RTA liability training

E-learning that really works

“Looks nice, but does it work?” She looks up from the iPad demo. Not the response I’m expecting. She asks again - “Looks nice, but does it work?” Good question. Here’s a good answer.

Scroll back two or three years – insurer and law firm clients are troubled by junior staff making incorrect and inconsistent liability decisions in RTA cases. Poor decisions are costing them money. They want some online training. So we get to work, and we make something great. See for yourself.

(If you’re reading off-line, we have 130 RTA animations (left and right turns, roundabouts, overtaking, car parks, and so on). You watch the accident on screen, you look at resources that might help (e.g. the Highway Code) and you make a liability decision. And then you watch an experienced barrister reviewing the evidence and the key issues, and giving a view of the likely outcome in court.

“Brilliant!” we thought. And to be fair, so did some clients. But not all of them. The non-believers wanted reassurance. Fair enough.  So we designed a “proof of concept trial” involving a test before training and a test afterwards. One of our clients took the idea and ran with it. This is what happened.

They selected 22 learners (of mixed levels of experience), explained the trial and demonstrated the scenarios. The learners then completed the first test in one week. It included 10 scenarios with the barrister’s review stripped out. For the next three months the learners worked through over 130 scenarios in separate sections covering carparks, roundabouts, country roads, etc. Then we stopped their access to the scenarios, and they took a second test on 10 different (but similar) scenarios.

We gave 10 points for an answer the same as the barrister and 5 points for an answer that was within 10% of the barrister’s view.

Here’s what we found.  The e-learning works!  Every learner improved and their decisions were more consistent. Here are some of the key points.

  1. They made more correct decisions (decisions on or within 20% of the barrister’s view). The smallest improvement was 5% and the largest improvement was 75%. The average improvement was 33.6%. See Table 1.
  2. They made fewer incorrect decisions (decisions more than 20% away from the barrister’s view). The smallest improvement was 5% and the largest improvement was 90%. The average improvement was 37.5%. See Table 2.
  3. Their decisions were more consistent (taken all together, their decisions were spread over a narrower range after the training). Wildly different decisions on the same evidence were much rarer.
  4. The tests helped to identify “tricky” decisions (those decisions, like roundabouts, which the learners found challenging). This will enable the client to focus further learning and resources on supporting staff to improve in specific areas.

June 2019

Contact: Jody Jezusek
E: jody@kinchrobinson.com
M: 07717 750042

 

Table1 image
Table2 image

Posted by News Desk