Martínez, “Occupational safety and health training for undergraduate nursing students: A Spanish Pilot,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, c. 17, sy. 22, Makale no. 8381, 2020, doi: 10.3390/ijerph17228381.
  11. I. Ajzen, Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior, Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 1988.
  12. I. Ajzen, “The theory of planned behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, c. 50, sy. 2, ss. 179–211, 1991, doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
  13. I. Ajzen, “Nature and operation of attitudes,” Annual Review of Psychology, c. 52, ss. 27–58, 2001, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.27.
  14. S. J. Singer, D. M. Gaba, A. Falwell, S. Lin, J. Hayes ve L. Baker, “Patient safety climate in 92 US hospitals,” Medical Care, c. 47, sy. 1, ss. 23–31, 2009, doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31817e189d.
  15. I. U. Mistri, A. Badge ve S. Shahu, “Enhancing patient safety culture in hospitals,” Cureus, c. 15, sy. 12, s. e51159, 2023, doi: 10.7759/cureus.51159.
  16. S. Dursun, İş Güvenliği Kültürü: Kavram, Modeller ve Uygulama, İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi, 2012.
  17. F. W. Guldenmund, “The nature of safety culture,” Safety Science, c. 34, sy. 1-3, ss. 215–257, 2000, doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00014-X.
  18. Z. F. Olcay, “İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Kültürü Ölçeği; Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması,” Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, sy (23), ss. 678-685., 2021. doi: 10.31590/ejosat.892845
  19. P. A. Kines vd., “Nordic Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50),” International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, c. 41, sy. 6, ss. 634–646, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2011.08.004.
  20. G. O. Boateng, T. B. Neilands, E. A. Frongillo, H. R. Melgar-Quiñonez ve S. L. Young, “Best practices for developing and validating scales,” Frontiers in Public Health, c. 6, Makale no. 149, 2018, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149.
  21. C. H. Lawshe, “A quantitative approach to content validity,” Personnel Psychology, c. 28, sy. 4, ss. 563–575, 1975. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x.
  22. A. P. Field, Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows: Advanced Techniques for Beginners, London: Sage, 2000.
  23. D. George ve P. Mallery, SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 11.0 Update, 4. bs., Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2003.
  24. B. G. Tabachnick ve L. S. Fidell, Using Multivariate Statistics, 6. bs., Boston: Pearson, 2013.
  25. H. F. Kaiser, “An index of factorial simplicity,” Psychometrika, c. 39, sy. 1, ss. 31–36, 1974, doi: 10.1007/BF02291575.
  26. J. F. Hair Jr., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin ve R. E. Anderson, Multivariate Data Analysis, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/ Prentice Hall, 2010.
  27. D. Hooper, J. Coughlan ve M. R. Mullen, “Structural Equation Modelling: Guidelines for Determining Model Fit,” Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, c. 6, sy. 1, ss. 53–60, 2008.
  28. L. Hu ve P. M. Bentler, “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes,” Structural Equation Modeling, c. 6, sy. 1, ss. 1–55, 1999, doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118.
  29. C. Fornell ve D. F. Larcker, “Evaluating structural equation models,” Journal of Marketing Research, c. 18, sy. 1, ss. 39–50, 1981, doi: 10.2307/3151312.
  30. J. F. Hair, M. Gabriel ve V. Patel, “AMOS Covariance-Based Structural Equation Modeling (CB-SEM): Guidelines on Its Application as a Marketing Research Tool” Brazilian Journal of Marketing, c. 13, sy. (2), ss. 44-55, 2014. doi: 10.5585/remark.v13i2.2718
  31. R. L. Ebel, Essentials of Educational Measurement, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1979.
  32. N. E. Gronlund, Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching, New York: Macmillan, 1985.
  33. P. Kline, An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis, London: Routledge, 2014, doi: 10.4324/9781315788135.
  34. M. N. Vinodkumar ve M. Bhasi, “Safety management practices and safety behaviour,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, c. 42, sy. 6, ss. 2082–2093, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.06.021.
  35. Y. Yousefi vd., “Validity assessment of NOSACQ-50,” Safety and Health at Work, c. 7, sy. 4, ss. 326–330, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2016.03.003.
  36. D. U. Türen, D. Y. Gökmen, D. I. Tokmak ve D. M. Bekmezci, “Güvenlik iklimi ölçeğinin geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışması,” SDÜ İİBF Dergisi, c. 19, sy. 4, ss. 171–190, 2014.
  37. M. J. Burke, S. A. Sarpy, K. Smith-Crowe, S. Chan-Serafin, R. O. Salvador ve G. Islam, “Relative effectiveness of worker safety and health training methods,” American Journal of Public Health, c. 96, sy. 2, ss. 315–324, 2006, doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2004.059840.
  38. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), AHRQ Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture: Version 2.0 User’s Guide, Rockville, MD, Sep. 2019, AHRQ Publication No. 19-0076.
  39. International Labour Organization, Occupational Safety and Health Convention (No. 155), Geneva: ILO, 1981.
  40. J. B. Sexton vd., “The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire: psychometric properties, benchmarking data, and emerging research” BMC Health Services Research, c. 6, s. 44, 2006, doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-44.
  41. Z. F. Olcay, “İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Kültürü Ölçeği; Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması,” Avrupa Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi, sy (23), ss. 678-685., 2021. doi: 10.31590/ejosat.892845