Accident Analysis and Prevention 106 (2017) 19

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

Comparing recall vs. recognition measures of accident under-reporting: A MARK

two-country examination

Tahira M. Probsta, , Laura Petittab, Claudio Barbaranellib
a
Washington State University Vancouver, USA
b
Sapienza University of Rome, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A growing body of research suggests that national injury surveillance data signicantly underestimate the true
Accident under-reporting number of non-fatal occupational injuries due to employee under-reporting of workplace accidents. Given the
Measurement validation importance of accurately measuring such under-reporting, the purpose of the current research was to examine
Surveillance the psychometric properties of two dierent techniques used to operationalize accident under-reporting, one
using a free recall methodology and the other a recognition-based approach. Moreover, in order to assess the
cross-cultural generalizability of these under-reporting measures, we replicated our psychometric analyses in the
United States (N = 440) and Italy (N = 592). Across both countries, the results suggest that both measures
exhibited similar patterns of relationships with known antecedents, including job insecurity, production
pressure, safety compliance, and safety reporting attitudes. However, the recall measures had more severe
violations of normality and were less correlated with self-report workplace injuries. Considerations, implica-
tions, and recommendations for using these dierent types of accident measures are discussed.

1. Introduction namely job insecurity, production pressure, safety compliance, safety

Workers around the globe annually experience approximately 260
million occupational injuries and 350,000 fatalities due to work-related
injuries (Hmlinen et al., 2006). According to recent national
surveillance data, nearly 3 million of those work-related injuries and
illnesses occurred in the United States (BLS, 2015), with over half being
serious enough to require time away from work, job transfer, or
restricted duty. An additional 640,000 work-related injuries occurred
in Italy according to the National Institute for Insurance against
Accidents at Work (Instituto Nazionale per lAssicurazione contro gli
Infortuni sul Lavoro; INAIL, 2016). Despite these sobering statistics,
research indicates that national surveillance statistics such as these
signicantly underrepresent the true extent of work-related accidents
and injuries due to under-reporting(e.g, Hmlinen et al., 2006; Leigh
et al., 2004; Lowery et al., 1998; Probst et al., 2008; Probst and Estrada,
2010; Rosenman et al., 2006).
The purpose of the current study was to examine the psychometric
properties of two dierent self-report techniques used to operationalize
accident under-reporting, one using a free-recall methodology and the
other a recognition-based approach. In addition, the validity of these
two under-reporting measures was evaluated by examining their
relationships with known correlates of accident under-reporting,
reporting attitudes, and workplace injuries (Probst et al., 2013a; Probst
and Graso, 2013; Probst et al., 2013b).
Below we begin our review of the literature by discussing the nature
and prevalence of under-reporting. Next, we examine the two com-
monly used self-report techniques to estimate such under-reporting and
place these within the literature on cognitive biases. Finally, we
develop a nomological network (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955) of
expected relationships with under-reporting that can be used to
examine the validity of these two approaches to the measurement of
under-reporting.
1.1. Prevalence and denitions of under-reporting
Undercounts of the true prevalence of workplace injuries can occur
at two points within the chain of reporting: 1) when an injury occurs
and the employee decides whether to report it to their employer, and 2)
when a company is notied by an employee of an injury and decides
whether to include that injury in their ocial injury log. Organizational-
level under-reporting involves the latter part of the chain and occurs
when organizations do not properly report work-related injuries meet-
ing the denition of a recordable incident to the appropriate regulatory
authority. For example, in the United States a recordable incident is one

