\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Attitude to Safety and Adherence to Project Specification in Structural Construction},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2021 2021-10-15 (revised: 24 Year 2021 15 October 2021)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2021 2021-10-15}
\title{Attitude to Safety and Adherence to Project Specification in Structural Construction}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Vincent K.  Akortia}

             \author[2]{Charles K.  Kankam}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 11 September 2021 Accepted: 5 October 2021 Published: 15 October 2021}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


Personal and Project Safety are crucial in structural construction, whereas extensive studies have been conducted in the past on personal safety, very little is known about project safety. This study evaluated operatives? attitude to safety in construction and its effect on structural specifications adherence. Specifically, determined attitude to safety, and relationship between attitude to safety, supervision and project structural specifications adherence. The study adopted survey to collect data. It sampled 110 participants from 8public and 14 private ongoing projects in Ghana. A convenient random sampling was adopted to administer questionnaire. In total, 101operatives responded to the questionnaire. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential- ANOVA, student ?t? test, Pearson?s correlation and regression. Results showed that respondents had good attitude to safety, and significant positive relationship exists between attitude to safety and project structural specification adherence which was further strengthened by safety supervision.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{attitude to safety, safety supervision, adherence to structural specification, operatives, construction projects.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
afety concern in construction industry is key because it is a means of preventing accidents on site and from structural collapses, defects in buildings among others. It is the basis of design of structures by the engineer to ensure structural stability, durability, serviceability and safety in their life span without endangering life or yielding to adverse condition easily \hyperref[b6]{(Gilbert et. al. 2017}).Hence, buildings are defined as structures for human activities, which must be safe for the occupants \hyperref[b10]{(Odulami, 2002)}.In the light of that designs are accompanied by strict detailed specification to be followed in executing whatever project in question to avoid collapse and defects such as excessive cracking and deflection during and after execution. However, safety consciousness of operatives in construction is rather not encouraging. \hyperref[b7]{Hamid et al. (2008)} found from a study in Malaysia that construction site accident results from workers' negligence, failure to obey work procedures, failure to use personal protective equipment, low knowledge and skill level of workers and poor workers' attitude to safety. Similarly, \hyperref[b4]{Fordjour (2015)} in Ghana concluded that poor health and safety performance was due to negligence/ carelessness on the part of construction managers and workers. If operatives ignore simple personal safety, would they be concerned with the safety of the structure they are working on? Would they pay particular attention to given specifications of the projects they work on? Can there be a link between observation of personal safety and innate adherence to project specification? The effect could result in collapse of buildings killing the occupants(e.g., MELCOM Limited shop in Ghana in 2012 leading to 14 deaths and 70 injuries \hyperref[b2]{(Asante and Sasu, 2018)}and loss of investment. According to \hyperref[b14]{Windapo and Rotimi (2012)} majority of structural collapses in Nigeria were attributable to human action or inaction, including largely poor supervision and workmanship, disregard for approved drawings and faulty designs \hyperref[b14]{(Windapo and Rotimi, 2012)}; noncompliance with building specifications and regulations \hyperref[b11]{(Oloyede et al., 2010)}.Ghana recorded 123 injuries and 28 deaths from year 2000 to 2016 out of fifteen \hyperref[b13]{(15)} reported structural collapses. Out of the fifteen collapses, eight (8) occurred in the capital city (Accra) and its suburbs \hyperref[b2]{(Asante and Sasu, 2018)}. Similarly, Bangladesh recorded 1000 injuries and 150 deaths in 2013 as a result of the collapse of an eight-storey factory building \hyperref[b2]{(Asante and Sasu, 2018)}. These collapses were blamed on the use of weak materials, neglect of proper building procedure, negligence on the part of operatives among others. To curb this, prevention through strict observance of safety regulation is paramount.\par
Personal and Project Safety are crucial in structural construction, and whereas extensive studies have been conducted in the past on personal safety, none so far have been done on the project safety. For example \hyperref[b0]{Abdelhamid and John (2000)} found that the major factors affecting unsafe condition include actions and inactions of Management; unsafe behaviour of workers and unsafe working site conditions. This study therefore aimed to determine the attitude of operatives to safety on construction site, and construction, whereas extensive studies have been conducted in the past on personal safety, very little is known about project safety. This study evaluated operatives' attitude to safety in construction and its effect on structural specifications adherence. Specifically, determined attitude to safety, and relationship between attitude to safety, supervision and project structural specifications adherence. The study adopted survey to collect data. It sampled 110 participants from 8 public and 14 private ongoing projects in Ghana. A convenient random sampling was adopted to administer questionnaire. In total, 101 operatives responded to the questionnaire. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and inferential-ANOVA, student 't' test, Pearson's correlation and regression. Results showed that respondents had good attitude to safety, and significant positive relationship exists between attitude to safety and project structural specification adherence which was further strengthened by safety supervision. Hence, increase attitude to safety and supervision may result in project structural specification adherence. Thus, conscious safety attitude is a recipe for project structural specification adherence. It implies construction operatives must be guided to understand and manipulate these variables (safety attitude, supervision and specification adherence) for consistent personal and project structural safety.\par
