This paper reviews the article titled Driving after concussion: The acute effect of mild traumatic brain injury on the driver’s hazard perception by Megan Preece et al.
The research study literally examines the immediate impacts of current mild traumatic brain injury on how individual drivers perceive hazards and risks. This aspect is known as the driver’s capability to mitigate the road ahead in order to relatively detect potential dangerous traffic.
The study involved experimenting with poorer patients who had MTBI and also 43 other patients suffering from minor orthopaedic injury situations.
In relation to the article, the researcher’s questions were aimed at giving final recommendations and ensuring that the study covered many aspects and variables.
Hypothesis. According to the article, the outcome measures of the hazard perception tests were quite significant. Their hypothesis reliability was optimal based on the participants mean response time frame to the identifiable traffic conflicts. If an individual did not immediately respond to a certain existing traffic conflict, the mean response time for that particular conflict highly favoured the articles initial null hypothesis (Preece, Horswill & Geffen, 2010).
In order to test the hypothesis that emergency level participants who had MTBI would give low results on the HPT as compared to those individual patients who had small orthopaedic injuries. Those led to the T-test being carried out on the various independent groups so as to the test and prove the existence of a significant difference on the hypothesis.
The main participants of the article study included a particular group of patients who suffered from critical orthopaedic injuries. They were brought to the emergency department of Brisbane hospital as the largest hospital in Queensland, Australia. The participants recruited between a time horizons of 1 year were purely unpaid volunteers. The typical criterion needed for each participant to engage in the research study dictated that one should have an injury within one testing day. The requirements also included that the participant to be between the age group 18-65 years of age, must have a driver’s license. In order for a patient to be identified fit for the research experiment, the patient should have had less alcohol concentration of less than 0.5 % since it is used as a legal driving limit in present-day Australia (Preece, Horswill & Geffen, 2010). The patient should also not have conditions of neuropathology and various psychiatric disorders. The patient should also not have engaged in illicit drug abuse for the past 3 days. The MTBI group need the participant to acquire an independent diagnosis of various closed head damage.
The specific criteria for a participant to be included ensured that the patient has sustained trauma injuries on a limb, for example, a fracture or an arm sprain only for the orthopaedic group.
The final total number of participants was 42. This comprised of 6 women and 36 men.
The key variables in the research article as shown in table 1 included variables such as
Pre-injury characteristics. These i9nvolved the age in years of the participant, education, total number of head injuries, anxiety and stress disorder levels, number of education years and the intelligent quotient of the patient
Driving history. This comprised of years that participant had carried driving activities, annual covering in kilometres, the total number of crashes and convictions
Injury details of the north the MTBIU and consequent orthopaedic individual’s participants. This included variables such as BAC, time horizon since injury measured in hours, various sprain, cores existing visual acuity and emotion levels
Another variable was cognitive tests. This included both HPT response and spatial reaction times.
The variables were measured in terms of Mean, range (n) and mean standard deviation. Significance tests on the given variables were also carried out.
The vital variable measures were taken based on their higher reliability, validity and continued sustainability for the emergency points of the available departments. Several measures were involved to measure extra key variables that would have had negative impacts on the MTBI or driver’s hazards perceptions interrelationship. The variable measurement in the article was discussed as follows;
Hazard perception tests. The available participants watched videos of traffic sourced from the drivers own personal point of view. They were needed to identify a traffic conflict immediately by clicking on any road users as they were made to imagine that they are the real drivers. This showed that the participants were highly viewing the occurring events which they would experience during actual driving (Preece, Horswill & Geffen, 2010).
Spatial reaction time task variables. This measurement was designed by the researchers installing black boxes of random intervals appearing on screen for two participants. The individuals were to click on the box each time it appeared. This was done in approximately 2 and a half minutes time interval. The variable measure utilized the mean of each of the participant’s responses.
Variables constituting Pain and emotion scales. This was oneself report material
The existing variables were adversely measured for skewness, kurtosis, and availability of outlier values. Various parametric statics that had a clear significant difference were utilized for key variables that were evenly distributed (Klein, 2017). In case the available vital research variables were not well distributed, parametric statistics were done.
Results indicated an independent group variation on the existing hazard perception tests. According to the article, the outcome supported the hypothesis that patients with MTBI had significantly less response to various traffic conflicts with HPT with ultimate comparisons with Orthopaedic injury participants. Table 1 displayed and indicated the key significant deviations between the orthopaedic injuries participants, the continuous variables were tested by use of T-test of significance according to the groups. This was as depicted in Table 1
For example, the mean deviation was 48. Analyses showed that mean response was equal to the braking distance of drivers in the overall speed is at an estimate of 60 km per hr.
Table 2 indicated the outcomes of correlations between the confound variables. Significant group differences on existing categorical variables were also largely investigated (Preece, Horswill & Geffen, 2010). The MTBI and orthopaedic individual groups did not differ significantly based on the women and illness rates.HPT response time frame deviation was also evaluated within all the groups. There was no significant difference between response times between the MTBIO individual groups. The standard deviation and mean was valued at b1.05 and 4.34 respectively.
The articles study was purposed to evaluate the minimal research on MTBI and driving scenarios by identifying the impacts of MTBI on various drivers. It was hypothesized that patients with MTBI would have low results on performance regarding hazard perception critically compared to control indivi9duals with less orthopaedic injuries. This particular article hypothesis was aided by significant deviation on the HPT. The pace of Patients with MTBI was less to identify traffic conflicts in the HPTI than those with injuries.
