Mrm Full Report

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    1/47

    T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

    ABSTRACT............................................................................................. 2

    INTRODUCTION................................................................................... 3

    1. LITERATURE REVIEW... 4

    2. METHODOLOGY.................................. 7

    3. RESULTS................................................................................................ 12

    4.

    CONCLUSIONS AND

    RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................18

    5. REFERENCES..................................................................................... 21

    6. BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................... 24

    APPENDIX 1: SAMPLE SIZE CASLCULATOR.............................. 25

    APPENDIX 2: SURVEY........................................................ 26

    APPENDIX 3: EXPERIMENT.............................................................. 31

    APPENDIX 4: RESULTS ANALYSIS (first 2 objectives)................. 35

    APPENDIX 5: RESULTS ANALYSIS (3rd and 4th objectives)...... 47

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    2/47

    ABSTRACT

    Failure to heed traffic signs is one of the most common causes of road accidents. The success ofeffective communication of traffic sign messages to road users depends not only on driver

    characteristics but also on the signs themselves. This paper addresses the effects of driver

    characteristics and sign features on the understandability of traffic signs. Driver characteristics

    considered here include: income, education, age, marital status and gender. Sign features examined

    here contain: presentation model, familiarity, shape and color. The population was sampled from

    different districts of Tashkent city.

    The study was divided into two stages: survey and experiment. The main purpose of the survey wasto obtain information regarding driver characteristics, whereas experiment was primarily employed

    to test the sign comprehension level of the drivers.

    The results indicated that income, education and gender have a significant effect on comprehension

    of traffic signs, while marital status has only paltry effect. In addition, the differences in

    comprehension were revealed between two categories of drivers. Namely older drivers with high

    income and level of education comprehend signs better than their young counterpart with low level

    of income and education. Furthermore, familiarity, color and shape of the traffic sign were found to

    be highly correlated with sign understandability. Finally, the traffic sign system proved to be

    effective because it is based mainly on symbolical models of the signs which are found to be more

    eye-catching than verbal ones.

    These findings are believed to be important for the road sign designers. In addition, they might be

    useful for relevant organizations aimed at increasing the effectiveness of traffic education.

    2

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    3/47

    INTRODUCTION

    RESEARCH QUESTION:

    How do driver factors and design features affect comprehension of traffic signs?

    RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

    1. to identify general factors that influence comprehension of traffic signs based on the

    studies of researchers from US, Europe, Asia and Arabic countries

    2. to compare these findings with those indicated by a sample from Tashkent

    3. to reveal differences in comprehension among several categories of drivers4. to evaluate the effectiveness of traffic sign system in Tashkent

    Traffic signs serve as one of the most common tools for traffic control. Their main purpose is to

    regulate, warn and guide road users in a traffic system (Dewar and Olson, cited in Ng, 2007). A

    'proper' traffic sign posted in the right place allows the road users to avoid problems on the road,

    which could be as simple as traffic slow down or as bad as fatal accidents (Kurniawan and

    Zaphiris, 2001). Despite their importance traffic signs are not always applied effectively.

    Indeed, seventy percent of traffic signs are ignored by drivers (Shulz, 2006). This evidence shows

    an importance of a detailed analysis of key factors influencing the effectiveness of traffic signs.

    Conspicuity, reaction time, legibility distance, glance legibility and comprehensibility1 are

    considered to be vital in traffic sign design. Among all these factors engineers from Australia, New

    Zealand, Canada, and the USA rated comprehensibility as the most important criteria (Dewar et al.,

    cited in Shinar et al., 2003). However, in a multi-country research, which included five Arabic

    countries, it was found that drivers comprehended only about 56% of the 28 signs presented to them

    (Al-Madani and Al-Janahi, 2002). This demonstrates an urgent need for a deep investigation of

    factors affecting comprehension performance of road users.

    1 Comprehensibility of a sign is a measure of how readily an observer can understand the message intended to be conveyed by thesign. (CIE, cited in Ng, 2007)

    3

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    4/47

    LITERATURE REVIEW

    The importance of setting the research project within a conceptual context should not be

    underestimated. A lot of previous related studies were found to ensure the credibility of the current

    investigation.

    Indeed, such driver factors as age, marital status, income, education, driving experience and

    nationality were analyzed by prominent researchers from the US, Europe, Asia and Arabic countries

    to find how they impact on comprehension performance. There are a lot of similarities as well as

    differences in the results of surveys conducted.

    Researches on effect of income, nationality, education, marital status and driving experience

    demonstrated similar results. For example, Al-Madani and Al-Janahi (2002) found that:

    Western drivers comprehend the signs significantly better than drivers of other nationalities.

    Drivers, in the various experience categories, holding low educational qualifications and in

    low income categories comprehend signs significantly less well than those who are holding

    high level of education and with high income.Excluding drivers between 3544 years of age,drivers comprehension of signs is not related with experience for any other age group.

    Understanding traffic signs does not change significantly with years of driving experience in

    female drivers. Male drivers with over ten years of driving experience are significantly better

    than less experienced male drivers. Single and married drivers understand the signs equally

    well.

    These results comply with the findings of Al Gadhi (1994) who also found that there is a positive

    relationship between education and income and comprehension performance, while there is no

    correlation between single and married drivers. Ng and Chan (2008) agree with Al Madani and Al-

    Janahi on that the driving experience has no effect on sign comprehension.

    In some cases the results of the studies contradict rather than comply with each other. For example,

    there are continuing debates on how age affects the comprehension performance of the drivers.

    Some researchers found that older drivers have poorer understanding of traffic symbols than

    younger drivers do. Dewar et al. (1994) studied the comprehension level of 85 US traffic signs fordrivers from Texas, Idaho, Alberta and Canada. It was found that there was no difference for 52

    4

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    5/47

    signs analyzed, meanwhile drivers in the older age group (60 and over) understood less well than

    the younger ones for the remaining 33 signs. The supporting evidence was provided by another

    survey (Shinar et al., 2003) conducted mainly in European countries. Nevertheless, if Arabian

    countries are considered, the results are absolutely different there. Indeed, Al-Madani and Al-Janahi

    (2002) found that comprehension of traffic signs is positively correlated with drivers age, whichcontradicts the previously mentioned findings. Interestingly, there is also a third approach to

    evaluation of the correlation between age and comprehension. To be more precise, Ng and Chan

    (2008) found that driver factors of age group had no effect on comprehension performance. The

    most rational explanation for such a split of opinions is the difference in nationalities sampled, time

    during which the surveys were conducted, distinctions in design features of traffic signs and some

    other specific factors.

    Not only driver factors but also the design features of the signs affect the success of effective

    communication of traffic sign messages to road users. Some researchers investigated the

    relationship between compliance with ergonomic principles2 and comprehensibility of traffic signs.

    In 2004, Shinar and Ben-Bassat in their study Are ergonomically designed traffic signs more

    comprehensible? tested directly the the relationship between sign comprehension and the extent

    that the sign complies with three ergonomic principles: sign-content compatibility, familiarity, and

    standardization. The results of this study illustrated strong correlation between sign compliance

    with each of three ergonomic principles and signs comprehension probability. A positive

    relationship between familiarity and comprehensibility was also identified by Dewar et al. (1994) as

    well as Ng and Chan (2008).