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: probst@vancouver.wsu.edu (T.M. Probst).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.05.006
Received 22 February 2017; Received in revised form 10 April 2017; Accepted 9 May 2017
0001-4575/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.M. Probst et al.
that: leads to a work-related fatality; results in loss of consciousness,
days away from work, restricted work, or transfer to another job; or
requires medical treatment beyond rst aid (OSHA, 2016).
Estimates suggest that a large proportion of all recordable-eligible
injuries fail to be properly logged by organizations. In a seminal article on
this topic, Rosenman et al. (2006) matched companies and employees
who reported work-related injuries and illnesses to OSHA with informa-
tion contained within four workers compensation databases in the state
of Michigan, nding that 6067% of all workplace injuries were not
captured by the ocial OSHA logs. In an industry-specic study, by
comparing medical claims data from 38 construction companies partici-
pating in an owner-controlled insurance program to the companys
ocial OSHA recordable rates, Probst et al. (2008) found that 78% of
all recordable-eligible injuries went unreported. Thus, organizational-
level under-reporting is a serious issue and widely pervasive. Nonetheless,
these studies demonstrate that estimating the prevalence of organiza-
tional-level under-reporting while complex is objectively possible by
examining employee medical records or workers compensation databases
and calculating the extent to which injuries meeting the denition of a
recordable event are properly coded and reported by employers.
The measurement of individual-level underreporting is far more di-
cult. Individual-level under-reporting occurs when employees fail to
report work-related injuries, illnesses or accidents to their employer.
Unfortunately, research (e.g., Probst and Estrada, 2010; Probst et al.,
2013a; Probst and Graso, 2013) indicates that there too are signicant
discrepancies between the number of workplace accidents that are
experienced by employees and the number that are actually reported
to the employer with estimates from those studies suggesting 5780% of
all accidents experienced by employees go unreported to their company.
Unfortunately, despite increasing recognition of the problem of
under-reporting, there has been little empirical research on the optimal
way to measure this phenomenon. Measuring accident under-reporting
at the individual-level is challenging for a variety of reasons. First, the
criteria for what constitutes a reportable event may vary from company
to company (e.g., ranging from report everything policies including
near misses and unsafe conditions to only reporting actual injuries).
More problematic, there is no objective measure of what actually gets
reported to the employer. As noted above, many recordable injuries
that employees accurately report to their employer do not ever get
entered into the ocial log of workplace injuries (Probst et al., 2008).
Thus, there is no objective standard by which to compare employee self-
reports of injuries or accidents. Similarly, there are few objective
measures of the injuries or accidents that employees actually experi-
ence on the job (particularly if the employees do not seek medical
assistance following the event).
As a result of these challenges, researchers typically rely upon self-
report data from employees to estimate the numbers of reported,
unreported, and total experienced accidents. For the purpose of this
study, a workplace accident is dened as any unplanned and uncontrolled
event that led to: injury to persons, damage to property/plant/equipment, or
some other loss to the company. Thus, we are moving beyond a sole focus
on injury under-reporting to also include other signicant events that
organizations would typically expect their employees to report (i.e.,
damage to property or equipment).
The primary aim of the current study was to examine the validity of
two dierent self-report techniques used to operationalize accident
under-reporting, one using a free-recall methodology and the other a
recognition-based approach. Below, we next review these measures in
light of research on cognitive biases associated with memory using free-
recall versus recognition-based prompts.
1.2. Recall versus recognition memory
Asking employees to accurately report their prior experiences of
workplace accidents requires tapping into declarative memory, i.e.,
memories for events that can be consciously recalled or recognized
2
Accident Analysis and Prevention 106 (2017) 19
(Cohen and Squire, 1980). A substantial body of literature from
cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience suggests that the
processes involved in recall versus recognition memory dier in
fundamental ways. Specically, whereas recall relies upon conscious
recollection and retrieval (Jacoby et al., 1993), recognition can occur
due to either familiarity with the material or cued recollection
(Mandler, 1980). Thus, it is largely accepted that recall-based tasks
are more cognitively dicult than recognition-based tasks, and that
recognition performance is usually superior to recall performance
(Haist et al., 1992).
Despite the preponderance of evidence suggesting the superiority of
recognition memory over recall, there are advantages and disadvan-
tages with constructing a measure of accident underreporting using
either approach. On the one hand, a free recall approach results in a
measure that is simple to administer (e.g., asking participants to
indicate, How many accidents did you experience and report?) and
only involves asking a limited number of questions (e.g., how many
accidents they experienced, reported, and failed to report). Moreover,
such a measure could be used without modication across a wide
variety of dierent industries since the questions are not industry- or
context-specic. However, as noted above, research indicates that
individuals generally perform worse on recall measures compared to
recognition measures. Moreover, research also suggests that memory
performance on recall tasks declines more with age than performance
on recognition-based tasks (Craik and McDowd, 1987; Danckert and
Craik, 2013). Similarly, research (Mickes et al., 2008) has shown that
recall memory declines during pregnancy, whereas performance on
recognition-based tasks does not. Thus, reliance on recall measures of
underreporting may be less accurate among certain segments of the
workforce.
On the other hand, constructing a recognition-based measure of
under-reporting requires identication of all precipitating events that
could be classied as a safety incident potentially leading to an accident
or injury. Such precipitating events might dier by industry or
occupation. For example, inhalation of hazardous fumes might be a
risk factor present in one job, but not be pertinent to another. Thus,
constructing a measure containing a broad universe of potential
precipitating events that are applicable to a variety of occupations is
challenging and would necessitate a lengthier measure than the recall
approach described above. A recognition-based approach would also
still rely on free recall if the recognition measure intends to quantify the
number of times each precipitating event occurred, rather than whether
it occurred, further increasing the complexity of the measure in terms of
scale length and cognitive load to complete.
Given the diering advantages and disadvantages associated with
these two dierent approaches to under-reporting, the current study
sought to compare the psychometric properties and dierential validity
of two commonly used measures of underreporting one that relies on
a free recall approach and one that utilizes a recognition-based
approach.
1.3. Validation constructs
In order to compare the two measures, we examined the relation-
ship between known correlates of under-reporting and each measure of
under-reporting. First, and perhaps not surprisingly, research has found
that accident under-reporting is related to higher incidence of work-
related injuries. For example, in two studies of under-reporting (using
free recall measures), Probst et al. (2013b) found that greater accident
under-reporting was signicantly associated with more workplace
injuries (r = 0.32 and 0.43, respectively). In other words, employees