A number of various strengths are evident and identifiable in the cited study. Given the commonality of individuals draining with injuries and the identifiable negative results that can arise, it is key to gain a clear understanding of individuals suffering from MTBI can relate to the failed driving situations (Preece, Horswill & Geffen,2010). Therefore the aim of the article is quite relevant and one of a particular high consideration. In addition, this article study is interesting in that it measures a wide range of variables of patients with MTBI and orthopaedic injuries in relation to driving scenarios. In doing so the given. In doing so, the existing authors of the article have been able to both identify and also examine a huge number of participants engaging in driving experiences than other studies that might wrongly classify the participants with a little criterion.
The article findings can be incorporate with other relevant research activities. The current research has strengths by finding how core participants perform worse on cognitive aspects (Klein, 2017). This article is in line with initial research works since it got some results just like the previous results. The study shows that within 1 day on orthopaedic injury patients performance with MTBI is poor on hazard perception. These findings mean that the article gave relevant outcomes.
Future research should investigate the hazard perception of a given portion of participants having complicated severe or mild TBI. This should be done in relation to driving safely.
Findings indicate that patients with MTBI performed badly on the Digit Symbol substitutes test.
Despite the various highlighted strengths of the given article study, a number of weaknesses arose and are typically prevailing. The most detrimental constraint is the lack of reliability of the data and variable measures. Internal consistency reliability of the data on the participant’s constructs is minimal. Likewise, the consistency reliability measuring the MTBI variables was also low. The authors of the article state that future study should be done with more update and reliable data set measures.
Further limitations are also viewed whilst focusing on the participants. It is quite evident that the article study limited itself to participants of only 18- 65 years of age (Klein, 2017). Other participants regardless of the driver’s license could also have been included in the research in order to offer comparable results. A critical aspect or domain regarding the topic of study could have been identified easily. It would also have a given a wide range of topic cover. Another limitation of the study involved exclusion of those individual patients with dominant arm injuries. It I also evident that the research study failed to give a considerable number of patients who did not meet their criterion conditions. Other 4 participants were largely discarded due to the existence of a protocol error. The research failed to equalize the gender by representing an equal number of men and women ion the research (Preece, Horswill & Geffen, 2010). Although it’s it quite not clear whether the key participants who did not the criterion conditions in the research article felt coerced, such a given possibility band the negative implications it might have on the research outcomes should be mainly focused on. Apparently, findings are not externally valid to the participant patients outside the hospital
l and parameter settings. Therefore, overall sampling bias might be highly evident indicated that a non-random sampling technique was utilized in recruiting the participants.
The article showed that the current study involved the use of a quasi-experiment. Another limitation related to the generalizability of the individual’s findings (Klein, 2017). The general inclusion criterion used in the study narrowed down to restrained sample giving only selective participants. Other patients were locked away from participating due to many conditions set living little room to engage a wide range of participants.
Formatting weaknesses are also evident in the author’s written article. For instance, the problematic effects of the orthopaedic disorders were not clearly defined despite the injuries being one of the vital variables. As previously depicted, the variables of interest were MTBI sufferings and injuries on the driver who is a patient at a popular hospital setting. The initial intended utilization of the correlation and significance tests were not mentioned in a true description of the article study’s objectives as it’s not until the method that it begins becoming crystal clear and apparent. Despite the relevance and interests of the purpose of the article, various components weaken or lower its intended credibility (Klein, 2017). A number of constraints or limitations are much evident in the recruitment of participants with MBTI and due to the restricted range of available participants, anticipated results findings may be invalid for the broader overall sample. In addition, some of the main variables were not mentioned in the articles objectives. Also, vital definitions are unavailable. As a result of the limited and minimal reliability of various measures used in a dataset and methodological collection, there exist future doubt based on the validity of outcomes. This will remain the norm until future rese4arch disprove the study’s results and theoretical approaches.
According to the article, the practical effect of the current study is that patients with MTBI admitted to hospital should be advised to avoid driving for 1 day after having a head or arm injury. Hazard perception was seen to be slowed pots MTBI since initial studies indicate that participant drivers with optimum hazard have a higher number of crashes. Some of the recommendations and solution offered by the article include maintaining that drivers who have currently had MTBI injuries should immensely reduce their driving exposure experiences (Preece, Horswill & Geffen, 2010). This in proximal accordance and conformity to the set policies enacted and MTBI guideline. Much extensive research findings should be carried out in the future in order to clarify the current article finding. As a future researcher I would carry out research to explain more regarding the fact that within initial points of acute post-injuries, MTBI can be involved with critical impairment in crash-related theoretical perspectives of driving. I would do detailed future research to explain in what level, implications and why participants with MTBI indicated a low-level response to traffic conflicts than those patients with minimal orthopaedic injuries in a span of one-day time horizon.
References
Klein, T. A. (2017). Driving After Concussion: Advice by Nurse Practitioners.
Preece, M. H., Horswill, M. S., & Geffen, G. M. (2010). Driving after concussion: the acute effect of mild traumatic brain injury on drivers’ hazard perception. Neuropsychology, 24(4), 493.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download