1 / 21

Presented by Aoife Kervick,

Considering the Potential of Phone Application Driver Monitors for Young People – A Systematic Review of Monitoring Acceptability and Effectiveness. Aoife A. Kervick, Denis O’Hora & Kiran M. Sarma. Presented by Aoife Kervick,

rianna
Download Presentation

Presented by Aoife Kervick,

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Considering the Potential of Phone Application Driver Monitors for Young People – A Systematic Review of Monitoring Acceptability and Effectiveness. Aoife A. Kervick, Denis O’Hora & Kiran M. Sarma. Presented by Aoife Kervick, PhD Candidate, School of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway. European Conference on Human Centred Design for Intelligent Transport Systems, Vienna, Austria, 2014. Email: a.kervick1@nuigalway.ie

  2. In-Vehicle Data Recorders – ‘IVDR’s

  3. Phone Application Driver Monitors - ‘PADM’s e.g. ‘iOnRoad’

  4. Systematic Review of IVDR Literature • Q1: What factors are likely to impact on the willingness of young drivers to use PADMs? • Q2: What is the likely impact of PADMs on risky driving behaviour? Q1: Acceptance Q2: Effectiveness

  5. Methodology Selected Electronic Databases:PsychInfo, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Transportation Research International Documentation database, Web of Knowledge. Keywords: Q1 + Q2: ‘young/ novice/ teenage driver’, ‘phone application/ in-vehicle/ advanced driver assistance system monitoring’, Q1: ‘acceptance’, ‘usability’. Identified ‘Grey Literature’:Key authors contacted. Hand Searched:Accident Analysis and Prevention, Journal of Safety Research, Transportation Research Part F, Safety Science and the ‘References’ sections from the reviewed studies.

  6. Inclusion Criteria Peer reviewed research, in English, published between 2003-2013. Participants had to be under the age of 25 to qualify as ‘young drivers’. Acceptance studies: detailed perceptions in relation to willingness to use monitoring devices had to be the primary focus of the data collected. Effectiveness studies: had to feature a monitoring device which gave real time feedback and post journey reports to drivers and/or parents/insurers.

  7. Q1: Acceptance: Results Technology acceptance (TA) research – Large literature base, many competing theories(e.g. Venkatesh et al., 2003). • Six studies extracted from systematic search. • Three primary themes extracted: 1. Perceived Accuracy 2. Perceived Accessibility 3. Perceived Risks and Gains

  8. 1. Perceived Accuracy (Young et al., 2003) “You would just have to disconnect it, if it wasn’t 100% reliable.” “You could get... dependent on it and if it does malfunction, you are not even going to be paying attention.” “Put aluminium foil over the radar or cut a few wires. It could be easily tampered with, and there would be a commercial incentive to design a way to tamper with the technology”.

  9. 2. Perceived Accessibility 1. Cost: e.g. “You would not put it in there unless you got massive reductions on your insurance premium.” 2. Usability e.g. updating digital speed maps, accessing and interpreting online feedback. 3. Practical requirements e.g. need for vehicle alterations, expert installation/maintenance.

  10. 3. Perceived Risks and Gains ExampleGain -Improved driving skills and safety “It causes me to drive well.” “You can improve and be more careful” (Guttman & Gesser-Edelsburg, 2011) ExampleRisk -Risk of distraction “Beeps… might scare you and make you have a crash” “A huge distraction” (Lerner et al., 2010; Young et al., 2003).

  11. Q2: Effectiveness: Results Behavioural change: achieved through self-regulation of risk, in the context of sufficient external reward and punishment. • Eight studies extracted from systematic search. • Three driving behaviours ex identified: 1. Extreme Maneouvres 2.Speeding 3.Seatbelt Use

  12. 1. Extreme Maneouvres • N = 6 studies. • 2 RCTs – Significant decreases for spe specific treatment groups. • 3 pre-post studies – Significant decreases ranging from 50-76% in event frequency reported. • 1 pre-post study without external involvement – Improvements reported, however they were not statistically significant.

  13. 2. Speeding N = 3 studies • RCT – Significant speeding reductions were reported for one of three treatment groups. These did not persist over time however. • ISA study– reported significant improvements with insurance incentivisation. • PADM study – Significant decrease from speeding 30.9% of track journey to 18.2% with alerts.

  14. 3. Seatbelt Use N = 2 • 1: Initial belt use rates of 82% were increased to 97% following a 9 week intervention. • 2: Non-use was improved by 90% and 61% for two treatment groups. Significant changes were not recorded for the third or control group however.

  15. DiscussionQuestion 1: Acceptance Figure 1.1 PADM Adoption Model • Perceived Accuracy • Perceived Accessibility • Perceived Gains and Risks

  16. DiscussionQuestion 2: Effectiveness • Extreme Maneouvres • Speeding • Seatbelt Usage

  17. Limitations Given the limited number of IVDR and PADM young driver studies, few stringent exclusion criteria could be applied. The diverse nature of the studies reviewed and inconsistent outcome measures, rendered the conduction of a meta-analysis inadvisable. More diverse participant groups are needed before definitive conclusions can be drawn.

  18. Conclusions • Inability to conduct meta-analysis limits findings. • PADMs represent a promising new monitoring medium. • More extensive and PADM specific monitoring research is needed. • Smartphone technology continues to develop at an incredible pace…

  19. Thank you for your attention. Any Questions? Or, contact me at: a.kervick1@nuigalway.ie

More Related