The discussion sessions should be seen as the first step in a subsequent work process, that of the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle , which constitutes organizational learning and action for continuous improvement. It is important that the discussions enable participation among employees as this will enhance commitment and motivation to learn and make changes when needed. The discussion group would benefit from having members from different areas of the organization to improve the ability to speculate constructively about safety culture results and future actions. It is imperative that the issues identified are taken seriously by the management and employees and that effort are made to come up
with solutions. Otherwise, overall motivation and commitment among questionnaire respondents will most likely decrease. The Methods and material section presented the work process which includes five
steps that enables the analysis signaling pathway and interpretation of the relationships between safety culture aspects. The results from applying the different steps on safety culture questionnaire data will be presented here. However, for Step 1. Compilation of safety culture aspects see Section 3.2. In the questionnaire dataset, on average 2.7% of the entries per questionnaire item were missing. On 98% of the items, the frequency of non-response was below 10% and on 83% of the items, the non-response Selleck Doxorubicin was below 5%. Even if the overall frequency of missing data was quite low, it is important to accurately estimate the missing values since this might influence the results in a way that is difficult to acknowledge when the results are later interpreted. The pattern of missing data was first analyzed for signs of independence of other variables in the dataset by use of Little’s MCAR test . The result was statistically significant on the 0.001-level (χ2=20838, DF=20152) and therefore the test failed to prove that the missing data were randomly distributed across the dataset. acetylcholine To check
the significance of background variables a MANOVA was performed which showed statistical significance on a number of background variables inferring that the missing data was not missing at random. It was concluded that multiple imputation should be used to approximate the missing data. However, in this case, it was possible to perform the cluster analyses on only a single imputation if there were no statistical significant differences between the covariance matrixes of the different imputations. Therefore, Box’s M test was performed to investigate this using three imputations and also using a dataset where the missing data was estimated using the expectation maximization (EM) technique. The result was highly non-significant (p=1.000) (Box’s M=1356.2, F=0.067, df1=18315, df2=9232421) concluding that either dataset could be used in the cluster analyses.