\
Pergamon
PII] S9992!3767"87#99968!8
Ann[ occup[ Hyg[\ Vol[ 32\ No[ 1\ pp[ 80Ð86\ 0888
Þ 0888 British Occupational Hygiene Society
Published by Elsevier Science Ltd[ All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain[
9992Ð3767:88 ,08[99¦9[99
Measuring Housekeeping in Manufacturing Industries
VINCENT M[ DUFORT and CLAIRE INFANTE!RIVARD
Department of Occupational Health\ McGill University\ Montreal\ Quebec\ Canada
This study involves the development and reliability evaluations of a checklist for measuring the
state of housekeeping in industry[ The instrument was tested in _fty!nine companies in the
transportation equipment and machinery manufacturing sector in Quebec\ Canada\ each employ!
ing between twenty and sixty workers[ The checklist walk!through procedure usually required
under thirty minutes[ For testÐretest reliability\ a total of 010 comparisons were made based on
visits made to the companies by one observer over the course of a year[ Results for visits made
closer together in time were more reproducible "Intra!class correlation\ ICC9[62# than for those
further apart in time "ICC9[44#[ The study also used alternate observers to test inter!observer
reliability[ Inter!observer reliability was high "ICC9[77#[ Ease of use\ time and effectiveness
makes the checklist an attractive tool for company health and safety personnel[ Þ 0888 British
Occupational Hygiene Society[ Published by Elsevier Science Ltd[ All rights reserved[
Keywords] housekeeping^ checklist
een item checklist evaluated housekeeping conditions[
Other studies separated housekeeping from behavior
or company organizational structure but used sum!
mary questions "i[e[\ rating housekeeping on a scale
of one to _ve# "Chew\ 0877^ Simonds and Shafai!
Sahrai\ 0866^ Smith et al[\ 0876#[
More recently\ in a series of quasi!experimental
studies examining the use of feedback for injury
reduction\ housekeeping evaluations have been used
to provide a marker for changes in the work environ!
ment "ILCI\ 0880^ Saarela\ 0878^ Saari and Nasanen\
0878#[ Detailed checklists and observation procedures
were designed to evaluate the level of housekeeping in
a well de_ned work area[ The results of the evaluations
were used to provide feedback to the workers on their
progress in improving the work environment[
However\ these measures were workplace!speci_c and
could not even be used to evaluate the level of house!
keeping in other departments within the same indus!
try[ The evaluations were also restricted to a few goals
that the intervention team had identi_ed as being eas!
ily changeable[
Researchers have classi_ed di}erent properties of
the work environment under the heading of house!
keeping[ In most studies\ housekeeping encompassed
aesthetic and organizational aspects as well as safety
hazards and compliance with safety regulations[ Other
studies also included subjective evaluations of lighting
and noise levels[ Most studies\ however\ failed to
de_ne housekeeping in any way[
In one textbook written for safety professionals\
housekeeping is stated to include the following items]
INTRODUCTION
Measurin` housekeepin`
The state of housekeeping in industry is thought
to re~ect\ to some extent\ levels of safety "Bird and
Germain\ 0889^ Saari and Nasanen\ 0878#[ One could
reasonably expect\ then\ that monitoring the levels of
housekeeping could serve to keep companies informed
of evolving safety conditions[ Although some methods
for evaluating the state of housekeeping have been
used in the past\ little attention has been paid to the
validity or reliability of these measurements[
Some researchers have produced measures that
assessed worker behaviors and workplace conditions
"Fellner and Sulzer!Azaro}\ 0873^ Reber and Wallin\
0872^ Rees\ 0856#\ but did not examine housekeeping
as a separate construct[ Aside from being unable to
distinguish between behavior and the work environ!
ment\ only one of the above studies "Rees\ 0856# con!
tained a comprehensive set of questions actually per!
taining to housekeeping[
Housekeeping behavior has also been studied as
a component of safety behavior "Reber and Wallin\
0872#\ yet the state of housekeeping as a workplace
condition was not always considered[ A study by Mat!
tila et al[ "0883#\ separated housekeeping from worker
behaviors\ but less than half of the items on the eight!