    Other researchers emphasized the importance of sign location, color and shape in comprehensibility

    of traffic signs. According to Borowsky et al. (2008) drivers were less likely to identify the traffic

    sign when it was located in an unexpected location. The results of the study led to the following

    conclusion: to increase their timely probability identification, traffic signs should be posted in

    2There are five main ergonomic principles relevant to traffic signs design (Sanders andMcCormick, cited in Ben-Bassat, 2003):1) Spatial compatibility the physical arrangement in space, relative to the position ofinformation and directions2) Conceptual compatibility the extent to which symbols and codes conformto peoples associations3) Physical representation the similarity between the content of the sign and the reality it represents4) Familiarity the extent to which the driver is familiar with the sign from his drivingexperience5) Standardization the extent to which the codes used for different dimensions like color

    and shape are consistent for all signs

    5

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    6/47

    expected locations (Borowsky et al., 2008). However, proper location alone is not sufficient unless

    it is accompanied by appropriate color and shape. Thus, Gao, Podladchikova and Shaposhnikov

    (2003) applying specific computational visual models, found that traffic signs are better recognized

    when their color and shape contrast with that of background (e.g. billboards, trees). For example,

    commonly used green colored direction sign will be hard to recognize if it is posted near trees. Onthe other hand, the findings of Zakowska (2001) demonstrate that adjustment of traffic signs to the

    background may lead to misunderstanding, since in this case the same message will be displayed by

    different signs

    Before applying the above mentioned sources in our research the strengths and weaknesses should

    be critically assessed. The studies of Al-Madani and Al-Janahi(2003), Zakowska (2001), Ng and

    Chan (2008), Ng (2007) appear to be the basis for our future research, since they are relevant, up-

    to-date and based on large samples from a wide range of countries. These studies helped us to

    identify the main factors, which affect comprehension and hence effectiveness of traffic signs.

    Furthermore, a lot of researchers, e.g. Ben-Bassat (2003) and Shinar et al.(2003), use findings of the

    above mentioned investigators in their studies. However, the results of some of the reviewed

    sources can not be generalized due to the following limitations. For example, the findings of Dewar

    et al.(1994) and Al-Gadhi et al.(1994) obtained 15 years ago could be obsolete and hence not

    relevant in our research. Some results (e.g. Al-Madani, Al-Janahi, Ng ) of the investigations were

    distorted as there were a limited number of females in the experiments conducted. In addition, the

    questionnaires were not completely filled in by respondents. For example, only 70% of the

    questions were answered in Hong Kong (Ng and Chan, 2008).

    All in all, a thorough research concerning influence of different factors on traffic sign

    comprehension was made in developed countries as well as in developing ones. However, the main

    emphasis was placed on American, European and Arabic countries with practically no study of

    Central Asia. In the following report, a detailed research is conducted in the capital of Uzbekistan -Tashkent - with the aim of identification the degree of dependence of traffic signs comprehension

    on specific driver factors and design features. Furthermore, the weaknesses of the current traffic

    signs system will be identified and ways of improvement will be suggested.

    6

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    7/47

    METHODOLOGY

    APPROACH AND HYPOTHESES

    The research is carried out using deductive approach for several reasons. Firstly, a cause-effect link

    between selected variables will be investigated without explaining the nature of such relationship.

    For example, it was found that income of the driver is positively correlated with ones

    comprehensibility of traffic sign. However, the reasons, why rich people better recognize the signs

    will not be mentioned.

    Secondly, a lot of theoretical concepts, describing the impact of different factors on traffic signs,

    have already been developed. Therefore, in our research we are not going to formulate a theory.

    Instead, we are planning to test established theories through corresponding hypotheses with a

    purpose of confirming, rejecting or modifying the theories depending on their applicability to

    Tashkent. The following hypotheses are formulated:

    1. Monthly income, education, and age have a significant effect on comprehension of traffic signs,

    while marital status and gender have no or paltry effect.

    2. Pictorial sings are more eye-catching than verbal ones ceteris paribus.

    3. Familiarity, color and shape of traffic signs are strongly correlated with their understandability.

    4. Old drivers with high income and level of education recognize sings better than young ones with

    low income and level of education.

    SAMPLING

    In order to test the above stated hypotheses, first of all, the suitable sample size as well as technique

    should be identified. Particularly, sample size of 384 was estimated using Raosoft calculator

    (Raosoft sample size calculator, 2004) (Appendix 1). This sample was marked as a recommended

    one given 5% margin of error (taken by researchers in most cases), nearly 440 thousand

    population3, and normal probability distribution.

    3Jalilov, J.R., personal communication with the head of Uchtepa district GIBDD, (01 April 2009).

    7

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    8/47

    Turning to the sampling technique, stratified random sampling seems to be the most appropriate for

    the research. The stratification was done proportionally according to the number of cars registered

    per each district (Table 1 and Graph 1). This was done to ensure that sample is as close to

    population in terms of driver characteristics as possible (choosing only one district may causedistortion of results as the drivers living in this district may not have the same driver characteristics

    as all drivers of Tashkent) Later, the desired number of respondents is going to be picked randomly

    at the randomly chosen car parks in each of the districts so as to avoid bias in the selection of

    samples, thus ensuring reliability and validity of sampling technique.

    Table 1:

    Proportional stratification according to the number of cars registered per district

    Name of the

    district

    Number of registered cars perdistrict as at 1 January 20094

    (in thousands)

    Percentage

    out of total (%)

    Sample size

    Mirobad 57.2 13 50

    Yakkasaray 30.8 7 27

    Mirzo Ulugbek 74.8 17 65

    Shayhantour 17.6 4 15

    Yunusabad 39.6 9 35

    Chilanzar 61.6 14 54

    Hamza 39.6 9 35Sergeli 26.4 6 23

    Sabir Rahimov 48.4 11 42

    Uchtepa 30.8 7 27

    Bektemir 13.2 3 11

    TOTAL 440 100 384

    Graph 1: Sample size in each of the districts

    27

    65

    15355435

    23

    42 27 11 50

    Mirobad YakkasarayMirzo Ulugbek Shayhantour Yunusabad ChilanzarHamza SergeliSabir Rahimov UchtepaBektemir

    4 Jalilov, J.R., personal communication with the head of Uchtepa district GIBDD, (01 April 2009).

    8

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    9/47

    STRATEGIES

    In our cross-sectional study, we will employ a combination of survey and experiment, because our

    enquiry has several different aims, which will be achieved through the use of corresponding

    methods. Survey will enable us to gather a considerable amount of data in a timely and efficient

    manner. Furthermore, due to the simplicity and familiarity of the survey, a high respondent rate is

    expected. On the other hand, experimental strategy will be adopted to test drivers ability to

    recognize a wide range of traffic signs within certain time constraints.

    Use of multi-methods will enables us to triangulate the data, in other words, it will ensure that the

    data obtained will be interpreted in a right way. For instance, the findings obtained through

    questionnaires will be supported by data from an experiment. Besides, since data are affected by the

    method used, combination of several methods will minimize so called method effect.

    RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS

    Strategy: Survey

    Research instrument: Self-administered questionnaire.

    The primary purpose of the survey is to collect standardized data necessary for testing the first two

    hypotheses. For this reason, self-administered delivery and collection questionnaire appears to be

    the most suitable technique. In addition, compared to other research instruments, such as telephone

    interview, questionnaires are less expensive in terms of time and money as well as easier to analyze.

