Abstract
Texting while driving is more dangerous than driving under the influence of substance abuse or alcohol. Drivers who drive while texting has increased likelihoods of colliding with other motor vehicles, running over foot travelers, and injuring travelers.
Even though people acknowledge that texting while driving is a major cause of accidents, they are not willing to restrain from such behavior voluntarily. In a bid to address this challenge, the US government via the policymaking agencies, citizens, and lobbyist movements is sensitizing the public on the effects of texting while driving (Beede & Kass, 2013). Based on this suggestion, this paper aims at establishing the impact of text messaging on driving performance and the risks related to this malpractice. The paper will conclude by arguing that texting while driving has negative effects on one’s driving performance. The findings will show how drivers are distracted coupled with possible consequences for public safety and device modification.
The first commercial wireless phone was made in the year 1946. By the year 1949, the services were available in more than one hundred cities. Since then, the know-how and the number of users have increased. Currently, cell phones support a number of functionalities such as camera, email, and SMS. Before the 1990s, the number of cell phone users was estimated at 1000,000 (LaVallee, 2009). In the year 2013, the number had risen to 6.4 billion. Over the last decade, there has been an increase in the number of accidents associated with texting while driving. According to a report released in the year 2010 by the transportation department, up to three thousand individuals are killed annually by accidents related to texting while driving (Pascual-Ferra, Liu, & Beatty, 2012). A similar report indicated that a number of drivers have admitted to using mobile the phones while driving. Based on the report, it is apparent that texting while driving is to be blamed for more than 6% of all the road accidents in the United States of America (Mccartt & Hellinga, 2012). The fact that a number of American teens are addicted to the device increases the need to ban the use of the device while driving.
Even though a number of average individuals can drive while texting and have no collisions, it should be noted that mobile phones have become more complicated with time and have increased the chances of distractions. Unlike in the past, mobile phones’ functionalities and features have increased tremendously (Nelson, 2013). As a result, the chances of a driver being distracted by incoming calls, messages, emails, pictures, and other notifications have increased. With increased distractions, a driver is likely to be involved in an accident. When driving, individuals should focus their concentration on the road. Mobile phones, regardless of their usage, should be perceived as a form of interruption. As such, they deter the driver’s concentration from the motorway. The above implies that an individual engaged with the device while driving is forced to drive with one hand on the steering wheel. With a decreased concentration on the motorway, an individual’s chance of being engaged in an accident is increased. Based on the above illustrations, it is apparent that regulation ought to be enacted to illegalize the act while driving.
Through enhanced sensitization, road users can be informed about the dangers of using the phone while driving. Similarly, through sensitization, relevant stakeholders will realize the need to enforce appropriate laws that will prohibit the act while driving. Equally, all the stakeholders will realize the need to put in place adequate information systems to measure the extent of road accidents resulting from texting while driving. Since the government is interested in reducing road accidents through legislation of appropriate traffic laws, it should outlaw texting while driving.
In conclusion, it should be noted that texting while driving increases the chances of being engaged in an accident. With decreased attention to the motorway, it is evidence that an individual’s chance of being engaged in an accident is increased. In this regard, it is apparent that a decree ought to be enacted to illegalize the act while driving.
References
Beede, K., & Kass, S. (2013). Engrossed In Conversation: The Impact of Cell Phones on Simulated Driving Performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38 (2), 415-421.
LaVallee, A. (2009). Firms racing to end texting and driving. The Wall Street Journal. Web.
Mccartt, A., & Hellinga, L. (2012). Cell Phones and Driving: Review Of Research. Traffic Injury Prevention, 7(2), 89-106.
Nelson, E. (2013). Texting While Driving: Young Adult Drivers’ Rates & Reasons. AAP Grand Rounds, 6(3), 50-50.
Pascual-Ferra, P., Liu, Y., & Beatty, M. (2012). A meta-analytic comparison of the effects of text messaging to substance-induced impairment on driving performance. Communication Research Reports, 29(3), 227–238.
Ethical Issues: Privacy, Confidentiality And Human Protection
Abstract
This paper dwells upon ways to mitigate human protection, confidentiality, and privacy issues. The evaluator has to obtain written consent, code personal information and can resort to the assistance of other professionals if necessary. This is the way ethical issues can be addressed.