Received 13 June 0887^ in _nal form 4 November 0887[
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed[
Northeast Health Care Quality Found\ 04 Rollinsford Road\
Dover\ NH 92719!1729 U[S[A[ Tel[] ¦0!592!638!0530^ Fax]
¦0!592!638!0084^ E!mail] nhpro[vdufortÝsdps[org[
80
81
V[ M[ Dufort and C[ Infante!Rivard
{{Cluttered and poorly arranged areas[ Untidy and
dangerous piling of materials[ Items that are excess\
obsolete or no longer needed[ Blocked aisles[ Material
stu}ed in corners\ on overcrowded shelves\ in over!
~owing bins and containers[ Tools and equipment left
in work areas instead of being returned to tool rooms\
racks\ cribs or chests[ Broken containers and damaged
material[ Materials gathering dirt and rust from
disuse[ Excessive quantities of items[ Waste scrap and
excess materials that congest work areas[ Spills\ leaks
and hazardous materials creating safety and health
hazards[||
The evaluation of the state of housekeeping needs
to be improved[ Given its complexity\ proper evalu!
ation of housekeeping requires a checklist that does a
thorough job of measuring its many aspects in a var!
iety of workplaces rather than resorting to a general
subjective evaluation[ The model used for workplace!
speci_c evaluations "Bird and Germain\ 0889^ Nas!
anen and Saari\ 0876^ Saari and Nasanen\ 0878# serves
as a starting point for building an assessment tool for
evaluating housekeeping\ but it needs to be modi_ed
to be applicable in more than one workplace[
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study are to develop an instru!
ment for measuring housekeeping that is detailed and
applicable across companies and to evaluate the
instrument|s testÐretest and inter!observer reliability[
METHODS
De_nition of housekeepin`
In the present study\ housekeeping was de_ned as
the state of the workplace with regards to]
0[ organization*orderly and structured placement
and storage of tools\ equipment and materials^
1[ obstructions*lack of clutter\ clear access to work!
stations\ equipment^ and exits and
2[ cleanliness[
Checklist development
Previous examples of single workplace checklists
"Bird and Germain\ 0889^ Saari\ 0876^ Saari and Nas!
anen\ 0878# were used to guide the development of a
preliminary checklist for this study[ Sector!based and
external experts were then consulted to further for!
mulate checklist items\ and to ensure that survey items
were relevant to the targeted industrial sector and
company size[ Each item on the checklist was studied\
and de_nitions were elaborated when necessary to
ensure that the checklist items were clear and easy to
evaluate[ The following principles were used]
0[ Checklist items had to be observable in various
types of companies[
1[ Questions requiring technical expertise\ expert
opinions\ or lengthy observation were excluded[
2[ Observations were restricted to workplace
3[
4[
5[
6[
conditions\ not to the measurement of worker
behavior[
Measurements requiring speci_c tools "such as
those for evaluating temperature\ lighting or noise
levels# were excluded[
The observation of the workplace had to be carried
out in a way that minimized interference with the
work[
The _nal checklist had to minimize observation
time\ allowing for its incorporation into a walk!
through survey of the workplace[
Questions had to be well de_ned to limit subjective
evaluations[
Weekly meetings were held with safety experts to
discuss modi_cations and to verify that the questions
were clear and that they met the criteria listed above[
Once the questionnaire was ready\ a small!scale test
was carried out in four companies with the help of
sector!based experts[ Comments and suggestions
gathered during the preliminary test were integrated
into the checklist[
Final checklist and evaluation
The checklist consisted of 62 distinct questions and
encompassed three attributes of housekeeping] organ!
ization of tools and materials\ obstructions\ and
cleanliness[ Because some questions were repeated in
more than one area within the workplace\ they
developed into 107 observed items per visit "A#[
In addition to the checklist questions\ a protocol
for conducting the observation visit was elaborated[
The main focus of the evaluation was an assessment
of the housekeeping levels in the production area of
each workplace[ Given the size of the typical work!
place\ and the presence of departments in many of the
companies\ it was decided to divide the production
area for easier observation[ This would also provide a
summary of housekeeping for companies where these
levels varied between departments[ The divisions cor!