    The questionnaires mainly concerned with respondents biographical information would be

    distributed among sampled at randomly chosen car parks in each of the districts. Respondents are

    expected to answer multiple-choice, numerical, open-ended and ranking questions to identify their

    driver characteristics (age, gender, etc.), to evaluate their comprehension of signs and to assess the

    importance of some features of traffic signs (Appendix 2).

    To ensure that the data collected via questionnaires will enable a research question to be answered,a pilot test with 15 volunteers will be conducted. Thereby, questions validity and suitability,

    reliability of the data obtained as well as clarity of instructions will be assessed.

    Strategy: Experiment

    Research instruments: Sign comprehension test

    In the next stage of our study, experimental strategy will be employed to test drivers ability for proper sign recognition (Appendix 3). For this reason, sign comprehension test would be

    administered. Approximately 11 signs from different categories (regulatory, warning, guide signs)

    9

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    10/47

    would be presented to respondents who are expected to call names of each of the signs or at least

    their meaning. In addition, 7 pictorial and verbal signs with the same meaning content are going to

    be shown. These signs would be placed far away from respondents and displayed only during 20

    seconds after which the respondents are expected to answer which of the sign types (pictorial or

    verbal) is more eye-catching and understandable. The results would be summarized as a percentageof properly recognized signs.

    RELIABILITY

    In addition to the above mentioned procedures to ensure reliability of the research findings, some

    other measures will be taken. Firstly, to minimize participant error and participant bias, the study

    will be conducted on afternoons

    5

    and the respondents will be informed about what is required fromthem. Thereby only those people who are willing and able to participate in the study will be

    surveyed. Secondly, the ability of participants to recognize traffic signs properly will be tested

    twice6. Moreover, the research team will be provided with necessary instructions for conducting a

    study to avoid observer bias. Finally, data collection and data analysis processes will be highly

    structured to minimize observer error.

    VALIDITY

    The main threats to validity will be eliminated through the following procedures. Being aware of

    participants mortality and maturation, the research is going to be cross-sectional. In other

    words, the study would not be stretched out, thus eliminating the effect of unpredictable factors that

    could appear over time and affect the willingness of drivers to participate in research. Concerning

    the external validity (also called generalization) the most suitable sampling technique was applied

    given the available information and time constraints in order to ensure that sample is as close in its

    characteristics to population as possible.

    VIABILITY (ACCESS AND ETHICS)

    5 In the evenings, after work, tired drivers may have difficulty in comprehending the signs; meanwhile in the mornings,

    drivers sign comprehension rate may be unusually high. Therefore a more neutral time is chosen.

    6 First, in the questionnaires, drivers will be asked to mark the signs, which according to their opinions are

    understandable to them. Afterwards, during the experiment, drivers will be shown the same signs and will be asked to

    tell their name or explain their meaning. This will be done to ensure the trustworthiness of the responses given in

    questionnaires.

    10

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    11/47

    Gaining access is a key to obtaining reliable and valid data. Therefore, several strategies will be

    implemented to gain physical and cognitive access. Firstly, an introductory speech, outlining the

    objective and methods of the study, time and data required as well as assurance of confidentiality,

    will be politely delivered using suitable language to the would-be respondents. In addition, we will

    point out the possible benefits, which the respondents might gain from being surveyed. Forexample, drivers might assess their level of sign comprehension by participating in the survey.

    The ethical issues that might affect the research were identified at the design stage of the research.

    Consequently, the conduct of the research will be guided by a set of principles such as guarantee of

    anonymity, maintaining objectivity and honesty, seeking for informed consent, etc.

    RESULTS

    11

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    12/47

    OBJECTIVES 1, AND 2

    - identify general factors that influence comprehension of traffic signs based on the studies of

    researchers from US, Europe, Asia and Arabic countries

    - compare these findings with those indicated by a sample from Tashkent (see Conclusion

    section)

    To identify whether particular driver factors affect comprehension of traffic signs or not, it was

    decided to analyze the correlation between already known features (monthly income, education,

    age, gender and marital status) and the number of correctly recognized signs. Concerning the

    comparison of these findings with the results of other researchers, it was done in Conclusion section

    of the report.

    Monthly income

    Monthly income Number of respondents

    Less than 100 USD 68100-300 USD 106300-500 USD 116More than 400 USD 84

    No answer 12Total 384

    One of the most commonly used ways to describe

    data is with a frequency distribution. From thehistogram and box plot it can be seen that data is

    normally distributed. This is also supported by the

    exponent of skewness (See Appendix 4: Monthly

    income) which is very close to zero. This means

    there are almost equal number of people with high

    and low incomes in the sample. In normally

    distributed data median is the most representative

    average, as it is not distorted by extreme values

    (like mean) and very frequent cases (like mode). I

    our case, median is equal to 690 (close to mean =

    665) with the income reaching its maximum level

    at 1200 USD and minimum at 130 USD. Turning

    to one of the most wide spread measures of

    variability standard deviation, it is equal to

    315.97 USD in our case. This means nearly 68%

    12

    Hitopgram: Number of respondents cat egorizincome

    0

    50

    100

    150

    500

    US D

    NA

    Number of respondents categorized by level ofincome (in USD)

    500 USD

    22%

    NA

    3%

    Box plot

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    13/47

    of all prices within the concerned period fall within 1 standard deviation, 95% -2 standard deviations,

    99% -3 standard deviations of the mean.

    Turning to the identification of whether income affects sign recognition level, simple linear

    regression model was applied (the data used is quantifiable for both income and number of signsrecognized correctly).

    It is evident that income has a strong positive correlation with sign recognition level (R2 = 0.83, see

    Appendix 4: monthly income for detailed analysis). Thus, most drivers with income higher than

    1000 USD comprehended correctly at least 7 signs, while for lower income group (up to 500 USD)

    the understandability level reaches its maximum only at 8-9 signs.

    Education

    Education

    level

    Number of

    respondents

    School certificate 28

    Bachelors degree 268

    Masters degree 71

    Doctoral degree 13

    No answer 4

    Total 384

    Level of education also affects the recognition of traffic signs (ANOVA Statistics: p-value =

    0,0000158). Indeed, as it can be seen from descriptive statistics (See Appendix 4: Education), at

    least one of the drivers in all the groups, except those holding school certificate, recognized all 11

    signs (6 max for school certificate holders). At the same time, people holding doctoral degree

    have much higher average (mean and median = 8 and mode =7) of correctly recognized signs,

    Trend line (Income vs. # of correctly

    recognized signs)

    0

    2

    4

    6

    810

    12

    14

    0500 1000 1500

    Income

    #

    ofsigns

    recognized

    correctly

    EstimatedTrend line

    13

    Scatter plot: Income vs. # of correctly

    recognized signs

    #

    ofsigns

    recognized

    correctly

    Income

    0

    10 0

    20 0

    30 0

    School

    certificate

    Bachelors

    degree

    Masters

    degree

    Doctoral

    degree

    No answ er

    Numbe r of drivers categorized b y level of ed

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    14/47

    which is at least 2 signs higher than for other groups. By contrast with highly educated drivers,

    those holding only school certificate, have average of only 2-3 signs, but standard deviation almost

    the same as for other groups.

