Skip to main content
PMC home page
Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique logoLink to Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique
. 2010 Mar 1;101(Suppl 1):S34–S40. doi: 10.1007/BF03403844

Measurement Properties of Occupational Health and Safety Management Audits: A Systematic Literature Search and Traditional Literature Synthesis

Lynda S Robson 16,✉, Philip L Bigelow 16,26
PMCID: PMC6973820  PMID: 20629445

Abstract

Objective

The measurement properties of Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) management audits might be important in some applications, especially when audit scores are treated as performance measures. The review, therefore, sought to identify and summarize the research evidence on the measurement properties (e.g., reliability, validity) of methods of OHS management audit.

Methods

Bibliographic databases in business, medicine and OHS were systematically searched. Evidence from relevant publications was synthesized using traditional narrative review methods.

Synthesis

The literature on the measurement properties of OHS management audit methods is sparse. Seventeen relevant audit methods were identified. Content validity was demonstrated for only five audit methods. Inter-rater reliability was formally tested for only three audit methods and construct validity for only one. There were no studies of test-retest reliability or responsiveness. The investigations of inter-rater reliability (i.e., consistency among auditors) showed that it is often unacceptably low.

Conclusion

There is a research gap concerning the measurement properties of OHS management audit methods. The available research raises questions about the properties of audit methods in current use.

Key words: Accident prevention, management audit, occupational health, reproducibility of results, safety management, validation studies

Footnotes

Acknowledgement: The Institute for Work & Health receives core funding from the Workplace Safety & Insurance Board of Ontario (WSIB). The review was also supported in part by the WSIB Prevention Reviews initiative. The authors appreciate the key support of the library staff, particularly Emma Irvin and Rachel Couban, and the administrative assistance of Diana Pugliese.

Conflict of Interest: None to declare.

