AN EVALUATION OF POCKET-MODEL, NUMERICAL READOUT
BREATH ALCOHOL TESTING INSTRUMENTS
A Dissertation
by
WILLIAM EDWARD VAN TASSEL
Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of
Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
August 2003
Major Subject: Health Education
AN EVALUATION OF POCKET-MODEL, NUMERICAL READOUT
BREATH ALCOHOL TESTING INSTRUMENTS
A Dissertation
by
WILLIAM EDWARD VAN TASSEL
Submitted to Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Approved as to style and content by:
___________________________ ___________________________
Maurice E. Dennis Walter F. Stenning
(Chair of Committee) (Member)
___________________________ ___________________________
Quinn R. Brackett, Jr. Steve M. Dorman
(Member) (Head of Department)
___________________________
Buster E. Pruitt
(Member)
August 2003
Major Subject: Health Education
iii
ABSTRACT
An Evaluation of Pocket-Model, Numerical Readout
Breath Alcohol Testing Instruments. (August 2003)
William Edward Van Tassel, B.B.A., Texas A&M University;
M.B.A., Texas A&M University; M.A. University of Central Oklahoma
Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Maurice E. Dennis
Eight small-scale breath alcohol measurement devices were tested for accuracy,
precision and the ability to not yield false positive and false negative readings. These
pocket-sized breath testers (PMBTs), which provided numerical readout of BrAC to the
100th of a percent, were smaller than evidential and preliminary breath test instruments
(EBTs and PBTs). The smallest devices were approximately the same size as a cigarette
lighter. Designed to provide drinkers feedback about their individual alcohol levels, the
PMBTs ranged in price from $40-100 USD.
The devices were first tested under laboratory conditions with alcohol solution
simulators providing the alcoholic samples. They were then tested with human drinkers,
under controlled field conditions. Each device was tested at multiple alcohol levels.
Two of the eight PMBTs failed to complete all levels of testing and were excluded
from the study. All PMBTs demonstrated the ability to not yield false positive and false
negative readings. No device met NHTSA performance criteria for accuracy (systematic
error) in testing EBTs at every alcohol level tested. An interaction between PMBTs and
the alcohol test levels was found. Thus, accuracy was found to be dependent upon the
iv
alcohol level at which the devices were tested. No device met NHTSA performance
criteria for precision in testing EBTs at every alcohol level tested. Further, precision
varied depending on the testing condition, as there was less precision under controlled
field conditions than under laboratory conditions. Five of the six PMBTs that completed
the testing overestimated BrAC; only one device read below actual BrAC.
Ramifications of the findings are discussed, regarding the overestimation and
underestimation of BrAC and the possibility of manufacturers intentionally calibrating
the devices to overestimate BrAC. Potential PMBT users are discussed and areas for
future research are addressed.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion of this study was possible thanks to the support offered by many
individuals. I am very grateful to Dr. Maurice E. Dennis, Chair of the Advisory
Committee. His support throughout the dissertation process, as well as through my
entire doctoral program, has been absolute and of great magnitude. He has been tireless
in his encouragement and never-ending in his commitment to me as a student. I could
not have asked for a better mentor under which to study. His approach will serve as my
model as I continue in the academic environment.
One’s family certainly is a substantial factor in the ability to pursue a doctorate. To
this end, I express special thanks to my mom, who has been wholly supportive in my
academic efforts. Her dedication in capturing and relaying to me virtually all traffic and
alcohol-related events in the media has been especially helpful. It’s great having one’s
own personal clipping service! To my father goes special appreciation. His input
regarding the study and draft documents was of great use and he consistently confirmed
that this research was of real value. Somehow he always knew I would make it!
Without the complete support and assistance of Margaret Parker with the Texas
Department of Public Safety, this research simply would not have been possible. Since
the project’s inception, she has given freely of her time and effort to help ensure the
success of the research. It is always great to work with someone who shares an interest
in answering unanswered questions!
vi
The members of my graduate advisory committee also deserve my appreciation.
Special thanks goes to Dr. Quinn Brackett, Dr. Buster Pruitt and Dr. Walter Stenning.
Their individual and collective input substantially strengthened the dissertation.
I would also like to thank Dr. Charles Shea, Dr. Lindsay Griffin, III and Dr. Homer
Tolson for all their help with the statistical design and analysis of the data. My special
thanks goes to Sergeant Rod Gullberg of the Washington State Patrol, who has been
tireless in his support and input regarding the design and analysis phases. Through these
professionals I have learned much that will be of value in my future research.
Without a strong network of supportive friends and colleagues this effort would not
have been possible. Great thanks goes to Robert “Dr. Bob” Reinhardt, who provided
great assistance in all phases of this project and who yielded special insights into the
consequences of subjecting one’s self to this endeavor. Dr. Michael Manser also served
as a substantial resource throughout the dissertation. His, as well as Dr. Bob’s periodic
kicks in the butt kept me motivated to make it all the way through. Thanks to the
Bondurant Crew!
I extend my great appreciation to Dr. Stacey Stevens, Dr. John Green, Dr. Danny
Ballard, Dr. Jim Robinson and Dr. Ben Cranor for their friendship and support
throughout every phase of this effort. Their view that it was always a matter of when,
rather than if, I would complete this phase was a source of constant hope. Special thanks
go to Dr. Robert Armstrong, Dr. Stephen Crouse and Dr. Steve Dorman for their support
and for facilitating use of departmental resources in this research.
vii
I would also like to recognize the supportive input and assistance from Becky Davies
and Dave Willis, of the Center for Transportation Safety at the Texas Transportation
Institute. They were both wholly and actively supportive of my use of TTI facilities
during this research. My thanks also goes to Dr. James Frank of NHTSA. His support
was total, active at the earliest stages of the effort. Appreciation is also due to Dr. A.W.
Jones, who provided very useful input regarding study design and comments regarding
the devices to be tested.
Doing research with human participants can greatly complicate the conduct of
research. However, several people helped reduce the burden of acquiring qualified
participants for this research. My thanks go to Dottidee Agnor, Gayden Darnell, Beth
Tessandori and Dr. Jerry Elledge. My appreciation is also extended to those who helped
me corral and monitor the participants, including Donna Adler, Romona Clark, Jodi
Luecke and Christie Dickson.
Most of all, I thank the good Lord, who has guided me to and through this research.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………… iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………………….. v
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………… viii
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………… x
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………….. xi
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………... 1
1.1 Statement of the Problem…………………………………. 9
1.2 Purpose of Study………………………………………….. 9
1.3 Value of Study…………………………………………….. 10
1.4 Research Hypotheses……………………………………… 11
1.5 Independent Variables………………………….….……… 13
1.6 Dependent Variable…………………………….……….… 13
1.7 Operational Definitions…………………………………… 13
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE………………………………………. 15
2.1 Modern Breath Alcohol Testing…………….……………. 15
2.2 Breath Alcohol Detection Technology…………………… 19
2.3 Breath Alcohol Sample Simulators………………………. 23
2.4 Breath Alcohol Measurement Devices…………………… 26
III METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………. 42
3.1 Test Devices……………………………………………… 42
3.2 Pilot Testing………………………………………………. 43
3.3 Experiment One…………………………………………... 48
3.4 Experiment Two………………………………………….. 48
3.5 Limitations of the Study………………………………….. 61
3.6 Delimitations of the Study………………………………... 63
ix
CHAPTER Page
IV RESULTS…………………………………………………………… 64
4.1 General……………………………………………………. 64
4.2 Pilot Testing………………………………………………. 64
4.3 Experiment One…………………………………………... 66
4.4 Experiment Two………………………………………….. 71
V DISCUSSION………………………………………………………. 87
5.1 Hypothesis Testing……………………………………..… 87
5.2 Precision………………………………………………….. 90
5.3 Accuracy…………………………………………………. 91
5.4 Relationship to Intoxilyzer……………………………….. 93
5.5 Summary…………………………………………………. 94
VI RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION………………….. 98
6.1 Recommendations for Future Research………………….. 98
6.2 Recommendations for PMBT Manufacturers……………. 102
6.3 Recommendations for Addressing Research
Methodological Issues………………………………..…... 105
6.4 Conclusion…………………………………………….….. 107
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………... 109
APPENDIX A: SAMPLE IMAGES OF QUANTITATIVE PMBT
MODELS…………………………………………………….. 120
APPENDIX B: CLOSED SYSTEM WET BATH SIMULATOR…………… 129
APPENDIX C: THE ALCOHOL USE DISORDER INVENTORY TEST….. 131
APPENDIX D: THE NUMERICAL DRINKING PROFILE………………… 138
APPENDIX E: INFORMED CONSENT FORM…………………………….. 145
APPENDIX F: LATIN SQUARE COUNTERBALANCING SYSTEM…….. 149
APPENDIX G: PARTICIPANT DATA SHEET……………………………... 151
VITA…………………………………………………………………………… 153
x
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE Page
1 Mean BrAC Results of Each Device Tested at .032……………….. … 65
2 Mean BrAC Results of Devices at Each Simulator Concentration.…... 67
3 Mean Results for Each Device at Each Simulator Concentration..…… 68
4 Standard Deviations of Each Device at Each Simulator
Concentration…………………………………………………………. 70
5 Mean BrAC Results for Devices at Each Alcohol Concentration……. 76
6 Mean Intoxilyzer and Device Results for Each Device at
Each Concentration …………………………………………………… 77
7 Standard Deviations of Each Device at Each Concentration………….. 78
8 Correlations Between the Intoxilyzer and Each Device…….…………. 86
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE Page
1 Participant Variables…………………………………………………... 56
2 Acceptable Range for Individual Testing………………..…………….. 59
3 Mean Test Results for Each Device at Each Concentration…………… 66
4 Standard Deviations for Each Device at Each Concentration…………. 69
5 Means and Standard Deviations for Each Device at Each
Concentration………………………………………………………….. 72
6 Amount Added to Each Device, Based on Testing Order…………….. 74
7 Corrected Means and Standard Deviations for Each Device at Each
Concentration………………………………………………………….. 75
8 Results of Mauchly’s Test…………………………………………….. 79
9 Results of Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance………………….. 80
10 Results of Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance, Lower Bound
Values………………….……………………………………………….. 81
11 Simple Main Effects…………………………….……………………… 82
12 Differences Between Intoxilyzer and Each Device at
.08 Concentration………………………………………………………. 85
13 Correlations Between Intoxilyzer and Each Device…………………… 85
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
While automobiles have only recently reached the century mark of existence, they
have provided a degree of personal mobility never before experienced. Automobiles
provide rapid transportation, permit infinite recreation options and afford their users
wide choices regarding where to live and work. This individual mode of transport is
widely available, relatively affordable and facilitated by solid roadway infrastructures.
In the United States (US) and many other nations, automobiles have become the
mechanized equivalent of freedom.
Unfortunately, each time a driver operates a motor vehicle there is a risk of serious or
fatal injury. With over 220 million registered vehicles in the US, crashes are inevitable
(National Safety Council, 2002). Causal factors include vehicle malfunctions, poor
environmental conditions and human error (Fell, Hendricks & Freedman, 2000; Shinar,
1978). These negative events can cause sudden and violent impacts, resulting in
property damage and injury or death of vehicle occupants.
Each year in the US, over 40,000 people die as a result of motor vehicle collisions.
This degree of loss equates to approximately three commercial jet aircraft crashing each
week. While losing so many lives in “chunks” in such an aviation scenario would likely
_______________
This dissertation follows the style and format of Accident Analysis and Prevention.
2
cause widespread panic, the yearly number of automotive-related deaths appears to be
far less a social concern. One factor may be the pattern of automobile crashes: the
pattern is diffused, with injuries and deaths occurring over many small, discrete crashes
throughout the year, spread over the entire US (”Low Priority,” 2002).
In fact, automobile crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans age 1-34
(Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2002). In addition, over two million people
annually suffer from disabling injuries as a result of car collisions (National Safety
Council, 2001). Further, the economic costs of motor vehicle collisions are staggering.
Such costs include medical expenses, productivity losses, employer costs and property
damage (National Safety Council, 2001). The U.S. Department of Transportation
(2002a) estimates that the annual cost of such crashes to society exceeds $150 billion.
This equates to a yearly cost average of approximately $790 per licensed driver in the
US. Regardless of how automobile crash results are measured, motor vehicle collisions
represent a major threat to public health and an enormous drain on the U.S. economy.
Only partially consoling is the fact that the motor vehicle crash rate was even worse in
years past. From the US peak death rate per 100,000 population of 30.8 in 1937, the
national rate has decreased to a rate of 15.4 in 2001, a decline of 50% (National Safety
Council, 2002). Many factors are credited with reducing injury and death rates,
including:
3
(a) Vehicle advances such as padded interiors, airbags, anti-lock braking systems,
improved tires and traction control systems (Davis, 2002; National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 2003a);
(b) Roadway improvements such as improved guardrails and lighting, and rumble
strips (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2003b);
(c) Legislative initiatives aimed at raising the cost of unsafe driving behavior
(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2003b);
(d) Advances in enforcement operations such as electronic speed measurement,
improved communications and accident reduction efforts (National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 2002).
In general, most crashes have been found to be attributed to human error/impairment
as opposed to vehicular or environmental factors (Fell, Hendricks & Freedman, 2000;
Moskowitz, 2002). Contributing to this finding is the myriad of ways that drivers can be
impaired, including:
(a) Distraction (AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2001);
(b) Fatigue/drowsiness (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1998);
(c) Road rage/aggressive driving (AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 1997);
(d) Drugs, including alcohol (Dennis, 1995; Moskowitz & Robinson, 1988).
Of all the causes of motor vehicle crashes, alcohol-related crashes remain the single
largest factor. Alcohol, a legal depressant drug, is widely available and widely abused in
the US (Hanson, Venturelli & Fleckenstein, 2002). Almost 40% of all motor vehicle
fatalities result from alcohol’s deleterious effects on driving ability (National Safety
4
Council, 2001). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines
an alcohol-related crash as one in which “either a driver or a nonoccupant (e.g.,
pedestrian) had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or
greater in a police reported traffic crash” (Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 2003, p.2).
Compared to total crashes, state fatal alcohol-involved crash rates range from 23.9%
(Utah) to 50.4% (Texas) (National Safety Council, 2002).
Fortunately, the alcohol-involved crash rate has declined in recent years (Moskowitz,
2002). Since 1982, the percentage of US fatal crashes involving alcohol has declined
nearly 50% (Jones & Lacey, 2001). Several efforts have been credited with the progress
to date, including:
(a) Efforts of organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and Remove
Intoxicated Drivers;
(b) Federal, state and regional programs aimed at reducing the incidence of impaired
driving;
(c) A growing social intolerance of the act of driving while impaired (Jones &
Lacey, 2001);
(d) Use of technology to determine drivers’ alcohol levels (Harding, 1996;
Dubowski, 1992).
While the incidence of impaired driving has declined over the last two decades,
progress seems to have leveled off over the past few years. It has been noted that the
number of alcohol-related crashes has reached a plateau, with little change over the past
several years (Jones & Lacey, 2001; “Progress Against,” 2002).
5
There is consensus that the most effective way to prevent alcohol-impaired driving
behavior is to avoid driving after consuming any alcohol (Burns & Fiorentino, 2002;
Muhammad, 2000). Unfortunately, some people do choose to, and even plan to, drive
after consuming alcohol, with sometimes catastrophic results (Jones & Lacey, 2001).
Several objective methods of determining blood alcohol levels have been developed,
including measuring saliva, vapors emanating from the eye, blood, urine, tissue, spinal
fluid and deep-lung breath (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1994; Caplan, 1996,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1982). Developed in the 1940s,
measurement of blood alcohol levels from breath samples was originally designed for
law enforcement forensic purposes, but has since spread to other areas, including the
medical, aviation, trucking and other transportation and non-transportation oriented
industries (Mason & Dubowski, 1996; Harding, 1996; Freudenrich, 2002). Breath
testing involves measuring the amount of alcohol captured in expired deep-lung air. Use
of breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) has become a very common method of
determining blood alcohol concentration (BAC), as it does not require using trained
medical personnel to obtain and analyze blood samples (Mason & Dubowski, 1996;
Harding, 1996; CMI, 2002a).
Two main types of breath alcohol testing devices exist: disposable and reusable.
Disposable devices are inexpensive and typically involve the user exhaling through a
clear plastic cylinder approximately the size of a cigarette. The tube contains a mixture
of chemicals that reacts as breathe-borne ethanol flows through. Users interpret any
6
resulting change in color of the mixture to assess their blood alcohol level. Such devices
are usually set to react at specific alcohol thresholds, such as .04 or.08 (AlcoPro, 2003).
Several types of reusable BrAC measurement devices have been developed. The most
often used devices are large fixed based units primarily used for law enforcement
evidentiary purposes. One of the first of these devices was the “Breathalyzer,” invented
in 1954 by Dr. Robert Borkenstein (Ezelle, 2002). Known as evidentiary breath testers
(EBTs), these devices, such as the Intoxilyzer 5000, represent the most accurate breath
alcohol measurement instruments available (CMI, Inc., 2002a). These BrAC devices
generally remain at one location, require regular calibration and necessitate thorough
training of their operators (Taylor & Hodgson, 1995; Dubowski & Essary, 1992). EBTs
provide a digital readout to the 1000th of one percent BrAC.
Preliminary breath testers (PBTs) are approximately the size of a VHS cassette.
These hand-held, battery powered screening devices are used in the field to supplement a
law enforcement officer’s observations in determining whether a suspected alcoholimpaired
driver should be arrested (Olson, 1986; Forrester, 1997). Results from PBTs
may or may not be introduced as court-reported evidence. These instruments also
provide a digital readout of BrAC, either two or three digits to the right of the decimal.
Passive alcohol sensors (PASs) surreptitiously collect normally exhaled breath from
drivers during an interaction with law enforcement personnel. Designed to help officers
screen potentially impaired drivers, these devices require no action by motorists and are
built into innocuous-appearing devices such as flashlights and clipboards. PAS
instruments help determine whether alcohol is present and, if so designed, approximately
7
how much. An effective PAS will minimize false positive readings (where low BrACs
are incorrectly identified as high BrACs) and maximize the likelihood that high BrACs
are detected (Lestina & Lund, 1992). Results are displayed either numerically or by a
series of lights.
Breath alcohol ignition interlock devices (IIDs) are designed to prevent drivers who
have consumed even small amounts of alcohol from starting their automobiles. About
the size of an electric razor, these breath analysis devices are hard-wired into a vehicle
and will not permit engine ignition if the driver’s breath has a breath alcohol
concentration higher than a predetermined threshold, usually .025 (Voas, Blackman,
Tippetts and Marques, 2002). IID users are generally DWI offenders who have received
permission to resume driving after having lost all such privileges for some period of time
(Frank, 1997). Modern IIDs log all start attempts and violations and also mandate
“rolling retests,” which require the driver to periodically provide additional breath
samples in order for the vehicle engine to continue running (Smart Start, 2003; Comeau,
2000; Marques, Voas, Tippetts & Bierness, 1999).
Coin operated breath measuring devices permit users to self-test their alcohol level.
Slightly smaller than cash register machines, these instruments are designed for
establishments that serve alcohol, including hotels and bars (Wundersitz, 2002). For
each single use of the instrument, users pay a small fee, which generally includes a fresh
mouthpiece (The Alcohol Alert System, 2002). Currently, coin operated breath testers
(COBTs) are not widely available in the US.
8
The sixth group of breath test devices consists of a relatively new class of testing
devices. Yet to acquire a commonly used label or acronym, these portable units are
designed more for personal/civilian use, rather than for law enforcement applications.
These battery-powered devices are even smaller than PBTs, with some being quite thin
and not much larger than a pack of chewing gum (Stellin, 2001). They generally do not
permit user calibration, require no training other than reading the manufacturer’s
operating instructions and, at a cost of $25 to $150, are far less expensive than both
EBTs and PBTs.
This group of devices provides information about BrAC in one of two ways. First,
some devices provide a qualitative readout, generally using a system of lights to provide
information to the user. This can take the form of a binomial system (alcohol present or
alcohol not present) or a system of ranges (e.g., BrAC ranges of .00-.04%, .04-.08%,
.08-.12%, .12-.15% and .15% and higher). Second, other devices provide a quantitative
readout, generally in 100th percent of BrAC. This paper shall refer to these devices as
“pocket-model breath testers” (PMBTs). Images of the PMBTs tested in this study are
provided in Appendix A.
EBTs, PBTs, PASs, IIDs and COBTs have all undergone rigorous laboratory and
field-based analyses to evaluate their performance. However, there is a lack of
evaluation of the newer, lower-cost PMBTs. Given that drivers are generally poor
estimators of their own alcohol level (Silverstein, Nathan & Taylor, 1974; Van Tassel &
Manser, 2000), the best option for any drinker is to not drive after consuming any
alcohol. Sadly, people do all too often elect to drive after drinking. In situations where
9
the optimal rule of no-driving-after-drinking fails, the next best option might be to
facilitate feedback of drinkers’ own alcohol levels. Such feedback might result in better
decisions about whether or not to drive. PMBTs have the potential to fulfill this
function, and researchers have identified the need to develop and validate alternate
methods of informing drinkers about the alcohol levels they have achieved (Dubowski,
1985). This study seeks to evaluate the performance of small-scale breath testers.
1.1. Statement of the Problem
Determination of breath alcohol from expired air is a commonly used method to
measure blood alcohol concentration. The traditional devices used to obtain
measurements of BrAC (EBTs, PASs, PBTs, CODs and IIDs) have been evaluated
thoroughly to assess their performance. These units have been shown to demonstrate
sufficient precision and accuracy to be used for their intended purposes.
A new class of measurement devices, pocket-model breath testers, has been released
for public use within the past few years that may have the potential to help reduce the
incidence of alcohol-impaired driving. These units have not yet undergone rigorous
evaluation of their performance and an exploratory evaluation is needed prior to any
widespread use.
1.2. Purpose of Study
The purpose of this exploratory study is to evaluate the performance of commonly
available quantitative pocket-model breath testers (PMBTs). The evaluation consisted of
10
two experiments. The first was designed to assess the accuracy and precision of
measurements made under laboratory conditions. The second was performed to assess
the accuracy and precision under simulated field conditions.
1.3. Value of Study
Individuals sometimes make important decisions after consuming alcohol, including
decisions about driving. Poor decisions can result because decision-making ability is the
first human function to be affected by alcohol (Texas DWI Education Program, 2001).
Thus, not only do drinkers tend to make poor decisions, but because of alcohol
impairment, they do not recognize that their decision-making ability has been affected.
In most drinking situations, the sole input drinkers have about their current BAC is
their subjective estimate; there is rarely an available method for them to obtain a
quantitative measure of their BAC. Perhaps not surprisingly, drinkers’ subjective
estimates of BAC, made in the absence of accurate feedback, have been found to be of
low accuracy (Silverstein, Nathan & Taylor, 1974).
It has been recommended for some time that new and better means of providing
drinkers information about their current alcohol level be validated (Dubowski, 1985).
As most states’ laws involve a numerical expression of intoxication (e.g., .08% BAC),
drinkers’ decisions might benefit from numerical input regarding their current BrAC.
The PMBT devices to be examined in this study have the potential to provide such
quantitative input, possibly aiding drinkers in making better decisions after alcohol is
11
consumed. Better decisions regarding driving by people who have consumed alcohol
could lead to fewer alcohol-related injuries and deaths.
1.4. Research Hypotheses
1.4.1. Experiment One
1.4.1.1. Hypothesis One
Under laboratory conditions, each PMBT device will be less accurate than the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) criteria at each alcohol level
(will yield a systematic error greater than ± .005).
HO: Systematic error ≤ ± .005 at each alcohol level
HA: Systematic error > ± .005 at each alcohol level
1.4.1.2. Hypothesis Two
Under laboratory conditions, each PMBT device will be less precise (more variable)
that the NHTSA criteria at each alcohol level (will yield a standard deviation greater
than .0042).
HO: Standard deviation ≤ .0042 at each alcohol level
HA: Standard deviation > .0042 at each alcohol level
12
1.4.1.3. Hypothesis Three
Under laboratory conditions, each PMBT device will become less accurate as test
BrAC increases (systematic error will increase when measured at .02, .04, .06, .08, .10
and .16).
HO: Systematic error at .02 ≤ .04 ≤ .06 ≤ .08 ≤ .10 ≤ .16
HA: Systematic error at .02 > .04 > .06 > .08 > .10 > .16
1.4.1.4. Hypothesis Four
Under laboratory conditions, each PMBT device will become less precise (more
variable) as test BrAC increases (standard deviation will increase when measured at
.02, .04, .06, .08, .10 and .16).
HO: Standard deviation at .02 ≤ .04 ≤ .06 ≤ .08 ≤ .10 ≤ .16
HA: Standard deviation at .02 > .04 > .06 > .08 > .10 > .16
1.4.2. Experiment Two
1.4.2.1. Hypothesis Five
Under simulated field conditions, each PMBT device will yield results significantly
different than results from a calibrated Intoxilyzer 5000 breath alcohol test instrument.
HO: Intoxilyzer = A = B = C = D = E = F = G = H at each alcohol level
HA: Intoxilyzer ≠ A ≠ B ≠ C ≠ D ≠ E ≠ F ≠ G ≠ H at each alcohol level
13
1.5. Independent Variables
IV1: Simulator solution alcohol concentration (Experiment One).
IV2: PMBT used by each participant (Experiment Two).
IV3: Amount of alcohol consumed by each participant
(Experiment Two).
1.6. Dependent Variable
DV3: BrAC measurement result (Experiments One and Two).
1.7. Operational Definitions
(a) Accuracy- A measure of the closeness of agreement between the result of
analysis and the true value of the quantity being measured; the proximity of a
quantified measurement result to the true value of the property being measured.
(b) Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC)- Grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of
blood. This is equivalent to the metric used to measure breath alcohol
concentration (BrAC), grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
(c) Breath Alcohol Concentration (BrAC)- Grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
This is equivalent to the metric used to measure blood alcohol concentration
(BAC), grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood.
(d) Precision- Closeness of agreement between independent results of measurements
obtained by a procedure under prescribed conditions; the variation or scatter of
14
the measurements about the mean; the degree to which replicate measurement
results agree amongst themselves.
(e) Alcohol Solution Simulator- A device containing approximately 500 ml of an
ethanol/water solution heated to a known and constant temperature and designed
to provide a known vapor concentration of ethanol for calibration and testing of
instruments.
Unless otherwise stated, all measurements results in this study will be expressed in terms
of BrAC, grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.
15
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1. Modern Breath Alcohol Testing
With references to the methodology made as early as 1874, breath alcohol analysis
has developed into a primary method of measuring the concentration of alcohol in the
body (Lucas, 2000; Deveaux & Gosset, 2000). Several advantages have led to its
increased use throughout the world. First, unlike measuring alcohol directly from blood,
medical personnel are not required to collect a sample. Second, no laboratory services
are necessary for sample analysis. Third, it offers immediate results. Fourth, it
minimizes the time between the event or arrest and the subsequent testing (Mason &
Dubowski, 1996; Harding, 1996; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1982). These advantages have combined to move breath testing to the forefront of
alcohol measurement. Modern breath testing instruments have developed to the point
that when used by people with limited or no scientific training, they can provide reliable
results under non-laboratory conditions (Harding, 1996).
The basic process of breath alcohol testing can be divided into three components
(Dubowski, 2002):
1. Input Phase. The participant provides a breath sample into a measurement
instrument.
16
2. Analysis Phase. Any ethanol present in the breath sample is identified and
quantitated.
3. Output Phase. The measurement instrument displays the results of the test.
Secondary phases would include the interpretation and use of the results, and quality
assurance efforts.
Breath alcohol measurement is based on the principle of equilibrium. This principle
asserts that the ratio of alcohol concentrations between a blood sample and a breath
sample is a constant value (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1982).
That is, arterial blood is in equilibrium with deep lung (alveolar) air (Hlastala, 1998).
Not surprisingly, the concentration of alcohol in blood is much higher than that of
alcohol in alveolar air. A ratio of 2100:1 has traditionally been used to describe the
relationship between alcohol in deep lung breath and blood, respectively (Mason &
Dubowski, 1996; Hlastala, 2002; CMI, 2002a). This ratio is generally referred to as the
“partition ratio” (Melethil, 2002).
As states began to adopt per se intoxication laws, their statutes frequently and
logically included a metric commonly used to specify the amount of alcohol in the
blood: grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood (Dubowski, 2002; Gullberg, 1990a).
However, as the use of breath alcohol testing spread, it became the norm to express
breath alcohol results in a metric more closely aligned with its gaseous-form sample
source: grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath (Jones, 2002). Thus, each method
17
dictated its most appropriate and scientifically sound metric. Most states’ statutes
included only the original metric used for blood alcohol measurement, however.
In order to provide any sort of meaningful comparison between BrAC and BAC, it
became necessary, using the partition ratio, to convert BrAC results to BAC results.
This conversion has traditionally been a substantial source of contention. The originally
applied ratio of 2100:1 may have been somewhat arbitrarily employed (Mason &
Dubowski, 1996). In addition, contention over the ratio has arisen because of claims that
the partition ratio may not be constant (Hlastala, 1998); it may vary depending on a
number of factors (Jones & Andersson, 1996). Factors said to affect the partition ratio
include breath temperature, breathing technique just prior to providing a sample (hypoor
hyperventilation), hematocrit value, alcohol loss to the airway mucosa and
atmospheric pressure (Melethil, 2002; Hlastala, 2002).
Today, many states have amended legislation to include both blood and breath metrics
in their definition of intoxication. Thus in those states, if a suspect provides a blood
sample that exceeds a specified number of grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood,
or provides a breath sample that exceeds a specified number of grams of alcohol per 210
liters of breath, he or she is considered legally intoxicated. By including both
definitions, the matter of converting breath alcohol results to blood alcohol results
became moot (Jones, 2002).
Not every interested party believes that breath alcohol testing is completely accurate
and precise. Detractors counter with claims that too many factors can interfere with such
testing to permit its use in evidentiary circumstances. It has been claimed that asthma
18
inhalant and nasal spray chemicals can inflate test results (Logan, Distefano & Case,
1998). Residual alcohol or mouthwash in the mouth has also been said to inflate test
results (Harding, 2002; Spector, 1971). In addition, interference from radio frequencies
has been cited as affecting test results (Gullberg, 2002a). Some detractors remain quite
vocal in their opposition to breath testing. One such detractor, Tucson defense attorney
James Nesci, proclaimed “breath testing in general is a load of crap, just pseudoscience
that they try to pull off” (Joseph, 2002, p. 3).
Effective quality control measures adequately address most, if not all, these
challenges. For example, concerns about inhalant and nasal sprays and residual mouth
alcohol can be addressed simply by employing a 15 minute deprivation period, where
the subject is not permitted to ingest any material for 15 minutes prior to providing a
breath sample. During the deprivation period, these potential interferents will have
dissipated (Logan, Distefano & Case, 1998; Brown, 1994). Claims that dentures and
mouth jewelry, such as tongue piercings, retain alcohol in the mouth and thus inflate
results have also been scientifically refuted (Harding, McMurray, Laessig, Simley,
Correll & Tsunehiro, 1992; Logan & Gullberg, 1998). Regarding radio frequency
interference, most modern evidential breath test devices feature shielding specifically
designed to prevent such interference (Gullberg, 2002a).
Non-invasiveness, advances in technology, immediate results and other factors have
led breath alcohol analysis to become more accepted worldwide. It has become the
standard measurement system used in the prosecution of impaired driving cases
(Gullberg, 2000; National College for DUI Defense, 2002).
19
2.2. Breath Alcohol Detection Technology
2.2.1. Infrared Spectroscopy
Analysis of breath alcohol through infrared (IR) spectroscopy has become
widespread; it is currently the most common method of measuring breath alcohol
(Intoximeters, 2002; Dubowski, 1992). IR analysis is based on measuring the amount of
IR that is absorbed by a substance (Drug Library, 2003). In fact, specific molecules can
actually be identified by the way they absorb light (Freudenrich, 2002), similar to the
way fingerprints can be used to identify specific humans (Fiandach, 2002).
Infrared devices have breath sample chambers, into which a subject provide a breath
sample. IR light of a specific frequency is then passed through the chamber. Ethanol
absorbs some of the IR light (Gullberg & Zettl, 2002). A photocell at the receiving end
of the chamber measures the residual amount of IR received and compares it to the
amount originally emitted (Freudenrich, 2002). The alcohol concentration of the sample
is proportional to the amount of infrared light that is absorbed (Harding, 1996).
The foundational principle of this type of analysis is the Beer-Lambert Law. In this
context, it posits that the concentration of any alcohol present is directly proportional to
the amount of IR absorbed by alcohol dissolved in alveolar air. Basically, if the amount
of IR that has been absorbed is known, the concentration of the alcohol can be computed
(Fiandach, 2002; Gullberg & Zettl, 2002).
Infrared measurement instruments also feature the ability to detect for the presence of
residual mouth alcohol. This is possible due to the instrument’s capacity to continuously
20
measure the alcohol in a subject’s breath as he or she exhales into the breath sample
chamber (Harding, 1996). When plotted with time (in seconds) on the x-axis and BrAC
on the y-axis, subject breath samples with and without residual mouth alcohol will yield
very different breath exhalation profiles. Samples with residual mouth alcohol will yield
a high alcohol level from the very beginning of a long breath, then taper off. Samples
without residual mouth alcohol will slowly build in alcohol amount, peaking at the end
portion of a long breath. The capability of infrared devices to detect these differences is
called “slope detection.” Devices so equipped can be programmed to not provide a
result under residual mouth alcohol conditions and to notify the operator that an error
has occurred (Harding, 1996). As previously mentioned, the employment of a 15 minute
waiting period prior to any breath test should serve to effectively eliminate concerns
about residual mouth alcohol. Current devices employing infrared spectroscopy include
the Intoxilyzer 5000 series (CMI, 2003a) and the BAC Datamaster series (National
Patent Analytical Systems, 2003).
2.2.2. Chemical Oxidation/Photometry
Breath alcohol measurement through chemical oxidation is the oldest testing
technique still in use (Dubowski, 1992). It is the system that moved breath alcohol
measurement into widespread use among law enforcement (Harding, 1996). Chemical
oxidation involves noting the change in color resulting from a chemical reaction between
alcohol in breath and normally inert detection chemicals (Freudenrich, 2002).
21
The technique involves directing a subject’s breath sample into a vial or ampule
containing oxidizing chemicals that react with ethanol. The most common chemicals
used in these ampules include sulfuric acid, silver nitrate, potassium dichromate and
water (Freudenrich, 2002). After the breath sample is introduced to the chemicals, any
alcohol is oxidized (burned) to acetic acid (National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1982). This results in a proportional change in the color of the original
chemicals, generally from yellow to shades of green. This change in color occurs due to
a decrease in the amount of ultraviolet light absorbed by the chemicals (Harding, 1996).
The color change is then measured by a photometer, the result of which is revealed via
analog or digital display (Dubowski, 1992).
Chemical oxidation of breath alcohol is a very precise and accurate technique. In
addition, it is selective and sensitive for alcohol, and is effective in ignoring the presence
of other volatile substances (Dubowski, 1992).
2.2.3. Fuel Cell/Electrical Oxidation
Originally developed to provide power for the aerospace industry, fuel cell technology
was adapted to the measurement of breath alcohol. Discovered in the 1800s, fuel cell
technology was first shown to be capable of specifically identifying alcohol in the 1960s
by researchers at the University of Vienna (Intoximeters, 2002). A fuel cell is basically
an electromechanical device capable of converting an oxidant and a fuel into direct
current (Harding, 1996). For breath alcohol measurement, atmospheric air is the oxidant
and ethanol is the fuel.
22
A fuel cell generally consists of two platinum electrodes, between which is
sandwiched an electrolyte material capable of conducting ions (CMI, 2002b; Dubowski,
1992). As a subject’s expired air flows through the fuel cell, the alcohol is oxidized,
resulting in the creation of an electrical current (Harding, 1996). As more alcohol is
converted to water through oxidation, the current grows stronger. Thus the current
created is proportional to the amount of alcohol that is exposed to the fuel cell. This
current flows by wire from the electrode to a microprocessor that calculates and displays
the resulting concentration of alcohol in the breath sample (Freudenrich, 2002).
Fuel cells have shown to be highly resistant to interference from other chemicals
(Dubowski, 1992). However, the sensitivity of the devices changes over time,
necessitating more frequent calibration than some devices employing other technology
(Harding, 1996). Fuel cell technology continues to develop, as does the number of
applications in which it is used. For example, fuel cell technology has since expanded
into automobile applications (Autoweek Online, 2002). Current breath alcohol testing
devices employing fuel cell technology include the Alco-Sensor (Intoximeters, 2003)
and the Intoxilyzer 400PA (CMI, 2003b).
2.2.4. Solid State Semiconductor (Taguchi) Gas Sensor
Patented in the US in 1973, Taguchi semiconductor sensors are solid state devices
capable of measuring alcohol (Dubowski, 1992). These units generally require little
power to operate and are inexpensive and small. The sensor itself is an N-type
(negative) semiconductor, comprised of a stannic oxide bead placed in a ceramic
23
cylinder. The porous sensor requires being heated to operational temperature prior to
use (Harding, 1996).
As breath is passed through the cylinder, the bead absorbs alcohol, which causes an
increase in electrical conductivity. This rise in conductivity is in proportion to the
concentration of the alcohol in the breath, which is measured electronically and
converted to direct current voltage (Harding, 1996; Dubowski, 1992). Results are
displayed through a series of lights or a digital readout (Dubowski, 1992).
Taguchi sensor detectors are not specific for alcohol; such sensors will respond to
almost any combustible gas. While quite sensitive, Taguchi sensors lack inherent
stability, and thus require more frequent recalibration (Harding, 1996; Dubowski, 1992).
Current devices employing Taguchi sensor technology include the A.L.E.R.T. Model J4
(Columbia Laboratory Services, 2003) and ignition interlock devices (Harding, 1996).
2.3 Breath Alcohol Sample Simulators
In order to assure the proper functioning of BrAC measuring devices and to ensure
that their operators are properly trained as required, it is necessary to have access to a
method of introducing alcohol vapor into BrAC testing instruments. One option is to
have humans who have consumed alcohol provide breath samples. While such a
procedure might be optimal, especially in terms of testing under simulated field
conditions in which devices would be expected to be used, it is impractical to expect to
have volunteer drinkers on hand for every testing and training procedure.
24
For these reasons, the breath alcohol sample simulator was created. Generally known
as “simulators,” these devices deliver alcohol vapor specimens of known concentration
to BrAC measurement instruments (Dubowski, 1994). Originally designed to provide
simulated breath alcohol vapor specimens for use in operator training, simulators are
now also used to aid in calibrating and assessing the performance of BrAC analyzing
devices (Dubowski, 1992).
There are two types of simulators: dry gas and wet bath. Dry gas simulators use an
inert gas, such as nitrogen, to represent specific alcohol concentrations. The gas is
contained in a pressurized cylinder which, when depleted, must be refilled. Increasingly
used in the US, dry gas simulators have been found to demonstrate acceptable
performance to be used for forensic and other purposes (Dubowski & Essary, 1996).
About the size of a coffee can, closed system wet bath simulators contain an aqueous
solution, through which air can be directed (see Appendix B). This solution is mixed
from precise amounts of water and ethanol; thus, the exact concentration of the solution
is known (Harding, 1996). Generally, a simulator will contain 500 ml of the aqueous
solution and will be heated to a constant temperature of 34 degrees Celsius (Speck,
McElroy & Gullberg, 1991; Dubowski & Essary, 1991). This temperature is used
because it approximates the temperature of human breath (Gullberg & Zettl, 2002).
As air is passed through the simulator, it takes on the alcohol properties of the
mixture, then flows into a BrAC measurement device. This transference of alcohol
properties to the introduced air is based on Henry’s Law, which states that at a given
temperature in a closed system, the alcohol concentration of the air will be proportional
25
to the alcohol concentration of the solution (Gullberg & Zettl, 2002). This law allows
the alcohol concentration of the simulator headspace vapor to be of known quantity
(Gullberg, 2000).
Wet bath simulators provide breath test users with several advantages. First, solutions
can be prepared to virtually any alcohol concentration of interest (Harding, 1996). By
precisely varying the mix of water and ethanol, the user can create any alcohol level
desired. Second, simulators provide samples with properties similar to that of human
breath, in that they flow dynamically. This type of system is superior to fixed-volume
static samples (Dubowski, 1992)
However, wet bath breath alcohol simulators are limited in performance by the fact
that the water/ethanol solution will decrease in alcohol concentration as air is passed
through the mixture. The rate of depletion is relatively slow, with a 1% depletion
resulting after approximately 25 tests. A one percent depletion limit has been noted to
be acceptable for research and calibration purposes (Dubowski, 1979). Common
practice is to discard simulator solutions after a maximum of 25 tests.
Support for the use of simulators in breath alcohol testing is widespread among
researchers. In their research, Dubowski and Essary (1991, 1992) have concluded that
simulators are capable of providing satisfactory and appropriate samples for the testing
of BrAC measurement devices. Simulators have also been found to be very reliable for
this function as well, capable of providing, over multiple tests, consistent and uniform
breath alcohol samples (Gullberg 1989, 2000).
26
2.4 Breath Alcohol Measurement Devices
Numerous studies have assessed the performance of breath alcohol measurement
instruments. Generally, these studies have used for comparison either blood results or
results from an EBT or both. The literature dealing with the performance of each type of
device will be discussed.
2.4.1. Evidential Breath Testers
The largest BrAC testing devices, evidential breath testers (EBTs) have been found to
be sufficiently accurate and precise for their main purpose of providing evidence for use
in the adjudication of criminal proceedings. The potential for substantial impact of
breath alcohol testing on the outcome of impaired driving cases has prompted the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to develop performance
standards for EBTs. Specific standards have been set for precision, accuracy, acetone
interference and blank readings.
For precision and accuracy, all potentially eligible EBTs are tested by NHTSA 10
times at four levels of alcohol concentration: .02, .04, .08 and .16. At each level, the
systematic error (the measure used to assess accuracy) must be ≤ ± .005 and the standard
deviation (the measure used to assess precision) must be ≤ .0042. The sole exception to
these standards occurs with the test at the .16 level; here, the systematic error must be ≤
± .008. The same ≤ ± .005 and ≤ .0042 standards apply when testing with acetone,
which is tested at .02. Blank readings, using alcohol-free human breath, must result in
systematic error ≤ ± .005, with no single result exceeding .005 (U.S. Department of
27
Transportation, 1993). The EBTs that do meet the specifications can be placed on
NHTSA’s Conforming Products List (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2002b).
In a study of retrospective data, Harding, Laessig & Field (1990) compared the
performance of EBTs against blood test results. The researchers examined 395 pairs of
blood and breath alcohol test results, each pair of which were obtained within 60 minutes
of each other. The EBT used was an Intoxilyzer 5000. The analysis revealed that the
breath and blood results were in close agreement, demonstrated by a correlation
coefficient (r value) of .94. Further, it was found that the EBT results systematically
underestimated blood tests results by a mean of 11.5%. BrAC results were lower than
BAC results for 67% of the cases, with BAC results exceeding BrAC results only 2% of
the time. Thus, the EBTs tended to underestimate participants’ actual blood alcohol
concentrations, with the bias falling in favor of the suspect.
Taylor and Hodgson (1995) compared three different EBT devices against blood
results from 18 male and female volunteers. The participants consumed alcohol, then
provided breath and blood samples. Strong relationships were found between the EBTs
and the blood results. Correlation coefficients ranged from .971 to .989, indicating
strong relationships between results obtained directly from blood and results obtained
through deep lung breath samples. In addition, the results showed that all three EBTs’
measurements fell below those of the blood samples, thus underestimating blood alcohol
concentration.
28
In their study of low BACs, Dubowski and Essary (1999) collected pairs of breath
samples from 62 law enforcement breath testing sites using Intoxilyzer 5000-D EBTs.
The data were from drivers who had been suspected of driving while impaired by
alcohol, with their breath alcohol concentrations ranging from 0.00 to .059. It was
concluded that EBTs can provide accurate measurements of low BrACs. The
researchers further noted that the EBTs’ performance, in terms of precision, accuracy
and sensitivity, was quite adequate for use in forensic, research and clinical applications.
In a comparison of blood alcohol concentrations and EBT BrAC results, Italian
researchers examined results from tests performed on weekend nights between 1997 and
1999 (Zancaner, Giorgetti, Cavazeran, Snenghi, Castagna & Ferrara, 2000). The study
involved 278 pairs of breath and blood tests, where each pair of tests was performed
within 10 minutes of each other. Breath test results were obtained at the roadside, using
an EBT powered by a vehicle engine. The results indicated good agreement between the
breath and blood results. The median difference between the two types of results was
5.2% and the results exhibited a strong correlation of .96.
The researchers also found that the relationship between breath and blood results was
related to the alcohol concentration. BrAC results were found to be higher than BAC
results at alcohol concentrations below .10. BAC results were higher than BrAC results
at alcohol concentrations at and above .10. The authors concluded by recommending
conducting breath tests in controlled conditions, such as at a law enforcement site, to
confirm breath test results performed at the roadside.
29
Method, Reed, Kamendulis and Klaunig (2002) performed a study of the stability of
Datamaster EBTs. Over a 3 year period, simulators were used to deliver surrogate
samples, resulting in the collection of 771 data points. Results indicated that over time,
there was a tendency for a slight decrease in breath test results. Further, all EBT test
results were equal to or below the alcohol concentration sample provided by the
simulators; no overestimation by the EBTs occurred. The authors conclude that EBT
results under these conditions would be biased in favor of the suspect.
In sum, EBTs’ performance has been repeatedly demonstrated to be of adequate
precision and accuracy for its purpose. In fact, it has been claimed that the performance
of EBTs for forensic purposes is better than it needs to be (Gullberg, 2002b).
Additionally, there have been calls for the development of roadside evidential breath test
devices (Reckers & Breen, 2002; Scott & Breen, 2000). EBTs continue to be the most
widely used breath alcohol testing instruments.
2.4.2. Preliminary Breath Testers
Preliminary breath testers (PBTs) are designed to serve as pre-arrest alcohol screening
devices to aid field officers in determining whether a suspected impaired driver should
be arrested. Compared to officers having to make such decisions without this
technology, PBTs can help identify intoxicated drivers who might be able to mask
traditional signs of impairment and can help identify drivers for whom a medical
condition, as opposed to an ingested drug, might be the cause of suspect behavior
(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1982).
30
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1982), the proper
use of PBTs can result in the following:
(a) An increase in the number of DWI arrests;
(b) A decrease in the mean BACs of those arrested;
(c) General acceptance of PBTs by law enforcement officers.
However, in his review of portable breath testing devices, Olson (1986) differs
slightly in his assessment of expected results of the use of PBTs. While he agrees that
the number of DWI arrests should rise, he argues that the mean BAC of arrestees will
not necessarily decrease. Olson cites the common problem of subjects not blowing long
or hard enough into PBTs as partially responsible for the uncertainly of effect upon
mean BAC of those arrested.
In its PBT instruction manual, NHTSA cites the experiences of five states using PBTs.
It noted that employment of PBTs could be attributed to a mean increase in arrests of
53% and a mean decrease in average BACs of those arrested of 17% (National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1982). In another year-long study of six states’ results of
over 3,600 preliminary breath tests, the agency noted that the mean BAC of those
arrested decreased from .201 to .172, a 14% drop. In addition, feedback about PBTs was
obtained from law enforcement officers, with 75% stating that PBTs were a good idea.
In the late 1970s, Jones & Goldberg (1978) began a four-part study on an early PBT
model, the Alcolmeter Pocket Model. Their first research tested the device using
simulators, at five alcohol levels. Results were positive, as the researchers noted a mean
correlation between the simulated alcohol samples and the PBT of .967. The Alcolmeter
31
demonstrated good precision, yielding a standard deviation of .0175, or 1.91% of the
mean alcohol concentration. Their assessment of accuracy revealed that the PBT
systematically underestimated BAC by 3-12%. They also noted that the Alcometer was
very stable, with only a slight downward trend in results over repeated use.
Jones’ (1978) second study involved human drinkers. Thirty-nine male participants
first provided a total of 120 alcohol-free breath samples. All PBT results were negative
for alcohol. Participants then consumed alcohol and provided breath and blood samples.
Jones found that the relationship between the PBT BrAC results and the blood test
results was dependent on whether the participant was in the absorptive or elimination
phase. During the absorptive phase, the PBT results were higher than BAC results;
during the elimination phase, the PBT results were lower than BAC results. Precision
was found to be highest during the elimination phase, however the instrument became
less precise as the alcohol concentration increased. Jones also emphasized that the
standard error estimate (Syx) is a good estimate of overall error associated with breath
test results.
In the third study, Jones performed a controlled field trial of the Alcolmeter (Jones,
1985a). This involved 10 police officers consuming one of two doses of alcohol and
providing blood samples and breath samples with a PBT. The overall relationship
between the two types of results was strong, with a correlation coefficient of .95. As in
the second study, he noted that the standard deviation of the PBT measurements
increased with increasing alcohol concentration, indicating that precision was a function
of alcohol level. BrAC measurements were found to underestimate actual BAC by
32
5.1%. Jones concluded that the Alcolmeter’s precision and accuracy was satisfactory
and thus it would be practical and useful for use as an alcohol screening device.
