Trend of improved working conditions
| Index | << Prev | Next >> | [ |
Annex: Risk assessment methodology by economic sectors
1. Assessment based on an average index for all aspects of working conditions
The first approach is based on ranking the sectors by level of total risk using an average index, derived from the risk indices for all nine aspects of working conditions. It reflects the purely subjective assessments of the respondents of the national representative sociological survey. Expertise has been used only at the stage of selection of indicators used for the risk assessment of every individual element of the working conditions. We would like to emphasise once again that the results obtained are based solely on the opinions, attitudes and assessments of the respondents.
2. Assessment based on Analytical Hierarchy Process
The second approach is based on the existing process of ranking and choice of alternatives, developed by Thomas Saaty, called Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The process is based on a model of preliminary established hierarchical structure, showing links between goals (criteria), sub goals (sub criteria) and alternatives to choose from, or which can be ranked by their significance for the established goals and tasks. АНР unites several concepts of hierarchical structuring of complex tasks, couples comparison, eigenvector method for weighting, compensatory preferences and checks for logical inconsistencies. For the practical implementation of the process we used a specialised software Expert choice 11.5 to perform the mathematical operations underlying the model.
In brief, the АНР is a process of choice or ranking of alternatives towards specific goals or criteria.
3. Sectors ranking by risk based on expert assessment
The third approach in ranking the sectors according to their risk is entirely expert based. It used the results of a focus group consisting of experts in field such as occupational diseases, labour law, human resources management, each with more than 20 years of experience in the field of health and safety at work, attempting to rank the most risky economic sectors. This method has no independent role in determining the risky economic sectors. It only has a comparative function and provides an opportunity to review the obtained objective results in the context of the generally accepted expert opinion and public attitudes.
Finally, the three approaches were used to calculate ranking correlation coefficients of Spearman in order to account for the levels of overlapping of the three types of ranking. The closer these coefficients are to 1, the higher the coincidence between the rankings and vice versa – the closer these coefficients are to -1, the higher the difference between the results of the various rankings.
| Spearman's rho | Ranking based on the AHP model using weighted data | Ranking based on the AHP model using non-weighted data | Ranking based on expert assessment | Ranking based on the level of risk based on an average index derived from the risk indices by aspects |
| Ranking based on the AHP model using weighted data | 1.000 | 0.686 | 0.673 | 0.747 |
| Ranking based on the AHP model using non-weighted data | 0.686 | 1.000 | 0.866 | 0.652 |
| Ranking based on expert assessment | 0.673 | 0.866 | 1.000 | 0.636 |
| Ranking based on the level of risk based on an average index derived from the risk indices by aspects | 0.747 | 0.652 | 0.636 | 1.000 |
| Index | << Prev | Next >> |
Useful? Interesting? Tell us what you think.