EXPERT PANEL

An Expert Panel Meeting was held on November 2, 2000 at the National Highway Institute in Arlington, Virginia. Ten top experts in the field of at-risk driver and pedestrian research participated in the discussion:

• Prof. Martin A. Pietrucha, Moderator, Pennsylvania Transit Institute, Pennsylvania State University 
• Dr. Helen Kerschner, Beverly Foundation 
• Jason King, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 
• Dr. Rich Marottoli, Yale University 
• Tina Abbate Marzolf, Area Agency on Aging 1-B, Michigan 
• Kent R. Milton, AAMVA Consultant 
• Dr. Richard Pain, TRB/NAS 
• Dr. Alison M. Smiley, Human Factors North 
• Dr. Loren Staplin, Scientex Corporation 
• Audrey Straight, AARP 
• Sgt. Tom Woodward, Maryland State Police

The purpose of the panel was to discuss potential research projects, add projects if necessary, determine feasibility and practicality, and discuss importance. The ultimate goal was for the panelists to provide the input which would be used to prioritize the most important projects for NHTSA to fund.

Prior to the meeting the panelists were given the Literature Review and Potential Projects (see Appendices 2-6). Panel members discussed the list of potential projects and were asked to add ideas that were not in the list (see Appendix 7 for list of panelist additions).

Panelists were asked to consider the potential projects and, as a group, assign to each project a High, Medium, or Low Priority rating. The panelists discussed each potential research project in detail in order to determine priority levels. Panelists considered the history of each topic, including past research efforts’ results and implementation. Current related research was discussed, particularly with regard to overlap with the topic of interest. If a topic was at least partially covered by current or past work, the issue generally received a lower priority rating.

The discussion continued until the panelists reached a consensus regarding priority (driven by safety urgency, practicality and feasibility). Projects were assigned “High”, “Medium” or “Low” priority. When multiple studies addressed a common topic or issue, the panel often decided to “fold them together” as packages. A project package (with multiple studies) was then treated as a unit. Panelists suggested that these projects might be later “folded out” again.

After all potential projects were assigned “High, Medium” or “Low” priorities, panelists examined the nineteen “High” NHTSA priority projects. Panelists were asked to vote for the projects they felt should be given the highest priority, given the importance of safety urgency, practicality and feasibility. Each panel member could vote for as many as nine projects. The resulting vote totals are shown in Column 1 of Table 1, High-priority Research And Implementation Projects.

A few of the multi-study packages are very large and include many studies. These have been broken down into subpackages. Subpackages are typically groups of 2-4 studies which logically might be performed together. With this approach, the sometimes unwieldy multi-study packages can have smaller units “folded out” without breaking down into single studies.

In Table 1, multi-study packages are ordered by descending numbers of votes, as shown in Column 1. That is, the packages receiving the greatest numbers of votes appear first, and those receiving the fewest appear later. No package received zero votes.

One caveat should be made regarding the votes given to each package. On average, the largest packages (usually those including several studies) tended to receive the most votes for priority. This is perfectly logical, as larger packages will generate more information. However, it means that the votes may have become skewed toward the larger packages.

In Table 1, “High-priority Research and Implementation Projects”, “Votes” (Column 1) shows the number of priority votes a package received from the Expert Panel. “Level of Effort” (Column 2) shows the funding recommended by the Expert Panel for the package. “Package” (Column 3) shows the overall topic or title of a multi-study package. “Subpackage” (Column 4) shows the topic or title of the folded-out subpackage and the level of funding recommended for the subpackage if done independently from the rest of the multi-study package.

“Project Title”(Column 5) refers to the title of the potential project or concept from the Literature Review (or Expert Panel). The Expert Panel occasionally changed titles, but these are usually the same as those presented in the Literature Review. Although it is tempting to think of these as individual studies, many of the line items at this level would require multiple studies to fulfill the goals (for example, a project that calls for both the development and the validation of a screening instrument.)

“General Approach/Type of Study” (Column 6) shows the method recommended for the work. “Desired Outcomes” (Column 7) gives the goal, the question to be answered, or the desired product from the work.

In Table 2, the few Medium-priority Research and Implementation Projects are shown. Because the Medium-priority projects were not included in the vote and did not have a level of effort recommended by the Expert Panel, no votes or funding levels are shown. The Medium-priority projects were small efforts, so no multi-study titles or subpackages appear. Table 2 simply shows the Project Title, General Approach/Type of Study, and Desired Outcomes.

For both Tables 1 and 2, it is important to note that the descriptions are intended to serve only as summaries. Detailed Problem Statements follow and give a more complete description of each item.

• Continue to PROBLEM STATEMENTS

• Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS