Workplace Safety Climate (NOSACQ-50)NOSACQ-50
~10 min · 50 問 · 無料の簡易レポート
Fifty statements about how safety actually works where you work — not what the poster in the hallway says, but what gets prioritized when the schedule is tight, who gets blamed when something goes wrong, and whether reporting a near-miss is treated as a contribution or a nuisance. The NOSACQ-50 was built by a Nordic research network and is used worldwide to diagnose safety climate across seven dimensions, covering how management handles safety and how the workgroup itself does. Your answers are read against the instrument's published interpretation levels, dimension by dimension.
Not what the safety poster says — what actually wins when safety and the schedule collide. Fifty questions, seven dimensions.
- See which of the seven dimensions of safety climate hold up at your workplace and which need work — distinguishing what management signals about safety from what your own workgroup practices when nobody is auditing.
登録不要で開始できます。簡易レポートは最後に無料で提供されます。 完全レポートは$14.90です。必要なときにお支払いください。
このテストで測定されるもの
Management Safety Priority, Commitment, and Competence
Management Safety Empowerment
Management Safety Justice
Workers' Safety Commitment
Workers' Safety Priority and Risk Non-Acceptance
Safety Communication, Learning, and Trust in Co-workers' Safety Competence
Workers' Trust in the Efficacy of Safety Systems
クリックからレポートまで。
手順はシンプルです：回答し、システムが計算し、結果が表示されます。事前登録不要、フォーム不要、待ち時間なし。
- 1
「無料で始める」をクリック
開始時に登録は不要です。結果を保存したいときに、最後に本人確認を行います。テストはすぐに始まります。
- 2
質問に答える
Likert 4-point scale (Strongly disagree to Strongly agree)。進捗バーが表示されます。本人確認後は、どのデバイスからでも中断・再開可能です。
- 3
簡易レポートを受け取る
即座に無料で提供。各次元のテキスト要約と、高・中・低の指標が含まれます。
- 4
完全レポートが必要か決める
簡易レポートだけでも十分な価値があります。完全レポートには、パーセンタイル、基準比較、チャート、応用的推奨、検証可能な修了証が追加されます。
- 5
統合チャットで探求する
AIとあなたの結果について対話できます。プロフィールがキャリアにどう活かせるか、高いスコアの意味、他のテストとの比較などを尋ねられます。
簡易レポートはすぐにあなたのものに。完全レポートは必要に応じて。
| 無料版と有料版の比較 | 簡易レポート (常に無料) | 完全レポート ($14.90) |
|---|---|---|
| 回答に基づいて生成された各次元の解釈テキスト | ✓ | ✓ |
| 各次元の素点スコア | ✓ | ✓ |
| 1段落の概要 | ✓ | ✓ |
| 簡易レポートの全内容を、各次元3〜5段落に拡張 | — | ✓ |
| 各次元のパーセンタイル（基準群との比較） | — | ✓ |
| アクセシブルなデータテーブル付きの次元間チャート | — | ✓ |
| キャリア、人間関係、セルフケアへの応用的推奨 | — | ✓ |
| 公開検証とPDFダウンロード付き修了証 | — | ✓ |
- ✓簡易レポートの全内容を、各次元3〜5段落に拡張
- ✓各次元のパーセンタイル（基準群との比較）
- ✓キャリア、人間関係、セルフケアへの応用的推奨
- ✓公開検証とPDFダウンロード付き修了証
テスト完了後、簡易レポートの先に進みたい場合のみお支払いいただきます。
PIX（即時）またはクレジットカードでお支払い。レポートへのアクセスは1年間。その後、レポートは読み取り専用モードで閲覧可能です。
受け取れるもの。
パーセンタイル付きレーダーチャート。説明のための例示。
エグゼクティブサマリー
「あなたは高い知的好奇心と平均以上の誠実性を特徴とするプロフィールを示しており、中程度の外向性とバランスの取れた情緒反応性を持っています。この組み合わせは、規律を持って新しいことを求める人を示唆しています。」
説明のための例示。
尺度分析
完全レポートでは、各スコアの実際的な意味を3〜5段落で詳述し、あなたの総合的なプロフィールに基づいてパーソナライズされます。範囲ごとの一般的なテキストではなく、すべての次元を横断してあなたに特有の観察を生成する分析です。
応用的推奨
あなたの総合的なプロフィールに基づく分野別の実用的推奨（キャリア、人間関係、学業、セルフケア）。検証可能なQR付き修了証とPDFダウンロード。
このツールを信頼できる理由。
The Nordic Safety Climate Questionnaire (Kines et al., 2011) measures shared perceptions of how safety is actually handled at a workplace: three dimensions read management (priority under pressure, empowerment, justice) and four read the workgroup (commitment, risk acceptance, communication and learning, trust in safety systems). Each dimension is scored as the mean of its items on a 1-4 scale and interpreted against the instrument's own published levels (>3.30 good; 3.00-3.30 fairly good; 2.70-2.99 fairly low; <2.70 low). All six languages offered are the NFA's official translations, verbatim.