responded to departments whenever possible[ If a
workplace did not have distinct departments\ the
divisions were made within the production area[ Using
these criteria\ the production area of each workplace
was divided into four observation sections of approxi!
mately equal size[ Although production areas pro!
vided an estimation of general housekeeping\ a sam!
pling of individual workstations "e[g[\ work benches\
paint booths\ machines# was carried out to address
more detailed characteristics of housekeeping[ This
was done by systematically sampling four personal
work areas*one within each observation section[ The
work area that was physically located closest to the
center of each observation section was selected[
Finally\ two storage areas "consisting of one chemical
and one material storage area# were also included in
the housekeeping assessment visits[
Calculatin` housekeepin` levels
If an observed item was endorsed "e[g[\ slings
stored#\ this resulted in a positive score of one for that
Measuring housekeeping
item[ Incorrect items scored zero\ and items that were
not applicable "e[g[\ no slings used in this work area#
did not contribute to the score[ From the completed
checklists\ a housekeeping score for each visit was
calculated as the percentage of positive scores among
all scored items[ High scores correspond to better
housekeeping[ Scores of individual visits were used to
establish checklist reliability[
Study population
This study was conducted among registered com!
panies in the transportation equipment and machinery
manufacturing sector\ in the Montreal\ Sherbrooke\
Granby and Quebec city regions in Quebec\ Canada
between January 0\ 0881 and April 0\ 0882[ Com!
panies in the chosen regions\ listed as employing
between twenty and sixty workers\ were eligible for
the study[ The regions were chosen for their relative
concentration of eligible companies in order to min!
imize study costs[ The restrictions of size and indus!
trial sector were imposed to increase the probability
of homogeneity among the companies being observed\
thereby facilitating the identi_cation of common sur!
vey items for the checklist[ This sector was also chosen
because it was represented by a non!partisan health
and safety association[
Selection of the participatin` companies
Health and safety consultants from the sector!based
bi!partisan health and safety association representing
the manufacturers of transportation equipment and
machinery were asked to make initial contacts with
companies\ inviting them to participate in the study[
In all\ eighty!two eligible companies were contacted\
and sixty!six consented to participate[ Among the
latter\ four companies were rejected because they had
less than _ve workers[ A further three companies were
eliminated because of plant closures[ Finally\ data
from _fty!nine companies were used in the analyses[
Observation visits to assess housekeepin`
Companies agreeing to participate were contacted
by the main observer to set a date for the _rst visit[
Subsequent visits were usually arranged on site[ Com!
panies were visited an average of four times during
the study period[ Each company was visited on at
least two di}erent occasions and one main observer
was used for the study[ Alternate observers were used
to test inter!observer reliability[ A company rep!
resentative usually led the observer on an initial visit
of the workplace before observations were carried out[
For subsequent visits\ the observer was often allowed
to proceed through the observation alone[ The evalu!
ation of housekeeping was performed during walk!
through surveys of the companies using the checklist
designed for this study[ Companies did not have access
to the checklists\ nor were the companies told which
speci_c items were being observed[
82
Checklist validity
The process used for checklist construction\ in!
volving both internal and external experts\ ensured
that de_nitions were addressed and were relevant for
the targeted sector[ The measurement protocol\ which
included repeated visits and visits at di}erent times of
the week\ month\ and across seasons\ also ensured
capture of ~uctuations in housekeeping levels over
time[
Checklist reliability
Companies were visited by one observer on more
than one occasion to evaluate testÐretest reliability[
Repeated visits were spaced at least one week apart
to reduce the possibility that the observer would
remember the previous scoring[ For testÐretest
reliability\ 66 pairs of closely!spaced visits "no more
than three weeks between visits# and 142 pairs of
widely!spaced visits "over three weeks between visits#
were compared[
To evaluate inter!observer reliability\ the main
observer was accompanied by one of four alternate
observers[ Prior to a visit\ company management was
asked for permission to allow two observers to inspect
the facilities[ In addition to assessing overall house!
keeping\ separate scores for obstructions\ organ!
ization\ and cleanliness were also computed by each
observer[
ANALYSIS
TestÐretest and inter!observer reliability for the house!
