m

1
‘

MM

”

II

I

l
l
l

|

WI

 

PERCEPTUAL-MOTOR SPEED DISCRERANCY
AND DEWANT DRNENG

Thesis for We Dogma of M. A.
MICHEGAN STATE UN ‘c’ERSITY

James A. Clark

1959

 
 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 
  

A,H___—;ffi_ .
“+4...__

PERCEPTUAL-MOTOR SPEED DISCREPANCY

AND DEVIANT DRIVING

BY

JAMES A. CLARK

A THESIS
Submitted to the College of Science and Arts
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1959

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is with much appreciation and gratitude that I acknow-
ledge those who have helped make this research a success. The
greatest thanks are due my faculty advisor, Dr. Gerald F. King,
whose guidance and patience were gratefully felt throughout the
project. I also wish to thank Dr. Abram M. Barch and Dr. Terrence
M. Allen for their encouragement and for consenting to serve on
the thesis committee.

To William R. Mackavey and Charles A. Kiesler I am indebted
for their assistance in the collection of the data. The staff
at the Computor Laboratory has been of great help in the analysis.
There is also my brother Tom who took time out from his studies
to make drawings of the test materials.

Deep appreciation is extended to the Highway Traffic Safety
Center, Michigan State University. Without the support and
interest of the Center, this research would not have been possi-
ble. Finally I would like to mention the Detroit Police Depart-
ment and the Driver and Vehicle Services in Detroit for their

excellent cooperation in providing the subjects.

James A. Clark

PERCEPTUAL-MOTOR SPEED DISCREPANCY

AND DEVIANT DRIVING

BY

JAMES A. CLARK

AN ABSTRACT
Submitted to the College of Science and Arts
Michigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1959

PERCEPTUAL-MOTOR SPEED DISCREPANCY AND DEVIANT DRIVING

James A. Clark

ABSTRACT

In 1940, Drake offered the following hypothesis on the basis
of research with accidents in an industrial setting: Individuals
who perform faster on motor tasks than on perceptual tasks tend
to have more accidents than individuals with faster perceptual
than motor speed. The present research attempted to extend Drake's
hypothesis regarding "perceptual-motor Speed discrepancy" into
the area of traffic accidents.

The basic pool of subjects consisted of 199 drivers. Of
this total, 106 were classified as problem drivers primarily due
to high violation records, and 93 were applicants for routine
renewals of their driving permits. In forming a problem-driver
and a control group, an attempt was made to (a) equate the two
groups for age, education, vocabulary level, and weekly mileage,

(b) approximate the distribution of ages of the male drivers in
Michigan, and (c) maximize the difference between the groups for
accidents. This procedure led to final groups of 70 subjects each.

All subjects were administered three perceptual Speed and

three motor speed tests. Included in the battery were the pair

ii
of perceptual and motor tests offering the best predictions in
Drake's research. The score for each test was the total time
to complete two trials. Measures of perceptual-motor speed
discrepancies were derived by subtracting individual performance
on each motor test from each perceptual test (standard scores).

The results were clearly negative when the problem-driver
and control groups were compared on perceptual-motor Speed
discrepancies, perceptual and motor speed per se, and variability
from trial 1 to trial 2. In discussing the negative results,
attention was drawn to (a) possible deficiencies in the present
study and (b) the nature of Drake's hypothesis. The emphasis
was placed on the faulty assumptions inherent in Drake's hypothesis.

D /

Major Professor ‘;[=l'{ - #1
Gerald F. KinngPh.D.

Date /£¢--, La )'E //J'/

 

iii

Table of Contents
Page
I. Introduction.............................. ..... ...... 1
II. iethod............................................... 3
Perceptual and Motor Speed Tests................... 3
Perceptual Tests................................. 3
Motor Tests...................................... 4
Subjects........................................... 5
Procedure.......................................... 8
III. ResultS.............................................. 10
Preliminary Analysis............................... 10
Major Analysis..................................... 12
Additional Analysis................................ 15
IV. Discussion........ ....... ......... ....... ............ 17
V. Summary.............................................. 19

VI. ReferenceSOOOOOOOOOO000......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 21

Appendices
Appendix A (Perceptual and Motor Speed Tests)........ 23

Appendix B (Intercorrelations Among Personal, Per-
ceptual, and Motor Variables)...................... 39

Appendix C (Age Distributions of the Research Groups
and Michigan Drivers: A Comparison)............... 41

Appendix D (Factor Analysis of the Perceptual and
bio-tor Speed TeStS).0.000000COOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0.0... 43

 

, I D A , D. . s . , D . a A ' , r- . u v

r. . . O O I

‘\ v ‘ D D (D u . v C ‘ - O l v S
D . n u a ._. o o - . J o o . ~.