- 著者:
- Kines, Lappalainen, Mikkelsen, Olsen, Pousette, Tharaldsen, Tómasson & Törner
- 年:
- 2011
- デジタルオブジェクト識別子 — ジャーナル記事への直接リンク。:
- 10.1016/j.ergon.2011.08.004
- Kines, P., Lappalainen, J., Mikkelsen, K. L., Olsen, E., Pousette, A., Tharaldsen, J., Tómasson, K., & Törner, M. (2011). Nordic Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50): A new tool for diagnosing occupational safety climate. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 41(6), 634-646.
このテストの背景にある理論。
Occupational Safety Climate
Theory that workgroup members hold shared perceptions of how safety is actually prioritized, handled, and valued where they work — by management and by the workgroup itself — and that these shared perceptions predict safety behavior and accident rates beyond formal policies. Climate is measured as perceptions of current practice, not attitudes or self-reported behavior.
この理論について詳しく見る →ターゲット
Workers, supervisors and safety professionals in environments where safety is a real concern — industry, construction, logistics, healthcare, labs.
推奨年齢: 18+
レポートが答える質問。
What wins when safety and the schedule collide?
This dimension reads what management prioritizes when it costs something — not the policy, the collision. High scores describe leaders who accept delay over risk and staff who have seen them do it. A low score here contaminates everything downstream: workers calibrate to what management rewards, not to what it laminates.
Does management trust workers with safety, or just instruct them?
Empowerment is whether the people closest to the risk get a real voice in managing it: consulted on changes, trusted with judgment, backed when they exercise it. High scores predict rules that fit the work; low scores predict workarounds — rules made without the people who must live inside them get quietly renegotiated on the floor.
When something goes wrong, does the inquiry look for causes or culprits?
Justice here is procedural: are incidents investigated to learn, and are people treated fairly when they report? This dimension controls the flow of bad news upward. Where it is low, incidents do not stop happening — they stop being reported, which is worse, because the organization loses its early-warning system exactly where it needs it.
Does the crew police its own safety, or leave it to the department?
This reads whether workers treat safety as their own responsibility — helping each other work safely, taking initiative — or as something done to them by rules and inspectors. It is the dimension most shaped by group history: one veteran who visibly cuts corners without consequence teaches faster than any induction course.
Is a bit of risk quietly part of being good at this job?
Risk acceptance is the most honest dimension of the seven: whether the workgroup treats hazards as a normal cost of getting things done, and risk-taking as competence. High acceptance rarely announces itself — it lives in phrases like 'we've always done it this way' and in the small daily bets that almost always pay off, until one doesn't.
Does safety knowledge actually move around your team?
This dimension covers whether people talk about risks when they appear, help each other, take each other's safety competence seriously, and learn from what goes wrong. It is the mechanism dimension: commitment supplies the will, communication is how the will becomes shared practice. Where it is high, one person's near-miss becomes everyone's lesson by the end of the shift.
