Predictors of Work Injuries: A Quantitative Exploration of Level of English Proficiency as a Predictor of Work Injuries in the Construction Industry

Figures & data

Table 1. Change in workpalce fatalities, by race, from 1992 to 2000

Race	Percent change
Whites	−10%
Native Americans	−8%
Blacks	−7%
Asians	−4%
Hispanics	53%

Table 2. Rank of injury frequencies, location

Rank	Location	Frequency
1	Lower Back, both Sides	128
2	Back Right Shoulder	48
3	Back Left Shoulder	42
	Back Left Foot & Calf	42
4	Back Right Foot & Calf	40
5	Front Right Knee	39
6	Back Middle Spine	38
7	Back Neck	35
8	Front Left Knee	34
9	Front Right Shoulder	23
	Back Right Hip & Buttock	23
10	Front Right Foot & Shin	22
	Back Left Hip & Buttock	22
	Back Left Knee	22

Table 3. Rank of injury frequencies, type of pain

Rank	Location	Type of pain	Frequency
1	Lower Back, both Sides	Sore, Heavy, Tiring	91
2	Back Right Shoulder	Sore, Heavy, Tiring	48
3	Back Left Shoulder	Sore, Heavy, Tiring	42
	Back Left Foot & Calf	Sore, Heavy, Tiring	42
4	Back Right Foot & Calf	Sore, Heavy, Tiring	40
5	Front Right Knee	Sore, Heavy, Tiring	39
6	Back Middle Spine	Sore, Heavy, Tiring	38
7	Lower Back, both Sides	Sharp	37
8	Back Neck	Sore, Heavy, Tiring	35
9	Front Left Knee	Sore, Heavy, Tiring	34
10	Front Right Shoulder	Sore, Heavy, Tiring	23
	Back Right Hip & Buttock	Sore, Heavy, Tiring	23

Figure 1 Frequency, location and injury type (underlined = sore, heavy or tiring, bold = sharp, italicized = numbness or tingling).

Table 4a. Descriptive statistics

	Age	Level of schooling	Years working const.	Recode of hours worked last day	Faces of pain scale	Sum of level of English prof.
Mean	34.09	12.00	11.36	9.03	1.50	14.04
Median	32.00	12.00	9.00	8.00	1.00	17.00
Std. deviation	11.19	2.98	9.19	1.49	1.17	6.28
Skewness	0.88	−0.83	1.41	1.05	0.98	−0.43
Std. error of skewness	0.18	0.18	0.18	0.18	0.18	0.18
Minimum	18.00	1.00	1.00	6.00	0.00	0.00
Maximum	66.00	19.00	46.00	13.00	6.00	20.00
N = Valid	188.00	182.00	182.00	190.00	187.00	191.00
= Missing	3.00	9.00	9.00	1.00	4.00	0.00

Table 4b. Descriptive statistics

	Mean impulse score	Mean safety knowledge	Mean physical hazard	Mean of company safety questions	Sum of overall injury score
Mean	2.52	5.14	3.18	0.16	6.35
Median	2.50	5.50	3.14	0.20	5.00
Std. deviation	0.95	1.20	0.73	0.19	6.31
Skewness	0.44	−2.19	0.10	1.33	2.50
Std. error of skewness	0.18	0.18	0.18	0.18	0.18
Minimum	1.00	1.00	1.57	0.00	0.00
Maximum	5.33	6.00	5.00	0.80	47.00
N = Valid	190.00	189.00	181.00	186.00	188.00
= Missing	1.00	2.00	10.00	5.00	3.00

Table 5. Spearman's Rho correlation for research question seven

		Sum of overall injury score
Mean impulse score	Correlation coefficient	−0.07
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.342
	N	187

Table 6. Spearman's Rho correlation for research question eight

		Job tenure
Sum of overall injury score	Correlation coefficient	0.118
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.109
	N	187

Table 7. Spearman's Rho correlation for research question ten

		Mean physical hazard
Sum of overall injury score	Correlation coefficient	.216(∗∗)
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.004
	N	178

Table 8. Spearman's Rho correlation for research question eleven

		Sum of level of English Prof.
Sum of overall injury score	Correlation coefficient	.172(∗)
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.018
	N	188

Table 9. Regression statistics for research question twelve

	Sum of overall injury score	Mean impulse score	Years working const.	Mean physical hazard	Mean safety know.
Pearson correlation
Sum of overall injury score	1.000
Mean impulse score	−0.086	1.000
Years working const.	0.062	0.033	1.000
Mean physical hazard	0.209	0.179	0.068	1.000
Mean safety knowledge	0.019	−0.296	−0.008	0.039	1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)
Sum of overall injury score	–
Mean impulse score	0.127	–
Years working const.	0.206	0.330	–
Mean physical hazard	0.003	0.008	0.183	–
Mean safety knowledge	0.399	0.000	0.455	0.303	–

Table 10. ANOVA ^b table for research question twelve

	Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Regression	452.379	4	113.095	2.887	.024 ^a
Residual	6737.361	172	39.171
Total	7189.740	176

Table 11. Regression coefficients (a) of research question twelve

	Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients
	B	Std. error	Beta	t	Sig.
(Constant)	2.121	3.146	–	0.674	0.501
Mean impulse score	−0.579	0.331	−0.138	−1.753	0.081
Years working const.	0.035	0.051	0.051	0.685	0.495
Mean physical hazard	2.013	0.657	0.232	3.067	0.003
Mean safety knowledge	−0.166	0.427	−0.030	−0.388	0.698

Table 12. Regression statistics for research question thirteen

	Sum of overall injury score	Mean impulse score	Years working const.	Mean physical hazard	Mean safety know.
Pearson correlation
Sum of overall injury score	1.000
Mean impulse score	−0.122	1.000
Years working const.	0.035	0.234	1.000
Mean physical hazard	0.081	0.257	0.253	1.000
Mean safety knowledge	−0.011	−0.219	−0.016	0.233	1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)
Sum of overall injury score	–
Mean impulse score	0.213	–
Years working const.	0.409	0.061	–
Mean physical hazard	0.299	0.044	0.047	–
Mean safety knowledge	0.472	0.074	0.458	0.062	–

Table 13. Correlations ^a for research question fourteen

	Sum of overall injury score	Mean impulse score	Years working const.	Mean physical hazard	Mean safety know.
Pearson correlation
Sum of overall injury score	1.000
Mean impulse score	−0.072	1.000
Years working const.	0.027	0.043	1.000
Mean physical hazard	0.295	0.091	0.031	1.000
Mean safety knowledge	−0.011	−0.365	−0.05	−0.179	1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)
Sum of overall injury score	–
Mean impulse score	0.237	–
Years working const.	0.393	0.334	–
Mean physical hazard	0.001	0.182	0.381	–
Mean safety knowledge	0.457	0.000	0.311	0.036	–

Table 14. Regression coefficients ^a , ^b of research question fourteen

	Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients
	B	Std. error	Beta	t	Sig.
(Constant)	−2.067	6.895	–	−0.300	0.765
Mean impulse score	−0.847	0.905	−0.098	−0.936	0.352
Years working const.	0.016	0.067	0.023	0.233	0.816
Mean physical hazard	3.370	1.091	0.305	3.090	0.003
Mean safety knowledge	0.071	0.806	0.009	0.088	0.930

Table 15. Other significant correlations of interest

Variables	Spearman correlation coefficient	Significance	N
Faces of pain & job tenure	0.182	0.013	187
English proficiency & level of school	0.575	0.000∗	182
English proficiency & faces of pain	0.179	0.014	187
Safety knowledge & level of school	0.151	0.044	180
Physical hazard & faces of pain	0.197	0.008∗	178
Company safety questions & job tenure	−0.166	0.024	185
Company safety questions & physical hazards	0.156	0.038	178
Overall injuries & faces of pain	0.328	0.000∗	184
Faces of pain & age	0.232	0.001∗	189
Age & physical hazards	0.151	0.045	178
Company safety questions & age	−0.211	0.004∗	183

Table 16. Mann-Whitney U test for main variables including more subjects

	Level of school	Years working const.	Faces of pain scale	Mean imp. score	Mean safety know.	Mean physical hazard	Mean of company safety questions	Sum of overall injury score
Mann-Whitney U	1076	3110.5	2777.5	3129	2868.5	3077	3108	2993
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)	0.000	0.115	0.023	0.17	0.039	0.673	0.339	0.088

Table 17. Regression of level of schooling and level of English proficiency

R	R square	Adjusted R square	Std. error of the estimate
.580(a)	0.337	0.333	2.433

Table 18. Regression of full model

R	R square	Adjusted R square	Std. error of the estimate
.355(a)	0.126	0.067	6.38016

Table 19. Coefficients of interest in regression of full model

	Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients
	B	Std. error	Beta	t	Sig.
Faces of pain scale	1.253	0.456	0.222	2.75	0.007
Mean physical hazard	1.857	0.755	0.198	2.459	0.015

Table 20. Results of the qualitative question

Category	Number of responses
Air quality	10
Negligence of others as a safety concern	3
Education of others regarding safety	2
Noise levels	2
Stress	2
Teamwork leading to safety	2
Overhead traffic	1
Take care of your back by proper lifting	1
Pressure from a foreman resulted in accidents	1
Possible illegal material	1
Long strenuous hours	1
Language barrier	1
Hygiene (cleanliness of bathrooms)	1
Equipment causing soreness	1
Construction is just more dangerous	1