 

a g A x o . o- . , n ‘ g . a 7 . . ~
5 < —- .. n —- i . - n J , u r! n .
n a A . r- . ' .2 W .~ I n " . n p
o 1 , , n I 1 ‘ , 1 , n ,
. Dr n . . n n g . - a . ;. D~ ‘ 1 \ :-
D ‘ . a . ‘ ~ - a a m A u n
—. D . w r: . n " ~ ~ 9* a > . “ ‘ ‘ - - .
I a .. ‘ .. 4 a < v' n D w '1 A t.
n a A v D u - ‘ ~ to D D ’ 4
r, -, r- - o - . u ¢ -

 

iv
Appendix E (Comparison of the Problem-Driver and

Control Groups on P-SI and P-NR)................... 45

Appendix F (Comparison of the Problem-Driver and
Control Groups on Perceptual-Motor Speed Dis-
crepancies LE and F ratios])....................... 47

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

A- 1.*

A-ZO

List of Tables
Page

Comparison of the Problem-Driver (fif70) and
Control (Ef70) Groups on Age, Education, WAIS
Vocabulary, and Accidents...................... 7

Comparison of the Problem-Driver and Control
Groups on Perceptual and Motor Speed (Number
Of secondS)0.0.0.0....0.0.0....0.00.00.00.00... 11

Comparison of the Problem-Driver and Control
Groups Using a Perceptual-Motor Speed Dichotomy:
Chi Square Analysis............................ 14

Comparison of the Problem-Driver and Control
Groups on Variability from Trial 1 to Trial 2.. l6

Intercorrelations Among Personal, Perceptual,
and PlOtor variableSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO 40

Age Distributions of the Research Groups and
Michigan Drivers: A Comparison................ 42

Factor Analysis of the Perceptual and Motor
Speed TeStSOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... 44

Comparison of the Problem-Driver and Control
Groups on Number of Errors Incurred on P-SI
and P-NROOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0 46

Comparison of the Problem-Driver and Control
Groups on Perceptual-Motor Speed Discrepancies
(E and-F-ratiOS)coo...000......oooooooooooooooo 48

*"A" indicates the table is in the Appendix.

I. Introduction

Almost 20 years ago, Drake (1939-40) reported a study re-
lating the incidence of accidents among female factory workers
to scores on perceptual and motor Speed tests. While the find-
ings revealed no relationship between accident rate and either
perceptual or motor speed per se, significant results were ob-
tained with an analysis using the difference in performance on
the two types of tests, what might be called "perceptual—motor
speed discrepancy." workers with high accident records per-
formed relatively faster on the motor tasks than on the per-
ceptual tasks, and conversely for the workers with low accident
histories. On the basis of these results, Drake offered the
following hypothesis: "Individuals whose level of muscular
reaction is above their level of perception are prone to more
frequent and more severe accidents than those individuals whose
muscular reactions are below their perceptual level. In other
words, the person who reacts quicker than he can perceive is
more likely to have accidents than is the person who can per-
ceive faster than he can react” (pp. 339-340).

Drake interpreted his results as having possible applica-
tion beyond the accident behavior of factory workers, suggest-
ing that the hypothesis might be used to predict accidents for

individuals in other settings (e.g., bus drivers, airplane

pilots). While Drake's study has become a commonly cited
reference in the subsequent literature on industrial and traffic
safety (e.g., Maier, 1946; McFarland, Moore, and Warren, 1954;
Tiffin, 1947), the author is not aware of any attempts either

to replicate this study or to use its orientation for research
in other contexts. The objective of the present study was to
test Drake's hypothesis regarding perceptual-motor Speed dis-

crepancy in the area of traffic accidents.

II. Method

Perceptual and Motor Speed Tests

 

A number of factors were given consideration in assembling
a battery of three perceptual and three motor speed tests. In-
cluded in the battery were the pair of perceptual and motor
tests that yielded the best predictive discrepancy-score in
Drake's study. The remaining four tests were selected or con-
structed on the basis of purity and variety. In regard to
purity, an attempt was made to maximize the differences between
the two types of tasks by using perceptual tests relatively
free of motor components and motor tests with minimal per-
ceptual involvement. Variety was most apparent in the motor
tests, where the requirements ranged from small hand movements
to gross arm movements. The score for each test was the number
of seconds needed to complete the test. The following gives
brief descriptions of the tests, with more details being avail-
able in Appendix A.

Perceptual tests. The materials for the Spiral Inspec-

 

tion Test (P-SI), one of Drake's tests, consisted of 50 Spirals,
4% inches long and 5/16 inch in diameter. Flat-wound from thin
strips of steel % inch wide, each spiral had a small circular

hole punched in the flat surface of the coil. Half of the

spirals were standard, i.e., the holes were exactly 2% turns
from the ends of the Spirals. The other half was classified

as off-standard, with the placement of the holes varying from

1% to 3% turns from the ends. The task was to sort the standard
and off-standard spirals into two separate piles. The number

of errors (incorrectly placed Spirals) was also recorded.