Does the crew believe the safety system works, or perform belief in it?
Trust in the efficacy of safety systems — training, safety representatives, rounds, early planning — is what separates compliance from participation. High trust means people use the system: they report, attend, plan. Low trust means the system runs as theatre, fully staffed and quietly ignored, and its reports describe a workplace that no longer exists.
最も効果的な方。
A safety officer who suspects the paperwork is lying
Zero incidents for three quarters, and yet the shop floor feels rushed. Climate scores per dimension show whether the zeros describe safety or silence.
A worker whose near-miss report went nowhere
The form was filed, the response never came, and the lesson the crew learned was not the intended one. The justice and communication dimensions put words and numbers on that experience.
A site manager taking over a new team
Every crew inherits a climate from its history. Reading all seven dimensions early shows what the previous management actually taught this team about safety — before the new manager finds out the hard way.
よくある質問
What is safety climate, and how is it different from safety rules?
Rules are what is written; climate is what is practiced. Safety climate is the workgroup's shared perception of how safety is actually prioritized — by management and by the workers themselves — and research since 1980 shows it predicts accidents better than the thickness of the procedure manual. A site can be fully compliant on paper and have a climate where speed quietly outranks safety every afternoon.
Why do some questions ask about management and others about my co-workers?
Because they fail independently. Three of the seven dimensions read management — whether it prioritizes safety under pressure, involves workers, and handles incidents justly. Four read the workgroup itself — commitment, risk acceptance, communication and learning, and trust in the safety systems. A common and dangerous pattern is strong management scores over weak workgroup ones: the rules exist, and the crew has stopped believing in them.
What do the levels like 'fairly low' mean?
They are the instrument's own published interpretation levels, not NOESIS inventions: above 3.30 is a good level to maintain, 3.00-3.30 fairly good with room to improve slightly, 2.70-2.99 fairly low and in need of improvement, and below 2.70 in need of major improvement. They apply per dimension — an overall average would hide exactly the contrast you want to see.
I answered honestly and management scores came out bad. Is this usable?
Yes — that is the instrument working. Note what a single response is and is not: safety climate is defined as shared perception, so one person's answers are one reading of the room, not the room. If several colleagues take it independently and the pattern repeats, you have something much harder to dismiss than an anecdote: a structured, comparable description of where the climate fails.
Does a good climate score mean we are safe?
It means the conditions that produce safety are present — which is the strongest leading indicator available, but still an indicator. Climate measures precede accidents statistics; that is their value. A good score with rising near-misses means believe the near-misses.
Why does the wording occasionally feel odd?
Every language version here is the official NFA translation, reproduced exactly — including a few idiosyncrasies of the originals. That is deliberate: the moment we 'improve' the wording, results stop being comparable with the thousands of workplaces measured with the official versions.
より充実したプロフィールのために、ツールを組み合わせましょう。
各テストは異なる次元を測定します。統合チャットは完了したすべてのテストの結果を横断し、単一のツールでは見えないつながりを明らかにします。
Career Futures Profile
Twenty-eight items measuring career adaptability, optimism, and market knowledge.
無料で始める →Career Anchors Profile
Forty items mapping eight career anchors — the values you would not sacrifice.
無料で始める →Portrait Values Assessment
Ten basic human values mapped through 21 portrait descriptions, scored ipsatively.
無料で始める →Career Decision Difficulties Assessment
Ten specific barriers to career decision-making across three clusters.
無料で始める →このテストは情報提供を目的とした自己理解のためのツールです。心理学的または臨床的な診断を構成するものではなく、資格を持つ専門家による評価に代わるものでもありません。レポートにはテキスト生成に使用されたAIモデルが示されます。
The Nordic Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50) is developed and distributed by the Danish National Research Centre for the Working Environment (NFA); its official page states that use of the questionnaire is free of charge. All six languages offered here are the NFA's own official translations, reproduced verbatim.