INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University M iadnlm s International 3 0 0 N. Z E E B R O A D . AN N A R B O R . Ml 4 8 1 0 6 18 B E D F O R D ROW, L O N D O N WC1R 4 E J, ENG LA N D 8112127 N e r b o n n e , T er r y M il e s AN EVALUATION OF THE TIME FORMATS USED IN TEACHING THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY CENTER INTRODUCTORY TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION COURSE Michigan State University University Microfilms International Ph.D. 300 N. Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 1980 PLEASE NOTE: In a l l c a s e s t h i s m a t e r i a l has been f il m e d In t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e way from t h e a v a i l a b l e co p y . Problem s e n c o u n t e r e d w i t h t h i s document have been i d e n t i f i e d h e r e w it h a ch eck mark k *"' . 1. G lo s sy p h o t o g r a p h s __________ 2. C o lo red i l l u s t r a t i o n s __________ 3. P h o to g ra p h s w i t h d a r k b ack g ro u n d _ _ _ _ _ 4. I l l u s t r a t i o n s a r e p o o r copy 5. ° r i n t shows t h r o u g h a s t h e r e 1s t e x t on b o th s i d e s o f page ________ 6. I n d i s t i n c t , b ro k en o r sm a ll p r i n t on s e v e r a l 7. T i g h t l y bound copy w i t h p r i n t l o s t in s p i n e _________ 8. Computer p r i n t o u t p a g e s w ith i n d i s t i n c t p r i n t _________ 9. P age(s) l a c k i n g when m a t e r i a l r e c e i v e d , and n o t a v a i l a b l e from sc h o o l o r a u t h o r 10. P a g e ( s ) _ _ _ _ _ seem t o be m i s s i n g in num bering o n l y a s t e x t f o llo w s 11. Poor c a rb o n copy __________ 12. Not o r i g i n a l c o p y , s e v e r a l p ages w ith b l u r r e d t y p e __________ 13. Appendix p ag es a r e p o o r copy __________ 14. O r i g i n a l copy w i t h l i g h t t y p e __________ 15. C u r lin g and w r i n k le d p ag es _ _ _ _ _ 16. O th e r _____________________________________________________________________ r _ p ag es University Micrcxilms International AN EVALUATION OF THE TIME FORMATS USED IN TEACHING THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY CENTER INTRODUCTORY TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION COURSE By T erry Miles Nerbonne A DISSERTATION Subm itted to Michigan S t a t e U n iv e rs ity in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e req uirem en ts f o r th e degree o f DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f Secondary Education and Curriculum 1980 ABSTRACT AN EVALUATION OF THE TIME FORMATS USED IN TEACHING THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY CENTER INTRODUCTORY TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION COURSE By Terry Miles Nerbonne The purpose o f t h i s study was to evaluate the e f fe c tiv e n e s s of s e le c te d t r a f f i c a c c id e n t in v e s tig a tio n course formats o ffered by th e Michigan S ta te U niv ersity Highway T r a f f ic Safety Center. The comparison of the t r a f f i c accident in v e s tig a tio n c la s s e s was stud ied by analyzing th e t e s t r e s u l t s o f 114 s tu d e n ts who received t r a f f i c accid en t i n v e s tig a tio n tr a in i n g . Student t e s t scores and stu dent responses to q u e s tio n n a ire s from the f iv e t r a f f i c accid en t in v e s tig a tio n courses presented in d i f f e r e n t lo c a tio n s throughout th e s t a t e o f Michigan were analyzed in t h i s study. All f iv e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t in v e s tig a tio n courses were id e n tic a l with th e exception o f the format in which they were p resen ted . Stu­ dents in the schools a t Muskegon Community College, Muskegon, Michigan Lake Superior S ta te College, S au lt S te. Marie, Michigan; and Madonna College, D e tr o it, Michigan, received i n s t r u c t i o n seven hours per day f o r f iv e consecutive days. At Lake Michigan Community College, Benton Harbor, Michigan, in s tr u c t i o n was presented seven hours per day f o r Terry Miles Nerbonne one day th e f i r s t week, and seven hours p e r day f o r two days a week f o r two su ccessiv e weeks. At Jackson Community C o lleg e, Jackson, Michigan, the i n s t r u c t i o n was p re se n te d seven hours p e r day f o r one day a week f o r f iv e s u c c e s s iv e weeks. The methods s e le c t e d f o r comparing th e t h r e e form ats were to measure (1) what le a r n in g took p la c e by means o f a p r e - t e s t given a t th e beginning o f th e c o u rse and a p o s t - t e s t given a t th e end o f th e co u rse , (2) how s tu d e n ts e v a lu a te d th e co u rse by means o f an aly zin g th e s tu d e n t cou rse e v a lu a ti o n q u e s ti o n n a i r e , and (3) whether th e s tu d e n ts were u t i l i z i n g th e knowledge th ey re c e iv e d and (4) whether t h e i r o v e r a ll performance in t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n was in c re a se d by an aly zin g a follow -up q u e s ti o n n a i r e completed by the s tu d e n ts fo u r months a f t e r th ey completed th e t r a i n i n g . The follow in g c o n c lu s io n s were reached on th e b a s is o f th e an aly ses o f s tu d e n t s ' p r e - t e s t s c o r e s , p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s , s tu d e n t responses on th e background q u e s ti o n n a i r e , s tu d e n t resp o n ses on th e course e v a lu a tio n q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and s tu d e n t resp o n ses on th e follow -up q u e s tio n n a ir e : 1. At th e 95% le v e l o f c o n fid e n c e , s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in mean-gain s c o re s o b ta in e d by comparing p r e - t e s t and p o s t - t e s t s c o re s were found f o r a l l f i v e g roups. All f iv e groups had p o s i t i v e gain sco res varying from 21.37 p o in ts to 27.86 p o i n t s , w ith th e t o t a l mean g ain sc o re f o r a l l f i v e groups being 24.57 p o i n t s . I t was concluded t h a t le a rn in g did ta k e p la c e a s measured by th e s e s c o re s . 2. The passin g grade e s t a b l i s h e d f o r t h i s course was 70%. The t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n co u rse s would be co n sid e red t o be a Terry M iles Nerbonne com plete s u c c e ss s in c e a l l 114 s tu d e n ts e q u a lle d o r exceeded th e grade o f 70% on t h e p o s t - t e s t . 3. There was ev iden ce t h a t a f t e r p re -c o u r s e e f f e c t s were removed, t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l form at used did have an e f f e c t on th e amount o f le a r n in g t h a t was ach iev ed . I t could be concluded t h a t both th e one-week form at and th e three-w eek form at produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r le a r n in g than did th e 4. five-w eek form at. There was evid en ce t h a t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l form at used had an e f f e c t on how t h e s tu d e n ts r a te d th e c o u rse . I t was concluded t h a t t h e s tu d e n t s who a tte n d e d th e five-w eek form at were s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s s a t i s f i e d th an th o s e who a tte n d e d th e one-week o r th e three-w eek fo rm at. 5. Even though t h e r e were r e p o rte d d i f f e r e n c e s between form ats o f i n s t r u c t i o n and s t u d e n t s ' co u rse e v a l u a t i o n r a t i n g s , a l l f i v e groups r a t e d th e a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n co urse h ig h ly . 6. I t was concluded from th e a n a ly s e s o f th e s t u d e n t s ' f o llo w - up q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t h a t th e s t u d e n t s ' o v e r a ll perform ance in t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n was in c r e a s e d , and th e r e was evidence t h a t new a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n s k i l l s were being u t i l i z e d . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The w r i t e r w ishes t o e x p re s s a p p r e c i a t i o n t o a number o f i n d i v i d u a l s w ith o u t whose a s s i s t a n c e t h i s endeavor could n o t have been com pleted. F i r s t o f a l l * a v ery s p e c i a l thanks to Dr. James Maas and Dr. Manfred S w artz, who p ro vid ed a tremendous amount o f a s s i s t a n c e in th e r e s e a r c h methodology and s t a t i s t i c a l a n a ly s e s o f th e d a ta f o r t h i s d iss e rta tio n . To Dr. Donald Sm ith, Chairman o f my Guidance Committee, who always had tim e , n o tw ith s ta n d in g h is own busy s c h e d u le , to o f f e r th e p ro p er g u id a n c e , c r i t i q u e , and encouragement toward th e com pletion of th is d iss e rta tio n e f f o r t. A lso , my a p p r e c i a t i o n ex ten d s to Dr. Robert 0. Nolan, Dr. R obert E. G u sta fso n , and Dr. Joseph G. Dzenowagis f o r s i m i l a r c o n t r i b u t i o n s . To Mr. Donald Holmes and Mr. Daniel Lee f o r t h e i r su p p o rt and c o o p e ra tio n d u rin g t h i s p r o j e c t . To Mrs. B e tty B eaton, who a s s i s t e d in much o f th e ty p i n g , Mr. and Raymond O'Dea, who a s s i s t e d in th e e d i t i n g o f t h i s s tu d y . F i n a l l y , t o my w if e , M arily n , and so n , N oel, f o r t h e i r p a tie n c e and many s a c r i f i c e s , I o f f e r my d e e p e s t th a n k s . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................... v LIST OF APPENDICES .............................................................................................. ix Chapter I. II. III. THE PROBLEM......................................................................................... 1 Background Inform ation ................................................................ Recent T r a f f i c Accident I n v e s tig a tio n T raining E f f o r ts .......................................................................................... Purpose o f the S t u d y .................................................................... Need f o r th e S t u d y ......................................................................... Hypotheses .......................................................................................... Research Questions .................................................................... Research Hypotheses ................................................................ Research Design ............................................................................. Limit and Scope o f This S t u d y .................................................. D e fin itio n o f Terms .................................................................... O rganization o f th e Remaining Chapters .............................. 1 2 5 5 6 6 7 8 9 10 13 REVIEW OF LITERATURE......................................................................... 14 I n te n siv e Scheduling .................................................................... R etention and Short-Term Cognitive Changes .................... Massed Versus D is tr ib u te d P r a c tic e ..................................... Student A ttitu d e s .................................................................... Evaluation Measures Used in th e Evaluation o f T rainin g Programs .................................................................... S elf-R e p o rt S tu d ies ................................................................ S u m m a ry .......................................................................................... 14 15 19 20 21 24 26 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 28 T estable Hypotheses .................................................................... Content o f T r a f f i c Accident I n v e s tig a tio n Courses . . I n s tr u c tio n a l Methods.......... .......................................................... Location o f C o u r s e s .................................................................... S e le c tio n o f S a m p l e .................................................................... The P r o c e d u r e ................................................................................. 28 30 31 32 32 33 iii Chapter IV. V. Page T e st D evelop m ent................................................................................... O b jectiv es to Be M e a s u r e d .......................................................... Item D ev elo pm en t............................................................................... Item T r y o u t s ........................................................................................ Item S e le c tio n and R e v i s i o n ...................................................... T est A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ....................................................................... T est A n a l y s i s ................................................................................... P re-T est Content A nalysis .......................................................... P o st-T e s t Content A nalysis .......................................................... Summary o f T e st Development ..................................................... Q u estio n n a ire Development .............................................................. Student Q u estio nn aire Forms..... ..................................................... Tabu latio n and A n alysis o f Data . ............................................ V a li d i t y Concerns ............................................................................... S u m m a r y ..................................................................................................... 34 34 37 38 39 40 41 42 51 58 61 61 63 65 66 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS............................................................................... 67 Data P re p a ra tio n and A n a l y s i s ...................................................... D iffe re n c e s Between Mean P re-T est and P o st-T e s t S c o r e s ...................................................................... D ifferen ces Among Groups on P re-T est Scores ........................ D ifferen ces in Learning Compared to Educational and E x p e rie n tia l Backgrounds ........................................................ D iffe re n c e s Among Groups on P o st-T e s t Scores .................. D iffe re n c e s Among Groups on Student Evaluation Q u estio n n a ire .............................................................................. A nalysis o f S tudent Follow-UpQ u estio nn aire .................... 68 SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH, AND DISCUSSION........................................................................................... 71 74 76 79 87 96 S u m m a r y ............................................................................................... Purpose o f th e S t u d y ................................................................. M e t h o d o l o g y .................................................................................. F i n d i n g s ............................................................................................... C o n c l u s i o n s ........................................................................................... R e c o m m e n d a tio n s .............................................................................. Recommendations f o r F u rth e r Research ........................................ D i s c u s s i o n ................................................................................................ 97 97 97 99 102 103 104 104 APPENDICES..................................................................................................................... 106 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................. 157 iv LIST OF TABLES R e l i a b i l i t y C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r t h e P r e -T e s t and P o s t- T e s t . , .................................................................................... 42 P re -T e s t Content A n aly sis f o r th e 29 Roadway E v a lu a tio n U nit Q uestions ......................................................... 44 P re -T e st C ontent A n aly sis f o r th e 14 V ehicle E v a lu a tio n U nit Q uestions ......................................................... 45 P re -T e s t C ontent A n aly sis f o r th e 20 Measuring and Recording U nit Q uestions ..................................................... 47 P r e -T e s t C ontent A n aly sis f o r th e 20 Speed D eterm in atio n U nit Q uestions ..................................................... 49 P re -T e s t C ontent A n aly sis f o r th e 12 Legal Aspects and Elements o f T r a f f i c A ccid en ts U nit Q uestions . . . 50 P o s t- T e s t C ontent A n aly sis f o r th e 29 Roadway E v a lu a tio n U n it Q uestions ............................... ...................... 52 P o s t- T e s t C ontent A n a ly sis f o r th e 14 V ehicle E v a lu a tio n U n it Q uestions ......................................................... 54 P o s t- T e s t C ontent A n a ly sis f o r th e 20 Measuring and Recording U n it Q u estio ns ..................................................... 55 P o s t- T e s t Content A n a ly s is f o r th e 20 Speed D eterm in atio n U nit Q uestions ..................................................... 57 P o s t- T e s t C ontent A n aly sis f o r th e 12 Legal Aspects and Elements o f T r a f f i c A ccid en ts U nit Q uestions . . . 59 Mean T e st S cores and S tandard D e v ia tio n s o f th e Five Groups Who Took th e T r a f f i c A ccident I n v e s t i g a t i o n Course ...................................................................................................... 70 The C r i t i c a l Value o f th e t - S t a t i s t i c and th e C a lc u la te d t - S t a t i s t i c f o r th e Five S cho ols' Mean Gain S cores ............................................................................... 70 v Table 4 .3 . Page Analysis o f Variance o f Pre-T est Scores o f Five Groups Who Took th e T r a f f ic Accident In v e stig a tio n C o u r s e ................................................................................................ 71 t- T e s t Matrix f o r Group Means on 109 Degrees of F r e e d o m ................................................ . ........................................ 72 4 .5 . P r o b a b il it i e s f o r the t-V alues in Table 4 . 4 ...................... 72 4 .6 . C ontrast C o e ffic ie n ts and t-V alues f o r C ontrasts in Group M e a n s .................................................................................... 73 A Comparison of Selected Student Background V ariables With P ost-T est Scores Using the Pearson Chi-Square T e s t .................................................................................................... 75 Adjusted Group P o st-T est Means A fter the E ffects of the Six Covariates Have Been Removed.................................. 77 Analysis o f Covariance o f Adjusted P ost-T est Mean Scores of Five Groups Who Took th e T r a f f ic Accident In v e s tig a tio n Courses ............................................................... 78 C ontrast C o e ffic ie n ts and t-V alues f o r C ontrasts in Adjusted Group Means ................................................................... 78 Summary Data f o r the 114 Students Who Answered the Student Course Evaluation Questionnaire ......................... 80 Total Evaluation Mean Scores of Five Groups Who Evaluated the T r a f f ic Accident I n v e stig a tio n Courses . 81 Analysis o f Variance o f Total Evaluation Mean Scores o f Five Groups Who Took th e T r a f f i c Accident In v e s tig a tio n Course ................................................................... 82 C ontrast C o e ffic ie n ts and t-V alues f o r C o ntrasts in Group M e a n s .................................................................................... 82 A Comparison o f Student Course Evaluation Questions With School, Using th e Pearson Chi-Square Test . . . . 84 Percentages o f the School T o tals f o r Question 6: The O bjectives o f th e Course Were C learly Explained . . . 84 Percentages of th e School T o ta ls f o r Question 8: The I n s tr u c t o r s S tressed Important P o ints in Lectures o r D iscussions ................................................................................ 85 4 .4 . 4 .7 . 4 .8 . 4 .9 . 4.10. 4 .11. 4 .12. 4.13. 4.14. 4.15. 4 .16. 4.17. vi Table 4 .1 8 . 4 .1 9 . 4 .2 0. 4 .2 1 . 4 .2 2 . 4 .2 3 . 4 .24 . 4 .2 5 . 4 .2 6 . 4 .2 7 . 4 .2 8 . 4 .2 9 . 4 .3 0 . 4 .3 1 . Page P ercentages o f th e School T o ta ls f o r Question 9: The I n s t r u c t o r s Put M aterial Across in an I n t e r e s t i n g W a y ...................................... 85 P ercentages o f th e School T o ta ls f o r Question 11: The I n s t r u c t i o n s Given P r io r to th e F ie ld E x e rcises Were C lear and P r e c i s e ................................................................. 86 P ercentages o f th e School T o ta ls f o r Question 13: I Would Encourage th e Continuance o f A p p lic a tio n E x e rcises in Future O fferin g s o f th e Course ...................... 86 Question I.A : Number and Percentage o f S tu dents A ttending th e Various AI-1 Course Formats ......................... 87 Question I.B : Student S a t i s f a c t i o n With Time S t r u c t u r e o f th e C o u r s e s ................................................................................... 88 Question II.A : Number and Percentage o f A ccidents I n v e s tig a te d Since AI-1 Course Completion, C ategorized by Accident Types .............................................. 89 Question I I.B and I I .C : Source o f Feedback I n d ic a tin g S tudent Improvement in A ccident I n v e s ti g a t i o n ................................................................................... 89 Question I I.D : S e lf-R e p o rt on Improved Competence in Accident I n v e s t i g a t io n Following AI-1 T ra in in g . . Question I I . E : Number and P ercentage o f S tud en ts Using Various Techniques and Equipment Since AI-1 Course Completion .......................................................................... Question I I . F : Time Spent and R e su lts Gained From A ccident I n v e s t i g a ti o n Since AI-1 Course Completion 90 91 . 91 Question II.G : Number and Percentage Reporting Time L im ita tio n P o l i c i e s f o r Conducting On-Scene Accident I n v e s t i g a t io n s ............................................................. 92 Question I I.H : Sources o f Time L im ita tio n s in Accident I n v e s ti g a t i o n Work .......................................................................... 93 Question I I . I : Number and Percentage R eporting Work Assignment Changes Since AI-1 Course Completion . . . 93 Question I I I . A . l : Student I n t e r e s t in Taking P a r t in Future Accident I n v e s t i g a t i o n Courses (AI-2) .................. 93 v ii Table 4 .3 2 . Page Q uestion I I I . A . 2: P r e f e r r e d Topics f o r F uture A ccident I n v e s t i g a t i o n Course O f fe r in g s ................................................. 94 Q uestion IV: P ercen tag e o f Respondents Reporting th e Use o f A ccident I n v e s t i g a t i o n S k i l l s Before and A f t e r th e AI-1 C ourse, and Frequency o f Use and Improvement o f S k i l l s Since Course Completion . . . . 95 G .l. Age v s. P o s t - T e s t ................................................................................ 148 G.2. Department Type v s . P o s t - T e s t ...................................................... 148 G.3. Department Size v s. P o s t - T e s t ...................................................... 149 G.4. Years Worked in Law Enforcement v s. P o s t- T e s t ................... 149 G.5. Education Level v s . P o s t- T e s t ...................................................... 149 G.6. Primary Assignment vs. P o s t - T e s t ....................... 150 G.7. Number o f F a ta l A ccidents I n v e s t i g a t e d v s . P o s t- T e s t . . 150 G.8. Number o f P ersonal I n ju r y A ccid en ts I n v e s t i g a t e d v s . P o s t - T e s t ............................................................................................. 150 Number o f P ro p e rty Damage A ccidents I n v e s t i g a t e d v s. P o s t - T e s t .................................................................................... 151 T otal Amount o f T ra in in g in T r a f f i c A ccident I n v e s t i g a t i o n v s . P o s t- T e s t ..................................................... 151 G .ll. M o tiv a tio n a l Level v s . P o s t- T e s t .................................................. 151 G . l 2. I n t e r e s t Level vs. P o s t- T e s t ........................................................... 152 4 .3 3 . G.9. G.10. v iii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendi x A. Page GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION, ECONOMIC CONDITION, AND POPULATION COMPOSITION OF THE FIVE AI-1 COURSE LOCATIONS.............................................................................................. 107 TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION COURSE AI-1 CURRICULUM OUTLINE....................................................................... . 109 C. STUDENT BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................... 112 D. PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST......................................................................... 115 E. STUDENT COURSE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE ................................. 136 F. STUDENT FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................... 139 G. CONTINGENCY TABLES COMPARING EACH OF THE TWELVE BACKGROUND VARIABLES WITH POST-TEST SCORES ....................... 147 H. WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE STUDENT COURSE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................................... 153 B. ix CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Background Information All phases o f th e highway s a f e ty e f f o r t con tin ue to r e l y upon a c c id e n t d ata to provide th e inform ation necessary f o r p la n n in g , o p e r a tin g , and e v a lu a tin g highway s a f e ty programs. A ccordingly, i t i s im portant t h a t v a lid and comprehensive t r a f f i c a c c id e n t d ata be c o lle c te d f o r th e highway s a f e t y management fu n c tio n . A d i f f i c u l t y in accumulating ac c u ra te d ata has been th e v a r i ­ ance among s t a t e , county, and lo cal law enforcement agencies charged w ith t r a f f i c a c c id e n t in v e s t ig a t i o n s . The o f f i c e r s o f th e se agencies have been t r a in e d in varying ways to compile t r a f f i c a c c id e n t s t a t i s ­ tic s. A d d itio n a lly , th e scope o f t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y became ap parent when th e 1978 Michigan a c c id e n t s t a t i s t i c s were examined. had 2,076 t r a f f i c deaths in 1978. Michigan There were 389,193 re p o rte d a c c i ­ d e n ts , o f which 112,259 were personal in ju ry and 275,101 were p ro p e rty damage a c c id e n ts .^ U n fo rtu n ately , the average p o lic e o f f i c e r in Michigan has not received the t r a i n i n g , e d u c a tio n , and experience n ecessary to recog­ n ize and c o l l e c t a l l necessary and p e r t in e n t Inform ation when ^Michigan Department o f S ta te P o lic e , 1978 Michigan T r a f f i c Accident Facts (E ast Lansing: Michigan Department o f S ta te P o lic e , 1978), p. 5. 2 conducting an on-scene a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n . This lack o f p rep ara­ t i o n e x i s t s l a r g e l y because M ichigan's req u ire d b a sic p o lic e t r a in i n g programs provide i n s u f f i c i e n t i n s t r u c t i o n in t r a f f i c ac c id e n t i n v e s t i ­ g a tio n . The Michigan Law Enforcement O ffic e rs T raining Council (MLEOTC) r e q u ire s i t s academies to provide 12 hours o f i n s t r u c t i o n in a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n and r e p o r tin g . These 12 hours are only a small p o rtio n of th e re q u ire d minimum t o t a l o f 256 hours o f p o lic e t r a i n i n g . Only a few o f th e 15 regio nal academies exceed t h i s b asic 12-hour minimum. In 12 hours, th e academy i n s t r u c t o r s a re t y p i c a l l y ab le to teach the r e c r u i t o f f i c e r s l i t t l e more than how to complete th e s t a t e ' s UD-10 a c c id e n t form. MLEOTC s t a f f have receiv ed a number of com plaints from academy i n s t r u c t o r s t h a t 12 hours o f i n s t r u c t i o n i s not enough time to provide adequate i n s t r u c t i o n in t r a f f i c a c c id e n t in v e s tig a 2 tio n . Recent T r a f f i c A ccident I n v e s tig a tio n Training E f f o r ts During th e p a s t few y e a r s , th e r e have been a v a r i e t y of a c c i ­ dent i n v e s t i g a t io n t r a i n i n g programs a v a i l a b l e to Michigan o f f i c e r s . 3 The programs, however, were only o ffe re d on a c e n t r a l i z e d b a s is . This c e n t r a l i z e d b a s is g e n e r a lly served th e l a r g e r m etro p o litan a re a s in which they were conducted, as well as th e agencies immediately s u r ­ rounding th e lo c a tio n o f th e program; but small county, c i t y , and ^Statement by William Nash, MLEOTC T raining S t a f f , in a personal in te rv ie w , Lansing, Michigan, June 18, 1978. 3 C e n tra liz e d b a s is r e f e r s to th e geographic area o f th e l a r g e r m etro p o litan popu latio n c e n te r s in th e s t a t e o f Michigan. 3 township law enforcem ent a g e n c ie s o u t s id e th e g eo graph ical are a ex p erien ced g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y in sending person nel t o th e s e t r a i n i n g programs. Many small law enforcem ent a g e n c ie s could not a f f o r d to e n r o l l o f f i c e r s in week-long t r a i n i n g programs because o f th e e x te n ­ s iv e t r a v e l tim e a n d /o r e x p e n d itu r e s in v o lv e d . This i s a s e r io u s shortcom ing, as a p p ro x im a te ly t w o - th ir d s o f M ich ig an 's f a t a l t r a f f i c a c c id e n ts occur in r u r a l a r e a s serv ed p r i m a r i l y by th e small p o lic e a g e n c ie s . The problem o f p ro v id in g adequate a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n t r a i n ­ ing has been a d i f f i c u l t one f o r a l l p o l i c e d e p a rtm e n ts, but p a r t i c u ­ l a r l y f o r th e small d ep artm en ts n o t s i t u a t e d n e a r urban p o p u la tio n c e n te rs. In th e fo llo w in g ex am inatio n o f s e v e ra l a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a ­ t i o n t r a i n i n g program s, t h e r e was a c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n o f th e s e problems. The N orthw estern U n iv e r s ity T r a f f i c I n s t i t u t e (NUTI) has con­ ducted b a s ic co u rse s in a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n in Michigan f o r s e v e ra l years. The Michigan O f fic e o f Highway S a f e ty P lanning (MOHSP) gen­ e r a l l y provided funding t o conduct two o r t h r e e two-week NUTI "OnScene A ccident I n v e s t i g a t i o n Courses" each y e a r . More r e c e n t l y , NUTI has developed a s p e c i a l i z e d three-w eek s c i e n t i f i c - t e c h n i c a l co urse to supplement i t s b a s ic c o u r s e , and MOHSP has funded a number o f th e s e co u rses in Michigan. T r a in in g s i t e s f o r NUTI "On-Scene Courses" w ere, f o r t h e most p a r t , in l a r g e r m e t r o p o lita n a r e a s o r in Lansing a t th e Michigan S t a t e P o lic e Academy. U n f o r tu n a te ly , as a r e s u l t o f th e s e l o c a t i o n s , only th e l a r g e r p o l i c e a g e n c ie s were a b le t o a v a il them­ s e lv e s o f t h i s t r a i n i n g fo rm a t. I t was d i f f i c u l t , in terms o f 4 manpower and d o l l a r s , f o r s m a l l e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s t o r e l e a s e a p o l i c e o f f i c e r f o r a two-week p e r io d t o o b t a i n s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g . C o lleg e and Regional T r a in in g Academy A cciden t I n v e s t i g a t i o n T r a in in g Programs have been o f f e r e d th ro u g h o u t th e s t a t e . O f f e r in g s a t c o l l e g e s were on a t u i t i o n and c r e d i t b a s is and e n r o l l e d both i n - s e r v i c e and p r e - s e r v i c e s t u d e n t s , c r e a t i n g some l i m i t a t i o n s on th e d ep th o f t h e c o u rse m a t e r i a l . Lim ited o f f e r i n g s a t t h e r e g io n a l t r a i n ­ ing academ ies were d esig n e d t o s e rv e t h e i r lo c a l p o l i c e a g e n c i e s ' t r a i n i n g n e e d s , b u t , in both c a s e s , th e t r a i n i n g was u s u a l l y l i m i t e d t o su rro u n d in g a g e n c ie s . Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y (MSU) has conducted p e r i o d i c one-week c o u rs e s i n a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n . been conducted f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s . However, such s h o r t c o u r s e s have n o t The HTSC proposed t o upgrade t h e q u a l i t y and amount o f t r a i n i n g f o r o p e r a t i o n a l - l e v e l law en fo rcem en t o f f i c e r s w ith t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s in small law enfo rcem en t a g e n c ie s in M ichigan. In December 1976, t h e MOHSP awarded th e MSU Highway T r a f f i c S a f e ty C en ter (HTSC) a g r a n t t o co n­ d u c t two a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n t r a i n i n g c o u r s e s in th e s t a t e o f M ichigan. The developm ental e f f o r t , which in c lu d e d a t a s k a n a l y s i s , c u rric u lu m developm ent, i n s t r u c t i o n a l media d e s ig n and d evelop m ent, was perform ed by th e HTSC p r i o r t o th e g r a n t award from MOHSP. The c o u rse was developed by t h e HTSC w ith th e aw areness t h a t t h e r e was a need t o p ro v id e Michigan o f f i c e r s a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n t r a i n i n g t h a t would exceed t h e 12 hours r e q u i r e d by th e MLEOTC. Through December 1978, th e HTSC o f f e r e d e i g h t t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o u rs e s (A I-1) i n M ichigan. A pproxim ately 200 law 5 enforcement o f f i c e r s atten d ed th e se e i g h t co u rses. All o f th e courses were funded by th e MOHSP. In th e area o f t r a f f i c a c c id e n t I n v e s t i g a ti o n t r a i n i n g , th e r e has been a lack o f e f f e c t i v e e v a lu a tio n o f c o n te n t, p ro c e s s , form at, and m a te r ia ls used in i n s t r u c t i o n . No e v a lu a tio n to measure th e e f f e c tiv e n e s s of t r a f f i c a c c id e n t in v e s t i g a t i o n course form ats o ffe re d by the Michigan S ta te U n iv e rsity Highway T r a f f i c Center has been con­ ducted; thus no co n clu sion s can be made as to th e o v e ra ll e f f e c t i v e ­ ness o f th e t r a i n i n g . Purpose o f th e Study The purpose o f t h i s study was to e v a lu a te th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of s e le c te d t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s ti g a t i o n course formats o f fe r e d by the Michigan S ta te U n iv e rsity Highway T r a f f i c S afety Center. Need f o r th e Study The MOHSP had in d ic a te d both an i n t e r e s t in and a need f o r an ev a lu a tio n o f th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f th e HTSC t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i ­ g atio n cou rse. Because th e MOHSP p lans to continue funding t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o u r s e s , t h i s study can provide v alu ab le i n f o r ­ mation to th e MOHSP and to the law enforcement agencies t h a t plan to have personnel t r a in e d in t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . Adminis­ t r a t o r s faced w ith deciding which course to u t i l i z e f o r t r a i n i n g t h e i r i n - s e r v i c e personnel might b e n e f i t from the inform ation developed. Requests f o r inform atio n from concerned a d m in is tr a to rs had been received by th e MOHSP and th e HTSC w ith in c re a s in g frequency. The 6 r e l a t i v e m e r it s o f th e c o u rse s were o f concern t o d e c i s io n makers who commit personnel t o t h e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o u rse s . The HTSC had a l s o ex p re ss e d a need t o d eterm ine which t r a i n ­ ing form at ( e . g . , one-week, th re e -w e e k , o r fiv e-w eek ) was most e f f e c ­ t i v e in producing h ig h e r g ain s c o r e s . A lso , th e i n s t r u c t o r s had ex pressed i n t e r e s t in o b t a in i n g in fo rm a tio n from o n -jo b perform ance, s p e c i f i c a l l y d eterm in in g i f th e t r a i n i n g was being a p p lie d and u t i l i z e d by th e o f f i c e r s who had com pleted th e c o u rs e . Hypotheses Research Q uestions 1. Will s tu d e n t s show s i g n i f i c a n t g ain s c o r e s , a s c a l c u l a t e d by p r e - t e s t and p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s , a f t e r th e com pletion o f th e f i v e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o u rse s ? 2. Will t h e r e be a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in s tu d e n t e n t r y - le v e l knowledge o f t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n , as r e f l e c t e d by mean s c o re s on a p r e - t e s t , among th e f i v e groups r e c e i v in g t r a f f i c accid en t in v e s tig a tio n in s tr u c tio n ? 3. Will s tu d e n t e n t r y - l e v e l backgrounds, as r e f l e c t e d by v a r i a b l e s on th e s tu d e n t background q u e s t i o n n a i r e , show a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith p o s t - t e s t s c o re s ? 4. Will t h e r e be a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in s tu d e n t a c h ie v e ­ ment l e v e l s , as r e f l e c t e d by mean s c o re s on th e p o s t - t e s t , among groups r e c e iv in g t h r e e d i f f e r e n t fo rm ats o f i n s t r u c t i o n ? 5. Will t h e r e be a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in s tu d e n t e v a lu a ­ t i o n s , as r e f l e c t e d by re sp o n se s on th e s tu d e n t c o u rse e v a lu a tio n 7 q u e s tio n n a ire , among groups receiv ing th re e d i f f e r e n t formats o f in s tr u c tio n ? 6. Will s tu d e n ts u t i l i z e the knowledge they re c e iv e , and w ill t h e i r o v erall performance in t r a f f i c accid en t in v e s tig a tio n be increased as a r e s u l t o f the t r a f f i c accid en t in v e s tig a tio n course? Research Hypotheses The follow ing hypotheses were s e le c te d f o r t e s t i n g in t h i s study: Hypothesis 1 : Students w ill not show s i g n i f i c a n t gain s c o re s , as c a lc u la te d by p r e - t e s t and p o s t - t e s t s c o re s , a f t e r the com­ p le tio n of the fiv e t r a f f i c accid en t in v e s tig a tio n courses. H0 : P 2 - Mj = 0 H-]: y2 - y1 > 0 Where: y^ = p r e - t e s t scores yg = p o s t - t e s t scores Hypothesis 2 : Student e n tr y -le v e l knowledge of t r a f f i c accid en t in v e s ti g a t i o n , as r e f l e c t e d by mean scores on a p r e - t e s t , w ill not vary among the fiv e groups receiv ing t r a f f i c accid en t in v es­ t i g a t i o n i n s t r u c t io n . Ho : h =y 2 = y 3 = y4 s y 5 H]: u 1 t u2 t y3 t u4 f y5 Where y .|, y2 » e t c . re p re se n t th e p r e - t e s t scores o f th e groups. Hypothesis 3 : Student e n tr y -le v e l backgrounds, as r e f l e c t e d by v a ria b le s on the stu d en t background q u e s tio n n a ire , w ill not show a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t io n s h ip with p o s t - t e s t sco res. Hq: Pi = p2 ~ p3 H}: P) t P2 f P3 8 Where p.|, p2 » P3 re p re s e n t the freq u en cies w ithin the th re e p o s t - t e s t score c a te g o r ie s . to Appendix 6 .) (Refer Hypothesis 4 : Student achievement l e v e l s , as r e f l e c t e d by mean scores on the p o s t - t e s t , w ill not vary among groups receiv in g th re e d i f f e r e n t formats o f i n s t r u c t i o n . H0* “ l H}: = v2 = u3 M-, t Uz t U3 Where y-j, y2> u3 re p re s e n t p o s t - t e s t scores o f th re e d i f f e r e n t form ats. Hypothesis 5 : Student e v a lu a tio n s , as r e f l e c t e d by responses on th e stu d e n t course e v a lu a tio n q u e s tio n n a ir e , w ill not vary among groups receiv in g th re e d i f f e r e n t form ats o f i n s t r u c t i o n . H0 : = u2 - y 3 H-|: y-| f y2 f y3 Where y-j, y2> y 3 re p re s e n t s tu d e n t course e v alu a­ ti o n scores o f th r e e d i f f e r e n t form ats. A q u e s tio n n a ire was designed t o determ ine whether the s tu d e n ts u t i l i z e d th e knowledge they receiv ed and whether t h e i r o v e ra ll perform­ ance in t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t io n was in c re a se d . This e v a lu a tio n was made by analyzing a follow -up q u e s tio n n a ir e f i l l e d out by th e s t u ­ dents fo u r months a f t e r they completed th e co urse. No h ypothesis was e s ta b li s h e d f o r t h i s t e s t o f e f f e c t iv e n e s s o f t r a f f i c a c c id e n t in v es­ t i g a t i o n cou rses. Research Design This study was designed to e v a lu a te th e e f f e c t iv e n e s s of s e le c te d t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t ig a ti o n course form ats. The methods s e le c te d f o r comparing th e th r e e form ats were to measure (1) what 9 le a r n in g took p lace by means of a p r e - t e s t given a t th e beginning o f th e course and a p o s t - t e s t given a t th e end o f th e c o u r s e , (2) how stu d e n ts e v a lu a te d th e course by means o f an aly zin g th e s tu d e n t course e v a lu a tio n q u e s ti o n n a ir e , and (3) w hether th e s tu d e n ts were u t i l i z ­ ing th e knowledge they receiv ed and (4) whether t h e i r o v e r a ll perform­ ance in t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n was in c re a se d by an aly zin g a follow -up q u e s tio n n a ir e completed by th e s tu d e n ts fo u r months a f t e r they completed th e t r a i n i n g . The t e s t item s co n tain ed in th e p r e - t e s t and p o s t - t e s t were reviewed by a panel o f judges f o r th e purpose o f a s s u r in g t h a t th e t e s t q u e s tio n s a c t u a l l y measured th e o b je c t i v e s s t a t e d in th e s u b je c t areas. Limit and Scope o f This Study The t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n co u rses upon which t h i s study was based were o f fe r e d in f i v e l o c a t i o n s in th e s t a t e o f Michigan: Jackson, Muskegon, D e t r o i t , S a u lt S te . M arie, and Benton Harbor. These lo c a tio n s were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f th e s t a t e in terms o f geography, economic c o n d i t i o n s , and p o p u la tio n com position (Appendix A). Those a tte n d in g th e co u rses were a l l sworn law enforcem ent o f f i c e r s from m u n ic ip a l, tow nship, co u nty , and p u b lic s a f e t y d e p a r t­ m ents, ranging in s iz e from one man t o f i v e thousand men. The p r a c ­ t i t i o n e r s were assig n ed t o th e p a r t i c u l a r scho ols by t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e ag e n c ie s , so i t was not p o s s ib le t o make random assignm ents t o th e v ario u s sch o o ls. 10 The same two i n s t r u c t o r s ta u g h t th e f i v e c l a s s e s t h a t were used in c o l l e c t i n g th e d a ta f o r t h i s s tu d y . This had th e advantage o f e l im in a t in g v a r i a b l e s t h a t cou ld have a r i s e n from th e in d iv id u a l approaches o f a v a r i e t y o f i n s t r u c t o r s . D e f i n i tio n o f Terms A I -1 : This r e f e r s t o th e P o lic e T r a f f i c A ccident T ra in in g Course t h a t was p r e s e n te d by th e Highway T r a f f i c S a fe ty C enter o f Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity . The co u rse was a 35-hour t r a i n i n g program d esig n e d t o eq u ip th e i n - s e r v i c e p o l i c e o f f i c e r w ith th e c a p a b i l i t y o f co n d u ctin g comprehensive o n-scen e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . Emphasis was placed upon (1) re c o g n iz in g a l l p e r t i n e n t p h y s ic a l e v i ­ dence ab ou t th e a c c i d e n t v e h ic le s and s c e n e ; (2) c o l l e c t i n g a n d /o r r e c o rd in g t h i s in fo rm a tio n in th e form o f p h o to g ra p h s, s k e tc h e s , and m easurem ents; and (3) c a l c u l a t i n g c e r t a i n p r e - c o l l i s i o n speeds o f a c c i d e n t - i n v o lv e d v e h i c l e s . A ccident i n v e s t i g a t i o n : A s y s te m a tic exam ination and g a t h e r ­ ing o f a l l o f th e f a c t s and in fo rm a tio n ab ou t c o n d i t i o n s , a c t i o n s , and p h y s ic a l f e a t u r e s connected w ith and in vo lved in th e s i t u a t i o n t h a t i s commonly c a l l e d an a c c i d e n t . A ccid en t r e p o r t i n g : Basic d a ta c o l l e c t i o n t o i d e n t i f y and c l a s s i f y a m o to r- v e h ic le t r a f f i c a c c id e n t and th e p e r s o n s , p r o p e r t y , and planned movements in v o lv e d . 4 w anted, n o t o p in io n s . Only s t r i c t l y f a c t u a l in fo rm a tio n i s ^ J . S tannard Baker, T r a f f i c A ccident I n v e s t i g a t i o n Manual (E v an ston , I l l i n o i s : N orthw estern U n i v e r s i t y , 1975), p. 4. 11 At-scene i n v e s t i g a t i o n : Examining and recording r e s u l t s of the accid en t and ob tain ing ad d itio n a l inform ation a t th e scene of a t r a f f i c accid ent t h a t may not be a v a ila b le l a t e r and t h a t supplements data obtained f o r the accid en t r e p o r t . tual as p o s sib le . This inform ation i s as fa c - 5 Course of s tu d y : For purposes o f t h i s s tu d y , course o f study re fe rre d to the performance o b j e c t iv e s , s u b je c t o u t l i n e s , l e c t u r e s , problems, and t e s t i n g used with s tu d e n ts who attended one o f fiv e Police T r a f f ic Accident In v e stig a tio n Training courses given in Jackson, Muskegon, D e tr o it, S au lt S te. Marie, and Benton Harbor, Michigan, by the Highway T r a f f ic Safety Center o f Michigan S ta te U n iv ersity during the summer and f a l l o f 1979 (Appendix B). Entering b ehavio r: For the purposes of t h i s stu dy , e n te rin g behavior i s t h a t inform ation obtained from s tu d e n ts a t th e f i r s t s e s ­ sion when a tte n d in g one o f the fiv e AI-1 courses. These were responses to a q u e stio n n a ire on experience and education (Appendix C). Format o f i n s t r u c t i o n : For th e purpose o f t h i s stud y, format of i n s t r u c t i o n means th e i n s t r u c t i o n a l plan t h a t was used to d e liv e r acciden t in v e s tig a tio n t r a in i n g . The following formats were used: Format #1--Teaching the course seven hours per day f o r fiv e consecutive days, f o r a t o t a l of 35 hours o f i n s t r u c ­ tio n (the one-week fo rm at). Format #2--Teaching th e course seven hours per day fo r one day th e f i r s t week, and seven hours per day f o r two days a 5 Ibid. 12 week f o r two successiv e weeks, f o r a t o t a l o f 35 hours o f i n s t r u c t i o n (th e three-week f o rm a t) . Format #3—Teaching th e course seven hours per day f o r one day a week f o r f i v e successiv e weeks, f o r a t o t a l o f 35 hours (th e five-week f o rm a t) . Motor v e h ic le a c c i d e n t: Any event t h a t r e s u l t s in unintended in ju ry o r p ro p erty damage a t t r i b u t a b l e d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y to th e g motion o f a motor v e h ic le o r i t s load. Motor v e h ic le t r a f f i c a c c id e n t : Any motor v e h ic le a c c id e n t o ccu rrin g on a t r a f f i c way.7 P o lice o f f i c e r : This term i s d efin ed as any sworn f u l l - t i m e uniformed p o lic e personnel who i s re s p o n s ib le f o r a l l b a sic p o lic e fu n c tio n s , which may in clu d e enforcement o f law s, maintenance o f o r d e r, prevention o f crime, and p r o te c tio n o f p r o p e rty . This d e f i n i t i o n Includes o f f i c e r s who respond to c a l l s f o r a s s i s t a n c e and who are g re sp o n s ib le f o r re p o rtin g and recording v i o l a t i o n s o f th e law. P o lice t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n : P o lice T r a f f i c Accident I n v e s tig a tio n i s th e p a r t o f s t r e e t or highway t r a f f i c s u p erv isio n performed by p o lic e in connection w ith t r a f f i c a c c id e n ts . This a c t i v i t y in clu d es but i s not n e c e s s a r ily lim ite d to a c c id e n t r e p o rtin g by p o lic e : o n -th e scene in v e s t i g a t i o n ; follow -up a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n ; p o lic e t r a f f i c law enforcement a r i s i n g from th e a c c id e n t; p o lic e t r a f f i c d i r e c t io n and o th e r emergency s e r v ic e s t o preven t 6 I b i d . , p. 320. 7Ib id . ^Robert L. Parsons, "Task A nalysis o f th e Physical Performance Requirements Necessary to Perform as a Michigan P o lice O fficer" (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity , 1980). 13 a d d i t i o n a l i n j u r y , damage o r l o s s ; and p r e p a r i n g , in a d d i t i o n t o t h e r o u t i n e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t r e p o r t , a t r a f f i c c i t a t i o n o r s p e c ia l t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t s t a t i n g c o n c lu ­ s io n s ab ou t how and why th e a c c id e n t o c c u r r e d . 9 T echnical p r e p a r a t i o n : Delayed t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t d a ta c o l l e c ­ t i o n and o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r s tu d y and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . are e s s e n tia lly f a c tu a l. The d a ta c o l l e c t e d Technical p r e p a r a t i o n in c lu d e s making a d d i­ t i o n a l measurements and p h o to g ra p h s, p re p a rin g maps and d iag ram s, sim ple speed e s t i m a t e s , matching damage a r e a s , and making experim ents to o b ta in s p e c i f i c d a t a J 0 O rg a n iz a tio n o f th e Remaining C hapters C hapter I I c o n ta in s a review o f th e l i t e r a t u r e . Included a re a review o f c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h on i n t e n s i v e sc h e d u lin g and p e r t i n e n t or r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e on measurement methods t h a t were used in t h i s s tu d y . C hapter I I I c o n ta in s a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n o f th e c o u rse o f s tu d y as w ell a s th e te c h n iq u e s used in e v a l u a t i n g th e c o u rse o f study. C hapter IV i n c lu d e s an a n a l y s i s and p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e d a ta o b ta in e d in t h e s tu d y . P re se n te d in C hapter V a r e th e summary, c o n c l u s io n s , recommen­ d a t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r s tu d y , and a d i s c u s s io n . Q Highway S a f e ty P o l i c i e s f o r P o lic e E x e c u tiv e s , a n n u a lly updated ( G a it h e r s b u r g , M aryland: I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c ia tio n o f C hiefs of P o lice). ^°B aker, p. 4. CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF LITERATURE The purpose o f t h i s chapter i s to p resen t a review o f the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a te d to the use of time-compressed formats in teaching and the use o f assessment instrum ents fo r ev alu atin g tr a in in g programs. Since a p rin c ip a l purpose o f t h i s study was to determine i f one of the th re e tr a in i n g formats ( e . g . , one-week, three-w eek, o r f iv e week) was most e f f e c t i v e , an exten siv e search was made of the l i t e r a ­ tu re r e la t e d to th e use of in te n siv e scheduling in teach in g . An ex ten siv e search was a lso made o f the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to assessment instrum ents fo r evaluatin g t r a in in g programs. Also included was a review of measurement methods used in t h i s study. Inten siv e Scheduling I n te n siv e scheduling r e f e r s to an innovative approach to scheduling courses by which stu dents study a p a r t i c u l a r s u b je c t f o r a concentrated period o f time and in which formal classroom co n tact time between th e stu d en ts and the i n s t r u c t o r i s lim ite d to a time-compressed fo rm a t.^ ^ R ic h a r d Doyle and John Y antis, F a c i l i t a t i n g Non-Traditional Learning: An Update on Research and Evaluation in In te n siv e Scheduling (Bethesaa, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction S erv ic e, ED 144 459^ 1977), p. B-227. 14 15 In te n siv e scheduling was found in a wide v a r ie ty o f form ats, e . g . , sem inars, workshops, evening c l a s s e s , summer s e s s io n s , and weekend c l a s s e s . The remaining p a r t o f t h i s s e c tio n p re se n ts the r e s u l t s o f a number o f s tu d ie s t h a t d e a l t d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y with various a s p e c ts o f in te n s iv e scheduling. Retention and Short-Term Cognitive Changes Research on th e long-term r e te n tio n o f m aterial learned in in te n s iv e courses was s p a rs e . Powell, who in v e s tig a te d th e area o f r e t e n t io n as i t r e l a t e d to i n te n s iv e sch ed u lin g , concluded t h a t : Although s tu d e n ts and te a c h e rs b e lie v e t h a t r e te n tio n o f m a te ria l improves w ith co n cen trated s t u d i e s , no one has ever done a s e rio u s comparative study under in te n s iv e and concur­ r e n t sch ed u les. Thus, we d o n 't know whether r e te n tio n i s b e t t e r o r worse in in te n s iv e le a r n in g . This i s a major re se a rc h n e e d .12 On the o th e r hand, th e r e were s u b s ta n tia l q u a n t i t a t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e d ata t h a t suggested t h a t in te n s iv e courses were e f f e c t i v e in producing s h o rt-te rm c o g n itiv e changes. S c o tt , in a study comparing the achievement in elev en th grade American h i s t o r y o f b e tte r -th a n - a v e ra g e high school s tu d e n ts (averaged about th e 75th p e r c e n t i l e IQ), u t i l i z e d matched p a ir s (sc h o o l, sex, chronological ag e, mental age, and e n ro lle d f o r o r ig in a l c r e d i t ) and concluded t h a t s tu d e n ts 1n summer school in te n s iv e courses (seven weeks long, 96 hours o f i n s t r u c t i o n ) achieved as well as o r b e t t e r than 12 B. S. Powell, In te n siv e Education: The Impact o f Time on Teaching (Newton, Mass.: Educational Development C en ter, 1976), p. 14. 16 s tu d e n ts in s i m i l a r r e g u l a r s e s s io n s (36 weeks lo n g , 150 hours o f 13 in stru c tio n ). Wallace r e p o rte d t h a t an e x te n s iv e th ree-w eek f o r e i g n language course produced g a in s e q u iv a le n t t o t h a t ex p ected in one y e a r (30 weeks) o f normal s tu d y as measured by th e s ta n d a r d iz e d t e s t s o f th e 14 Modern Language A s s o c ia tio n . Two o th e r s tu d i e s o f i n t e n s i v e programs in modern f o re ig n languages r e p o rte d " s u b s t a n t i a l " and "m easurable" g a in s in knowledge and u n d erstan d in g o f th e course m a t e r i a l . T h e s e s t u d i e s did n o t use a c o n tro l group, so no d i r e c t comparison cou ld be made t o th e p e r ­ formance o f s tu d e n ts w ith s i m i l a r a b i l i t i e s in s i m i l a r c o u rse s using d i f f e r e n t sch ed u lin g p a t t e r n s . Powell summarized th e r e s u l t s o f s ix s t u d i e s o f b a s ic c o u rse s a t th e secondary and p o s t-s e c o n d a ry l e v e l s . These s t u d i e s compared s tu d e n t s in i n t e n s i v e co u rses w ith "matched" s tu d e n t s ta k in g th e same c o u rse s a t th e same time d u rin g th e normal school day. In ev ery c a s e , 13 Owen S c o t t , "A Comparison o f Summer School and R egular S es­ sio n Achievement in 11th Grade American H i s to r y ," Jo u rn a l o f E ducational Research 59 (1966): 235-37. ^ J o h n A. W allace, "Three Weeks Equals T h ir t y Weeks?--A Report on an Experimental I n te n s iv e Jan uary Language C o u rse," Foreign Language Annuals 6 (1972): 88-94. ^5J . J . Deveny and J . C. Bookout, "The I n te n s i v e Language Course, Toward a S u ccessful Approach," Foreign Language Annuals 6 (1976): 58-63. ^6J . J . S o le c k i, "An I n te n s iv e Method o f Language T e ach in g ," Foreign Language Annuals 4 (1971): 278-82. 17 s tu d e n ts in t h e i n t e n s i v e c o u rs e s d id as well as o r b e t t e r th an s t u ­ d e n ts in c o n c u r re n t c o u r s e s .^ 7 Doyle, in a stu d y conducted a t C en tral Michigan U n iv e r s i t y , r e p o rte d t h a t in g e n e ra l t h e r e was no d i f f e r e n c e in achiev em en t, as measured by th e f i n a l grade d i s t r i b u t i o n s , between s tu d e n t s e n r o l l e d in an i n t r o d u c t o r y geography co u rse t a u g h t under th e fo llo w in g t h r e e co n d itio n s: (1) a three-w eek i n t e n s i v e fo rm a t, (2) a six-w eek i n t e n 18 s iv e fo rm a t, and (3) a t r a d i t i o n a l se m e ste r (15-week) fo rm at. Mazanec r e p o r te d s i m i l a r f in d in g s as Doyle in c o u rse s t a u g h t in E n g lis h , m ath em atics, s p e e c h , and p o l i t i c a l s c ie n c e a t D elta C o lle g e , 19 in which 3 - , 6 - , and 15-week fo rm ats were used. The s t u d i e s r e f e r r e d t o above provided v a lu a b le in fo rm a tio n about c o g n it i v e r e t e n t i o n in both r e g u l a r and in t e n s i v e c o u r s e s . Such in fo rm atio n was a l s o v a lu a b le in h e lp in g to determ ine th e r e s u l t s o f t h i s stu d y in th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f s h o r t - te r m c o g n i ti v e changes. Most o f th e l i t e r a t u r e on i n t e n s i v e s c h e d u lin g has been based on o p i n i o n s , w ith l i t t l e r e l i a b l e s t a t i s t i c a l d a ta a v a i l a b l e to v e r i f y th e s e o p in io n s . 20 According t o Campbell and S ta n le y : I n te r n a l v a l i d i t y i s t h e b a s ic minimum w ith o u t which any experim ent i s u n i n t e r p r e t a b l e : Did in f a c t th e ex p erim en tal ^7P o w ell, p. 231. 1ft Doyle and Y a n tis , p. B-231. 19 Joseph Mazanec, "The E f f e c t o f Course I n t e n s i t y on Academic Achievement, S tu d e n t A t t i t u d e s , and M o r t a l i t y Rate" (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a ­ t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1972). ^ D o y l e and Y a n t i s , p. B-231. 18 tre a tm e n ts make a d iff e r e n c e in t h i s s p e c i f i c experim ental in sta n c e ? External v a l i d i t y asks th e q u estio n of g e n e r a liz a b i l i t y : To what p o p u la tio n s, s e t t i n g s , tre a tm e n t v a r i a b l e s , and measurement v a r ia b le s can t h i s e f f e c t be g e n e r a l i z e d ? ^ This s e le c t io n f a c t o r e s s e n t i a l l y meant t h a t th e d if f e r e n c e s t h a t occurred between study groups could well have come about through th e d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e persons making up th e group, r a t h e r than th e method o f sch ed uling . Doyle and Y a n tis, being aware o f the p o s s i b i l i t y o f s e le c t io n b ia s and o th e r t h r e a t s to v a l i d i t y enumerated by Campbell and S ta n le y , designed an experiment in which s tu d e n ts who e n r o lle d in a graduate course in i n d u s t r i a l psychology were randomly assig ned to one o f two tre a tm e n ts : a compressed schedule c o n s is tin g o f fo u r weekends o f nine hours o f c la s s e s each, o r a more extended format of nine weeks of c l a s s e s w ith one fo ur-ho ur c l a s s per week. S tudents in each tre atm e n t used th e same t e x t , had th e same i n s t r u c t o r covering th e same m a te r ia l, and had th e same exam inations. They concluded t h a t th e r e were essen 22 t i a l l y no d if f e r e n c e s between th e two groups. Doyle, Moursi, and Wood, in a study comparing s tu d e n ts e n ro lle d in a graduate business c o u rse , concluded t h a t th e r e was no d iff e r e n c e between th e performance of a group o f stu d e n ts randomly assign ed to an i n t e n s i v e ly scheduled c la s s and t h e i r c o u n te r p a rts e n r o lle d in an id e n t i c a l course over th e period o f a complete sem ester (15 weeks). In t h a t s tu d y , two independent indexes o f performance were used: 21 Donald Campbell and J u li a n S ta n le y , Experimental and QuasiExperimental Designs f o r Research (Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1966), p. 5. 22 Doyle and Yantis, p. B-232. 19 (1) th e course g ra d e , which was based on a number o f c r i t e r i a ; and (2) a c o g n itiv e achievement t e s t o f a d m in is tr a tiv e th eo ry . 23 The above s tu d ie s demonstrated t h a t s tu d e n ts e n r o lle d 1n i n te n s iv e cou rses performed in th e c o g n itiv e domain a t l e a s t as well as stu d e n ts who e n r o l le d in extended co urses. Doyle and Yantis have concluded t h a t : Although i t i s c l e a r from a l l the a v a i l a b le evidence t h a t i n te n s iv e schedu ling works a t l e a s t as well as t r a d i t i o n a l s c h e d u lin g , th e mechanisms re sp o n s ib le f o r th e success of t h i s approach have n o t y e t c l e a r l y been i d e n t i f i e d . Many a s p e c ts o f i n te n s iv e scheduling w arrant f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 24 Massed Versus D is tr ib u te d P ra c tic e Research on le a rn in g has in d ic a te d t h a t th e in tro d u c tio n o f time i n t e r v a l s between p erio d s o f p r a c ti c e r e s u l t s in more learn in g and b e t t e r r e t e n t i o n than th e same amount o f p r a c t i c e undertaken in • d^. 25 one p erio The psycho lo gical l i t e r a t u r e in the area o f massed p r a c t i c e ( i . e . , no r e s t i n t e r v a l s ) versus d i s t r i b u t e d p r a c t i c e (spaced r e s t i n t e r v a l s ) has a d i r e c t bearing on th e is s u e o f in te n s iv e scheduling. H e f fe r lin a s s e r t e d t h a t although the l i t e r a t u r e suggested t h a t more le a rn in g and b e t t e r r e te n t io n took place under c o n d itio n s o f 23 R. Doyle, M. M oursi, and D. Wood, The E f f e c ts o f In te n s iv e Scheduling: A F ield Experiment (Mt. P le a sa n t! I n s t i t u t e f o r Personal and Career Development, Central Michigan U n iv e r s ity , 1979). 24 Doyle and Yantes, p. B-238. B. Lon H e f f e r l i n , " In te n s iv e Courses: An Old Idea Whose Time f o r T estin g Has Come," Journal o f Research and Development in Education 6 (1972): 94. 20 d i s t r i b u t e d l e a r n i n g , which would f a v o r c o n c u r re n t c o u rse s o v er i n t e n ­ s iv e c o u r s e s , th e r e s u l t s p rov ide no ev id en ce in e i t h e r d i r e c t i o n ; f o r w h ile i n t e n s i v e c o u rse s o b v io u sly r e p r e s e n t more c o n c e n tr a te d e f f o r t th an c o n c u r re n t o n e s , th e y do n o t c o n s t i t u t e massed p r a c t i c e in th e sense o f most p s y c h o lo g ic a l ex p erim en ts. I n s t e a d , th e y a c t u a l l y i l l u s t r a t e d i s t r i b u t e d p r a c t i c e , s in c e th e y employ d a i l y c y c le s o f r e s t and e f f o r t comparable t o th e 24 hour c y c le sometimes used i n d i s t r i b u t e d p r a c t i c e e x p e r i m e n t s . 2 6 Doyle, in h i s r e s e a r c h o f la b o r a t o r y and f i e l d s t u d i e s in th e a re a o f massed v ersu s d i s t r i b u t e d p r a c t i c e , c o rro b o r a te d H e f f e r l i n 's f in d in g s t h a t t h e d a ta were in c o n c lu s iv e w ith r e s p e c t to i n t e n s i v e 27 sch ed u lin g and th e a r e a was in need o f f u r t h e r s tu d y . S tu d en t A t t i t u d e s A nother a s p e c t o f t h i s stu d y was s tu d e n t a t t i t u d e s , as r e f l e c t e d by re sp o n se s on th e s tu d e n t course e v a l u a t i o n q u e s ti o n n a ir e . H e f f e r l i n , in h is r e s e a r c h on i n t e n s i v e s c h e d u lin g , r e p o r te d t h a t g en eral s tu d e n t and f a c u l t y enthusiasm and s a t i s f a c t i o n was a consequence o f e v e ry e x p e rie n c e t o d a te w ith i n t e n s i v e s c h e d u lin g . 28 Doyle, in h i s review s o f th e l i t e r a t u r e on th e s u b j e c t o f i n t e n s i v e s c h e d u lin g , re v e a le d t h a t i n t e n s i v e c o u rse s a r e v i r t u a l l y 29 30 always marked by f a c u l t y and s tu d e n t en th usiasm . * Doyle r e p o r te d th a t: ^ D o y l e and Y a n tis , p. B-238. 28H e f f e r l i n , p. 96. 79 30 Doyle and Y a n tis , p. B-233. Doyle, Moursi, and Wood, p. 2. 21 S tu d e n ts e n r o l l e d 1n i n t e n s i v e c o u r s e s have r e p o r te d t h a t t h e r a p p o r t between s t u d e n t s and i n s t r u c t o r s was s u p e rb , t h a t s tu d e n t m orale and e f f o r t were enhanced, t h a t c l o s e r p erso n al r e l a t i o n s h i p s d eveloped between f a c u l t y and s t u d e n t s (and among s t u d e n t s ) , and t h a t i n t e n s i v e s c h e d u lin g was a p p a r e n tl y more conducive t o f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s w ith t h e t e a c h e r s . 31 These f i n d i n g s were c o r r o b o r a te d by a more r e c e n t s tu d y con­ d u cted by D oyle, M o u rsi, and Wood, 1n which th e y r e p o r te d th e r e s u l t s o f an e n d - o f - c o u r s e a t t i t u d i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e which r e v e a le d t h a t t h e r e were no “s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s " between s t u d e n t s in t h e e x t e n s iv e fo rm at and th o s e in th e t r a d i t i o n a l form at w ith r e s p e c t t o t h e i r a t t i 32 tu d e s toward and p e r c e p t i o n s abo ut th e c o u rs e . E v a lu a tio n Measures Used in t h e E v a lu a tio n o f T r a in in g Programs Both t h e s u rv e y q u e s t i o n n a i r e and t h e achievem ent t e s t have been w id ely used a s a means o f c o l l e c t i n g n e c e s s a r y d a t a t o e v a l u a t e , . . 3 3 ,3 4 ,3 5 ,3 6 t r a i n i n g program s. ' * * ^ D o y l e and Y a n t i s , p. B-233. 32 D oyle, M o u rsi, and Wood, p. 2. 33 Kent J . C habo tar and Lawrence J . Lad, E v a lu a tiv e G u id e lin e s f o r T r a in in g Programs ( E a s t L ansing : P u b lic A d m in is tr a tio n Programs, Department o f P o l i t i c a l S c ie n c e , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 4), pp. 106-24. 34 A lexander I . Law and W illiam H. Bronson, Program E v a lu a to r s Guide (The E v a lu a tio n Improvement Program, C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e Department o f E d u c a tio n , 1 9 7 7 ), pp. D-21-D-43. 35 Gay MacGregor and A rth u r S t . George, E v a lu a tio n o f S t a t e and Local Programs: A P rim er (New Mexico S t a t e P lann ing O f f i c e , 1 97 6), p. 92. 36 Donald L. K i r k p a t r i c k , "Techniques f o r E v a lu a tin g T r a in in g P rogram s," T r a in in g and Development J o u rn a l (June 1979): 78-92. 22 As in d ic a te d by Good and S cates: The q u e s tio n n a ire i s a major instrum ent f o r d ata g ath erin g in d e s c r i p t i v e survey s tu d ie s and i s used to secure inform ation from v aried and widely s c a tte r e d sou rces. The q u e s tio n n a ir e i s p a r t i c u l a r l y useful when one cannot r e a l l y see p e rs o n a lly a l l o f th e people from whom he d e s ir e s responses o r where th e r e i s no p a r t i c u l a r reason to see the respondent p e r s o n a l l y . 3’ In a study to develop and v a l i d a te an e f f e c t i v e method o f o b ta in in g p o s t- f o rm a l- tra in in g feedback in fo rm atio n s u i t a b l e f o r use throughout th e Navy t r a in i n g system, Dyer found t h a t q u e s tio n n a ir e s provided th e most c o s t - e f f e c t i v e means o f o b ta in in g th e needed i n f o r ­ mation. He a ls o concluded t h a t th e q u e s tio n n a ire provided d a ta t h a t were n e a rly i d e n ti c a l to th e d ata obtained from th e personal in te rv ie w method.^® Stone concluded t h a t q u e s tio n n a ire s a re probably the most f r e ­ q u en tly used d a ta -g a th e rin g device in terms o f behavioral re se a rc h 1n 39 o r g a n iz a tio n s . One need not j u s t i f y the use o f q u e s tio n n a ir e s any f u r t h e r , f o r e v a lu a to rs have fre q u e n tly used q u e s tio n n a ir e s to a s s e s s opinions o r a t t i t u d e s o f p a r t i c i p a n t s in numerous t r a i n i n g programs and have found th e d ata c o lle c te d from th e se q u e s tio n n a ir e s to be v a lid and r e l i a b l e . 40*4^ 37 C a rte r Good and Douglass S c a te s , Methods of Research (New A ppleton-C entury-C rofts, I n c . , 1954), p. 606. 38 F rederick N. Dyer and o t h e r s , A Method f o r O btaining Post Formal T rainin g Feedback: Development and V alid atio n (Bethesda, Md.: ERIC Document Reproduction S e rv ic e , ED 110 032, 1975), p. 59. 39 Eugene Stone, Research Methods in O rgan ization al Behavior (Santa Monica, C a l l f o r n i i l Goodyear Publishing C o., I n c . , 1978), p. 61. York: 4\ a w and Bronson, p. D-27. 41 K irk p a tric k , p. 81. 23 In j u s t i f i c a t i o n o f th e use o f t h e achievem ent t e s t as an e v a l u a t i o n m easure, Chabotar and Lad s t a t e d t h a t : T e s ts a r e w idely used by e d u c a tio n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , govern­ ment a g e n c ie s , and b u s in e s s o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o a s s e s s th e t a l e n t s o f t h e i r members. Performance and achievem ent t e s t s a r e e s s e n ­ t i a l l y means o f sampling what t r a i n e e s know o r can do; th e y can l o c a t e a r e a s in which more In fo rm a tio n o r s k i l l t r a i n i n g 1s needed o r can c e r t i f y when s u f f i c i e n t in fo rm a tio n o r s k i l l has been a c q u ire d thro ug h t r a i n i n g . 42 K ir k p a tr ic k concluded t h a t th e p a p e r-a n d -p e n c il t e s t can be used e f f e c t i v e l y in m easuring th e le a r n i n g t h a t ta k e s p la c e in a t r a i n ­ ing program. A comparison o f "b e fo re " and " a f t e r " s c o re s and resp o nses 43 can be made t o i n d i c a t e how much l e a r n i n g has tak en p l a c e . Law and Bronson r e p o r te d t h a t c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s have gained in p o p u l a r it y u n t i l to day th e y p ro v id e t h e program e v a l u a t o r 44 w ith an a l t e r n a t i v e to th e more t r a d i t i o n a l n o rm -referen ced t e s t s . K e rlin g e r r e p o r te d : A c t u a l ly , th e id ea [ c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s ] ap p ears to be an o ld one w ith a new s l a n t . I t s p rin g s b a s i c a l l y from th e n o tio n o f m astery by th e in d iv id u a l o f d e fin e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l g o a ls and th e a b s o lu te i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t e s t s c o r e s . The emphasis i s on what i s le a r n e d by th e I n d iv id u a l l e a r n e r , on th e c r i t e r i o n o f le a r n i n g s e t by t e a c h e r and p u p i l , on th e goal o f i n s t r u c t i o n . 45 Some ad v o cates o f c r i t e r i o n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s s a id t h e r e i s l i t t l e need f o r th e t r a d i t i o n a l no rm -referen ced t e s t in program 42 Chabotar and Lad, p. 120. ^ K i r k p a t r i c k , p. 85. 44 Law and Bronson, p. D-21. York: ^ F r e d M. K e r l i n g e r , Foundations o f B ehavioral Research (New H o lt, R in e h a rt and W inston, 1973), p. 512. 24 e v a lu a tio n —t h a t c r ite r io n - r e f e r e n c e d t e s t s are the only a p p ro p riate 46 achievement t e s t s to use. Chabotar and Lad concluded t h a t : In those lo cal t r a in i n g courses where stan dardized t e s t s are in a p p ro p ria te f o r reasons of co nten t or d i f f i c u l t y , the t r a in i n g o f f i c e r can develop h is own custom-made t e s t . A custom-made t e s t can be t a i l o r e d to f i t the course and goal being ev alu ated ; i t s r e l i a b i l i t y can be p r e - te s te d on a sample p o pu latio n; i t s ad m in istra tiv e and i n t e r p r e t i v e procedures w ill not exceed local c a p a b i l i t i e s ; and local norms or c r i t e r i a can be d e r i v e d .47 K irkpatrick a lso repo rted t h a t i t i s an accep tab le and widely used p r a c tic e fo r the t r a in in g person to c o n s tru c t h is own t e s t to 48 measure learn in g t h a t takes place in a t r a in i n g program. S elf-R eport Studies This sectio n p resen ts research as i t i s r e l a t e d to use of s e l f - r e p o r t surveys as a viable tool in program e v a lu a tio n . Much research has been conducted r e l a t in g to the use o f s e l f re p o rt accid en t surveys as a p o te n tia l c r i t e r i o n f o r d r iv e r education program e v a lu a tio n . Whittenburg used s e lf - r e p o r t i n g surveys to evalu­ a te a d r iv e r improvement program developed f o r the United S ta te s Coast Guard. Mail q u e s tio n n a ire s were used to a s c e r ta in accid en t involve­ ment o f the respondents. The returned q u e s tio n n a ire s were compared a g a in s t o f f i c i a l d riv in g records and demonstrated s u b s ta n tia l agreement. The q u e s tio n n a ire in d ic a te d more accid en t involvement than the o f f i c i a l 46 Law and Bronson, p. D-22. ^7Chabotar and Lad, p. 121. ^ K i r k p a t r i c k , p. 86. 25 reco rd s. Whittenburg concluded t h a t a s e l f - r e p o r t i n g a c c id e n t survey can provide r e l i a b l e inform ation f o r purposes o f curriculum e v a lu a tio n . 49 Quensel used a s tu d e n t survey q u e s tio n n a ir e f o r e v a lu a tio n purposes as p a r t o f a curriculum development p r o je c t in I l l i n o i s . A th r e e - s t e p v e r i f i c a t i o n process was i n i t i a t e d to determine i f stu d e n t responses re p re s e n te d a t r u e record o f t h e i r d riv in g and c o l l i s i o n ex p erien ces. The th re e s te p s included (1) a v isu al in sp e c tio n o f the q u e s tio n n a ire s r e tu r n e d , (2) personal in te rv ie w s with s tu d e n ts , and (3) comparison o f th e number o f c o l l i s i o n s w ith o f f i c i a l d r iv e r records f i l e s . Quensel found t h a t s tu d e n ts tended to r e p o r t more c o l ­ l i s i o n s than th e s t a t e records could v e r i f y and t h a t s tu d e n ts did pro­ vide a c c u ra te in fo rm atio n . He concluded t h a t th e s e l f - r e p o r t i n g survey technique may be used as a tool f o r measuring whether o r not one d r iv e r 50 education program i s more e f f e c t i v e than an o th e r. S tu d ies conducted by Smith and U i t h e r i l l have a l s o supported the use o f s e l f - r e p o r t i n g surveys as a v ia b le means o f o b ta in in g p e r51 52 t i n e n t in fo rm atio n t h a t i s n ecessary f o r program e v a lu a tio n . * 49 J . A. Whittenburg e t a l . , D river Improvement T rain in g and E v alu a tio n , Final r e p o r t PB 234-078 ( S p r i n g f i e l d , Va.: National Technical Inform ation S e rv ic e , June 1974). 50W. P. Quensel, "How to Measure Program E f f e c tiv e n e s s ," Journal of T r a f f i c S afety Education (April 1976): 6-7. 51D. I . Smith, " O f fic ia l Driving Records and S e lf-R e p o rts as Sources o f Accident and Conviction Data f o r Research Purposes," Accident A nalysis and Prevention 8 (1976): 207-11. 5ZJerome W. W i t h e r i l l , "The F e a s i b i l i t y o f Using S elected Student Data Bases f o r th e Assessment and Evaluation o f Driver Educa­ ti o n Programs in th e S t a te of Minnesota" (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S ta te U n iv e r s ity , 1973). 26 Oyer, who conducted a stu d y e v a lu a tin g th e use o f q u e s tio n ­ n a i r e s and f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r v ie w s , concluded t h a t d ata re c e iv e d from s e l f - r e p o r t i n g q u e s tio n n a ir e s were alm ost i d e n t i c a l to th e d a ta 53 o b ta in e d from more expensive f a c e - t o - f a c e in te rv ie w s . In a study to determ ine th e e x t e n t to which s tu d e n ts accu­ r a t e l y r e p o rte d t h e i r l a s t y e a r-e n d o r sem ester-end high school grades when w r i ti n g th e Student D e s c rip tiv e Q u e s tio n n a ire , Armstrong and Jensen concluded t h a t s tu d e n ts did r e p o r t t h e i r grades w ith in an a c c e p ta b le margin o f e r r o r . 54 Walsh, in s tu d ie s o f s e l f - r e p o r t e d grades by c o lle g e s tu d e n t s , r e p o rte d t h a t s tu d e n ts g e n e r a l l y provided a c c u ra te g ra d e s. In h is s tu d i e s Walsh compared t h r e e te c h n iq u e s o f d a ta c o l l e c t i o n (personal in t e r v i e w , q u e s ti o n n a i r e , and personal d ata blank) and concluded t h a t 55 56 57 v a l i d in fo rm a tio n can be o b ta in e d using a l l th r e e methods. * * Summary From th e in fo rm atio n p re se n te d above, i t can be concluded t h a t both th e survey q u e s tio n n a ir e and th e achievement t e s t have been widely 53Dyer, p. 8. ^ R o b e r t J . Armstrong and John A. J en sen , The Accuracy of S tu den t-R ep orted Grades on t h e ATP S tudent D e s c rip tiv e Q u estio n n a ire (The C o lleg e Entrance Examination Board, January 1975), p. 1. 55W. B. Walsh, " V a l id it y o f S e lf- R e p o rt," Journal o f Counseling Psychology 14 (1967): 18-23. 56W. B. Walsh, " V a li d it y o f S e lf-R e p o rt: Another Look," Journal o f Counseling Psychology 15 (1968): 180-86. ^ W . B. Walsh, " S e lf-R e p o rt Under S o c i a l ly U ndesirable and D is to r te d C o n d itio n s ," Jo u rn al o f Counseling Psychology 16 (1969): 569-74. 27 used and a r e ac c e p te d means o f c o l l e c t i n g n e c e s sa ry d a ta t o e v a lu a te t r a i n i n g programs. A lso , i t can be concluded t h a t s e l f - r e p o r t i n g surveys r e p r e s e n t one v ia b l e way o f o b ta in in g a c c u r a te in fo rm a tio n t h a t i s n e c e s sa ry f o r program e v a l u a t io n and program improvement. These s t u d i e s w i ll be used as a source o f r e f e r e n c e f o r th e e v a lu a tio n o f th e i n t e n s i v e c o g n i t i v e changes as th e r e s u l t o f th e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o u r s e , A I-1. A d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n o f th e c o u rse o f stu d y as well as th e te c h n iq u e s used in e v a l u a t i n g t h i s co u rse o f s tu d y 1s p re se n te d in Chapter I I I . CHAPTER I I I RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The purpose o f t h i s study was to evalu ate the e f fe c tiv e n e s s of s e le c te d t r a f f i c accid en t in v e s tig a tio n course formats offered by the Michigan S ta te U niversity Highway T r a f f ic Safety Center. The su b jec t m atter presented in t h i s course was developed by th e Michigan S tate U niversity Highway T r a f fic Safety Center s t a f f . In t h i s ch ap ter the c o n te n t, th e in s tr u c tio n a l methods, the lo c a t io n , and the c l a s s schedules of the t r a f f i c accid en t in v e s tig a ­ tio n courses a re d iscu ssed. The s e le c tio n of the sample of stu dents in th e study and the t e s t i n g method are ex p lain ed , along with the methods used in ta b u la tin g and analyzing the d ata. T estable Hypotheses Five research hypotheses were developed to examine the e f f e c ­ tiv e n e s s of th e courses and any d iffe re n c e s among the form ats. The hypotheses examined in t h i s study were: Hypothesis 1 : Students w ill not show s i g n i f i c a n t gain s c o re s , as c a lc u la te d by p r e - t e s t and p o s t - t e s t s c o re s , a f t e r the com­ p le tio n o f the fiv e t r a f f i c acciden t in v e s tig a tio n courses. Hq: u 2" u l = 0 H-j: u 2- y 1 > 0 Where: y-j = p r e - t e s t scores u2 = p o s t - t e s t 28 scores 29 Hypothesis 2 : Student e n tr y - le v e l knowledge o f t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n , as r e f l e c t e d by mean sco res on a p r e - t e s t , w ill not vary among th e f iv e groups re c e iv in g t r a f f i c a c c id e n t in v e s ­ tig a tio n in stru c tio n . V ^1 = y2 = y3 = ^“4 = P5 + Hi : Where v* Pg. e t c * re p re s e n t th e p r e - t e s t sco res o f th e groups. Hypothesis 3 : Student e n tr y - le v e l backgrounds, as r e f l e c t e d by v a r ia b le s on th e stu d e n t background q u e s tio n n a ir e , w ill not show a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith p o s t - t e s t s c o re s . H0 : P1 ■ P2 = p3 H ,: p, l> p2 t P3 Where p-j, pg, p^ r e p re s e n t th e fre q u e n c ie s w ithin th e th r e e p o s t - t e s t score c a t e g o r i e s . (Refer to Appendix G.) Hypothesis 4 : Student achievement l e v e l s , as r e f l e c t e d by mean scores on th e p o s t - t e s t , w ill not vary among groups re c e iv in g th re e d i f f e r e n t form ats o f i n s t r u c t i o n . H0 : yl = y2 “ y3 H1 : P, f P2 t P3 Where p^, Pg, pg r e p re s e n t p o s t - t e s t sco res o f th re e d i f f e r e n t form ats. Hypothesis 5 : Student e v a lu a tio n s , as r e f l e c t e d by responses on tn e stu d e n t course e v a lu a tio n q u e s tio n n a ir e , w ill not vary among groups re c e iv in g th r e e d i f f e r e n t form ats o f i n s t r u c t i o n . H0 : yl “ y2 = y3 Hj: P1 Where t P2 t U3 - , Pg» P3 r e p re s e n t s tu d e n t course e v alu a­ p j t i o n sco res o f th re e d i f f e r e n t form ats. 30 C ontent o f T r a f f i c A ccident I n v e s t i g a t i o n Courses The t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t I n v e s t i g a t i o n co u rse (A I-1) was d iv id e d i n t o s ix main s u b je c t a r e a s . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The c u rric u lu m o u t l i n e was as f o llo w s : Roadway E v a lu a tio n a. f i n a l p o s it i o n b. t i r e marks c. m etal s c a r s d. d eb ris e. f ix e d o b j e c t s f. f a l l s , f l i p s , and v a u l t s V eh icle E v a lu a tio n a. ty p e s o f v e h ic le damage b. t h r u s t and c o ll a p s e c. ground c o n t a c t d. r e c o rd in g damage t o v e h ic le Measuring and Recording a. measuring b. s k e tc h in g c. photography Speed D eterm ination a. symbols and a b b r e v ia tio n s b. speed and v e l o c i t y c. d. d eterm in in g drag f a c t o r d ete rm in in g speed t o s l i d e t o a s to p e. d eterm in in g speed t o s i d e s l i p Legal a. d u t i e s r e q u ir e d by s t a t u t e b. a u t h o r i t y to g a t h e r a c c id e n t c. enforcem ent a u t h o r i t y a t a c c i d e n t scenes Elements o f T r a f f i c A ccid ents a. b. m u l t i p l e c a u s a tio n th e o r y elem en ts o f t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t s in fo rm a tio n 31 I n s tru c tio n a l Methods The t r a f f i c accid en t in v e s tig a tio n course was a 35-hour t r a in in g course designed to prepare th e in - s e r v ic e p o lic e o f f i c e r to conduct comprehensive on-scene t r a f f i c a c c id e n t in v e s t i g a t i o n s . Empha­ s i s was placed upon (1) recognizing a l l p e r t in e n t physical evidence about the accid ent v eh icles and scene; (2) c o l l e c t i n g and /or record­ ing t h i s Information in the form of photographs, s k e tc h e s, and meas­ urements; and (3) c a lc u la tin g c e r ta in p r e - c o l l i s io n speeds o f a c c id e n tinvolved v e h ic le s. Five t r a f f i c accid en t in v e s t ig a t io n courses were analyzed in t h i s stud y, which were id e n tic a l in a l l a sp e c ts with the exception o f the format in which they were p re se n te d . Three d i f f e r e n t in s tr u c tio n a l formats of p resenting th e m ateria l were used, and they are described as follow s: 1. In s tr u c tio n was presented seven hours per day f o r fiv e consecutive days (th e one-week fo rm at). 2. In s tr u c tio n was presented seven hours per day f o r one day the f i r s t week, and seven hours per day f o r two days a week f o r two successive weeks (th e three-week fo rm at). 3. I n s tr u c tio n was presented seven hours per day f o r one day a week f o r f iv e successive weeks (th e five-week form at). The same i n s t r u c t o r s presented the m a t e r ia l , a ssu rin g c o n s is ­ tency in methods and d e liv e ry of in s t r u c t io n a l programs. All evalua­ tio n instrum ents were adm inistered to th e stu d e n ts by th e w r i te r . 32 Location o f Courses Five d i f f e r e n t l o c a tio n s throughout th e s t a t e o f Michigan were s e le c te d f o r p r e s e n ta tio n o f th e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t io n t r a i n ­ ing cou rses. These l o c a tio n s were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f th e s t a t e in terms o f geography, economic c o n d itio n s , and popu latio n composition (Appen­ dix A). The courses were p resen ted a t : 1. Jackson Community C o lleg e, Jackson, Michigan; 2. Muskegon Community C o lleg e, Muskegon, Michigan; 3. Madonna C o lleg e, D e t r o i t , Michigan; 4. Lake S up erio r S ta te C olleg e, S a u lt S te.M arie, Michigan; and 5. Lake Michigan Community C o lleg e, Benton Harbor, Michigan. Students a tte n d in g th e se f i v e l o c a tio n s were designated as the JCC c l a s s , the MCC c l a s s , th e Madonna c l a s s , th e Soo c l a s s , and th e LMCC c l a s s . The stu d e n ts a t th e schools in Muskegon (MCC), Madonna, and th e Soo receiv ed the one-week form at o f i n s t r u c t i o n , Jackson (JCC) stu d en ts th e five-week format o f i n s t r u c t i o n , and Lake Michigan Community College (LMCC) s tu d e n ts th e three-week form at. S e le c tio n o f Sample The t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n program was open to a l l law enforcement o f f i c e r s who were engaged in handling motor v e h ic le t r a f f i c accid en t i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o r o th e r p o l i c e - t r a f f i c - r e l a t e d s e r v i c e s . Subjects s e le c te d f o r t e s t i n g in t h i s study were a l l law enforcement o f f i c e r s who atten d ed th e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t I n v e s t i g a ti o n courses o ffe re d a t th e a b o v e - lis te d l o c a tio n s in th e summer and f a l l o f 1979. 33 The sample c o n s is te d o f p r a c t i t i o n e r s from m u n ic ip a l, tow nship, county, and p u b lic s a f e t y ag en cies ranging in s i z e from one-man p o l ic e d e p a r t­ ments to th o se o f f iv e thousand men. The p r a c t i t i o n e r s were assig n ed to th e p a r t i c u l a r schools by t h e i r r e s p e c tiv e a g e n c ie s ; co n seq u en tly , i t was not p o s s ib le t o make random assignm ents to t h e v a rio u s s c h o o ls . Twenty-two persons r e g i s t e r e d f o r th e cou rse a t th e Soo, 28 a t Madonna, 22 a t Muskegon, 24 a t Jackson, and 18 a t Lake Michigan Commu­ n i t y College. The Procedure At th e f i r s t s e s s i o n , a f t e r r e g i s t r a t i o n s and i n tr o d u c t i o n s were com pleted, each s tu d e n t completed a p r e - t e s t . They were i n s t r u c t e d to answer a l l q u e s tio n s on th e t e s t , guessing whenever n e c e s s a ry . The p r e - t e s t was ad m in istered to t e s t th e s tu d e n t s ' e n t r y - l e v e l knowledge about t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n and to provide d ata needed to determ ine i f th e r e were d i f f e r e n c e s in knowledge among s tu d e n ts in each o f th e tre a tm e n t groups. Upon com pletion o f th e p r e - t e s t , each s tu d e n t was asked to complete a q u e s tio n n a ir e c o n ta in in g q u e s tio n s r e l a t e d to h i s / h e r edu­ c a tio n and e x p e r i e n t i a l background. The background q u e s tio n n a ir e was a d m in iste re d to provide d a ta needed to determ ine whether a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between a p a r t i c u l a r background v a r i a b l e and p o s t ­ t e s t s c o re . At th e end o f th e f i f t h (and l a s t ) s e s s i o n , a p o s t - t e s t was given to each s tu d e n t covering th e c o n te n t of th e c o u rse . The p o s t ­ t e s t was ad m in istered t o o b ta in d a ta from which to d eterm ine i f 34 t h e r e were d i f f e r e n c e s In p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s among t h e t r e a t m e n t groups. Upon co m p letio n o f t h e p o s t - t e s t , each s tu d e n t was asked t o com plete a c o u r s e e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e . T h is q u e s t i o n n a i r e was a d m in is te r e d t o p ro v id e d a t a needed t o d e te rm in e 1 f t h e r e were d i f ­ f e r e n c e s In s t u d e n t s ' e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e c o u r s e among each o f th e tr e a tm e n t groups and t o d e te rm in e s tu d e n t r e a c t i o n s t o th e c o u r s e . Four months a f t e r t h e co m p letio n o f t h e s c h o o l, each s tu d e n t was r e q u e s te d t o f i l l o u t a f o llo w - u p q u e s t i o n n a i r e , which was m ailed by f i r s t - c l a s s mail t o h i s / h e r home a d d r e s s . In clu d ed w ith t h e q u e s ­ t i o n n a i r e was a s e l f - a d d r e s s e d , stam ped, f i r s t - c l a s s - m a i l r e t u r n en v elo p e. The fo llo w -u p q u e s t i o n n a i r e was a d m in is te r e d t o d e te rm in e i f th e s tu d e n t s were u t i l i z i n g t h e knowledge th e y r e c e iv e d and i f t h e i r o v e r a l l perform ance in t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n had been in c re a se d . Those r e s p o n d e n ts who d id n o t r e t u r n t h e completed su rv ey forms w ith in t h r e e weeks o f th e i n i t i a l m a ilin g d a te r e c e iv e d a f o llo w up l e t t e r r e q u e s t i n g th e prompt r e t u r n o f t h e su rv e y form. T e st Development O b je c tiv e s t o Be Measured The T r a f f i c A ccid en t I n v e s t i g a t i o n Course AI-1 was d iv id e d i n t o s i x main s u b j e c t - m a t t e r a r e a s . The s u b j e c t - m a t t e r a r e a s and th e i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s f o r t h a t a r e a t e s t e d a r e l i s t e d below: 1. Roadway E v a lu a tio n - Recognize and r e c o r d a l l in f o r m a tio n from th e roadway t h a t w i l l e x p l a i n how t h e a c c i d e n t to o k p l a c e . 35 - Recognize and record th e f in a l ( a f te r - a c c id e n t) p o s itio n s o f v e h ic le s and bodies to enable p re-acc id e n t speed, p o s i­ t i o n , and p a th - o f - tr a v e l determ inations to be made. - Recognize and record a l l tlrem ark s to determine (1) pre­ c o l l i s i o n speed, (2) d i r e c t io n o f t r a v e l , (3) beginning of evasive actio n (b ra k in g ), and (4) r e la tio n s h ip of tlrem arks to v e h ic le . - Recognize, reco rd , and c l a s s i f y roadway metal s c a rs to determine p re -a c c id e n t v ehicle p o s itio n and path o f t r a v e l . - Recognize and record d e b ris a t accid en t scenes to help in re c o n stru c tin g the a c c id e n t. - Recognize and record Inform ation about fixed o b je c ts to help determine th e accid en t v e h ic le s ' (1) speed, (2) p o s it io n , and (3) path o f t r a v e l . - Recognize and record f l i p , f a l l , and v a u lt data so t h a t p re-f1 1 p , f a l l , and v a u lt speed determ inations may be made. 2. Vehicle Evaluation - At an accid en t scene, recog nize, c l a s s i f y , and record veh icle damage Information t h a t w ill help ex plain how the accident took p lace. - Recognize and record the degree o f c o lla p se on a c c id e n tdamaged v e h ic le s so t h a t th e d ir e c tio n o f th r u s t and r o ta ti o n o f th e v eh icles can be determined. - Recognize and record a c c id e n t - r e la t e d marks on th e roadway, matching them with th e v eh icle causing th e marks so t h a t the a c c id e n t can be re c o n stru c te d . 36 3. Measuring and Recording - Make on-scene measurements so p r e c is e and complete t h a t th e acc.1 dent scene and r e s u l t s can be a c c u ra te ly r e c o n stru c te d . - Prepare a f i e l d sketch o f an a c c id e n t scene a c c u ra te and complete enough to perm it someone e l s e to use th e sketch (and r e l a t e d measurements) to prepare a comprehensive s cale diagram. - Take a c c id e n t scene photographs t h a t a re (1) ac c u ra te re p ­ r e s e n ta tio n s o f circum stances a t th e scene, (2) useful in a c c id e n t r e c o n s t r u c t i o n , and (3) adm issible in c o u rt. 4. Speed Determination - Be able to use th e a p p r o p ria te nomographs and formulae to determine v e h ic le speeds p e r t i n e n t to a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a ­ tio n s. 5. Legal - Recognize, c o l l e c t , p r e s e r v e , and use d ata from accid en t i n v e s t i g a t i o n s in th e enforcement pro cess. 6. Elements of T r a f f i c Accidents - Recognize t h a t th e r e i s no s in g le cause o f a c c id e n ts and i d e n t i f y th e many c o n t r ib u t iv e f a c t o r s t h a t come in to play to cause a c c id e n ts . - Recognize and record th e elem ents o r events t h a t make up a ty p ic a l motor v e h ic le t r a f f i c a c c id e n t. For th e purpose o f t e s t a n a l y s i s , s u b je c t f iv e ( l e g a l ) and s u b je c t s ix (elem ents o f t r a f f i c a c c id e n ts ) were combined in to one s u b je c t a r e a . This was done because o f th e small number o f t e s t items 37 1n each o f th e s e s u b je c t a r e a s . The combination r e s u l t e d in a co n te n t area o f 12 Items 1n th e p r e - t e s t and, s i m i l a r l y , 12 items in th e p o s t ­ te st. Item Development The f i r s t s te p used by th e w r i t e r in developing t e s t item s was t o p rep are an item bank o f q u e s tio n s t h a t measured an adequate sample o f th e le a r n in g outcomes and s u b je c t- m a tte r c o n te n t included in th e in stru ctio n . This was done by c o n s tr u c tin g 216 t e s t items t h a t meas­ ured th e i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s . c o n s tr u c te d . Three ty p es o f q u e s tio n s were Two o f th e ty p es c o n s is te d o f t r u e - f a l s e and m u ltip le - choice item s. The t h i r d type u t i l i z e d 35 mm s l i d e photographs o f b a s ic a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i t u a t i o n s . These were shown to th e s t u ­ d e n t s , who were then asked to diagnose and c l a s s i f y the items so d i s ­ p layed. This type o f q u e s tio n i s r e f e r r e d t o as mediated t e s t i n g . Four b a s ic re so u rc e s were used in th e development o f th e t e s t bank. These were th e : 1. Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity Highway T r a f f i c S afety C e n te r ’s "AI-1" course p r e - p o s t t e s t ; 2. Northwestern U n iv e r s ity T r a f f i c I n s t i t u t e ' s "On Scene A ccident I n v e s t ig a t i o n Course" p r e - p o s t t e s t ; 3. J . Stannard Baker t e x t : T r a f f i c A ccident I n v e s t ig a t i o n Manual; and 4. F e r r i s S ta te College t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n course t e s t bank. 38 The I n s tr u c tio n a l o b je c tiv e s and t e s t Items contained 1n each su b je c t area were reviewed by a panel o f judges f o r the purpose o f assu ring th a t th e t e s t questions a c t u a ll y measured th e o b je c tiv e s s ta te d in th e su b je c t areas (content v a l i d i t y ) . The panel c o n siste d of th re e t r a f f i c accid ent I n v e s tig a tio n e x p e r ts , a t e s t i n g s p e c i a l i s t , a s t a t i s t i c i a n , and a p ro fe s so r o f English. Members o f the panel were: 1. Lt. Bobbie Oaks, T r a f fic Expert, Michigan S ta te P o lic e . 2. Lt. Paul Rogers, T r a f fic Expert, Eaton County S h e r if f Department. 3. Capt. Joseph J a g e r, T r a f f ic Expert, Eaton County S h e r if f Department. 4. Dr. James D. Maas, P rofessor o f S t a t i s t i c s , Data Processing Department, F e r r is S tate College. 5. Mr. Manfred E. Swartz, Coordinator of T e stin g , F e r ris S ta te College. 6. Dr. Donald K. Hanzek, P rofessor of E n glish , F e rris S ta te College. Item Tryouts The next s te p a f t e r th e t e s t bank c o n s tru c tio n and ev alu atio n by a panel of e x p e rts was to assig n matched qu estion s to th e p r e - t e s t and p o s t - t e s t . Items were paired by s i m i l a r i t y o f con ten t and then a l t e r n a t e l y assigned to t e s t one and t e s t two, l a t e r to become the p r e - t e s t and p o s t - t e s t . containing 108 q u e stio n s. The two p a r a l l e l t e s t s were c o n s tr u c te d , each Test one c o n siste d o f 15 m ediated, 28 m u ltip le -c h o ic e , and 65 t r u e - f a l s e item s. Test two c o n siste d of 15 m ediated, 36 m u ltip le -c h o ic e , and 57 t r u e - f a l s e item s. At t h i s time the p a r a l le l t e s t s were adm inistered to a group o f F e r r is S ta te College s tu d e n ts . The 71 stu d en ts who took the t e s t were a l l j u n i o r s in th e 39 Criminal J u s t i c e Program a t F e r r is S ta te College in Big Rapids, Michigan. The s tu d e n ts came from a l l p a r t s o f th e s t a t e o f Michigan, with th e m a jo rity having earned A ssociate Degrees in Law Enforcement o r Criminal J u s t i c e programs from community c o lle g e s throughout th e sta te . The m a jo rity o f th e s tu d e n ts t e s t e d had not receiv ed i n s t r u c ­ ti o n In t r a f f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Six s tu d e n ts s t a t e d t h a t they had received t r a in i n g in t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s ti g a ti o n . T est one was adm inistered on April 9, 1979, and t e s t two was adm inistered one week l a t e r , on April 16, 1979. The t e s t s were ad m in istered in a classroom environment a t F e r r i s S ta te College. The s tu d e n ts were t o l d t h a t they were being t e s t e d in ord er to determ ine t h e i r e n tr y - le v e l knowledge about t r a f f i c a c c id e n t in v e s t i g a t io n f o r a course in t r a f f i c a c c id e n t in v e s t i g a t i o n they would be tak in g in t h e i r s e n io r y e a r . This p a r t i c u ­ l a r group was chosen to p i l o t t e s t t e s t one and t e s t two because they had a l l receiv ed i n s t r u c t i o n in some a s p e c ts o f law enforcement but had n o t, as y e t , received any t r a f f i c a c c id e n t I n v e s tig a tio n i n s t r u c t i o n . The mean t e s t one score f o r th e p i l o t t e s t group was 6 3 .7 , and th e mean t e s t two score was 6 3 .9. Since th e mean scores were almost i d e n t i c a l , i t was decided t o use t e s t one as th e b a s is f o r developing th e p re ­ t e s t and t e s t two as th e b a s is f o r developing th e p o s t - t e s t . Item S e le c tio n and Revision An item a n a ly s is was performed f o r both t e s t one and t e s t two taken by th e p i l o t t e s t group of s tu d e n ts . The F e r r i s S ta te College s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t a n a ly s is package was used to analyze th e data on the IBM 370-145 computer. All t e s t items with an index o f d i f f i c u l t y 40 ov er .80 and an index o f d i s c r i m in a ti o n u n d e r . 20 were a n a ly z e d . f o u r item s were s u b seq u en tly r e v i s e d . N inety- T his was done by a n a ly z in g th e answer s e l e c t i o n s and then making r e v i s i o n s . A ls o , an a tte m p t was made t o m a in ta in th e c o n te n t b a la n c e , d i f f i c u l t y o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n on th e r e v i s i o n o f item s between p r e - and p o s t - t e s t . T h irty -fo u r Items were d e le te d when i t was determ ined th e y were n o t d is c r i m i n a to r y in n a t u r e . The f i n a l p r e - and p o s t - t e s t s , a f t e r th e item r e v i s i o n , con­ s i s t e d o f 95 q u e s tio n s each. The p r e - t e s t c o n s is t e d o f 15 m ed iated , 26 m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e , and 54 t r u e - f a l s e ite m s . The p o s t - t e s t c o n s is te d o f 15 m ed iated , 34 m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e , and 46 t r u e - f a l s e ite m s. A copy o f both th e p r e - and p o s t - t e s t s can be found in Appendix D. T e st A d m in istra tio n The p r e - t e s t was a d m in is te re d a t th e fo llo w in g d a te s and lo c a tio n s: 1. May 1, 1979 Jackson Community College 2. June 11, 1979 Muskegon Community C ollege 3. August 6 , 1979 Madonna C olleg e 4. September 24, 1979 Lake S u p e r io r C o lleg e 5. December 3 , 1979 Lake Michigan Community C olleg e The w r i t e r served a s th e exam iner. The p o s t - t e s t was a d m in is te r e d by t h e w r i t e r a t t h e fo llo w in g d a te s and l o c a t i o n s : 1. May 29 , 1979 Jackson Community C o lleg e 2. June 15, 1979 Muskegon Community C olleg e 41 3. August 10, 1979 4. September 5. 2 8 , 1979 December 18, 1979 Madonna C ollege Lake S u p e r io r C o lleg e Lake Michigan Community C o lleg e All s tu d e n t s answered q u e s tio n s on IBM 1230 answ er s h e e t s . All s c o r i n g was done by IBM equipm ent a t t h e F e r r i s S t a t e C o lleg e T e s tin g C e n te r. T e s t A n a ly s is An item a n a l y s i s was perform ed on t h e r e s u l t s o f th e p r e - t e s t and p o s t - t e s t . R e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were computed and a c h i - sq u a re g o o d n e s s - o f - f i t t e s t was perform ed t o t e s t t h e s c o r e d i s t r i b u ­ t i o n s f o r n o r m a li t y . a r e a w i t h i n th e t e s t . F u r th e r a n a l y s i s was perform ed on each c o n te n t Item d i f f i c u l t y ( p r o p o r t i o n answ ering c o r r e c t l y ) , ite m d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ( p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n ) , and v a r io u s i n d i c e s o f r e l i a b i l i t y a r e shown in T ab les 3.1 th ro u g h 3 .1 1 . S in c e t h e s u b t e s t s were r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t , 12 t o 29 ite m s , a d d i t i o n a l in fo r m a tio n a b o u t t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y was d ev elo p ed . Ebel s t a t e d t h a t th e c o e f f i c i e n t o f r e l i a b i l i t y o f a s e t o f t e s t s c o r e s i s r e l a t e d t o th e number o f t e s t item s on t h e t e s t . T y p ic a lly , th e r e l i a ­ b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t w i l l be g r e a t e r f o r s c o re s from a lo n g e r t e s t th a n Cp from a s h o r t e r t e s t . C o n se q u e n tly , r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r expanded s u b t e s t s were computed u sin g t h e Spearman-Brown fo rm u la . R e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e r e p o r t e d in T ab les 3 .2 th ro u g h 3.11 f o r s u b t e s t s o f d o u b le and t r i p l e l e n g t h . 58 R obert L. E b e l, E s s e n t i a l s o f E d u c atio n a l Measurement (Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1 9 7 2 ), p. 427. 42 As rep o rted In Table 3 .1 , th e KR-20 r e l i a b i l i t y formula revealed a c o e f f i c i e n t o f .67 f o r th e p r e - t e s t and .65 f o r the p o s t­ te st. The odd-even c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was .44 f o r th e p r e - t e s t and .53 f o r th e p o s t - t e s t . When th e l a t t e r was c o rre c te d to th e o r i g i ­ nal length t e s t , th e c o e f f i c i e n t became .61 f o r the p r e - t e s t and .69 f o r th e p o s t - t e s t . Using the Spearman-Brown formula to p r e d i c t c o e f­ f i c i e n t s f o r p r e - t e s t s and p o s t - t e s t s o f double and t r i p l e le n g th s , th e r e l i a b i l i t i e s were in creased to .76 and .8 2, r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r the p r e - t e s t and .82 and .8 7 , r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r the p o s t - t e s t . Table 3 . 1 . —R e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r the p r e - t e s t and p o s t - t e s t . Spearman-Brown Double T rip le Length Length Mean S.D. KR-20 Odd-Even Corrected Odd-Even P re-test 54.93 7.47 .67 .44 .61 .76 .82 P o st-te st 79.50 5.60 .65 .53 .69 .82 .87 The Chi-square g o o d n e s s - o f - f it t e s t f o r th e p r e - t e s t (x2 = 11.36, d f = 9, p > .05} and th e p o s t - t e s t (x2 = 2 .6 0 , d f = 5 , p > .05) revealed t h a t th e sco re d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r both t e s t s was a normal d i s ­ trib u tio n . P re-T est Content A nalysis The co n ten t o f s e c tio n one o f th e p r e - t e s t cen tered on Roadway E valu atio n. The 29 items d e a l t w ith the le a rn in g outcomes and su b je c t m a tte r co n ten t o f th e seven i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b je c tiv e s l i s t e d in th e 43 Roadway Evaluation u n i t . Nine Items were m ediated, 5 were m u ltip le c h o ic e , and 15 were t r u e - f a l s e . d i f f i c u l t y le v e l was .56. As shown in Table 3 .2 , th e average Two o f th e 29 Items were answered c o r r e c t l y by more than .90 (o r 90%) o f th e s tu d e n t s . Ten Items had p o i n t- b 1 s e ria l c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith the s u b t e s t sc o re s o f .30 o r g r e a t e r . In most c a s e s , 25 o f 29, th e c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith th e s u b te s t sc o re s were h ig h er than c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith th e t o t a l t e s t s c o r e s , which i s an i n d i ­ c ato r of in te rn a l t e s t v a lid ity . The KR-20 r e l i a b i l i t y formula rev ealed a c o e f f i c i e n t o f .3 4 , while th e odd-even c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i ­ c i e n t was .25. When th e l a t t e r was c o r r e c te d to th e o r ig i n a l le n g th t e s t , th e c o e f f i c i e n t became .40. Using th e Spearman-Brown formula to p r e d i c t c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r s u b te s t s o f double and t r i p l e l e n g t h , th e r e l i a b i l i t i e s were in c re a se d t o .57 and .6 6 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The Chi- square g o o d n e s s - o f - f i t t e s t (x2 = 5 .4 6 , d f = 6 , p > .05) re v e a le d t h a t th e sco re d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r t h i s s e c tio n was a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . The co n te n t o f s e c tio n two o f th e p r e - t e s t c e n te re d on Vehicle E v alu atio n . The 14 items d e a l t w ith th e l e a r n in g outcomes and s u b je c t- m a tte r c o n te n t o f th e th r e e i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s l i s t e d in th e Vehicle E valu atio n u n i t . Four item s were m ed iated, two were m u lt i p le c h o ic e , and e i g h t were t r u e - f a l s e . d i f f i c u l t y le v e l was .68. As shown in Table 3 . 3 , th e average Two o f th e 14 item s were answered c o r ­ r e c t l y by more than .90 (o r 90%) o f th e s tu d e n t s . Seven item s had p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith th e s u b t e s t s c o re s o f .30 o r g r e a t e r . In a l l c a s e s , th e c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith th e s u b te s t sc o re were h ig h er than c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith th e t o t a l t e s t s c o re . The KR-20 r e l i a b i l i t y formula re v e a le d a c o e f f i c i e n t o f .1 5 , w hile th e odd-even c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t Table 3 .2 .--P re -te s t content analysis fo r the 29 Roadway Evaluation unit questions. Pre-Test Question Numbers 1 3 5 7 8 9 10 13 14 16 17 19 20 41 42 Proportion r ig h t answer .77 .47 .61 .54 .38 .65 .67 .66 .12 .91 .04 .61 .42 .48 .54 C o rrelation with s u b te s t score .28 .19 .12 .35 .36 .31 .31 .15 -.0 5 .07 .11 .20 .29 .40 .32 C o rrelation with to ta l score .12 .03 .02 .28 .22 .16 .25 -.0 9 -.1 0 -.1 3 .01 .11 .14 .34 -.06 Pre-Test Question Numbers 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Proportion r ig h t answer .37 .14 .85 .94 .65 .74 .73 .69 .04 .64 .69 .23 .86 .75 C o rrelation with s u b te st score .30 .25 .22 .16 .36 .15 .06 .31 -.0 8 .04 .24 .24 .32 .26 C o rrelation with t e s t score .08 .17 .36 .20 .31 .14 .02 .20 -.0 8 .08 .18 .21 .26 .24 Subtest R e l i a b il i t y Spearman-Brown Predicted R e li a b i li t y KR-20 = .337 Doubled Length Tripled Length Odd-Even = .248 r = .569 r = .664 Corrected Odd-Even = .397 Average D if fic u lty Level .56 Table 3 .3 .—Pre-test content analysis for the 14 Vehicle Evaluation unit questions. Pre-Test Question Numbers 4 11 12 15 21 22 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 .76 .48 .46 .50 .62 .81 .34 .76 .93 .64 .54 .89 .85 .94 C orrelation with s u b te s t score .28 .26 .39 .24 .41 .33 .32 .30 .15 .35 .24 .12 .29 .33 C orrelation with t o t a l score .14 .06 .12 .19 .11 .13 .29 .18 .06 .26 .07 .10 .13 .15 Proportion r i g h t answer Subtest R e l ia b i li t y Spearman-Brown Predicted R e li a b i l i ty KR-20 Doubled Length Tripled Length ^nQt compUt e(j) (not computed) = .153 Odd-Even - -.026 Corrected Odd-Even = -.053 Average D if fic u lty Level .68 46 was - .0 3 . When th e l a t t e r was c o rre c te d to th e o r ig i n a l len g th t e s t , th e c o e f f i c i e n t became - .0 5 . Since th e odd-even c o r r e l a t i o n was nega­ t i v e , th e Spearman-Brown formula was not a p p lie d . The n eg ativ e c o e f­ f i c i e n t s emphasize th e magnitude o f guessing on th e p r e - t e s t . The Chi-square g o o d n e s s - o f- fit t e s t (x 2 = 8 .9 1 , d f = 4 , p > .05) rev ealed t h a t th e score d i s t r i b u t i o n fo r t h i s s e c tio n was a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . The co n ten t o f s e c tio n th re e o f the p r e - t e s t ce n te re d on Measuring and Recording. The 20 items d e a l t with the le a r n in g o u t­ comes and s u b je c t- m a tte r co n ten t o f th e th re e i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b je c tiv e s l i s t e d in th e Measuring and Recording u n i t . 8 Two items were m ediated, were m u ltip le ch oice, and 10 were t r u e - f a l s e . th e average d i f f i c u l t y le v e l was .59. As shown in Table 3 .4 , No item was answered c o r r e c t l y by more than .90 (or 90%) o f th e s tu d e n ts . Seven item s had p o in t- b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s with th e s u b te s t scores o f .30 o r g r e a t e r . In most c a s e s , 19 o f 20, th e c o r r e l a t i o n s with th e s u b te s t sco re were higher than c o r r e l a t i o n s with the t o t a l t e s t sco re. The KR-20 r e l i a ­ b i l i t y formula revealed a c o e f f i c i e n t o f .31, while th e odd-even c o r ­ r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was .15. When th e l a t t e r was c o rre c te d t o th e o r ig in a l le n g th t e s t , th e c o e f f i c i e n t became .26. Using th e Spearman- Brown formula to p r e d ic t c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r s u b te s ts o f double and t r i p l e l e n g th , th e r e l i a b i l i t i e s were in creased to .41 and .5 1 , re sp e c ­ tiv e ly . The Chi-square g o o d n e s s - o f- fit t e s t (x 2 = 5 .6 8 , d f = 5, p > .05) rev ealed t h a t the score d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r t h i s s e c tio n was a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . The co n ten t o f s e c tio n fo u r o f th e p r e - t e s t cen tered on Speed Determ ination. The 20 items d e a l t with th e le a rn in g outcomes and Table 3 . 4 . - - Pre-test content analysis fo r the 20 Measuring and Recording unit questions. Pre-Test Question Numbers 2 6 18 23 24 25 26 27 28 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 .43 .61 .82 .47 .32 .89 .65 C orrelation with s u b te s t score .24 .31 .29 .18 .26 .20 .35 .24 .21 .33 .36 .23 .04 .22 .46 .21 .40 .26 .11 .34 C orrelation with t o t a l score .12 .14 .19 .13 .14 .14 .21 .16 .08 .28 .12 .16 .08 .28 .37 .13 .34 .23 -.0 8 .20 r ig h t answer -42 .46 .40 .61 .51 .44 .77 .35 .64 29 .88 .66 .66 Subtest R e l ia b i li t y Spearman-Brown Predicted R e l i a b i l i ty KR-20 = .305 Doubled Length Odd-Even = .148 Corrected Odd-Even = .258 r = 41Q Tripled Length r = 51Q .88 Average D iffic u lty Level .59 48 and s u b j e c t - m a t t e r c o n t e n t o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s l i s t e d in th e Speed D eterm in atio n u n i t . 12 were t r u e - f a l s e . le v e l was .5 0 . E ig h t item s were m u l t i p l e c h o i c e , and As shown in T able 3 . 5 , t h e a v erag e d i f f i c u l t y None o f t h e 20 item s was answered c o r r e c t l y by more th a n .90 ( o r 90%) o f th e s t u d e n t s . Eleven ite m s had p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith t h e s u b t e s t s c o re s o f .3 0 o r g r e a t e r . In most c a s e s , 17 o f 2 0, t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith th e s u b t e s t s c o r e were h ig h e r th a n c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith t h e t o t a l t e s t s c o re . The KR-20 r e l i a b i l i t y form ula r e v e a le d a c o e f f i c i e n t o f .5 4 , w h ile t h e odd-even c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f ­ f i c i e n t was .3 4 . When t h e l a t t e r was c o r r e c t e d t o t h e o r i g i n a l l e n g th t e s t , t h e c o e f f i c i e n t became .5 0 . Using th e Spearman-Brown form ula t o p r e d i c t c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r s u b t e s t s o f d o ub le and t r i p l e l e n g t h , t h e r e l i a b i l i t i e s were i n c r e a s e d to .67 and .7 5 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . s q u a re g o o d n e s s - o f - f i t t e s t (x 2 - 3 .9 4 , d f « 6 The Chi- , p > .0 5) r e v e a le d t h a t th e s c o re d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r t h i s s e c t i o n was a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . The c o n t e n t o f s e c t i o n f i v e o f t h e p r e - t e s t c e n t e r e d on Legal A sp ects and Elem ents o f T r a f f i c A c c id e n ts . The 12 item s d e a l t w ith th e l e a r n i n g outcomes and s u b j e c t - m a t t e r c o n t e n t o f t h e t h r e e i n s t r u c ­ t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s l i s t e d in t h e Legal A sp ects and Elem ents o f T r a f f i c A c c id e n ts u n i t . Three ite m s were m u l t i p l e c h o ic e and n in e t r u e - f a l s e . As shown in T able 3 . 6 , t h e av e ra g e d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l was .6 2 . One o f th e 12 item s was answered c o r r e c t l y by more t h a n .9 0 (90%) o f th e s tu d e n ts. or g re a te r. Ten item s had c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith t h e s u b t e s t s c o r e s o f .30 In a l l c a s e s , 12 o f 12, t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith t h e s u b t e s t s c o re were h ig h e r th a n c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith t h e t o t a l t e s t s c o r e . The KR-20 r e l i a b i l i t y form ula r e v e a le d a c o e f f i c i e n t o f .3 6 , w h ile t h e Table 3 .5 .—Pre-test content analysis fo r the 20 Speed Determination unit questions. Pre-Test Question Number 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 Proportion r ig h t answer .67 .33 .27 .40 .46 .16 .31 .32 .60 .82 .67 .54 .63 .78 .14 .62 .39 .46 C orrelation with s u b te s t score .57 .46 .36 .37 .34 .20 .14 .31 .50 .30 .18 .24 .28 .42 .11 .22 .24 .39 .45 .23 C orrelation with to t a l score .46 .32 .25 .28 .18 .11 .16 .30 .36 .23 .14 .24 .22 .40 .10 .17 .12 .19 .34 .27 Subtest R e l i a b i l i ty Spearman-Brown Predicted R e l i a b i l it y KR-20 Doubled Length Tripled Length r = .671 r = .753 = .535 Odd-Even = .337 Corrected Odd-Even = .504 .6 8 .74 Average D if fic u lty Level .50 Table 3 .6 .—Pre-test content analysis fo r the 12 Legal Aspects and Elements of T ra ffic Accidents unit questions. 39 40 87 88 89 90 91 92 Proportion r ig h t answer .75 .50 .41 .96 .40 .38 .29 .89 .70 .66 .68 .78 C orrelation with s u b te st score .36 .31 .34 .16 .42 .40 .13 .34 .39 .49 .58 C orrelation with to ta l score .35 .14 .25 CM .26 .21 .01 .09 .31 .21 .47 O• 38 • CO Pre-Test Question Number Subtest R e lia b ility Spearman-Brown Predicted R e lia b ility KR-20 = .361 Doubled Length Tripled Length Odd-Even = .104 4 = .317 r = .411 Corrected Odd-Even = .188 o 93 .14 94 95 Average D if fic u lty Level .62 51 odd-even c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was .1 0 . When t h e l a t t e r was c o r ­ r e c te d t o th e o r i g i n a l l e n g th t e s t , th e c o e f f i c i e n t became .1 9. Using th e Spearman-Brown formula t o p r e d i c t c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r s u b t e s t s of double and t r i p l e l e n g t h , t h e r e l i a b i l i t i e s were in c r e a s e d t o .32 and .4 1 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The C h i-sq u a re g o o d n e s s - o f - f i t t e s t (x 2 = 7 .2 3 , d f = 4 , p > .05) re v e a le d t h a t th e s c o re d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r t h i s s e c tio n was a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . P o s t- T e s t Content A n alysis The c o n te n t o f s e c t io n one o f th e p o s t - t e s t c e n te r e d on Roadway E v a lu a tio n . The 29 item s d e a l t w ith th e l e a r n in g outcomes and s u b je c t - m a t t e r c o n te n t o f th e seven i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s l i s t e d in th e Roadway E v a lu a tio n u n i t . c h o ic e , and 15 t r u e - f a l s e . c u l t y le v e l was .8 0 . Nine item s were m e d ia te d , 5 m u l t ip l e - As shown in T able 3 . 7 , th e average d i f f i ­ Eleven o f th e 29 item s were answered c o r r e c t l y by more th an .90 ( o r 90%) o f th e s t u d e n t s . Twelve item s had p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith th e s u b t e s t s c o r e s o f .30 o r g r e a t e r . In most c a s e s , 17 o r 29, th e c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith th e s u b t e s t s c o re were h ig h e r th a n c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith t h e t o t a l t e s t s c o r e . The KR-20 r e l i a ­ b i l i t y formula re v e a le d a c o e f f i c i e n t o f .3 9 , w hile th e odd-even c o r ­ r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was .3 8 . When th e l a t t e r was c o r r e c t e d to th e o r i g i n a l le n g th t e s t , t h e c o e f f i c i e n t became .5 5 . Using t h e Spearman- Brown form ula t o p r e d i c t c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r s u b t e s t s o f double and t r i p l e l e n g t h , th e r e l i a b i l i t i e s were in c r e a s e d t o .71 and .7 8 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The C h i-sq u a re g o o d n e s s - o f - f i t t e s t (x 2 = 9 . 1 4 , d f = 5 , p > .05) re v e a le d t h a t th e sc o re d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r t h i s s e c t i o n was a normal d i s ­ trib u tio n . Table 3 .7 .--P o st-test content analysis fo r the 29 Roadway Evaluation unit questions. Post-Test Question Numbers 1 3 5 7 8 9 10 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 Proportion r i g h t answer .88 .97 .71 .82 .62 .93 .91 .93 .93 .79 .76 .75 .81 .81 .21 C o rrelation with s u b te s t score .30 .06 -.0 2 .25 .43 .1 0 .1 0 .24 .06 .32 .41 .2 2 .41 .34 .27 C o rrelation with t o t a l score .19 .07 .0 0 .07 .25 .01 .07 .31 .16 .17 .41 .1 0 .38 .26 .15 50 Post-Test Question Numbers 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 93 Proportion r ig h t answer .92 .89 .77 .98 .96 .96 .95 .70 .63 .58 .42 .74 .87 .96 C orrelation with s u b te s t score .34 .40 .05 .17 .09 .17 .30 .32 .2 2 .34 .49 .15 .0 0 .03 C orrelation with t o t a l score .34 .39 .07 .18 .01 .10 .25 .23 .08 .28 .35 .04 .03 .07 Subtest R e l i a b i l i t y Spearman-Brown Predicted R e l i a b il i t y KR-20 = .388 Doubled Length Tripled Length Odd-Even = .375 r = .706 r = .783 Corrected Odd-Even = .545 Average D if fic u lty Level .80 53 The co n te n t o f s e c tio n two o f th e p o s t - t e s t centered on Vehicle E valu atio n. The 14 items d e a l t w ith th e le a rn in g outcomes and s u b je c t- m a tte r c o n te n t o f th e th re e in s t r u c t i o n a l o b je c tiv e s l i s t e d in the Venicle E valuation u n i t . Four items were m ediated, fo u r were m u ltip le c h o ic e , and s ix were t r u e - f a l s e . d i f f i c u l t y le v e l was . 8 8 . As shown in Table 3 .8 , th e average Eight o f th e 14 items were answered c o r­ r e c t l y by more than .90 (or 90%) o f th e s tu d e n ts . Five item s had p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s with th e s u b te s t sco res o f .30 o r g r e a te r . In most c a s e s , 13 o f 14, th e c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith the s u b te s t score were high er than c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith th e t o t a l t e s t sc o re s . The KR-20 r e l i a ­ b i l i t y formula rev ealed a c o e f f i c i e n t o f .1 5 , w hile th e odd-even co r­ r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was .05. When the l a t t e r was c o rre c te d to th e o r ig in a l le n g th t e s t , th e c o e f f i c i e n t became .10. Using th e Spearman- Brown formula t o p r e d i c t c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r s u b te s t s o f double and t r i p l e le n g th , th e r e l i a b i l i t i e s were in creased to .19 and .2 6 , r e s p e c tiv e ly . The C hi-square g o o d n e s s - o f - f it t e s t (x 2 = 24.78, d f = 5 , p > .01) rev ealed t h a t th e score d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r t h i s s e c tio n was not a normal d istrib u tio n . The lack o f n o rm a lity may have been th e r e s u l t o f stu d en t m astery of th e t e s t c o n te n t. The co n te n t o f s e c tio n th re e o f th e p o s t - t e s t cen tered on Measuring and Recording. The 20 items d e a l t w ith the le a rn in g outcomes and s u b je c t- m a t t e r co n te n t o f th e th r e e i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b je c tiv e s l i s t e d in th e Measuring and Recording u n i t . m u ltip le c h o ic e , and 8 Two Items were m ediated, 10 were were t r u e - f a l s e . average d i f f i c u l t y le v e l was . 8 6 . As shown in Table 3 .9 , th e Eight o f th e 20 items were answered c o r r e c t l y by more than .90 (o r 90%) o f th e s tu d e n ts . Nine items had Table 3 .8 .—Post-test content analysis fo r the 14 Vehicle Evaluation unit questions. Post-Test Question Numbers 4 11 12 15 Proportion r ig h t answer .97 .82 .93 C orrelation with s u b te s t score .0 0 .42 .28 C orrelation with to t a l score .03 .1 2 .21 21 22 23 24 64 65 66 67 68 69 .80 .96 .85 .98 .94 .75 .98 .82 .94 .64 .91 .17 .19 .33 .14 .26 .38 .19 .50 .26 .48 .15 -.2 5 -.03 .23 .01 .25 .36 .18 .42 .19 .35 -.0 8 Subtest R e l i a b i li t y Spearman-Brown Predicted R e l i a b il i t y KR-20 = .148 Doubled Length Tripled Length Odd-Even = .054 r = .186 r = .255 Corrected Odd-Even - .102 Average D if fic u lty Level .88 Table 3 .9 .—Post-test content analysis fo r the 20 Measuring and Recording unit questions. Post-Test Question Numbers 2 6 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 n g n t answer -8 3 - 96 *93 -87 *87 - 95 *88 *8 8 - 8 0 - 96 C o rrelation with s u b te s t score .33 .16 .25 .40 .32 .10 .32 .24 .32 .20 -.0 4 .25 .37 .35 .09 .00 .20 .21 .44 .47 C o rrelation with t o t a l score .27 .10 .15 .33 .27 .15 .17 .18 .30 .17 •" - 88 *86 *66 - 97 T- 00 *85 - 98 *72 *65 -.1 3 .13 .20 .27 .01 .00 .12 .23 .23 .28 Subtest R e l i a b i l i t y Spearman-Brown Predicted R e l i a b il i t y KR-20 Doubled Length Tripled Length r = .606 r = .698 = .365 Odd-Even - .278 Corrected Odd-Even = .435 Average D if fic u lty Level .86 56 p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s with the s u b te s t sco res o f .30 o r g r e a t e r . In most c a s e s , 17 o f 20, th e c o r r e l a t i o n s with the s u b te s t sco re were h ig h er than c o r r e l a t i o n s with th e t o t a l t e s t sco re. The KR-20 r e l i a ­ b i l i t y formula revealed a c o e f f i c i e n t o f .3 7 , while th e odd-even c o r ­ r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was .28. When th e l a t t e r was c o rre c te d to th e o r ig i n a l le n g th t e s t , th e c o e f f i c i e n t became .44. Using th e Spearman- Brown formula to p r e d ic t c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r s u b te s ts o f double and t r i p l e l e n g th , th e r e l i a b i l i t i e s were in creased to .61 and .70 , resp ectiv ely . The Chi-square g o o d n e s s - o f- fit t e s t ( x 2 = 2 3 .7 5 , d f * 7, p > .01) revealed t h a t th e score d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r t h i s s e c tio n was not a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . The co n te n t o f s e c tio n fo u r o f the p o s t - t e s t cen tered on Speed D eterm ination. The 20 items d e a l t w ith th e le a rn in g outcomes and s u b je c t- m a tte r co n ten t o f I n s t r u c t io n a l o b je c tiv e s l i s t e d in th e Speed Determ ination u n i t . tru e -fa lse . .84. Twelve items were m u ltip le choice and e i g h t were As shown in Table 3 .1 0 , th e average d i f f i c u l t y le v e l was Ten o f th e 20 items were answered c o r r e c t l y by more than .90 (o r 90%) o f th e s tu d e n ts . Nine Items had p o l n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith th e s u b te s t sco res o f .30 o r g r e a t e r . In most c a s e s , 16 o f 20, th e c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith th e s u b te s t sco re were high er than c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith th e t o t a l t e s t sco re. The KR-20 r e l i a b i l i t y formula rev ealed a c o e f f i c i e n t o f .4 5 , while th e odd-even c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was .33. When th e l a t t e r was c o rre c te d to th e o r ig in a l len g th t e s t , th e c o e f f i c i e n t became .50. Using th e Spearman-Brown formula t o p r e d i c t c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r s u b te s t s o f double and t r i p l e le n g th , th e r e l i a b i l i ­ t i e s were in c re a se d to .66 and .7 5, r e s p e c tiv e ly . The C hi-square Table 3 .1 0 .—Post-test content analysis for the 20 Speed Determination unit questions. ___________________________ Post-Test Question Numbers___________________________ 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 Proportion r ig h t answer .98 .95 .82 .64 .97 .75 .96 .99 .69 .60 .98 .65 .82 .74 C orrelation with s u b te st score .06 .25 .18 .48 .07 .56 .35 .04 .48 .32 .16 .42 .45 .34 -.05 .24 .00 .45 .27 .26 Correlation with to ta l score .12 .11 .11 .33 .11 .46 .13 .01 .37 .11 .08 .41 .28 .40 -.11 .04 .00 .25 .15 .10 Subtest R e l i a b il i t y Spearman-Brown Predicted R e l i a b il i t y KR-20 = .454 Doubled Length Odd-Even = .330 f = ^ Corrected Odd-Even = .496 Tripled r = Length U1 .99 .87 1.00 .94 .97 .54 Average D if fic u lty Level .84 58 g o o d n e s s - o f - f i t t e s t (x 2 = 2 4 .1 7 , d f = 7 , p > .01) r e v e a le d t h a t t h e s c o r e d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r t h i s s e c t i o n was n o t a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . The c o n t e n t o f s e c t i o n f i v e o f t h e p o s t - t e s t c e n te r e d on Legal A spects and Elem ents o f T r a f f i c A c c id e n ts . The 12 item s d e a l t w ith th e l e a r n i n g outcomes and s u b j e c t - m a t t e r c o n te n t o f th e t h r e e i n s t r u c ­ t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s l i s t e d i n t h e Legal A spects and Elements o f T r a f f i c A c c id e n ts u n i t . fa lse . Three item s were m u l t i p l e c h o ic e and n in e were t r u e - As shown in T able 3 . 1 1 , t h e a v e ra g e d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l was .82. Three o f t h e 12 item s were answered c o r r e c t l y by more th an .90 (o r 90%) o f t h e s t u d e n t s . S ix item s had p o i n t - b i s e r i a l c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith th e s u b t e s t s c o r e s o f .30 o r g r e a t e r . In a l l c a s e s , 12 o f 1 2, th e c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith t h e s u b t e s t s c o re were h ig h e r th a n c o r r e l a t i o n s w ith th e t o t a l t e s t s c o r e . The KR-20 r e l i a b i l i t y form ula r e v e a le d a c o e f ­ f i c i e n t o f . 0 9 , w h ile th e odd-even c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was .0 8 . When t h e l a t t e r was c o r r e c t e d t o t h e o r i g i n a l l e n g t h t e s t , t h e c o e f f i ­ c i e n t became .1 5 . Using t h e Spearman-Brown form ula t o p r e d i c t c o e f ­ f i c i e n t s f o r s u b t e s t s o f d ou ble and t r i p l e l e n g t h , t h e r e l i a b i l i t i e s were i n c r e a s e d t o .26 and . 3 4 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The C h i-sq u a re goodness- o f - f i t t e s t (x 2 = 2 0 .3 6 , d f = 5 , p > .0 1 ) r e v e a le d t h a t t h e s c o re d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r t h i s s e c t i o n was n o t a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . Summary o f T e s t Development The p u rp o se o f d e v e lo p in g t h e T r a f f i c A ccident I n v e s t i g a t i o n t e s t s was t o e v a l u a t e t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e Michigan S t a t e U n iver­ s i t y Highway T r a f f i c S a f e t y C e n t e r 's AI-1 c o u rse fo rm a ts . Emphasis was p la c e d on d e v e lo p in g and u s in g t e s t item s t h a t were h ig h ly r e l e v a n t t o Table 3.11.-P o s t-te s t content analysis for the 12 Legal Aspects and Elements of T ra ffic Accidents unit questions. Post-Test Question Number 47 48 49 86 87 88 89 90 91 Proportion r ig h t answer .38 .73 .80 .97 .89 .97 .81 .89 .78 C orrelation with s u b te st score .29 .51 .28 .15 .32 .15 .35 .19 C orrelation with t o t a l score .15 .26 .15 -.0 5 .23 -.0 7 .07 -.01 Subtest R e li a b i l i ty Spearman-Brown Predicted R e l i a b i l i ty KR-20 = .089 Doubled Length Tripled Length Odd-Even = .080 r = .258 r = .343 Corrected Odd-Even = .148 92 94 95 .88 .92 .82 .21 .38 .35 .39 .03 .09 .13 .28 Average D if fic u lty Level .82 60 th e o b j e c t i v e s o f i n s t r u c t i o n . a s c e r t a i n e d by th e ju d g e s. The v a l i d i t y o f item c o n te n t was Although such m a tte rs as th e shape o f sco re d i s t r i b u t i o n s , t h e in d ic e s o f d i f f i c u l t y and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , and th e r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s were o f secondary im portance, th e s e d ata were p re s e n te d on each c o n te n t are a f o r both th e p r e - t e s t and t h e p o s t - t e s t . The fo llo w in g o b s e rv a tio n s can be made: 1. The p r e - t e s t sco res f o r th e t o t a l t e s t and each c o n te n t a re a were norm ally d i s t r i b u t e d . 2. The p o s t - t e s t d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f fo u r c o n te n t a r e a s d e v ia te d from n o r m a lity , showing th e s t u d e n t s ' m astery o f course c o n te n t. c o n te n t a r e a o f f iv e was norm ally d i s t r i b u t e d . One However, th e p o s t - t e s t t o t a l sco re d i s t r i b u t i o n r e t a i n e d n o rm a lity . 3. The r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s on th e p o s t - t e s t were h ig h er than th e corresponding c o e f f i c i e n t s on th e p r e - t e s t . sco res included a la r g e guessing f a c t o r . The p r e - t e s t The a c tu a l r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f ­ f i c i e n t s o f th e p o s t - t e s t might be h ig h er than th o se r e p o r t e d , s in c e m astery o f item s lead s t o an u n d erestim ate o f t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y . Ebel s t a t e d t h a t i f a t e s t in c lu d e s many item s on which th e average score i s near 1003S, th e u n d erestim ate o f r e l i a b i l i t y could be q u i t e l a r g e . The d a ta p re se n te d support th e adequacy o f th e t e s t s f o r th e purpose th e y served. 59I b id ., p. 415. 59 61 Q u e s tio n n a ire Development S tu d en t Q u e s tio n n a ire Forms Before d e sig n in g th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , an e x t e n s iv e s e a rc h was conducted on th e methods o f in stru m e n t d e s ig n and su rv ey q u e s t i o n ­ n a i r e developm ent. Three s tu d e n t q u e s ti o n n a i r e forms were developed f o r t h i s stu d y : th e s tu d e n t background q u e s t i o n n a i r e , th e s tu d e n t c o u rse e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and th e s tu d e n t fo llo w -up q u e s ti o n n a i r e . Each i s d i s ­ cussed below. S tu d e n t background q u e s t i o n n a i r e . —The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was developed by r e v i s i n g th e background in fo rm a tio n form used by t h e AI-1 co u rse i n s t r u c t o r s . The s tu d e n t background q u e s ti o n n a i r e c o n ta in e d q u e s tio n s t h a t r e l a t e d t o th e s t u d e n t ' s e d u c a tio n a l and e x p e r i e n t i a l background. a n a ly z e d : From th e s e q u e s tio n s 12 v a r i a b l e s were i d e n t i f i e d and age o f th e s t u d e n t , ty p e o f d ep artm en t, s i z e o f d e p a rtm e n t, y e a r s worked in law en fo rcem ent, e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l , prim ary assignm ent in d e p a rtm e n t, number o f f a t a l (K) a c c id e n t s i n v e s t i g a t e d in t h e p a s t 12 m onths, number o f perso nal i n j u r y (P I) a c c id e n ts i n v e s t i g a t e d in th e p a s t 12 m onths, number o f p r o p e rty damage (PD) a c c i d e n ts i n v e s t i g a t e d in th e p a s t 12 m onths, t o t a l hours o f t r a i n i n g in t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n , m o tiv a tio n t o a t te n d s c h o o l, and i n t e r e s t le v e l t o a t t e n d sc h o o l. A copy o f t h e s tu d e n t background q u e s ti o n n a i r e can be found in Appendix C. S tu d e n t c o u rse e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The s tu d e n t c o u rse e v a l u a ti o n q u e s ti o n n a i r e was developed from th e p u b l i c a t i o n , S tu d en t R ea ctio n s t o I n s t r u c t i o n , p u b lish e d by th e C en ter f o r Research on 62 cn Learning and T e stin g , The U n iv ersity o f Michigan. The q u e s tio n n a ire contained 15 q u estio n s t h a t r e l a te d to the t r a i n i n g form at, I n s tr u c ­ tio n a l media, stu d en t manual, t e x t , indiv idu al f i e l d e x e r c i s e s , i n s t r u c t o r s , and general o b serv atio n s about the course. A copy o f the student course ev a lu a tio n q u e s tio n n a ire can be found in Appendix E. Student follow-up q u e s tio n n a ir e . The s tu d e n t follow-up ques­ tio n n a ir e was designed to determine whether th e s tu d e n ts u t i l i z e d the knowledge they received and whether t h e i r o v e ra ll performance in t r a f f i c acciden t in v e s t i g a t i o n had in creased . This q u e s tio n n a ire was developed by re v isin g a q u e stio n n a ire used by the AI-1 course i n s t r u c ­ t o r s to p i l o t t e s t the o r ig in a l AI-1 course. This e v alu atio n was made by analyzing a follow-up q u e s tio n n a ire f i l l e d out by th e stu d en ts four months a f t e r they completed th e course. The follow-up q u e stio n ­ n a ire was designed f o r the purpose o f: 1. Determining th e most e f f e c t i v e t r a i n i n g d e liv e r y format. 2. Determining i f AI-1 f u l f i l l s stu d en t needs. 3. Determining how th e AI-1 t r a in i n g i s being u t i l i z e d . 4. Determining o f f i c e r AI performance sin ce completion of AI-1. 5. Improving f u tu r e o f f e r in g s o f AI-1. A copy of th e stu d e n t follow-up q u e s tio n n a ire along with the i n i t i a l in tro d u c tio n l e t t e r and follow-up l e t t e r can be found in Appendix F. The th re e q u e s tio n n a ire s were reviewed by th e t e s t i n g o f f i c e a t F e r r is S ta te College. A number o f a d d itio n s and d e le tio n s cn The Center f o r Research on Training and Teaching, The Univer s i t y of Michigan, Student Reactions to I n s tr u c tio n (Ann Arbor: The U niv ersity o f Michigan, 1976). 63 were made, based on s e v e ra l s u g g e s tio n s . Following t h i s r e v i s i o n , th e q u e s tio n n a ir e s were ad m in istered to a group o f p o lic e o f f i c e r s in th e Big Rapids a r e a . They o f f i c e r s were asked t o make comments in regard to th e q u e s tio n n a ir e s and to i n d i c a t e whether any o f th e q u e s tio n s seemed ambiguous to them. A number o f changes were made based on th e o f f i c e r s ' s u g g e stio n s. T ab u la tio n and A naly sis o f Data A computer d a ta card was prepared f o r each o f th e 114 s tu d e n ts a tte n d in g th e f i v e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o u rs e s . The f o l ­ lowing in form atio n was e n te re d on t h i s card f o r each o f th e s tu d e n ts in th e study: 1. Location where th e s tu d e n t a tte n d e d th e co u rse . 2. Age o f s tu d e n t. 3. Agency employing th e s tu d e n t. 4. Total number o f sworn p o lic e personnel in s t u d e n t 's agency. 5. Number o f y e a r s s tu d e n t has sp en t in law enforcem ent. 6 . 7. 8 . 9. 10. Education le v e l o f s tu d e n t. Primary assignm ent o f s tu d e n t in agency. Primary duty o f s tu d e n t in agency. Assignment o f s tu d e n t to a t r a f f i c u n i t . Total number o f f a t a l , personal i n j u r y , and p r o p e rty damage a c c id e n ts i n v e s t i g a t e d by s tu d e n t in th e l a s t 11. 12 P revious t r a i n i n g re c e iv e d by s tu d e n t 1n t r a f f i c a c c id e n t in v e stig a tio n . 12. months. M otivatio nal le v e l o f s tu d e n t t o a t t e n d sch o o l. 64 13. I n t e r e s t le v e l o f s tu d e n t to a t t e n d s c h o o l. 14. P r e - t e s t s c o re . 15. P o s t - t e s t s c o re . 16. Gain s c o re . Computer d a ta c o n tr o l c a rd s were th en punched f o r program s, u sin g th e BMDP s t a t i s t i c a l package, which would produce a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e , a n a l y s i s o f c o v a r ia n c e , Pearson C h i- s q u a r e s , and t - t e s t s on t h e IBM 370-145 computer a t F e r r i s S t a t e C o lle g e . The one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a ria n c e procedu re was used t o com­ p are d i f f e r e n c e s in p r e - t e s t s c o re s among th e f i v e g ro up s. The d i f ­ f e r e n c e s in l e a r n i n g , as measured by g ain s c o re s o b ta in e d from comparing p r e - t e s t t o p o s t - t e s t , were analyzed through th e use o f t - t e s t s . The Pearson C hi-squ are s t a t i s t i c was a p p lie d t o d eterm in e i f t h e r e were r e l a t i o n s h i p s between v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d to s t u d e n t s ' background and th e p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s . The a n a l y s i s o f c o v a ria n c e p ro ced u re was used t o compare d i f f e r e n c e s in le a r n in g among th e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t fo rm a ts of in stru c tio n . Background v a r i a b l e s t h a t were found t o be r e l a t e d t o p o s t - t e s t s , along w ith p r e - t e s t s c o r e s , were used as th e c o v a r i a t e s . To an alyze th e s tu d e n t e v a l u a ti o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a n o th e r s e t o f computer d a ta card s were p rep ared f o r th e i n i t i a l 114 s t u d e n t s . The re sp o n s e s to th e 15 q u e s tio n s were e n te r e d on computer c a r d s f o r each stu d e n t. Computer d a ta c o n tr o l c a rd s were th en punched f o r programs t h a t would produce one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r ia n c e and th e Pearson Chisq u are s t a t i s t i c on th e IBM 370-145 computer. To d eterm in e w hether t h e r e were d i f f e r e n c e s in t o t a l e v a l u a ti o n mean s c o r e s between t h e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t form ats o f i n s t r u c t i o n , th e a n a l y s i s o f v a r ia n c e 65 procedure was used. The Pearson Chi-square s t a t i s t i c was used to determine i f th e re were s i g n i f i c a n t d iff e r e n c e s between th e fiv e schools on each ev a lu a tio n q u estion . A f in a l s e t of computer data cards was prepared f o r the 95 stu dents who retu rn ed th e follow-up q u e s tio n n a ire . The responses to the q u e s tio n n a ire were entered on computer cards fo r each stu d e n t. Computer co ntro l cards were then punched f o r programs t h a t would produce frequency t a b l e s on th e IBM 370-145 computer. Frequency d i s ­ t r i b u t i o n s were co n stru c te d to analyze th ese d a ta . V a lid ity Concerns Since s u b je c ts were not randomly assig n ed , s e le c tio n was con­ sid ered a t h r e a t to in te r n a l v a l i d i t y . Because o f t h i s , an a n a ly s is of covariance was used to co ntro l f o r i n i t i a l d iffe re n c e s such as ex p erien ce, a c c id e n t in v e s tig a tio n t r a i n i n g , age, ed u catio n , motiva­ tio n a l l e v e l , and e n tr y - le v e l knowledge about t r a f f i c accid en t in ves­ t i g a t i o n t h a t were expected to cause d iff e r e n c e s in group performance.*^ Another concern f o r in te r n a l v a l i d i t y a r i s e s from the m u ltip le t e s t i n g o f th e s u b je c ts . The e f f e c t s o f takin g a p r e - t e s t may have influenced th e sco res o f the l a t e r t e s t . Two d i f f e r e n t but p a r a l l e l t e s t s were developed to reduce th e e f f e c t s of t h i s concern. Experimental m o rta lity o r th e d i f f e r e n t i a l lo ss o f respondents from comparison groups was ano ther concern f o r in te rn a l v a l i d i t y . York: ^ W illia m L. Hays, S t a t i s t i c s f o r the Social S ervices (New H o lt, R inehart and Winston, 1973), p. 655. 66 Those s u b je c ts who missed any p a r t o f th e course were not used 1n t h i s study. M aturation could a l s o be a f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y in t h i s s tu d y . S p e c i f i c a l l y , th e e f f e c t s o f f o r g e t t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l items could have impacted th e lo n g er (five-w eek) i n s t r u c t i o n a l program and had an e f f e c t on th e p o s t - t e s t s c o re . Summary In t h i s c h a p te r th e methods and procedures used in p re s e n tin g th e f i v e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n co urses were d is c u s s e d . The b a s is f o r sample s e l e c t i o n , t e s t i n g o f s t u d e n t s , and th e t a b u l a t i n g and an aly zin g of d ata were ex p lain ed . An a n a l y s is o f th e d ata and s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s o f th e stud y a re p resen ted in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS The study was designed to e v a lu a te th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f s e le c t e d t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n co u rse form ats o f f e r e d by th e Michigan S ta te U n iv e rsity Highway T r a f f i c S a fe ty C en ter. The method­ ology f o r t h i s comparison was d e sc rib e d in Chapter I I I . The an a ly se s o f th e data p resen ted in t h i s c h a p te r in c lu d e the fo llo w in g : ( 1 ) th e d i f f e r e n c e s in le a r n in g as measured by comparisons o f p r e - t e s t and p o s t - t e s t sco res o f s tu d e n ts in s e l e c t e d t r a f f i c a c c i ­ den t i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o u r s e s , ( 2 ) th e d i f f e r e n c e s in s t u d e n t s ' e n t r y le v e l knowledge about t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n as measured by comparisons o f p r e - t e s t sco res among groups r e c e iv in g t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n s t r u c t i o n , (3) th e d i f f e r e n c e s in le a r n in g as measured by p o s t - t e s t sco res r e s u l t i n g from d i f f e r e n c e s in s t u d e n t s ' ed u catio n al and e x p e r i e n t i a l backgrounds, (4) th e d i f f e r e n c e s in le a r n in g as measured by comparisons o f p o s t - t e s t s c o re s among s tu d e n ts r e c e iv in g t h r e e d i f f e r e n t form ats o f i n s t r u c t i o n , (5) th e d i f f e r e n c e s in course e v a lu a tio n s as measured by comparisons o f s tu d e n t c o u rse e v a lu a tio n q u e s tio n n a ir e s among groups re c e iv in g t h r e e d i f f e r e n t form ats o f i n s t r u c t i o n , and ( 6 ) th e d i f f e r e n c e s in r e p o r te d s tu d e n t a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n performances as measured by a fo llo w -u p q u e s ti o n n a i r e . 67 68 The t o t a l number o f s u b j e c ts in th e f i n a l s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s was 114; 22 a t Lake S u p e r io r S t a t e C ollege (S o o), 28 a t Madonna Col­ l e g e , 22 a t Muskegon Community C ollege (MCC), 24 a t Jackson Community C o lleg e (JCC), and 18 a t Lake Michigan Community College (LMCC). The d a ta c o l l e c t e d from th e s u b j e c t s in clu d ed p r e - t e s t and p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s , a g e , ty p e and s i z e o f employing d ep artm en t, educa­ t i o n a l l e v e l , prim ary a ssig n m e n t, a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n e x p e r ie n c e , a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n t r a i n i n g , m o tiv a tio n le v e l t o a t t e n d s c h o o l, and th e n a t u r e o f th e s u b j e c t s ' t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n perform ­ ance s in c e com pletion o f th e a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o u rse . Data P r e p a r a tio n and A n aly sis Computer d a ta c a r d s were punched f o r each o f th e 114 s u b je c ts who a tte n d e d th e t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o u r s e s . The d a ta were an alyzed u sin g th e BMDP s t a t i s t i c a l package on th e F e r r i s S t a t e C olleg e IBM 370-145 com puter. The d i f f e r e n c e s in l e a r n i n g as measured by g a in s c o r e s were examined throu g h th e use o f t - t e s t s . o f v a r ia n c e pro ced u re was used t o compare d i f f e r e n c e s s c o re s among t h e f i v e g ro u p s. 1 The a n a l y s i s n p re -te st The Pearson C h i-sq u are s t a t i s t i c was a p p l i e d t o d eterm in e i f t h e r e were r e l a t i o n s h i p s between v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d t o s t u d e n t s ' backgrounds and p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s . The a n a l y s is o f c o v a ria n c e p ro ced u re was used t o compare d i f f e r e n c e s in le a r n in g among th e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t fo rm ats used f o r i n s t r u c t i o n . Both th e a n a l y s i s o f v a r ia n c e method and Pearson C h i-sq u are t e s t were used to a n a ly z e th e s tu d e n t c o u rse e v a l u a t i o n s . Frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s were used t o a n aly ze t h e fo llo w -u p q u e s ti o n n a i r e t o determ ine i f th e 69 students reported u t i l i z i n g the knowledge they received and i f t h e i r o verall performance In t r a f f i c accident in v e stig a tio n was increased. D ifferences Between Mean Pre-Test and Post-Test Scores' The following null hypothesis was te s te d f o r each o f the fiv e study groups: Hypothesis 1 : Students w ill not show s ig n i f i c a n t gain s c o re s , as c a lc u la te d by p r e - t e s t and p o s t - t e s t s co res, a f t e r the completion of the fiv e t r a f f i c accident in v e s tig a tio n courses. H0 : w2 - y , i 0 H1 : y2 - u1 > 0 Where = p r e - t e s t s c o re s , y 2 = p o s t - t e s t scores. At the beginning of each school se ss io n , a p r e - t e s t was com­ pleted by each stu d en t. At the end of the school s e ssio n , the students a lso completed a p o s t - t e s t . was 95. The maximum p o ssib le score on both t e s t s The mean p r e - t e s t , mean p o s t - t e s t , and mean gain scores of the fiv e groups are presented in Table 4 .1 . All fiv e groups had p o si­ t i v e gain scores varying from 21.37 p oints to 27.86 p o in ts , with the t o t a l mean gain score f o r a l l fiv e groups being 24.57 p o in ts. To determine whether the gain scores were s ig n i f i c a n t l y above zero, they were examined through the use o f t - t e s t s . The .05 level of s ig n ifican ce was sele cted as the b asis f o r accepting or r e je c tin g the null hypothesis. The c r i t i c a l value of the t - s t a t i s t i c in t h i s t e s t a t the .05 s ig n ifican ce level and the c a lc u la te d t - s t a t i s t i c are shown in Table 4.2 fo r each of the schools. 70 S ince, f o r each s ch o o l, th e c a lc u la te d t - v a l u e was above the c r i t i c a l t - v a l u e , th e nu ll hypothesis t h a t th e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t gain score was r e j e c t e d f o r each scho o l. Table 4 . 1 . —Mean t e s t scores and stan d a rd d e v ia tio n s o f th e f i v e groups who took th e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n cou rse. Group n Mean Test Scores and Standard 1Deviations S.D. P re-T est P o st-T e st S.D. Gain S.D. Soo (1 wk) 22 57.23 6.98 82.09 4.03 24.86 6.92 Madonna (1 wk) 28 54.43 7.74 79.57 5.02 25.14 7.55 MCC (1 wk) 22 50.59 8.16 78.45 6.75 27.86 8.13 JCC (5 wk) 24 56.25 4.88 77.62 5.30 21.37 5.97 LMCC (3 wk) 18 56.44 8.03 80.00 6 .2 2 23.56 6 .2 2 Note: The sco res in th e t a b l e a r e num erical, based on a p o s s ib le p o in t score o f 95. Gain score r e p r e s e n ts th e d i f f e r e n c e between th e p r e - t e s t and th e p o s t - t e s t sc o re . Table 4 . 2 . --The c r i t i c a l value o f the t - s t a t i s t i c and the c a lc u la te d t - s t a t i s t i c f o r th e f iv e s c h o o ls ' mean gain s co res. Group df C ritic a l t C alcu lated t Soo (1 wk) 21 1.721 16.85 Madonna (1 wk) 27 1.703 17.30 MCC (1 wk) 21 1.721 16.07 JCC (5 wk) 23 1.714 17.17 LMCC (3 wk) 17 1.740 15.62 Note: C r i t i c a l t in clu d es only th e upper t a i l . 71 D iffe re n c e Among Groups on P re -T e s t Scores The fo llo w in g n u ll h y p o th e sis was t e s t e d f o r th e f i v e study g rou ps: H ypothesis 2 : S t u d e n ts ’ e n t r y - l e v e l knowledge o f t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n , a s r e f l e c t e d by mean s c o re s on a p r e - t e s t , w i ll not v ary among th e f i v e groups r e c e i v i n g t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n in stru c tio n . V “1 ’ u2 = u3 ’ “4 ’ “5 Hl : Uj t \>2 f U3 t U4 f V5 Where y-j, y2 » e t c * r e p r e s e n t th e p r e - t e s t s c o re s o f th e groups. To d eterm in e w hether th e d i f f e r e n c e s in th e mean p r e - t e s t s c o r e s were s i g n i f i c a n t , th e y were examined through th e use o f a n a l y s is o f v arian ce. The .05 le v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e was s e le c te d as th e b a s is f o r a c c e p tin g o r r e j e c t i n g th e n u ll h y p o th e s is . The c r i t i c a l v alu e o f t h e F - s t a t i s t i c a t t h e .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e le v e l w ith 4 and 109 degrees o f freedom was 2 .4 9 . The F - s t a t i s t i c computed from th e a n a l y s i s o f v a r ia n c e was2 .9 7 , w ith an a s s o c i a t e d 0 .0 2 3 . These s i g n i f i c a n c e le v e l o f l e s s than d a ta a r e shown in T able 4 .3 . T able 4 . 3 . —A n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e o f p r e - t e s t s c o re s o f f i v e groups who to ok t h e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o u rs e s . Source o f V ariance E q u a lity o f a l l means E rro r Note: df Sum o f Squares Mean Square Computed Value o f F T a il Area P ro b ab i1i ty 4 620.46 155.11 2.97 0.023 109 5684.98 52.16 The c r i t i c a l v alu e o f F a t th e .05 s ig n i f i c a n c e le v e l i s 2 .4 9 . 72 The n u ll hypothesis o f no s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e in mean p r e ­ t e s t scores o f th e f iv e groups was r e j e c t e d . To determ ine th e source o f the s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in th e mean p r e - t e s t s c o r e s , post-hoc t - t e s t s s t a t i s t i c s were computed on a l l p airw ise comparisons, and th e r e s u l t s a re p resented in Tables 4 .4 , 4 . 5 , and 4 .6 . Table 4 . 4 . —t - t e s t m atrix f o r group means on 109 degrees o f freedom. Group Soo (1 wk) Soo Madonna MCC JCC 0 .0 Madonna (1 wk) -1.36 0 .0 MCC (1 wk) -3.05 -1.87 JCC 95 wk) -0.46 0.91 2.65 0 .0 LMCC (3 wk) -0 .3 4 0.92 2.55 0.09 Note: LMCC 0 .0 0.0 The c r i t i c a l value o f t with 109 degrees o f freedom a t th e .05 s ig n if ic a n c e lev el i s ± 1.99. Table 4 . 5 . —P r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r th e t - v a lu e s in Table 4 .4 . Group Soo Madonna MCC JCC Soo (1 wk) 1.000 Madonna (1 wk) 0.177 1.000 MCC (1 wk) 0.003 0.065 1.000 JCC (5 wk) 0.648 0.367 0.009 1.000 LMCC (3 wk) 0.734 0.358 0 .0 1 2 0.931 LMCC 73 When th e p r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r th e t - v a l u e s given in Table 4 .5 were examined, th e co n clu sio n a t th e .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e le v e l was t h a t t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s between th e group MCC as compared w ith Soo, JCC, and LMCC. The MCC group had s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower p r e - t e s t sco res than did th e Soo, JCC, and LMCC groups. To determ ine i f t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in mean p r e ­ t e s t sco res between th e t h r e e form ats o f i n s t r u c t i o n , t h r e e c o n t r a s t s were s e t up. C o n tra st 1 c o n tr a s te d groups Soo, Madonna, and MCC (th e one-week form at) w ith JCC (th e five-w eek fo rm a t). C o n tra st 2 con­ t r a s t e d groups Soo, Madonna, and MCC w ith LMCC (th e three-w eek fo rm a t). C o n trast 3 c o n tr a s te d JCC w ith LMCC. The t - v a l u e s f o r c o n t r a s t s in group means a re shown in Table 4 .6 . The conclu sio n a t th e .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e le v e l was t h a t no s i g n i f i ­ c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in p r e - t e s t mean s c o re s e x i s t e d between th e t h r e e f o r ­ mats o f i n s t r u c t i o n . Table 4 . 6 . —C o n tra st c o e f f i c i e n t s and t - v a l u e s f o r c o n t r a s t s in group means. C o n tra st Number Soo C o n tra st C o e f f i c i e n t s Madonna MCC JCC t p (t) LMCC 1 (1 wk vs 5 wk) 1 1 1 -3 0 -1 .2 7 0.206 2 (1 wk vs 3 wk) 1 1 1 0 -3 -1 .2 4 0.218 3 (5 wk vs 3 wk) 0 0 0 1 -1 -0 .0 9 0.931 Note: t = computed t - v a l u e p ( t) = sig n ific a n c e of t-v a lu e 74 D if fe r e n c e s in Learning Compared t o Educational and E x p e r ie n tia l Backgrounds Following i s th e n u ll h y p o th e sis t h a t was t e s t e d f o r th e f i v e stu d y g ro up s: H ypothesis 3 : S tu d en t e n t r y - l e v e l background, as r e f l e c t e d by v a r i a b l e s on th e s tu d e n t background q u e s ti o n n a i r e , w ill n o t show a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith p o s t - t e s t s c o re s . H0 : H ]’. P1 = p2 = p3 t Pg t P3 where p-j, p2 » P3 r e p r e s e n t fre q u e n c ie s w ith in t h r e e p o s t - t e s t sc o re c a t e g o r i e s . (R efer to Appendix G.) Each o f th e s tu d e n t s who a tte n d e d th e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i ­ g a tio n s c h o o ls answered a q u e s ti o n n a i r e c o n ta in in g q u e s tio n s r e l a t e d to h i s / h e r e d u c a tio n and e x p e r i e n t i a l background. 12 v a r i a b l e s were i d e n t i f i e d t o be a n a ly z e d . From th e s e q u e s tio n s The 12 v a r i a b l e s chosen were age o f th e s t u d e n t , ty p e o f d ep artm en t, s i z e o f d ep artm en t, y e a r s worked in law en fo rcem en t, e d u c a tio n l e v e l , prim ary assignm ent in d e p a rtm e n t, number o f f a t a l (K) a c c id e n ts i n v e s t i g a t e d in th e p a s t 12 m onths, number o f p erso n al i n j u r y (P I) a c c i d e n t s i n v e s t i g a t e d in t h e p a s t 12 m onths, number o f p r o p e r ty damage (PD) a c c id e n ts in v e s ­ t i g a t e d i n th e p a s t 12 months, t o t a l hours o f t r a i n i n g in t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n , m o tiv a tio n t o a t t e n d s c h o o l, and i n t e r e s t l e v e l t o a t t e n d sc h o o l. To d eterm ine w hether a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between t h e s e v a r i a b l e s and p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s , th e Pearson Ch1-square t e s t was a p p lied . The .05 le v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e was s e l e c t e d as th e b a s i s f o r a c c e p tin g o r r e j e c t i n g th e n u ll h y p o th e s is . The degrees o f freedom 75 were based on 2 by 3 (df = 2) and 3 by 3 (d f = 4) t a b l e s . value o f the ch i-sq uare s t a t i s t i c with and with 4 degrees of freedom, 9.49. Table 4 .7 . 2 The c r i t i c a l degrees of freedom was 5 .9 9 The r e s u l t s are presented in For a d e ta ile d a n a ly s is o f the Ch1-square frequency counts fo r the 12 background v a ria b le s versus p o s t - t e s t , r e f e r to Appendix G. Table 4 . 7 . —A comparison o f se le c te d stu d en t background v a r ia b le s with p o s t - t e s t scores using the Pearson Chi-square t e s t . Computed ChiSquare Value df P r o b a b ility 5,91 4 .206 2. Type of department 2.69 2 .261 3. Size o f department 3.29 4 .510 4. Years worked in law enforcement 2.70 4 .609 12.44 4 .014 1 1 .8 6 2 .003 2.25 2 .324 . Number of PI in v e s tig a te d 10.30 4 .036 9. Number o f PD in v e stig a te d 8.75 4 .068 Variable 1 . Age of student 5. Education level 6 . Primary assignment 7. Number of K in v e s tig a te d 8 10. Total tr a in in g 10.71 2 .005 11. Motivation level 14.01 4 .007 2.42 2 .297 12. I n te r e s t level Note: At th e .05 level of s ig n if ic a n c e , th e c r i t i c a l value o f Chisquares with 2 degrees o f freedom i s 5.99 and with 4 degrees of freedom i s 9.49. 76 When th e p r o b a b i l i t i e s fo r th e Pearson Chi-square t e s t were analyzed, th e conclusion a t th e .05 s ig n if ic a n c e level was t h a t th e re were s i g n i f i c a n t r e la tio n s h ip s between p o s t - t e s t scores and the s t u ­ d e n t 's education l e v e l , primary assignm ent, number o f personal in ju ry (PI) accid en ts in v e s tig a te d , t o t a l hours o f t r a f f i c accid en t i n v e s t i ­ gation t r a i n i n g , and motivation l e v e l . the null hypothesis was r e j e c t e d . For th ese background v a r i a b le s , The null hypothesis was not r e je c te d fo r the following stu d en t background v a r i a b l e s : age, department ty p e , department s i z e , number of years worked in law enforcem ent, number o f f a t a l (K) accid ents in v e s tig a te d , number o f p rop erty damage (PD) a c c i ­ dents in v e s tig a te d , and i n t e r e s t le v e l. Differences Among Groups on P o st-T est Scores The following i s the null hypothesis t h a t was t e s t e d f o r the fiv e study groups who received in s t r u c ti o n in th e a c c id e n t i n v e s tig a ­ tio n courses. Hypothesis 4 : Student achievement l e v e l s , as r e f l e c t e d by mean scores on the p o s t - t e s t , w ill not vary among groups receiv in g th re e d i f f e r e n t formats o f i n s t r u c t i o n . H0 : U1 = u2 ■ u3 H, : M, t VZ t U3 Where u-j, » P 3 re p re s e n t p o s t - t e s t scores of th re e d i f f e r e n t form ats. To determine whether the d iff e r e n c e s in th e mean p o s t - t e s t scores were s i g n i f i c a n t , they were examined through the use o f analy ­ s i s o f covariance. The .05 lev el of s ig n if ic a n c e was s e le c te d as the b asis f o r accepting o r r e j e c ti n g the n ull h y p o th esis. P r e - t e s t scores 77 along w ith th e s tu d e n t background v a r i a b l e s o f e d u c a tio n , primary a ssig n m en t, number o f personal i n j u r y (PI) a c c id e n ts i n v e s t i g a t e d , t o t a l hours o f t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n t r a i n i n g , and m o tiv atio n al l e v e l , which had been found to be r e l a t e d to p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s , were used as c o v a r l a t e s . The a d ju s te d group means a f t e r th e a b o v e - lis te d confounding e f f e c t s were removed a re shown in Table 4 .8 . The c r i t i ­ cal value o f th e F - s t a t i s t i c in th e a n a l y s is o f cov ariance t e s t a t the .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e le v e l w ith 4 and 102 degrees o f freedom was 2 .5 0. The F - s t a t i s t i c computed from th e a n a l y s is o f co variance was 2 .5 3 , w ith an a s s o c i a t e d s ig n i f i c a n c e le v e l o f l e s s than 0.045. These d a ta a r e p re se n te d in Table 4 .9 . Table 4 . 8 . --A d ju s te d group p o s t - t e s t means a f t e r th e e f f e c t s o f the s ix c o v a r l a t e s have been removed. Group n Group Mean Adjusted Group Mean Standard E rro r Soo (1 wk) 22 82.09 81.45 0.99 Madonna (1 wk) 28 79.57 79.93 0.92 MCC (1 wk) 22 78.45 78.48 1.05 JCC (5 wk) 24 77.62 77.46 0.94 LMCC (3 wk) 18 80.00 80.41 1.1 1 To determ ine i f th e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in mean p o s t - t e s t s c o re s between th e t h r e e form ats o f i n s t r u c t i o n , post-hoc t - t e s t s t a t i s t i c s were computed on a l l c o n t r a s t s . C o n tra st 1 c o n tr a s te d groups Soo, Madonna, and MCC (th e one-week form at) w ith JCC (th e 78 five-w eek fo rm a t) . C o n tr a s t 2 c o n t r a s t e d groups Soo, Madonna, and MCC w ith LMCC ( th e three-w eek f o rm a t) . LMCC. C o n tr a s t 3 c o n t r a s t e d JCC w ith The r e s u l t s a r e p re s e n te d in Table 4 .1 0 . Table 4 . 9 . —A n a ly sis o f co v a ria n c e o f a d j u s t e d p o s t - t e s t mean s c o re s of f i v e groups who took th e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n courses. Source o f Variance df Sum o f Squares Mean Square Computed Value o f F T a il Area P ro b a b i1i t y E q u a lity o f a d ju s te d c e l l means 4 205.56 51.39 2.53 0.045 Zero slo p e 7 1212.49 173.21 8 .5 3 0.000 2071.25 20.31 28 725.86 25.92 1.43 0.115 74 1345.39 18.18 E rro r 102 E q u a lity o f slo p es E rro r Note: C r i t i c a l F - s t a t i s t i c = 2. 50. Table 4 . 1 0 . —C o n tr a s t c o e f f i c i e n t s and t - v a l u e s f o r c o n t r a s t s in a d j u s t e d group means. C o n tra s t Number C o n tr a s t C o e f f i c i e n t s Soo Madonna MCC t P (t) 0 2 .26 0.026 1 0 -3 -0 .3 7 0.714 0 1 -1 - 2 .0 4 0.044 (1 wk vs 5wk) 1 1 1 2 (1 wk vs 3wk) 1 1 3 (5 wk vs 3wk) 0 0 t = computed t-v a lu e LMCC -3 1 Note: JCC p ( t ) = sig n ifican ce o f t-v a lu e 79 The t - v a lu e s f o r c o n t r a s ts in group means i n d i c a t e t h a t th e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d iff e r e n c e a t th e .05 s ig n i f i c a n c e le v e l in th e th re e form ats o f i n s t r u c t i o n . The JCC five-week format was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than both the Soo, Madonna, and MCC one-week format and th e LMCC three-week form at. T h e refo re , th e n u ll hyp oth esis o f no s i g n i f i ­ c an t d iff e r e n c e in mean p o s t - t e s t sco res among groups re c e iv in g th re e d i f f e r e n t formats o f i n s t r u c t i o n was r e j e c t e d . D ifferen ces Among Groups on Student Evaluation Q u estionnaire The follow ing i s the null hypothesis t h a t was t e s t e d th r e e formats f o r th e o f i n s t r u c t i o n used in th e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a ­ ti o n cou rses: Hypothesis 5 : Student e v a l u a t i o n s , as r e f l e c t e d by responses on the stu d en t course e v a lu a tio n q u e s ti o n n a i r e , w ill not vary among groups receiv in g th re e d i f f e r e n t form ats o f i n s t r u c t i o n . H0 : I!, = m2 = u 3 H-j: m1 f m2 Where Pg» H3 r e p re s e n t stu d e n t course e v a lu a ­ ti o n mean s co res o f th r e e d i f f e r e n t form ats. t v*3 Each o f the 114 s tu d e n ts who a tte n d e d one o f th e f i v e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t in v e s t i g a ti o n courses answered an e v a lu a tio n q u e s tio n n a ir e co n tain in g 15 q u e stio n s t h a t r e l a t e d tio n a l media, to th e t r a i n i n g form at, i n s t r u c ­ s tu d e n t manual, t e x t , in d iv id u a l f i e l d e x e rc ise s, i n s t r u c t o r s , and general o b s e rv a tio n s about th e co u rse. W ritten com­ ments about various a s p e c ts o f th e t r a i n i n g program can be found in Appendix H. An o v e ra ll p ic tu r e o f th e d a ta i s summarized in Table 4.11. Table 4.11 ."Summary data fo r the 114 students who answered the student course evaluation questionnaire. Question 1. Generally, my knowledge of traffic accident investigation was increased. 2. I developed my ability to conduct comprehen­ sive on-scene traffic accident investigations. 3. I would reconmend this course to someone else. 4. I was interested 1n learning the course material. 5. This course was very well organized. 6. The objectives of the course were clearly explained. 7. The amount of material covered in the course is reasonable. 8. The instructors stressed important points in lectures or discussions. 9. The instructors put material across in an Intesting way. 10. I generally found the coverage of topics in the assigned readings not too difficult. 11. The instructions given prior to the field exercises were clear and precise. 12. The field exercises were worthwhile in terms of time spent and information gained. 13. I would encourage the continuance of applica­ tion exercises in future offerings of the course. 14. The media presented was well organized and related to the lecture material. 15. The student manual will be useful as a future reference. Hean S.D. Percent of Response Given0 SA 0 A SD N 4.65 0.58 .88 4.26 4.64 4.48 4.44 0.60 0.63 0.65 0.67 !88 .88 4.40 0.63 7.89 43.86 48.25 3.39 0.90 1.75 7.02 12.28 54.39 25.56 4.47 0.65 1.75 3.51 40.35 54.39 4.29 0.78 3.51 9.65 41.23 45.61 3.85 0.80 4.32 0.70 2.63 5.26 49.12 42.98 4.32 0.79 4.39 7.02 41.23 47.37 4.55 0.74 4.46 0.65 1.75 3.51 41.23 53.51 4.76 0.50 .88 .88 19.30 78.95 31.58 67.54 .88 .88 , » 5.26 2.63 .88 7.02 60.53 27.19 43.86 39.47 33.33 69.30 53.51 52.63 .88 3.51 24.56 51.75 19.30 4.39 28.95 64.91 1.75 Note: The student course evaluation questionnaire can be found in Appendix E. below. aThe values in this column are the average for the respondents, based on the assigned values shown Response Categories SD = Strongly disagree D = Disagree N = No opinion A = Agree SA = Strongly agree Assigned Value 1 Z 3 4 5 00 o 81 To determ ine whether th e d i f f e r e n c e s in th e t o t a l e v a lu a tio n mean sc o re s were s i g n i f i c a n t , th e y were examined throu gh th e use o f a n a l y s i s o f v a r ia n c e . The .05 le v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e was s e le c t e d as th e b a s is f o r a c c e p tin g o r r e j e c t i n g t h e n u ll h y p o th e s is . The t o t a l e v a l u a t i o n s c o re was o b ta in e d by t o t a l i n g up each s t u d e n t ' s respo nses to th e 15 q u e s tio n s . The t o t a l e v a lu a ti o n mean s c o re s f o r each o f th e f i v e sch oo ls a r e given in Table 4 .1 2 . The c r i t i c a l v alu e o f th e F- s t a t i s t i c in th e a n a l y s i s o f v a r ia n c e t e s t on th e t o t a l e v a l u a t i o n mean sc o re s a t th e .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e le v e l w ith 4 and 109 d eg rees o f freedom was 2 .4 9 . The F - s t a t i s t i c computed from th e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i ­ ance was 5.25 w ith an a s s o c i a t e d s i g n i f i c a n c e le v e l o f l e s s than 0.0007 (Table 4 . 1 3 . ) I t was concluded t h a t t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ­ fe re n c e s in th e t o t a l e v a lu a tio n mean s c o re s o f th e f i v e grou ps. Table 4 . 1 2 . —T otal e v a l u a t i o n mean s c o re s o f f i v e groups who e v a lu a te d th e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o u r s e s . T otal E v alu a tio n Mean Scores Group Note: Soo (1 wk) 67.73 Madonna (1 wk) 67.57 MCC (1 wk) 63.82 JCC (5 wk) 61.71 LMCC (3 wk) 68.83 Total 65.84 The s c o re s in th e t a b l e a r e n u m e ric a l, based on a p o s s i b l e p o in t sc o re o f 75. v 82 Table 4 . 1 3 . —Analysis o f varian ce o f t o t a l e v a lu a tio n mean sco res o f f iv e groups who took th e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t in v e s t i g a t i o n course. Source of Variance Sum of Squares df Mean Square Computed Value o f F T ail Area Probabi1i ty E q u a lity of a l l means 823.20 4 205.80 5.25 0.0007 4271.94 109 39.19 E rror Note: The c r i t i c a l value o f F a t th e .05 s ig n i f i c a n c e lev el was 2.49. To determine i f th e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s in the t o t a l e v a lu a tio n mean sco res between th e t h r e e form ats o f i n s t r u c t i o n , p o s thoc t - t e s t s t a t i s t i c s were computed on a l l c o n t r a s t s . C o n trast 1 c o n tra s te d groups Soo, Madonna, and MCC (th e one-week form at) with JCC (the five-week fo rm at). C o n trast 2 c o n tr a s te d groups Soo, Madonna, and MCC w ith LMCC (th e three-week fo rm a t). with LMCC. C o n trast 3 c o n tra s te d JCC The r e s u l t s a re p resen ted in Table 4 .1 4 . Table 4 . 1 4 . —C o n trast c o e f f i c i e n t s and t - v a lu e s f o r c o n t r a s t s in group means. ■ ■■ C ontrast Number — C o n trast C o e f f ic ie n ts MCC 1 (1 wk vs 5 wk) 1 1 1 -3 0 -3.16 0 .0 0 2 wk vs 3wk) 1 1 1 0 -3 -1 .4 9 0.139 3 (5 wk vs 3wk) 0 0 0 1 -1 -3 .6 5 0.0004 (1 Note: t = computed t-valu e LMCC P ( t) Madonna 2 JCC t Soo p ( t ) = significance o f t-value 83 The t - v a lu e s f o r c o n t r a s t s in group means In d ic a te t h a t th e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a t th e .05 s ig n if ic a n c e lev el in s tu d e n t t o t a l e v a lu a tio n s between th e th re e form ats o f i n s t r u c t i o n . The JCC five-week form at was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than both the Soo, Madonna, and MCC one-week format and th e LMCC three-week form at. T h erefo re, th e n u ll h ypothesis o f no s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s in t o t a l stu d en t course e v a lu a tio n mean scores among groups re c e iv in g th re e d i f f e r e n t form ats o f i n s t r u c t i o n was r e j e c te d . Since i t was determined t h a t th e r e were d iff e r e n c e s in th e s tu d e n t e v a lu a tio n between th e th re e format groups, each o f the 15 q u e s tio n s was analyzed to determine whether a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t e d between t h a t q u estio n and school. was s e le c te d to analyze th e d a ta . The Pearson Chi-square t e s t The .05 lev el o f s ig n if ic a n c e was s e le c te d as the b a s is f o r determ ining i f a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t io n s h i p e x iste d . The degrees o f freedom were based on 5 by 2 (d f = 4) and 5 by 3 (df = 8 ) ta b le s. The c r i t i c a l value o f the Chi-square s t a t i s t i c w ith 4 degrees o f freedom was 9 .4 9 , and with 15.51. 8 degrees o f freedom was The r e s u l t s a re p resen ted in Table 4.15. The p r o b a b i l i t i e s f o r th e Pearson Chi-square t e s t examined a t th e .05 s ig n i f i c a n c e lev el in d ic a te d t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x i s t e d between school and q u e stio n s 6 , 8 , 9, 11, and 13. In o rd er to determine where th e d iff e r e n c e s e x is te d between school and q u e s tio n s 6 , 8 , 9, 11, and 13, th e response percentages a re p re se n te d f o r each school on each o f th e se q u estio n s in Tables 4.16 through 4.20. 84 Table 4 . 1 5 . —A comparison o f s tu d e n t c o u rse e v a l u a t i o n q u e s tio n s w ith s c h o o l, using th e Pearson C h i-sq u are t e s t . P ro b ab i1i t y 4 4 4 4 4 4 10 5.53 2.73 5.56 5 .8 9 9.23 15.77 8.82 11.14 9.66 13.39 11 1 2 .0 0 12 8 .9 9 9.73 4 4 4 4 4 0.237 0.605 0.234 0.208 0.056 0.003 0.358 0.025 0.047 0.099 0.017 0.061 0.045 0.084 0.237 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 Note: Computed ChiSquare Value df Question 8 4 4 8 8 .2 1 5.53 At th e .05 le v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , t h e c r i t i c a l v a lu e o f Chi squ are w ith 4 d egrees o f freedom was 9.49 and w ith 8 degrees o f freedom was 15.51. Table 4 . 1 6 . —P ercen tag es o f th e school t o t a l s f o r q u e s tio n 6 : o b j e c t i v e s o f th e c o u rse were c l e a r l y e x p la in e d . School The P e rc e n ta g e s o f th e School T o ta ls S tro n g ly Agree O ther Responses MCC (5 wk) 20.83 79.17 MCC (1 wk) 31.82 68.18 Madonna (1 wk) 6 4.29 35.71 Soo (1 wk) 63.64 36.36 LMCC (3 wk) 61.11 38.89 Total 4 8.25 51.75 85 Table 4 . 1 7 . —P ercen tag es o f th e school t o t a l s f o r q u e s tio n 8 : The i n s t r u c t o r s s t r e s s e d im p o rta n t p o in t s in l e c t u r e s o r d is c u s s io n s . School P e rc e n ta g e s o f th e School T o ta ls S tro n g ly Agree O ther Responses JCC (5 wk) 29.17 70.80 MCC (1 wk) 50.00 50.00 Madonna (1 wk) 57.14 42.86 Soo (1 wk) 63.64 36.36 LMCC (3 wk) 77.78 2 2 .2 2 Total 5 4.39 45.61 Table 4 . 1 8 . —P e rcen tag es o f th e school t o t a l s f o r q u e s tio n 9: The i n s t r u c t o r s p u t m a te r ia l a c r o s s in an i n t e r e s t i n g way. School P e rc e n ta g e s o f th e School T o ta ls S tro n g ly Agree O ther Responses JCC (5 wk) 2 5 .0 0 75.00 MCC (1 wk) 40.91 5 9.09 Madonna (1 wk) 5 0.00 50.00 Soo (1 wk) 45.45 54.55 LMCC (3 wk) 72.22 27,78 T otal 45.61 54.39 86 Table 4 . 1 9 . —Percentages o f the school t o t a l s fo r question 11: The i n s t r u c t io n s given p r io r to the f i e l d ex e rc ise s were c l e a r and p r e c is e . School Percentages of th e School Totals Strongly Agree Other Responses JCC (5 wk) 25.00 75.00 MCC (1 wk) 22.73 77.27 Madonna (1 wk) 57.14 42.86 Soo (1 wk) 50.00 50.00 LMCC (3 wk) 61.11 38.89 Total 42.98 57.02 Table 4 . 2 0 . —Percentages o f the school t o t a l s f o r question 13: I would encourage the continuance o f a p p lic a tio n ex e rc ise s in f u tu r e o f fe r in g s o f the course. „ , , School Percentages o f the School Totals ----------------- ------------------------------------------Strongly Agree Other Responses JCC (5 wk) 41.67 58.33 MCC (1 wk) 59.09 40.91 Madonna (1 wk) 71.43 28.57 Soo (1 wk) 81.82 18.18 LMCC (3 wk) 72.22 27.78 Total 64.91 35.09 87 Upon analy zin g the preceding t a b l e s , i t was concluded t h a t JCC and MCC had a h ig h er percentage o f lower r a t i n g s on q u e s tio n s 6 , 8 , 9 , 11, and 13 than did Madonna, Soo, and LMCC. A n aly sis o f Student Follow-Up Q u estio n n a ire Tables 4.21 through 4.33 c o n ta in th e t a b u l a t i o n o f responses provided by s tu d e n ts who a tte n d e d th e f i v e AI-1 c o u rs e s . This p a r t i c u ­ l a r s e t o f responses was ob tain ed fo u r months a f t e r com pletion o f the tra in in g . One hundred fo u rte e n q u e s tio n n a ir e s were d i s t r i b u t e d . Five q u e s tio n n a ir e s were re tu rn e d marked "ad dressee moved--not fo rw ard ab le." N in e ty -fiv e completed q u e s tio n n a ir e s were r e t u r n e d , which r e p re s e n te d a response r a t e o f 83%. The number and p ercen tag e o f respondents who a tte n d e d th e v a r i ­ ous AI-1 course form ats a re r e p o rte d in Table 4 .2 1 . Table 4 .2 1 .