keepin` instrument
Once it was clear that between observer variances
were independent of housekeeping scores\ reliability
was assessed using one!way random e}ects analysis of
variance "ANOVA# to obtain intra!class correlation
"ICC# coe.cients "Altman and Bland\ 0872^ Cho\
0870^ Fisher\ 0852^ Muller and Buttner\ 0883^ Shrout
and Fleiss\ 0868# using the ANOVA procedure from
SAS "SAS 5[00\ SAS institute#[ The ICC model con!
trasts the between rater variance for same visits to
between company variance[ Unlike the Pearson prod!
uct moment correlation or regression coe.cient\ ICC
measures the degree of agreement[ ICC scores range
from perfect agreement "score of 0[99# to no agree!
ment beyond that expected by chance "score of 9[99#[
A score of 9[74 is generally considered acceptably high
"McDowell and Newell\ 0876#[
RESULTS
Initial workplace observations did not exceed forty!
_ve minutes[ Subsequent observations typically
required less than thirty minutes[
Overall housekeeping scores across all workplaces
ranged from a low of 22[4) to a high of 83[5)[ Mean
scores for housekeeping components were generally
83
V[ M[ Dufort and C[ Infante!Rivard
equivalent\ with cleanliness scoring lowest and organ!
ization scoring highest "Table 0#[
Company characteristics across categorical house!
keeping scores were similar for workweek duration
and number of workers "Table 1#[ However\ a greater
proportion of companies with high housekeeping
scores had fewer injuries in the study year compared
to previous years\ had only one work shift\ and had
assembly line production[ These companies were also
less likely to have health and safety committees or
small production pieces Table 1[
Worker characteristics did not vary much between
companies when grouped by housekeeping scores
"Table 2#[
RELIABILITY OF HOUSEKEEPING CHECKLIST
When two observers were present\ the alternate
observers tended to score slightly lower than the main
observer\ but the variability in scores did not depend
on score magnitude[
The results of the testÐretest reliability are shown
in Table 3[ Values of ICCs for the entire checklist
showed that\ overall\ results from closely!spaced visits
were more alike than those from widely!spaced visits[
When checklist items were grouped into categories
representing cleanliness\ organization\ or obstruc!
tions\ correlations between scores for closely!spaced
visits "no more than 2 weeks apart# were consistently
greater than for widely!spaced visits "at least three
weeks apart#[
Values of ICCs for inter!observer reliability tests
comparing concurrent visits were higher than testÐ
retest reliability scores Table 3[ With an ICC of 9[77
"84) CI 9[70Ð9[83#\ inter!observer reliability of over!
all housekeeping was highest[ Scores for cleanliness
were the least reproducible between observers\ how!
ever none of the ICC scores were signi_cantly di}erent
"p³9[94# as indicated by the overlapping 84) CIs[
Table 0[ Housekeeping scores for 48 manufacturers of trans!
portation equipment and machinery in Quebec\ 0881Ð82
Total
Obstructions
Organization
Cleanliness
a
Mean "Median#
S[D[a
DISCUSSION
63[0 "63[6#
69[2 "60[0#
63[1 "64[4#
56[1 "56[7#
8[4
09[9
09[3
01[3
In the _rst part of this study a comprehensive new
checklist for measuring housekeeping across di}erent
companies was developed and tested[ Although mini!
mal inter!observer testing was performed\ this type
of checklist promises to have strong inter!observer
S[D[*Standard Deviation[
Table 1[ Company characteristics by housekeeping levels] Quebec transportation
equipment and machinery manufacturers housekeeping study\ 0881Ð82
Categorical Housekeeping
Scores
Mean workweek duration "hours#
Mean number of workers
Estimated relation of this year|s injuries to
past years
Fewer than usual
More than usual
Only one work shift
Health and Safety Committee
Small production pieces
Assembly line production
¾69
"N 06#
69[0Ð79
"N 10#
×79
"N 10#
30[3
18[9
39[3
23[6
39[4
20[7
13)
18)
30)
71)
83)
13)
24)
04)
39)
74)
65)
13)
32)
4)
41)
60)
51)
22)
Table 2[ Worker characteristics by housekeeping levels] Quebec transportation equipment
and machinery manufacturers housekeeping study\ 0881Ð82
Total housekeeping
scores
Mean age of injured workers "years#
Mean age of all workers "years#
Mean experience of injured workers "years#
Mean experience of all workers "years#
¾69
"N 06#
69[0Ð79
"N 10#
×79
"N 10#
26[2
26[6
6[5
8[6
24[4
24[3
5[0
6[7
25[5
25[9
7[2
09[1
Measuring housekeeping
Table 3[ TestÐretest and inter!rater reliability of a new house!