who experience more injuries at work are also more likely to under-
report those injuries and other related safety incidents to their
organization.
Therefore, our rst research question was:
RQ #1: Do the observed correlations between workplace injuries
T.M. Probst et al.
and accident reporting signicantly dier among the recall vs. recogni-
tion measures?
In order to further compare the two measures, we also examined the
relationship between known predictors of under-reporting and each
measure of under-reporting. Specically, prior research on the nomo-
logical net (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955) of variables related to under-
reporting has demonstrated that job insecurity, production pressure,
safety reporting attitudes, and safety compliance are all signicant
predictors of employee accident under-reporting.
In a cross-cultural study of employees in the United States (using a
recall measure) and Italy (using both recall and recognition measures),
Probst et al. (2013a) found that job insecurity was not only related to a
higher likelihood of experiencing a workplace accident, but also that
insecure employees reported proportionally fewer of those experienced
accidents compared to secure employees.
In a study of copper miners, Probst and Graso (2013) predicted that
there would be less congruence between experienced and reported
accidents when workplace production pressure is high compared to
when production pressure is lower. In support of this, they found that
employees who perceived higher levels of production pressure not only
experienced more accidents (using a recognition-based measure), but
also reported proportionally fewer of those accidents compared to
employees who perceived lower levels of production pressure. Addi-
tionally, this study also examined the relationship between accident
reporting attitudes and reporting behaviors. Interestingly, they found
that employees who had more positive reporting attitudes experienced
fewer accidents (r = 0.23); however, they reported more accidents
(r = 0.21) relative to employees with negative reporting attitudes.
Together, this pattern of correlations would suggest that accident
under-reporting would be higher among individuals with negative
reporting attitudes than individuals who have positive attitudes toward
reporting.
In their two studies measuring under-reporting (again both utilizing
a free recall measure), Probst et al. (2013b) found that employees who
scored higher on a measure of behavioral safety compliance also had
signicantly lower levels of accident under-reporting (r = 0.20 and
0.42, respectively).
Given this established nomological network of antecedents of
under-reporting, our second research question was:
RQ #2: Is there dierential variance explained in accident under-
reporting when relying on recall vs. recognition measures of under-
reporting?
In order to answer these research questions, two separate studies
were conducted. In the rst study, data were collected from 440
employees in two dierent U.S. organizations to provide an initial
investigation. In the second study, we attempted to replicate our
ndings in a dierent cultural context using data from 592 employees
in 22 Italian organizations. Consistent ndings across the two contexts
would strengthen our condence in the generalizability of the eects.
2. Study 1 method: United States
2.1. Participants and procedure
In order to answer our Research Questions, surveys were adminis-
tered to 440 employees from two dierent organizations in the United
States. Seventy-six percent of respondents were male, 22% female, with
1.4% leaving the item blank. The median age category of participants
was 4044 yrs. The average employee tenure was 5.45 years
(SD = 6.03).
Organizations were recruited from the following industry sectors
that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011), have above
average risk of employee injuries: mining (N = 195) and transportation
(N = 245). The rationale for selecting organizations in these sectors
was both conceptual and statistical in nature. From a conceptual
standpoint, it would not make sense to study safety among employees
3
Accident Analysis and Prevention 106 (2017) 19
that face little risk of exposure to workplace hazards (e.g., accounting
rms, university employees, banking sector, etc.). Therefore, we chose
to focus on sectors where safety is a highly relevant issue. From a
statistical standpoint, it was also important, given that the experience of
accidents is a low base rate phenomenon. Including employees from
low-risk sectors would result in highly skewed distributions due to the
vast majority of employees in those industries experiencing no acci-
dents, let alone reporting them. After providing participants with
informed consent materials that explained the anonymous nature of
the data collection and their rights as research participants, members of
the research team administered the surveys containing the research
measures to employees during their working hours. In order to ensure
participants were comfortable responding to the questions, they were
informed that only members of the research team would have access to
the data.
2.2. Measures
Below is a description of measures used to provide data for the
current analyses.
Recall Measure of Accidents. Using a measure (Probst et al.,
2013b; see Appendix) adapted from Hayes et al., 1998, employees were
asked to indicate how many safety accidents they experienced and
reported to appropriate company ocials (i.e., How many accidents did
you experience and report to your supervisor in the last 12 months?)
and how many accidents they had experienced but were not reported to
appropriate company ocials (i.e., How many accidents did you
experience but NOT report to your supervisor in the last 12 months?)
over the past 12 months. In order to ensure consistent interpretation of
the question, we provided the following denition for the term
Accident: An unplanned and uncontrolled event that led to: injury to
persons, damage to property/plant/equipment, or some other loss to
the company.
Using these data, we could compute the total number of experienced
accidents for comparison to the number actually reported. If no
underreporting is occurring, then the number reported should equal
the number experienced. To the extent that these numbers diverge,
greater accident underreporting can be said to occur (Probst et al.,
2013a, 2013b). Although the workplace accident variables were self-
report in nature, previous studies do indicate that self-report measures
of accidents and unsafe behaviors are related to independent observa-
tions of these variables (Lusk et al., 1995). Specically, Lusk et al.
compared self-ratings, supervisor-ratings, and observer ratings of
employee use of hearing protection. They found that supervisor reports
were highly divergent from both self- and observer-ratings, and that
self- and observer-ratings were highly correlated (.89). As a result, they
concluded that self-reports of safety-related behavior are appropriate
and may be the best choice when time and monetary resources restrict
measurement to one indicator (p. 51).
Recognition Measure of Accidents. The recognition measure of
experienced and reported accidents was developed by Probst and Graso
(2013) based on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Injury
and Illness Classication System (OIICS; Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2007). The OIICS provides a classication system used to code the
precipitating events or exposures related to workplace illnesses and
injuries. Probst and Graso (2013) developed a list of seventeen such
exposures/events that were presented to employees who were asked to
indicate (yes = 1/no = 0) if they had experienced each of the follow-
ing events during the previous year, and if that exposure had resulted in
either personal injury or property damage. The events included: slip;
trip; fall; struck or stepped on; rubbed or abraded; hit by object; contact
with hazardous materials; heat or cold exposure; caught in or between
objects; motor vehicle incident; repetitive motion; inhaled hazardous
substance; electrical current shock; collapsed under an object or a rock;
improper lifting; accidentally hit by another worker; and exposure to
excessive dust. Thus, each employees experienced events score could
T.M. Probst et al.
range from 0 to 17. By examining the number of experienced events,
