Retrospective research into accidents

Abstract

In retrospective research into accidents, a victim's or spectator's account of what happened may differ from what actually occurred, as a consequence of memory processes. It seems that, due to limited time and money resources, current insights in retrospective research are not always fully employed in accident research. This paper demonstrates how existing insights into the collection of retrospective data can be incorporated in accident research, and illustrates how this actually works out in practice.

A review of the literature shows that various precautions can be taken to minimize the influences of memory processes. These precautions have been included in the development of a method of accident investigation. Accidents (n=42) were studied in a video-recorded reconstruction on the site, followed by an open interview using a checklist. The accident data have been examined with respect to indications for bias. The findings show that the demonstrations may differ from the unknown actual occurrences, for example, because people were still wearing bandages at the time of investigation on the site. Interference by video- and sound-recordings appears to be limited. Analysis of within-subject differences in repeated demonstrations of the accident shows that more than half of the subjects display differences in the three demonstrations.

The limitations and benefits of the method developed are discussed in relation to conventional methods of accident research, such as mail questionnaires and telephone interviews. The paper concludes with a plea for the inclusion of empirical analyses or at least a discussion of possible bias in findings from accident research.