keeping checklist designed for manufacturers of trans!
portation equipment and machinery in Quebec\ 0881Ð82!
intraclass correlation coe.cients
Intraclass
correlation
coe.cient
"84) CI#a
TestÐretest reliability
Close visitsb
Total
Organization
Cleanliness
Obstruction
9[62
9[51
9[54
9[64
"9[57Ð9[67#
"9[44Ð9[58#
"9[48Ð9[61#
"9[58Ð9[68#
Distant visitsc
Total
Organization
Cleanliness
Obstruction
9[44
9[30
9[49
9[50
"9[40Ð9[59#
"9[25Ð9[35#
"9[35Ð9[44#
"9[46Ð9[54#
Total
Organization
Cleanliness
Obstruction
9[77
9[75
9[60
9[63
"9[70Ð9[83#
"9[68Ð9[82#
"9[45Ð9[72#
"9[50Ð9[74#
a
84) C[I[*84) con_dence interval of intraclass cor!
relation coe.cient[
b
Revisit within three weeks[
c
Visits over three weeks apart[
reliability because of its clearly de_ned checklist items
and measurement protocol[ The alternate observers
did have an opportunity to review the questions before
the workplace visits\ however\ no trial observations
were performed[ In spite of this low level of training\
inter!observer agreement was high[
In testing the inter!observer reliability among cat!
egories\ {organization| showed better agreement than
{cleanliness| and {obstruction|[ This was expected
because {organization| dealt with the presence of sys!
tems that tend to be consistent throughout the work!
place\ whereas levels of {cleanliness| and {obstructions|
can easily vary within the same workplace[
Testing inter!observer or testÐretest reliability of
continuous scale measures requires a di}erent
approach from testing of categorical scales[ Although
many researchers use the Pearson product moment
correlation\ r\ or linear regression to assess agreement
between continuous measures\ such techniques do not
necessarily give valid measures of agreement "Altman
and Bland\ 0872#[
The _rst step for determining repeatability of con!
tinuous measurements is to verify that the variance
between measures does not change with the magnitude
of the measurements "Altman and Bland\ 0872#[ The
homogeneity of measurement variances is an assump!
tion in the modeling of reliability testing for con!
tinuous measurement scales[ Residual risk plots of
score di}erences between visit pairs against mean visit
pair scores were produced to verify this basic assump!
tion[
In this study\ testÐretest reliability was lower than
inter!observer reliability[ This is partly due to changes
84
in housekeeping between visits[ These ~uctuations
over time were expected and have been observed in
the single!company studies where housekeeping was
measured periodically "Mattila et al[\ 0883^ Nasanen
and Saari\ 0876^ Saarela\ 0878^ Saari and Nasanen\
0878#[ TestÐretest observation pairs were conducted at
least one week apart\ whereas inter!observer reliability
observations were conducted simultaneously[ For
closely!spaced visits\ where housekeeping levels
should be more similar\ agreement between visits was
higher[ It is reasonable to expect that the testÐretest
reliability would be even better had there been no
changes in actual housekeeping levels in the work!
place[ The inability to adequately assess testÐretest
reliability of the checklist is one limitation of this
study[ It was not possible to separate actual changes
from agreement problems[ Although same!day testÐ
retest reliability evaluations would come closest to
avoiding problems resulting from changes in house!
keeping levels\ observers could remember how the
previous visit was scored[ In spite of the expected
di}erences between revisits of at least one week apart\
the testÐretest reliability scores were reasonably high[
Unfortunately\ there are no easy solutions to eva!
luating testÐretest reliability of a housekeeping mea!
sure in actual workplace settings[
For testÐretest reliability\ {cleanliness| and {organ!
ization| seemed to be less reliable than {obstructions|[
It is more di.cult to speculate on the causes of this
lower reliability given that the ICC scores are made
up of actual changes in housekeeping as well as some
component of reliability[
Other detailed checklists have been constructed to
evaluate the state of housekeeping in single company
interventions "Mattila et al[\ 0883^ Nasanen and Saari\
0876^ Saarela\ 0878^ Saari and Nasanen\ 0878#[ Unfor!
tunately\ the speci_city of these checklists to a single
company\ or department\ precludes their application
in diverse settings[ The present checklist has been
designed and shown to _t a variety of industrial set!
tings represented by the 48 companies involved in this
study[ Although these companies were all in the same
industrial sector\ there were di}erences between them
that challenged the establishment of a common house!
keeping checklist[ Some companies employed high!
precision automated engineering for producing air!
craft components\ while others produced large
machinery items employing many di}erent types of
workers[ The speci_city of the checklist\ therefore\
represented a compromise in order to be applicable in
the situations presented by these various companies[
However\ it was still felt that this checklist did address
the main housekeeping concerns of all companies
involved[
One stumbling block to a universal measure of
housekeeping is the fact that industries and their stan!
dards vary greatly across economic sectors[ House!
keeping in food production\ for example\ focuses on
di}erent issues and technologies than in foundries[
The design of the workplace and machinery also
85
V[ M[ Dufort and C[ Infante!Rivard
di}ers from sector to sector\ raising another barrier
to common measurement items[ Although the devel!
opment of a common instrument applicable to all
workplaces may be di.cult\ the approach used here
can be taken to build checklists speci_c to other indus!
trial sectors[ This type of evaluation can also be
extended to smaller or larger companies within a par!
ticular industrial sector[ In larger companies\ it would
be sensible to divide the workplace into several obser!
vation areas\ and to develop scores for individual
departments as well as the entire company[ This would
help identify departments where housekeeping
improvements are more important[
Because {gold standards| for measuring house!
keeping do not exist\ it was not possible to estimate
concurrent validity[ Likewise\ because the association
between housekeeping and some tangible outcome
such as injury rate was not clearly understood\ it was
not possible to evaluate the predictive validity of the
measure[
This checklist avoided questions requiring technical
expertise or measurement instruments and items that
could not be easily measured were not included[ This
was done\ in part\ to shorten the observation time and
thus make this type of evaluation easily adaptable to
many companies[ Some researchers have suggested
that lighting\ for example\ should fall under the de_!
nition of housekeeping "Simonds and Shafai!Sahrai\
0866#[ The need for specialized training and instru!
mentation for lighting evaluations precluded its use in
this type of housekeeping evaluation[ Compliance to
safety standards has also been suggested as a possible
item for housekeeping checklists "Bird and Germain\
0889#[ However\ safety standard compliance is not
easily evaluated\ given the complexity of the standards
and diversity of equipment in the various workplaces[
The checklist has to focus on easily measurable items
that can be observed by individuals with minimal
training[ Thus\ although housekeeping may re~ect the
level of safety in companies\ it should never replace
safety audits that thoroughly evaluate the condition
of the work environment and machinery[
In conclusion\ this study has shown that a reliable
evaluation of housekeeping is possible within a well
de_ned industrial sector[ Although there may be prac!
tical problems in applying the checklist to all work!
places\ extensions of the methodology to broader
sectors are clearly possible[
Acknowled`ements*Vincent M[ Dufort was recipient of an
IRSST "Institut de Recherche en Sante et en Securite du
Travail# doctoral scholarship award while conducting this
study[
REFERENCES
Altman\ and Bland "0872# Measurement in medicine] the
analysis of method comparison studies[ The Statistician
21\ 296Ð206[
Bird\ F[ E[ Jr[ and Germain\ G[ L[ "0889# Practical Loss
Control Leadership[ Institute Publishing\ ILCI[ HWY 67
P[O[ Box 234 Loganville\ Georgia 29138[
Chew\ D[ A[ "0877# E}ective occupational safety activities]
_ndings in three Asian developing countries[ International
Labour Review 016\ 000Ð013[
Cho\ D[ W[ "0870# Inter!rater reliability] intraclass cor!
