# Research on the Influence of Anxiety Psychology on Unsafe Behavior Among Construction Workers
## 4 Model Validation and Result Analysis
### Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)  
Building on satisfactory reliability and validity from pilot and formal surveys, this study employed structural equation modeling (SEM) via AMOS 24.0 to validate the hypothesized relationships. The initial SEM (Figure 3) illustrates anxiety psychology as a latent variable (ellipse), unsafe behaviors as an observed variable (rectangle), and residuals (circles) with measurement errors labeled e1-e17. Path coefficients between anxiety psychology and unsafe behaviors were positive, while those linking organizational climate, safety competency, job satisfaction, and anxiety psychology to unsafe behaviors were negative, aligning with theoretical hypotheses and confirming the model's preliminary validity. The model was validated using AMOS 24.0 by assessing three categories of fit indices: absolute fit, incremental fit, and parsimonious fit, with results detailed in Table 11, Table 12, and Table 13, respectively. As presented in Table 11, all standardized estimates of observed variables ranged between 0.50 and 0.95, with error variances (S.E) spanning 0.021 to 0.098 and no negative variances detected, indicating satisfactory basic model fit. Table 12 demonstrates that all global fit indices (e.g., \(\chi^{2}\)/df, RMSEA, CFI) met recommended thresholds, confirming excellent overall model fit. Figure 3: Verification model of anxiety and unsafe behavior of construction workers. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Fitting Index** & **Values** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Recommendeded** \\ **Values** \\ \end{tabular} & **Result** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Absolute Fit} & X2/df & 2.627 & \textless{}3 & Acceptable \\  & RMSEA & 0.041 & \textless{}0.08 & Acceptable \\  & GFI & 0.834 & \textgreater{}0.9 & Acceptable \\  & RMR & 0.043 & \textless{}0.05 & Acceptable \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Incremental Fit} & IFI & 0.925 & \textgreater{}0.9 & Acceptable \\  & CFI & 0.957 & \textgreater{}0.9 & Acceptable \\  & TLI & 0.968 & \textgreater{}0.9 & Acceptable \\  & NFI & 0.954 & \textgreater{}0.9 & Acceptable \\ \hline Parsimonious Fit & PGFI & 0.913 & \textgreater{}0.9 & Acceptable \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: Analysis of the overall fit index of the model. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **S.E** & **C.R** & \(\boldsymbol{p}\) & **Normalized Path Efficient** \\ \hline Organizational climate \(\rightarrow\) O1 & 0.098 & 8.451 & *** & 0.811 \\ Organizational climate \(\rightarrow\) O2 & 0.093 & 8.484 & *** & 0.743 \\ Organizational climate \(\rightarrow\) O3 & 0.091 & 7.981 & *** & 0.783 \\ Security capability \(\rightarrow\) C1 & 0.083 & 7.684 & *** & 0.714 \\ Security capability \(\rightarrow\) C2 & 0.078 & 7.757 & *** & 0.818 \\ Security capability \(\rightarrow\) C3 & 0.074 & 9.013 & *** & 0.732 \\ Job satisfaction \(\rightarrow\) S1 & 0.071 & 9.145 & *** & 0.779 \\ Job satisfaction \(\rightarrow\) S2 & 0.066 & 9.367 & *** & 0.755 \\ Job satisfaction \(\rightarrow\) S3 & 0.062 & 9.313 & *** & 0.782 \\ Job satisfaction \(\rightarrow\) S4 & 0.052 & 9.011 & *** & 0.778 \\ Job satisfaction \(\rightarrow\) S5 & 0.051 & 9.112 & *** & 0.821 \\ Anxiety psychology \(\rightarrow\) A1 & 0.058 & 9.142 & *** & 0.771 \\ Anxiety psychology \(\rightarrow\) A2 & 0.042 & 8.883 & *** & 0.742 \\ Anxiety psychology \(\rightarrow\) A3 & 0.039 & 8.734 & *** & 0.821 \\ Unsafe behaviors \(\rightarrow\) B1 & 0.045 & 8.678 & *** & 0.777 \\ Unsafe behaviors \(\rightarrow\) B2 & 0.041 & 8.618 & *** & 0.735 \\ Unsafe behaviors \(\rightarrow\) B3 & 0.038 & 7.457 & *** & 0.803 \\ Unsafe behaviors \(\rightarrow\) B4 & 0.037 & 7.562 & *** & 0.796 \\ Unsafe behaviors \(\rightarrow\) B5 & 0.036 & 8.542 & *** & 0.838 \\ Unsafe behaviors \(\rightarrow\) B6 & 0.049 & 8.533 & *** & 0.757 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Significance level is \(p<0.001\).  
\end{table} 
Table 13: Action path coefficient.