Hazard anticipation of young novice drivers - SWOV

Compared to the control group, the SimRAPT group anticipated latent
hazards significantly more often in the near transfer situations, the far
transfer situations and in all the situations together. The effect size was large
in the near transfer situations and was medium in the far transfer situations
and in all the situations together. These results indicate that SimRAPT
improved the visual search for latent hazards of novice drivers and that the
improvement was larger for near transfer situations than for far transfer
situations, although the improvement in far transfer situations still was
significant.
The near transfer situations for the SIMRAPT group were the situations B, C,
F, L, N, Q and R of Table 6.2. If the correctly anticipated near transfer
situations (i.e. the visual search of the participant met the criteria formulated
in column 7 of Table 6.2) are scored as 1 and the incorrectly anticipated
situations as 0, the mean score of the sum of the near transfer situations was
5.86 for the SimRAPT group and was 3.97 for the control group. The
standard deviation in the near transfer situations was .23 for the SimRAPT
group and .43 for the control group. The difference in standard deviations
between the SimRAPT group and the control group was significant with a
medium effect size, t (34) = -2.93, p < .01, r = .45. The relatively high scores
and the relatively low dispersion of the SimRAPT group compared to the
scores and dispersion of the control group, could indicate that learners who
before the training are relatively poor in hazard anticipation and learners
who before the training are already relatively good in hazard anticipation,
rise to more or less the same level of hazard anticipation skills with regard to
near transfer situations. The difference in standard deviations between the
SimRAPT group and the control group was not significant for the far transfer
situations, t (34) = -0.81, p = .43. This could indicate that far transfer situations
still are difficult to detect and recognize for learners with a low entrance
level, after they have completed SimRAPT.
Six of the seven near transfer situations contained covert latent hazards. The
difference between the SimRAPT group and the control group for covert
latent hazards in the near transfer situations was highly significant with a
large effect size, U = 48.0, p