The Perceptual Scanning Test (E:E§) involved finding in
order the numbers 1 through 35, which were randomly scattered
on an 8 by 11 inch sheet of paper. AS each number was located,
it was tapped lightly with the eraser end of a pencil. Forms
A and B were constructed for this test.

The Number Recognition Test (P253) consisted of 50 pairs of
numbers in both Forms A and B. Opposite each pair of numbers
were the letters "S" and "D". If the numbers were the same, 8
was underlined; if different, D was underlined. Number of errors
provided an additional score.

Motor tests. In the Right-Right Turning Test (M—RT),

 

another of Drake's tests, there was an upright panel (24 inches
long and 12 inches high) with two rows of six right-turn bolts
each. The task was to use both hands in turning the bolts, two
at a time, until they were flush with the panel.

The Two-Plate Tapping Test (M222) used a horizontal board

with a metal plate (3% inches by 3% inches) at each end. The

5
plates were 10-3/8 inches apart. Each tap with a stylus acti-
vated a counter through an electrical circuit. The task was to
make 100 taps, alternately tapping the two plates.

From the Minnesota Rate of Manipulation Test (Educational
Test Bureau, 1946), the Turning Subtest (M:RM) was selected.
Using the standard form-board and set of 60 circular blocks,
this test required the coordinated use of both hands. Each
block was lifted with the lead hand and placed, bottom side

up, in the same hole with the trailing hand.

Subjects

The basic pool of subjects (SS) was comprised of 199 male,
white drivers residing in the city of Detroit. Of this total,
106 were classified as "problem” drivers; 93 were controls.

The former SS were drivers Who, due to an excessive number of
violations and/or accidents, had been summoned by the Driver

and Vehicle Services for a re-examination interview to deter-
mine their future driving privileges. They were tested as

they waited for their interview appointments. The control SS
consisted of consecutive applicants for routine license re-
newals at a "representative” examining station (police precinct).

A subsequent review of the Central Driver Files revealed that

6
only one control S was eligible for re—examination, and this_§
was eliminated.1

In forming a problem-driver and a control group, an attempt
was made to (a) equate the two groups for age, education, and
WAIS vocabulary level, (b) approximate the distribution of ages
of the male drivers in the State of Michigan, and (c) maximize
the difference between the groups for number of accidents
(previous five years). This procedure led to final groups of
70 SS each.

As can be seen in Table 1, the problem-driver and control
groups were closely equated for age, education, and vocabulary.
The difference between the groups on number of accidents, howe
ever, was very significant (p<:.01), as the problem-driver group
experienced more than four times as many accidents as the con-
trol group. It should also be mentioned that there was a dif—
ference between the groups on reported weekly mileage. The
problem-driver group (E;= 445, §Q_= 404) showed a trend toward
higher level and were significantly more variable than the con-
trol group (M - 368, S2 = 279). However, weekly mileage was
not Significantly correlated with either number of accidents or
any of the perceptual and motor tests for the total N of 199

(see Appendix B).

 

1Of all the drivers contacted, only 10 refused to serve as §S.

Table 1
Comparison of the Problem-Driver (N=70) and Control (N=70) Groups

on Age, Education, WAIS Vocabulary, and

 

 

 

Accidents
Groups

Problem-Driver Control
Variables M §__D_ M _§_1_)_
Age 39.01 13.23 39.54 13.12
Education 11.56 3.14 11.64 3.11
Vocabulary 9.33 3.00 9.67 2.88
Accidentsa 1.70 1.56 0.41 0.57

 

aThe difference between the groups for number of accidents was

Significant beyond the .01 level.

A comparison of the two groups with normative data for
Michigan male drivers on age is given in Appendix C. A test
of goodness of fit for the distributions yielded a nonsignifi-

cant chi square of 6.27 (p>u90).

Procedure

 

The SS were tested individually by two examiners, one ad-
ministering the perceptual tests as a block and the other the
three motor tests. Within each block, the tests were given in
the previously listed order. In the problem-driver group, 40
were given the perceptual tests first, while 33 underwent the
perceptual tests first in the control group.2 The §S were
given two trials on each of the six tests. Except for the

P-PS, P-NR, and M-TT tests, the second trial was essentially a

 

repetition of the first. Form B was used for P-PS and P-NR. For

 

M-TT, S tapped with his preferred hand on the first trial and
with his nonpreferred hand on the second. During the test
situation, the SS were interviewed and administered the WAIS

vocabulary subtest. The following information was obtained from

 

2No significant relationship was found between type of tests

administered first and any of the personal variables (e.g.,
age, accidents) or task measures, the correlations ranging
from -.115 to .077 (N.= 199).

9

the interview: age, education, estimate of average weekly mile-
age, and estimate of number of accidents in the previous five
years.3

In addition to explaining the nature of the task, the
standard instructions for each test emphasized speed of per-
formance (see Appendix A). Additional attempts to motivate S
were made between trials, urging him to better his first-trial

score .

 

3The number of accidents reported by the SS was checked by an
examination of the Central Driver Files. The differences
between the groups on accidents was upheld. In fact, the
four-to—one ratio became closer to five-to-one.

10

III. Results

When the time scores for the perceptual and motor tests were
plotted for each trial, there were no apparent deviations from
normal distributions. For the preliminary analysis, scores were
assigned to the SS Simply by summing the times for the two trials.
The correlations between the first and second trials, which can
be interpreted as minimal estimates of reliability, were as

follows: P-SI, .73; P-PS, .73; P-NR, .92; M-RT, .88; M-TT, .77;

 

M-RM, .86.

Preliminary Analysis

A factor analysis of the perceptual and motor scores, using
the principal axis method and Guttman's (1958) method of esti-
mating communalities, resulted in the isolation of two factors.
Rotation by the quartimax method (Neuhaus and Wrigley, 1954)
revealed a perceptual and a motor factor. All tests had higher
loadings on their designated factors, although several tests

(P-SI, M-TT, and M-RM) had Sizeable loadings on both factors.

 

In terms of differential loadings or purity, PZNR was the best
perceptual test, M331 the best motor test. The factor analysis
is presented in more detail in Appendix D.

Possible differences in Speed of performance were explored

by comparing the problem-driver and control groups on all Six

11

Table 2
Comparison of the Problem-Driver and Control

Groups on Perceptual and Motor Speed (Number of Seconds)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Groups
Problem-Driver Control
Tests 24. S; 11. S2. 1:.
P-SI 395.0 89.1 406.0 87.0 0.74
P-PS 238.5 78.6 232.2 97.3 0.43
§:NP 357.9 117.8 363.8 124.7 0.28
M23: 72.7 14.6 73.1 14.0 0.44
M—TT 49.4 6.9 51.3 6.0 1.73a
M-RM 116.8 21.9 155.2 14.9 0.50

 

 

a

B<o 10

12
tests. Table 3 shows that none of the t_ratios were signifi-
cant at the .05 level. The only significant difference between
the groups was that the problem—driver group was more variable
on MZRM. There was a general trend for the problem-driver
group to perform faster and with more variability than the
control group. Concurring with Drake's (1940) results, per-
ceptual or motor speed per se was not found to be a significant
variable.

The problem-driver and control groups were also compared
on the number of errors incurred on P:§I_and 3:33. None of the
differences between the groups were Significant. Appendix E

provides more details for this analysis.

Major Analysis

In testing Drake's hypothesis, the first step was to derive
measures of perceptual-motor Speed discrepancies. After trans-
forming performance on all tests to standard scores (following
Drake's procedure), each motor Speed score was subtracted from
each perceptual Speed score for all Ss. This procedure yielded
nine discrepancy scores for each S, Since the measures were
time scores, an S with a positive discrepancy score for a given
pair of tests showed faster motor speed as compared to perceptual

speed, and vice versa for a negative discrepancy score.

13

All SS were classified as either "faster on perceptual per—
formance" or "faster on motor performance" for each pair of tests.
Then, fourfold tables were constructed, and tests of significance
were conducted with chi square. A comparison of the problem-
driver and control groups can be found in Table 3. Of the nine
tests of significance, only one (g:§I_vs.;M:gM) was signifi-
cant at the .05 level, and the difference was not in the pre-
dicted direction. One difference in the predicted direction,
that derived from EZE§ vs. M:TT, approached significance (25310).
Both the differences from P:§I_vs. M253, Drake's best pair of
tests, and P:NR vs. M232, the best pair derived from factor
analysis, were not in the predicted direction. In fact, five
of the nine comparisons yielded differences in the opposite
direction.

The problem-driver and control groups were also compared
using the discrepancy Scores instead of a dichotomy. High
discrepancy scores reflect relatively faster motor Speed than
perceptual Speed. None of the 2 ratios were Significant. There

were three significant_§ ratios (P-SI vs. M—RT, P—PS vs. M—RM,

 

and P—NR vs. M—RM), two indicating greater variability for the
problem—driver group and one for the control group. As would

be expected, the pattern of differences was very similar to that

14

Table 3
Comparison of the Problem-Driver and Control Groups Using

a Perceptual-Motor Speed Dichotomy: Chi Square Analysis

 

 

Groups

 

Problem—Driver Control

 

 

 

Test Pairs pa Ma P M Chi Square
P-SI vs. M-RT 35 35 30 40 0.713
vs. M—TT 31 39 32 33 0.023
vs. M-RM 42 28 29 41 4.830C
p-ps vs. M-RT 33 37 34 36 0.029
vs. M-TT 29 41 40 30 3.458b
vs. M—RM 36 34 35 35 0.029
P-NR vs. M-RT 37 33 33 37 0.457
vs. M-TT 31 39 38 32 1.400
vs. M-RM 36 34 35 35 0.029

 

ap refers to faster on perceptual performance, M faster on
motor performance.

93.310

CED-<05

15
found for the chi square analysis. Appendix F gives more de-

tails of this analysis.

Additional Analysis

 

The possibility of differences between the groups on vari—
ability from trial to trial was explored. For each S, the first
trial was subtracted from the second trial (standard scores),
and the absolute value of the differences was summed for the
six tests. Table 4 presents a comparison of the problem-driver
and control groups for this measure of variability. While the
problem-driver SS were Slightly more variable than the control

Ss, the trend did not approach statistical significance.

16

Table 4
Comparison of the Problem-Driver and Control Groups

on Variability from Trial 1 to Trial 2

 

 

 

Measure of Groups
Variability Problem-Driver Control '3
'M 78.12 74.84 0.562

_S_D_ 11.24 10.63

 

17

IV. Discussion

The results failed to support an extension of Drake's hy-
pothesis into the area of traffic accidents. Attention can be
drawn to the following features of the present study which possi-
bly contributed to the negative results: (a) the distinction
between the problem-driver and control groups, and (b) the
differences between the groups on level and variability of
exposure.

When the distinction between the groups for accidents is
examined, overlap is noted. Primarily high-violation drivers,
nearly one-sixth of the §S in the problem—driver group ex-
perienced no accidents, while on the other hand almost one—
fifth of the control SS were involved in at least one accident.
It should be pointed out, however, that in an overall com-
parison the problem-driver SS incurred more than four times as
many accidents as the control gs. While only the difference
in variability was statistically significant, the problem-
driver group tended both to drive more and to be more vari-
able than the control group. Here, it can be mentioned that
exposure was not found to be related to any of the perceptual

and motor measures or to number of accidents.

18

Of seemingly more importance in accounting for the negative
results is the nature of Drake's hypothesis. AS stated, the hy-
pothesis implicitly assumes that perceptual and motor speed are
general abilities. The validity of these assumptions is doubt-
ful in View of the results obtained by factor analytic studies
investigating the components of perceptual performance (Roff,
1952) and motor performance (Fleishman, 1953). Research has
indicated that, instead of general components, a multiplicity
of factors underly perceptual and motor performance. If the
hypothesis rests on faulty assumptions, an explanation might
seem necessary for the positive findings obtained in an in-
dustrial setting. A possible reasonfbr Drake's results is that
he used perceptual and motor tasks that mirrored his Ss' work
activities, the activities in which the accidents occurred.
The hypothesis, as formulated, represents an overgeneralization.

Consideration might be given to a revision of Drake's hy-
pothesis. The preceding discussion suggests that, as an al-
ternative approach, the selection of tests could be guided by
the nature of the activity under study. Thus, in predicting
traffic accidents, the perceptual and motor tests would be
selected on the basis of their relevance for driving behavior.
Drake's notion about perceptual-motor speed discrepancies could

be retested using this revised frame of reference.

19

V. Summary

On the basis of his investigations of industrial accidents,
Drake formulated the following hypothesis: Individuals with
high accident records perform relatively faster on motor tasks
than on perceptual tasks, and conversely for individuals with
low accident histories. As Drake interpreted his results as
having possible application in other than industrial settings,
the present research attempted to test his hypothesis regarding
"perceptual-motor speed discrepancy” in the area of traffic
accidents.

The basic pool of subjects consisted of 199 drivers. Of
this total, 106 were classified as problem drivers primarily
due to high violation records, and 93 were applicants for routine
renewals of their driving permits. In forming a problem-driver
and a control group, an attempt was made to (a) equate the two
groups for age, education, vocabulary level, and weekly mile-
age, (b) approximate the distribution of ages of the male drivers
in Michigan, and (c) maximize the difference between the groups
for accidents. This procedure led to final groups of 70 sub-
jects each.

All subjects were administered three perceptual Speed and

three motor Speed tests. Included in the battery were the pair

20

of perceptual and motor tests offering the best predictions in
Drake's research. The score for each test was the total time

to complete two trials. Measures of perceptual-motor speed
discrepancies were derived by subtracting individual performance
on each motor test from each perceptual test (standard scores).

A comparison of the problem-driver and control groups on
perceptual-motor Speed discrepancies failed to produce the pre-
dicted differences. In addition, no substantial or consistent
differences between the groups were obtained on either perceptual
and motor Speed per se or variability in performance from trial
1 to trial 2.

Possible deficiencies in the present research were pointed
out, but their effects were minimized. The main emphasis, in
accounting for the negative results, was on the nature of Drake's
hypothesis. It was concluded that the hypothesis, by assuming
perceptual and motor speed are general abilities, rests on
faulty assumptions. The hypothesis was viewed as an over-
generalization from Drake's original data. Some suggestions

for future research were made.

