請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/27446完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 蘇德勝 | |
| dc.contributor.author | Pei-Ying Wu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 吳姵穎 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-12T18:05:17Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2008-02-19 | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2008-02-19 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2008 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2008-01-10 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 1. 行政院勞工委員會勞工保險局, 2005. http://statdb.cla.gov.tw/statis/webproxy.aspx?sys=100&kind=10&type=1&funid=q0805&rdm=YKWic9mz
2. 蘇德勝.中華民國職業災害概況.工業安全衛生月刊, 2000; 136: 15-37. 3. 王榮德.職災勞工保護法施行後職業傷病診治體系之建立.工業安全衛生月刊, 2002; 154: 26-30. 4. 行政院勞工委員會.勞動統計年報,台北市2004. 5. 李長貴.績效管理與績效評估.華泰文化事業公司,台北1997. 6. 陳秋蓉.世界主要國家職業災害統計分析(三).行政院勞工委員會勞工安全生研究所, 2002. 7. Health & Safety Executive. A guide to measuring health& safety performance. HSE, 2001. 8. 行政院勞工委員會.國家級職業安全衛生管理系統指引(TOSHMS指引), 2007 9. 行政院勞工委員會.台灣職業安全衛生管理系統-實施指導綱要, 2007. 10. 吳建朝.我國安全衛生自護制度推行績效之調查研究.中國文化大學勞動學研究所碩士論文,台北2005. 11. 吳聰智.台灣中部四類製造業安全氣候與安全績效之相關研究.國立彰化師範大學工業教育學系博士論文,彰化2001; 73. 12. Markus B., Michael F.. Innovation is not enough: climates for initiative and psychological safety process innovations and firm performance. J.Organ.Behav, 2003; 24: 45– 68. 13. Mearns, K., Flin, R., Gordon, R.& Fleming, M. Measuring safety culture in the offshore oil industry. Work and Stress, 1998; 12(3): 238- 254. 14. Kristin S.C., Michael J.B., Ronald S.L..Organizational climate as a moderator of safety knowledge–safety performance relationships. J. Organ. Behav, 2003;24: 861–876. 15. Neal A, Griffin M.A., Hart P.M.. The impact of organization climate on safety climate and individual behavior. Safety Science, 2000;34: 99-169. 16. Krause T.R., Seymour K.J., Sloat K.C.M.. Long-term evaluation of a behavior-based method for improving safety performance: a meta-analysis of 73 interrupted time-series replications. Safety Science 1999: 32:1-18. 17. Benavides, F.G., Benach,J.M., Gonzalez, S. Description of fatal occupational injury rates in five selected European Union Countries: Austria, Finland, France, Spain and Sweden. Safety Science 2005; 43: 497–502. 18. Fuller C.W.. An assessment of the relationship between behavior and injury in the workplace: a case study in professional football. Safety Science, 2005;43: 213–224. 19. Manuele, F.A..Quality and safety: A reality check. Professional Safety, 1995; 26-29. 20. Gervais M.. Good management practice as a means of preventing back disorders in the construction sector. Safety Science, 2003; 41: 77–88. 21. Lust J.A. Understanding performance appraisal: social, organizational, and goal-based perspectives. Personnel Psychology, 1996; 4(2): 511-514. 22. Steven M.H. 非常訊號-如何做好企業績效評估.聯經出版事業公司,台北1997: 9-15 23. British Standards Institution. Occupational health and safety assessment series OHSAS 18001: Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems Specification. BSI, London 1999. 24. Standards Australia, Standards New Zealand: Occupational health and safety management systems – general guidelines on principles, systems and supporting techniques .AS/NZS 4804.1997. 25. Australia Health & Safety Organization. Safety management achievement program. Safety Map,The Organization, 1997. 26. Japan Industrial Safety & Health Association. Occupational health and safety management system (OHS-MS) : JISHA Guidelines: Tokyo The Assowatis, 1997. 27. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Occupational health and management system: an AIHA guidance document. AIHA OHSMS, 1996. 28. Redinger, C.F., Levine, S.P., Blotzer, M.J. et al. Evaluation of an Occupational Health and Safety Management System Performance Measurement Tool -III: Measurement of Initiation Elements. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., 2002; 63: 41- 46. 29. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. USA OSHA 2003-2008 Strategic management plan. Department of Labor, 2003. 30. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. USA Voluntary Protection Programs (VPP): policies and procedures manual. OSHA, 2003. 31. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. VPP Chart as of May Department of Labor. U.S. 2005. 32. Petersen. D. Safety management 2000-our strength and weaknesses. Professional Safety, 2000: 16-19. 33. Wentz, C.A. Safety health and environmental protection. Mc-Graw Hill International Edition New York 1999. 34. Health and Safety Executive(UK). Successful health and safety management.:Health and safety series booklet, London, 1992; HS (G) 65. 35. 經濟部工業局: 成功的衛生與安全管理2000, 臺北2000. 36. Stricoff, R., Scott Safety performance measurement: Identifying prospective indicators with high validity. Professional Safety, 2000; 145(1):36-39. 37. Phillips B, Williams J.L. Safety performance measures. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Professional Development Conference ASSE. Baltimore Maryland 1999: 549-70. 38. Chhokar J.S., Wallin J.A.. Improving safety through applied behavior analysis. Journal of Safety Research 1984; 15:141-151. 39. 曹常成.我國勞工安全衛生管理評鑑制度之研究.行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究所,台北1998. 40. 吳聰智, 康自立.台灣中部四類製造業勞工對安全績效感受性之調查研究.行政院勞工委員會勞工安全衛生研究季刊,台北2004.12(1): 73-90. 41. Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series 18001 (OHSAS18001). Occupational health and safety management system guidance for the implementation of OHSAS 18001.2007. 42. The British Standards Institution. BS 8800: Guide to occupational health and safety management systems BSI 1996. 43. International Organization for Standardization. Environment management system standard. ISO 14000 series ISO 1999. 44. International Organization for Standardization .The year 2000 revision of ISO 9000 quality management system standard. ISO 1999. 45. International Labor Organization. Guidelines on occupational safety and health management system ILO-OSH 2001. ILO 2001. 46. 經濟部工業局.職業安全衛生管理系統輔導實務冊2000,台北. 47. U.S. Department of Labor. OSHA forms 300 for recording work related injury and illness. 29 CFR Part 1904. Washing DC. 2000. 48. Asfahl CR.Industryial safety and health management-four Edition, prentice-hall Inc Upper Saddle River. New Jersey: Practice-Hall Inc.1999: 18-21. 49. 林明洲, 陳俊瑜.職業安全衛生管理系統績效評估模式之探討.化工2002:77-88. 50. Su TS, Tsai WY, Yu YC. An integrated approach for improving occupational safety and health management. Jounal Occup Health 2005; 47: 270–276. 51. 行政院勞工委員會.事業單位安全衛生自護制度實施要點2000,台北. 52. 張春興, 楊國樞,文崇一.社會及行為科學研究法(上冊)1978: 526-533. 53. Chien, C.F. Liu.Q.W. Developing data mining methods for wafer bin map clustering and the empirical study in a semiconductor manufacturing fab. Proceedings of the International Conference on Modern Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management in New Century 2001:581-587. 54. 吳明隆,涂金堂.SPSS與統計應用分析. 1999:23-24. 55. Nunnally, JC. Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill, New York 1999. 56. 吳統雄.態度與行為研究的信度與效度: 理論、應用、反省.民意學術專刊1985. 57. Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H., Gustafson,D. H. Group Techniq- ues for program planning: a guide to normal group and delphi processes. New Jersey Scott1995. 58. Wechsler, Wolfgang. Delphi-Methode, Gestaltung und Potential für Betrieblic Prognoseprozesse. Schriftenreihe Wirtschaftswissen- Schaftliche Forschung und Entwicklung. München1978. 59. Häder, Häder, Sabine. Delphi und kognitionspsy-chologie ein zugang zur theoretischen fundierung der delphi-methode, in zuma-nachrichten1995; 12. 60. 涂伊辰.我國數為學習標準-學習資源Metadata 與數位權利DREL之研究.世新大學碩士論文,台北2004:27-35. 