User Experiences with Two New Wheelchair Securement Systems in Large Accessible Transit Vehicles

Abstract

Wheelchair securement designs for fixed route, large accessible transit vehicles (LATVs) often create difficulties for passengers who use wheelchairs and operational inefficiencies for public transit agencies. Recent innovations in wheelchair securement technology for LATVs may reduce these challenges. This field study builds on a recent lab study that used a full-scale LATV simulation apparatus to address similar knowledge gaps. The current study used a mixed-methods approach to explore the usability of two newer wheelchair securement systems currently installed in LATVs in Buffalo, NY: a 3-point, forward-facing (3P-FF) securement system and a semi-automated, rear-facing (SA-RF) securement system. Three groups of wheelchair users (manual wheelchair [MWC], power wheelchair [PWC], and scooter [SC] users; n = 40) completed a pre-study interview, four trips on the LATVs and accompanying surveys, and a final interview. Using multiple usability rating scales, findings indicated clear differences in ratings of difficulty and acceptability between securement systems by wheelchair user group, with the SA-RF outperforming the 3P-FF on most usability measures for MWC and PWC users. SC users consistently rated both securement systems as more difficult to use and the SA-RF securement as less acceptable than MWC and PWC users.

Video Observations and Large Accessible Transit Vehicle Operator Evaluations of Two Wheelchair Securement Systems

“…As part of the study on passenger evaluation of new securement systems, a total of 181 sets of trip information, which includes the date, boarding and leaving time, bus route, and bus identification number, was collected from 44 participants ( 20 ). Twelve trips from three participants were later identified during the video screening process as failing to meet the eligibility criteria (i.e., not using a wheelchair) and failing to follow the complete study protocol (i.e., completing only 3P-FF trips) and were therefore excluded.…”

“…This research is part of a broader study where usability differences of two new wheelchair securement systems were examined. Choi et al contains detailed explanations of the study protocol, including sample recruitment and vehicle setup ( 20 ). The University at Buffalo’s Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures.…”

“…After completing data collection for the passenger trips (see details in Choi et al), LATV operators who were staffed during the trials were recruited through NFTA ( 20 ). Participation was voluntary and participating LATV operators were not compensated.…”

“…Although participants demonstrated a learning effect with the securement tasks since the SA-RF was a new system, securement system usability was not significantly affected by the trip order ( 20 ). Thus, for the two trips taken on each securement system (i.e., 3P-FF and SA-RF), the data for the first and second trips were analyzed together.…”

“…The SA-RF system was easier and faster, and required less assistance to use by all participants, regardless of wheelchair type, when compared with the other securement systems. In a follow-up field study, the usability and preference toward the newer systems were different across user groups ( 20 ). The SA-RF system outperformed the 3P-FF system on most usability measures for manual wheelchair (MWC) and power wheelchair (PWC) users, but scooter (SC) users consistently rated both securement systems as more difficult to use and the SA-RF securement as less acceptable than MWC and PWC users.…”