if the attitude affects adherence to project structural specification during construction to ensure safety of structures. Specifically determined operatives' level of attitude to safety; how operative groups and education level affect safety attitude; andif attitude to safety and supervision affects adherence to project structural specifications. The model illustrated in figure \hyperref[fig_0]{1} presents the argument for this study. Conscious Safety Observation may reflect in Adherent to Project Structural Specification. The resultant effect would be attainment of safe structure to preventing cracks, defects and possible collapse of buildings; while accident cases lessen. However, attitude can affect safety observation while safety plan coupled with supervision may be influencing factors to safety attitude and the relationship between safety observation and adherence to project structural specification. Operatives may be conscious of safety because of strict supervision and implementation of safety rules on site, and vice versa \hyperref[b1]{(Akortia, 2020)}. 
\section[{II. Proposed Framework}]{II. Proposed Framework} 
\section[{III.}]{III.} 
\section[{Methodology}]{Methodology}\par
The Population considered for the study consists construction operatives (management and labour teams) working on public and private projects in Ghana. A total of 110 participants were conveniently but randomly selected, however, 101 responded to the questionnaire. They were predominantly male workers and mature adults who were largely Ghanaians \hyperref[b1]{(Akortia, 2020)}. Their responses were analyzed to form the basis for findings of this study. Survey design was used with questionnaire (open/close) to collect data from operatives on selected construction project sites except store keepers and security officers. The questionnaire was in two major parts, demographic and constructsattitude to safety and adherence to structural specification -questions. As a procedure, list of ongoing projects were taken from selected District Assemblies which were further selected at random and narrow down to eight (8) state projects and total of fourteen (  {\ref 14}) private projects from communities in which the state projects were located for observation. At every site, selfintroduction was made and questionnaire distributed and explained where necessary while observing kingly activities on site. Respondents who could not read and write were supported. The responses were scored and analyzed for discussion. The Scoring was in two parts. The demographic part of the questionnaire helped in categorization of respondents and the construct questions were scored on a 5 point Likert scale in both direct and reverse manner depending on the direction of the specific question. Descriptive, Student 't' test, one way ANOVA, correlation and hierarchical multiple regression were used to analyze the data.\par
IV. 
\section[{Analysis of Results}]{Analysis of Results} 
\section[{a) Demographics}]{a) Demographics}\par
A total of 101 (92\%) recovery of the data instrument was made out of 110 participants. Respondents were largely males(91\% of respondents) and adult Ghanaian (84\% of respondents against 14\% Togolese) of various levels of formal education. Private \hyperref[b12]{(14)} and 8 government projects were considered. Out of 91\% male, 39\% and 61\% for government and private projects respectively. Two categories of labour team 61 and management team 40 respondents in all were observed. Figure \hyperref[fig_1]{2} indicates that 33.7\% (34/101) and 32.7\% (33/101) of the respondents had Secondary and Tertiary educations respectively, while 33.6\% (34/101) had elementary education. Thus every one of the respondents has some level of formal education which is a good sign to the industry, especially where good number of them had secondary and tertiary education.  From Table \hyperref[tab_3]{3} the results F (1, 99) = 15.61, P < 0.05 indicates that significant difference exists between Labour and Management teams at 0.05 level of significance as indicated by their means. Hence Management team observed safety measures more than Labour team. From table 5 the result F (3, 97) = 3.67, P < 0.05 indicates a significant difference exists between at least two of the means of the educational levels on Attitude to Safety. From the post hoc results in Table \hyperref[tab_6]{6}, the values F = 7.92, P > 0.05; F = 10.94, P > 0.05 and F = -3.01, P > 0.05 indicates that there is no significant difference between the mean attitude to safety score of pre-tertiary groups. However, the result F = 18.56*, 10.64* and 7.63* indicated a significant difference between the tertiary group and pre-tertiary educational levels compared at 0.05 level of significance. This may be due to the higher level of knowledge they probably acquire along their educational ladder about the importance of safety and their experiences. So this class of operatives with tertiary education in the industry must be empowered to ensure observation of safety regulation during construction process through resources and further refresher programs. 
