The range of replications technique for assessing the external validity of road safety evaluation studies.

This paper introduces a simple statistical technique that can be used to assess the external validity of road safety evaluation studies. External validity refers to the possibility of generalising the results of research to other contexts than those in which it was made. There are several aspects of external validity. Two aspects that are often of interest concern the applicability of the results of road safety evaluation studies across countries and time. Can the results of studies made in one or more countries be applied in countries where studies have not been made? Can the results of studies made many years ago still be applied? The technique introduced in this paper is designed to provide support in answering these questions. The technique evaluates the stability of research results in time and space. The technique is based on cumulative meta-analysis and produces statistics that show the consistency of study results in time and space (across countries). The range of replications denotes the span of time and countries in which studies have been made. The idea is that if the results of studies are stable throughout the range of replications, one may have greater confidence in their external validity than if the results of research vary in time and between countries. The technique is illustrated by means of numerical examples.

[1]  R Elvik,et al.  Does prior knowledge of safety effect help to predict how effective a measure will be? , 1996, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[2]  Rune Elvik,et al.  To what extent can theory account for the findings of road safety evaluation studies? , 2004, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[3]  L. Hedges,et al.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis , 1995 .

[4]  Frank Gross,et al.  A Guide to Developing Quality Crash Modification Factors , 2010 .

[5]  M. Borenstein,et al.  Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments , 2006 .

[6]  Sue Duval,et al.  The Trim and Fill Method , 2006 .

[7]  George F. List,et al.  Roundabouts in the United States , 2007 .

[8]  William R. Shadish,et al.  Combining estimates of effect size. , 1994 .

[9]  Rune Elvik,et al.  Effects on Road Safety of Converting Intersections to Roundabouts: Review of Evidence from Non-U.S. Studies , 2003 .

[10]  W. Shadish,et al.  Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference , 2001 .

[11]  J. Sterne,et al.  Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. , 2001, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  S Duval,et al.  Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis , 2000, Biometrics.

[13]  S. Emerson,et al.  AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). 2001. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Fourth Edition. Washington, D.C. , 2007 .

[14]  Rune Elvik,et al.  Publication bias and time-trend bias in meta-analysis of bicycle helmet efficacy: a re-analysis of Attewell, Glase and McFadden, 2001. , 2011, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[15]  Rune Elvik,et al.  The Handbook of Road Safety Measures , 2009 .

[16]  Rune Elvik,et al.  Meta-analysis of evaluations of public lighting as accident countermeasure , 1995 .

[17]  R. Tweedie,et al.  A Nonparametric “Trim and Fill” Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis , 2000 .