References

  • 1.Canadian Standards Association. CSA Z1000-06. Occupational Health and Safety Management. Mississauga, ON: CSA; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.International Labour Organization. Meeting of Experts on ILO Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems: Final Report. Geneva: International Labour Organization; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.OHSAS 18001:2007. Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems–Requirements. London: OHSAS Project Group; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Karapetrovic S, Willborn W. Generic audit of management systems: Fundamentals. Managerial Auditing J. 2000;15(6):279–94. doi: 10.1108/02686900010344287. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Waring A. Safety Management Systems. London: Chapman & Hall; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nash JL. Who is auditing your safety auditors? Occup Haz. 2005;67(7):31–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Grant J, Brown D. The inspector cometh. Cdn HR Reporter. 2005;18(2):13. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Robson LS, Macdonald S, Van Eerd D, Gray G, Bigelow P. Prevention System OHS Management Audit Methods: Description, Content Validation and an Assessment of the Feasibility of Measurement Research. Toronto, ON: Institute for Work & Health; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Workplace SafetyInsurance Board of Ontario. The Safety Groups Program. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Government of Alberta. What is a Certificate of Recognition? 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.WorkSafe BC. (the Workers’ Compensation Board of BC). Partners Program (COR) 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Workplace Health . Safety & Compensation Commission of Newfoundland and Labrador. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.EUSA . Zeroquest. Introduction. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.NEPCon. OHSAS 18001 certification. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Workplace SafetyInsurance Board of Ontario. Workwell. 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Robson LS, Clarke JA, Cullen K, Bielecky A, Severin C, Bigelow PL, et al. The effectiveness of occupational health and safety management system interventions: A systematic review. Safety Sci. 2007;45(2):329–53. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2006.07.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bigelow PL, Greenstein SL, Keefe TJ, Gilkey DP. Development of an on-site, behavior-based safety audit for the residential construction industry. Work. 1998;11:11–20. doi: 10.1016/S1051-9815(98)00025-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Laitinen H, Marjamaki M, Paivarinta K. The validity of the TR safety observation method on building construction. Accid Anal Prev. 1999;31:463–72. doi: 10.1016/S0001-4575(98)00084-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Straker L, Burgess-Limerick R, Pollock C, Egeskov R. A randomized and controlled trial of a participative ergonomics intervention to reduce injuries associated with manual tasks: Physical risk and legislative compliance. Ergonomics. 2004;47(2):166–88. doi: 10.1080/00140130310001617949. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Guldenmund F, Hale A, Goosens L, Betten J, Duijm NJ. The development of an audit technique to assess the quality of safety barrier management. J Hazard Mater. 2006;130:234–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2005.07.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hale AR, Heming BHJ, Smit K, Rodenburg F, Van Leeuwen ND. Evaluating safety in the management of maintenance activities in the chemical process industry. Safety Sci. 1998;28(1):21–44. doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00061-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hee DD, Pickrell BD, Bea RG, Roberts KH, Williamson RB. Safety management assessment system (SMAS): A process for identifying and evaluating human and organization factors in marine system operations with field test results. Reliab Eng Syst Safe. 1999;65:125–40. doi: 10.1016/S0951-8320(98)00095-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hurst NW, Hankin R, Bellamy LJ, Wright MJJ. Auditing–a European perspective. J Loss Prevent Proc. 1994;7(2):197–200. doi: 10.1016/0950-4230(94)80037-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Papazoglou IA, Bellamy LJ, Hale AR, Aneziris ON, Ale BJM, Post JG, et al. I-risk: Development of an integrated technical and management risk methodology for chemical installations. J Loss Prevent Proc. 2003;16(6):575–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2003.08.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Pitblado R, Williams JC, Slater DH. Quantitative assessment of process safety programs. Plant/Operations Prog. 1990;9(3):169–75. doi: 10.1002/prsb.720090317. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Bigelow PL, Robson LS. Occupational Health and Safety Management Audit Instruments: A Literature Review. Toronto, ON: Institute for Work & Health; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Diekemper RF, Spartz DA. ASSE J. 1970. A quantitative and qualitative measurement of industrial safety activities; pp. 12–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kuusisto A. Safety management systems: Audit tools and reliability of auditing [dissertation] Tampere, Finland: Tampere University of Technology; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Uusitalo T, Mattila M. Evaluation of industrial safety practices in five industries. In: Mital A, editor. Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety. London: Taylor & Francis; 1989. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Eisner HS, Leger JP. The international safety rating system in South African mining. J Occup Accid. 1988;10:141–60. doi: 10.1016/0376-6349(88)90028-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Eisner HS. Safety rating systems in South African mines. J Health Safety. 1993;9:25–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Guastello SJ. Some further evaluations of the International Safety Rating System. Safety Sci. 1991;14:253–59. doi: 10.1016/0925-7535(91)90026-I. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Collison JE, Booth RT. An evaluation of two proprietary health and safety auditing systems. J Health Safety. 1993;9:31–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Gaunt LD. The Effect of the International Safety Rating System (I.S.R.S.) on Organizational Performance. Georgia: Center for Risk Management and Insurance Research, Georgia State University; 1989. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Chaplin R. An evaluation of the use of the International Safety Rating System (ISRS) as intervention to improve the organisation of safety. In: Hale A, Baram M, editors. Safety Management: The Challenge of Change. Oxford: Pergamon; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Glendon AI, Boyle AJ, Hewitt DM. Computerized health and safety audit systems. In: Matilla M, Karwowski W, editors. Computer Applications in Ergonomics, Occupational Safety and Health. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Dyjack DT. Development and evaluation of an ISO 9000-harmonized occupational health and safety management system [dissertation] Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Dyjack DT, Levine SP, Holtshouser JL, Schork MA. Comparison of AIHA ISO 9001-based occupational health and safety management system guidance document with a manufacturer’s occupational health and safety assessment instrument. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1998;59(6):419–29. doi: 10.1080/15428119891010686. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Alteren B, Hovden J. The Safety Element Method–a user developed tool for improvement of safety management. Safety Sci Monitor. 1997;1(3):1–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Alteren B. Implementation and evaluation of the Safety Element Method at four mining sites. Safety Sci. 1999;31:231–64. doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(98)00069-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Dyjack DT, Redinger CF, Ridge RS. Health and safety management system audit reliability pilot project. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 2003;64(6):785–91. doi: 10.1080/15428110308984873. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Redinger CF. Occupational health and safety management system conformity assessment: Development and evaluation of a universal assessment instrument [dissertation] Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Redinger CF, Levine SP. Development and evaluation of the Michigan occupational health and safety management system assessment instrument: A universal OHSMS performance measurement tool. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1998;59:572–81. doi: 10.1080/15428119891010758. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Redinger CF, Levine SP, Blotzer MJ, Majewski MP. Evaluation of an occupational health and safety management system performance measurement tool–II: Scoring methods and field study sites. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 2002;63(1):34–40. doi: 10.1080/15428110208984689. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Redinger CF, Levine SP, Blotzer MJ, Majewski MP. Evaluation of an occupational health and safety management system performance measurement tool–III: Measurement of initiation elements. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 2002;63(1):41–46. doi: 10.1080/15428110208984690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Kam YK, Wong YY. Introduction to SMA-CON: Safety audit for construction. In: Zeng Q, Xie X, Wang L, Qian X, editors. Progress in Safety Science & Technology, v 1, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Safety Science and Technology. Beijing: Science Press; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Schweigert MK, House RA, Holness DL. Occupational health and safety management systems in the Canadian pulp and paper industry: Methods of auditing. J Occup Environ Med. 1999;41(10):857–62. doi: 10.1097/00043764-199910000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Fuller C. Benchmarking health and safety performance through company safety competitions. Benchmarking: an Intl J. 1999;6(4):325–37. doi: 10.1108/14635779910297424. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Booth RT, Lee TR. The role of human factors and safety culture in safety management. Proc Instn Mech Engrs. 1995;209(B5):393–400. doi: 10.1243/PIME_PROC_1995_209_098_02. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Pearse W. Club Zero: Implementing OHS management systems in small to medium fabricated metal product companies. In: Pearse W, Gallagher C, Bluff L, editors. Occupational Health & Safety Management Systems. Proceedings of the First National Conference. Melbourne: Crown Content; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Pearse W. Club Zero: Implementing OHSMS in small to medium fabricated metal product companies. J Occup Health Safety - Aust NZ. 2002;18(4):347–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Bunn WB, Pikelny DB, Slavin TJ, Parlkar S. Health, safety, and productivity in a manufacturing environment. J Occup Environ Med. 2001;43(1):47–55. doi: 10.1097/00043764-200101000-00010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.LaMontagne AD, Barbeau E, Youngstrom RA, Lewiton M, Stoddard AM, McLellan D, et al. Assessing and intervening on OSH programmes: Effectiveness evaluation of the Wellworks-2 interventions in 15 manufacturing worksites. J Occup Environ Med. 2004;61(8):651–60. doi: 10.1136/oem.2003.011718. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Teo EAL, Ling FYY. Developing a model to measure the effectiveness of safety management systems of construction sites. Build Environ. 2006;41:1584–92. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.06.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Nielsen KJ, Rasmussen K, Glasscock D, Spangenberg S. Changes in safety climate and accidents at two identical manufacturing plants. Safety Sci. 2008;46(3):440–49. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2007.05.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, Van Der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:193–205. doi: 10.1023/A:1015291021312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74. doi: 10.2307/2529310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Gouttebarge V, Haije Wind H, Kuijer PPFM, Frings-Dresen MHW. Reliability and validity of functional capacity evaluation methods: A systematic review with reference to Blankenship system, Ergos work simulator, Ergo-Kit and Isernhagen work system. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2004;77:527–37. doi: 10.1007/s00420-004-0549-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Matheson A, Mughal W, Thomas-Olson L, Spiwak R, Wasdell M. Inter-rater reliability assessment of an OH&S management systems audit tool; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Gillette D, Campbell P, Busby B. The evolution of a radiation safety audit program for a research institution. Health Phys. 2004;86(2):S80–S84. doi: 10.1097/00004032-200405002-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Birkmire JC, Lay JR, McMahon MC. Keys to effective third-party process safety audits. J Hazard Mater. 2007;142:574–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.06.065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Budworth N C S T t tools. Safety Health Pract. 2005;23(7):46–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Cooper D. Safety management system auditing. In: Cooper D, editor. Improving Safety Culture–A Practical Guide. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Henriksson L. Looking for gold. OHS Canada. 1998;12:48–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.International Organization for Standardization ISO. ISO 19011: Guidelines for quality and/or environmental management systems auditing. Geneva (Switzerland): ISO; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Karapetrovic S, Willborn W. Quality assurance and effectiveness of audit systems. Int J Qual Reliability Manage. 2000;17(6):679–703. doi: 10.1108/02656710010315256. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Grant J, Bricker R, Shiptsova R. Audit quality and professional self-regulation: A social dilemma perspective and laboratory investigation. Auditing: J Pract Theor. 1996;15(1):142–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Messier WF, Jr, Kachelmeier SJ, Jensen KL. An experimental assessment of recent professional developments in nonstatistical audit sampling guidance. Auditing: J Pract Theor. 2001;20(1):81–96. doi: 10.2308/aud.2001.20.1.81. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Meyer MJ, Rigsby JT, Boone J. The impact of auditor-client relationships on the reversal of first-time audit qualifications. Managerial Accounting J. 2007;22(1):53–79. doi: 10.1108/02686900710715648. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Mohd-Sanusi Z, Mohd-Iskandar T. Audit judgment performance: Assessing the effect of performance incentives, effort and task complexity. Managing Auditing J. 2007;22(1):34–52. doi: 10.1108/02686900710715639. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Nelson M, Tan H-T. Judgment and decision making research in auditing: A task, person, and interpersonal interaction perspective. Auditing: J Pract Theor. 2005;24(Suppl):41–71. doi: 10.2308/aud.2005.24.Supplement.41. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.O’Leary C. The consistency of individual auditors in performing evaluations. Managing Auditing J. 2004;19(5):597–605. doi: 10.1108/02686900410537739. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Pflugrath G, Martinov-Bennie N, Chen L. The impact of codes of ethics and experience on auditor judgments. Managerial Auditing J. 2007;22(6):566–89. doi: 10.1108/02686900710759389. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Preuss L. On ethical theory in auditing. Managerial Auditing J. 1998;13(9):500–8. doi: 10.1108/02686909810245910. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Richard C. Why an auditor can’t be competent and independent: A French case study. Eur Account Rev. 2006;15(2):153–79. doi: 10.1080/09638180500104832. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Sweeney B, Pierce B. Management control in audit firms: A qualitative examination. Account Audit Accountability J. 2004;17(5):779–812. doi: 10.1108/09513570410567818. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C. Evaluating changes in health status: Reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(1):79–93. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00296-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Bot SD, Terwee CB, Van Der Windt DA, Bouter LM, Dekker J, de Vet HC. Clini-metric evaluation of shoulder disability questionnaires: A systematic review of the literature. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004;4:335–41. doi: 10.1136/ard.2003.007724. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Williams RM, Schmuck G, Allwood S, Sanchez M, Shea R, Wark G. Psychometric evaluation of health-related work outcome measures for muscu-loskeletal disorders: A systematic review. J Occup Rehab. 2007;17(3):504–21. doi: 10.1007/s10926-007-9093-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES