08.09.2014 Views

Hazard anticipation of young novice drivers - SWOV

Hazard anticipation of young novice drivers - SWOV

Hazard anticipation of young novice drivers - SWOV

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Figure 6.3. Percentage correctly anticipated latent hazards in the ten situations the<br />

SimRAPT group and the RAPT-3 had in common as a near transfer situation or as a<br />

far transfer situation.<br />

The mean percentage <strong>of</strong> correctly anticipated latent hazards was M = 76.63<br />

(SE = 4.85) for the SimRAPT group, M = 73.78 (SE = 4.85) for the RAPT-3<br />

group and M = 50.83 (SE = 4.85) for the control group. As the scores <strong>of</strong> the<br />

SimRAPT group were not normally distributed [D (18) = 0.23, p < .05], the<br />

Kruskal-Wallis test was applied: H (2) = 12.70, p < .01. This result indicates<br />

that the three groups differed significantly. A Bonferroni correction when<br />

three groups are involved in the analysis, turns a significance level <strong>of</strong> p < .05<br />

into a significance level <strong>of</strong> p < .0167. Applying a Bonferroni correction, a<br />

Mann-Whitney test shows that the mean percentage correctly anticipated<br />

latent hazard was significantly higher for the SimRAPT group than for the<br />

control group and the effect size was large, U = 65.5, p = .002, r = -.72. The<br />

mean percentage correctly anticipated latent hazards was also significantly<br />

higher for the RAPT-3 group than for the control group and the effect size<br />

was large, U = 68.5, p = 0.002, r = -.70. However, the difference in percentages<br />

correctly anticipated latent hazards between the SimRAPT group and the<br />

RAPT-3 group was not significant, U = 136, p = .41.<br />

220

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!