ObjectivesTo study cyclists’ share of transport modes (modal share) and single-bicycle crashes (SBCs) in different countries in order to investigate if the proportion of cyclist injuries resulting from SBCs is affected by variation in modal share.MethodsA literature search identified figures (largely from western countries) on SBC casualties who are fatally injured, hospitalised or treated at an emergency department. Correlation and regression analyses were used to investigate how bicycle modal share is related to SBCs.ResultsOn average, 17% of fatal injuries to cyclists are caused by SBCs. Different countries show a range of values between 5% and 30%. Between 60% and 95% of cyclists admitted to hospitals or treated at emergency departments are victims of SBCs. The proportion of all injured cyclists who are injured in SBCs is unrelated to the share of cycling in the modal split. The share of SBC casualties among the total number of road crash casualties increases proportionally less than the increase in bicycle modal share.ConclusionsWhile most fatal injuries among cyclists are due to motor vehicle–bicycle crashes, most hospital admissions and emergency department attendances result from SBCs. As found in previous studies of cyclists injured in collisions, this study found that the increase in the number of SBC casualties is proportionally less than the increase in bicycle modal share.

The main goal of the European Federation of Psychologists’Associations (EFPA) Standing Committee on Tests and Testing (SCTT) is the improvement of testing practices in European countries. In order to reach this goal, the SCTT carries out various actions and projects, some of which are described in this paper. To better inform its work, it decided to survey the opinions of professional psychologists on testing practices. A questionnaire of 33 items was administered to a sample of 12,606 professional psychologists from 17 European countries. The questionnaire was based on, but not identical to, one used in 2000. The new data show that the positive attitude of the respondents toward the use of tests that was obtained in 2000 has increased in most countries, with a high percentage of the surveyed psychologists using tests regularly. Five main dimensions explained 43% of the total item variance. The dimensions involve items relating to: Concern over incorrect test use, regulations on tests and testing, Internet testing, appreciation of tests, and knowledge and training relating to tests and test use. Important differences between countries were found on these five dimensions. Differences were found according to gender for four of the five dimensions and in relation to field of specialization for all five dimensions. The most commonly used tests are the classic psychometric tests of intelligence and personality: WISC, WAIS, MMPI, RAVEN, 16PF, NEO-PI-R, BDI, SCL-90. Finally, some future perspectives are discussed.

No abstract

Abstract. When concentration tests are completed repeatedly, reaction time and error rate decrease considerably, but the underlying ability does not improve. In order to overcome this validity problem this study aimed to test if the practice effect between tests and within tests can be useful in determining whether persons have already completed this test. The power law of practice postulates that practice effects are greater in unpracticed than in practiced persons. Two experiments were carried out in which the participants completed the same tests at the beginning and at the end of two test sessions set about 3 days apart. In both experiments, the logistic regression could indeed classify persons according to previous practice through the practice effect between the tests at the beginning and at the end of the session, and, less well but still significantly, through the practice effect within the first test of the session. Further analyses showed that the practice effects correlated more highly with the initial performance than was to be expected for mathematical reasons; typically persons with long reaction times have larger practice effects. Thus, small practice effects alone do not allow one to conclude that a person has worked on the test before.

No abstract