\section[{c) Project Structural Specification Adherence}]{c) Project Structural Specification Adherence}\par
The result of t (100) = 8.11, P < 0.05 shown in table \hyperref[tab_7]{7} indicated that the respondents' adherence to project structural specification is high since the mean value was significant at 0.05 level of significance. This finding is an indication of the need for immediate reorientation of players in construction to begin thinking that adherence to project structural specification is equally a safety measure to ensure safety of structures.\par
Pearson's correlation of general attitude to safety, management attitude to safety supervision and project structural specification was tested and the results are presented in table \hyperref[tab_10]{10}.\par
Test for normality and homogeneity using skewness and kurtosis was within the acceptable range of ±2 \hyperref[b13]{(Tabachnick et al. 2007}) while the Crombach alpha (?) indicates the reliability of constructs as illustrated in table 9.  \hyperref[tab_10]{10indicate} that almost all the independent variables related significantly with at least one dependent variable as a requirement to analyze for moderation  {\ref (Holmbeck, 1997)}. The descriptive result is detailed in Table \hyperref[tab_9]{9}.\par
The results of Pearson correlation are given in table \hyperref[tab_10]{10}. The value r= 0.80, N = 101, p < 0.01 indicates a very high/strong association \hyperref[b3]{(Davis, 1971)} and positively significant correlation between attitude to safety and project structural specification adherence of the respondents at 0.01 significance level. Thus, an increase in the attitude to safety or positive safety behaviour results in increase in project structural specification adherence by operatives. Similarly, from the same table, Pearson's correlation, r= 0.59, N = 40, p < 0.01 indicates a substantial association \hyperref[b3]{(Davis, 1971)}, significantly positive correlation between management attitude to safety supervision and project structural specification adherence at 0.01 level of significance. This shows that an increase in the management attitude to safety supervision would result in the increase project structural specification adherence and vice versa. 
\section[{d) Influence of Safety plan/supervision on the relation between Safety Observation and Project Structural Specification Adherence}]{d) Influence of Safety plan/supervision on the relation between Safety Observation and Project Structural Specification Adherence}\par
The hierarchical regression in which three distinct steps are stipulated was conducted. The main effect (Attitude to Safety) was entered first, the main effect of moderator (safety supervision) was entered second, and the interaction term (Attitude to Safety X Safety Supervision) was entered third (Aiken \& West, 1991). The basic requirement for testing for moderation effect that there should be a relationship between the predictor variable(s) and the criterion variables (Holmbeck, 1997) was met as illustrated in Table \hyperref[tab_10]{10} (correlation table). The results of the moderation analyzed are shown in Table \hyperref[tab_11]{11}. From Table \hyperref[tab_11]{11}, it can be inferred from the first step that Safety Attitude had a significant influence on Adherence to Project Specification (? = -.434, p < 0.001). In the second step, Safety Supervision also explained a significant increase in variance of Adherence to Project Specification (Î?"R 2 = .158, ? =.436, p <0.001). In the third step of the regression analysis, the interaction term between attitude to safety and Safety Supervision explained a significant increase in variance in Adherence to Project Specification (Î?"R 2 = .041, ?= -1.030, p <0.01). Thus, Safety Supervision significantly moderated the relationship between Safety Attitude and Adherence to Project Specification such that Safety Supervision strengthens the relationship between Attitude to Safety and Adherence to Project Specification. Hence, safety plan/supervision will influence the relation between Safety Observation and Project Structural Specification Adherence.  
\section[{e) Outcome of the Framework}]{e) Outcome of the Framework} 
\section[{Discussion of Results}]{Discussion of Results}\par
In the first place respondents generally exhibited good attitude to safety on site, and this was more obvious with the Management team than Labour team. This observation is inconsistent with Fordjour (2015) who concluded that poor health and safety performance was due to negligence and or carelessness on the part of construction Managers and workers. The present finding indicates that the both groups-management and labour teams -have relatively good Attitude to Safety but differ in reaction to safety guidelines.\par
Meanwhile Education influence on Attitude to Safety between pre-tertiary and tertiary groups of education is consistent with  {\ref Gharibi}   Finally, Safety Supervision significantly moderated the relationship between Attitude to Safety and Adherence to Project Structural Specification such that Safety Supervision strengthens the relationship between Attitude to Safety and Adherence to Project Specification. This is an indication that supervision has its own improving factor on the system to further perform better though from the above discussion, Observation of Safety/Attitude to Safety already has very high or strong association \hyperref[b3]{(Davis, 1971}) and positive correlation with Project Structural Specification Adherence. Hence this is a revelation that a reduction in the strength of supervision would lead to reduction in Attitude to Safety and then Structural Specification Adherence, and vice versa. No wonder, Windapo and Rotimi (2012) indicated that majority of structural collapses in Nigeria were attributable to human action or inaction, including largely poor supervision and workmanship. Therefore, supervisors who have the most frequent contacts with workers should be the directly responsible persons to guarantee good safety performance on site \hyperref[b8]{(Hofmann et al., 2003;}\hyperref[b9]{Kapp, 2012;}\hyperref[b15]{Zohar, 2002)}.Thus, the better choice here is to encourage functioning supervision at all times to increase the probability of Adherence to both Safety measures and Project Structural Specifications. 
\section[{VI.}]{VI.} 
\section[{Summary and Conclusion}]{Summary and Conclusion}\par
In conclusion, attitude to safety was generally good among the respondents especially the management team while level of education could not be left out in how they vary on attitude to safety between pre-tertiary and tertiary groups. Again, positive relationship exists between Attitude to Safety, Safety Supervision and Project Structural Specification Adherence. Finally, Safety Supervision significantly influences or moderates the relationship between Attitude to Safety and Adherence to Project Structural Specification. Hence the better choice here is encouraging functioning supervision at all times to increase the probability of adherence to both Safety measures and Project Structural Specifications. Thus, conscious Safety Attitude is a recipe for Project Structural Specification Adherence.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}Figure 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png}
\caption{\label{fig_1}EFigure 2 :}\end{figure}
   \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}Table 1 presents}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.4823529411764706\textwidth}P{0.011764705882352941\textwidth}P{0.026470588235294117\textwidth}P{0.023529411764705882\textwidth}P{0.20294117647058824\textwidth}P{0.014705882352941178\textwidth}P{0.03529411764705882\textwidth}P{0.01764705882352941\textwidth}P{0.03529411764705882\textwidth}}
Item\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep p-value\tabcellsep p\tabcellsep Test value\\
General Attitude to safety\tabcellsep 101\tabcellsep 55.82\tabcellsep 16.16\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 2.99\tabcellsep 0.003\tabcellsep <0.05\tabcellsep 51\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{However, from table 2, the score of}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{team. The one-way ANOVA test result in tables 3 shows}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Management team on the attitude scale largely}\tabcellsep the detail.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{influenced Good Attitude to safety than that of Labour}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3993975903614458\textwidth}P{0.0819277108433735\textwidth}P{0.19457831325301203\textwidth}P{0.17409638554216866\textwidth}}
Category\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep sd\\
Labour team\tabcellsep 61\tabcellsep 51.02\tabcellsep 16.27\\
Management team\tabcellsep 40\tabcellsep 63.16\tabcellsep 13.08\\
Total\tabcellsep 101\tabcellsep 55.82\tabcellsep 16.16\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2599173553719008\textwidth}P{0.2528925619834711\textwidth}P{0.05619834710743802\textwidth}P{0.11942148760330579\textwidth}P{0.04214876033057851\textwidth}P{0.07727272727272727\textwidth}P{0.04214876033057851\textwidth}}
Group\tabcellsep Sum of squares\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep F\tabcellsep p-value\tabcellsep p\\
Between groups\tabcellsep 335.71\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 3556.71\tabcellsep 15.61\tabcellsep 0.00\tabcellsep <0.05\\
Within groups\tabcellsep 22552.08\tabcellsep 99\tabcellsep 227.80\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Total\tabcellsep 26108.79\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
  {\small\itshape [Note: F is test statisticSimilarly, as illustrated in table 4, respondents with tertiary education show better attitude to safety than those with pre-tertiary education as confirmed in table 5.]} 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.4015748031496063\textwidth}P{0.07362204724409449\textwidth}P{0.19409448818897637\textwidth}P{0.18070866141732284\textwidth}}
Education level\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep sd\\
Primary\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 43.80\tabcellsep 10.92\\
MSLC/JHS\tabcellsep 29\tabcellsep 51.72\tabcellsep 16.58\\
SHS/A \& O levels\tabcellsep 34\tabcellsep 54.74\tabcellsep 16.28\\
Tertiary\tabcellsep 33\tabcellsep 62.36\tabcellsep 14.28\\
Total\tabcellsep 101\tabcellsep 55.82\tabcellsep 16.16\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 4 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3202054794520548\textwidth}P{0.2154109589041096\textwidth}P{0.04657534246575342\textwidth}P{0.1339041095890411\textwidth}P{0.02910958904109589\textwidth}P{0.06986301369863013\textwidth}P{0.034931506849315064\textwidth}}
Group\tabcellsep Sum of squares\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep Mean square\tabcellsep F\tabcellsep p-value\tabcellsep p\\
Between groups\tabcellsep 2661.95\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 887.32\tabcellsep 3.67\tabcellsep 0.015\tabcellsep <0.05\\
Within group\tabcellsep 23446.85\tabcellsep 97\tabcellsep 241.72\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Total\tabcellsep 26108.79\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
F is test statistic\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}Table 5 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{6} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.571551724137931\textwidth}P{0.13922413793103447\textwidth}P{0.09525862068965517\textwidth}P{0.04396551724137931\textwidth}}
Educ. level\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 3\\
Primary\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
MSLC/JHS\tabcellsep -7.92\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
SHS/A \& O levels\tabcellsep -10.94\tabcellsep -3.01\tabcellsep \\
Tertiary\tabcellsep -18.56*\tabcellsep -10.64*\tabcellsep 7.63*\\
* means significant at 0.05\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_6}Table 6 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{7} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.40812274368231044\textwidth}P{0.012274368231046932\textwidth}P{0.027617328519855593\textwidth}P{0.024548736462093865\textwidth}P{0.2731046931407942\textwidth}P{0.015342960288808664\textwidth}P{0.03375451263537906\textwidth}P{0.018411552346570395\textwidth}P{0.03682310469314079\textwidth}}
Item\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep p-value\tabcellsep p\tabcellsep Test value\\
Specification adherence\tabcellsep 101\tabcellsep 68.22\tabcellsep 13.90\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep 8.11\tabcellsep 0.00\tabcellsep <0.05\tabcellsep 57\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{However, from Table 8, result t (100) = -1.33, P >}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{5}{l}{project details during construction as a safety measure}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{0.05 indicates that respondents disregard observation of}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{3}{l}{at 0,05 level of significance}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_7}Table 7 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{8} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.2833333333333333\textwidth}P{0.03908045977011494\textwidth}P{0.07816091954022988\textwidth}P{0.06839080459770115\textwidth}P{0.048850574712643674\textwidth}P{0.05862068965517241\textwidth}P{0.1074712643678161\textwidth}P{0.05862068965517241\textwidth}P{0.1074712643678161\textwidth}}
Item\tabcellsep N\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Std\tabcellsep df\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep p-value\tabcellsep p\tabcellsep Test value\\