21

VI. References

Drake, C. A. Accident-proneness: A hypothesis. Char. Pers.,

 

1939-40, 8, 335,341.

Educational Test Bureau. Minnesota Rate of Manipulation Test:

 

 

Examiner's Manual. Minneapolis: Educational Publishers, Inc.,

 

1946.

Fleishman, E. A. Testing for psychomotor abilities by means

of apparatus tests. Psychol. Bull., 1953, 50, 241-262.

 

Guttman, L. An estimate of Communalities that is imagewise
consistent and structure-free. Research Report 20. Contract

AF 41(657)-76, May 1958.

King, G. F. Age characteristics of Michigan drivers. H'gh-

way Res. Abstr., 1959, 29, No. 9, 23-26. (Cited in Appendix C)

Maier, N. R. F. Psychology_in_industry. New York: Houghton

 

Mifflin, 1946.

McFarland, R. A., Moore, R. C., & Warren, A. B. Human vari-

 

ables in vehicular accidents. Boston: Harvard School of

Public Health, 1954.

22

Neuhaus, J. 0., & Wrigley, C. The quartimax method: An
analytic approach to orthogonal simple structure. Brit.

.J. Stat. Psychol., 1954, 7, 81-91.

Roff, M. F. A factorial study of tests in the perceptual area.

Psychometr. Monogr., 1952, No° 8.

 

Tiffin, J. Industrial psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall,

 

1947.

Appendix A

Perceptual and Motor Speed Tests

23

24

Spiral Inspection Test (P-SP)

Instructions

 

Here are some metal Spirals. Examiner Shows five demon-
stration spirals.) Each of the spirals has a hole punched
near one end. Some of the holes are punched "standard"

and some "off-standard." Here is a standard spiral.
(Examiner shows subject a standard spiral.) Standard means
that the hole is punched 2% turns from the end. A good way
to identify a standard Spiral is to hold the tip down and
away from you. Then, if the spiral is standard, you will
see that the hole is directly in line with the tip and on
the third band. (Examiner demonstrates this procedure.)
Here is an off-standard Spiral. (Examiner Shows an off-
standard spiral.) You will notice that the hole is not
punched 2% turns from the end. Therefore, this spiral is
off-standard. (Examiner continues the illustrations with
the remaining demonstration Spirals.) Here are some more
spirals. (Examiner points to the large compartment in the
spiral kit.) Now, I want to see how fast you can sort
them into two piles. Put the standard spirals here and

the off-standard Spirals here. (Examiner indicates two
labeled compartments in the kit.) Are there any questionss
Now, when I say "begin", sort the spirals as fast as you
can. Ready, begin!

(After subject completes task.) Good. Now, most people
can sort the spirals in less time on the second trial.

I'm sure you can do it faster. Let's try it again. Ready,
begin!

229%!th . m

55.05% .4 «$3. 5:335 9226 “as mom 68236 Mme so 625543

Perceptual Scanning Test (P—PS)

Instructions

 

Here is a sheet of paper which has numbers scattered on it.
(Examiner diSplays Practice Sheet.) The task is to find
the numbers in order, beginning with number "1.“ Now,
here is "l" on the Practice Sheet. (Examiner taps it
with pencil.) You indicate that you've found each number
by tapping it with the eraser-end of this pencil; Now,
you tap the rest of the numbers on this Sheet in order.
(After subject finishes, examiner takes back pencil.)

Are there any questions? Here is another sheet of paper
with numbers on it. (Examiner produces Form A.) Begin-
ning with "1," I want you to tap all the numbers in order
as fast as you can. Remember, speed counts. (Examiner
returns pencil to subject.) Are you ready? All right,
begin!

(After subject completes task.) Fine. You've got the
idea. However, I'm sure you can do even better. Let's
see how fast you can really do it. Here's some more
numbers. (Examiner produces Form B.) Ready, begin!

27

PERCEPTUAL SCANNING, PRACTICE SHEET

End Beg/n

PEI

t 32'"

”DO flmlvb

.U: (RV\

 

PERCEPTUAL SCANNING, FORM A

@

,

..u
.0
0(7) @

6)
®
D... e

 

PERCEPTUAL SCANNING , FORM B

@' C7).

29

30

Number Recognition Test (P-NR)

Instructions

 

Here is a paper with numbers on it. (Examiner uses Practice
Sheet.) The task is to look at each pair and decide whether
the two numbers are the same or different. The numbers have
to be exactly the same. Consider the numbers to be different
if they're different in any way. Now, the first two numbers
on this sheet are the same, so we underline the "S" for same.
(Examiner demonstrates.) The next two are different, so we
underline the "D" for different. (Examiner demonstrates.)
You finish the rest of the pairs for practice. (After sub-
ject finishes the practice items.) Are there any questions?
Here are some more pairs of numbers. (Examiner produces

Form A) Let's see how fast you can mark them "S" or "D".