61. Dalkey, N.C.. The Delphi method: an experimental study of group oinion. the rand corporation 1969. 62. Dalkey, N.C.. An Experiment Study of Group Opinion, 'Futures'. 1969 1, 408-426. 63. 張春興, 楊國樞, 文崇一.社會及行為科學研究法(上冊) 1978: 526-533. 64. 林傑賦, 劉明德.Spss10.0與統計模式建構.文魁出版公司,台北2002. 65. 楊東遠.運動新聞從業人員之專業素養:內涵、養成教育與資訊來源.國立體育學院碩士論文, 桃園2005: 77. 66. Faherty, V. Continuing social education results of delphi survey. J.educ.Soc.Work 1979.15(1):12-19. 67. Holen, M.C., Wedman .J.F. Future issues of computer mediated communication the results of Delphi study educational technology research and development.1993 (4): 5- 24. 68. 邱皓政.量化研究與統計分析.南圖書出版社有限公司,台北2002. 69. Pagno R. Understanding statistics in the behavioral Science, 7thed. Wadsworth 2005. 70.Vaus, de D.A. Surveys in social research. George Allen & Unwin 1986: 62-63. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/27446 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 建立與推動良好安全衛生管理制度,以達成持續改善並減少職業災害發生之目標,必要倚重可靠權重指標,用以量測安全衛生管理業務之落實度。而本研究的目的主要在探討專家人員與業界工安人員在安全衛生指標權重配分之認知差異性,並於個案公司方式執行該安全衛生指標,以探討該量表之適用性與可行性。
本研究收集國內外相關文獻歸納整理後,擇其重點與推動經驗,設計「我國安全衛生績效指標權重之調查研究」問卷,並徵詢33位專家意見後完成問卷設計修正。調查問卷發放給針對609位業界工業安全衛生人員及32位某個案公司主管,進行安全衛生績效評估之結構性問卷調查。 問卷中之各項安全衛生績效指標「重要性」與「可行性」之趨勢調查中發現:在職業災害指標中,「職災傷害嚴重率」之重要性與可行性皆最高;在損失事故指標中,以「總合災害損失指數」之重要性最高,「失能傷害損失日數」之可行性最高;在安全衛生狀態指標中,「健檢資料」重要性與可行性最高;在安全衛生管理指標中,「安全衛生政策是否充份宣導」之重要性最高,「附近居民或群眾抗議次數」之可行性最高;在安全衛生操作指標中,「執行安全衛生稽核建議所需時間」之重要性最高,「是否有指派安全衛生負責人」之可行性最高。 另十項安全衛生管理主要績效指標之各項權重配分調查結果如下:「安全衛生政策與願景」為10分;「安全衛生目標規劃」為10分;「顧客、社區滿意度」為7分、「管理階層審查」為9分;「風險評估與事故預防措施」為10分;「審查稽核與績效評量」為11分;「安全衛生組織、訓練與輔導」為11分;「緊急應變與事故處理」為10分、「安全衛生作業管制」為12分;「安全衛生作業操作」為10分。 本研究彙整專家人員與工業安全衛生人員對於我國安全衛生績效指標權重配分研究調查結果,發展出「我國安全衛生績效指標權重量表」。實際應用於某個案公司的研究結果,初步驗證此量表的實用性。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | To build a good management system for work safety and health, appropriate weighing index should be taken to measure the management of safety and health for the good of continual improvement in the occupational accident. This study aimed to investigate the difference in the weighting factors for safety and health indices assigned by experts and field industrial hygienists, repectively. This study also took a case company to explore the feasibility of these weighing factors for industrial safety and health performance indices used in Taiwan.
Through liferatual review of the relevant domestic and overseas resources, a self-administered questionnaire was developed. After consulting with thirty-three experts, the preliminary weighing factors for the safety and health performance indices in the questionnaire were obtained. The structured questionnaire was admimstered to 606 industrial safety professor and 32 directors of a case company and to evaluate the safety and health performance at their own workplaces. For the indices of occupational accident, the importance and feasibility of injury severity was the highest. For the work-loss incident indices, the importance of total loss days was the highest, and the disabling loss days was the highest in feasibility. For the indices of work safety and health, phyical examination was of the hightest importance and feasibility. For the indices of safety and health management, weather the policy of safety and health having been widely disseminated advocated was of the highest importance, and how many times of protest from adjacent residents were rank the highest in feasibility. In the indices for safety operation, the time interval of audit was of the highest importance, and the whether a safety and health mamager being assigned was the highest in feasibility. The resulted weighing factors for ten performance indices for safety and health were as follows: 10 for policy and vision of safety and health, 10 for object setting for safety and health, 7 for customers and neighborhood satisfaction, 9 