Evaluation of the Crash Course March 2009 - De Montfort University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

of the ‘before’ and ‘after’ matched group below, there is also evidence that they became better able to ask such a driver to stop if they felt anxious. This may simply be an honest response to the question of how they would feel in the situation. It might also be an indication that further attention may be needed to the lack of awareness of the dangers of moderate drinking when driving. No significance differences were found on the following issues: • The maximum positive score for being able to offer three suggestions on what a passenger could do to keep themselves or others safer in cars Reporting frequencies for the last month of having: • “Been on the road after dark” • “Not worn a seat belt in the front seat” • “Been in a hurry” • “Gone with a driver who'd used drugs recently” • “Been on a motorway” • “Driven with a driver who had been drinking” • “Not worn a seat belt in the back seat” • “Watched the driver use a mobile” • “Been driven by someone who had no licence” Attitudes towards • “Driving at 45 miles an hour in a 30 mile an hour area” • “How would you feel being driven in a car going 98 on a motorway?” • “If you did feel anxious or scared, do you think you could ask the driver to slow down?” • “If you felt anxious, do you think you could ask the person to stop?” Some of the poor behaviours or negative attitudes towards safety are remarkably durable. Even amongst those who had received the course, instances occurred of people not wearing seat belts, for instance, or going with a driver who had used drugs. Since the research evidence indicates that changes in attitudes lead to changes in behaviour, it would be expected that behaviour would be the most difficult to change and the last aspect to show differences. 4.4 Comparison of the responses of students before they received the course with their responses afterwards There were significant differences between responses before and after the course (using the Wilcoxon test) for two items. The first concerned attitudes towards the wearing of seat belts. As above, this attitude question sought to test attitudes towards the acceptability of always wearing a seat belt, on a scale from “stupid” to “perfectly OK”. 92% said it was “perfectly OK” to wear a seat belt at all times after they had seen the presentation, compared with 88% before seeing it. More young people felt it was acceptable and “OK” always to wear a seat belt after the course (p
(www.staffordshire.police.uk , 2009). The qualitative responses and the self-reported behaviour confirm that the wearing of seat belts is still a major safety issue. Figure 4.1 below illustrates these scaled responses. Figure 4.1: Before and after course – attitudes to always wearing a seat belt (1=stupid, 7=perfectly OK) The second significant item concerned the paired attitude questions that asked about reactions to the use of alcohol (How would you feel being driven home by a friend who has had a bit too much to drink?) and about whether they thought they could ask a person who had had too much to drink to stop (their ability to be assertive). For “If you felt anxious, do you think you could ask the person to stop?” - after the course more (52%) said “yes, no problem” than before (46%). That is a greater number of the young people now felt able after the course to ask such a driver to stop (p=0.047). Figure 4.2 illustrates this difference. When comparing the ‘before’ and ‘after’ responses, the difference in the maximum possible score on the knowledge related question of what a passenger could do to stay safer was also approaching significance (p=0.068), with higher scores after the course. 32
Page 1 and 2: Staffordshire Fire & Rescue Service
Page 3 and 4: 5.6 Pastoral care for pupils 46 5.7
Page 5 and 6: In the comparison of those who rece
Page 7 and 8: oad collisions. The team requires f
Page 9 and 10: Section 1: Introduction and backgro
Page 11 and 12: Accident Prevention Trust, www.capt
Page 13 and 14: Staffordshire, the ‘severity rati
Page 15 and 16: the presenters had either personal
Page 17 and 18: Section 2: The design and methodolo
Page 19 and 20: The survey instruments constructed
Page 21 and 22: The questionnaires were piloted wit
Page 23 and 24: � If the course is perceived as b
Page 25 and 26: has also been suggested that risk-t
Page 27 and 28: (McKenna, 2006.) He also draws atte
Page 29 and 30: Section 4: Findings from the survey
Page 31: Comparing the ‘after’ responses
Page 35 and 36: 4.5 Gender differences Significantl
Page 37 and 38: For self-reported behaviour on havi
Page 39 and 40: Table 4.4: Suggestions made by youn
Page 41 and 42: An illustrative selection of the co
Page 43 and 44: • There was evidence of some incr
Page 45 and 46: Practical logistics and professiona
Page 47 and 48: “My year thought it was excellent
Page 49 and 50: “No - the staff support is not su
Page 51 and 52: “When you compare what they do an
Page 53 and 54: “It’s all reality isn’t it. E
Page 55 and 56: It was horrible. Don’t remember m
Page 57 and 58: One. He’s just a sick driver - go
Page 59 and 60: Most saw their response as conditio
Page 61 and 62: Figure 6.2: Differences between mal
Page 63 and 64: Section 7: Conclusions and recommen
Page 65 and 66: frequently “scared about the driv
Page 67 and 68: This may show itself in the Crash C
Page 69 and 70: or ‘one-liners’ to use in respo
Page 71 and 72: 16. The Crash Course is currently t
Page 73 and 74: APPENDIX B List of schools, college
Page 75 and 76: 3. Is there anything you would want
Page 77 and 78: 9. Circle the number on each scale
Page 79 and 80: Jonah, B. A. (1990). Age difference

Evaluation of the Crash Course March 2009 - De Montfort University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?