one can ascertain the overall level of exposure.
Each employee was also asked if they reported (yes = 1/no = 0)
each experienced event to appropriate company ocials when it
occurred. Thus, reported events scores could also range from 0 to 17. By
comparing the levels of experienced and reported events, the extent of
underreporting can be determined. If all experienced events are reported
(regardless of how many occurred), there is no underreporting.1
Job insecurity. Nine items from the Job Security Index (JSI; Probst,
2003) were used to measure employee perceptions of job insecurity.
Respondents indicated on a 3-point scale (yes, dont know, no) the extent
to which each adjective or phrase described the future of their job (i.e.,
can depend on being here, stable, unknown). Responses were
scored such that higher numbers reect more job insecurity. Using a
scoring system recommended by Hanisch (1992), item responses were
coded as follows: agreement with negatively worded items (i.e., un-
known) was scored 3; agreement with positively worded items (i.e.,
stable and can depend on being here) was scored 0; and dont
know responses were scored 2. This was based on prior analyses
suggesting that endorsement of the dont know anchor is psychome-
trically closer to a negative response than a positive one (Hanisch, 1992).
Production Pressure. Organizational production pressure (Probst
and Graso, 2013) was measured using ve Likert-scale items. Partici-
pants indicated their agreement to the following items using response
options ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree): The
main focus of this organization is on production. Everything else is
second. Note: this measure was only collected in the mining sample.
Attitudes towards Reporting. Reporting attitudes were measured
using a 4-item scale (Probst et al., 2013). Using a 7-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), respondents
indicated the extent to which they had positive versus negative
attitudes toward reporting accidents at work. A sample item was, I
am hesitant to report on-the-job accidents or injuries. Responses were
scored such that higher numbers reect more positive reporting
attitudes.
Safety Compliance. A 4-item safety compliance scale (Neal et al.,
2000) assessed the degree to which employees comply with safety rules
and policies (e.g., I use the correct safety procedures for carrying out
my job). Items were presented in Likert-type format with a scale
ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Responses were
scored such that higher numbers reect higher safety compliance.
Workplace Injuries. We used a 12-item self-report formative
measure of workplace injuries (Probst et al., 2013b) experienced during
past year (e.g., back injury, cut/puncture wound, broken bone, eye
irritation). Workplace injuries were assessed by totaling the number of
injuries workers indicated they had experienced as a result of their job,
and could range from 0 to 12.
3. Study 1 results
3.1. Descriptive statistics and correlations
Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of recall and recognition
measures of accidents. The mean number of experienced accidents was
6.86 for the recall measure (SD = 44.99) and 2.69 for the recognition
measure (SD = 2.75). Although accident data by denition tend to be
1 2
Unlike many psychological constructs and accompanying reective measures, the
OIICS measure of accident underreporting is a formative measure (Borsboom et al., 2004)
comprised of a variety of indicators representing failure to report dierent kinds of
workplace exposures that all lead to the overarching construct of the level of under-
reporting. As a result, empirically, whereas inter-item correlations should be positive and
high in a reective measure, this is not the case with formative measures, nor are
traditional psychometric approaches to evaluating the measure appropriate (e.g.,
Cronbachs alpha, factor analytic assessment of underlying dimensionality). In the current
paper, this also applies to the formative scale of workplace injuries.
Accident Analysis and Prevention 106 (2017) 19
skewed, the recall measure was much more highly skewed (12.49) and
exhibited much higher kurtosis (185.68) than the recognition measure
(1.31 and 1.84, respectively). The mean number of reported accidents
was 3.19 for the recall measure (SD = 36.29) and 0.53 for the
recognition measure (SD = 1.08) with the recall measure again de-
monstrating more skew and kurtosis. Overall, recall measures of
accidents reporting have more severe violations of normality in
comparison to recognition ones.
Table 2 presents descriptive statistics, scale reliabilities (for reec-
tive scales) and zero-order correlations among the study variables. All
measures were reliable with alpha coecients ranging from 0.74 to
0.97. Recognition measures of experienced and reported accidents were
signicantly and positively related to workplace injuries (r = 0.52,
p < 0.01; r = 0.28, p < 0.01). Conversely, the recall measure of
experienced accidents was signicantly and positively related to work-
place injuries (r = 0.16, p < 0.01) whereas reported accidents was not
(r = 0.07, p = 0.165). Hotelling-Williams tests of the equality of
dependent correlations conrmed that the strength of these relation-
ships was signicantly larger for the recognition-based measures of
reporting, t(437) = 6.63, p < 0.001, and t(437) = 3.22, p < 0.01,
for experienced and reported accidents respectively. These ndings
provide an initial answer to Research Question #1 by suggesting that
workplace injuries tend to be more strongly correlated with recogni-
tion-based measures of under-reporting compared to recall-based
measures.
3.2. Predictors of recall and recognition measures of accidents
As noted earlier, the extent of underreporting can be determined by
examining discrepancies between the number of experienced accidents
compared to the number reported. Thus, to provide an explicit within-
person comparison between these two variables, four repeated-mea-
sures analysis of variance models were constructed in which job
insecurity, production pressure, safety reporting attitudes, and safety
compliance respectively were modeled as continuous between-subjects
independent variables, and the recall measures of experienced accidents
and reported accidents were modeled as within-subjects variables.2
Similarly, four repeated-measures analysis of variance models were
constructed in which job insecurity, production pressure, safety report-
ing attitudes, and safety compliance respectively were modeled as
continuous between-subjects independent variables, and the recognition
measures of experienced accidents and reported accidents were mod-
eled as within-subjects variables. An observed interaction between the
within-subjects variable and the between-subjects predictor would be
indicative of the level of within-person discrepancy (i.e., underreport-
ing) being signicantly explained by that predictor. Moreover, by
examining the variance in this underreporting explained by the
predictor, we could explore Research Question #2 to determine which
form of underreporting measure resulted in the greatest amount of
variance explained.
There was a signicant interaction between the recall measure of
accidents (reported vs. experienced) and safety reporting attitudes, F(1,
411) = 6.96, p < 0.01 (2 = 0.02), and safety compliance, F(1, 410)
= 39.44, p < 0.001 (2 = 0.09). The expected interaction was not
signicant for perceptions of job insecurity, F(1, 411) = 2.62,
p = 0.106 (2 = 0.01), and only marginally signicant for production
Separate models were constructed for each predictor for two reasons. First, the
purpose of this research was not to examine which independent variables are the best
predictors of accident underreporting, but rather to determine whether known predictors
of underreporting explain more variance in recall vs. recognition-based measures of
underreporting. Thus, our focus is on the dependent variables (comparing variance
explained using recall vs. recognition measures), rather than a comparison of the
independent variables. Second, because production pressure was only collected in the
mining sample, modeling all of the predictors in a single analysis would have resulted in
the loss of the remaining samples and a great deal of statistical power.
4
T.M. Probst et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 106 (2017) 19

