Adaptation of a Canadian culpability scoring tool to Alberta police traffic collision report data. (18th March 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pitt, Tona M.; Aucoin, Janet; Nettel-Aguirre, Alberto; McCormack, Gavin R.; Howard, Andrew W.; Graff, Paul; Rowe, Brian H.; Hagel, Brent E.
• Is Part Of: Traffic injury prevention. Volume 20:Number 3(2019)
• Page Start: 270
• Page End: 275
• Publication Date: 2019-03-18
• Subjects: Culpability -- motor vehicle collisions -- responsibility analysis -- police collision reports -- not-at-fault drivers -- Canadian Culpability Scoring Tool; Traffic safety -- Periodicals; Traffic accidents -- Periodicals; Wounds and injuries -- Prevention -- Periodicals; 363.125
• DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2019.1567916
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1538-9588

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: The objective of this study was to adapt a previously validated Canadian Culpability Scoring Tool (CCST) to Alberta police report data. Methods: Police traffic collision reports from motor vehicle (MV) collisions in Calgary and Edmonton (Alberta, Canada) from 2010 to 2014 were used. Adaptation of the CCST was completed with input from personnel within Alberta Transportation, contributing to face and content validity. Two research assistants, given only the information necessary for scoring, evaluated 175 randomly selected MV–MV collisions. Interrater agreement was estimated using kappa (k) and reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Discussion of disagreements between the research assistants and consultation from Alberta Transportation informed the algorithm used in the Alberta Motor Vehicle Collision Culpability Tool (AMVCCT). The AMVCCT was automated and applied to all motorists involved in collisions. Binary logistic regression was used to examine characteristics of the culpable and nonculpable drivers and their effects were reported using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. Results: Interrater agreement for the random sample was excellent (k = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92–0.99). Of those drivers hospitalized, 1, 130 (37.54%) were rated not culpable and 1, 880 (62.46%) were rated culpable. The odds of being culpable were higher for males than for females (OR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.23–1.66). The odds of being culpable were higher in those impaired by alcohol than those considered "apparently normal" (OR = 61.10; 95% CI, 22.66–164.75). The odds of being deemed culpable, when compared with drivers >54 years old, were higher for those <25 years old (OR = 1.72; 95% CI, 1.35–2.20) and lower for those in the 40- to 54-year-old age group (OR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63–0.96). Driving between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m. resulted in higher odds of being culpable compare with all other 6-h time blocks. Direction and statistical significance remained consistent when applying the tool to all MV collisions. Sensitivity analysis including the removal of single vehicle collisions did not affect the direction or statistical significance of the main results. Conclusions: The AMVCCT identified a culpable group that exhibited characteristics expected in drivers who are at fault in collisions. The age groups 25–39 and 40–54 demonstrated different results than the CCST. However, this is the only difference that exists in the findings of the AMVCCT compared to the CCST and could exist due to differences between the driving populations in Alberta and British Columbia. It is possible to adapt the CCST to provinces outside British Columbia and, in doing so, we can identify risk factors for collision contribution and not-at-fault drivers who represent the driving population.