    Age

    From the analysis undertaken (see Appendix 4: age), it becomes evident that with age has a direct

    effect on level of correctly recognized signs (p-value = 0.016). Form descriptive statistics

    (Appendix 4: age), it can be see that with age drivers are able to show better and better results. The

    only exception is the oldest group which has an average (mean) number of correctly recognized

    signs equal to 7, whereas for all the other groups an average gradually increases (from 6.86 for the

    youngest group to 8.93 for 46-55 years old group). At the same time, there is a very high variation

    in results for the younger group (3.4 standard deviation), whereas for older ones it never exceeds 2

    answers7.

    Gender

    Gender Number of respondents

    Male 198

    Female 186

    Total 384

    In order to test whether gender affects traffic

    signs comprehension level, it was decided to

    perform Chi-test (See Appendix 4 - Gender).7 This means 95 % of all the cases lie within 2 standard deviations from the mean, 99% - within 3 st deviations from themean.

    14

    Signscomprehended

    correctly

    Number ofrespondents

    Code

    0-5 signs 158 16-11 signs 221 2

    No answer 5 0Total 384

    Number of respondents categorized by ag

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    120

    18-25

    years

    26-35

    years

    36-45

    years

    46-55

    years

    56+ years

    Age Number of respondents18-25 years 8126-35 years 9736-45 years 88

    46-55 years 8656+ years 29

    No answer 3

    Total 384

    Comparison of traffic signs recognition level

    between genders

    0 50 100 150

    Males

    Females

    gender

    number of times more than 6 or less than 6 signs were

    recognized correctly

    number of times less than 6 signs were recognized correctly

    number of times more than 6 signs were recognized correcly

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    15/47

    The result is that there is a relationship between gender and level of traffic sign comprehension

    (p=0.00011). This was evident from the results obtained. Thus, 134 males correctly identified more

    than 6 signs in comparison to 87 by females (though the difference in 2 gender samples in our case

    is very small). Moreover, less males showed less than average result (

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    16/47

    one-tail and two-tail tests were performed. (see Appendix 4 : Pictorial and verbal signs). It was

    found that there is a difference between level of comprehension depending on the type of signs

    (two-tail test, p=0.0012) and at the same time pictorial signs are better comprehended than verbal

    (one-tai test, p=0,00060). Indeed, referring to descriptive statistics (Appendix: Pictorial and verbal

    signs), 8-9 pictorial ad only 7 verbal signs were noticed at average by the same respondents.Finally, the respondent themselves state that pictorial signs are better recognized than verbal ones

    (see the pie chart)

    Shape, color and familiarity

    In the experiment 11 testing signs were randomly presented to the respondents. For each correctlyinterpreted sign subjects were asked to indicate the shape and color of the sign as well as to give

    ratings for familiarity. Then regression analysis was applied to examine the relationship between

    variables o interest. The data from the sample supported the initial hypothesis. To check whether

    the findings are applied to the whole population one-tail test was performed. The hypothesis was

    accepted with type 1 error of 5 percent (see Appendix 4: Shape, color and familiarity)

    OBJECTIVE 3 AND 4

    - reveal differences in comprehension among several categories of drivers

    - evaluate the effectiveness of traffic sign system in Tashkent

    Comparison between two different groups of respondents

    In previously made researches it was found that old drivers with high level of income and level of

    education are able to recognize traffic signs better than young ones with low income and level of

    education. In order to do so, the respondents were divided into 2 groups and the number of correctly

    recognized signs by each person in each of the groups was recorded (see Appendix 5 for more

    information). The result (t-stat) showed that there is a difference in level of recognition between

    groups (p=0.02) and older drivers with high income and level of education comprehend signs better

    than young ones with low income and level of education (p=0.01)

    16

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    17/47

    Effectiveness of traffic sing system in Tashkent based on opinion of the drivers

    0

    20

    40

    60

    80

    100

    # of respondents

    very good good appropriate bad very bad not

    applicable

    Criteria

    Ealuation of Tashkent traffic sign system effectiveness (based

    on drivers' opinions)

    Most of the respondents consider traffic sign system of Tashkent an appropriate one. However, as it

    can be seen from the chart, bad and very bad responses are very close, whereas very good

    and good responses fall behind. Indeed, there are twofold more drivers who are not content with

    the current system than those who consider it good or very good.

    CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    The results of the study answered the main research question by meeting the research objectives in

    the following way. Firstly, based on the studies of researchers from US, Europe, Asian and Arabic

    countries, the main driver factors and design features which affect the comprehension of trafficsigns were revealed. Al-Madani and Al-Janahi (2002) found that such driver factors as income,

    education and age have a considerable effect on comprehension of traffic signs, while marital status

    and gender have no or insignificant effect. The main sign design features, which have a strong

    correlation with sign understandability, are color and shape according to Gao et al., (2003) as well

    as familiarity as stated by Dewar et al. (1994), Ng and Chan (2008) and Ben-Bassat (2004).

    Secondly, these findings were compared to the factors indicated by the sample from Tashkentthrough testing the following hypotheses.

    17

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    18/47

    H-1: Monthly income, education, and age have a significant effect on comprehension of traffic

    signs, while marital status and gender have no or paltry effect.

    H-2: Pictorial sings are more eye-catching than verbal ones ceteris paribus.

    H-3: Familiarity, color and shape of traffic signs are strongly correlated with their

    understandability.H-4: Old drivers with high income and level of education recognize sings better than young ones

    with low income and level of education.

    The results of the analysis supported the second, third and the fourth hypotheses. Indeed, during the

    experiment it was found that pictorial sings are more eye-catching and hence better comprehended

    than verbal ones. In addition, the category of old drivers with high income and level of education

    demonstrated better comprehension of the signs than the category of young drivers with low levelof income and education. Finally, familiarity, color and shape exhibited strong correlation with sign

    understandability. On the other hand, the first hypothesis was not accepted fully. As it was

    expected, monthly income, education, and age of the drivers have significant effect on their

    comprehension of traffic signs and marital status has no effect. Contrary to expectations, it was

    found that gender of the driver has a considerable impact on their comprehension of traffic signs.

    Thirdly, the traffic signs system was evaluated as relatively effective, because the majority of signs

    in Tashkent are pictorial. However, the survey results showed that the quality of many traffic signs,

    especially in Bektemir and Sergeli districts is very poor.

    Overall, the study proved that the success of effective communication of a traffic sign message to

    users does not only relate to the drivers characteristics but also to the signs themselves. The

    findings provide the following recommendations for increasing the effectiveness of the traffic

    system.

    (1) Traffic sign designers are recommended to construct the signs which comply as much as

    possible with the standards established in the research. Namely, different sign shapes should be

    used to distinguish among prohibitive, warning, and guidance signs and avoid confusion and

    misinterpretation. In addition, signs should be presented in the pictorial form and must be painted in

    the appropriate colors (e.g. red to indicate danger).

    (2) Based on the results of the research, particular driver categories that lacked understanding of

    traffic signs were identified. The related organizations might use the information to improve the

    efficiency of traffic education. For example, traffic education centers might arrange special

    18

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    19/47

    intensive classes for young drivers who are more likely to violate signs than their older

    counterparts.

    (3) Given that familiarity is highly correlated with sign understandability, municipality is

    recommended to introduce some form of informative advertisement, so that drivers dont forget the

    meaning of the signs especially those rarely used.

    The research contains some practical limitations that must be taken into account. Firstly, the traffic

    signs used in the study were presented in the absence of realistic context (e.g. pictures of potential

    backgrounds where the signs might be located). The respondents might perform better in

    comprehension test, if the signs were located in typical context. Therefore the comprehension

    performance of the respondents might be underestimated.

    Secondly, the data on personal characteristics were based solely on self-administeredquestionnaires. It is possible that some respondents embellished their answers without revealing

    their true characteristics.

    Thirdly, as questionnaire forms needed to be filled in comparatively short period of time, 1-2 % of

    respondents have failed to answer all the questions.

    Finally, the recommendations for designing user-friendly traffic signs given in the project might

    not be valid, since the conclusions are based on the comprehension only, which is not the only

    element in information processing model, which also includes attention, attitudes and beliefs,

    motivation and behaviour (Wogalter and Laughery, 1996, cited in Ng, 2007)

    Though some limitations, research can serve as a reliable basis for further investigations. Indeed,

    the sample from Tashkent was taken only, while it is required to cover all the regions of Uzbekistan

    to get all the information about the effectiveness of traffic sign system. Furthermore, the results of

    the research may be applied in whole Central Asia, as the factors affecting comprehension are very

    similar here. But what is more important, research discovered some differences in thecomprehension of traffic signs by Asian people and those from the Middle East and Europe. So,

    deep cross-cultural investigation may be undertaken to test if this is really true and reveal the

    possible reason for existence of this differences as well as the reasons for particular category of

    drivers being able to comprehend traffic signs better than the others.

    19

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    20/47

    REFERENCES

    Al-Gadhi, S. A., Naqvi, S. A., Abdul-Jabbar, A. S., (1994).Driver Factors Affecting Traffic Sign.

    [online] Available from:

    [Accessed 20 February 2009].

    Al-Madani, H. and Al-Janahi, A., (2002).Assessment of drivers comprehension of traffic signs

    based on their traffic, personal and social characteristics. [online] Bahrain:University of Bahrain.

    Available from:

    20

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    21/47

    [Accessed 22 February 2009]

    Automobile transport in Tashkent, (2001). [online] Available from

    [02 April 2009]

    Ben-Bassat, T. and Shinar, D., (2003).Are ergonomically designed traffic signs more

    comprehensible?. [online]Israel: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Available from:

    < http://www.psychology.nottingham.ac.uk/IAAPdiv13/ICTTP2004papers2/Vision/BenBassat.pdf>

    [Accessed 23 February 2009]

    Borowsky, A. and Shinar, D., (2008). Sign Location, Sign Recognition, and Driver Expectancies.

    Transportation Research.November, 11, 6, 459-465. [online] Available from: EBSCO host. [Accessed 22 February 2009].

    Dewar, R. E., Kline, D. W., Swanson, H.A.., (1994). Age Differences in Comprehension of Traffic

    Sign Symbols. Transportation Research Board. 1456 [online] Available from: TRIS Online

    Record.

    [Accessed 21 February 2009].

    Gao, X., Podladchikova, L., Shaposhnikov, D., (2003) Application of vision models to traffic sign

    recognition.Artificial Neural Networks and Neural Information Processing. 2714/2003.[online]

    Heidelberg: Springer Berlin. Available from: SpringerLink.

    [Accessed 19 February 2009].

    GOPA-TRADEMCO, (2008).Annex 5 to report on legal issues responses to legal

    questionnaires. [online] Available from:

    http://www.centralasiatransport.com/content/ru/reports_legal_data/progress_reports/_legal_issues/

    Annex_5_to_Report_on_legal_issues-Responses_to_legal_questionnaires.pdf>

    [Accessed 23 February 2009]

    21

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/19layaw7kujf55bw/?p=7d4c003a9e844ceeacc4866e8bcbe10d&pi=0http://www.springerlink.com/content/19layaw7kujf55bw/?p=7d4c003a9e844ceeacc4866e8bcbe10d&pi=0http://www.springerlink.com/content/19layaw7kujf55bw/?p=7d4c003a9e844ceeacc4866e8bcbe10d&pi=0http://www.springerlink.com/content/19layaw7kujf55bw/?p=7d4c003a9e844ceeacc4866e8bcbe10d&pi=0
  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    22/47

    Kurniawan, S. and Zaphiris, P.,(2001).Investigating the age effects on subjective assessments of

    traffic signs.[online] Detroit:Wayne State University. Available from:

    [Accessed 21 February 2009].

    Ng, A. and A, Chan., (2008). The effects of driver factors and sign design features on the

    comprehensibility of traffic signs.Journal of Safety Research. June, 39 (1), 321-328. [online]

    Available from: EBSCO host. [Accessed 18 February 2009].

    Raosoft sample size calculator, (2004) [online] Available from:

    [Accessed 02 April 2009]

    Regression analysis, (2005). [online] Available from:

    [Accessed 29 April

    2009]

    Richards, S.H. and Heathington, K.W., (1988). Motorist understanding of railroad-highway grade

    crossing traffic control devices and associated traffic laws. Transportation research record. 1160.

    [online] Available from: TRIS online record.

    [Accessed 21 February 2009].

    Shinar, D. et al.,(2003). Traffic sign symbol comprehension: a cross-cultural study.Ergonomics.

    46 (15), 1549 1565. [online] Available from: EBSCO host.

    http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=9&hid=13&sid=df05b5d0-cbc5-41c8-9529-

    7482a99c868c%40SRCSM1&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d

    %3d#db=aph&AN=11650448

    [Accessed 21 February 2009].

    akowska, L.,(2001).Perception and recognition of traffic signs in relation to drivers

    characteristics and ssafety- a case study in Poland.[online]Cracow: Cracow University of

    Technology. Available from: < http://www.ictct.org/workshops/01-Caserta/Zakowska.pdf>

    [Accessed 21 February 2009].

    22

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    23/47

    BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Analyzing, interpreting and reporting basic research results, (2009). [online] Available form:

    [Accessed 01 May 2009]

    Burkhardt, J.E., Berger, A.M., Creedon, M. and McGavock, A.T., (1998). Mobility and

    Independence: Changes and Challenges for Older Drivers. [online] Available from: [Accessed 29 April 2009]

    Dix, A., (2004).Research and innovation techniques. [online] Available form: [Accessed 01May 2009]

    23

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    24/47

    How to write a good research paper, (2008). [online] Available form:

    [Accessed 24April 2009]

    Kline, T.J.B., Ghali, L.M. and Kline, D.W., (1990). Visibility Distance of Highway Signs among

    Young, Middle-Aged, and Older Observers: Icons are Better than Text,"Human Factors, 32(5).

    Mugo, F.W., (2008). Sampling in research. [online] Available form:

    [Accessed 25pril 2009]

    Review of literature, (2009). [online] Available form:

    [Accessed 04 April 2009]

    Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill A., (2003).Research methods for business students. 3rd ed.

    Harlow: Pearson Education.

