View in EDS

Are accident analysis methods fit for purpose? Testing the criterion-referenced concurrent validity of AcciMap, STAMP-CAST and AcciNet.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Are accident analysis methods fit for purpose? Testing the criterion-referenced concurrent validity of AcciMap, STAMP-CAST and AcciNet.
Authors: Hulme, Adam1 (AUTHOR) ahulme@usc.edu.au, Stanton, Neville A.1,2 (AUTHOR), Walker, Guy H.1,3 (AUTHOR), Waterson, Patrick4 (AUTHOR), Salmon, Paul M.1,2 (AUTHOR)
Source: Safety Science. Dec2021, Vol. 144, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p.
Subjects: Test validity, Signal detection, Repeated measures design, Pedestrian accidents, Test reliability
Abstract: • Reliability and validity testing of accident analysis models and methods is rarely undertaken in HFE and safety science despite its recognised importance. • We tested and compared three systems-based accident analysis methods in terms of their capacity to accurately model the cause of a fatal vehicle-pedestrian collision incident. • The Signal Detection Theory (SDT) paradigm which accounts for true positives, false negatives, false positives and true negatives was used to compute the validity results. • Systems-based accident analysis methods did not produce satisfactory validity results in this study compared to a referent expert analysis. Systems-based methods such as AcciMap, STAMP-CAST and more recently AcciNet, are used to uncover the multifactorial cause of accidents within complex systems to support the development of new safety interventions. Despite this, there has been a lack of research that has formally examined the reliability and validity of systems-based accident analysis methods. This gap is addressed in this study. The criterion-referenced concurrent validity of AcciMap, STAMP-CAST and AcciNet was compared in a repeated measures design using Signal Detection Theory (SDT). A process of analytical fragmentation was adopted to understand how the individual phases of each method contributed to their overall validity. The results of the overall analyses indicate that the three methods achieved comparable and moderate results. It is concluded that state-of-the-art systems-based accident analysis methods did not produce satisfactory validity results in this study compared to a referent expert analysis. Further research needs to be conducted to demonstrate the efficacy of systems-based accident methods if they are to be used with confidence and work as expected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Safety Science is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: egs
DbLabel: Engineering Source
An: 152556899
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Are accident analysis methods fit for purpose? Testing the criterion-referenced concurrent validity of AcciMap, STAMP-CAST and AcciNet.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hulme%2C+Adam%22">Hulme, Adam</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> ahulme@usc.edu.au</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stanton%2C+Neville+A%2E%22">Stanton, Neville A.</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Walker%2C+Guy+H%2E%22">Walker, Guy H.</searchLink><relatesTo>1,3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Waterson%2C+Patrick%22">Waterson, Patrick</searchLink><relatesTo>4</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Salmon%2C+Paul+M%2E%22">Salmon, Paul M.</searchLink><relatesTo>1,2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Safety+Science%22">Safety Science</searchLink>. Dec2021, Vol. 144, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+validity%22">Test validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Signal+detection%22">Signal detection</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Repeated+measures+design%22">Repeated measures design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pedestrian+accidents%22">Pedestrian accidents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+reliability%22">Test reliability</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: • Reliability and validity testing of accident analysis models and methods is rarely undertaken in HFE and safety science despite its recognised importance. • We tested and compared three systems-based accident analysis methods in terms of their capacity to accurately model the cause of a fatal vehicle-pedestrian collision incident. • The Signal Detection Theory (SDT) paradigm which accounts for true positives, false negatives, false positives and true negatives was used to compute the validity results. • Systems-based accident analysis methods did not produce satisfactory validity results in this study compared to a referent expert analysis. Systems-based methods such as AcciMap, STAMP-CAST and more recently AcciNet, are used to uncover the multifactorial cause of accidents within complex systems to support the development of new safety interventions. Despite this, there has been a lack of research that has formally examined the reliability and validity of systems-based accident analysis methods. This gap is addressed in this study. The criterion-referenced concurrent validity of AcciMap, STAMP-CAST and AcciNet was compared in a repeated measures design using Signal Detection Theory (SDT). A process of analytical fragmentation was adopted to understand how the individual phases of each method contributed to their overall validity. The results of the overall analyses indicate that the three methods achieved comparable and moderate results. It is concluded that state-of-the-art systems-based accident analysis methods did not produce satisfactory validity results in this study compared to a referent expert analysis. Further research needs to be conducted to demonstrate the efficacy of systems-based accident methods if they are to be used with confidence and work as expected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Safety Science is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=152556899
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105454
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 1
        StartPage: N.PAG
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Test validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Signal detection
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Repeated measures design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pedestrian accidents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test reliability
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Are accident analysis methods fit for purpose? Testing the criterion-referenced concurrent validity of AcciMap, STAMP-CAST and AcciNet.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hulme, Adam
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stanton, Neville A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Walker, Guy H.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Waterson, Patrick
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Salmon, Paul M.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Text: Dec2021
              Type: published
              Y: 2021
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 09257535
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 144
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Safety Science
              Type: main
ResultId 1