relation coe.cients[ Educational and Psychological
Measurement 30\ 112Ð115[
Fellner\ D[ J[ and Sulzer!Azaro}\ B[ "0873#[ Increasing indus!
trial safety practices and conditions through posted feed!
back[ J[ Safety Res[ 02\ 6Ð01[
Fisher\ R[ A[ "0852# Intraclass Correlations[ In] Statistical
Methods for Research Workers "Edited by Fisher\ R[ A[#\
Hafner Publishing Company\ New York[
ILCI "International Loss Control Institute# "0880# TUT!
TAVA] A Performance System for Measuring and Motiv!
ating Good Housekeeping and Order^ Implementation
Team Handbook[
Mattila\ M[\ Rantanen\ E[ and Hyttinen\ M[ "0883#[ The
Quality of work environment\ supervision\ and safety in
building construction[ Safety Science 06\ 146Ð157[
McDowell\ I[ and Newell\ C[ "0876# Measuring Health\ A
Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires[ Oxford Uni!
versity Press\ New York[
Muller\ R[ and Buttner\ P[ "0883# A critical discussion of
intraclass correlation coe.cients[ Statistics in Medicine 02\
1354Ð1365[
Nasanen\ M[ and Saari\ J[ "0876# The e}ects of positive
feedback on housekeeping and injuries at a shipyard[ Jour!
nal of Occupational Accidents 7\ 126Ð149[
Reber\ R[ A[ and Wallin\ J[ A[ "0872# Validation of a
behavioral measure of occupational safety[ J[ Organ[
Behav[ Manage[ 1\ 58Ð66[
Rees\ A[ G[ "0856# Safety sampling*a technique for mea!
suring accident potential[ Br[ J[ Occup[ Safety 6\ 089Ð084[
Saarela\ K[ L[ "0878#[ Small!group activities in improving
housekeeping and safety in industry[ Advances in Industrial
Ergonomics and Safety 0\ 272Ð289[
Saari\ J[ "0876# Management of housekeeping by feedback[
Ergonomics 29\ 202Ð206[
Saari\ J[ and Nasanen\ M[ "0878# The e}ect of positive feed!
back on industrial housekeeping and accidents^ a long!
term study at a shipyard[ Int[ J[ Ind[ Ergon[ 3\ 190Ð100[
Shrout\ P[ E[ and Fleiss\ J[ L[ "0868#[ Interclass correlations]
Uses in assessing rater reliability[ Psychological Bulletins
75\ 319Ð317[
Simonds\ R[ H[ and Shafai!Sahrai\ Y[ "0866#[ Factors appar!
ently a}ecting injury frequency in eleven matched pairs of
companies[ J[ Safety Res[ 2\ 019Ð016[
Smith\ M[ J[\ Cohen\ H[ H[\ Cohen\ A[ and Cleveland\ R[ J[
"0876# Characteristics of successful safety programs[ J[
Safety Res[ 09\ 4Ð04[
APPENDIX] FINAL CHECKLIST ITEMS*
ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
MAIN WORKPLACE AREA
Main and secondary aislesa
0[
1[
2[
3[
4[
5[
6[
Secondary aisles present[
All storage outside of aisles[
Total volume of all rubbish less than a co}ee cup[
Total area of any spill less than the size of a credit card[
Aisles freeb from all cables and hoses[
Aisles free from all material:equipment:tools[
Access to more than 2:3 of all electrical panels\ _re
extinguishers and _re hoses free[
7[ Exits free[
8[ Stairways free[
Floor in the observation areas
09[ Total volume of all rubbish less than a co}ee cup[
00[ Total area of any spill less than the size of a credit card[
01[ Garbage containers present[
Measuring housekeeping
02[ Garbage containers less than 2:3 full[
03[ Total volume of rubbish around garbage containers "one
meter radius# less than a co}ee cup[
Material in the observation areas
04[
05[
06[
07[
08[
19[
Storage areac provided for material
Identi_cation systemd present[
Materials and products stored by categorye[
At least 2:3 of the material storedf[
At least 2:3 of the chemical products stored[
Drip trays or containers in place "when needed*under
barrel and pipeline spigots#[
Equipment\ machinery and tools in the observation areas
10[
11[
12[
13[
14[
15[
16[
Storage area for equipment and tools present[
Identi_cation system present[
Equipment\ machinery and tools stored by category[
