Allison E Curry1,2, Melissa R Pfeiffer1, Michael R Elliott3,4. 1. a Center for Injury Research and Prevention, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania. 2. b Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania. 3. c Department of Biostatistics , School of Public Health, University of Michigan , Ann Arbor , Michigan. 4. d Survey Methodology Program, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan , Ann Arbor , Michigan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Young driver studies have applied quasi-induced exposure (QIE) methods to assess relationships between demographic and behavioral factors and at-fault crash involvement, but QIE's primary assumption of representativeness has not yet been validated among young drivers. Determining whether nonresponsible young drivers in clean (i.e., only one driver is responsible) 2-vehicle crashes are reasonably representative of the general young driving population is an important step toward ensuring valid QIE use in young driver studies. We applied previously established validation methods to conduct the first study, to our knowledge, focused on validating the QIE representativeness assumption in a young driver population. METHODS: We utilized New Jersey's state crash and licensing databases (2008-2012) to examine the representativeness assumption among 17- to 20-year-old nonresponsible drivers involved in clean multivehicle crashes. It has been hypothesized that if not-at-fault drivers in clean 2-vehicle crashes are a true representation of the driving population, it would be expected that nonresponsible drivers in clean 3-or-more-vehicle crashes also represent this same driving population (Jiang and Lyles 2010 ). Thus, we compared distributions of age, gender, and vehicle type among (1) nonresponsible young drivers in clean 2-vehicle crashes and (2) the first nonresponsible young driver in clean crashes involving 3 or more vehicles to (3) all other nonresponsible young drivers in clean crashes involving 3 or more vehicles. Distributions were compared using chi-square tests and conditional logistic regression; analyses were conducted for all young drivers and stratified by license status (intermediate vs. fully licensed drivers), crash location, and time of day of the crash. RESULTS: There were 41,323 nonresponsible drivers in clean 2-vehicle crashes and 6,464 nonresponsible drivers in clean 3-or-more-vehicle crashes. Overall, we found that the distributions of age, gender, and vehicle type were not statistically significantly different between the 3 groups; in each group, approximately one fourth of drivers were represented in each age from age 17 through 20, half were males, and approximately 80% were driving a car/station wagon/minivan. In general, conclusions held when we evaluated the assumption within intermediate and fully licensed young drivers separately and by crash location and time. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that the representativeness assumption holds among the population of young NJ drivers. We encourage young driver studies utilizing QIE methods to conduct internal validation studies to ensure appropriate application of these methods and we propose utilization of QIE methods to address broader foundational and applied questions in young driver safety.
OBJECTIVE: Young driver studies have applied quasi-induced exposure (QIE) methods to assess relationships between demographic and behavioral factors and at-fault crash involvement, but QIE's primary assumption of representativeness has not yet been validated among young drivers. Determining whether nonresponsible young drivers in clean (i.e., only one driver is responsible) 2-vehicle crashes are reasonably representative of the general young driving population is an important step toward ensuring valid QIE use in young driver studies. We applied previously established validation methods to conduct the first study, to our knowledge, focused on validating the QIE representativeness assumption in a young driver population. METHODS: We utilized New Jersey's state crash and licensing databases (2008-2012) to examine the representativeness assumption among 17- to 20-year-old nonresponsible drivers involved in clean multivehicle crashes. It has been hypothesized that if not-at-fault drivers in clean 2-vehicle crashes are a true representation of the driving population, it would be expected that nonresponsible drivers in clean 3-or-more-vehicle crashes also represent this same driving population (Jiang and Lyles 2010 ). Thus, we compared distributions of age, gender, and vehicle type among (1) nonresponsible young drivers in clean 2-vehicle crashes and (2) the first nonresponsible young driver in clean crashes involving 3 or more vehicles to (3) all other nonresponsible young drivers in clean crashes involving 3 or more vehicles. Distributions were compared using chi-square tests and conditional logistic regression; analyses were conducted for all young drivers and stratified by license status (intermediate vs. fully licensed drivers), crash location, and time of day of the crash. RESULTS: There were 41,323 nonresponsible drivers in clean 2-vehicle crashes and 6,464 nonresponsible drivers in clean 3-or-more-vehicle crashes. Overall, we found that the distributions of age, gender, and vehicle type were not statistically significantly different between the 3 groups; in each group, approximately one fourth of drivers were represented in each age from age 17 through 20, half were males, and approximately 80% were driving a car/station wagon/minivan. In general, conclusions held when we evaluated the assumption within intermediate and fully licensed young drivers separately and by crash location and time. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that the representativeness assumption holds among the population of young NJ drivers. We encourage young driver studies utilizing QIE methods to conduct internal validation studies to ensure appropriate application of these methods and we propose utilization of QIE methods to address broader foundational and applied questions in young driver safety.
Authors: J L Redondo-Calderón; J de Luna-del-Castillo ; J J Jiménez-Moleón; M García-Martín; P Lardelli-Claret; R Gálvez-Vargas Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2001-05-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Almudena Sanjurjo-de-No; Blanca Arenas-Ramírez; José Mira; Francisco Aparicio-Izquierdo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 3.390