Introduction
Any research has to be conducted with specific attention to ethical issues. There are numerous hazards in this sphere and evaluators have to make sure that participants’ privacy and confidentiality are respected. Royse, Thyer and Padgett (2009) stress that participants may encounter a variety of issues if their data are revealed. These problems may occur at people’s workplace as well as in their private life. Inability of researchers to meet participants’ expectations on privacy may result in distorted results as people may provide false data. There are a number of ways that can be employed to mitigate risks associated with ethical issues.
Issues That May Occur
It is essential for the evaluator to make sure that the person’s participation will not lead to psychological issues. For instance, Royse et al. (2009) note that a person who had some traumatic experience can obtain another trauma through participating in research and bringing back certain painful memories. To mitigate this risk, it is essential to carry out the project with the supervision of a psychologist who could help participants cope with their psychological traumas. It is especially important to pay attention to this aspect when working with vulnerable groups (for example, people with mental disabilities, elderly people, children, minorities, and so on).
As far as confidentiality is concerned, participants of research may have troubles at their working place if some data get published or will become known to employers, colleagues, relatives, and so on. A person who abused substance (or used to have legal issues) may try to conceal this information from employers or other people and this is the person’s right (Stringer, 2013). It is essential to ensure participants’ confidentiality.
If the research requires the use of information that can be in any way harmful to the participant, the evaluator has to make sure that personal data will not be used (for example, numeric codes should be utilized) (Adler & Clark, 2014). These concerns arise at the stage of choosing participants as some people may be afraid to participate or refuse since they will try to keep their data private (Royse et al., 2009). It is also important to make sure that the fact of participation of a person will remain unrevealed.
Finally, privacy issues should also be mitigated. Participants have to understand the peculiarities of the research and should be able to withdraw from the research any time they want to. A written consent form can help mitigate the risks associated with privacy and human protection as participants will know major details concerning the research and will be able to decide whether they will participate.
Royse et al. (2009) state that some people may be afraid to refuse to take part in research due to a variety of reasons. The written consent form should include information on privacy as well as other major ethical issues. In this way, the researcher will inform participants who will understand whether they are totally safe when taking part in this or that research. The evaluator has to make sure that participants are volunteers who have made a thoughtful decision.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is possible to note that evaluators have to try to mitigate privacy, confidentiality, and human protection issues. There are numerous ways to achieve this goal. The evaluator has to obtain written consent from participants, address psychologists or other professionals if necessary, and ensure personal information coding.
Reference List
Adler, E., & Clark, R. (2014). An invitation to social research: How it’s done. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Royse, D., Thyer, B., & Padgett, D. (2009). Program evaluation: An introduction. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Stringer, E.T. (2013). Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Test Of Nonverbal Intelligence, 3rd Edition
Introduction
The language-free measure of reasoning, aptitude, and intelligence is referred to as the test of nonverbal intelligence (TONI Test). The test is intended to be used by people from the age of six years up to ninety years. The TONI-3 test takes less than twenty minutes. Toni-3 is a revision of Toni-2 and uses the same response format. The examiner administers the test by pantomime, whereby the expected response from the subject is to point at the correct item.
The TONI-3 test is standardized and comes with an examiner manual that contains the precise measures for giving the test, scoring, and result in analysis (DeMauro, 2001).
Administration of the test
The TONI-3 test can be given by either a professional or a paraprofessional, who has received official education in psychological evaluation (Brown, Sherbenou, & Johnsen, 1997). Interpretation of the test results should follow all the steps indicated in the manual. The subjects can perform the test either as individuals or in groups, whereby they are provided with a sequence of conceptual figures with voids, whereby the subject selects an appropriate figure to finish it (Brown, Sherbenou, & Johnsen, 1997).
During the test, the clinician is not allowed to communicate verbally, but by use of figures and expressions, when praising or asking for a response. Items are arranged in order from simple to complex in the two forms, A and B, and the assessment does not include any subtests. The test ceases after three wrong responses in five successive items. The test begins at the mark indicating the age margin, which depends on the alleged rational impairment, proficiency in training stimuli, and age of the subject. The basal is determined by five correct responses (DeMauro, 2001). Subjects are allowed to re-test, whereby the first test is administered using form A, and the subsequent ones using form B.
