5. Limitations
While comparable reports were provided to companies in the
standard and tailored groups it was decided to supplement these
for companies in receipt of the tailored advice with a visit to explain
its rationale (they had been previously blinded to their group
allocation). Standard practice amongst consultants varies and may
include sending final reports or arranging follow-up visits to present
and discuss their findings. For pragmatic reasons we elected to
send reports to those in the standard group. It is possible that if the
managers in the standard practice group had also received an
additional visit, the observed effect size may have been reduced.
Studies conducted in dynamic work environments are also
subject to the effects of uncontrolled workplace changes including
company policy changes and general workplace improvements.
While we were unaware of such changes in our sample they were
not specifically accounted for in our analyses.
Our sample of 25 workgroups from a variety of industry sectors
is similar in size to previously reported studies which have incorporated
the SOC approach in occupational settings (Whysall et al.,
2006b). While promising, there is a need to replicate our findings
in a larger study in order to account for any potential imbalances,
despite randomisation, in the standard and tailored arms of our
study.
We considered that small companies (those with less than 20
employees) would be less likely to employ OHS consultants and
would pose greater challenges in the recruitment of sufficiently
large workgroups. They were therefore not included in our study.
Our results are therefore not generalisable beyond medium-large
organisations.