    Appendix 1

    SAMPLE SIZE CALCULATOR

    24

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    25/47

    Appendix 2

    SURVEY

    Guidelines for researcher on how to conduct a survey :

    Start a survey by introducing yourself and asking whether a respondent is willing and has

    time to complete the questionnaire. Make sure that respondent has license and experience of driving for at least three months.

    25

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    26/47

    Clearly state the purpose of the research and the type of the questions for respondents

    Indicate the time it will take to complete the questionnaire.

    Assure confidentiality of the data provided by the respondents.

    Express your gratefulness to participant.

    Leave your phone number, in case respondent would have questions corresponding to a

    group project.

    Introductory speech

    Good afternoon! I am a level 5 economics student from WIUT and my name is . I am conducting

    a research on a topic: How do driver factors and design features affect comprehension of traffic

    signs in Tashkent?. Our study consists of two parts: survey and experiment. In the first part, you

    will be asked to answer several questions regarding your personal characteristics as well as your

    opinion on the importance of particular sign features. In the second part, your ability for proper sign

    recognition will be tested. It will take about 15-30 minutes. If you agree to participate, you will find

    out how good is you ability for traffic sign comprehension. In addition, when the research is

    finished, we will send you an electronic copy of the findings, which will describe what categories of

    drivers are good at traffic sign comprehension and which are not. In addition, the report will

    provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of traffic sign system in Tashkent. We guarantee you fullconfidentiality of the data provided.

    Questionnaire

    For this part of the research you are asked to answer a few biographical questions, to express youropinion on the effectiveness of traffic signs and to interpret the meaning of particular signs.

    Please read the questions carefully.

    Please answer the questions by placing a tick mark "" over the circle next to the response thatyou have chosen.

    26

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    27/47

    You are free to skip any question that you do not wish to answer.

    Your responses during the interview are confidential.

    When you finish, please submit the paper to the researcher.

    Q.1 Please choose one age group out of five that you belong to.

    o 18-25

    o 26-35

    o 36-45

    o 46-55

    o 56 +

    Q.2 What is your gender? Tickthe appropriate answer.

    o Male

    o Female

    Q.3 What is your nationality? __________________

    Q.4 Please, specify your marital status for a moment. (tickthe right answer)

    o Married

    o Unmarried

    o Divorced

    Q.5 Please choose one income category out of three that you belong to.

    o 100,000UZS < income per month < 300,000

    o 300,000UZS < income per month < 500,000

    o 500,000UZS < income per month < above

    Q.6 Select your level of education

    o high school certificate

    o undergraduate student

    o bachelors degree

    o master or PhD

    o other please specify

    27

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    28/47

    Q.7 How do you evaluate the following statement? Please tick one suitable answer.

    Verbal signs are less eye-catching and comprehensible, rather than pictorial signs that attractdrivers attention on the roads.

    o Agreeo Strongly agreeo Disagreeo Strongly disagreeo Neutral

    Q.8 Accept of the fact that traffic signs are intended to guide and regulate drivers on the roads, tickother options for the purpose of traffic signs.

    o To control the flow of cars on the roads

    o To inform drivers about road curves aheado To instruct and help to get to destinationo To make traffic system more complexo To reduce risk and accidents on the roadso To manage speed on the roads

    Q.9 Please rank the following design features that facilitate traffic signs to be less likely violated.Number the list below in the order of preference starting from 1 to 5.

    Rectangular Round Red slash Symbol Text Familiarity

    Q. 10 Which of the traffic sign colors are more eye-catching Number the list below in the order of

    preference starting from 1 to 7.

    Red Blue Yellow Orange White on

    black

    Q. 11 How do you evaluate the quality of traffic signs in Tashkent?

    Very good Good Appropriate Bad Very bad Not applicable1 2 3 4 5 6

    Q.12 Tick the signs which are familiar to you

    28

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    29/47

    [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

    [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

    [ ] [ ] [ ]

    Q. 13 What could you suggest in order to improve comprehension of those signs by drivers?________________________________________________________________________________

    ________________________________________________________________________________

    ________________________________________________________________________________

    ____________________________________________________________________

    Q.14 If you want to receive a copy of our report please write your e-mail address

    __________________________________

    When a pilot test will be conducted the following questions will be added to the questionnaire:

    29

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    30/47

    How much time did you spend completing the questionnaire?

    Was there anything unclear in instructions? Tick one

    o Noo If yes than specify__________________

    Is there a logical flow in the structure of questionnaire?

    o Yeso No

    How do you estimate the layout of questionnaire?

    o Very goodo Applicableo Not applicable

    Which, if any, questions did you find unclear or embarrassing?

    Was the questionnaire easy to read and understand?

    Did you face any leading or complex questions?

    Appendix 3:EXPERIMENT

    Instructions for experiment:

    Come prepared, rehearse the topic well in order to present credible in front of a participant.

    Check the quality of the paper and make sure that traffic signs are visible for the participant.

    Explain the aim of experiment and the process itself.

    Remind the rights of respondents (anonymity and privacy)

    30

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    31/47

    Keep in mind the structure of experiment, though use spontaneous and probing questions ifneeded.

    Ask only one question at a time and be sure that you record answers coherently; the use ofappropriate recording system is suggested.

    It is important to keep silence and do not influence on answers of participants.

    Record all answers concisely

    Experiment

    Dear participant, thank you for your agreement to participate in the second part of our research.First, I am going to show you 15 traffic signs. In response I would like to receive explanations toeach sign and opinions about design features.

    NOTE: make sure that traffic signs are visible for all participants.

    1. Please note which of the signs are familiar to you. Researcher ticks the signs which are familiarto respondent.

    Right turn aheadU-turn is prohibitedPedestrians crossing the roadWinding road aheadSide road intersection ahead

    No right turnCircle intersection aheadRoad ends, must turn right or leftTwo-way trafficCompulsory ahead or turn leftStop sign

    2. Please explain the purpose of each sign, if you do not know try to guess.NOTE: show only one sign at a time

    How do you evaluate the quality of those signs?NOTE: list all possible answers

    Verygood

    Good Not bad Poor Verypoor

    Extremelybad

    Applicable

    Right turn aheadU-turn is prohibitedPedestrians crossing

    the roadWinding road ahead

    Side road

    intersection ahead

    31

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    32/47

    No right turnCircle intersection

    aheadRoad ends, must

    turn right or left

    Two-way trafficCompulsory aheador turn leftStop sign

    Please group the signs into three types: regulatory, warning, guide signs.

    Regulatory signs Warning signs Guide signs

    Now we are moving to the next stage of our experiment. You will be presented a set of traffic signs,each of which has both pictorial and verbal representation. Please, indicate the type (pictorial orverbal) of each of the presented signs that is more eye-catching in your point of view.

    Traffic signs

    Pictorial representation Verbal representation

    1 1

    2 2

    3 3

    32

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    33/47

    4 4

    5 5

    6 6

    7 7

    This is the end of our traffic signs recognition test. We will receive you the results in a couple ofweeks when all data is collected and analyzed. If some questions arise, please, dont hesitate tocontact us; our team would be happy to provide all the necessary information.

    Thank you very much for your cooperation.