Project\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Details as safety?\tabcellsep 101\tabcellsep 2.85\tabcellsep 1.13\tabcellsep 100\tabcellsep -1.33\tabcellsep 0.00\tabcellsep >0.05\tabcellsep 3\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_8}Table 8 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{9} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.32204968944099377\textwidth}P{0.031677018633540374\textwidth}P{0.0343167701863354\textwidth}P{0.0765527950310559\textwidth}P{0.0686335403726708\textwidth}P{0.09239130434782608\textwidth}P{0.08711180124223603\textwidth}P{0.10031055900621118\textwidth}P{0.03695652173913043\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Min\tabcellsep Max\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep SD\tabcellsep Skewness\tabcellsep Kurtosis\tabcellsep Cronbach alpha (?)\tabcellsep N\\
Knowledge of safety\tabcellsep 29\tabcellsep 56\tabcellsep 47.34\tabcellsep 5.831\tabcellsep 0.352\tabcellsep 0.255\tabcellsep 0.77\tabcellsep 101\\
General Attitude to safety\tabcellsep 28\tabcellsep 82\tabcellsep 55.82\tabcellsep 16.16\tabcellsep -0.331\tabcellsep 0.210\tabcellsep 0.84\tabcellsep 101\\
Managt Attitude to safety\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep 69\tabcellsep 48.66\tabcellsep 15.03\tabcellsep -0.331\tabcellsep 0.210\tabcellsep 0.87\tabcellsep 40\\
Safety supervision\tabcellsep 8\tabcellsep 30\tabcellsep 22.91\tabcellsep 6.51\tabcellsep 0.811\tabcellsep 0.396\tabcellsep 0.81\tabcellsep 40\\
Adherence to project specification\tabcellsep 40\tabcellsep 91\tabcellsep 68.22\tabcellsep 13.90\tabcellsep 0.111\tabcellsep 0.509\tabcellsep 0.73\tabcellsep 101\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_9}Table 9 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{10} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.10284697508896797\textwidth}P{0.46281138790035586\textwidth}P{0.07259786476868327\textwidth}P{0.0786476868327402\textwidth}P{0.0604982206405694\textwidth}P{0.04234875444839858\textwidth}P{0.024199288256227757\textwidth}P{0.006049822064056939\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Variables\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 5\\
1\tabcellsep Knowledge of safety\tabcellsep \tabcellsep -\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
2\tabcellsep General Attitude to safety\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0.72**\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
3\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Management Attitude to safety}\tabcellsep 0.68**\tabcellsep 0.83**\tabcellsep -\tabcellsep \\
4\tabcellsep Safety supervision\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0.64**\tabcellsep 0.78**\tabcellsep 0.96**\tabcellsep -\\
5\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Adherence to project specification}\tabcellsep 0.57**\tabcellsep 0.80**\tabcellsep 0.57**\tabcellsep 0.59**\tabcellsep -\\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{**p<0.01, N=40 for Management}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{N=101 for all operatives}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Results from table\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_10}Table 10 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{11} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.05862068965517241\textwidth}P{0.3028735632183908\textwidth}P{0.1367816091954023\textwidth}P{0.1954022988505747\textwidth}P{0.14655172413793105\textwidth}P{0.009770114942528735\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Model\tabcellsep B\tabcellsep Std. Error\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep P\\
Step 1\tabcellsep (Constant) safety attitude\tabcellsep 57.723 -0.403\tabcellsep 3.388 0.07\tabcellsep -0.434***0.000\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_11}Table 11 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_12}}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{© 2021 Global Journals} 		 		\backmatter   			 
\subsection[{Acknowledgement}]{Acknowledgement}\par
I sincerely express my profound gratitude to my co-author,Prof. Charles Kwame Kankam for the time spent in addressing all the concerns and his encouragement.\par
I am also thankful to KafuiBuo and Sena Ama Buo for their immense advice, support and encouragement during my study.\par
I likewise express gratitude to Isaac Agbemafle, Emma Sekyere, John Dotse, Daniel Detor, Eddison-Mark Bodjawah, David Aidam, Rejoice Mordey, Nicholas Bagida, Emmanuel Banini, and Evans Biney for their diverse supports during the study. May God bless you allabundantly. 			  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Odulami (ed.) ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		\textit{Building materials specification and enforcement on site},  		 			A A Odulami 		.  		D.R. Ogunsemi (ed.)  		2002. p. .  		 			The Nigerian Institute of Building, Ondo State. 		 	 	 (Building Collapse: Causes, prevention and remedies) 
\bibitem[Hamid et al. ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘Causes of Accidents at Construction Sites’.  		 			A R A Hamid 		,  		 			M Z A Majid 		,  		 			B Singh 		.  	 	 		\textit{Malaysian journal of civil engineering}  		2008. 2008. 20  (2) .  	 
