Development and validation of a work-specific measure of cognitive failure: Implications for occupational safety.

202 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Safety at work: a meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes. (2011, background): “Research has also found negative relationships between role overload and safety compliance and working safely (Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996; Wallace & Chen, 2005).”
Workplace safety (2016, background): “…resources that have been assessed in the safety literature include job strain (Hansez & Chmiel, 2010; Leung, Chan, & Yu, 2012), cognitive failure (Wallace & Chen, 2005), exhaustion (Halbesleben, 2010; Seo, Lee, Kim, & Jee, 2015), sleep quality (Hahn & Murphy, 2008; Smith, Totterdell, & Folkard,…”
Understanding internal, external, and relational attributions for abusive supervision (2014, methodology): “…working professionals who had registered with Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, a viable method of collecting data from a diverse sample of working employees for scale development purposes (e.g., Wallace & Chen, 2005; see also Behrend, Sharek, Meade, & Wiebe, 2011; Paolacci, Chandler, & Ipeirotis, 2010).”
Workplace safety: a meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. (2009, background): “…together identical and conceptually similar predictors based on logic, empirical evidence, and theoretical considerations (e.g., combining neuroticism and negative affectivity, combining conscientiousness and cognitive failures, which is reflective of poor dependability; cf. Wallace & Chen, 2005).”