Hazard anticipation of young novice drivers - SWOV

and the control group was significant and in the expected direction. In the
other two near transfer situations in which a χ 2 could be applied, the
difference in percentages between the SimRAPT group and the control group
was small but also in the expected direction. In one near transfer situation
(situation L) in which the χ 2 test could not be applied, the difference between
the two groups was in the expected direction and substantial, OR = 7.08. In
the other situation (situation N) which could not be tested, the difference was
small and in the opposite direction. This latter situation (a blind curve with
an intersection just after the curve and a warning sign ‘stop sign ahead’
before the curve) was the only precursor of hazard scenario in the training.
Hazard anticipation in this scenario not only means adequate visual search
(gazes to the right side of the road in search of the expected stop sign), but
also speed adaptation (driving into a blind curve). In this study, the
dependent variable was gaze direction and not speed adaptation. Further
analysis that includes speed adaptation is required.
In two of the twelve far transfer situations the difference between the scores
of the SimRAPT group and the control group was significant and in the
expected direction. In one far transfer situations (E) the difference between
the two groups was also substantial (OR = 10.8) and in the expected
direction, but the assumption of the χ 2 test was not met. In seven far transfer
situations the difference was in the expected direction but small and in two
far transfer situations the difference was very small but in the opposite
direction. The situations in the opposite direction were situation H (right
turn at T-intersection) and situation M (Right merging fork). In situation H,
the scores of both groups were relatively high and in situation M, both
groups scored relatively low. It could be that H was a too easy test item to
discriminate between the groups. Why the difference between the groups in
situation M is in the unexpected direction, is not clear. In the very similar far
transfer situation K (Merging fork from the left), the scores of the SimRAPT
group were significantly better than the scores of the control group.
6.3.3. Questionnaires
Before and after the training (the simulator-based training for the SimRAPT
group and the placebo pencil and paper training for the control group) and
testing, participants were requested to rate their driving skills and abilities
compared to drivers of the same age on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = much
worse and 5 is much better). After the training and testing, participants in the
SimRAPT-group still overestimated their skills (M = 3.88, SD = 0.72), but the
overestimation was slightly less than before the training (M = 4.00, SD = 0.66).
218