Citation

Rudin-Brown CM, Kramer C, Langerak R, Scipione A, Kelsey S. Traffic Injury Prev. 2017; 18(8): 870-876.

Affiliation

CAE Canada , 1135 Innovation Drive, Kanata , ON , Canada , K2K 3G7 .

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/15389588.2017.1322204

PMID

28448167

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Although numerous research studies have reported high levels of error and misuse of child restraint systems (CRS) and booster seats in experimental and real world scenarios, conclusions are limited because they provide little information regarding which installation issues pose the highest risk and thus should be targeted for change. Beneficial to legislating bodies and researchers alike would be a standardized, globally relevant, assessment of the potential injury risk associated with more common forms of CRS and booster seat misuse, which could be applied with observed error frequency, for example, in car seat clinics or during prototype user testing, to better identify and characterize the installation issues of greatest risk to safety.

METHODS: A group of eight leading world experts in CRS and injury biomechanics, who were members of an international child safety project, estimated the potential injury severity associated with common forms of CRS and booster seat misuse. These injury risk 'error severity score' (ESS) ratings were compiled and compared to scores from previous research that had used a similar procedure but with fewer respondents. To illustrate their application, and as part of a larger study examining CRS and booster seat labeling requirements, the new standardized ESS ratings were applied to objective installation performance data from 26 adult participants who installed a convertible (rear- vs. forward-facing) CRS and booster seat in a vehicle, and a child test dummy in the CRS and booster seat, using labels that only just met minimal regulatory requirements. The outcome measure, the 'risk priority number' (RPN), represented the composite scores of injury risk and observed installation error frequency.

RESULTS: Variability within the sample of ESS ratings in the present study was smaller than that generated in previous studies, indicating better agreement amongst experts on what constituted injury risk. Application of the new standardized ESS ratings to installation performance data revealed several areas of misuse of the CRS / booster seat associated with high potential injury risk.

CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, findings indicate that standardized ESS ratings are useful for estimating injury risk potential associated with real world CRS and booster seat installation errors.

Language: en

Keywords

Child occupant safety; biomechanics; misuse mode and effects analysis (MMEA); risk priority number (RPN)