MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402162644 · doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2024.08.002

The effectiveness of driving simulator training on driving skills and safety in young novice drivers: A systematic review of interventions

2024· review· en· W4402162644 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Krasniuk, Ryan Toxopeus, Melissa Knott, Mackenzie L. McKeown, Alexander M. Crizzle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Safety Research · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan HealthSaskatchewan Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDriving simulatorPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsPsychological interventionInjury preventionApplied psychologyOccupational safety and healthSimulationMedical educationMedicinePsychologyComputer scienceMedical emergencyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of driving simulator training on simulated/on-road driving skills and safety in young novice drivers. METHOD: Searches were performed in Embase, Global Health, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, and on Google advanced, Google Scholar, and the Transport Research International Documentation websites. A total of 1,630 unique sources (titles and abstracts) were screened by two reviewers independently with 99 full-text articles reviewed for inclusion. Studies were included if they were a primary driving simulator intervention study that consisted of a randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental, prospective cohort, and case-control design, published in English between January 1, 2010 and January 26, 2024. RESULTS: The review included 15 studies published in 2010-2022 (study sample size ranged from 30 to 183,197). Findings showed that driving simulator training (compared to control conditions) can immediately improve simulated driving skills (e.g., adjustment to stimuli, lane maintenance, and speed regulation), although it was unclear whether simulator training can improve on-road driving skills or safety, immediately or longitudinally. Studies showed low quality of evidence with increased risks of selection bias, confounding factors, and type I errors influencing findings. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Since it is not known whether driving simulator training has short-term or long-term benefits on drivers' real-world driving skills or safety, it should not replace any training offered in driver education programs. However, driving simulator training can be included in driver education programs to supplement the in-class and on-road training. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of evidence in this review shows low confidence on whether findings accurately reflect true effects on driving skills or safety. Further research should enhance the quality of evidence and demonstrate the transfer effects of driving simulator training to valid measures of real-world driving before recommending any integration of simulator training into standard practice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Safety ResearchSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207