children’s response to a commercial back-up warning device - what is the best car alarm
Abstract objective: to determine the response of preschool children to business returns
A warning alarm is issued in the simulation setting of the car reversing.
Location: pre-school parking in Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Methods: 33 preschool children were asked to walk twice behind a fixed vehicle as their own control.
For the first time, control, no warning from the vehicle.
The second time, the vehicle was placed in reverse gear to trigger the alarm.
The hidden camera recorded the reaction of the children.
The child's avoidance behavior is considered a positive response.
The position and distance at which the response occurred were measured.
Results: 33 children aged 38-61 months were studied.
No one responded to the alarm with evasive behavior, but 18 people looked at the vehicle or were hesitant on their gait.
Conclusion: although more than half of the children admitted warning alerts, the device did not cause avoidance.
The warning device alone does not prevent damage.
This study is a non-
Randomized comparison of 3-5 year old preschool children as their own control.
A local kindergarten agreed to participate and was agreed by the parents of the child.
Children with hearing impairment and potential non-cooperation were excluded.
All children were assessed by the Brigance diagnostic checklist for early development, a standardized and effective development assessment measure routinely implemented at the beginning of the school year.
The study was approved by the human subject review committee for health sciences at the University of New Mexico.
A four-door car is equipped with a warning device for home car sales.
When a big truck backed up, it made the same beep.
When the child starts to cross the parking lot, the sound comes out, about 18 inch from the rear bumper of the car, which is behind the vehicle and perpendicular to the main shaft of the vehicle.
This is specified as zero distance (fig 1).
When the child is walking behind the parked vehicle for the first time, there is no sound (control).
Within 5 minutes, they walked behind the vehicle for the second time, and the alarm device sounded (intervention).
A parent or teacher waited on the other side of the car but did not instruct the children to respond to the warning.
An unobtrusive VCR camera records the child's behavior.
Download the simulation settings for the car backup in Figure 1 of figure open in the new tabDownload powerpoint.
All observations were made at the same parking lot and at the same time of day to control the surrounding noise and interference as much as possible.
The children scored at a distance of zero and they responded.
A positive response is to avoid behavior, for example, stop or any hesitation in the gait.
All other actions are considered negative.
We compared positive and negative responders stratified by age, gender, reaction distance, and Brigance scores.
The sample size calculation is based on an estimate that 10% of control children and 50% of experimental children will have a positive response.
In order to achieve 80% power, a type I error rate of 5% is used and 24 subjects are required under each condition.
Differences in binary outcome variables were evaluated using Logistic regression and X2 analysis (
Yes response to warning device v no response to device).
The response distance was analyzed using ANOVA.
Statistical analysis using JMP (
SAS agency 1999-2001).
Results 33 children in 38-61 months (
Median 53 months)participated; 57. 6% were male.
The Brigance score ranged from 56%-100%, but the distribution was negative, with a median of 84%.
None of the children showed a positive response, namely avoidance behavior at the control or experimental stage.
Therefore, there is no further analysis of the control data.
Eighteen people looked at the vehicle and hesitated to acknowledge the warning.
Prediction variables without assumptions (
Age, gender, Brigance score)
However, the forecast for the warning was confirmed.
Also, inclusion of all three variables in the logistic regression model does not distinguish between those who merely acknowledge the warning and those who respond negatively.
Discussion No child has a positive reaction to the warning device, that is, avoidance behavior.
While more than half of the people hesitated for a moment or acknowledged the alarm, all would be injured if it was a real backup situation.
The results showed that the children who recognized the sound were slightly older, the Brigance developmental score was higher, and tended to be male.
Although these differences were not statistically significant, further studies were needed to determine whether the differences were not found to reflect only the sample size.
This study targeted the appropriate age group p2, 7, 9 and injury settings.
The limitations of this study include uncontrollable environmental factors, including ambient noise, weather, and lighting.
The study was conducted for several days and early participants may have spoken to others to remind them of what to expect.
Since the registered subject may be a child of a safer-minded parent, there may be a selection bias.
If so, however, this bias is expected to shift the outcome to a more positive response.
When they walk behind a car with a business background, the key point is --
Warning device, 55% of children look at the car when it is on the back.
None of the children responded to the advertisement.
Warning equipment with avoidance behavior.
The up warning device that issued a warning did not have illegal and effective injury prevention actions in the preschool population studied. The back-
In this population, it seems that the warning devices tested are not enough to prevent harm.
This may need to be combined with educational intervention or more effective for older children.
We want to thank YDI-
Preschool education program in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Funded by the medical student research grant from the Graduate Medical Research Office of the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center.
REFERENCES Winn D, Agran P Castillo.
Pedestrians of children under the age of 5 were injured. Pediatrics1991; 88:776–82.
OpenUrlAbstract/free full text olson L, Sklar D, Cobb, D, etc.
Analysis of pedestrian deaths in children in New Mexico, 1986-1990.
Ann emmerg Mede 1993; 22:512–16.
F p of OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb ScienceRivara.
Pedestrian injury in children in the United States: current situation of problems, potential interventions and future directions.
Am J. Child1990 deposit insurance program; 144:692–6.
Openurlcrossrefpmed GmbH Partrick D, Bensard D, Moore electronics, etc.
Lane crush injury for young children: a highly lethal, devastating and potentially preventable event.
Surgical procedures; 33:1712–15.
Science Netherlands AJ, Liang RW, Singh SJ and other openurlcrosspubmedweb.
A motor vehicle in a lane where children are injured. Med J Aust2000; 173:503.
OpenUrlNadler EP, Courcoulas AP, Gardner MJ, etc.
Lane injuries in children: risk factors, incidence and mortality. Pediatrics2001; 108:326–8.
OpenUrlAbstract/free full Text ↵ Silen ML, kokokoska er Fendya DG, etc.
Rollover damage in residential lanes: age-
Related patterns of injury. Pediatrics1999; 104:7.
OpenUrlAbstract/free full text agagran P, Winn D, Anderson C.
Different locations of child pedestrian injuries. Pediatrics1994; 93:284–8.
OpenUrlAbstract/free full Text Robertson L.
The risk of car design and pedestrian death.
Public Health Association; 80:609–10.
OpenUrlPubMedWeb of science.
List of Brigance diagnostics developed earlier.
MA: Institute of curriculum, Inc. , 1991.