A Comparison of Data Sources for Motor Vehicle Crash Characteristic Accuracy

Abstract

Abstract. Objective: To determine the accuracy of police reports (PRs), ambulance reports (ARs), and emergency department records (EDRs) in describing motor vehicle crash (MVC) characteristics when compared with an investigation performed by an experienced crash investigator trained in impact biomechanics. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, observational study. Ninety-one patients transported by ambulance to a university emergency department (ED) directly from the scene of an MVC from August 1997 to April 1998 were enrolled. Potential patients were identified from the ED log and consent was obtained to investigate the crash vehicle. Data describing MVC characteristics were abstracted from the PR, AR, and medical record. Variables of interest included restraint use (RU), air bag deployment (AD), and type of impact (TI). Agreements between the variables and the independent crash investigation were compared using kappa. Interrater reliability was determined using kappa by comparing a random sample of 20 abstracted reports for each data source with the originally abstracted data. Results: Agreement using kappa between the crash investigation and each data source was 0.588 (95% CI = 0.508 to 0.667) for the PR, 0.330 (95% CI = 0.252 to 0.407) for the AR, and 0.492 (95% CI = 0.413 to 0.572) for the EDR. Variable agreement was 0.239 (95% CI = 0.164 to 0.314) for RU, 0.350 (95% CI = 0.268 to 0.432) for AD, and 0.631 (95% = 0.563 to 0.698) for TI. Interrater reliability was excellent (kappa > 0.8) for all data sources. Conclusions: The strength of the agreement between the independent crash investigation and the data sources that were measured by kappa was fair to moderate, indicating inaccuracies. This presents ramifications for researchers and necessitates consideration of the validity and accuracy of crash characteristics contained in these data sources.

Prevalence of teen driver errors leading to serious motor vehicle crashes

“…Studies aiming to establish causality rely mostly on police accident reports via national crash databases like the National Automotive Sampling System's General Estimates System (NASS-GES) and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) (Williams et al, 1995;Chen et al, 2000;Rice et al, 2003;Neyens and Boyle, 2008). However, these analyses may be limited in several aspects, including over assignment of culpability to teens because of their age, inconsistency of information collected on accident reports (Grant et al, 2000), and an inability to elucidate the actual causal chain of events of the crash. While two studies with enhanced designs have advanced the literature by providing more detail on specific actionable factors (Mcknight and Mcknight, 2003;Braitman et al, 2008), these studies are not without important limitations.…”

Peer Passengers: How Do They Affect Teen Crashes?

“…Williams et al [5] reported an increase in the frequency of speeding, driver error, and single-vehicle crashes among teens in fatal crashes with peer passengers (compared with solo drivers), and Aldridge et al [8] found that crash-involved teens carrying passengers were more likely to travel at unsafe speeds compared with those driving alone or with passengers of other ages. However, these studies relied solely on police accident report data, which may not have been collected systematically across jurisdictions, are limited in scope, may overassign culpability to teens because of their age, and may have issues with accuracy [17].…”

Validation of self-reported motor-vehicle crash and related work leave in a multi-purpose prospective cohort

“…Ninety-one patients transported by ambulance to an emergency department directly from the scene of a MVC were analysed. Agreement using k between the crash investigation and different data sources was 0.58 for the police report, 0.33 for the ambulance report and 0.49 for the emergency department report (Grant et al, 2000). Similar problems exist in self-reported MVC.…”