Table 1 Table 3
U.S. Descriptive Statistics. Study 1: U.S. Predictors of Under-reporting.

M SD Range Skew Kurtosis Experienced Reported

Recognition Experienced Accidents 2.69 2.75 015 1.31 1.84 Recall Measures
Recognition Reported Accidents 0.53 1.08 06 2.44 5.93 B SE B SE
Recall Experienced Accidents 6.86 44.99 0745 12.49 185.68 1. Job Insecurity 6.87 2.22 3.27 1.84
Recall Reported Accidents 3.19 36.29 0745 19.65 400.57 1.004 2.22 2.99 1.84
2. Production Pressure 1.80 0.70 0.78 0.29
1.50* 0.70 0.51 0.29
pressure, F(1, 188) = 3.35, p < 0.07 (2 = 0.02). On the other hand, 3. Reporting Attitudes 6.83 2.21 3.27 1.84
3.18 2.18 0.01 1.82
there was a signicant interaction between the recognition measure of
4. Safety Compliance 6.22 2.09 3.27 1.85
accidents (reported vs. experienced) and perceptions of job insecurity, F 5.84** 2.18 0.41 1.93
(1, 438) = 7.72, p < 0.01 (2 = 0.02), production pressure, F(1, 193)
Recognition Measures
= 10.76, p < 0.01 (2 = 0.05), safety reporting attitudes, F(1, 438) B SE B SE
= 62.38, p < 0.001 (2 = 0.13), and safety compliance, F(1, 437) 1. Job Insecurity 2.70 0.13 0.53 0.05
= 17.55, p < 0.001 (2 = 0.04). In addition to the larger number of 0.39** 0.13 0.06 0.05
signicant eects, the recognition measure also resulted in slightly 2. Production Pressure 2.85 0.21 0.50 0.08
0.58** 0.21 0.07 0.08
larger eect sizes (.02.13) than the recall measure (.01.09), thus
3. Reporting Attitudes 2.70 0.12 0.53 0.05
providing an initial answer to our Research Question #2. Namely, 1.06** 0.12 0.16** 0.05
known predictors of accident under-reporting tend to be more consis- 4. Safety Compliance 2.70 0.13 0.53 0.05
tently signicant and explain more variance in such under-reporting 0.54** 0.13 0.03 0.05
when utilizing recognition-based measures compared to free recall
Notes: Intercept and slope coecients are reported on the rst and second lines
measures.
respectively for each predictor. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
The form of these signicant interactions was examined using the
method for plotting interactions suggested by Aiken and West (1991).
gical and practical reasons. From a methodological perspective, we wanted
Specically, we used the regression coecients from the repeated
to verify that our results from Study 1 were not context dependent, i.e. to
measures analyses (see Table 3) to plot the predicted level of
determine if they would generalize to a dierent cultural context.
experienced and reported accidents at 1 SD for each predictor. The
Moreover, with the growing economic crisis within Italy, concerns
ndings are shown on Fig. 1ac for recall measures, and Fig. 1dg for
regarding job insecurity are becoming increasingly prevalent. Thus, there
recognition measures. As can be seen, while signicant accident
were practical reasons as well for the collection of Italian data.
underreporting occurred when measured using the recall method (i.e.,
Surveys were administered to 592 employees from 22 dierent
total experienced accidents outnumbered reported accidents), this
small to mid-sized organizations in Italy. Organizations were recruited
underreporting was signicantly attenuated by positive reporting
from the following industry sectors that, according to INAIL (2011),
attitudes and safety compliance, and marginally exacerbated by
have above average risk of employee injuries: health care (N = 2);
increased production pressure. Similarly, signicant levels of accident
manufacturing (N = 5); transportation (N = 4); energy (N = 4), con-
underreporting were observed when using the recognition method (i.e.,
struction (N = 5), and commerce (N = 2). Eighty-three percent of
total experienced accidents outnumbered reported accidents); more-
respondents were male, 15.5% female, with 0.2% leaving the item
over, this underreporting was signicantly exacerbated by perceptions
blank. The average employee age was 40.38 years (SD = 10.52). The
of job insecurity and high production pressure, yet was attenuated by
average employee tenure was 12.1 years (SD = 9.67). Because exact
positive reporting attitudes and safety compliance.
population counts of employees were not obtained for all organizations,
corresponding response rates cannot be computed.
The research sta provided participants with informed consent
4. Study 2 method: Italy
materials that explained the anonymous nature of the data collection
and their rights as research participants, and distributed the question-
4.1. Participants and procedure
naire in a sealed envelope in order to assure condentiality.
Furthermore, to facilitate accurate and honest responses, questionnaires
Study 2 was conducted to attempt to replicate (and extend) our
were not distributed in the presence of organizational ocials; employ-
ndings from Study 1 to a dierent cultural setting for both methodolo-

Table 2
U.S. Correlations.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Job Insecurity 1.42 1.07 (0.86)

2. Production Pressure 2.71 1.27 0.28** (0.83)
3. Reporting Attitudes 5.15 1.26 0.25** 0.62** (0.74)
4. Safety Compliance 6.23 0.88 0.15** 0.33** 0.33** (0.97)
5. Workplace Injuries 2.66 2.80 0.00 0.37** 0.40** 0.27**
6. Recognition Exp. Accidents 2.69 2.75 0.14** 0.19** 0.39** 0.20** 0.52**
7. Recognition Reported Accidents 0.53 1.08 0.05 0.06 0.15** 0.03 0.28** 0.36**
8. Recognition Unreported Accidents 2.16 2.56 0.13** 0.23** 0.35** 0.20** 0.45** 0.92** 0.03
9. Recall Exp. Accidents 6.86 44.99 0.02 0.15* 0.07 0.13** 0.16** 0.15** 0.07 0.14**
10. Recall Reported Accidents 3.19 36.29 0.07 0.15* 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.83**
11. Recall Unreported Accidents 3.60 24.96 0.08 0.13 0.13** 0.30** 0.19** 0.19** 0.12* 0.16** 0.56** 0.00

Notes: Exp. Accidents = Experienced Accidence. All measures have N = 440, except Production Pressure (N = 190) and Recognition Experienced Accidents and Unreported Accidents
(N = 413). *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

5
T.M. Probst et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 106 (2017) 19

Fig. 1. Predictors of reported vs. experienced accidents in the United States. Recall = recall-based measure; Recog = recognition-based measure.

ees either completed the survey containing the research measures loadings were all signicant and ranged from 0.53 and 0.74, with the
during working hours or had the option to complete it at home. exception of one item which displayed a factor loading of 0.22. Because
this was the only reverse worded item, we interpreted this nding as a
4.2. Measures method eect resulting from item phrasing and, therefore, retained all
items from initial item pool. The AVE and CR values, respectively 0.35
The survey contained all the measures previously described in Study and 0.77, were satisfactory. Overall, these results demonstrated the
1. Specically, for the following scales we used the previously construct validity of the Italian version of both production pressure and
translated Italian versions: 1) recall measure of accidents, recognition attitudes towards reporting scales.
measure of accidents, and job insecurity (Probst et al., 2013a); and 2)
safety compliance (Barbaranelli et al., 2015). The production pressure 5.2. Descriptive statistics and correlations
(Probst and Graso, 2013), attitudes towards reporting (Probst et al.,
2013b), and workplace injuries (Probst et al., 2013b) scales were Table 4 presents descriptive statistics of the recall and recognition
translated into Italian from the English version using the standard measures of accidents in Italy. The mean number of experienced
translation-back-translation procedure recommended by Brislin (1980). accidents was 0.60 for the recall measure (SD = 1.76) and 1.50 for
The correspondence of the original and the back-translated items was the recognition measure (SD = 2.49). Similar to Study 1, the recall
then veried by the authors. measure was much more highly skewed (5.49) and exhibited much
higher kurtosis (41.75) than the recognition measure (1.92 and 3.40,
5. Study 2 results respectively). The mean number of reported accidents was 0.25 for the
recall measure (SD = 0.78) and 0.19 for the recognition measure
5.1. Preliminary analyses (SD = 0.63) with the recall measure again demonstrating more skew
and kurtosis. This comports with the results from Study 1, showing
Before conducting tests to answer our Research Questions, two recall measures of accidents reporting demonstrated more severe
preliminary conrmatory factor analyses (CFA) examined the factorial violations of normality in comparison to recognition ones.
validity of the Italian version of latent construct scales (i.e., production Table 5 presents descriptive statistics, scale reliabilities and zero-
pressure, attitudes towards reporting) respectively measured by ve order correlations among the study variables. All measures were
and six observed variables. The models were tested on the covariance
matrix and using the Maximum Likelihood Robust estimation method Table 4
(Muthn and Muthn, 19982012). Results from the CFA on production Italy Descriptive Statistics.
pressure showed good t of the structure to the data: 2 (5, N = 592)
M SD Range Skew Kurtosis
= 23.807, p < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.080 (.049; 0.113), CFI = 0.96,
TLI = 0.93, with factor loadings all signicant and ranging from 0.56 Recognition Experienced Accidents 1.50 2.49 014 1.92 3.40
and 0.74. Moreover, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) was 0.44 Recognition Reported Accidents 0.19 0.63 05 4.32 22.27
Recall Experienced Accidents 0.60 1.76 020 5.49 41.75
and Composite Reliability (CR) was 0.79, thus showing satisfactory
Recall Reported Accidents 0.25 0.78 010 7.08 72.72
values. Results from the CFA on attitudes towards reporting also
showed a good t to the data: 2 (9, N = 592) = 21.129, p < 0.05, N = 592.
RMSEA = 0.048 (.021; 0.074), CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.97. The factor

6
T.M. Probst et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 106 (2017) 19

Table 5
Italy Correlations.

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Job Insecurity 1.42 0.84 (0.79)

2. Production Pressure 3.52 1.33 0.12** (.79)
3. Reporting Attitudes 4.66 1.12 0.09* 0.60** (0.73)
4. Safety Compliance 5.20 1.26 0.07 0.27** 0.06 (0.91)
5. Workplace Injuries 1.75 3.83 0.10* 0.13** 0.02 0.11**
6. Recognition Exp. Accidents 1.50 2.49 0.21** 0.20** 0.16** 0.16** 0.30**
7. Recognition Reported Accidents 0.19 0.63 0.10* 0.10* 0.04 0.14** 0.23** 0.43**
8. Recognition Unreported Accidents 1.30 2.29 0.20** 0.19** 0.16** 0.14** 0.26** 0.97** 0.19**
9. Recall Exp. Accidents 0.60 1.76 0.12** 0.14** 0.11* 0.15** 0.24** 0.54** 0.31** 0.50**
10. Recall Reported Accidents 0.25 0.78 0.10* 0.12** 0.08 0.17** 0.23** 0.36** 0.31** 0.31** 0.79**
11. Recall Unreported Accidents 0.35 1.24 0.10* 0.13** 0.11** 0.10* 0.19** 0.54** 0.24** 0.52** 0.92** 0.50**

Notes: Exp. Accidents = Experienced Accidence. All measures have N = 592, except Safety Compliance and Injuries, where N = 591. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

reliable with alpha coecients ranging from.73 to 0.95. Recognition Table 6

measures of experienced and reported accidents were signicantly and Study 2: Italy Predictors of Under-reporting.
positively related to workplace injuries (r = 0.30, p < 0.01; r = 0.23,
Experienced Reported
p < 0.01), as were recall measures of experienced accidents (r = 0.24,
p < 0.01) and reported accidents (r = 0.23, p < 0.01) Again, a Recall Measures
Hotelling-Williams test of the equality of dependent correlations was B SE B SE
conducted. Results indicate the strength of the relationship between 1. Job Insecurity 0.60 0.07 0.25 0.03
0.20** 0.07 0.08* 0.03
injuries and experienced accidents was marginally larger for the
2. Production Pressure 0.60 0.07 0.25 0.03
recognition-based measure compared to the recall-based measure, t 0.19* 0.07 0.05 0.03
(589) = 1.60, p = 0.056. Thus, these ndings partially replicate nd- 3. Reporting Attitudes 0.60 0.07 0.25 0.03
ings from Study 1 suggesting that workplace injuries tend to be more 0.26** 0.07 0.09** 0.03
strongly correlated with recognition-based measures of under-reporting 4. Safety Compliance 0.60 0.07 0.25 0.03
0.27** 0.07 0.14** 0.03
compared to recall-based measures.
Recognition Measures
B SE B SE
1. Job Insecurity 1.50 0.10 0.19 0.03
5.3. Predictors of recall and recognition measures of accidents 0.53** 0.10 0.07* 0.03
2. Production Pressure 1.50 0.10 0.19 0.03
In order to answer our Research Question #2 within Italy, the same 0.50** 0.10 0.07* 0.03
3. Reporting Attitudes 1.50 0.10 0.19 0.03
repeated-measures analysis of variance models used in Study 1 were
0.40** 0.10 0.03 0.03
constructed in which job insecurity, production pressure, safety report- 4. Safety Compliance 1.50 0.10 0.20 0.03
ing attitudes, and safety compliance were modeled as continuous 0.41** 0.10 0.09** 0.03
between-subjects independent variables and the within-subjects mea-
sure compared the number of experienced accidents to the number of Notes: Intercept and slope coecients are reported on the rst and second lines
respectively for each predictor. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
reported accidents. As with Study 1, these analyses were conducted rst
for the free recall measure of experienced and reported accidents, and
then again for the recognition measure of accidents. 6. Discussion
There was a signicant interaction between the recall measure of
accidents (reported vs. experienced) and job insecurity, F(1, 590) Although annual gures in the U.S. and Italy show meaningful
= 5.89, p < 0.05 (2 = 0.01), production pressure, F(1, 590) numbers of work-related injuries, research suggests that these national
= 10.48, p < 0.01 (2 = 0.02), safety reporting attitudes, F(1, 590) surveillance statistics signicantly underrepresent the true prevalence
= 6.79, p < 0.01 (2 = 0.01), and safety compliance, F(1, 589) of occupational accidents and injuries due to under-reporting.
= 6.45, p < 0.05 (2 =0.01). Similarly, there was a signicant inter- Furthermore, while such undercounts can occur at both the organiza-
action between the recognition measure of accidents (reported vs. tional- (i.e., when a company decides whether to include a notied
experienced) and perceptions of job insecurity, F(1, 590) = 25.51, injury in their ocial injury log) and individual-level (i.e., when an
p < 0.001 (2 = 0.04), production pressure, F(1, 590) = 22.02, employee decides whether to report an experienced injury to their
p < 0.001 (2 = 0.04), safety reporting attitudes, F(1, 590) = 15.95, employer), there is still little research on the optimal way to measure
p < 0.001 (2 = 0.03), and safety compliance, F(1, 589) = 11.10, the extent to which employees fail to report a work-related injury they
p < 0.01 (2 = 0.02). Again, using the recognition measure resulted experience. Specically, we note that the study of individual-level
in slightly larger eect sizes (.02.04) than the recall measure under-reporting relies on self-report data from employees to estimate
(.01.02), thus further corroborating results obtained in Study 1. discrepancies between the number of accidents that they experience
In order to determine the form of the interactions, the Aiken and and the number that are actually reported to their company.
West (1991) method for plotting interactions described in Study 1 was In our study, we focused on the extent to which employees accuracy
once again followed; see Table 6 for the regression coecients used to in reporting their prior experiences of workplace accidents may depend
plot these gures. The gures demonstrate similar interaction patterns upon free-recall vs. recognition-based techniques commonly used to
as found in Study 1. Specically, for both recall (see Fig. 2ad) and operationalize accident under-reporting. Therefore, the purpose of the
recognition (Fig. 2eh) measures, there were signicantly larger dis- current research was to: a) examine the psychometric properties of two
crepancies between reported and actually experienced number of dierent methods used to operationalize accident under-reporting, one
accidents among employees who perceived their job as insecure, using a free recall methodology and the other a recognition-based
reported high production pressure, and displayed poor reporting approach; and b) assess the cross-cultural generalizability of these
attitudes and low safety compliance. under-reporting measures by replicating our psychometric analyses in

