Usability of non-standard lower anchor configurations for child restraint system (CRS) installation

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine whether the amount of tension required for proper child restraint system (CRS) installation varies with lower anchor spacing and to determine whether nonexperts can produce adequate tension on wider-than-standard lower anchor configurations.

Methods: CRSs were installed by certified child passenger safety technicians (CPSTs; n?=?6 subjects, n?=?72 installations) and nonexperts (n?=?30 subjects, n?=?120 installations) on a mock-up vehicle seat fixture with lower anchors set at 11 (standard), 15, 19, and 23 in. apart from one another. Each CPST installed a rear-facing (RF) infant base, RF convertible, and forward-facing (FF) convertible into each of the 4 spacing configurations in random order. The CPSTs were instructed to tighten the lower connector strap until the tension was exactly at the threshold between passing and failing the 1-in. test. Each nonexpert installed one CRS model into all 4 spacing conditions in random order. Nonexperts were instructed to install the CRS to the best of their ability. The tension produced on the lower connector strap was recorded via load cell in the lower anchor assembly of the vehicle seat. Resultant tension magnitudes were compared across spacing conditions using matched pair t-tests. The CPSTs’ mean 1-in. test threshold values were compared to tensions produced by nonexperts. Installations were visually evaluated for errors and qualitative usability feedback was collected via survey.

Results: CPSTs installed the infant base with higher tensions in the 15-, 19-, and 23-in. configurations compared to the standard 11-in. configuration (P = .034, .032, and .003, respectively). The nonexperts installed the infant base with higher tension in the 15- and 23-in. configurations compared to the 11-in. configuration (P = .004 and .026, respectively). The RF convertible and FF convertible installations showed no significant differences in tension among any of the spacing configurations for either group. Only 19% of the nonexperts’ installations were tight enough to pass CPST thresholds, and the pass rate did not vary with respect to lower anchor spacing. In feedback surveys, the nonexpert group did not show a consistent preference for either standard or wider-than-standard lower anchor configurations.

Conclusions: The amount of tension required to pass the 1-in. rule did not vary with lower anchor spacing configurations for the RF and FF convertible CRS, but the infant base required more tension in wider anchor configurations. Nonexperts tended to produce less than ideal tension in all configurations, although their tension magnitudes increased for the infant base in wider configurations.