\bibitem[Asante and Sasu (2018)]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		\textit{Challenge of Reducing the Incidence of Building Collapse in Ghana: Analyzing the Perspectives of Building Inspectors in Kumasi. journals.sagepub},  		 			L A Asante 		,  		 			A Sasu 		.  		 \url{journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo}  		2018. April-June 2018. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hofmann et al. ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘Climate as a moderator of the relationship between leader-member exchange and content specific citizenship: Safety climate as an exemplar’.  		 			D A Hofmann 		,  		 			F P Morgeson 		,  		 			S J Gerras 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Applied Psychology}  		2003. 88  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Windapo and Rotimi ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘Contemporary issues in building collapse and its implication for sustainable development’.  		 			A O Windapo 		,  		 			J O Rotimi 		.  	 	 		\textit{Buildings}  		2012. 2 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gilbert et al. ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		\textit{Design of Prestressed Concrete to Eurocode 2 (2 nd Ed},  		 			R I Gilbert 		,  		 			N C Mickleborough 		,  		 			G Ranzi 		.  		2017. New York: Taylor \& Francis Group.  	 
\bibitem[Davis ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		\textit{Elementary survey analysis},  		 			J A Davis 		.  		1971. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.  	 
\bibitem[Akortia ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{Evaluating Operatives' Attitude to Safety and Adherence to Project Specification in Structural Construction},  		 			V K Akortia 		.  		2020. Ghana.  		 			Department of Civil Engineering, KNUST, Kumasi 		 	 	 (MSc Thesis) 
\bibitem[Sanaeinasab et al. ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘Evaluation of Knowledge, Attitude and Behavior of Workers towards Occupational Health and Safety’.  		 			H Sanaeinasab 		,  		 			F Ghofranipour 		,  		 			A Kazemneja 		,  		 			A Khavanin 		,  		 			R Tavakoli 		.  	 	 		\textit{Iranian J Publ Health}  		2009. 2009. 38  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Fordjour ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		\textit{Factors Inhibiting the Implementation of Occupational Health and Safety in the Ghanaian Construction Industry. MSc. Dissertation submitted to Department of Building Technology},  		 			G A Fordjour 		.  		2015. KNUST, Kumasi.  	 
\bibitem[Abdelhamid and John ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘Identifying root causes of construction accidents’.  		 			T S Abdelhamid 		,  		 			G E John 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of construction engineering and management}  		2000. 126  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Oloyede et al. ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘Tackling causes of frequent building collapses in Nigeria’.  		 			S A Oloyede 		,  		 			C B Omoogun 		,  		 			O A Akinjare 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Sustainable Development}  		2010. 3 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Zohar ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on minor injuries in work groups’.  		 			D Zohar 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Organizational Behavior}  		2002. 23  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kapp ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘The influence of supervisor leadership practices and perceived group safety climate on employee safety performance’.  		 			E A Kapp 		.  	 	 		\textit{Safety Science}  		2012. 50  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gharibi et al. ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘The Relationship between Workers' Attitude towards Safety and Occupational Accidents Experience’.  		 			V Gharibi 		,  		 			S B Mortazavi 		,  		 			A J Jafari 		,  		 			J Malakouti 		,  		 			M B H Abadi 		.  		 5435/14/63- 145-150.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Occupational Hygiene}  		2016. 2008. 2016. 8 p. .  	 	 (IJOH) 
\bibitem[Tabachnick et al. ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		\textit{Using multivariate statistics},  		 			B G Tabachnick 		,  		 			L S Fidell 		,  		 			J B Ullman 		.  		2007. Boston, MA: Pearson. 5.  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
