Usability of the SAFEWAY2SCHOOL system in children with cognitive disabilities

Abstract

Purpose SAFEWAY2SCHOOL is a programme based on several systems for the enhancement of school transportation safety for children. The aim of the study was to explore whether children with cognitive disabilities will notice, realise, understand, trust and accept the SAFEWAY2SCHOOL system and act in accordance with its instructions. Methods Fourteen children with cognitive disabilities and a control group of 23 children were shown five videos of scenarios involving journeys to and from school. During the first viewing visual scanning patterns were recorded with an eye tracking device. After a second viewing the participant was asked ten questions per scenario. Five questions addressed what the children saw on the video, and the remaining five what they would need to know and/or do within the scenario. Additional ratings of trust, likability, acceptability and usability were also collected. Results Very few differences were found in the visual scanning patterns of children with disabilities compared to children who participated in the control group. Of the 50 questions regarding what children saw or needed to know and/or do, only one significant difference between groups was found. No significant differences were found regarding self-reported ratings of trust, acceptability or usability of the system. Despite some significant differences across five of the 11 likability aspects, ratings were consistently high for both groups. Conclusions Children with cognitive disabilities proved that the SAFEWAY2SCHOOL system is as useful for them as it was for children in the control group. However, a valid estimation of the full utility of SAFEWAY2SCHOOL requires in situ testing of the system with these children.

Viewpoints of adults with and without Autism Spectrum Disorders on public transport

“…To be considered and feel included as a valued member of society, a person maintains a variety of roles within that community that may include being a neighbour, friend, team member or worker. In order to continue with these valued roles, it is imperative that a person is able to engage within the community, (Verdonschot, De Witte, Reichrath, Buntinx, & Curfs, 2008) and some form of transportation is normally needed in order to enhance this engagement (Falkmer et al, 2013;Gentry, Stock, Davies, Wehmeyer, & Lachapelle, 2011;Krishnasamy, Unsworth, & Howie, 2011). Furthermore, the ability to transport oneself independently is likely to increase the number of roles a person can have, as well as the level of community engagement in which they can partake (Backman, 2010;Falkmer et al, 2013).…”

“…However, the references with 5 or less authors have been consistently cited with all authors. However, the following reference have 6 or more than 6 authors, hence is cited with first author and et al in the first instance: Chee et.al (2014), Falkmer et al(2013), Almberg et al (2015), Joshi et al,. (2007); Howlin et al…”

A systematic review of disability’s treatment in the active school travel and children’s independent mobility literatures

“…The studies provide a range of findings 14 pertaining to the mobility, travel, health, and well-being of children with various forms of disability. These forms of disability include developmental (Falkmer, Anund, Sorensen, & Falkmer, 2004), cognitive (Falkmer et al, 2014), intellectual (Einarsson et al, 2015;Foley & McCubbin, 2009), sensory (Douglas, Pavey, Corcoran, & Clements, 2012;Porcelli, Ungar, Liebenberg, & Trépanier, 2014), and, most prominently, physical (Alriksson-Schmidt, Wallander, & Biasini, 2006;Stephens et al, 2015;Wiart, Darrah, Cook, Hollis, & May, 2003). 15 Many of the studies concerning physical disability focused specifically on children with cerebral palsy (CP; e.g.…”

“…Various studies have considered children's perspectives in order to use their input to evaluate health-and travel-related programmes/interventions (Anaby et al, 2014;Falkmer et al, 2014;Østensjø et al, 2005; see also Alriksson-Schmidt et al, 2006;Gürsel & Koruç, 2011;Van Wely et al, 2014). In other studies, children's perspectives were considered to explore and describe their experiences of mobility and transportation (see Palisano et al, 2009;Porcelli et al, 2014;Wiart et al, 2003), relationships (Skär & Tamm, 2001), and quality of life (Einarsson et al, 2015;Jemta, Dahl, Fugl-Meyer, & Stensman, 2005;Jemta, Fugl-Meyer, Oberg, & Dahl, 2009).…”

Intelligent Safety Transport Framework for Schools: A Review of Route Planning and Tracking Systems

“…However, limited works have been done so far in addressing this for school transportation and child safety. A recent Europe funded project conducted in Sweden "SAFEWAYTOSCHOOL" provided a holistic and safety framework for children [1], [11], [18], [19], [38]. This project addresses most of the difficulties faced during school transportation through a door to door approach (between home and school).…”