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 10
10
TABLE 2 Consistency of individual differences
SAFETY OTHER
RESPONSE CHOICE MANAGERS EXPERTS
Risk can change dramatically 10% 0%
Moderate consistency 25% 35%
Risk stays about the same 65% 65%
association). Respondents in both groups rated personality 5-point scale). For other experts, there was no "yes-no" ques-
traits such as aggressiveness, impulsivity, and inattentiveness tion regarding use; instead, they just rated the effectiveness of
as having the highest associations with risk. The lowest rated the practice. Thus, the safety manager ratings here are based
associations were for "did not attend formal truck driving on actual use of the practice/tool, whereas the other expert
school," introversion, and obesity. The factors, mean ratings ratings were not. Among the most frequently used and high-
(to the nearest tenth), and rankings are presented in order of est rated practices were checking the applicant motor vehicle
safety manager ranking in Table 3. When there were ties in record (MVR), contacting past employers, testing for alcohol
the mean ratings, rankings were determined by looking at and drugs (required by federal regulation for interstate carri-
additional decimal places. However, for simplicity, these ers), and on-road driving tests. Table 4 lists the practices in the
decimal places are not shown in the tables. Across the 16 order safety managers ranked them.
items, there was strong agreement between the safety man-
agers and the other experts in their mean ratings.
2.2.4 Part 4: Driver Evaluation
2.2.3 Part 3: Driver Hiring Practices and Tools Part 4 presented four driver evaluation practices. The
instructions were the same as in Part 3 for the two respon-
Part 3 presented eight hiring practices and tools and asked dent groups. "Continuous tracking of driver crashes, inci-
safety managers to first indicate whether they used the prac- dents, and violations" was almost universally used by safety
tice, and then, if "yes," to rate its effectiveness (again using a manager respondents and had the highest-rated effective-
TABLE 3 Driver factors associated with risk
SAFETY OTHER
MANAGERS EXPERTS
Rank Rank
DRIVER RISK FACTOR Mean (of 16) Mean (of 16)
Aggressive/angry 3.4 1 3.4 3
Impatient/impulsive 3.4 2 3.5 1
Inattentive 3.4 3 3.4 2
Inexperienced (new CMV driver) 3.2 4 3.2 4
Unhappy w/ job/company 2.6 5 2.4 7
Young Driver (e.g., less than 25) 2.5 6 3.1 5
Sleep apnea/other sleep disorder 2.4 7 2.9 6
Unhappy marriage/family prob. 2.2 8 2.2 8
Debt or other financial problems 2.0 9 2.1 9
Heart or other medical condition 1.9 10 2.1 10
Dishonest 1.8 11 1.8 14
Older driver (e.g., 60 or older) 1.7 12 1.9 12
New to company 1.6 13 2.0 11
Obese/overweight 1.4 14 1.7 15
Introverted/unsociable 1.3 15 1.1 16
Did not attend truck driving school 1.2 16 1.8 13
