test consists of a randomized series of simple object requiring
spatial judgments, which have to be made by the employee at speed. The
test requires the subject to concentrate, decide and record their responses for
a period of 2-5 minutes. The sophisticated statistical properties built into the
system measures response time, accuracy of judgment and overall variability.
performance of the employee is compared to his/her own performance during
previous and baseline trials. If the subject's performance is significantly
below par, or is more variable than usual, this is identified as cause for
concern. You may then decide what to do about this situation (e.g.. you may
decide to suspend the person from duties, determine the possible causes for
the temporary impairment by an interview and behavioral inspection,
is clear from our research to date, that individual perceptual alertness varies
normally across the population, therefore you may at point of selection, decide
to select the most alert individual by reviewing their fatigue scores, however
thereafter, individual negative variance analysis provides the most
meaningful way of monitoring whom to trust with your assets. You will appreciate
the value of spotting the individual who is impaired every Monday, after
payday, after traumatized incidents, etc.
theory indicates that combining judgment and reaction time, provides a valid
system for measuring psychomotor efficiency. By adding the measurement of
variability, the Fatigue-o-meter assesses the psychomotor performance
deterioration which takes place as a result of perceptual fatigue and loss of
of the instrument:
instrument has been validated on 7200 subjects and produces a high reliability
at (KR 20) 0.84 (p<0.05).
to do if you want to use the system:
standard Windows 2000 (or better) computer. If you want to use the
"Gate-Pass" feature, you will also need a linked and dedicated
printer. If you wish to test more than one person simultaneously, you can
connect multiple PC's on a Local Area Network (LAN). The system is supported
from a website and is updated daily.
need to decide how many employees you wish to test on the system. Based on this
figure, your start-up pack will be prepared and installed by our representative.
Upon installation, your system will be activated from our web site. The start up
pack will provide you with a 1- month testing window period for the identified
and registered employees. Our representative will provide support and training
to your staff.
employee must complete 5 baseline trials on the system, to record their normal
reactions and provide a start-up norm base.
you may have these employees tested any number of times, before, after or during
their working shift.
may access reports on these employees at any time, but we will generate regular
monthly performance reports via our website as well.
happens after the initial 30 days:
will be billed monthly in advance for the registered number of employees on your
staff leave your service, you simply remove them from the database.
new staff join you, you register them on the system.
will be provided with regular reports to review your staff profiles, comparing
your employees with the general population norms, identifying staff who are
consistently showing low scores, etc.
may terminate your contract at any stage, by providing us with 7 days written
notice. Your service will then be terminated at the end of the current period of
will cost you:
price depend on number of employees registered as well as number of site
registered, please Contact us for formal quotation.
this really a problem? Consider the following:
related and occupational accidents have an enormous impact on a developing
country such as the RSA in terms of human loss, lower productivity as well as
loss of valuable resources and capital assets. Occupational accidents were
calculated in 1996 as having cost the South African economy more than R17b
alone. At a 6% annualized wage and medical expense increase, this figure was
estimated to be R28b in 2005. The compensation Commissioner, according to
Cosatu, pays out more than R993m to accident victims in industry every year
(this figure obviously does not include loss of productive capacity or assets).
According to a study published by the CSIR's Transportek division in 2004, the
total cost of road accidents (including the cost of vehicle damage, as well as
human casualty), amounted to R42.8b in 1998. Working on a conservative increase
of 6% p/a, this figure is estimated to have been R77b in 2005.According to an
article published by Drive Alive in 2006, a
study indicates that 20% of road accidents in the
are caused by driver fatigue. It is suggested by the authors that this figure
may be considerably higher (as high as 60%) in respect of the South African
following graphical analysis shows how perceptual alertness (measured in
accuracy and response times) of a sample group of bakery van drivers varied when
tested by the Fatigue-o-meter:
1: Driver perceptual alertness
As can be observed
from the above graph, 60% ( )of
the vehicle accidents recorded over the previous 6 months in the sample group,
occurred with the drivers falling into the high error, slow response time group
The following case
study illustrates the latest findings ex two current sites, which clearly
illustrate the results which may be achieved from a well managed system:
summary driver vigilance was recorded in respect of two sites in
. These two sites employ a total of 150 (80 and 70 respectively) drivers and
operate bulk carriers making deliveries on a national basis. The objective of
the research project was to determine whether:
operational success in applying and managing the Fatigue-o-meter system differed
from site to site, and
a relationship exists between the effective management of the site
Fatigue-o-meter system and a direct reduction in site vehicle accident costs.
following statistics were collected on a monthly basis:
is the average response speed for the total group tested in the month.
Err is the average number of erroneous responses given by each group.
Var is the degree of response variability caused by individual drivers being
slower that their baseline response patterns.
Var is the degree of error variance caused by drivers making more errors
than their baselines.
results were graphically presented in order to determine whether consistent
management monitoring and cautioning of drivers were having the effect of
coaching the drivers to show faster response patterns, less error and less
individual variance (erratic-ness) around their baselines.
hypothesis contained in this analysis suggests that
effective management of drivers vigilance leads to a convergent and
steadily improving response pattern and therefore should lead to
more attentive drivers on the road and a consequent reduction in
The first graph below
illustrates the well management site results. As can be seen, the various graphs
show a convergent pattern and all graphs indicate a downward movement (in the
direction of improved response vigilance and a reduction in cautions):
second graph below indicates the poorly managed site, where the initial
graphical direction was similar as the above site, but in month 3 the management
control was lost and instead of converging, the site results show a divergent
trend line, with a generally worsening of driver vigilance. The only graph
showing an improving line is average response speed (likely caused by the
drivers realizing that no action would be taken on errors):