Be accurate, but speed counts. I'm going to time you. Ready,
begin!

(After subject completes task.) Good. Now that you've
warmed up, I'm sure you can do it even faster. Most people
can. Let's try it with this new set of pairs. (Examiner
produces Form B.) Ready, begin!

22.91
44483
3100.00
55.55
63.36%

NUMBER RECOGNITION, PRACTICE SHEET

22.91
44438
100.00
355.3
63 . 36%

O) U)

0)

UUUUU

658-565

31

50

48
67.55
968?6
10000.0
85%
2.552
5487942
=7583
0199#
55538%
7.115
22262%
6475.5
545-
$600.69
125794
11/55
4786
.0000007
6111114
3765%
348*
95045
7910!

NUMBER RECOGNITION, FORM A

50

84
67.53
96?86
10000.0
85%
2.552
3467942
=7585
0199#
55538&
71.13
22262%
6475.5
545-
$600.69
132794»
11/55
4768
.000007
6111114
3765%
348*
95055
79101

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

1/7.65
17170
16(57
105%;
855556
(.01070)
-1246
8020802
38585858
36,5656
350.19
2572#
336-74
24001
9292959
37.57
3029%
#49349
-28222-
54755
90/69
02:878
9060906
156535
57.18%

1/76-5
17170
l6)57
10583
855556
(.01070)
-1246
8020802
38383383
56.3536
350.19
2372#
356-74
240%1
9292929
37.57
5029%
#49349
-28222-
54.755
90169
O2;878
9060906
156355
57.18%

C") U) U) 0') C0

0)

U) CD Cl] 0’) (I) U)

0) CO U) 01 U) U) U) U) U1 0)

5')

CDC/J

658-563

32

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

01/376
#4064'
1437
41010
126412
51/73.
234423
4829
444446
3574%
002#21#
8528
90966
$66.22
62069%
20 6/28
66666668
39323
(606)2
+4827
796/655
659¢l
3812
17.69
6661174

NUMBER RECOGNITION, FORM B

10/376
#4064'
1437
41010
124612
51/.73
234423
4839
444446
35748
002721
8528
99066
866.22
6206.9%
20 6/28
6666668
39232
(606)2
+4827
796/656
65¢91
3821
17.69
66111%

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

6201*
8243
4848'
44/96
8&771
7558.7
8178?
86.23¢
58745
7130*
=5667
21.998
0505014
986%
#35161
04/32.4
8007'
89578
122773
34.28
54+87
503745
~3443
2598.2
667/752

6201*
8324
4848'
44/99
87&7l
7558.7
8178?
86.23¢
58745
7130
=5667
21,998
0505104
986%
#35161
04/32.4
8007"
89578
122773
34.29
54+88
503745
+3443
259&2
667/762

mm

03

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

_658-563

33

UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

34

Right Right Turning Test (M-RR)

Instructions

 

Here is a panel with some bolts in it. You will notice that
the bolts aren't screwed into the panel. The task is to turn
the bolts into the panel two at a time, one with your left
hand and one with your right. You work with pairs of bolts
and with both hands. (Examiner demonstrates.) Don't start
on other bolts until you've finished both of the bolts that
you're working on. The procedure is to begin with these
bolts (point to upper left-hand corner) and go across the

top row. (Examiner demonstrates.) When you finish the top
row, you do the bottom row the same way, starting with these
bolts (point to lower left-hand corner). Don't try to screw
the bolts in tight. Stop when the bolts just touch the panel.
Speed is important. Don't waste any time. Are there any
questions? Now remember, you start right here (point to
upper left-hand corner) and turn all the bolts into the

panel as fast as you can. Don't forget, two at a time.
Ready, begin!

(After subject completes task.) Good. Now, practically
everybody does it faster the second time. Let's see how
much faster you can do it the second time. Ready, begin.

35

5 DIME
. 5:05: E g gm:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two Plate Tapping Test (M-TT)

Instructions

 

Here is a board with two metal plates, one at each end. The
task is to tap first one plate and then the other with this
pointer. You rotate it back and forth as rapidly as you

can. (Examiner demonstrates.) Try it with your preferred
hand. Are you right-handed or left-handed? (Examiner hands
pointer to subject.) You can practice for a few seconds.
(After about 10 sec. of practice.) Now, let's see how quickly
you can make 100 taps. When I say, “begin," start tapping as
fast as you can until I say, "stop." Are there any questions?
Ready, begin.

(After subject completes task.) Good. Now, let's see how
fast you can do it with your other hand. Ready, begin!

37

 

Emma UZHQAdB NEGAmIQ3B HEB mom mDHflMdmmd

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38

Minnesota Rate of Manipulation Test (M-RM)

Instructions

Here is a board filled with blocks. (Examiner arranges board
in correct position.) This is the starting position. The
object is to see how fast you can turn the blocks over. You
do it like this - . (Examiner demonstrates as he talks.)

