Appendix B
ANALYSIS OF RATINGS FROM NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUPS

Table B-1 Summary of Participants in NHTSA In-Depth Interviews and Focus Groups by Location and User Group

User Category

Phoenix, Ariz.

Portsmouth, N.H.

St. Louis, Mo.

Total

In-depth (individual, in-person)

 

 

 

 

interviews

 

 

 

 

 

Part-time users

25

30

34

89

 

Hard-core nonusers

6

8

3

17

Focus groups of full-time users

0

0

35

35

Total

31

38

72

141



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 95
Buckling Up: Technologies to Increase Seat Belt Use Appendix B ANALYSIS OF RATINGS FROM NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUPS Table B-1 Summary of Participants in NHTSA In-Depth Interviews and Focus Groups by Location and User Group User Category Phoenix, Ariz. Portsmouth, N.H. St. Louis, Mo. Total In-depth (individual, in-person)         interviews           Part-time users 25 30 34 89   Hard-core nonusers 6 8 3 17 Focus groups of full-time users 0 0 35 35 Total 31 38 72 141

OCR for page 95
Buckling Up: Technologies to Increase Seat Belt Use Table B-2 Analysis of Ratings from NHTSA In-Depth Interviews and Focus Groups by Technology, Overall and by User Group(Rating Scale: 1 = Least; 5 = Most) (Percentage of Respondents’ Ratings) Reported Acceptability Reported Effectiveness   Rating Ford Saab Entertainment Interlock Transmission Interlock Rating Ford Saab Entertainment Interlock Transmission Interlock Overall (N = 141)                     1 9 16 27 31 1 6 5 15 4   2 6 11 18 14 2 6 5 12 4   3 14 16 18 11 3 9 7 13 4   4 21 18 14 13 4 21 23 11 4   5 50 38 23 30 5 57 60 50 84 Full-Time Users (N = 35)                     1 0 14 31 29 1 0 6 17 0   2 3 14 20 26 2 0 3 17 3   3 3 11 29 14 3 0 6 14 0   4 14 20 11 9 4 11 26 6 0   5 80 40 9 23 5 89 60 46 97 Part-Time Users (N = 89)                     1 9 11 24 27 1 7 3 14 6   2 7 11 17 10 2 7 6 10 4   3 20 18 15 11 3 12 7 14 2   4 22 18 17 16 4 25 19 12 6   5 42 42 28 36 5 49 65 51 82 Hard-Core Nonusers (N = 17)                     1 29 47 35 59 1 18 12 18 6   2 6 6 18 12 2 12 6 12 0   3 0 12 12 6 3 12 12 6 18   4 29 18 6 6 4 24 35 12 6   5 35 18 29 18 5 35 35 53 71 NOTE: The percentages may not total 100 because of rounding.

OCR for page 95
Buckling Up: Technologies to Increase Seat Belt Use Table B-3 Analysis of Ratings from NHTSA In-Depth Interviews and Focus Groups by Gender, Age, and Location Mean Acceptability Mean Effectiveness   Ford Saab Entertainment Interlock Transmission Interlock   Ford Saab Entertainment Interlock Transmission Interlock Analysis by Gender                   Male (N = 57) 3.82 3.33 2.89 2.54 Male (N = 57) 3.88 3.98 3.74 4.42 Female (N = 84) 4.08 3.63 2.89 3.26 Female (N = 84) 4.38 4.49 3.64 4.74 Analysis by Age                   16-25 (N = 22) 4.00 3.23 3.09 2.59 16-25 (N = 22) 3.73 4.09 4.36 4.32 26-40 (N = 52) 3.60 3.40 2.92 2.54 26-40 (N = 52) 4.08 4.33 4.02 4.52 41-55 (N = 38) 4.18 3.58 2.89 3.21 41-55 (N = 38) 4.21 4.05 3.26 4.74 56 and over (N = 29) 4.38 3.83 2.69 3.72 56 and over (N = 29) 4.65 4.66 3.11 4.83 Analysis by Location                   St. Louis (N = 72) 4.18 3.36 2.57 2.76 St. Louis (N = 72) 4.46 4.29 3.61 4.72 Phoenix (N = 31) 3.87 3.77 3.45 3.35 Phoenix (N = 31) 4.05 4.35 4.06 4.42 Portsmouth (N = 38) 3.68 3.58 3.05 3.05 Portsmouth (N = 38) 3.74 4.21 3.50 4.55