    33

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    34/47

    APPENDIX 4

    Monthly income and traffic signs recognition level (REGRESSION ANALYSIS)

    Monthly income Number of respondentsLess than 100 USD 68100-300 USD 110300-500 USD 121

    More than 400 USD 84No answer 3Total 384

    Descriptive statistics (monthlyincome)

    Mean 665

    Standard Error 74,4752887

    Median 690

    Mode 850StandardDeviation 315,97189

    Sample Variance 99838,23529

    34

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    35/47

    Kurtosis-

    1,084119414

    Skewness 0,000239146

    Range 1080

    Minimum 130

    Maximum 1200

    Sum 240030

    Count 381

    12 respondents do not answer so we reject these 12 cases. We do not use weighted cases as the

    number of missed answers is very low compared to sample size, especially since many authors

    question the validity of using statistics to make inferences from your sample if u have weighted

    cases (Saunders et. al, 2003, p. 336

    RegressionStatistics

    Multiple R 0,875666673

    R squared 0,824564677

    Adjusted R Square 0,824374679

    Standard Error 1,260421768

    Observations 372

    ANOVA

    df SS MS F

    Significance

    FRegression 1 128,3591692 128,3591692 80,79697617 1,18503E-07

    Residual 370 25,41860853 1,588663033

    Total 371 153,7777778

    CoefficientsStandard

    Error t Stat P-value

    Intercept 1,105769136 0,708654575 1,560378181 0,138229879

    X Variable 1 0,008696421 0,000967482 8,988713822 1,18503E-07

    Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95,0%Upper95,0%

    -0,396511113 2,608049386 -0,396511113 2,608049386

    0,00664545 0,010747391 0,00664545 0,010747391

    The following model was obtained:

    Sign recognition level = 1,105769136 + 0,008696421*Income

    Sign comprehension level and income are strongly correlated. First of all, R squared is equal to

    0,83. This figure shows that 83% of variation in Sign recognition level is explained by change in

    income and only 17% by other factors. As the figure is comparatively high for the equation, it also

    means that Residual Sum of squares is less for this equation, thus the prediction that could be made

    based on the model is reliable.

    35

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    36/47

    An independent variable (income) is statistically significant that is supported by almost zero p-

    values (t-stat) (we reject null hypotheses that it is not statistically significant). The figure of 8.99

    shows that sample slope is 8.99 standard errors larger than zero, and as p-value is almost 0, there is

    no chance that mere sampling can make a zero slope coefficient.

    The strong correlation is also supported by large F-statistic that is a proportion of explainedvariance to unexplained variance (errors). In all the cases we reject null-hypotheses, as independent

    variable has significant effect on the dependent variable (p-value in all the cases = 0 that that means

    there are no samples that would randomly produce such a large F-value if the samples come from a

    population in which the true F-value is 0. (Regression analysis, 2005).

    Education and traffic sign recognition level (ANOVA statistics)

    ANOVA statistics:

    Ho: Education level has no effect on traffic sign recognition

    H1: Education level has effect on traffic sign recognition

    We reject Ho as p = 0,0000158 which is less than our 0,05 confidence level. This is also supported

    by F-statistic value = 12,51 which is more than 4 times higher than its critical value.

    Anova: SingleFactor

    SUMMARY

    Groups Count Sum Average Variance

    School certificate 28 18 2,571429 3,619048

    Bachelor's degree 268 97 6,0625 6,329167Master's degree 71 66 7,15 7,928571Doctoral degree 13 37 8,25 3,583333

    ANOVA

    36

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    37/47

    Source of Variation df MS F P-value F crit

    Between Groups 3 54,42321 12,506281,58E-

    05 2,911335

    Within Groups 376 4,351671

    Total 298,1714 379

    Descriptive statistics

    1. Number of signs recognized correctly by drivers holding school certificate

    Column1

    Mean 2,571428571

    Standard Error 0,719031851

    Median 2

    Mode 1StandardDeviation 1,902379462SampleVariance 3,619047619

    Kurtosis 0,32867036

    Skewness 1,066531367

    Range 5

    Minimum 1

    Maximum 6

    2. Number of signs recognized correctly by drivers holding bachelors degree

    Column1

    Mean 6,0625

    Standard Error 0,628946

    Median 6

    Mode 6StandardDeviation 2,515784

    Sample Variance 6,329167

    Kurtosis -0,37101

    Skewness 0,436369

    Range 9

    Minimum 2Maximum 11

    3. Number of signs recognized correctly by drivers holding masters degree

    Column1

    Mean 6,25

    Standard Error 0,490990253

    Median 7

    Mode 6Standard

    Deviation 1,38873015

    Sample Variance 1,928571429

    Kurtosis 1,10617284

    37

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    38/47

    Skewness 1,120128022

    Range 4

    Minimum 7

    Maximum 11

    4. Number of signs recognized correctly by drivers holding doctoral degree

    Column1

    Mean 8,0625

    Standard Error 0,628946

    Median 8

    Mode 7StandardDeviation 2,515784

    Sample Variance 6,329167

    Kurtosis -0,37101

    Skewness 0,436369

    Range 5Minimum 6

    Maximum 11

    Age and traffic signs recognition level

    Ho: age does not affect comprehension of traffic signs

    H1: age affects level of traffic signs comprehension

    As p=0.016 is less than 0.05 and F=3.36 is more than critical 2.54 we reject Ho. Thus, age affects

    level of traffic signs comprehension.

    Anova: SingleFactor

    SUMMARY

    Groups Count Sum Average Variance

    18-25 81 555 6,857142857 1,978021978

    26-35 97 802 8,266666667 2,20952381

    36-45 88 729 8,285714286 2,681318681

    46-55 86 768 8,928571429 3,917582418

    56+ 23 203 7 3,333333333

    ANOVA

    Source of Variation df MS F P-value F crit

    38

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    39/47

    Between Groups 4 9,137568306 3,356902417 0,015616419 2,536581

    Within Groups 376 2,72202381

    Total 380

    1. Number of signs recognized correctly by 18-25 age group

    Column1

    Mean 6,857143

    Standard Error 0,375882

    Median 7

    Mode 7StandardDeviation 3,406422

    Sample Variance 3,978022

    Kurtosis 2,022222

    Skewness 0,485867

    Range 9Minimum 1

    Maximum 10

    2. Number of signs recognized correctly by 26-35 age group

    Column1

    Mean 8,266666667

    Standard Error 0,383798889

    Median 9

    Mode 9StandardDeviation 1,486446706SampleVariance 2,20952381

    Kurtosis-

    0,933984268

    Skewness

    -

    0,828886421Range 8

    Minimum 2

    Maximum 10

    3. Number of signs recognized correctly by 36-45 age group

    Column1

    Mean 8,285714286

    Standard Error 0,437633137

    Median 9

    Mode 9StandardDeviation 1,637473261

    39

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    40/47

    Sample Variance 2,681318681

    Kurtosis 0,082538296

    Skewness-

    0,780891239

    Range 6

    Minimum 5

    Maximum 11

    4. Number of signs recognized correctly by 46-55 age group

    Column1

    Mean 8,928571429

    Standard Error 0,528987066

    Median 9,5

    Mode 11StandardDeviation 1,979288361

    Sample Variance 3,917582418

    Kurtosis-

    1,346336653

    Skewness-

    0,510192295

    Range 7

    Minimum 4

    Maximum 11

    5. Number of signs recognized correctly by 56+ age group

    Mean 7

    Standard Error 0,912870929Median 7

    Mode 7StandardDeviation 1,825741858SampleVariance 3,333333333

    Kurtosis -3,3

    Skewness 0

    Range 4

    Minimum 5

    Maximum 9

    Gender and traffic signs recognition level

    In order to test whether gender affects traffic signs comprehension level, it was decided to perform

    Chi-test. We have already coded higher than average result as 2 (more than 6 signs comprehended

    correctly) and less than average result as 1 (less than 6 signs comprehended correctly). So, whether

    the driver has higher or lower than average result, was calculated manually and results were

    40

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    41/47

    recorded for each gender. As there no answers by 5 respondents concerning the sign recognition,

    the sample investigated is reduced from 384 to 379.

