Assessing tether anchor labeling and usability in pickup trucks.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate vehicle factors associated with child restraint tether use and misuse in pickup trucks and evaluate 4 labeling interventions designed to educate consumers on proper tether use. METHODS: Volunteer testing was performed with 24 subjects and 4 different pickup trucks. Each subject performed 8 child restraint installations among the 4 pickups using 2 forward-facing restraints: a Britax Marathon G4.1 and an Evenflo Triumph. Vehicles were selected to represent 4 different implementations of tether anchors among pickups: plastic loop routers (Chevrolet Silverado), webbing routers (Ram), back wall anchors (Nissan Frontier), and webbing routers plus metal anchors (Toyota Tundra). Interventions included a diagram label, Quick Response (QR) Code linked to video instruction, coordinating text label, and contrasting text tag. RESULTS: Subjects used the child restraint tether in 93% of trials. However, tether use was completely correct in only 9% of trials. An installation was considered functional if the subject attached the tether to a tether anchor and had a tight installation (ignoring routing and head restraint position); 28% of subjects achieved a functional installation. The most common installation error was attaching the tether hook to the anchor/router directly behind the child restraint (near the top of the seatback) rather than placing the tether through the router and attaching it to the anchor in the adjacent seating position. The Nissan Frontier, with the anchor located on the back wall of the cab, had the highest rate of correct installations but also had the highest rate of attaching the tether to components other than the tether anchor (seat adjustor, child restraint storage hook, around head restraint). None of the labeling interventions had a significant effect on correct installation; not a single subject scanned the QR Code to access the video instruction. Subjects with the most successful installations spent extensive time reviewing the vehicle manuals. CONCLUSION: Current implementations of tether anchors among pickup trucks are not intuitive for child restraint installations, and alternate designs should be explored. Several different labeling interventions were ineffective at achieving correct tether use in pickup trucks.

Factors affecting tether use and correct use in child restraint installations.

INTRODUCTION: Field studies show that top tethers go unused in half of forward-facing child restraint installations. METHOD: In this study, parent volunteers were asked to use the Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children (LATCH) to install child restraints in several vehicles to identify tether anchor characteristics that are associated with tether use. Thirty-seven volunteers were assigned to four groups. Each group tested two forward-facing child restraints in four of 16 vehicle models. Logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of tether use and correct use. RESULTS: Subjects used the tether in 89% of the 294 forward-facing child restraint installations and attached the tether correctly in 57% of the installations. Tethers were more likely to be used when the anchor was located on the rear deck as typically found in sedans compared with the seatback, floor, or roof. Tethers were less likely to be attached correctly when there was potentially confusing hardware present. No vehicle tether hardware characteristics or vehicle manual directions were associated specifically with correct tether routing and head restraint position. CONCLUSION: This study provides laboratory evidence that specific vehicle features are associated with tether use and correct use. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Modifications to vehicles that make tether anchors easier to find and identify likely will result in increases in tether use and correct use.

Effects of child restraint system features on installation errors.

This study examined how child restraint system (CRS) features contribute to CRS installation errors. Sixteen convertible CRS, selected to include a wide range of features, were used in volunteer testing with 32 subjects. Subjects were recruited based on their education level (high or low) and experience with installing CRS (none or experienced). Each subject was asked to perform four child restraint installations in the right-rear passenger seat of a 2006 Pontiac G6 sedan using a crash dummy as a child surrogate. Each subject installed two CRS forward-facing (FF), one with LATCH and one with the vehicle seatbelt, and two CRS rear-facing (RF), one with LATCH and one with the seatbelt. After each installation, the experimenter evaluated 42 factors for each installation, such as choice of belt routing path, tightness of installation, and harness snugness. Analyses used linear mixed models to identify CRS installation outcomes associated with CRS features. LATCH connector type, LATCH strap adjustor type, and the presence of belt lockoffs were associated with the tightness of the CRS installation. The type of harness shoulder height adjuster was associated with the rate of achieving a snug harness. Correct tether use was associated with the tether storage method. In general, subject assessments of the ease-of-use of CRS features were not highly correlated with the quality of their installation, suggesting a need for feedback with incorrect installations. The data from this study provide quantitative assessments of some CRS features that were associated with reductions in CRS installation errors. These results provide child restraint designers with design guidelines for developing easier-to-use products. Research on providing effective feedback during the child restraint installation process is recommended.