With your left hand, lift the block from the upper right-

hand hole, and with your right hand put it back, bottom side
up, into the same hole. (Examiner continues turning blocks
across the board as he talks.) WOrk to the left across the
board, picking up the blocks with your left hand and putting
them down with your right, bottom side up. (After examiner
finishes first row.) As you work back to the right in the
next row, you pick them up with your right hand and put them
down with your left. Examiner continues turning blocks about
half way across the row, then turns all bloCks to the original
position.) Always pick up_the blocks with the hand that leads
and put them down with the hand that follows. Before you
finish be sure that every block is all the way down. Are
there any questions? Your score will be the number of
seconds it takes you to do this, so work as fast as you can.
Put your hand on the first block. Ready, begin!

(After subject completes task.) Good. But remember I'm
timing you. Let's do it even faster this second time. Put
your hand on the first block. Ready, begin!

Appendix B

Intercorrelations Among Personal, Perceptual,

and Motor Variables (Table A-1)

39

4O

 

 

.mma u_m

.Homwm .ma. u.m

.moswm .48. u mm
mm.: mo.\ HH.\ ma.u 48.x mm.\ 8H.x mm.\ km.\ Hm.\ 04.x smwmmm
mo.n ma.u ~m.: mm.u mo.u 80.x ma.x so.\ no.1 00.: .88004

44.- 04.- m0.. mo.u 00.: 44.- oa.\ OH.x mo.\ mMmmm

40.x 80.x mH.u om.u «0.x H4.u mm.u km.u .0000>

ma.u om.u mm.: 84.: sm.u om.u mm.: .0588

mm.\ 64.x 88.x mm.x mm.\ ms.\ 084

ms.\ mm.\ mm.\ 88.\ 84.4 28:2
68.x km.\ mm.\ 8m.\ 99.2

mm.\ mm.\ ov.\ emu:

80.x mm.\ 82.8

ms.\ mmum

.04004 .wmwww .nmoo> .050m 062 2mm: eels emu: mznm mmum Hmum

 

64-4 04888

Appendix C

Age Distributions of the Research Groups and Michigan

Drivers: A Comparison (Table A-2)

41

Table A-2

 

 

Both Research Groupsa Michigan Male Driversb

 

 

Obtained Expected
Age Frequency % Frequency %
75 / 0 0 1.2 1.7
70—74 1 1.4 2.0 2.9
65-69 1 1.4 3.3 4.7
60-64 5 7.1 3.9 5.6
55-59 4 5.7 5.0 7.1
50-54 4 5.7 6.3 9.0
45-49 8 11.4 6.5 9.3
40-44 9 12.9 7.6 10.8
35-39 9 12.9 8.0 11.4
30—34 10 14.3 8.5 12.1
25-29 9 12.9 7.5 10.7
20-24 7 10.0 6.4 9.1
15-19 3 4.3 4.0 5.7
Total 70.2 100.1 70.0 100.0

 

aThe problem-driver and control groups have the same age
distribution.

:bBased on normative data from King (1959).

Appendix D

Factor Analysis of the Perceptual and

Motor Speed Tests (Table A-3)

43

44

 

 

 

 

Table A-3a

Principal Axis Rotated

Loadings Loadings
Tests I II I II
P-PS .728 .384 .150 .810
P-NR .730 .440 .107 .846
M-RT .598 -.472 .741 .177
M-TT .614 -.272 .594 .313
M—RM .719 -.251 .643 .409

 

g 199

Appendix E

Comparison of the Problem-Driver and Control Groups
on Number of Errors Incurred on P-SI and P-NR

(Table A-4)

45

46

 

 

 

Table A—4
Groupsa
Problem-Driver Control
Tests 14 92 E 9.12
P-SI 5.44 7.40 7.07 7.95
P-NR 4.43 4.66 4.01 4.35

 

aNone of the differences are statistically significant.

47

Appendix F

Comparison of the Problem-Driver and Control Groups on
Perceptual-Motor Speed Discrepancies (E and F ratios)

(Table A—5)

48

 

 

 

Table A-5
Groups
Problem-Driver Control
Test Pairs M §]_3_ M _S__p_ _t_ _F_
P-SI vs. M-RT --.025a .933 .025 1.255 .27 1.81C
vs. M-TT .084 .994 -.084 1.138 .93 1.31
p-ps vs. M-RT .074 1.115 -.074 1.322 .71 1.41
vs. M—TT .182 1.161 -.182 1.246 1.79b 1.35
vs. M-RM -.007 1.247 .007 .777 .08 2.58d
vs. M-TT .122 1.069 -.122 1.169 1.29 1.20
vs. M-RM -.067 1.310 .067 .845 .72 2.40d

 

aHigh scores mean relatively faster motor Speed than perceptual

speed.

bp<. 10

nggOZ

age 0 1

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Ll BR

 

2930