The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessment of safety culture at a nuclear reprocessing plant
Abstract
This paper describes a detailed survey of attitudes towards safety at the Sellafield site of British Nuclear Fuels in Cumbria. Focus groups were held to elicit safety-relevant beliefs, attitudes and values, and the material was incorporated into a 172-item questionnaire administered as part of the monthly team briefings, and preceded by an explanatory video. Data were collected in this survey from 5296 participants. The questions covered nine domains of safety, i.e. safety procedures, risks, job satisfaction, safety rules, participation, training, control, and design of plant. Each domain was analysed by principal components analysis and 38 factors were extracted. The 19 accounting for most variance were analysed. Factor scores were validated against reported number of lost-time accidents and most discriminated at high levels of significance. Various methods for analysing the data are described. Results were compared with a ‘generic’ analysis of the whole data set, which produced 42 factors. These were then processed by secondary factor analysis, but the results of both methods showed the original ‘domain’ analysis to be superior. A reduced version with 81 items performed as well as the original and a considerable improvement in validity was obtained by using discriminant function coefficients to weight items in regression scores in place of factor loadings. The data were analysed and feedback was provided for relevant subgroups, i.e. gender, age, length of service, active area involvement, days/shifts, departments, general type of work and eight specific job types.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The contribution of latent human failures to the breakdown of complex systems
Reason, J. (1990) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.1990.0090 · Cited by 762
Cited by
The relationship between safety climate and safety performance: A meta-analytic review.
Clarke, S. (2006) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/1076-8998.11.4.315 · Cited by 934
Vinodkumar, M. N., & Bhasi, M. (2010) · Accident Analysis & Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.aap.2010.06.021 · Cited by 538
Measuring safety climate in health care
Flin, R. (2006) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2005.014761 · Cited by 465
A framework for understanding the development of organisational safety culture
Parker, D., Lawrie, M., & Hudson, P. (2006) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2005.10.004 · Cited by 295
Assessing safety culture in nuclear power stations
Lee, T., & Harrison, K. (2000) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/s0925-7535(00)00007-2 · Cited by 290
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lee, T.
- Venue
- Work & Stress
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1998-07
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 217-237
- ISSN
- 0267-8373 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-5335
- OpenAlex
- W2010825290
- Cited by
- 230
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessment of safety culture at a nuclear reprocessing plant. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/02678379808256863
- The paper
- Lee, T. (1998). Assessment of safety culture at a nuclear reprocessing plant. Work & Stress. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678379808256863
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.