for the management review, 10 for risk assessment and accident prevention measures, 11 for review audit and performance evaluation, 11 for safety and health organization, training and mentoring, 10 for emergency response and event handing, 12 for operational control for safety and health, 10 for job safety and health operation. According to the survey of “Study on Occupational Safety and Health Performance Index in Taiwan”, “Weighing Factors for Occupational Safety and Health Performance Indices in Taiwan” was developed and demonstrated practicable in field safety and health performance assessment in the case company pilot study. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-12T18:05:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-97-R93841022-1.pdf: 990807 bytes, checksum: 8ba40302052c83ca8db9cda8257c91ee (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄
摘要 Ⅰ Abstract Ⅲ 目錄 Ⅴ 表目錄 Ⅸ 圖目錄 XII 第一章 緒論 1.1研究背景與動機 1 1.2研究目的 3 第二章 文獻探討 2.1職業安全衛生管理系統 4 2.2職業安全衛生績效評估 5 2.2.1主動式績效評估量測 6 2.2.2被動式績效評估量測 8 2.2.3 主動式績效量測指標與被動式績效量測指標之結合……… 10 第三章 研究方法與材料 3.1研究設計與流程 14 3.1.1問卷編製之內容 15 3.2效度與信度分析 16 3.2.1效度分析 16 3.2.2信度分析 17 3.3 德爾菲法(Delphi Method)專家問卷 19 3.4個案研究方法 20 3.5資料處理與統計分析 20 第四章 結果與討論 4.1研究範圍與限制 23 4.1.1研究範圍 23 4.1.2研究限制 23 4.2研究對象之基本資料 23 4.2.1 專家人員資料分析 23 4.2.2 業界工安人員資料分析 25 4.2.3個案公司資料分析 29 4.2.3.1個案公司背景說明 29 4.2.3.2個案公司基本資料分析 30 4.3問卷結果整理 30 4.3.1第一回德爾菲「我國安全衛生績效指標權重調查」問卷 30 4.3.2第二回德爾菲「我國安全衛生績效指標權重調查」問卷 31 4.4專家對安全衛生績效指標態度量表及共識性問卷結果之統計分析 31 4.4.1專家對各類別單項安全衛生績效指標重要性與可行性的態度 分析 31 4.4.2各類別職業安全衛生單項績效指標之重要性與可行性的共識 分析 38 4.5專家與業界工安人員對安全衛生績效指標重要性與可行性之態度 比較 42 4.5.1職業災害指標 42 4.5.2損失事故指標 44 4.5.3安全衛生狀態指標 46 4.5.4安全衛生管理指標 48 4.5.5安全衛生操作狀態指標 50 4.6各議題職業安全衛生績效指標之權重配分分析 53 4.6.1專家對安全衛生績效指標主議題及次議題配分布情形 53 4.6.2個案公司對安全衛生績效指標主議題與次議題權重配分結果 58 4.6.3專家人員與個案公司對安全衛生績效指標權重配分比較分析 63 4.6.3.1主要議題安全衛生績效指標權重之配分比較 63 4.6.3.2安全衛生績效之次議題權重指標配分之比較 64 4.7推動職業安全衛生績效指標與管理政策之統計分析 67 4.7.1實施安全衛生績效指標評鑑方式之調查結果 67 4.7.2安全衛生績效指標由業界內稽與評鑑機構複審外稽評分差 距改善政策之看法 69 4.7.3.將ILO-OSH2001、OHSAS18001納入勞動檢查項目以推動 安全衛生績效管理之可行性 70 4.7.4. 將ILO-OSH2001納入自主管理之重要性調查分析 71 4.7.5.安全衛生績效指標評估人員資格之調查分析 73 4.7.6製造業、營建業所使用之安全衛生績效指標之比較分析 75 4.7.7 OHSAS18000及ILO-OSH2001納入於我國安全衛生法以推動 安全為衛生績效之調查分析 75 4.7.8將OHSAS18000、ILO -OSH2001、ISO14000、ISO9000共同 整何之可行性調查分析 76 第五章 結論與建議 5.1結論 78 5.2 後續研究建議 80 參考文獻 附錄一、專家名單 87 附錄二、第一次專家問卷德爾菲問卷彙整表(一) (二) 88 附錄三、第一回德爾菲「我國安全衛生績效指標權重調查」問卷 90 附錄四、第二次德爾菲「我國安全衛生績效指標權重調查」 97 附錄五、「我國安全衛生績效指標權重調查」工業安全衛生人員問卷…106 附錄六、我國安全衛生績效指標權重量表 114 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 安全衛生指標 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 職業安全衛生管理 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 安全衛生績效 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | occupational safety and health management | en |
| dc.subject | performance index for safety and health | en |
| dc.title | 我國職業安全衛生績效指標之調查研究 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Study on the Occupational Safety and Health Performance Index in Taiwan | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 96-1 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.coadvisor | 黃耀輝 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳俊瑜,高振山,李金泉 | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 職業安全衛生管理,安全衛生績效,安全衛生指標, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | occupational safety and health management,performance index for safety and health, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 117 | |
| dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2008-01-10 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 公共衛生學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 職業醫學與工業衛生研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位: | 職業醫學與工業衛生研究所 | |
文件中的檔案:
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ntu-97-1.pdf 未授權公開取用 | 967.58 kB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。