Slings stored[
At least 2:3 of the housekeeping equipmentg stored[
At least 2:3 of the tools and equipment stored[
Equipment:tools free from grease deposits larger than a
credit card[
Work station in the center of each observation area
17[
18[
29[
20[
21[
22[
Storage area for equipment and tools present[
Identi_cation system present[
Equipment\ machinery and tools stored by category[
At least 0:1 of the hoses and cables stored[
At least 0:1 of the tools stored[
Equipment:tools free from grease deposits larger than a
credit card[
23[ At least 0:1 of each work surface free[
24[ Total volume of all rubbish less than a co}ee cup[
25[ Total area of any spill less than the size of a credit card[
De_nitions]
secondary aisles*aisles leading from the main aisle to the
workstations or to storage areas
b
free*no obstructions\ either partial or complete\ and not
used for storage[
c
storage area*shelves\ boxes\ drawers\ cupboards\ hooks\
hangers\ suspension systems\ etc[
d
identi_cation system*labels\ drawings\ markings\ index\
inventory system\ etc[
e
stored by category*paints together\ wood tools together\
etc[
f
at least[[[ of the material stored*Stored in the storage
area\ using some type of a storage system[
g
housekeeping equipment*brooms\ mops\ shovels\ rags\
solvents\ absorbents\ soaps\ etc[
a
FINAL CHECKLIST ITEMS*
ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
STORAGE AREA
Aisles in the storage area
0[ All storage outside of aisles[
86
1[
2[
3[
4[
Total volume of all rubbish less than a co}ee cup[
Total area of any spill less than the size of a credit card[
Aisles free from all material:equipment:tools[
Access to more than 2:3 of all electrical panels\ _re
extinguishers and _re hoses free[
5[ Exits free[
6[ Stairways free[
Floor in the storage area
7[
8[
09[
00[
01[
Total volume of all rubbish less than a co}ee cup[
Total area of any spill less than the size of a credit card[
Garbage containers present[
Garbage containers less than 2:3 full[
Total volume of rubbish around garbage containers "one
meter radius# less than a co}ee cup[
Material in the storage area
02[
03[
04[
05[
06[
07[
08[
19[
10[
Identi_cation system present[
Materials and products stored by category[
At least 2:3 of the material stored[
At least 0:1 of the material stored[
At least 0:3 of the material stored[
At least 2:3 of the material identi_eda[
At least 0:1 of the material identi_ed[
At least 0:3 of the material identi_ed[
Drip trays or containers in place "when needed*under
barrel and pipeline spigots#[
11[ Less than 09) of the storage area used for spent
material\ tools\ and equipment "ex[\ broken or worn
equipment\ old tires\ non!identi_ed chemical products\
old paint cans\ etc[#
Equipment\ machinery and tools in the storage area
12[ Eye wash station and:or shower available and access free
"ex[\ when corrosive products present[#[
13[ Spill containment material or system present[
14[ Spill containment materials within easy reach[
15[ Housekeeping equipment present[
16[ Housekeeping equipment within easy reach[
17[ At least 2:3 of the housekeeping equipment stored[
18[ Storage area present for equipment and tools[
29[ Machinery\ equipment and tools stored by category[
20[ Identi_cation system present[
21[ All compressed gas cylinders stored and tied[
22[ At least 0:1 of the tools and equipment stored[
23[ Slings stored[
24[ At least 0:1 of the hoses and cables stored[
25[ Equipment:tools free from grease deposits larger than a
credit card[
26[ At least 0:1 of each work surface free[
De_nitions]
a
at least[[[ of the material identi_ed*scienti_c name\ com!
mon name\ part number\ etc[