A comparative study of two desktop hazard perception tasks suitable for mass testing in which scores are not based on response latencies.
20200336 ST [electronic version only]
Transportation Research Part F - Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 22 (January 2014), p. 218-231, ref.
|Samenvatting||In PC-based hazard perception tests scores are traditionally based on how quickly participants respond to developing hazards in video clips. A disadvantage of this method is that latent hazards which do not develop into acute threats cannot be included in the test. The present study compared two tasks using the same stimuli but with different response methods. The stimuli consisted of thirteen animated video clips in which latent hazards did not materialize. Latent hazards could either be a visible other road user who due to the circumstances could start to act dangerously, or a hidden other road users who could be on collision course. The first-mentioned were the overt latent hazards and the latter were the covert latent hazards. In Task 1, participants had to indicate what the high priority latent hazard was after they had watched a clip. In Task 2, participants could indicate latent hazards while they were watching a clip and decide afterwards which of the indicated latent hazards had the highest priority. In both tasks the scores were based on how many high priority latent hazards were detected and were not based not on response times. Professional drivers (driver trainers and driving examiners) and learner drivers were randomly assigned to a group that performed Task 1 and a group that performed Task 2. Professionals scored significantly better on both tasks than learner drivers. Although in both tasks professionals scored significantly higher, Task 1 seems to be a more promising alternative for the traditional hazard perception test than Task 2 because professional drivers scored significantly higher on overt latent hazards than learner drivers in Task 1 but not in Task 2 and experience with computer games influenced the scores in Task 2 but not in Task 1. A weakness of Task 1 was its rather low internal consistency. (Author/publisher)|
|Full-text||Beschikbaar Niet beschikbaar, klik om contact op te nemen voor een digitalisatie verzoek|
|Suggestie?||Neem contact op met de SWOV bibliotheek voor uw opmerkingen|