東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

United States Coast Guard Aviation S...

Cooley, James Robert.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

United States Coast Guard Aviation Safety Climate Assessment Instrument.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	United States Coast Guard Aviation Safety Climate Assessment Instrument./
Author:	Cooley, James Robert.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2023,
Description:	168 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-12, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International84-12B.
Subject:	Military studies. -
Online resource:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30425223
ISBN:	9798379691417

United States Coast Guard Aviation Safety Climate Assessment Instrument.
Cooley, James Robert.

United States Coast Guard Aviation Safety Climate Assessment Instrument. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2023 - 168 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-12, Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of North Dakota, 2023.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) implemented an aviation safety survey prior to this research (ver. 0). Cooley (2019) uncovered opportunities to improve the survey's validity, creating a psychometrically-sound safety climate instrument. Inconsistencies with what and how to measure safety climates still exist in the corpus of literature. More attention is needed on safety management systems' (SMS) predictive metrics, particularly for Coast Guard aviation outfits throughout the world. This research study used an exploratory sequential mixed methods design followed by an additional phase of quantitative research methods. Extensive deliberation with USCG stakeholders produced survey research questions, guiding the survey design (ver. 1). After one survey campaign, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted, resulting in a second version of the safety climate assessment instrument (ver. 2). T-Tests and ANOVAs were performed to determine differences in survey demographics. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted after the second survey campaign to verify the survey validity. A MANOVA test was conducted to examine the effect of survey ver. 2's demographics (independent variables) on the survey's constructs (the dependent variables). Survey constructs were then used as independent and dependent variables for{A0}regression analyses. Lastly, multiple regressions were conducted with survey constructs and mishap data to address hypotheses that positive survey responses are commensurate with low mishap rates. The EFA results suggested a consolidation from eight to five aviation constructs, as well as consolidating items that were split based on demographic. T-Tests of ver. 1 demographics indicated significant differences between the highest and lowest scoring groups per analyzed demographic. An ANOVA was conducted on the demographic with the most groups, Air Stations (units). Approximately 2/3 of the air stations differed significantly from the others. CFA results suggest that the five-construct model of ver. 2 had better fit indices than consolidating all survey items onto a single construct. Further, ver. 2 could be improved upon by removing survey items, itemized in Chapter 3. From the MANOVA, the survey's demographics had a significant main effect on the survey's constructs. For regression analyses, the Just & Reporting Culture (JRC) and Safety Leadership constructs had significant positive effects on the Risk Management (RM) construct. The interaction effect between JRC and Safety Leadership was also significant. Statistical significance varied between the survey and mishap data; RM had significance, with a negative relationship indicating that as RM is scored higher on the survey (per unit and per asset), mishap counts decreased. RM and JRC significantly predicted total mishap counts, human factors-related mishap counts, and Operational Hazard Reports; RM had a positive relationship, while JRC had a negative relationship.{A0}

ISBN: 9798379691417Subjects--Topical Terms:

2197382
Military studies.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Coast Guard aviation

United States Coast Guard Aviation Safety Climate Assessment Instrument.
LDR:04269nmm a2200409 4500 001 2395011
005 20240513060759.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 251215s2023 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798379691417
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30425223
035 $a AAI30425223
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Cooley, James Robert. $3 3764510
245 1 0 $a United States Coast Guard Aviation Safety Climate Assessment Instrument.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2023
300 $a 168 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-12, Section: B.
500 $a Advisor: Dusenbury, Mark J.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--The University of North Dakota, 2023.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a The United States Coast Guard (USCG) implemented an aviation safety survey prior to this research (ver. 0). Cooley (2019) uncovered opportunities to improve the survey's validity, creating a psychometrically-sound safety climate instrument. Inconsistencies with what and how to measure safety climates still exist in the corpus of literature. More attention is needed on safety management systems' (SMS) predictive metrics, particularly for Coast Guard aviation outfits throughout the world. This research study used an exploratory sequential mixed methods design followed by an additional phase of quantitative research methods. Extensive deliberation with USCG stakeholders produced survey research questions, guiding the survey design (ver. 1). After one survey campaign, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted, resulting in a second version of the safety climate assessment instrument (ver. 2). T-Tests and ANOVAs were performed to determine differences in survey demographics. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted after the second survey campaign to verify the survey validity. A MANOVA test was conducted to examine the effect of survey ver. 2's demographics (independent variables) on the survey's constructs (the dependent variables). Survey constructs were then used as independent and dependent variables for{A0}regression analyses. Lastly, multiple regressions were conducted with survey constructs and mishap data to address hypotheses that positive survey responses are commensurate with low mishap rates. The EFA results suggested a consolidation from eight to five aviation constructs, as well as consolidating items that were split based on demographic. T-Tests of ver. 1 demographics indicated significant differences between the highest and lowest scoring groups per analyzed demographic. An ANOVA was conducted on the demographic with the most groups, Air Stations (units). Approximately 2/3 of the air stations differed significantly from the others. CFA results suggest that the five-construct model of ver. 2 had better fit indices than consolidating all survey items onto a single construct. Further, ver. 2 could be improved upon by removing survey items, itemized in Chapter 3. From the MANOVA, the survey's demographics had a significant main effect on the survey's constructs. For regression analyses, the Just & Reporting Culture (JRC) and Safety Leadership constructs had significant positive effects on the Risk Management (RM) construct. The interaction effect between JRC and Safety Leadership was also significant. Statistical significance varied between the survey and mishap data; RM had significance, with a negative relationship indicating that as RM is scored higher on the survey (per unit and per asset), mishap counts decreased. RM and JRC significantly predicted total mishap counts, human factors-related mishap counts, and Operational Hazard Reports; RM had a positive relationship, while JRC had a negative relationship.{A0}
590 $a School code: 0156.
650 4 $a Military studies. $3 2197382
650 4 $a Statistics. $3 517247
650 4 $a Aerospace engineering. $3 1002622
653 $a Coast Guard aviation
653 $a Mishaps
653 $a Safety climate assessment
653 $a Safety culture assessment
653 $a Safety predictive statistics
690 $a 0750
690 $a 0354
690 $a 0538
690 $a 0463
710 2 $a The University of North Dakota. $b Aerospace Sciences. $3 3694376
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 84-12B.
790 $a 0156
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2023
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30425223