Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
Highlights
-
The study’s objective was to examine the impact of Foundations for Safety Leadership (FSL) training on supervisors’ leadership skills and jobsite safety practices of workers in a set of construction companies of different sizes.
-
The study was implemented as a quasi-experimental study design that collected survey data before and after the intervention. Participating companies were randomly assigned to be in either the treatment group, who received FSL training in the initial phase of rollout, or a lagged-control group, who received FSL training at a later point. Survey data were collected at four time points for each group, two prior to the intervention and two post intervention. However, not all data were involved in the analysis to address the research questions. This affected the study design used to answer the search questions.
-
The study found that leaders increased their use of safety practices two weeks after participating in the training.
-
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not account for participants’ anticipation of the study, did not demonstrate the similarity of the two groups before the intervention, and collected data at too few time points, all of which could influence the impact of the intervention. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to FSL; other factors are likely to have contributed.
Intervention Examined
Foundations for Safety leadership (FSL)
Features of the Intervention
The intervention was delivered as a 2.5-hour training course designed to improve the job safety practices of construction industry workers. The intervention was a part of the OSHA’s 30-hour safety training for the health professionals from construction companies.
Features of the Study
The study used a quasi-experimental prospective switching replications design, with some groups receiving training at an earlier phase (the treatment group) and some at a later phase (the comparison group). A total of 20 construction companies were recruited from three regions in the U.S. to participate in the study. The companies in each location were randomly assigned to either the early intervention group or lagged-control group. There were 169 leaders and 809 workers recruited in the early intervention group, and 117 leaders and 364 workers in the lagged-control group.
Both groups completed pretests, then the early group was given the training and both groups completed another survey (wave 1). After that, the comparison group received the training while the early group served as the control group (wave 2). Leaders in the early intervention group completed surveys immediately before and after the training, and two weeks and four weeks after completing the training. Leaders in the lagged-control group completed surveys four weeks prior to, immediately before and after the training, as well as two weeks after training. However, not all waves were used in the analysis. To test the effect of the training (hypothesis 1 and 2), the study compared the early group to the lagged-control group in wave 1. To test the post-training effects at four weeks compared to two weeks after the training, the post-training data from the early intervention group was analyzed, with no comparison group.
Participants were primary white males, with the average age between 38 and 45 years.
Findings
-
The study found that the leaders showed increased use of safety practices two weeks after participating in the training.
-
There was no statistically significant effect on leaders’ crew-reporting safety-related conditions.
-
There was no significant change in the worker-reported outcomes or post training outcome improvement in the workers’ data.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
Several considerations should inform the interpretation of findings. First, although the authors examined the outcomes measures before the training and no significant difference were found on the pretest measures, the study did not check for differences in age between the two groups, nor was age included in the analysis model. Second, it is likely that the sample members could have anticipated the intervention and changed their safety leadership or behaviors prior to participating in the training; this is not addressed in the research design.
Third, the study authors estimated multiple related impacts on outcomes related to the domain of Health and Safety: leaders’ use of safety practices, leaders’ crews’ reporting of safety-related conditions, worker-reported safety climate, worker-reported safety practices, and worker-reported safety-related conditions. The study design did not adjust for multiple comparisons. Fourth, the unit of assignment was an entire company, such that leaders were nested within companies, and workers were nested within leaders, but the analysis did not account for the nesting effects.
Finally, in comparing four week post-intervention outcomes to two week post-intervention outcomes for the early intervention group, the design did not account for the possibility of increasing or decreasing trends in the outcomes prior to enrollment in the program. That is, if participants who had increasing trends before the intervention got enrolled in the program, we would anticipate further increases over time, even if they did not participate in the program. Without knowing the trends before program enrollment (by observing outcomes at multiple time points prior to enrollment), we cannot rule this out.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not account for participants’ anticipation of the study, did not demonstrate the similarity of the two groups before the intervention, and collected data at too few time points, all of which could influence the impact of the intervention. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to FSL; other factors are likely to have contributed.