--Q u e stio n I.A: Number and p ercentag e o f s tu d e n ts a tte n d in g th e v ario u s AI-1 course form ats. Format Number P ercen t 5 week 20 21 3 week 22 23 53 56 95 100 1 week Total The d a ta r e l a t i n g to s tu d e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n w ith th e time s t r u c ­ t u r e o f th e co u rses a re p re se n te d 1n Table 4 .2 2 . As I n d ic a te d in th e t a b l e , over 90% o f th e s tu d e n ts were well s a t i s f i e d w ith t h e time 88 s t r u c t u r e o f th e cou rses 1 n terms o f time o f y e a r , d ay (s) o f week, and time to complete assignm ents. Table 4 . 2 2 . --Q u estio n I.B : Student s a t i s f a c t i o n w ith time s t r u c t u r e o f th e co u rses ■ S atisfied Number Not S a t i s f i e d P ercent Number P ercen t Time o f year 91 96 4 7 Day(s) o f week 94 99 1 1 Time t o complete assignm ents 88 93 7 7 The number and p ercentage o f a c c id e n ts in v e s t i g a t e d by th e s tu d e n ts sin c e AI-1 course com pletion a r e p re s e n te d in Table 4 .2 3 . T h i r t y - e ig h t p e rc e n t o f th e s tu d e n ts had in v e s t i g a t e d f a t a l a c c id e n t s . Also, 60% o f th e s tu d e n ts had i n v e s t i g a t e d 16 o r more p r o p e rty damage a c c id e n ts . The d a ta r e l a t i n g to source o f feedback i n d i c a t i n g s tu d e n t improvement in th e q u a l i t y o f t h e i r work s in c e th e com pletion o f AI-1 a re p resen ted in Table 4 .2 4 . As in d ic a te d in th e t a b l e , many s tu d e n ts re c e iv e d feedback about th e q u a l i t y o f t h e i r a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n s from a v a r i e t y o f so u rc e s. S i x t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t o f th e s tu d e n ts re p o rte d t h a t th e y receiv ed p o s i t i v e feedback from o t h e r p o li c e o f f i c e r s about t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . ments from t h e i r s u p e r v is o r s . A lso, 46% reported, r e c e iv in g p o s i t i v e com­ I t i s notew orthy t h a t a l l (100%) thought t h a t t h e i r a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n work had improved. 89 Table 4 . 2 3 . —Question 11.A: Number and percentage of accid ents inves t i g a t e d since AI-1 course completion, catego rized by a c c id e n t ty p es. Number of Accidents Property damage (PD) Personal in ju ry (PI) (0-15) No. % (16-30) No. % (31-60) No. % 38 38 13 40 (0 - 1 0 ) No. % (1 1 -2 0 ) No. % 64 21 (0 ) No. Fatal (K) 40 59 68 % 62 (1 - 2 ) No. 27 14 (21-40) No. % 3 22 3 (Over 60) No. % 6 (Over 40) % No. 7 (Over 2) No. % % 28 9 10 Table 4 . 2 4 . --Q uestion II.B and II.C : Source of feedback in d ic a tin g stu d en t improvement in accid en t in v e s tig a tio n . Source o f Feedback Other o f f i c e r s Supervi sors C h ief/sh eriff Prosecutor Insurance r e p re s e n ta tiv e Media r e p re s e n ta tiv e Courts D rivers General pu blic Other S e lf- e v a lu a tio n Number Percent 65 44 46 68 8 8 10 11 5 5 1 1 3 3 10 7 6 11 7 1 1 95 100 7 90 The d ata p e r ta in in g to s e l f - r e p o r t on improved competence in a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n follow ing AI-1 t r a i n i n g a r e p re se n te d in Table 4 .25 . The d a ta i n d i c a t e t h a t ov er 90% o f th e s tu d e n ts b eliev ed they a re now more competent t o r e c o n s t r u c t th e a c c id e n t sc e n e , d e t e r ­ mine f a u l t , determ ine s p e c i f i c v i o l a t i o n s , and p r e s e n t more e f f e c t i v e evidence in c o u r t. Table 4 . 2 5 . --Q u estio n II.D : S e l f - r e p o r t on improved competence in a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n fo llow in g AI-1 t r a i n i n g . Improvement Number P ercen t Competence F actors No Improvement Number P ercent R econstruct a c c id e n t scene 92 97 3 3 Determine f a u l t 93 98 2 2 Determine s p e c i f i c v io latio n 86 91 9 9 P resen t e f f e c t i v e evidence in c o u r t 90 95 5 5 The number and p ercen tag e o f s tu d e n ts using v a rio u s a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n te c h n iq u e s and equipment s in c e AI-1 co urse completion a r e p resen ted in Table 4 .2 6 . As i n d ic a te d in th e t a b l e , many s tu d e n ts are making use o f th e AI-1 te c h n iq u e o f re c o rd in g f e e t and in c h e s , and many s tu d e n ts a re using th e t r a f f i c te m p la te . The d a ta r e l a t i n g t o time sp en t and r e s u l t s gained from a c c i ­ dent i n v e s t i g a t i o n s s in c e th e com pletion o f th e AI-1 co u rse a r e p re ­ sen ted in Table 4 .27 . As i n d i c a t e d in th e t a b l e , over 99% o f th e 91 s tu d e n ts r e p o rte d th e y were g e t t i n g b e t t e r r e s u l t s f o r th e tim e they spent i n v e s t i g a t i n g a c c id e n ts s in c e t h e com pletion o f A I-1. Table 4 . 2 6 . --Q u e s tio n I I . E : Number and p e rc e n ta g e o f s tu d e n t s using v a rio u s te c h n iq u e s and equipment s in c e AI-1 co u rse co m pletion . Number P e rc e n t Determining grade o r s u p e r e le v a tio n 16 17 AI-1 tech n iq u e o f re c o rd in g f e e t and in c h e s 70 74 Photolog 19 20 Damage re c o rd form 21 22 Nomograph 42 44 T r a f f i c tem p late 83 87 R e q u is itio n o f equipment 45 47 Improved equipment a v a i l a b i l i t y 31 33 Table 4 . 2 7 . --Q u e s tio n I I . F : Time s p e n t and r e s u l t s g ain ed from a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n s in c e AI-1 co u rse c o m p letio n . Less Number Same______ P e rc e n t Number P e rc e n t More______ Number P e rc e n t Time sp en t 9 2 31 33 55 58 R e s u lts f o r time s p e n t 0 0 1 2 94 99 92 The number and percentage of stud en ts re p o rtin g time l i m i t a ­ t i o n p o l i c i e s f o r conducting on-scene accid en t in v e s tig a tio n s are repo rted in Table 4.28. The data in d ic a te t h a t very few departments l i m i t the time t h a t an o f f i c e r has to conduct on-scene accid en t in v es­ tig atio n s. Table 4 .2 8 .—Question II.G : Number and percentage rep o rtin g time l i m it a ti o n p o l i c i e s fo r conducting on-scene acciden t in v e s ti g a ti o n s . Time L im itations Type o f Accident No Time L im itations Number Percent Number Percent P roperty damage (PD) 4 4 91 96 Personal in ju r y (PI) 3 3 92 97 Fatal (K) 1 1 94 99 The d ata r e la te d to sources o f time li m it a tio n s in conducting a c c id e n t i n v e s tig a tio n s are presented in Table 4.29. The data i n d i ­ c a te t h a t th e major time li m i t a ti o n s a re a t t r i b u t e d to in div idu al o f fic e r d isc re tio n . The number and percentage o f stu d en ts re p o rtin g work assignment changes since AI-1 course completion a re reported in Table 4 .30 . i n d ic a te d in th e t a b l e , only As 3% of the o f f i c e r s had t h e i r work assignment changed sin ce th e completion o f AI-1. Data p e rta in in g to f u tu re needs fo r tr a in i n g are presented in Tables 4.31 and 4.32. As in d ic a te d in Table 4 .3 1 , 92% of the stu d en ts 93 would have an i n t e r e s t in tak in g p a r t in f u tu r e a c c id e n t in v e s t i g a t i o n courses (A I-2 ), i f o f fe r e d . Over h a lf o f th e respondents {Table 4.32) were i n t e r e s t e d in a l l of th e p o s s ib le to p ic s except photography. Table 4 . 2 9 . —Question II.H : Sources o f time l i m i t a t i o n s in ac c id e n t in v e s tig a tio n work. Source Number Percent Form al/w ritten p o licy 0 0 Inform al/u nw ritten p o lic y 3 3 Supervisory d is c r e tio n 3 3 I n v e s t i g a t i n g - o f f i c e r d i s c r e t io n 52 55 None 39 41 Table 4 . 3 0 . --Q uestion I I . I : Number and percentage r e p o rtin g work assignment changes sin c e AI-1 course com pletion. Number Changed assignment No assignment change Percent 3 3 97 92 Table 4 .3 1 .--Q u estio n I I I . A . l : Student i n t e r e s t in ta k in g p a r t in f u tu re a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n courses (A I-2). Number P re fe r an oth er course P r e f e r no a d d itio n a l courses Percent 87 92 8 8 . 94 Table 4 . 3 2 . —Question I I I . A . 2: P r e fe r re d to p i c s f o r f u tu r e a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n course o f f e r i n g s . Topic Number P ercent P re p a ra tio n o f s c a le diagrams 58 71 Speed d eterm in a tio n 60 63 Photography 39 41 T ire e v a lu a tio n 54 57 Lamp a n a ly s is 53 56 S c i e n t i f i c r e c o n s tr u c tio n 57 60 Case s tu d ie s 57 60 8 8 Other The f i n a l p o r tio n o f the follow -u p q u e s tio n n a ir e completed by th e s tu d e n ts was t o determ ine i f AI-1 t r a i n i n g had been u t i l i z e d . The d ata about u t i l i z a t i o n a re p re se n te d in Table 4 .3 3 . As i n d ic a te d in th e t a b l e , th e m a jo r ity o f th e s tu d e n ts d id not use th e s k i l l s p r i o r to a tte n d in g AI-1. In c o n t r a s t , th e m a jo r ity in d i c a t e d t h a t they had used th e s k i l l s sin c e completion o f AI-1 and t h a t th ey used th e s k i l l s more o f te n . A lso, over 97% r e p o rte d t h a t t h e i r a b i l i t i e s improved in th e s e s k i l l s as a r e s u l t o f AI-1. The summary, f i n d i n g s , c o n c lu s io n s , recommendations, recommen­ d a tio n s f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h , and a d is c u s s io n a r e p re se n te d in Chap­ t e r V. 95 T able 4 . 3 3 . —Q uestion IV: P ercen tag e o f resp o n d en ts r e p o r tin g th e use o f a c c i d e n t I n v e s t i g a t i o n s k i l l s b e fo re and a f t e r th e AI-1 c o u r s e , and frequ ency o f use and improvement o f s k i l l s s in c e c o u rse co m p letio n . P ercentag es Used Before Course Used A f te r Course More Frequent Use Improved Abi1i ty 1. C o ord inate measurements 26 69 68 99 2. T r i a n g u la t io n measurements 72 67 48 100 3. Symbols and a b b r e v ia t i o n s 42 82 74 100 4. Table o f measurements 31 75 68 98 5. Photography 66 65 52 99 66 86 77 98 7. Measuring tire m a rk s 8 . C o n tr o lle d & u n c o n tr o lle d p o s i t i o n o f v e h i c le s & bodies 68 83 76 99 21 64 9. S ketching damage t o v e h ic le 11 65 42 43 97 98 26 76 75 99 19 67 71 98 12. Determ ining d i r e c t i o n o f ro ta tio n 23 65 62 98 13. I d e n t i f y i n g metal s c a r s 16 63 59 97 14. C o l l e c ti n g p h y sic a l ev idence 81 91 76 99 15. D eterm ining typ e o f tire m a rk 13 79 78 98 16. Conducting t e s t s k id s 12 49 51 98 2 29 26 100 19 67 62 100 S k ill 6 . S ketching a c c i d e n t scene 10. Determ ining typ e o f v e h ic le damage 11. D eterm ining d i r e c t i o n o f th ru st 17. Determ ining r a d iu s o f curve 18. D eterm ining speed from t i remarks CHAPTER V SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH, AND DISCUSSION The preceding ch ap ter contained th e fin d in g s based on the data obtained in th e study o f t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a ti o n cou rses. Analyses o f d ata were presented f o r th e follo w in g: 1. The d if f e r e n c e s in le a rn in g among f iv e groups who received t r a f f i c accid en t i n v e s t i g a t io n i n s t r u c t i o n ; 2. The d iff e r e n c e s in s tu d e n t s ' e n t r y - l e v e l knowledge about t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n ; 3. The d if f e r e n c e s in le a rn in g a s s o c ia te d w ith d iff e r e n c e s in education and work e x p erien ce; 4. The d iff e r e n c e s in le a rn in g a s s o c ia te d with th re e d i f f e r ­ e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l fo rm ats, a f t e r c o n tr o ll in g f o r pre­ e x i s t i n g d if f e r e n c e s ; 5. The d iff e r e n c e s in responses to th e course ev a lu a tio n q u e s tio n n a ire s among groups re c e iv in g i n s t r u c t i o n in th re e d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l form ats; 6 . The d iff e r e n c e s in s tu d e n t a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n perform­ ance a f t e r they received t r a f f i c a c c id e n t in v e s ti g a ti o n in stru c tio n . 96 97 This c h a p te r c o n ta in s th e summary, f i n d i n g s , c o n c lu s io n s , recommendations, recommendations f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h , and d is c u s s io n . Summary Purpose o f th e Study The purpose o f t h i s stu d y was to e v a lu a te th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f s e le c te d t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n cou rse form ats o f fe r e d by th e Michigan S t a t e U n iv e rs ity Highway T r a f f i c S a fe ty C enter. Methodology The comparison o f t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n c l a s s e s was s tu d ie d by analyzing th e t e s t r e s u l t s o f 114 s tu d e n ts who receiv ed t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n t r a i n i n g . Student t e s t sc o re s and s tu d e n t resp on ses to q u e s ti o n n a i r e s from th e f i v e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n co u rses p re se n te d in d i f f e r e n t lo c a tio n s throughout th e s t a t e o f Michigan were analyzed in t h i s s tu d y . The co u rses were p re se n te d a t Jackson Community C ollege in Jack so n , Muskegon Community College in Muskegon, Madonna College in D e t r o i t , Lake S u p erio r S ta te C ollege in S a u lt S te . M arie, and Lake Michigan Community College in Benton Harbor. All f iv e t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o u rse s were i d e n t i ­ c a l , w ith th e ex cep tio n o f th e form at in which th e y were p r e s e n te d . The s tu d e n ts in th e sch oo ls a t Muskegon, Soo, and Madonna re c e iv e d i n s t r u c t i o n seven hours p er day f o r f i v e c o n secu tiv e d ays. At Lake Michigan Community C o lle g e , i n s t r u c t i o n was p re se n te d seven hours p er day f o r one day th e f i r s t week, and seven hours a day f o r two days a week f o r two s u c c e ss iv e weeks. At Jackson , th e i n s t r u c t i o n was 98 p r e s e n te d seven hours p e r day f o r one day a week f o r f i v e s u c c e ss iv e weeks. A p r e - t e s t was a d m in iste re d t o a l l s tu d e n t s a t th e f i r s t c l a s s s e s s io n t o d eterm in e i f t h e r e were d i f f e r e n c e s in s tu d e n t e n t r y - l e v e l knowledge ab ou t t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The a n a l y s i s o f v a r i ­ ance p ro ced u re was used t o compare d i f f e r e n c e s in p r e - t e s t s c o re s among t h e f i v e g ro u p s. A p o s t - t e s t was given a t th e end o f each c o u rse . The d i f f e r ­ ences in l e a r n i n g , a s measured by g a in sc o re s o b ta in e d from comparing p r e - t e s t t o p o s t - t e s t , were an alyzed through th e use o f t - t e s t s . Each s tu d e n t in th e f i v e c l a s s e s completed a q u e s ti o n n a i r e on h i s / h e r e d u c a tio n a l and work e x p e r ie n c e . The Pearson C h i-sq u are s t a ­ t i s t i c was a p p l i e d t o d eterm in e i f t h e r e were r e l a t i o n s h i p s between v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d t o each s t u d e n t ' s backgrounds and h i s / h e r r e s p e c t i v e p o s t- te s t sco res. The a n a l y s i s o f c o v a ria n c e p rocedure was used to compare d i f ­ f e re n c e s in l e a r n in g among th e t h r e e d i f f e r e n t form ats o f i n s t r u c t i o n in o r d e r t o c o n t r o l f o r p r e - e x i s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e s . A s tu d e n t c o u rse e v a l u a t io n q u e s tio n n a i r e was f i l l e d o u t by each s tu d e n t a t t h e end o f th e c o u r s e . Both th e a n a l y s i s o f v a ria n c e method and Pearson C h i-sq u are t e s t were used to a n aly ze th e s e d a t a . A fo llo w -u p q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t o determ ine i f th e s t u d e n t s were u t i l i z i n g t h e knowledge th e y re c e iv e d and i f t h e i r o v e r a l l performance in t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n was i n c r e a s e d , was s e n t t o a l l s t u ­ d e n ts f o u r months a f t e r th e y completed th e c o u r s e . b u tio n s were used to an a ly z e th e d a t a . Frequency d i s t r i ­ 99 Findings At the 95% level o f con fid en ce, s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s in mean-gain scores obtained by comparing p r e - t e s t and p o s t - t e s t scores were found f o r a l l f iv e groups. All fiv e groups had p o s it iv e gain sco res varying from 21.37 p o in ts to 27.86 p o i n t s , w ith the t o t a l mean gain score f o r a l l f iv e groups being 24.57 p o i n t s . S in ce, f o r each sc h o o l, th e c a lc u la te d t- v a lu e was f a r above th e c r i t i c a l t - v a l u e , th e n ull hypothesis t h a t th e re was no s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e in mean t e s t gain sco res f o r a l l schools was r e je c te d (Hypothesis 1). S ig n if ic a n t d iff e r e n c e s were found among the f iv e groups a t the .05 s ig n if ic a n c e lev el in p r e - t e s t sc o re s . There were s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s a t the .05 s ig n if ic a n c e level between th e group MCC as compared with Soo, JCC, and LMCC. Muskegon Community College had s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower p r e - t e s t sco res than did the Soo, JCC, and LMCC. The n u ll hypothesis o f no s i g n i f i c a n t d iff e r e n c e s in p r e - t e s t scores among the fiv e groups was r e je c te d (Hypothesis 2 ) . F u rth er a n a ly s is o f mean p r e - t e s t scores showed no s i g n i f i ­ c a n t d iff e r e n c e s a t the .05 s ig n if ic a n c e lev el in p r e - t e s t scores when th e th re e one-week schools were combined, and compared to th e o th e r s . S ig n if ic a n t r e l a t io n s h i p s between p o s t - t e s t sco res and v a r ia b le s r e l a t e d to s t u d e n t 's ed ucation al and e x p e r i e n ti a l backgrounds were found f o r 5 o f th e 12 v a r ia b le s s tu d ie d . At th e .05 s ig n if i c a n c e l e v e l , t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t io n s h i p s between p o s t - t e s t sco res and the s t u d e n t 's edu cational l e v e l , primary assignm ent, number o f personal i n ju r y a c c id e n ts i n v e s t i g a t e d , t o t a l hours o f t r a f f i c in v e s t i g a t i o n t r a i n i n g , and m o tiv ation al l e v e l . For th e f iv e above-mentioned 100 background v a r i a b l e s , th e null hypothesis t h a t stu d en t background, as r e f l e c t e d by v a r ia b le s on th e stu d e n t background q u e s tio n n a ir e , w ill n ot show a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t io n s h i p with p o s t - t e s t scores was r e je c te d (Hypothesis 3 ). The null hypothesis f o r th e follow ing s tu d e n t back­ ground v a r i a b le s - - a g e , department ty p e , department s i z e , number o f y ears worked in law enforcem ent, number o f f a t a l a c c id e n ts i n v e s t i ­ g a te d , number o f p ro p erty damage a c c id e n ts in v e s t i g a t e d , and i n t e r e s t lev el--w as not r e j e c t e d . S i g n i f i c a n t d iff e r e n c e s were found among the fiv e groups a t th e .05 s ig n if ic a n c e lev el in mean p o s t - t e s t sco res when both p re ­ t e s t scores and s tu d e n t background e f f e c t s t h a t were r e l a te d to th e p o s t - t e s t were removed. At the .05 s ig n if ic a n c e l e v e l , th e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in the th re e form ats o f i n s t r u c t i o n . The JCC five-week format was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than e i t h e r th e Soo, Madonna, and MCC one-week format o r the LMCC three-week form at. The n u ll hypothesis o f no s i g n i f i c a n t d iff e r e n c e in p o s t - t e s t sco res among groups re ceiv in g th re e d i f f e r e n t formats o f i n s t r u c t i o n was r e j e c t e d (Hypothesis 4 ). S i g n i f i c a n t d iff e r e n c e s were found among the fiv e groups a t th e .05 s ig n i f i c a n c e lev el in t o t a l stu d en t course e v a lu a tio n mean s c o re s . At th e .05 s ig n if ic a n c e l e v e l , th e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r ence in s tu d e n t t o t a l course e v a lu a tio n s between th e th re e form ats of in stru c tio n . The JCC five-week format was s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than th e Soo, Madonna, and MCC one-week format and th e LMCC three-week form at. 101 The n u ll h y p o th e sis o f no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in s tu d e n t course e v a lu a tio n s among th e groups r e c e iv in g th r e e d i f f e r e n t form ats o f i n s t r u c t i o n was r e j e c t e d (H ypothesis 5 ) . F u rth e r a n a l y s i s o f s tu d e n t course e v a lu a tio n s found t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x i s t e d between sch o o ls and 5 o f th e 15 ques­ t i o n s on th e s tu d e n t co u rse e v a lu a tio n q u e s tio n n a i r e . Both th e JCC group and th e MCC group had a h ig h e r p ercen tag e o f lower r a t i n g s on each o f th e f iv e q u e s tio n s as compared t o Madonna, Soo, and LMCC. Upon review ing th e r e s u l t s o f th e s tu d e n t re sp o n s e s, i t could be seen t h a t a la r g e m a jo rity o f th e resp o n ses f e l l i n t o th e " s tr o n g ly agree" and "agree" c a te g o r i e s f o r a l l f i v e s c h o o ls . A n alysis o f th e s tu d e n t fo llo w -up q u e s tio n n a ir e re v e a le d t h a t over 90% o f th e s tu d e n ts were w e l l - s a t i s f i e d w ith th e course form at in terms of time o f y e a r , d ay (s) o f week, and time to complete a s s ig n ­ ments. F u rth e r a n a l y s i s o f th e q u e s ti o n n a i r e rev ealed t h a t each s t u d e n t 's performance in t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n had been in c re a s e d . One hundred p e rc e n t o f th e s tu d e n ts f e l t t h a t th e q u a l i t y o f t h e i r a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n work had improved s in c e com pletion o f AI-1. The m a jo r ity o f th e s tu d e n ts a l s o r e p o rte d t h a t th ey had receiv ed f a v o ra b le comments from o t h e r people in reg ard t o th e q u a l i t y o f t h e i r a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . A lso, 99% o f th e s tu d e n ts re p o rte d t h a t th ey were g e t t i n g b e t t e r r e s u l t s f o r th e tim e th e y sp en t I n v e s t i g a t i n g a c c id e n ts s in c e th e com pletion o f AI-1. F u rth e r a n a l y s is o f th e follow -up q u e s ti o n n a i r e re v e a le d t h a t new a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n s k i l l s 102 were le a rn e d and t h a t s k i l l s p r e v io u s ly a t t a i n e d were now u t i l i z e d w ith a g r e a t e r degree o f freq u en cy and e f f e c t i v e n e s s . C onclusions The fo llo w in g c o n c lu s io n s were reached on th e b a s i s o f th e a n a ly s e s o f s t u d e n t s ' p r e - t e s t s c o r e s , p o s t - t e s t s c o r e s , s tu d e n t re sp o n se s on th e co u rse e v a l u a t i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and s tu d e n t resp on ses on th e fo llow -u p q u e s t i o n n a i r e : 1. The mean grade s c o re s achieved by each o f th e f i v e c l a s s e s on th e p r e - t e s t s and p o s t - t e s t s were given in Table 4 . 1 . number o f p o i n t s on th e t e s t s was 95. The maximum All f i v e groups had p o s i t i v e g ain s c o re s v ary in g from 21.37 p o i n ts t o 27.86 p o i n t s , w ith th e t o t a l mean g ain sc o re o f a l l f i v e groups being 24.57 p o i n t s . I t was con­ cluded t h a t l e a r n in g d id ta k e p la c e as measured by th e s e s c o r e s . 2. The p a s sin g grade e s t a b l i s h e d f o r t h i s co u rse was p o in ts or 70%. in a l l o f i t s sponsored t r a i n i n g programs 66 Seventy p e r c e n t i s th e minimum s c o re t h a t MLEOTC uses th ro u g h o u t th e s t a t e t o d eterm in e w hether a s tu d e n t has passed o r f a i l e d t h a t c o u rs e . The t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n co u rse s were co n s id e re d t o be a su ccess s in c e a l l 114 s tu d e n ts e q u a l l e d o r exceeded th e grade o f 70% on th e p o s t-te st. 3. There was ev id en ce t h a t a f t e r p r e -c o u r s e e f f e c t s were removed, th e i n s t r u c t i o n a l form at used d id have an e f f e c t on th e amount o f one-week l e a r n i n g t h a t was a c h ie v e d . It form at and th e th ree-w eek form at g r e a t e r le a r n in g than t h e fiv e-w eek fo rm at. was concluded t h a t both th e produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y 103 4. I t was concluded from the a n a ly s is o f the stu d e n t course e v a lu a tio n r a tin g s t h a t a l l groups ra te d th e a c c id e n t in v e s t i g a t i o n course h ig h ly . 5. I t was concluded from th e a n a l y s is o f th e stu d e n t follow-up q u e s tio n n a ire t h a t th e s tu d e n ts ' o v e r a ll performance in t r a f f i c a c c i ­ dent i n v e s t ig a t i o n has in c re a s e d . Recommendations Based on t h i s s tu d y , th e follow ing recommendations can be made: 1. The t r a f f i c a c c id e n t course (AI-1) should continue to be o ffe re d on a reg io n al b a s is throughout th e s t a t e o f Michigan, with emphasis on making th e t r a i n i n g a v a ila b le to th e s m aller p o lic e agen­ cies. 2. I f f e a s i b l e , th e five-week format should be r e ta in e d as an o ption in o rd er t h a t th o se s m a lle r departments t h a t have l e s s f l e x i ­ b i l i t y in scheduling personnel can b e n e f i t from the t r a i n i n g . 3. I f th e five-week format i s m ain tain ed , th e i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t a f f should c o n s id e r ways o f in c re a s in g s tu d e n t r e t e n t i o n t o produce achievement l e v e l s s im i la r to th e o th e r form ats. 4. The course should r e t a i n th e same teach in g s t r a t e g y with p r a c t i c a l e x e r c is e s included w ith each major u n i t o f i n s t r u c t i o n . 5. The development and refinem ent o f advanced a c c id e n t in v es­ t i g a t i o n courses t h a t b u ild on what was ta u g h t in AI-1 i s needed. 104 Recommendations f o r F u rth er Research F u rth e r re se a rc h should be done on th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o u rs e s ; such re se a rc h should be d i r e c t e d a t th e fo llo w in g : 1. Determining th e e f f e c t iv e n e s s o f th e AI-1 co u rses t h a t a re p r e s e n t l y being o f fe r e d by Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity . 2. Comparing th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n t r a i n i n g c o u rse s o f fe r e d by o th e r i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith Michigan S ta t e U n i v e r s i t y 's AI-1 cou rse. 3. The HTSC s t a f f should conduct a f e a s i b i l i t y stu dy to determ ine i f th e five-week format should be r e ta in e d as an o p tio n . 4. Determining th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f time-compressed form ats in o th e r c o u rs e s . D iscussion This study revealed t h a t both th e one-week form at and th e three-w eek format produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r le a r n in g than did th e five-w eek fo rm at. The d if f e r e n c e between th e Soo and i t s one- week fo rm a t, which had th e h ig h e s t a d ju s te d group mean, and JCC's five-week fo rm a t, which had th e low est a d ju s te d group mean, was a s i g n i f i c a n t fo u r p o i n t s . D ecision makers who w ill have t o determ ine i f th e five-w eek format should be r e ta i n e d as an o p tio n should remain co g n izan t o f th e f a c t t h a t th e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t g ain s in knowledge observed even in th e l e a s t - e f f e c t i v e form at ( f i v e w eeks). S pecial a t t e n t i o n should be given to th e sm a lle r d ep artm en ts, which have l e s s f l e x i b i l i t y in scheduling personnel and which b e n e f i t th e most from 105 t h e fiv e-w eek form at when making any d e c i s i o n t o r e t a i n o r drop t h i s fo rm a t. I t should a l s o be remembered t h a t one o f t h e main p u rpo ses o f th e AI-1 c o u rse i s to upgrade t h e q u a l i t y and amount o f t r a i n i n g f o r o f f i c e r s i n small law en forcem ent a g e n c i e s . The t e s t item bank t h a t was used in t h e t e s t developm ent phase o f t h i s s tu d y may be an a r e a f o r improvement. Most o f th e item s a s s e s s th e r e t e n t i o n o f knowledge t a u g h t in t h e c o u r s e . Very few t e s t i te m s , which c a l l e d f o r p ro b le m -so lv in g th o u g h t p r o c e s s e s on th e p a r t o f th e exam inees, were a v a i l a b l e . S p e c ia l a t t e n t i o n m ight be giv en t o w r i t ­ ing and c o l l e c t i n g t e s t item s t h a t r e q u i r e th e examinee t o s o lv e prob ­ lems s i m i l a r t o th o s e found in o n - th e - s c e n e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . Item banks could be pu rch ased from o r exchanged w ith o t h e r a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i ­ g a t io n e d u c a tio n programs. The a v a i l a b i l i t y o f an expanded pool o f a c c e p t a b l e t e s t item s would p e rm it a g r e a t e r use o f asse ssm e n t i n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o c e s s . Survey t e s t s co uld be i n t e r s p e r s e d w ith i n s t r u c t i o n t o improve th e s t u d e n t ' s on-going e v a l u a t i o n o f h i s l e a r n i n g . Feedback from th e t e s t s co u ld be used t o a l t e r i n s t r u c t i o n t o meet t h e s t u d e n t ' s n e e d s , th e r e b y p e r s o n a l i z i n g th e i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o c e s s . In a d d i t i o n , c o n s i d e r a t i o n should be g iv e n t o c o m p u te riz in g an extended t e s t - i t e m bank. C o m p u te riz a tio n would f a c i l i t a t e th e r e t r i e v a l o f t e s t item s f o r v a r i o u s p u rp o se s . In a d d i t i o n t o th e i t e m s , c o e f f i c i e n t s t h a t d e s c r i b e item q u a l i t y c o u ld be r e t a i n e d . The c r e a t i o n o f a s ta te w id e a n d /o r n atio n w id e co m p u terized item bank i s a p o ssib ility . APPENDICES 106 APPENDIX A GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION, ECONOMIC CONDITION, AND POPULATION COMPOSITION OF THE FIVE AI-1 COURSE LOCATIONS 107 APPENDIX A r1 li-ar'Xf *T2a#x,z^Byr4 I ! 1 (Sliimi!r~L ' ■<____________ V&. MICHIGAN *1979 Population **1978 Par Capita B stlo a te s Paraoaal Incooe Madonna (Vayna) 2,458,415 J.C .C .(Jackaon) 150,831 L.M .C .C .(Barrlaa) 176,569 M.C.C. (Niakagon) 155,895 Soo (Chlppaua) 38,384 $9,238 7,656 7,570 6,894 4,999 m Tf u A a rp » A" ! ! S -* f% n 5 l£ = B ’ Soureaa aG oldberg, David, P ro je c tio n s of P opulatloo and Eaployaent in Mich. 1970-2000, f t a Population Studlao / L _ . } C antor, O alv aralty o f Michigan, I September 1978. ^ ._ T . 5 Mlehlgan S ta ta Eeonosdc Record, Vol. 22, Mo. 5, Hay 1980. D ivision o f Research, Craduate School o f Bualnaas A dm inistration, Mlehlgan S ta ta UBlvorelty. □ 108 fSWMt APPENDIX B TRAFFIC ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION COURSE AI-1 CURRICULUM OUTLINE 109 APPENDIX B HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY CENTER Continuing Education S ervic e Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y T r a f f i c Accident I n v e s t i g a t i o n I Curriculum O utline 1. O r i e n t a t io n 1.1 1.2 I n tr o d u c t io n Student Assessment ( P r e - t e s t ) 2. Legal 2.1 Duties Required by S t a t u t e 2.2 A uthorit y t o Gather Accident Inform ation 2.3 Enforcement A u th o r it y a t Accident Scenes 3. Elements o f T r a f f i c Accidents 3.1 3.2 4. Measuring & Recording 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5. . Measuring Sketching Photography Field Exercis e #1 Roadway Eva luation 5.1 5.2 5.3 5. 4 5.5 5. 6 5. 7 6 Multiple Causation Theory Elements o f T r a f f i c Accidents Final P o s i t i o n T ir e Marks Metal Scars Debris Fixed Objects F a l l s , F l i p s & Vaults F ie l d Exercis e #2 Vehicle Evaluation 6.1 Types o f Vehicle Damage 6.2 Thrust & Collapse 6. 3 Ground Contact 6 . 4 Recording Damage t o Vehicle 6.5 F ie ld Exercis e #3 110 Ill 7. Speed Determination 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 8 . 9. 10. Symbols & Abbr ev iat ion s Speed & V e lo city Determining Drag Factor F ie ld Exercise #4 Determining Speed t o S li d e t o a Stop Determining Speed t o S11d e s l i p V ariable (depending upon le n g th o f co u r se—used f o r o p tio n a l s i x t h day) Course Review 9.1 Review o f Course I n s t r u c t i o n and M a te ria ls Course & Student Evalu ation 10.1 10.2 Student Ev alu atio n ( P o s t - t e s t ) Course Evaluation APPENDIX C STUDENT BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE 112 APPENDIX C T ra ffic Accident Investigation Training Course location^ Name Age Home address^ Home phone__ Employing agency_ Check which type of department you ar e p r e s e n t l y employed in : 1. Municipal _2. Township _3. County _4. S t a t e 5. Other L i s t the t o t a l number o f sworn p o l i c e personnel in your agency: L i s t the t o t a l number of ye ar s you have worked in law en f o rc e m e n t :__ Present rank:_____________________________________________________ Education: 09 {Circle high es t grade or l e v e l . ) High School 10 11 12 Primary assignment i s : 1. 2. 3. 4. 13 College 14 15 Primary f u n c t io n i s : 1. General p a tr o l 2. T r a f f i c specialist 3. Training 4. Other: ______ Patrol d i v i s i o n Traffic unit Training d i v i s i o n Other: 17 16 Graduate 18 19 Primary duty i s : 1. 2. 3. 4. A dm inistr ative Supervisory "Line" op er atio n s Other: Are you assigned to a t r a f f i c d i v i s i o n or t r a f f i c u n i t ? 1. Yes 2. No L i s t th e approximate number of t r a f f i c a c c id e n ts i n v e s t i g a t e d by you in the l a s t 1 2 months: Pro perty damage Personal injury_ Fatal 113 20 114 Check only one of th e f o llo w in g : 1. I work major a c c i d e n t s but a s s i s t with minor a c c i d e n t s during peak hours. 2. I work minor a c c i d e n t s but a s s i s t peak hours. with major a c c i d e n t s during 3. I work both major and minor a c c i d e n t s any time. Have you a tte n d e d a t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n course beyond th e b a s ic r e c r u i t course? 1. Yes 2. No ( I f y e s , where?)