Adapting the Road Safety Audit Review for Local Rural Roads (MPC ...

3.2 Comparative AnalysisWhen all the appropriate data were collected, a comparative analysis wasconducted using percentage and weighted percentage of agreement. Each of the analysistechniques is presented in the following sections.3.2.1 PercentageGroups were compared to the control group, whose results were considered thestandard. If the team measured had the exact same deficiencies identified, they wouldscore 100 percent. When comparing results using the technique of percentage, it isimportant that the deficiency found by one group is the exact same deficiency asidentified by the control group. Otherwise, the results found by using this analysistechnique would not have any meaning.If the control group identified 28 deficiencies, and one county engineer found 16of the same deficiencies, the percentage of agreement would be 16 divided by 28, or 57percent. Even though this is a simple calculation, it is a good measurement of how wellthe different groups identified the same problems. The results using this analysistechnique are presented in Chapter 4.3.2.2 Weighted PercentageAnother measure used to evaluate results was weighted percentage. This methodis similar to percentage, but also takes into account the severity of the deficiencies.When the deficiencies were identified, they also were ranked in the severity or urgencycategory, depending on the audit in which they were identified. In the first trial audit46