    CODING

    Gender0 no answer1 male2 female

    Actual results

    Gendermore than 6signs

    less than 6signs Total

    male 134 64 198

    female 87 94 181

    Total 221 158 379

    Expectedresults

    more than 6signs

    less than 6signs Total

    male 115,5 82,5 198

    female 105,5 75,5 181

    Total 221 158 379

    Ho: there is no association between gender and level of traffic signs comprehension

    H1: there is association between gender and level of traffic signs comprehension

    Running the chi-test, the following result was obtained: 0,00011. As it is less than the confidence

    level of 0.05 we reject Ho, thus stating that there is relationship between gender and level of traffic

    signs recognition.

    Marital and traffic signs recognition level

    CODINGGender0 no answer1 married2 signle3- divorced

    Actual results

    41

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    42/47

    Gendermore than 6signs

    less than 6signs

    Total

    married 81 72 153

    single 113 74 187

    divorced 27 12 39

    Total 221 158 379

    Expectedresults

    more than 6signs

    less than 6signs

    Total

    married 89,21635884 63,78364116 153

    single 109,0422164 77,95778364 187

    divorced 22,7414248 16,2585752 39

    Total 221 158 379

    Ho: there is no association between marital status and level of traffic signs comprehension

    H1: there is association between marital and level of traffic signs comprehension

    Running the chi-test, the following result was obtained: 0,130513. As it is more than the confidence

    level of 0.05 we accept Ho, thus stating that there is no relationship between marital status and

    level of traffic signs recognition.

    Pictorial and verbal signs

    Categorical variables (signs) were tested with the help of t-test to find whether they are associated

    with number of correctly recognized signs (quantifiable variable).

    t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming EqualVariances

    Pictorial Verbal

    Mean 9,666666667 7,111111111

    Variance 2,941176471 6,45751634

    Observations 384 384Pooled Variance 4,699346405

    Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

    df 766

    t Stat 3,536615545

    P(T

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    43/47

    H1: type of signs affects the level of comprehension

    As p-value is less than 0.05 for two-tail test we reject Ho. So, there is a difference between

    comprehension level depending on the type of sign

    For one-tail test

    Ho: Pictorial signs are not better comprehended than verbal

    H1: Pictorial signs are better comprehended than verbal

    p-value is less than 0.05. So, we reject null hypothesis and state that pictorial signs are better

    comprehended than verbal.

    Pictorial sings

    Column1

    Mean 8,666666667

    Standard Error 0,404226042

    Median 8

    Mode 10StandardDeviation 1,714985851

    Sample Variance 2,941176471

    Kurtosis 1,87204Skewness -1,46065345

    Range 6

    Minimum 5

    Maximum 11

    Verbal signs

    Column1

    Mean 7,111111Standard Error 0,598958

    Median 7

    43

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    44/47

    Mode 7StandardDeviation 2,541164SampleVariance 6,457516

    Kurtosis -0,68048

    Skewness 0,102363

    Range 8Minimum 3

    Maximum 11

    Shape, color, familiarity and traffic sign recognition level (Regression Analysis)

    H0: there is no correlation between red colored sign and correctly interpreted signH1: red signs are strongly positively correlated with comprehension

    RegressionStatistics

    R Square 0,92

    Adjusted R Square 0,87

    Standard Error 0,61

    Observations 384

    Coefficients

    Standard

    Error t Stat P-valueIntercept 28,00 0,23 14,50 0,0012

    X Variable 1 0,12 0,32 23,00 0,0008

    ANOVA demonstrates high positive correlation between red colored sign and correctly interpretedsign, which implies that red color makes signs more eye-catching and easier to comprehend. For a 5

    percent significance level, both intercept and slope are statistically significant. Therefore, nullhypothesis of no correlation can be rejected and the results might be generalized to the whole

    population.

    H0: there is no correlation between trianglre-shaped sign and correctly interpreted sign

    H1: triangle-shaped signs are strongly negatively correlated with comprehension

    Regression

    44

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    45/47

    Statistics

    R Square 0,87

    Adjusted R Square 0,79

    Standard Error 0,28

    Observations 384

    CoefficientsStandard

    Error t Stat P-value

    Intercept 21,00 0,31 17,00 0,0027

    X Variable 1 0,08 0,27 21,00 0,0012

    ANOVA demonstrates high negative correlation between triangle-shaped signs sign and correctlyinterpreted sign, which implies that triangle-shaped signs do not stand out and harder tocomprehend. For a 5 percent significance level, both intercept and slope are statistically significant.Therefore, null hypothesis of no correlation can be rejected and the results might be generalized tothe whole population.

    H0: there is no correlation between familiarity of the sign and correctly interpreted signH1: familiarity of the sign is highly correlated with comprehension

    RegressionStatistics

    R Square 0,98

    Adjusted R Square 0,95

    Standard Error 0,15

    Observations 384

    CoefficientsStandard

    Error t Stat P-value

    Intercept 12,00 0,15 35,00 0,0002

    X Variable 1 0,67 0,12 29,00 0,0000

    ANOVA demonstrates almost perfect positive correlation between familiar signs and correctlyinterpreted signs, which implies that the drivers know the true meaning of the majority of familiarsigns. For a 5 percent significance level, both intercept and slope are statistically significant.Therefore, null hypothesis of no correlation can be rejected and the results might be generalized tothe whole population.

    Code sheet for colors

    Color Code

    red 1

    white on black 2

    blue 3

    green 4

    yellow 5

    Code sheet for shape

    Rectangular 1

    Triangle 2

    Circle 3Quadratic 4

    45

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    46/47

    Code sheet for familiarity

    Familiar 1

    Not familiar 2

    APPENDIX 5

    Respondent were divided into 2 groups:

    1 group: respondent 36+ years old with income of at least 500USD and masters or doctoral degree

    2 group: respondent up to 36 years old with income less than 500 USD and school certificate or

    bachelors degree

    In order to make samples more or less equal, it was decided to use stratified random sampling in the

    first category (there were 4 times more respondents in the second group than in the first, so each 4

    respondent was chosen in the second group for t-test)

    t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming EqualVariances

    Variable

    1Variable

    2

    Mean 8,733333 6,733333

    Variance 4,638095 5,352381

    Observations 84 84

    Pooled Variance 4,995238

    Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

    df 166

    t Stat 2,450657P(T

  • 8/3/2019 Mrm Full Report

    47/47

    t Critical two-tail 2,048409

    The following hypotheses were tested using t-test

    For two-tail test

    Ho: there is no difference in comprehension between 2 groups

    H1: there is difference in comprehension between 2 groups

    We reject Ho as p-value is 0.02