Scoring
The relevant form is marked with a cross, and the right response is scored ‘1’ and a wrong one ‘0’, with the total score in a row being the sum of correct responses between the basal and final response (Liu, 2010). This sum is converted to percentile scores and deviation quotients using comprehensive tables in the manual (Liu, 2010). The standard score form yielded by TONI-3 is a standard deviation of 15 and a mean of 100 (Atlas, 2001).
General Test Information
The complete tool kit for TONI-3 includes a manual, a picture book, 50 forms A answer sheets, and 50 form B answer sheets. The complete kit goes for the price of $256.00. The tool kit was written by three authors namely Susan Johnson, Rita Sherbenou, and Linda Brown. The publisher of the tool kit is Pro-Ed, whose location address in Austin, Tx78757 is 8700 Shoal Creek Boulevard (Brown, Sherbenou, & Johnsen, 1997).
Description of the tool
The tool kit targets problem solving and abstract reasoning to measure general intelligence. It is used to conduct research, to identify intellectual impairment in individuals, and to assess the effects of neurological conditions such as motor, language, and cognitive impairments. It also evaluates the skill solving novel abstract of an individual to estimate their intellectual competence. Examples of tests are the Piaget, for accommodation, assimilation, and organization, and the spearman for g-factor, which follow researched and well-known theoretical models of intelligence. The age of the subjects ranges from six years and zero months to 89 years and 11 months.
Discussion and Critique of the test
The TONI-test is advantageous because it is easy to administer and score. Its two test forms are also useful for pre and post-test measures. Another of its strengths is that it can be used with culturally diverse individuals. It can also be used with individuals whose expressive language and receptivity are extremely limited. The weaknesses of the test include its specific measurement, its inability to determine the need for services by itself, and its lack of guidance for intervention planning. Cognitive communication involves organization, abstract reasoning, problem-solving, memory, and attention (DeMauro, 2001).
Normative sample
A sample of over 3,400 subjects was used to standardize the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, third edition (Atlas, 2001). Demographic variables including physical location, place of residence, type of disability, race, and gender, and age bracket were used to stratify the individuals (Curtin, 1952). The subjects in the sample were English speaking Americans (Atlas, 2001). To make the sample appropriate, the subjects used in the sample were of the required age bracket, between the ages of six and eighty-nine years (Atlas, 2001). The potential bias of the study was found to be inconsequential.
Limitations of the Test
The TONI-3 test should be used as a secondary test to a broader in-depth intelligence test since it is based on a single variable of intelligence, namely figurative problem solving, which is a fast evaluation of intelligence (Curtin, 1952). Other shortcomings include the absence of norms for disability groups, the absence of Australian norms, its ineffectiveness for the visually impaired, and the awkwardness of the test when administered to gifted subjects (Atlas, 2001). The test is also inadequate for people with disabilities since it fails to outline their strengths and weaknesses, and therefore offers no solutions, when compared to other more comprehensive tests (DeMauro, 2001).
Conclusion
TONI-3 has a unique format. This makes it possible to examine the intellectual capacity of problematic individuals. The tool kit was aimed at developing an intelligence test that did not involve cultural, motoric, and linguistic elements. Since the test is nonverbal, it ensures that the results remain unaffected by impaired motor abilities, poor English, or impaired language skills (Liu, 2010). The variety of subjects who can be assessed include victims of brain injury or stroke, the mentally retarded, those whose learning is disabled, those with impaired language or speech, and those who are bilingual or non-English speaking (Atlas, 2001).
References
Atlas, J. (2001). Review of the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Third Edition. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 14.
Brown, L., Sherbenou, R., & Johnsen, S. (1997). Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Third Edition Examiner’s Manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Curtin, J. T. (1952). A factor analysis of verbal and non-verbal tests of intelligence (The Catholic University of America. Educational research monographs). Washington D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.
DeMauro, G. (2001). Review of the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence, Third Edition. Mental Measurements Yearbook, 14.
Liu, H. C.-E. (2010). Non-verbal intelligence tests for use in China. Charleston, S.C.: Nabu Press.