______________________________________________ Previous t r a i n i n g in a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n : Where 1. Academy ( b a s i c r e c r u i t t r a i n i n g ) When No. of Hours ____________ ________ ______ 2. Department i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g _______ ____________ ________ ______ 3. S p e c i a l i z e d schoo ls ____________ ________ ______ 4. College courses 5. O ther:__________________________ ____________ ____________ ________ ________ ______ ______ Other ty pe s o f s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g r e l a t e d to t r a f f i c and/or i n v e s t i gati on: Type Where When Length Check only one of th e f ollowing: 1. I made a r e q u e s t t o a t t e n d t h i s sch ool. 2. I was given an option about a t t e n d i n g t h i s school. 3. I was r e q u ir e d t o a t t e n d t h i s sch ool. How do you f e e l about a t t e n d i n g t h i s school? 1. Extremely i n t e r e s t e d 2. I n t e r e s t e d 3. So-so 4. Not so i n t e r e s t e d 5. Extremely d i s i n t e r e s t e d APPENDIX D PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST 115 APPENDIX D T ra ffic Accident Investigation I Pre-Test I. Response t o Media Items: I n s t r u c t i o n s : As you view a media p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the items in t h i s s e c t i o n of the t e s t , choose the most c o r r e c t answer and mark i t on t h e answer sheet by darkening the s e l e c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e . There i s only one c o r r e c t answer. . Acceleration 2. Braking . T r ian g u lati o n 2. Coordinate 3. . Gap skid 2. Skip skid 3. O f fs e t 3. T ir e mark 4. . Rub-off 2. Imprint 3. Superimposed co n tact 5. . Furrow 2. Imprint . Coordinate 2. Offs et . Yaw mark . T i r e grinding 2. T ir e p r i n t 2. Pavement grinding 3. T ir e p r i n t 3. T r i a n g u l a t i o n 3. Skid mark . A cceler ation 2. Braking . Furrow 3. Both 3. Both 1 2 6 . . . 7. 8 . 9. 3. Scratch 3. T ir e p r i n t . 1 2 . . Contact 2. Rut 2. Induced . Contact 2. Induced 13. . Controlled 2. Uncontrolled 14. . Straight 2. Curved 3. Overlapping 15. . Left rotation 2. Right r o t a t i o n 3. No r o t a t i o n 1 0 . 1 1 II. M ultiple Choice Questio ns: I n s t r u c t i o n s : Choose th e most c o r r e c t answer and mark i t on th e answer sheet by darkening the s e le c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e . There i s only one c o r r e c t answer. 116 117 16. Which o f the following i s th e b e s t s ta te m e n t concerning t h e importance o f having i n v e s t i g a t o r s look f o r and analyze marks on th e road a t th e a c c i d e n t scene? 1. 2. 3. 4. 17. Which o f th e following f a c t o r s has th e l e a s t i n f l u e n c e on th e d i s t a n c e a v e h ic le w i ll skid? 1. 2. 3. 4. 18. 2. 3. 4. Which The high v i s i b i l i t y o f t h e marks. Whether o r not th e o f f i c e r had witne ss ed and a c c i d e n t . A sso ciating th e a c c i d e n t v e h i c l e t o t h e skid marks. The time e l a p s in g between t h e a c c i d e n t and th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . When th e skidmarks l e f t by a c a r a r e curved: 1. 2. 3. 4. 21. The p o in t where t h e shadow becomes v i s i b l e t o th e ter m in al p o in t o f th e black smear. The beginning o f th e shadow to t h e s t a r t o f the black smear. The s t a r t o f t h e smear t o i t s p o i n t o f te r m i n a t i o n . The es ti m a te d s t a r t o f t h e s kid and the end of th e shadow. Many f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c e th e c r e d i b i l i t y o f skidmark evidence. of the following would be c o n s id e re d th e most im po rta nt: 1. 2. 3. 4. 20. Wind r e s i s t a n c e The pavement s u r f a c e The weight o f th e v e h i c l e The grade o r slope o f th e road Accurate measurements r e q u i r e t h a t th e a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t o r determine t h e d i s t a n c e between? 1. 19. Marks a r e o f l i t t l e value u n l e s s t h e r e a r e co ncurring s t a t e ­ ments from unbiased w i t n e s s e s . Marks on t h e road o f f e r l i t t l e proof o f how the a c c i d e n t r e a l l y happened. Marks on t h e road w i ll help determine what happened. Marks cannot be used t o a s s i s t in deter mining what happened un le ss t h e v e h i c l e t h a t made them can be i d e n t i f i e d . Each should be measured in a s t r a i g h t l i n e from one end to the o t h e r . Each should be measured along t h e curve. The d i s t a n c e should be measured from th e c e n t e r p o in t o f the c a r where i t began t o s l i d e t o th e c e n t e r p o i n t where i t stopped s l i d i n g The lo n g e s t skidmark should be measured along the curve. A den t pressed i n t o v e h i c l e body p a r t s by some s t r o n g e r o b j e c t which c l e a r l y shows i t s shape i s c a l l e d : 1. 2. 3. 4. Superimposed c o n t a c t damage Collapse Imprint Intent 118 22. There a r e two t y p e s o f damage t o v e h i c l e s as a r e s u l t o f an a c c i ­ d e n t . They a r e : 1. 2. 3. 4. Contact and d i r e c t D i r e c t and induced I n i t i a l and d i r e c t Contact and induced 23. Which i s t h e b e t t e r measuring method t o use when l o c a t i n g s p o ts t h a t a r e more than 30 f e e t from th e roadway? 1. Coordinate 2. T r i a n g u l a t i o n 3. Off s e t 4. Angulation 24. When using t h e t r i a n g u l a t i o n method o f measuring t o l o c a t e v e h i c l e s , o b j e c t s , e t c . , a l l but one o f t h e f o ll o w in g app ly. I d e n t i f y t h a t one. 1. 2. 3. 4. 25. What i s th e minimum number o f s p o ts you must measure i n l o c a t i n g an automobile? 1. 2. 3. 4. 26. One Two Three Four Measurements which should be tak en f i r s t a t th e scene o f an accident are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 27. S e l e c t temporary p o i n t s f o r two l o c a t i o n s and a f ix e d o b j e c t a t the t h i r d . Measure one t r i a n g l e t o l o c a t e each s p o t. S e l e c t f i x e d p o i n t s f o r two c o r n e r s and a temporary o b j e c t a t th e t h i r d . Avoid f l a t o r skinny t r i a n g l e s whenever p o s s i b l e . C e r t a i n marks o r r e s i d u e s o f a temporary n a t u r e . The p o i n t o f impact. The g r e a t e s t d i s t a n c e s which have t o be measured. The "framework" o f s t r e e t s and f i x e d o b j e c t s i n t o which a l l a c c i d e n t measurements w i l l f i t . An i n v e s t i g a t o r paced a d i s t a n c e as 6 6 p a c e s . L a t e r , t o c o n v e r t t h i s measurement t o f e e t , t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r should: 1. 2. 3. 4. M u lt i p l y 6 6 Step o f f 6 6 Measure one M u lti p l y 6 6 by t h r e e f e e t . paces from a mark and t a p e t h e d i s t a n c e . o f h i s paces and m u l t i p l y t h i s by 6 6 . by th e av er ag e le n g t h o f h i s pace. 119 28. All but one of the following should appear on the f i e l d sketch. I d e n t if y t h a t one. 1. 2. 3. 4. 29. Photos ar e o f g r e a t a s s i s t a n c e t o the ac cide nt i n v e s t i g a t o r f o r which of the following reasons: a. T h ey can des cr ib e vehicle damage which would take much time t o de scr ibe in words. b. They can v e r i f y f a c t s about an ac ciden t which may be in ques tion. c. They help us remember, in g r e a t e r d e t a i l , things we did see. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 30. Minimum speed of the vehicle p r i o r to the ac cident. Maximum speed of the vehicle p r i o r to th e ac cident. Exact speed of the ve hicle p r i o r to the ac cident. Actual speed o f the vehicle a t time of c o l l i s i o n . On a road surface with a drag f a c t o r of .60, th e minimum speed of a ve hicle which l a i d down 90 feed of skidmark i s : 1. 2. 3. 4. 32. A only B only C only A and B A, B, and C When es tim at ing speed from skidmark evidence, i t i s important to remember t h a t th e speed computed re p re s e n ts th e: 1. 2. 3. 4. 31. Date of the ac cident. Scale of th e sketch. Direction o f no rth . Name of person(s) making sketch. 40 45 50 55 MPH MPH MPH MPH An i n v e s t i g a t o r measured ac cide nt skidmarks and found the average length to be 155 f e e t . The acc iden t ve hicle was t r a v e l i n g up a 5 pe rcent grade when i t l a i d down the skidmarks. The i n v e s t i g a t o r l a i d down a s e t o f t e s t skids on a level s t r e t c h of road with the same type of su rf ace and co nditions as the ac ciden t l o c a ti o n . Speed f o r the t e s t skid was 30 MPH and "d" was 50 f e e t . What was the minimum speed of the ac ci dent vehicle? 1. 2. 3. 4. 45 50 55 60 MPH MPH MPH MPH 120 33. Using a computed drag f a c t o r of .63, compute the minimum speed of a v e h i c le which l a i d down a 65-fo ot skidmark. 1. 2. 3. 4. 34. 1. . 3. 4. 43 38 50 53 MPH MPH MPH MPH An i n v e s t i g a t o r measured a s e t o f s t r a i g h t ac ci dent skidmarks on a level road surfa ce with th e following r e s u l t s : RF 1122, RR 1062, LF = 02, LR = 1242. Which o f the following prop er ly r e p r e s e n t s th e average s l i d i n g d i s t a n c e of the a ccid en t veh icle? 1 . 2. 3. 4. 37. .55 .61 .65 .70 An i n v e s t i g a t o r measured a s e t o f yaw marks a t an ac cident scene which produced the following d ata: R=200 f e e t , M= +.03. Test s kid s were made on a level s t r e t c h of road with the same su rf ace c o n d i tio n s as th e a c cident l o c a t i o n . Test skid speed was 30 MPH, "d" was 50 f e e t . What was the s i i d e s l i p speed of the ac ci dent v eh icle? 1. 2. 3. 4. 36. MPH MPH MPH MPH What i s the drag f a c t o r of a road su rf ace when a t e s t skid a t 25 MPH produced a skidmark of 34 f e e t ? 2 35. 30 35 38 42 116 f e e t 224 f e e t 85.5 f e e t 124 f e e t I f a d r i v e r has a r e a c ti o n time o f 1.5 seconds, what i s h is r e a c ­ t i o n d i s t a n c e when his speed i s 40 MPH? 1 . 88 feet 2. 59 f e e t 3. 95 f e e t 4. 54.2 f e e t 121 38. The d r i v e r o f ev ery motor v e h i c l e s h a l l r e p o r t f o r t h w i t h t o th e n e a r e s t o r most c onvenie nt p o l i c e s t a t i o n : 1. 2. 3. 4. 39. An i n h e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f an automobile which a f f e c t s th e p r o b a b i l i t y o f an a c c i d e n t i s p r o p e r l y i d e n t i f i e d a s : 1. 2. 3. 4. 40. F i r s t harmful ev en t S t a b i l i z a t i o n o r s to pping Disengagement Last c o n t a c t Skidmarks a t t h e scene o f an a c c i d e n t may show a l l b u t one o f th e f o ll o w i n g . I d e n t i f y t h a t one: 1. 2. 3. 4. III. An a t t r i b u t e A remote f a c t o r A m o d if ie r A hazard The e v e n t which f i n a l i z e s t h e f o r c e s o f an a c c i d e n t s i t u a t i o n i s : 1. 2. 3. 4. 41. An a c c i d e n t r e s u l t i n g in i n j u r y o r d eath o f any p e r s o n , or t o t a l damage t o any one v e h i c l e t o an a p p a r e n t e x t e n t o f $ 2 0 0 o r more t h a t o c curre d only on p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y . Any a c c i d e n t in v o lv in g two o r more motor v e h i c l e s . An a c c i d e n t r e s u l t i n g in I n j u r y o r death o f any person o r t o t a l damage t o a l l p r o p e r t y t o an ap p a r e n t e x t e n t o f $ 2 0 0 o r more. Any a c c i d e n t on a highway o r p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y when such p r o p e r t y i s open t o t h e gen er al use o f th e p u b l i c . P o s i t i o n o f th e v e h i c l e on t h e roa d. P o in t o f i n i t i a l c o n t a c t . The e x a c t speed t h a t th e v e h i c l e was t r a v e l i n g a t th e time o f th e a c c i d e n t . Evasive a c t i o n s o f t h e d r i v e r . True o r False Q u e s t i o n s : I n s t r u c t i o n s : Darken th e "T" o r "F" a l t e r n a t i v e , depending on whether you b e l i e v e t h e answer t o be t r u e o r f a l s e . 42. Skidmarks a t an a c c i d e n t scene i n d i c a t e t h a t only two wheels locked and t h e two remaining wheels c o n tin u ed t o r o l l f r e e . I f t h e two r e a r wheels locked and t h e two f r o n t wheels remained f r e e - r o l l i n g , th e v e h i c l e would s l i d e s t r a i g h t . 43. C o n tr o lle d f i n a l p o s i t i o n s should be noted but a r e l e s s s i g n i f i ­ c a n t than u n c o n t r o l l e d f i n a l p o s i t i o n s . 44. When measuring f o r t o t a l l e n g t h s o f sk idmar ks, i n v e s t i g a t o r s should i n c lu d e any and a l l "gaps" i n t h e i r measurements. 122 45. Black skidmark "smears" l e f t on a roadway surfa ce i n d i c a t e the e n t i r e dist an ce i t takes a ca r to stop. 46. The shadow or polish in g e f f e c t preceding black skidmark smears should be included in skidmark measurement. 47. Front wheel marks are u s u ally somewhat narrower and l e s s d i s t i n c t than back wheel marks. 48. "Skips" in a skidmark can in d i c a t e t h a t the n o n - ro t a t in g t i r e has passed over something, causing the t i r e to become airbo rne momen­ tarily. 49. The temporary nature o f skidmarks demands t h a t they be given imme­ diate attention. 50. Chips and chops are nearly always made during maximum engagement and mark a spot on the road where the corresponding p a r t of the vehicle was when maximum engagement occurred. 51. From close examination of th e grooves, you can u s u a ll y determine the d i r e c t io n of motion of the p a r t making the groove. 52. An accurate r eco n str u cti o n of the ac ci dent can be made using the lo c a ti o n of the d e b r is. 53. A we ll-d efined heap of underbody deb r is may i n d i c a t e l i t t l e or no movement of the ve hicle a f t e r impact. 54. The primary reason an i n v e s t i g a t o r should examine d e b r i s a t an accident scene i s to determine th e point of i n i t i a l c o n tact. 55. Bent and broken g u a r d r a i l s , p o s ts , and o th e r fixed o b j e c t s can be q u i t e s i g n i f i c a n t in re vea ling how an ac cident happened. 56. I t i s us u all y impossible to determine speed e s tim a t e s from f l i p s or f a l l s . 57. Ragged t e a r s in sheet metal are a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f induced damage. 58. Damage to a windshield which produces p a r a l l e l o r cross-hatched cracks i s properly i d e n t i f i e d as induced r a t h e r than co n tact damage. 59. During your i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f an a c c i d e n t , you le a r n t h a t an uniden­ t i f i e d veh icle forced veh ic le #1 o f f the road. There was no c o l ­ l i s i o n between the u n i d e n t i f i e d v eh icle and v eh ic le #1. The u n id e n tif i e d ve hicle i s r e f e r r e d to as a non-contact u n i t . 60. Clear, unsmeared imprints would i n d i c a t e a p a r t i a l impact r a t h e r than f u l l impact. 123 61. Overlap i s th e c o n t a c t damage shown on two ve hicl es i n d i c a t i n g how f a r each extended acro ss the o t h e r during c o l l i s i o n . 62. The n a tu r e and e x t e n t of c o l l a p s e can i n d i c a t e d i r e c t i o n of t r a v e l and p o s i t i o n a t c o l l i s i o n . 63. The f orc e a g a i n s t a t r a f f i c u n i t considered to be conc en trated on a p a r t i c u l a r p o in t a t any time during a c o l l i s i o n i s known as thrust. 64. I f we know the d i r e c t i o n of t h r u s t a g a i n s t each v e h i c l e , we can determine the angle o f the v e h ic le s t o each o t h e r . 65. When using th e t r i a n g u l a t i o n method, you should measure two t r i a n g l e s f o r every spot you want t o l o c a t e . 6 6 . 67. 6 8 S up er elev ation i s th e measurement of r i s e per foot o f width of the roadway on a curve. The o b j e c t in making urgent measurement i s simply to l o c a t e tempo­ r a r y and s h o r t - l i v e d p o s i t i o n s with r e s p e c t to o b je c ts or landmarks which w i ll be permanent and which can, t h e r e f o r e , be loca ted much l a t e r i f necessary. . The r a d iu s o f a curve w ill be approximately 36 f e e t when th e chord le n g th i s 42 f e e t and the middle o r d in a t e i s 6 f e e t . 69. The p o in t o f impact i s an adequate spot t o make measurements from. 70. Re construc tio n o f the a c c id e n t ( to fin d out how i t happened) i s u s u a ll y based upon measurements made a t th e ac ciden t scene. 71. In deter mining th e r adius o f a c urve, t h e e n t i r e le ng th o f th e curve needs t o be measured. 72. According t o th e t e x t , a measurement o f 5 f e e t and be recorded on th e f i e l d sketc h as 5 1 6 ". 73. In c o u r t , i t i s important t h a t th e i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r t o diagram th e a c c id e n t on a blackboard. 74. Photographs ar e admissible in evidence only when no one o b j e c t s a t th e t r i a l t o t h e i r i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t o evidence. 75. Skidmark evidence found a t th e scene o f a t r a f f i c ac c id e n t may be used t o determine the maximum speed o f a v e h ic le p r i o r t o the collision. 76. The c o e f f i c i e n t o f f r i c t i o n i s the amount o f f r i c t i o n generated between th e brake shoes and the brake drums. 6 inches should be able 124 77. To compute t h e " c o e f f i c i e n t o f f r i c t i o n , " t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t t e s t s k id be made a t a c o n t r o l l e d speed i n th e v i c i n i t y o f th e a c c i d e n t scene. 78. T e s t s k i d s have no v a l i d i t y u n l e s s t h e t e s t s k i d s a r e made a t th e same l o c a t i o n as t h a t o f t h e a c c i d e n t . 79. To p r o p e r l y compute t h e minimum i n i t i a l speed o f a v e h i c l e which l a i d down skidmarks on two d i f f e r e n t s u r f a c e s , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o compute t h e minimum speed f o r each s u r f a c e and add t h e two speeds together. 80. When c a l c u l a t i n g t h e speed o f a v e h i c l e t h a t s l i d down a road with a 6 % downgrade, th e 6% i s not c o n s id e re d as t h a t v a r i a b l e i s a l r e a d y compensated f o r in t h e b a s i c speed formula. 81. A v e l o c i t y above which a p a r t i c u l a r highway curv e cannot be nego­ t i a t e d by a motor v e h i c l e w i th o u t yaw i s c a l l e d t r a c t i o n i n s t a ­ bility. 82. A c a r and d r i v e r t o g e t h e r weigh 3,000 pounds and g iv e a t e s t s kid 30 f e e t long from a known speed. I f s i x a d d i t i o n a l p a s se n g e r s weighing a t o t a l o f 1 , 0 0 0 pounds a r e added t o th e c a r , and a l l o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s remain th e same, t h e t e s t s k id would be a p p r o x i ­ mately 40 f e e t long. 83. A s i x - t i r e tw o-ax le t r u c k (dual wheels on r e a r a x l e ) w i l l s k id approxima te ly t w o - t h i r d s t h e d i s t a n c e t h e same t r u c k would s kid i f i t were equipped wit h s i n g l e t i r e s on t h e r e a r a x l e . 84. A v e h i c l e t r a v e l i n g a t 65 MPH on a s u r f a c e w ith a drag f a c t o r o f .55 w i l l lea ve appr ox im ately 210 f e e t o f skidmarks. 85. A t e s t s k id made a t 30 MPH on a s u r f a c e with a drag f a c t o r o f .67 w i l l produce a skidmark a p proxim a te ly 45 f e e t long. 8 6 . A v e h i c l e t r a v e l i n g a t a speed o f 62 MPH w i l l have a v e l o c i t y of a p proxim a te ly 92 f e e t p e r second. 87. 8 8 A p o l i c e o f f i c e r may i s s u e a c i t a t i o n t o any d r i v e r o f a motor v e h i c l e in volv ed in an a c c i d e n t when, based upon p er so n al i n v e s t i ­ g a t i o n , t h e o f f i c e r has r e a s o n a b l e grounds t o b e l i e v e t h a t an o f f e n s e has been committed under t h e Motor V eh icle Code in connec­ t i o n with th e a c c i d e n t . . The " s i n g l e - c a u s e concept" i s u s u a l l y a r e l i a b l e a n a l y s i s o f a one-car accident. 89. I f u n f a v o ra b l e w ea ther c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t e d a t t h e time o f th e a c c i ­ d e n t , t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r may assume t h a t th e y m a t e r i a l l y c o n t r i b u t e d to the accident. 125 90. A t t r i b u t e s a r e permanent or temporary changes o f th e i n h e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e t r a f f i c w a y , t r a f f i c u n i t , o r per son making a t r i p on a t r a f f i c w a y . 91. The i n f e r e n c e s and c o n c lu s io n s of the a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t o r as t o t h e "causes" o f an a c c i d e n t ar e im port an t and should be r e c o r d e d . 92. P e d e s t r i a n s cannot encroach on th e pa th as s i g n e d t o v e h i c l e s because v e h i c l e s a r e always r e q u i r e d t o y i e l d t h e r i g h t - o f - w a y to pedestrians. 93. The " p o i n t o f p e r c e p ti o n " may fo llo w th e " p o i n t o f no escape" in an a c c i d e n t s i t u a t i o n . 94. G e n e r a l l y , in a c c i d e n t s in v olving two o r more v e h i c l e s , t h e l i n k s in t h e chain o f e v e n t s a r e th e same f o r each o f t h e t r a f f i c u n i t s . 95. An a c c i d e n t begins t o happen a t th e i n s t a n t o f impact o r u p s e t. 126 T ra ffic Accident Investigation I Post-Test I. Response to Media Ite ms: I n s t r u c t i o n s : As you view a media p r e s e n t a tio n of the items in t h i s se ction of the t e s t , choose the most c o r r e c t answer and mark i t on the answer sheet by darkening the s e le c t e d a l t e r n a t i v e . There i s only one c o r r e c t answer. 1 . 1. Acceleration 2. Braking 2 . 1. Triangulation 2. Coordinate 3. Offset 3. 1. Gap skid 2. Skip skid 4. 1. Rub-off 2. Imprint 3. T ire mark 3. Superimposed contact 5. 1. Furrow 2. Imprint 3. Tire p r i n t 1. Coordinate 2. Offset 3. T riangulation 1. Yaw mark 2. T ir e p r i n t 3. Skid mark 1. Tire grinding 2. Pavement grinding 3. Scratch 1. Acceleration 2. Braking 2. Rut 2. Induced 3. Both 3. Both 6 . 7. 8 . 9. 3. Tire p r i n t 1 0 . 11 . 1. Furrow 1. Contact 12 . 1. Contact 2. Induced 13. 1. Controlled 2. Uncontrolled 14. 1. S tr a ig h t 2. Curved 3. Overlapping 15. 1. Left r o ta ti o n 2. Right r o t a t i o n 3. No r o t a t i o n II. Multiple Choice Questions: I n s t r u c t i o n s : Choose th e most c o r r e c t answer and mark i t on the answer sheet by darkening th e s e le c te d a l t e r n a t i v e . There i s only one c o r r e c t answer. 16. Which of the following i s th e b e s t statement concerning th e impor­ tance of having i n v e s t i g a t o r s look f o r and analyze marks on the road a t the ac cident scene? 1. 2. 3. 4. Marks ar e o f l i t t l e value un less th e r e ar e concurring statements from unbiased witness es . Marks on the road o f f e r l i t t l e proof o f how th e a ccid en t r e a l l y happened. Marks on th e road will help determine what happened. Marks cannot be used to a s s i s t in determining what happened unless the veh icl e t h a t made them can be i d e n t i f i e d . 127 17. Skidmarks a t th e scene of an a c cident: 1. 2. 3. 4. 18. Can only be used i f the v eh icle t h a t s l i d i s found a t r e s t on those s k id s . Can be used t o show the exact speed t h a t the v e h i c le was t r a v e l i n g a t th e time of the a c c i d e n t. Are u s e l e s s unless t h e r e a r e fo ur i d e n t i f i a b l e marks. Can be useful in determining i n i t i a l p o s i t i o n o f v e h i c l e s . The "shadow" of a skidmark i s : 1. The p a r t of a skidmark in which a locked wheel l o s e s co ntact with th e ground when i t bounces or s kip s . 2. The i n d i s t i n c t p a r t o f a skidmark l e f t before a t i r e becomes hot enough t o smear. 3. The d i s t a n c e through which brakes are slowing t h e v e h ic le before they ar e ap plied hard enough t o lock th e wheels. 4. The superimposing of one skidmark on another. 19. Accurate measurements r e q u i r e t h a t the a ccid en t i n v e s t i g a t o r determine the d is ta n c e between: 1. The p o in t where the shadow becomes v i s i b l e to th e terminal p a r t o f the black smear. 2. The beginning of the shadow t o the s t a r t o f th e black smear. 3. The s t a r t o f the smear t o i t s po in t of te r m in a tio n . 4. The es ti m ate d s t a r t o f th e skid and th e end of the shadow. 20. When th e skidmarks l e f t by a c a r ar e curved, 1. 2. 3. 4. 21. During your i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f an a c c i d e n t , you l ear n t h a t an uniden­ t i f i e d v e h i c le forced v e h ic le #1 o f f th e road. There was no c o l ­ l i s i o n between th e u n i d e n t i f i e d v e h ic le and v e h ic l e #1. The u n i d e n t i f i e d v e h ic le i s pr o p erly r e f e r r e d t o a s : 1. 2. 3. 4. 22. Each should be measured in a s t r a i g h t l i n e from one end to th e other. Each should be measured along the curve. The d i s t a n c e should be measured from the c e n t e r p o i n t of the c a r where i t began t o s l i d e t o the c e n t e r p o i n t where i t stopped s l i d i n g . The lo n g est skidmark should be measured along th e curve. A h i t - a n d - r u n v e h ic le . A disengaged u n i t . An ev asiv e a c t io n u n i t . A no n-contact u n i t . A dent pressed i n t o v e h ic le body p a r t s by some s tr o n g e r o b je c t which c l e a r l y shows i t s shape i s c a l l e d : 1. 2. 3. 4. Superimposed c o n ta ct damage Collapse Imprint I n te n t 128 23. There a r e two types o f damage t o v e h i c l e s as a r e s u l t of an a c c i d e n t . They a r e : 1. 2. 3. 4. 24. The f o r c e a g a i n s t a t r a f f i c u n i t cons idered t o be co ncentrated on a p a r t i c u l a r p o i n t a t any time during a c o l l i s i o n i s known as: 1. 2. 3. 4. 25. A human body Vehicles Curved t i r e marks (yaw mark) Gouges l e s s than t h r e e f e e t long When t a k i n g measurements a t th e scene o f an a c c i d e n t , c e r t a i n measurement p r i o r i t i e s must be e s t a b l i s h e d . Of th e follo wing, which should be measured f i r s t ? 1. 2. 3. 4. 29. A r a i s e d s t r e t c h o f road over a r a i l r o a d t r a c k . Slope measured a c r o s s t h e road on a curve . A measure o f th e sharpness o f a curve. Number o f f e e t a road r i s e s f o r each 100 lev el f e e t along the road. Three o r more s p o ts a r e r e q u i r e d to l o c a t e ad eq uat el y: 1. 2. 3. 4. 28. Triangulation Coordinate Offset Angulation " S u p e r - e le v a tio n " i s : 1. 2. 3. 4. 27. Th r u s t Collapse V e lo c ity Momentum When t h e a c c i d e n t scene i s blanketed with heavy snow, the measuring method you a r e most l i k e l y t o use i s th e _____________method. 1. 2. 3. 4. 26. Contact and d i r e c t D i r e c t and Induced I n i t i a l and d i r e c t Contact and Induced The "framework" o f s t r e e t s and l o c a t i o n o f f ix e d o b j e c t s i n t o which o t h e r measurements w ill f i t . The g r e a t e s t d i s t a n c e s which w ill have t o be measured. The p o i n t o f impact. C e r t a i n marks o r o b j e c t s o f a temporary n a t u r e . Determine t h e r a d i u s o f a curve when th e chord i s 50 f e e t and th e middle o r d i n a t e i s 6 f e e t . Compute t o c l o s e s t whole number. 1. 2. 3. 4. 55 50 45 40 feet feet feet feet 129 30. Which one of the below would not be adequate t o make measurements from? 1. 2. 3. 4. 31. When "pacing" a d i s t a n c e , the i n v e s t i g a t o r should t r y t o maintain a pace of : 1 . 2. 3. 4. 32. 5' 6" 5£ f e e t 5 i 6 6 " Photographs ar e admissible in evidence only when: 1. 2. 3. 4. 35. Date o f the ac cident Scale of th e sketch Direction of north Name of person(s) making sketch According t o the t e x t , how should a measurement of 5 f e e t and 6 inches be w r i t t e n on a f i e l d sketch? 1. 2. 3. 4. 34. 1 2 inches 30 inches 36 inches No predetermined measure All but one of the following should appear on th e f i e l d sketch. I d e n t if y t h a t one. 1. 2. 3. 4. 33. Roadway edges Point of Impact Manhole covers Curbs The photographer i s f i r s t c a lle d t o t e s t i f y . They ar e not gruesome or bloody. They ar e material and r e l e v a n t t o th e i s s u e s in the case , and a proper foundation i s l a i d f o r t h e i r i n t r o d u c t i o n . No one ob je cts a t t r i a l t o t h e i r in tro d u c t i o n i n t o evidence. In estim ating speed from skidmarks, 1t i s important t o remember t h a t you ar e determining the: 1. 2. 3. 4. Exact speed of th e ve hicle p r i o r to the a c cid en t. Maximum speed of the ve hicle p r i o r to th e ac cid ent. Minimum speed the vehicle would have t o be t r a v e l i n g to r e s u l t in the skidmarks observed. Actual crash speed. 130 36. The c o e f f i c i e n t o f f r i c t i o n i s : 1. The r a t i o of f o r c e n eces sar y t o s l i d e an o b j e c t a t uniform speed on a s u r f a c e t o t h e p r e s s u r e o f th e o b j e c t a g a i n s t th a t surface. 2. The amount o f f r i c t i o n ge ner ated between th e brake shoes and th e brake drums. 3. The amount o f grade, e i t h e r plus or minus. 4. The amount o f buckling t h a t occurs when o b j e c t s c o l l i d e . 37. When a c c i d e n t skidmarks t r a n s v e r s e two o r more kinds o f road s u r ­ f a c e , th e i n v e s t i g a t o r must measure and record skidmark le n g th s on each s u r f a c e because: 1. 2. 3. 4. The "combined speed" formula uses t h e average drag f a c t o r o f th e two s u r f a c e s . Knowledge o f how f a r th e v e h i c l e s l i d on each s u r f a c e i s needed in o r d e r t o make a rea sonably a c c u r a t e e s t i m a t e o f minimum speed. I t p r e s e r v e s c o n t i n u i t y o f skidmark evidence. Such measurements a r e ne ces sary t o show path o f v e h i c l e t r a v e l . 38. When c a l c u l a t i n g the speed o f a v e h i c l e t h a t s l i d down a road with a 6 % downgrade: 1 . .06 i s added t o t h e c o e f f i c i e n t of f r i c t i o n . 2 . The 6% i s not cons id e re d as t h a t v a r i a b l e i s a l r e a d y compen­ s a te d f o r in th e b a s ic speed formula. 3. .06 i s s u b t r a c t e d from the measured skid d i s t a n c e . 4. The 6 % i s not co ns ide red i f , t o determine th e c o e f f i c i e n t of f r i c t i o n , th e t e s t s kid i s made down t h e same grade. 39. A v e l o c i t y above which a p a r t i c u l a r highway curve cannot be nego­ t i a t e d by a motor v e h i c l e w ith o u t yaw i s c a l l e d : 1. 2. 3. 4. 40. Traction i n s t a b i l i t y Grade a n d / o r slope Crucial ev en t C r i t i c a l speed An i n v e s t i g a t o r measured a s e t o f a c c id e n t skidmarks and computed "d" t o be 175 f e e t . The a c c i d e n t v e h i c l e was t r a v e l i n g up a 10% grade when i t l a i d down t h e skidmarks. The i n v e s t i g a t o r conducted a s e t o f t e s t s k id s a t th e same l o c a t i o n and in th e same d i r e c t i o n as t h e a c c i d e n t skidmarks. Speed of th e t e s t skid was 30 MPH, and "d" was 40 f e e t . The minimum speed o f th e a c c i d e n t v e h i c l e was: 1. 2. 3. 4. 48 52 58 63 MPH MPH MPH MPH 131 41. Compute t h e minimum I n i t i a l speed o f a v e h i c l e t h a t l a i d down 90 f e e t o f lo ck ed wheel skidmarks on a pavement s u r f a c e having a c o e f f i c i e n t o f f r i c t i o n o f .7 2. 1. 2. 3. 4. 42. MPH MPH MPH MPH feet 84.75 f e e t 8 4.5 0 f e e t 113.00 f e e t 1 1 2 .6 6 A v e h i c l e w ith a speed o f 45 MPH i s t r a v e l i n g a t a speed o f f e e t p e r second (FPS). 1. 2. 3. 4. 46. 48 52 57 62 An i n v e s t i g a t o r measured a s e t o f s t r a i g h t a c c i d e n t skidmarks on a l e v e l road s u r f a c e w i t h t h e f o ll o w i n g r e s u l t s : RF = 1102., RR = 10621, LF = 1224, LR = 0&. Which o f t h e f o ll o w i n g p r o p e r l y rep resen ts the average s li d i n g d ista n c e o f the accid en t vehicle? 1 . 2. 3. 4. 45. .75 .68 .61 .54 An i n v e s t i g a t o r measured a s e t o f yaw marks a t an a c c i d e n t scene which produced t h e f o l l o w i n g d a t a : R = 300 f e e t , M = + .0 5 . T e st s k i d s were made on a l e v e l s t r e t c h o f road w it h t h e same s u r f a c e c o n d i t i o n s a s t h e a c c i d e n t l o c a t i o n . T e s t s k id speed was 35 MPH, "d" was 59 f e e t . What was t h e s i d e s l i p speed o f t h e a c c i d e n t vehicle? 1. 2. 3. 4. 44. MPH MPH MPH MPH What i s t h e dr ag f a c t o r o f a road s u r f a c e when a t e s t s k id o f 30 MPH produces a skidmark o f 49 f e e t ? 1. 2. 3. 4. 43. 37 40 44 54 38 FPS 45 FPS 54 FPS 6 6 FPS I f a d r i v e r has a r e a c t i o n tim e o f 1 . 2 sec ond, what i s h i s r e a c t i o n d i s t a n c e when h i s speed i s 30 MPH? 1. 2. 3. 4. 36 f e e t 52.8 f e e t 25.6 f e e t 0. 48 f e e t 132 47. A d r i v e r of a motor vehicle c o l l i d e s with another vehicle in the yard of a p r i v a t e residence not open to the public. The d r iv e r : 1. 2. 3. 4. 48. The event in the acc iden t which s t a b i l i z e s the accident s i t u a t i o n is: 1. 2. 3. 4. 49. The f i r s t harmful event I n i t i a l co ntact Disengagement Stopping When one vehicle crosses over in to the wrong side of the road and occupies the path assigned to another v e h i c l e , t h i s i s r e f e r r e d to as : 1. 2. 3. 4. III. Must r e p o r t the ac cident to the poli ce i f the owner cannot be located. Must r e p o r t the ac cident t o the po lice even i f the owner i s located i f th ere i s over $ 2 0 0 damage. Has no o b l ig a tio n t o r e p o r t i t to the po lice under any circum stanc es because the accident occurred on p r i v a te property. None of the above. Encroachment Maximum engagement F i r s t harmful event Point of no re turn True or False Questions: I n s t r u c t i o n s : Darken the "T" or "F" a l t e r n a t i v e , depending on whether you be liev e the answer t o be t r u e or f a l s e . 50. I t i s very important a t the scene o f the acc iden t to determine e x a c t l y how a l l marks on the road were made. 51. I t i s important to determine i f the f in a l p o s it io n i s un controlled or c o n t r o l l e d , because an uncontrolled f in a l p o s itio n a f t e r the ac c id e n t will i n d i c a t e more about how the ac cident happened than a c o n t r o ll e d f i n a l p o s it io n . 52. To determine minimum i n i t i a l speed, the o f f i c e r should include any and a l l gaps in his measurements as p a r t of the over all skid. 53. Skidmarks a t an ac ci dent scene in d i c a t e t h a t only one wheel locked and the o t h e r th re e remained f r e e - r o l l i n g . I f only the r i g h t f r o n t wheel remained locked, the veh icle would tu rn clockwise. 54. The c h a r a c t e r of the road surface has more e f f e c t on the length of a skidmark than does the tr e a d p a t te r n of the t i r e . 133 55. The e s s e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between t i r e p r i n t s and skidmarks e x i s t s because t h e t i r e p r i n t s a r e made by r o l l i n g wheels while skidmarks a r e caused by s l i d i n g wheels. 56. Skidmarks a t t h e scene o f an a c c i d e n t a r e n o t us efu l u n le ss th e v e h i c l e which made them i s found a t r e s t a t th e end o f those skidmarks. 57. Gaps in skidmarks a r e g e n e r a l l y 10 f e e t o r l o n g e r . 58. Scr atch es and s crap es a r e made with such g r e a t p r e s s u r e t h a t the d e p r e s s io n s can e a s i l y be f e l t with th e f i n g e r s . 