Command Safety Assessment Survey (CSAS)￼
Author of Tool:
Naval Postgraduate School
O’Connor, P., Buttrey, S O’Dea, A., & Kennedy, Q. (2011). An assessment of the relationship between safety climate and mishap risk in U.S. Naval aviation. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School. https://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/TR/2011/NPS-OR-11-004.pdf
Buttrey, S. O’Dea, A., O’Connor, P., & Kennedy, Q. (2010). An evaluation of the construct validity of the command safety assessment survey. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School. https://edocs.nps.edu/npspubs/scholarly/TR/2010/NPS-OR-10-004.pdf
O’Connor, P., Buttrey, S, O’Dea, A., & Kennedy, Q. (2011). Identifying and addressing the limitations of safety climate surveys. Journal of Safety Research, 42, 259-265. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002243751100065X
Primary use / Purpose:
To provide a measure of the safety climate of U.S. Naval aviation squadrons.
The 61 item Command Safety Assessment Survey (CSAS) were developed by researchers at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. It is completed online periodically by U.S Naval aviators. The questionnaires were based upon a conceptual model of Organisational Safety Effectiveness (MOSE) that identified five major areas relevant to organizations in managing risk and developing a climate to reduce accidents in High Reliability Organisations. The five MOSE areas are:
- Process auditing – a system of ongoing checks to monitor hazardous conditions
- Reward system – expected social compensation or disciplinary action to reinforce or correct behavior.
- Quality assurance – policies and procedures that promote high quality performance
- Risk management – how the organization perceives risk and takes corrective action.
- Command and control – policies, procedures, and communication processes used to mitigate risk.
Issues with the validity of the questionnaire have been identified with the questionnaire (see Buttrey et al, 2011). However, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that for 12 items there was evidence in support of the construct validity of the questionnaire. Insufficient evidence was found for the discriminate validity of the questionnaire to predict mishap risk.