Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42193627›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Effects of Hazard Types on Hazard Perception and Decision-Making Among Adolescent Bicyclists: Results of a Hazard Prediction Task.

Jiatong Guo, Longyilin Xu, Long Sun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jiatong GuoSchool of Psychology, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116021, China.
Longyilin XuSchool of Psychology, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116021, China.
Long SunSchool of Psychology, Liaoning Normal University, Dalian 116021, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2720-9555

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hazard perception (HP) is a critical component of road safety; however, the HP abilities of adolescent bicyclists (aged 13-16 years) and their associations with decision-making (DM) across different hazard types remain underexplored. This study investigated grade-related differences in HP and DM among adolescent bicyclists using a video-based hazard prediction task. A total of 115 middle school students who ride bicycles on a regular basis were recruited. A 3 (grade: 7th, 8th, and 9th) × 2 (hazard type: environmental prediction hazards/EPs, behavioural prediction hazards/BPs) mixed experimental design was employed. Participants answered two HP questions (What is the hazard? What happens next?) and one DM question (What would you do?). Students in the ninth and eighth grades had higher scores on BP hazards in the "what happens next" and DM questions than did their peers in the seventh grade. Although students in the ninth grade made more safe decisions on the EP hazards than their peers in the seventh and eighth grades, their scores on the "what happens next" question were similar on EP hazards. Importantly, students in the ninth grade scored significantly higher on DM than on HP for EP hazards, while students in the eighth grade scored significantly higher on DM than on HP for BP hazards. These findings demonstrate that both HP and DM accuracy improve with grade level and that the relations between HP and DM varies by hazard type. The results underscore the necessity for targeted, hazard-specific training programmes to improve cycling safety among adolescents.

Indexed as

adolescent bicyclistsdecision-makinghazard perceptionhazard typemiddle school students

Identifiers

PMID42193627
PMCPMC13203711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.