59. From chop gouges i t i s g e n e r a l l y imposs ib le t o determine th e d i r e c ­ t i o n o f motion o f t h e p a r t making th e chop. 60. The l o c a t i o n of d e b r i s i s a good i n d i c a t o r o f where t h e c o l l i s i o n took p la c e . 61. The primary reason an i n v e s t i g a t o r should examine d e b r i s a t an a c c i d e n t scene i s t o determine t h e p o i n t o f i n i t i a l c o n t a c t . 62. For speed e s t i m a t i o n th e o f f i c e r must note how many times a v e h ic le has f l i p p e d . 63. I t i s u s u a l l y im po ss ibl e t o determine speed e s t i m a t e s from f l i p s and f a l l s . 64. Induced damage i s i n d i c a t e d by c l o s e l y compacted, crumpled body p a r t s with f i n e hard s c r a t c h e s in t h e s u r f a c e o f th e m etal. 65. Contact damage u s u a l l y makes "spider-web" o r c i r c u l a r cracks in w in d s h ie l d s . 6 6 . A p a r t i a l impact between two v e h i c l e s can r e s u l t in very c l e a r and d i s t i n c t imprints. 67. 6 8 When two o r more s e p a r a t e c o l l i s i o n s cause damage on th e same ar ea on th e same v e h i c l e , i t i s known as superimposed c o n t a c t damage. . E c c e n tr ic f o rc e on a v e h i c l e 1s f o r c e d i r e c t e d toward th e c e n t e r o f mass which w ill not caus e the v e h i c l e t o r o t a t e . 69. Grass pinched between t h e t i r e and wheel would i n d i c a t e t h a t th e v e h i c l e moved v i o l e n t l y sideways. 70. When using t h e c o o r d i n a t e method, measurements should be a t r i g h t angle s from t h e r e f e r e n c e p o i n t t o th e o b j e c t being l o c a t e d . 71. When using t r i a n g u l a t i o n t o l o c a t e p o i n t s on an a c c i d e n t diagram, th e i n v e s t i g a t o r should s e l e c t permanent p o i n t s f o r two corners and a temporary o b j e c t f o r t h e t h i r d c o r n e r . 134 72. The prime purpose o f measurement i s t o be a b l e t o r e l o c a t e t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e c a r s and bodies on t h e ro ad a t a l a t e r d a t e . 73. The o b j e c t i v e in making u r g e n t measurements i s simply t o l o c a t e temporary and s h o r t - l i v e d p o s i t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o landmarks which w i l l be permanent and which c a n , t h e r e f o r e , be l o c a t e d l a t e r . 74. R ec o n s tr u c t io n o f t h e a c c i d e n t ( t o f i n d o u t how i t happened) i s n e a r l y always based upon measurements made a t t h e a c c i d e n t s ce ne . 75. In dete rm ining t h e r a d i u s o f a c u r v e , t h e e n t i r e l e n g t h o f t h e curve needs t o be measured. 76. The p r i n c i p a l val ue o f a photograph tak en in an a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i ­ g a t i o n i s in h elp in g t o prove a p o i n t which may be open t o q u e s t i o n . 77. When photographing f i n a l p o s i t i o n s a t an a c c i d e n t s c e n e , i t i s im port ant t o i n c l u d e some o f t h e roadway and r e c o g n i z a b l e landmarks in t h e v i c i n i t y . 78. The speed computed from a c c i d e n t skidmarks r e p r e s e n t s only a p a r t o f th e a c t u a l speed o f t h e v e h i c l e j u s t b e f o r e th e br akes were applied. 79. The drag f a c t o r ( c o e f f i c i e n t o f f r i c t i o n ) o f a road s u r f a c e can b e s t be e s t a b l i s h e d by c o n s u l t i n g t h e t a b l e o f drag f a c t o r s in J . S. B a k e r's t e x t , T r a f f i c A cc iden t I n v e s t i g a t i o n Manual. 80. The a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t o r must know t h e r e a c t i o n time o f t h e d r i v e r Involved t o a c c u r a t e l y e s t i m a t e speed from skidmarks. 81. A t e s t skid made with only one per son i n a c a r w i l l produce a skidmark about 30% s h o r t e r than one w ith s i x people i n th e c a r . 82. Unless t h e r e a r e f o u r d i s t i n c t i v e marks, s k i d s a r e o f no v alu e as ev iden ce . 83. The minimum speed o f a v e h i c l e which l a i d down a skidmark o f 125 f e e t in le n g t h on a s u r f a c e w i t h a dr ag f a c t o r o f .60 would be app rox im ately 52 MPH. 84. At a speed o f 30 MPH on a s u r f a c e w ith a d r a g f a c t o r o f . 7 5 , t h e s l i d i n g d i s t a n c e w i l l be ap p r o x im a te ly 47 f e e t . 85. With drag f a c t o r o f .75 and a speed o f 40 MPH, t h e s k id d in g d i s ­ t a n c e o f a v e h i c l e would be a p p r o x im a te ly 67 f e e t . 8 6 . A p o l i c e o f f i c e r may i s s u e a c i t a t i o n t o any d r i v e r o f a motor v e h i c l e involved i n an a c c i d e n t when, based upon p er so n al i n v e s t i g a ­ t i o n , t h e o f f i c e r has r e a s o n a b l e grounds t o b e l i e v e t h a t an o f f e n s e has been committed under t h e Motor V eh icle Code in c o n n e c t io n with the accident. 135 87. 8 8 The " s i n g l e cause" concept in t r a f f i c ac cidents 1s v alid i f i t s use i s r e s t r i c t e d to one-vehicle accid en ts . . The chain of events f o r each t r a f f i c u n i t involved must be studied i f th e "causes" o f th e ac cident ar e t o be determined. 89. When determining "causes" of a t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t , the i n v e s t i g a t o r should not be p r im a r ily concerned with whether o r not a v i o l a t i o n can be proved. 90. Any circumstance c o n tr ib u ti n g to an acc iden t can be spoken of properly as a "cause" o r one o f the "causes" of an acc id en t. 91. Operational f a c t o r s o f te n ex plain th e "how" of the a c c i d e n t, while con dition f a c t o r s will f re q u e n tly ex plain the "why." 92. A m odifi er i s o f permanent nature only, so the i n v e s t i g a t o r should not devote time to looking f o r temporary modifiers when determin­ ing cond itio n f a c t o r s . 93. "Non-contact" t r a f f i c u n i t s c o n t r ib u t i n g to an acc iden t s i t u a t i o n must be considered when determining "causes." 94. There must be proper evasive actio n in order to avoid expected or unexpected hazards. 95. An ac ciden t begins t o happen a t the i n s t a n t o f impact or upset. APPENDIX E STUDENT COURSE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE 136 APPENDIX E T r a f f i c A ccident I n v e s t i g a t i o n T ra in in g S tudent Course E v a lu a tio n P le a se be fra n k and ho nest in you r answ ers. S cale being used i s : 5— I f 4 --If 3— I f 2~ I f 1— I f you you you you you P le a se answer ev e ry item . s tr o n g ly a g re e w ith t h e sta te m e n t ag ree w ith th e s ta te m e n t n e i t h e r ag re e nor d is a g r e e d i s a g r e e w ith th e s ta te m e n t s tr o n g l y d i s a g r e e w ith t h e s ta te m e n t P lease mark th e p o s i t i o n on th e answer s h e e t t h a t most c l o s e l y r e f l e c t s y o u r answer. SD D N A SA G e n e r a lly , my knowledge o f t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n was i n c r e a s e d . 1 2 3 4 5 I developed my a b i l i t y to conduct comprehen­ s iv e on-scene t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . 1 2 3 4 5 3. I would recommend t h i s c o u rse to someone e l s e . 1 2 3 4 5 4. I was i n t e r e s t e d in l e a r n in g th e co urse m a t e r i a l . 1 2 3 4 5 5. This co u rse was v ery well o rg a n iz e d . 1 2 3 4 5 6. The o b j e c t i v e s o f th e c o u rse were c l e a r l y e x p la in e d . 1 2 3 4 5 7. The amount o f m a te r ia l covered in th e c o u rse i s r e a s o n a b le . 1 2 3 4 5 8. The i n s t r u c t o r s s t r e s s e d im p o rta n t p o i n t s in le c tu r e s or d isc u ssio n s. 1 2 3 4 5 9. The i n s t r u c t o r s p u t m a te r ia l a c r o s s in an i n t e r e s t i n g way. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I g e n e r a l l y found th e coverage o f t o p i c s in t h e a s sig n e d r e a d in g s n o t too d i f f i c u l t . 1 2 3 4 5 11. The i n s t r u c t i o n s given p r i o r t o t h e f i e l d e x e r c i s e s were c l e a r and p r e c i s e . 1 2 3 4 5 1. 2. 137 138 SD 12. 13. 14. 15. D N A SA The f i e l d e x e r c i s e s were w orth w h ile in term s o f tim e s p e n t and i n fo r m a tio n g a in e d . 1 2 3 4 5 I would enco urage t h e c o n tin u a n c e o f a p p l i c a t i o n e x e r c i s e s in f u t u r e o f f e r i n g s of th e course. 1 2 3 4 5 The media p r e s e n t e d was w ell o rg a n iz e d and r e la te d to th e le c tu r e m a te r ia l. 1 2 3 4 5 The s tu d e n t manual w i l l be u s e f u l a s a fu tu re re fe re n c e . 1 2 3 4 5 Comments: APPENDIX F STUDENT FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRE 139 APPENDIX F Dear O f f i c e r : A pproxim ately fo u r months ago you completed a t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n co u rse e n t i t l e d A I-1 , which was o f f e r e d by th e Highway T r a f f i c S a fe ty C e n te r , Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity . The C e n te r, in i t s e f f o r t t o improve upon i t s s e r v i c e s , needs t o o b ta in some follow -u p in fo rm a tio n from you and th e o t h e r s who have been thro ug h th e program. A q u e s ti o n n a i r e which a sk s ab ou t m a t e r ia l t h a t we th in k im p o rtan t has been e n c lo s e d . The q u e s tio n s deal w ith th e e x p e rie n c e s you have had s in c e th e AI-1 t r a i n i n g . P le a se g iv e us yo u r h elp by t a k in g a few m inutes t o respond and mail back t h i s form i n th e stam ped, s e lf - a d d r e s s e d en v elo p e. I t w ill only t a k e abo ut 10 m in u te s. Add any comments t h a t you would l i k e . I look forward to h e a rin g from you soon. S in c e r e l y , T e rry M. Nerbonne TMN: BB E nclosures 140 141 Dear O f f i c e r : I r e c e n t l y s e n t you a q u e s ti o n n a i r e r e l a t i n g t o th e T r a f f i c A ccident I n v e s t i g a t i o n Course A I-1, which you completed a few months ago. Since I have n o t re c e iv e d your re sp o n s e , I am ag ain a s k in g your c o o p e r a tio n . I t i s im p e ra tiv e t h a t we r e c e iv e as much fo llo w -u p in fo rm a tio n as p o s s i b le so t h a t we can make improvements upon our s e r v i c e s and f u t u r e co urse o f f e r i n g s . I have e n c lo se d a n o th e r q u e s ti o n n a ir e and a s e l f - a d d r e s s e d envelope f o r your convenience. P le a se giv e us a few m inutes o f y o u r tim e by f i l l i n g i t o u t and sending i t on i t s way. Any a d d i­ t i o n a l comments w i l l be a p p r e c i a t e d . Thank you a g ain f o r your c o o p e r a tio n . S in cerely , T erry M. Nerbonne tmn: bb e n c lo s u re 142 T ra ffic Accident Investigation I This e v alu atio n instrum ent i s fo r the purpose o f: 1. Determining the most e f f e c t i v e t r a i n i n g d e liv e r y format. 2. Determining i f AI-1 f u l f i l l s o f f i c e r needs. 3. Determining how the AI-1 t r a i n i n g i s being u t i l i z e d . 4. Determining o f f i c e r AI performance sin ce completion of AI-1. 5. Improving f u tu r e o ffe rin g s o f AI-1. I n s tr u c tio n s : 1. Please w rite your name, your t i t l e / p o s i t i o n , department name, and d ate in th e spaces provided below. 2. Please answer a l l q u estio n s. 3. When answering s p e c if ic q u e s tio n s , place a check {/) in the ap p ro p riate box and when asked to ex plain please be as s p e c i f i c as p o s s ib le . 4. Any a d d itio n a l comments you wish to make about the co urse, i n s t r u c t o r s , t r a in i n g form at, or t h i s e v a lu a tio n q u e stio n n a ire are welcome and may be w r itte n on th e i n s e r t page t i t l e d "Additional Comments." 5. When you have completed t h i s "Questionnaire" and "Additional Comments" s h e e t, please re tu rn them by mail in the enclosed s e lf - a d d re s s e d , stamped envelope. Your name________________________________ _______ Department name _______________________________________ T i t l e / p o s i t i o n ____________________________________ _ _ Today's date AI-1 course lo c a tio n Course date ________ _______________________________ 143 I. Inform ation Regarding Course Format A. Which format of th e AI-1 t r a i n i n g did you a tte n d ? 1. 1 day a week f o r 5 weeks 2. 2 days a week f o r 3 weeks 3. 5 consecutive days B. Was th e format s a t i s f a c t o r y in terms o f: 1. 2. 3. C. Time o f y e a r Day(s) o f week Time t o complete assignments Yes Yes Yes No No No Is th e re a t r a in i n g d e liv e r y format t h a t would b e t t e r meet your needs?_________ ___ Yes No I f y e s , e x p la in : II. Inform ation Regarding Accident I n v e s tig a tio n Performance A. L is t th e approximate number o f a c c id e n ts you have in v e s ti g a te d sin c e completing AI-1. Property damage ___________ Personal i n ju r y ___________ Fatal_______________ _______ B. Have you received any feedback t h a t would i n d i c a t e t h a t th e q u a l i t y o f your ac c id e n t i n v e s tig a tio n s has improved, sin c e th e completion o f A I-1, such as comments from: Other o f f i c e r s P rosecuting a tto rn e y s General p u b lic Your c h i e f / s h e r i f f C. ___ Your s u p e rv is o rs ___ Insurance re p s. ___ O t h e r ___________ ___ D rivers ___ Courts ___ Media r e p s . Do you b e lie v e th e q u a l i t y o f your a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n work has improved sin c e completion o f AI-1? ___ Yes ___ No I f no, e x p la in : D. Do you f e e l t h a t due t o th e AI-1 t r a i n i n g you a re now more competent t o : 1. 2. 3. 4. R econstruct th e accid en t scene Determine f a u l t Determine s p e c i f i c v io l a t i o n s P resent more e f f e c t i v e evidence in c o u rt Yes Yes Yes ____ Yes No No No No 144 E. Since com pletion o f AI-1 have you: 1. Determined grade o r s u p e r e l e v a t io n ? 2. Used th e AI-1 te c h n iq u e o f re c o rd in g f e e t and in ch es? 3. Used a photolog? 4. Completed a v e h i c le damage re c o rd form? 5. Used a nomograph t o d eterm in e speed? 6 . Used th e t r a f f i c te m p la te ? 7. Requested a d d i t i o n a l a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a ­ t i o n in fo rm a tio n ? 8 . Obtained a d d i ti o n a l a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a ­ t i o n in fo rm a tio n ? F. Since th e com pletion o f A I-1 , ___ Yes ___ No Yes ___ Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No ___ No ___ Yes ___ No ___ Yes ___ No on t h e average do you spend: l e s s tim e th e same tim e more tim e i n v e s t i g a t i n g a c c i d e n t s , and t h e r e s u l t s t h a t you g e t f o r th e time t h a t you spend a r e : _____ th e same m o r e /b e tt e r le ss 6. Does yo ur d epartm ent l i m i t t h e amount o f time ( e . g . , 30 m inutes f o r a p r o p e rty damage a c c i d e n t ) t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r has t o conduct on -scen e i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f : 1. 2. 3. P ro p e rty damage a c c i d e n t s Personal i n j u r y a c c i d e n t s F atal a c c i d e n t s Yes ___ No Yes ___ No Yes ___ No I f y e s , p le a s e s t a t e th e maximum tim e a llo tm e n t f o r each. How a re tim e l i m i t a t i o n s f o r t h e purpose o f a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a ­ t i o n (PD-PI-F) d eterm in ed? F o rm a l/w ritte n p o l ic y S u p erv iso ry d i s c r e t i o n None I. ___ In fo r m a l/u n w ritte n p o li c y In v estig atin g o f fic e r d isc re tio n _ H. Has yo ur work assignm ent been changed fo llo w in g s u c c e s s fu l com­ p l e t i o n o f AI-1? Yes____ ___ No I f y e s , e x p la i n : 145 III. In fo rm a tio n Regarding F u tu re Needs f o r T r a in in g A. Would you have an i n t e r e s t in t a k in g p a r t in f u t u r e a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o u r s e s (A I-2) i f o f f e r e d ? Yes No I f y e s , check what ty p e s o f s u b j e c t s you would l i k e to see in c lu d e d i n f u t u r e c o u r s e s : P r e p a r a t i o n o f s c a l e diagrams Speed d e te r m in a tio n P hotography T ire e v a lu a tio n IV. Lamp a n a l y s i s S c ie n tif ic re c o n stru c tio n Case s t u d i e s O th e r , e x p la in __________ I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r Completion o f Page 5 When resp o n d in g t o page 5 , read Column A f i r s t * , th en proceed t o move down t h e row b eg in n in g w ith #1 u n t i l com p leting #18. Now proceed t o Column B. Read th e q u e s tio n in Column B. Proceed t o move down t h e row, ch eck in g th e a p p r o p r i a t e box u n t i l you have responded t o a l l 18 row ite m s . Then proceed t o Column C and th e n Column D. 146 Column Row A B C D (Before) Did you use this skill prior to AI-1? (After) Have you used this skill since com­ pletion of AI-1? (Frequency) Do you use this skill more often since com­ pletion of AI-1 ? Yes No (Improvement) Have your abilities Improved 1n this skill as a result of AI-1? Yes No Yes 1. Coordinate measurements 2. Triangulation measurements 3. Symbols and abbreviations 4. Table of measurements 5. Photography 6. Sketching accident scene 7. Measuring tiremarks 8. Controlled and uncontrolled position of vehicles and bodies 9. Sketching damage to vehicle 10. Determining type of vehicle damage 11. Determining direction of thrust 12. Determining direction of rotation 13. Identifying metal scars 14. Collecting physical evidence 15. Determining type of t1remark 16. Conducting test skids (drag factor) 17. Determining radius of curve 18. Determining speed from t1remarks No Yes No APPENDIX 6 CONTINGENCY TABLES COMPARING EACH OF THE TWELVE BACKGROUND VARIABLES WITH POST-TEST SCORES 147 APPENDIX G Table G . I . — Age vs. post-test. Age 27 and below P ost-T est C ateg o ries9 Low Medium High (77 o r le s s ) (78 to 82) (83 o r more) 8b Total 16 12 36 28 to 34 16 13 15 44 35 and above 15 13 6 34 39 42 33 114 Total Throughout Appendix G, the p o s t - t e s t score range was divided in to th re e c a te g o r ie s . Students scoring 77 and below were c l a s s i f i e d as low. Those scoring from 77 to 82, i n c l u s i v e l y , were assigned to the medium category. All o th ers scoring 83 and above were c l a s s i f i e d as high. bThe values in the ta b le s are th e number o f stu d en ts in each ta b le c e ll based on th e two-way c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Table G.2 . — Department type vs. p o s t - t e s t . Type of Department P o st-T est Categories High Medi urn Low (83 or more) (77 o r le s s ) (78 to 82) Total Municipal 13 21 16 50 Non-municipal 26 21 17 64 39 42 33 114 Total 148 149 Table G.3 .—Department size vs. p o st-test. Size o f Department P o st-T est C ategories Low Medium High (77 o r l e s s ) (78 to 82) (83 o r more) Total 48 15 18 7 11 12 8 31 39 42 33 114 50 o r l e s s 15 15 51 to 100 13 101 o r more Total 35 Table G.4 . --Y ears worked in law enforcement vs. p o s t - t e s t . P o st-T est C ategories Years Worked Total Low (77 o r l e s s ) Medium (78 t o 82) High (83 o r more) 4 or l e s s 5 to 8 10 10 13 33 14 16 11 41 9 o r more 15 16 9 40 39 42 33 114 Total Total Table G.5 . —Education le v e l v s. p o s t - t e s t . P o st-T est C ategories Education Low (77 o r l e s s ) Medi urn (78 t o 82) High (83 o r more) High school 11 10 10 31 Some c o lle g e B accalaureate + 24 22 55 4 10 9 14 39 42 33 114 Total 28 150 Table G .6 .— Primary assignment vs. p o s t-te s t. P o s t-T e s t C ateg o ries Assignment Total Low (77 o r l e s s ) Medium (78 to 82) High (83 o r more) P atro l 15 24 26 65 Non-patrol 24 18 7 49 Total 39 42 33 114 Table G.7 . --Number o f f a t a l a c c id e n ts i n v e s t i g a t e d vs. p o s t - t e s t . P o s t- T e s t C ateg o ries K Total Low (77 o r l e s s ) Medium (78 t o 82) High (83 o r more) Zero 23 18 18 59 Some 16 24 15 55 39 42 33 114 Total Table G .8 .- -Number o f personal i n j u r y a c c id e n ts i n v e s t i g a te d vs. p o st-te st. PI P o s t-T e s t C ateg o ries Low Medium High (77 o r l e s s ) (78 to 82) (83 o r more) Total 8 o r le ss 16 8 11 35 9 to 20 21 o r more 11 12 20 14 6 16 37 42 Total 39 42 33 114 151 Table G .9 .—Number o f p r o p e rty damage a c c i d e n t s i n v e s t i g a t e d v s. p o s t-te st. P o s t- T e s t C a te g o rie s PD Low (77 o r l e s s ) Medium (78 t o 82) High (83 o r more) 24 o r l e s s 17 10 10 25 t o 70 12 19 7 37 38 71 o r more 10 13 16 39 Total 39 42 33 114 T otal Table G.10. —T otal amount o f t r a i n i n g in t r a f f i c a c c id e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n v s. p o s t - t e s t . Total T ra in in g Zero t o 12 12 p lu s T otal P o s t- T e s t C a te g o rie s Low Medium High (83 o r more) (77 o r l e s s ) (78 t o 82) T otal 34 23 20 77 5 19 13 37 39 42 33 114 Table G . l l . —M o tiv a tio n a l le v e l vs. p o s t - t e s t . M otivation P o s t- T e s t C a te g o rie s Medium High Low (77 o r l e s s ) (78 t o 82) (83 o r more) T otal Request 17 15 9 41 Option Required 10 12 20 7 22 52 2 21 Total 39 42 33 114 152 Table G12. — I n t e r e s t level vs. p o s t - t e s t . P ost-T est Categories In te re s t Low (77 or l e s s ) Medium (78 to 82) High (83 or more) Extreme 17 20 10 47 Less 22 22 23 67 39 42 33 114 Total Total APPENDIX H WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE STUDENT COURSE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE 153 APPENDIX H School 1—Jackson Community C ollege 1. I would l i k e t o see more tim e f o r f i e l d e x e r c i s e s . F u r t h e r , I would p r e f e r a c o u rse o f co n tin u o u s days r a t h e r th an f i v e in one month. 2. More w et, l e s s d ry . 3. Don and Dan d id a very good j o b , c o n s id e rin g th e c l a s s makeup. 4. Good c o u r s e , le a rn e d a l o t . 5. T his c l a s s needs a t l e a s t two more days. 6. I do n o t a g re e w ith th e math s e c t io n l e f t u n t i l th e l a s t day. Too d i f f i c u l t f o r a non-m athem atical i n d iv id u a l such as I to comprehend w ith o u t more tim e. 7. Would p r e f e r f i v e c o n s e c u tiv e days i n s t e a d o f one day each week f o r f i v e weeks. School 2—Muskegon Community College 1. Much e a s i e r t o p ick up in classro om p r e s e n t a t i o n th an t r y i n g to read and u n d e rsta n d te x tb o o k . 2. Too rushed a t f i e l d e x e r c i s e s a t tim e s . 3. F ie ld e x e r c i s e s cou ld be used more o f t e n . 4. Too much m a te r ia l covered in to o l i t t l e o f tim e . c i s i n g in s k id marks would have been h e l p f u l. 5. Unit #7 should have been 1 s t . 6. T his c o u rse has helped a g r e a t deal 7. T h is c l a s s i s an e x c e l l e n t b u ild in g ground in which t o become a much more com petent a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t o r . Experience i s th e b e s t t e a c h e r , once you g e t th e b a s ic s down. 8. More tim e s p e n t on form ulas p o s s ib l y exten d co u rse t o seven o r e i g h t days t o accom plish t h i s . 154 More f i e l d e x e r ­ in a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i n g . 155 9. 10. Very well organized i n s t r u c t o r s . a ccid en t in v e s tig a tio n . All very well versed in f i e l d of Too much reading o f f the o u t l i n e from the overhead—c a n 't i n s t r u c t o r s le c tu r e without reading word fo r word o f f o u tlin e . School 3—Madonna College 1. Thanks a l l , believ e me I needed t h i s . 2. Overall impression of t h i s course i s very im pressive; i f minor d e t a i l s could have been worked out th e course would have been p e r f e c t. 3. Friday a b i t h e c tic . 4. E xcellent c l a s s . 5. #13-team p a rtn e rs had a tendency e x e rc ise s r e s u ltin g in erroneous p a r t ic i p a t i o n of some members of fu n ctio n s of indiv idu al teams by 6. I only wished i t had not rained on th e day of veh. e v a lu a tio n . P ossible obtaining a damaged motorcycle f o r in s id e f i e l d ex e r­ cise s. 7. Thanks fo r ev erything. 8. #12 were well planned and good e x e r c is e s . The only drawback was time did not permit us to do the c r i t i q u e s . 9. A very good course. 10. to want to rush conclusions and the team. More th e s t a f f would through f i e l d re stric tin g co n tro l over be b e n e f i c i a l . Course should be longer than f iv e days. School 4—Lake Superior College (Soo) 1. A must f o r a l l accid en t i n v e s t i g a t o r s — I hope to take AI-2. 2. E xcellent course. 3. Good school. 4. Very good course (2 ). 5. The amount o f m aterial presented should re q u ire more f i e l d tr a in in g . 156 6 . The course was well organized and i t was obvious t h a t both i n s t r u c t o r s had a l o t of knowledge i n th e a r e a . The c l a s s was i n t e r e s t i n g and kept i n t e r e s t i n g by th e i n s t r u c t o r s . I came to c l a s s w ith some knowledge o f f a t a l a c c i d e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n and when I l e f t I f e l t I gained a g r e a t deal more knowledge. I fe e l c o n f i ­ d e n t now in going t o an a c c id e n t scene and being able to conduct an o rg a n iz e d , good i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Looking forward to AI #2. 7. Five s t r a i g h t days i s a b i t to o much. I t h i n k I could have learn ed more i f I had more tim e t o read th e t e x t between c l a s s e s . I would l i k e t o c o n tin u e in th e s e r i e s o f c o u rse s. School 5— Lake Michigan Community College 1. I found AI-1 to be o f value to me as a t r a f f i c o f f i c e r ; however, I th in k t h e fo llo w ing co u rses a r e needed t o make th e c l a s s t r u l y e ffe c tiv e . 2. I p e r s o n a lly th in k th e knowledge I have o b ta in e d w ill g r e a tl y help me not only in i n v e s t i g a t i n g a c c i d e n t s , but w i ll b e n e f i t my d e p a r t­ ment. 3. An in fo rm a tio n a l and w e l l - i n s t r u c t e d co u rse. 4. E x c e lle n t scho ol. 5. I was s o rr y we broke th e c l a s s in to weeks. t o g e t h e r , e a s i e r t o absorb. 6. Would be n ic e t o have more tim e f o r some t o p i c s . 7. Well o rgan ized and i n s t r u c t e d . I t should be put a l l BIBLIOGRAPHY 157 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Backstrom, C. H., and Hursh, G. D. Survey Research. Northwestern U niv ersity P re ss , 1963. Evanston, 111.: Baker, J . Stannard. T r a f f ic Accident I n v e stig a tio n Manual. 111.: Northwestern U niv ersity P re ss, 1975. Blalock, Hubert M., J r . Social S t a t i s t i c s . Book Company, I n c . , 1960. New York: Evanston, McGraw-Hill Borg, Walter R ., and G a ll, Meredith D. Educational Research. York: David McKay Company, I n c . , 1973. New Campbell, Donald T . , and S tan ley , J u lia n C. Experimental and Quasi Experimental Designs f o r Research. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1963. Dixon, W ilfrid J . , and Massey, Frank J . In tro d u ctio n to S t a t i s t i c a l A n aly sis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, I n c . , 1957. Doby, John T. An In tro d u ctio n to Social Research. Appleton-C entury-C rofts, 1967. New York: Ebel, Robert L. E s s e n tia ls of Educational Measurement. C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n tic e - H a ll, I n c . , 1972. ________ . Measuring Educational Achievement. P r e n tic e -H a ll, 1965. Englewood Englewood C l i f f s , N .J.: Glock, Charles Y. Survey Research in th e Social Sciences. Russell Sage Foundation, 1967. Good, C a rte r, and S cates, Douglass. Methods o f Research. Appleton-C entury-C rofts, I n c . , 1954. Gronlund, Norman E. C onstructing Achievement T e s t s . N .J .: P r e n tic e -H a ll, I n c . , 1968. New York: New York: Englewood C l i f f s , Hays, William L. S t a t i s t i c s f o r the Social S ciences. 2nd ed. York: H olt, Rinehart and Winston, I n c . , 1973. K erlin g er, Fred M. Foundations of Behavioral Research. H olt, Rinehart and Winston, I n c . , 1973. 158 New New York: 159 K irk p a tric k , Donald L. Evaluating T raining Programs. Training and Development, I n c . , 1975. Madison, Wise.: M arshall, J . C ., and Hales, L. W. Classroom T est C o n s tru c tio n . Park, C a l i f . : Addison-Wesley P u blishing Company, 1971. Menlo Stone, Eugene. Research Methods in O rganizational Behavior. Santa Monica, C a l i f . : Goodyear P ublishin g Company, I n c . , 1978. Thorndike, Robert L. Educational Measurement. 2nd ed. D.C.: American Council on Education, 1971. T y le r, L. E. T ests and Measurements. P r e n tic e - H a ll, I n c . , 1971. 2nd ed. Washington, Englewood C l i f f s , N .J .: P e r io d ic a ls C a ta la n e llo , R. F ., and K irk p a tric k , D. L. "Evaluating T rain ing Programs--The S tate o f the A r t." T rainin g and Development Journal (May 1968): 2-9. Deveny, J . J . , and Bookout, J . C. "The In te n s iv e Language Course, Toward a Successful Approach." Foreign Language Annuals 9 (1976): 58-63. Epperson, W. V ., and Peck, R. C. "Q u estionnaire Response Bias as a Function of Respondent Anonymity." Accident A nalysis and Prevention 9,4 (1977): 249-56. H e f f e r lin , J . B. Lon. "In te n s iv e Courses: An Old Idea Whose Time f o r Testing Has Come." Journal o f Research and Development in Education 6 (1972): 83-97. K irk p a tric k , Donald L. "Evaluating T rain in g Programs: Evidence vs. P roof." Training and Development Journal (November 1977): ________ . "Techniques f o r Evaluating T rain in g Programs." and Development Journal (June 1979): 78-92. T raining Kropp, R. P . , and Hankin, E. K. "Paper and Pencil T ests f o r E v aluat­ ing I n s t r u c t io n ." T raining D ire c to rs Journal (November 1962). Quensel, W. P. "How to Measure Program E f f e c tiv e n e s s ." T r a f f i c S afety Education (April 1976): 6-7. Rose, Homer C. "A Plan fo r Training E v a lu a tio n ." Development Journal (May 1968). Journal o f T rainin g and 160 S c o tt , Owen. "A Comparison o f Summer School and Regular Session Achievement in 11th Grade American H is to r y ." Jo u rn al o f E ducational Research 49 (1966): 235-37. Smith, D. I . " O f f i c i a l Driving Records and S e lf-R e p o rts as Sources o f A ccident and C onviction Data f o r Research P u rp o ses." A ccident A n aly sis and P rev en tio n 8 (1976): 207-11. S o le c k i, J . J . "An I n te n s iv e Method o f Language T each ing ." Language Annuals 4 (1971): 278-82. Foreign Walker, R. W. "An E v alu atio n o f T ra in in g Methods and T h e ir C h a ra c te r­ i s t i c s . " Human F acto rs 7 (1965): 347-54. W allace, John A. "Three Weeks Equals T h i r t y Weeks?--A Report on an Experim ental I n te n s iv e Janu ary Language Course." Foreign Language Annuals 6 (1972): 88-94. Walsh, W. B. " S e lf-R e p o rt Under S o c i a l ly U nd esirable and D is to r tio n C o n d itio n s ." Journal o f Counseling Psychology 16 (1969): 569-74. . " V a li d i ty o f S e lf - R e p o r t." 14 (1967): 18-23. Jo u rn al o f Counseling Psychology ________ . " V a l i d i t y o f S e lf-R e p o rt: Another Look." Counseling Psychology 15 (1968): 180-86. Journal of P u b lic a tio n s o f O rg an izatio n s Armstrong, Robert J . , and Je n se n , John A. The Accuracy o f S tu d en tReported Grades on th e ATP S tudent D e s c rip tiv e Q u e s tio n n a ir e . The C olleg e Entrance Examination Board, Janu ary 1975. Chabotar, Kent J . , and Lad, Lawrence J . E v alu atio n G u id elin es f o r T ra in in g Programs. East Lansing: P u b lic A d m in istratio n Programs, Department o f P o l i t i c a l S cien ce, Michigan S ta te U n i v e r s i ty , 1974. Doyle, R .; M oursi, M.; and Wood, D. The E f f e c t s o f I n te n s iv e Schedul­ in g : A F ie ld Experim ent. Mt. P l e a s a n t: I n s t i t u t e f o r Personal and C areer Development, C entral Michigan U n iv e r s ity , 1979. Goldberg, David. P r o je c t s o f P o p u latio n and Employment in Michigan 1970-2000. Ann Arbor: The P o p u latio n S tu d ie s C e n te r, Univ e r s i t y o f M ichigan, September 1978. Highway S a fe ty P o l i c i e s f o r P o lic e E x e c u tiv e s . G a ith e r s b u r g , Md.: I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s so c ia tio n o f C hiefs o f P o lic e . Annually updated. 161 Law, A lexander I . , and Bronson, W illiam H. Program E v a lu a to r s G u id e. The E v a lu a tio n Improvement Program, C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e D ep art­ ment o f E d u c a tio n , 1977. MacGregor, Gay, and S t. G eorge, A r th u r. E v a lu a tio n o f S t a t e and Local Programs: A P r im e r . New Mexico S t a t e P lan nin g O f f i c e , 1976. Michigan Department o f S t a t e P o l i c e . 1978 Michigan T r a f f i c A c c id e n t F a c t s . E a st L a n sin g : Michigan Department o f S t a t e P o l i c e , 1978. M ichigan S t a t e Economic Record 22 (May 1980). E a st Lansing: D iv isio n o f R e se a rc h , G radu ate School o f B u sin ess A d m in i s t r a ti o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . P o w ell, B. S. I n t e n s i v e E d u c a tio n : The Impact o f Time on T e a c h in g . Newton, M a s s .: E d u c atio n a l Development C e n te r , 1976. S tu d e n t R e a c tio n s t o I n s t r u c t i o n . Memo t o t h e F a c u l t y , C en ter f o r R esearch on L earning and T e a c h in g , The U n i v e r s i t y o f M ichigan, Ann A rb o r, 1976. W h itte n b u rg , J . A. e t a l . D riv e r Improvement T r a in in g and E v a lu a ti o n . F in al R epo rt PB 234-078. S p r i n g f i e l d , Va.: N a tio n a l T ech nical In fo rm a tio n S e r v i c e , 1974. O ther Sources Conger, Anthony J . ; Conger, J u d i t h C .; and R iccobno, John A. N atio n al L o n g itu d in a l Study o f t h e High School C lass o f 1972. R e li a b i l i t y and V a l i d i t y o f N a tio n a l L o n g itu d in a l Study M easures: An E m pirical R e l i a b i l i t y A n a ly s is o f S e l e c te d Data on a Review o f th e L i t e r a t u r e on t h e V a l i d i t y and R e l i a b i l i t y o f Survey Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . B e th e s d a , Md.: ERIC Document R ep rod uction S e r v i c e , ED 151 396, 1976. Doyle, R ic h a rd , and Y a n te s , John. F a c i1i t a t i n g N o n -T ra d itio n a l L e a rn in g : An Update on R esearch and E v a lu a tio n in I n t e n s i v e S c h e d u lin g . B e th e s d a , M d.: ERIC Document R eproduction S e r ­ v i c e , ED 144 4 5 9, 1977. Dyer, F r e d e ric k and o t h e r s . A Method f o r O b ta in in g P o st Formal T r a in in g Feedback: Development and V a l i d a t i o n . B e th e s d a , Md.: ERIC Document R epro du ction S e r v i c e , ED 110 032, 1975. Mazanec, Jo se p h . "The E f f e c t o f Course I n t e n s i t y on Academic A chieve­ m ent, S tu d e n t A t t i t u d e s , and M o r t a l i t y R a te ." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a ­ t i o n , M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1972. Nash, W illiam . P erso n al i n t e r v i e w . L an sin g , M ich igan , June 1980. 162 Parsons, Robert L. "Task A nalysis o f the Physical Performance Require­ ments Necessary to Performance as a Michigan P olice O f f ic e r ." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity , 1980. W ith e r e ll, Jerome W. "The F e a s i b i l i t y o f Using S elected Student Data Bases f o r th e Assessment and Evaluation o f D river Education Programs in th e S ta te o f M innesota." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S ta t e U n iv e r s ity , 1973.