7
T.M. Probst et al.
Fig. 2. Predictors of reported vs. experienced accidents in Italy. Recall = recall-based measure; Recog = recognition-based measure.
the United States and Italy. Specically, we aimed to test whether the
observed correlations between workplace injuries and accident report-
ing signicantly dier among the recall vs. recognition measures, and
whether there was dierential variance explained by known predictors
of employee accident under-reporting (i.e., job insecurity, production
pressure, safety reporting attitudes, and safety compliance) when
relying on recall vs. recognition measures.
Our ndings showed that in the U.S. and Italy both recall and
recognition measures of accident under-reporting exhibited similar
interaction patterns with job insecurity, production pressure, safety
reporting attitudes, and safety compliance. As such, employees who
perceived their job as insecure, reported high production pressure, and
displayed poor reporting attitudes and low safety compliance displayed
a signicant and higher discrepancy between reported and actually
experienced number of accidents (i.e., under-reporting). However,
results from the two accident reporting techniques also showed that
recall measures resulted in smaller eect sizes, had much more severe
violations of normality, and were less correlated with self-report
workplace injuries. Therefore, despite the ease of use and brevity of
the recall measures, evidence from two dierent national contexts (i.e.,
U.S., Italy) seems to suggest that recognition-based measures of
experienced and reported accidents may be psychometrically better
ways of measuring work-related accidents and associated reporting
behaviors.
6.1. Theoretical and practical implications
The current study has several theoretical implications. Firstly, our
research contributes to empirical investigation of the optimal way to
validly measure accident under-reporting by comparing the psycho-
metric properties of free-recall versus recognitions-based techniques.
While the current literature acknowledges advantages and disadvan-
tages of both types of under-reporting operationalization, this study is
the rst to include both measures in order to empirically contrast one
with another. Accuracy of declarative memory can be aected by a
wide variety of dierent biases. According to Hilbert (2012), at least
eight seemingly unrelated biases can be produced and cause noisy
8
Accident Analysis and Prevention 106 (2017) 19
information processing during storage and retrieval of information in
human memory. For example, a recency eect (Neil et al., 2007) may
cause accidents that are more recent in time to be easiest to recall and
report, whereas an accident more distant in time will be the least likely
to be remembered. The ostrich eect may lead one to ignore an obvious
negative (i.e., accident) situation. Social biases, as well as authority
bias, may lead employees to report memories that are more consistent
with the opinion or expectations of an authority gure (e.g., supervisor)
rather than the actual experiences. Given these potential biases, a free
recall approach that frames the period of experienced and reported
accidents within one year preceding a survey is more likely conducive
to distorted memories than a recognition prompted technique listing
multiple job-specic accidents that might potentially have occurred.
Secondly, we extend prior research on job insecurity, production
pressure, safety reporting attitudes, and safety compliance as known
correlates of accident under-reporting by demonstrating the signi-
cance of these antecedents when predicting under-reporting measured
by both free-recall versus recognitions-based techniques. Thirdly, we
demonstrated cross-country generalizability of our U.S.-based results by
further testing our research questions in a large sample from 22
dierent organizations in Italy.
From a practical perspective, the results of this study may assist
organizations that wish to minimize the unwanted and costly eects of
employee safety violations, as well as build a strong safety process that
encourages accurate report of accidents. Organizations can send the
message that safety is emphasized and rewarded by investing in the
development of recognition-based tools for reporting accidents, speci-
cally crafted for their own occupational setting and the related
prototypical precipitating events or workplace injuries. In doing so,
organizations may support their employees in accurately reporting
experienced accidents. This may be particularly valuable for more
vulnerable segments of the workforce such as aged workers and/or
pregnant women, given earlier reviewed research indicating less
accuracy with recall measures among these groups.
Thus, organizations interested in preventing unwanted safety out-
comes (e.g., days away from work, restricted duties, compensation
claim costs) may invest in eective monitoring of injuries by developing
T.M. Probst et al.
more accurate surveillance tools. As such, a context-specic inventory
measure of accident reporting may increase precision on recognition-
based tasks, thus assisting employees in accurately reporting to their
employer the injuries they have experienced.
6.2. Strength, limitations and future directions
The present ndings clearly demonstrated that recognition-based
measures of accident reporting have less severe violations of normality,
are more correlated with workplace injuries, and are associated with
slightly higher eect sizes when testing the nomological net of
predictors related to under-reporting. Therefore, the use of recogni-
tion-based self-report measures may help employees memory in
reporting their experience of injuries at work thus resulting in a more
valid estimate of under-reporting. Furthermore, using a two-country
study further strengthened the generalizability of these ndings.
However, while the set of data in the Italian context was drawn from
numerous organizational samples representing a wide variety of
industry sectors, they were nonetheless convenience samples (as were
the U.S. ones). Hence, our ndings might arguably be aected by self-
selection biases in the kinds of organizations that agreed to participate.
An additional aspect that should be addressed in future work is that
all the study variables rely on self-reported data. Future research should
attempt to further validate these measures and compare their psycho-
metric properties by using independent sources of data (e.g., super-
visors, coworkers). In doing so, a more rigorous test of the predictors
eect on recall vs. recognition measures of under-reporting might be
achieved by collecting multi-source data. Although no measure of
accident reporting is likely to be 100% accurate, studying the relation-
ship between other types of measures of under-reporting (e.g., archival
records) and recall vs. recognition self-report measures of such phe-
nomenon could further strengthen our present conclusions.
Finally, while the current study tested the psychometric properties
of recall vs. recognition measures of under-reporting with regard to job
insecurity, production pressure, safety reporting attitudes, and safety
compliance, additional variables related to under-reporting could be
studied in the future. For example, safety climate and supervisor
enforcement could contribute to extend the nomological net of vari-
ables related to under-reporting, and might fruitfully be included in
future studies in order to further test the dierential validity of the two
dierent approaches (i.e., recall vs. recognition).
Acknowledgements
This study was partially funded by a research grant from the SHRM
Foundation (Project No. 147). However, the interpretations, conclu-
sions and recommendations are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the views of the SHRM Foundation.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.05.006.
References
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions.
Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Barbaranelli, C., Petitta, L., Probst, T.M., 2015. Does safety climate predict safety
performance in Italy and the USA? Cross-cultural validation of a theoretical model of
safety climate. Accid. Anal. Prev. 77, 3544.
Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G.J., Van Heerden, 2004. The concept of validity. Psychol.
Rev. 111, 10611071.
Accident Analysis and Prevention 106 (2017) 19
Brislin, R., 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In:
Triandis, H.C., Berry, J.W. (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology.
Allyn & Bacon, Boston, pp. 389444.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007. Occupational Injury and Illness Classication Manual.
(Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/iif/oiics_manual_2007.pdf).
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011. Incidence Rates of Nonfatal Occupational Injuries and
Illnesses by Industry and Case Types, 2010. (Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/iif/
oshwc/osh/os/ostb2813.txt).
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015. Employer-reported Workplace Injury and Illness
Summary. (Available from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/osh.nr0.htm).
Cohen, N.J., Squire, L.R., 1980. Preserved learning and retention of pattern analyzing
skill in amnesia: dissociation of knowing how and knowing that. Science 210,
207209.
Craik, F.I.M., McDowd, J.M., 1987. Age dierences in recall and recognition. J. Exp.
Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cognit. 13, 474479.
Cronbach, L., Meehl, P., 1955. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol. Bull. 52
(4), 281302.
Danckert, S.L., Craik, F.I.M., 2013. Does aging aect recall more than recognition
memory? Psychol. Aging 28, 902909.
Hmlinen, P., Takala, J., Saarela, K.L., 2006. Global estimates of occupational
accidents. Saf. Sci. 44, 137156.
Haist, F., Shimamura, A.P., Squire, L.R., 1992. On the relationship between recall and
recognition memory. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cognit. 18, 691702.
Hanisch, K., 1992. The job descriptive index revisited: questions about the question mark.
J. Appl. Psychol. 77, 377382.
Hayes, B.E., Perander, J., Smecko, T., Trask, J., 1998. Measuring perceptions of
workplace safety: development and validation of the Work Safety Scale. J. Safety Res.
29, 145161.
Hilbert, M., 2012. Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: how noisy information
processing can bias human decision making. Psychol. Bull. 138 (2), 211237. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025940.
Jacoby, L.L., Toth, J.P., Yonelinas, A.P., 1993. Separating conscious and unconscious
inuences of memory: measuring recollection. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 122, 139154.
Leigh, J.P., Marcin, J.P., Miller, T.R., 2004. An estimate of the U. S. governments
undercount of nonfatal occupational injuries. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 46, 1018.
Lowery, J.T., Borgerding, J.A., Zehn, B., Glazner, J.E., Bondy, J., Kreiss, K., 1998. Risk
factors for injury among construction worker at Denver International Airport. Am. J.
Ind. Med. 34, 105112.
Lusk, S., Ronis, D., Baer, L., 1995. A comparison of multiple indicators: observations,
supervisor report, and self-report measures of workers hearing protection use. Eval.
Health Professions 18 (1), 5163.
Mandler, G., 1980. Recognizing: the judgment of previous occurrence. Psychol. Rev. 87,
252271.
Mickes, L., Wixted, J.T., Shapiro, A., Scar, M., 2008. The eects of pregnancy on
memory: recall is worse but recognition is not. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 31,
754761.
Muthn, L.K., Muthn, B.O., 2017. Mplus Users Guide, 7th ed. Muthn & Muthn, Los
Angeles (19982012).
National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work[IstitutoNazionale per
lAssicurazionecontrogliInfortunisulLavoroINAIL], 2016. Tabellenazionali Con
Cadenza Semestrale [Biannual Analysis of the Number of Accidents]. (Available at
http://dati.inail.it/opendata_les/downloads/daticoncadenzasemestraleinfortuni/
Tabelle_nazionali_cadenza_semestrale.pdf).
National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work [IstitutoNazionale per
lAssicurazionecontrogliInfortunisulLavoroINAIL], 2011. RapportoAnnuale 2010
[Annual Report 2010]. (Retrieved from: http://www.inail.it/).
Neal, A., Grin, M.A., Hart, P.M., 2000. The impact of organizational climate on safety
climate and individual behavior. Saf. Sci. 34, 99109.
Occupational Safety, Health Administration, 2016. OSHA Injury and Illness
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements. (Available at https://www.osha.gov/
recordkeeping/).
Probst, T.M., 2003. Development and validation of the Job Security Index and the Job
Security Satisfaction Scale: a classical test theory and IRT approach. J. Occup. Organ.
Psychol. 76, 451467.
Probst, T.M., Estrada, A.X., 2010. Accident under-reporting among employees: testing the
moderating inuence of safety climate and supervisor enforcement of safety
practices. Accid. Anal. Prev. 42, 14381444.
Probst, T.M., Brubaker, T.L., Barsotti, A., 2008. Organizational injury rate under-
reporting: an examination of the moderating eect of organizational safety climate. J.
Appl. Psychol. 93 (5), 11471154.
Probst, T.M., Graso, M., 2013. Pressure to produce = pressure to reduce accident
reporting. Accid. Anal. Prev. 59, 580587.
Probst, T.M., Barbaranelli, C., Petitta, L., 2013a. The relationship between job insecurity
and accident underreporting: a test in two countries. Work Stress 27, 383402.
Probst, T.M., Graso, M., Estrada, A.X., Greer, S., 2013b. Consideration of future
consequences: a new predictor of employee safety. Accid. Anal. Prev. 55, 124134.
Rosenman, K.D., Kalush, A., Reilly, M.J., Gardiner, J.C., Reeves, M., Luo, Z., 2006. How
much work-related injury and illness is missed by the current national surveillance
system. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 48, 357365.