The final study involved using 84 Alcolmeters at roadblock checkpoint, traffic crash
and traffic offense events throughout Sweden (Jones 1985b). Breath and blood samples
obtained from 333 drivers were pooled. Since the blood tests were performed up to 220
minutes after the PBT tests, the blood test results were adjusted to reflect for alcohol
eliminated during the delay between tests. The rate of .015 g/ml per hour was used for
this adjustment. The relationship between the blood and breath tests was statistically
significant, yielding a correlation coefficient of .84. At alcohol levels below
approximately .08, BrAC results were found to exceed BAC results. At alcohol levels at
or above .08, BAC results exceeded BrAC results. Further, the Alcolmeter’s false
positive rate was relatively low, at 5% of all tests. Overall, each of the four tests of the
Alcolmeter supported its continued use.
In his discussion about the advantages of PBTs capable of collecting evidential data,
Forrester (1997) described two studies examining PBT performance. The first study
used three participant drinkers who provided breath samples through an Intoxilyzer EBT
and an Alco-Sensor IV PBT, along with blood samples. Results indicated that the
devices’ results agreed with each other to within a mean of .004. The PBT results were
found to be approximately 9% below the blood results. The second study involved 412
participants under field conditions, who provided breath results with a PBT and blood
results. Breath results were again found to be slightly below blood test results. The
study concluded that PBTs demonstrate acceptable consistency for use in the field.
33
Reckers and Breen (2002) also examined the performance of PBTs for evidential
applications. Two Alco-Sensor IV-XL PBTs were used, as was a Datamaster EBT.
After consuming known amounts of alcohol, three volunteer participants provided breath
samples with both types of devices. The differences in performance between the two
types of instruments were quite small. Mean PBT breath results were found to be within
.005% of mean EBT breath results. There was a small overall mean difference between
the device types of .0018%. The authors concluded that the Alco-Sensor IV-XL PBT
shows promise as an evidential breath testing instrument.
PBT instruments continue to be employed a variety of testing applications, including
law enforcement, drug abuse treatment centers and operators of large motor vehicles and
aircraft (National Commission Against Drunk Driving, 2002a). Their performance and
ability to evaluate drivers’ alcohol levels close to the time of driving make them a useful
tool in the fight against impaired driving (Gullberg, 1991).
2.4.3. Passive Alcohol Sensors
The least intrusive of breath alcohol test devices, passive alcohol sensors (PASs)
capture drivers’ breath without their knowledge or active participation; hence the
“passive” descriptor (National Commission Against Drunk Driving, 2002b). As with
PBTs, PAS instruments do not capture evidential test results. Rather, they are intended
to aid law enforcement officers in their initial screening of suspected impaired drivers
(Wells, Preusser & Williams, 1992).
34
In an early study of PAS devices, Jones and Lund (1986) examined the performance
of PASs used in sobriety checkpoints. The data were collected from checkpoints
performed in Charlottesville, Virginia on weekend nights over a period of two months.
Officers stopped all motorists arriving at the checkpoint and examine their drivers’
licenses. It was at this point that officers used PASs to check each driver’s breath for the
presence of alcohol. If as a result of that interaction an officer suspected that a driver
was impaired, he or she would ask the driver to provide a breath sample through an
Alco-sensor II PBT. The officer would then take the appropriate action, based on the
result of the PBT test.
Data from 1644 drivers were used in this study. At checkpoints where PAS devices
were used, the detection rate of impaired and intoxicated drivers improved significantly,
compared to checkpoints at which PAS devices were not used. For drivers with BrACs
between .050 and .099, detection rates increased from 24% to 45%. For drivers with
BrACs at or above .10, detection rates increased from 45% to 68%. These correspond to
percentage increases of 88% and 51%, respectively. In addition, the number of drivers
with BrACs between .020 and .049 who were unnecessarily detained decreased by 56%.
Compared to the Alco-sensor II results, the PAS units were found to underestimate
BrAC at levels .02 and higher by a factor of two. Overall, detection rates at sobriety
checkpoints increased and the detention of drivers with low BrACs decreased, indicating
support for PAS devices in these enforcement circumstances.
Lestina and Lund (1992) tested two different brands of PASs under laboratory
conditions. Twelve volunteer drinkers provided breath samples for 12 models of each
35
brand of PAS device. These results were compared to breath samples collected with an
Alcolmeter PBT. A major variable under examination was the distance between
participants’ mouths and the PAS devices; each drinker provided breath samples with
their mouths at 12.7, 19.1 and 25.4 cm from the PAS units. Results showed that at
distances of 19.1 and 25.4 cm, neither device performed well; both models performed
best at 12.7 cm from drinkers’ mouths. False positive results at the .02 BrAC level
ranged from 13% to 20%. The authors concluded that the PAS units tested performed
with sufficient reliability to be used as roadside alcohol screening devices and that their
performance would be most optimal in the detection of drivers with high BACs.
In their study of PAS devices, Foss, Voas and Beirness (1993) conducted interviews
with 1,145 drivers in Minnesota parking lots between 10:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. Drivers
voluntarily submitted to the interviews and provided breath samples through an Alcosensor
III and a PAS instrument. Results indicated that the two devices’ performance
was similar, as evinced by a correlation coefficient of .87, with the PAS results falling
consistently below the PBT BrAC measurements. It was found that PASs resulted in
decision accuracy levels of at least 95% when analyzed at discrete alcohol
concentrations of .02, .05, .08 and .10. Further, the PAS units demonstrated low rates of
false positive outcomes, with less than 4% of drivers being erroneously judged to exceed
.10 BrAC. Even at low BrACs, PAS performance was good, with 93% of drivers at .02
BrAC being detected. The study supported the use of PAS devices and predicted that
widespread application of these instruments would improve the ability of law
enforcement to reduce the incidence of impaired driving.
36
Ferguson, Wells and Lund (1995) also examined the performance of PAS instruments
employed at sobriety checkpoints. As standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) are
commonly employed by law enforcement at checkpoints to help identify suspected
drinking drivers, this study sought to determine the effects of adding PAS analysis to the
performance of SFSTs. At six sobriety checkpoints performed in Fairfax County,
Virginia in 1993, 5,192 drivers were interviewed. Approximately half of the drivers
were evaluated with both SFSTs and PAS devices; the other half were evaluated using
only SFSTs.
The study found that the combination of SFSTs and PAS units resulted in improved
identification of impaired drivers than the use of SFSTs alone. At BrACs between .05
and .10, the combination resulted in a 77% improvement in identification of impaired
drivers. At BrACs above .10, the combination resulted in a 29% improvement. The
authors thus noted that the use of PAS instruments might be most effective in the
identification of drivers around the moderate BrAC level of .05 to .08. In addition, the
authors did caution that because PAS instruments draw in ambient air in addition to
drivers’ breath, they are incapable of providing accurate numerical estimates of BAC,
thus reemphasizing these devices’ use as qualitative screening tools, rather than
quantitative measurement instruments.
Research indicates that PASs can be effective in improving the identification of
impaired drivers by law enforcement officers. Originally contained within innocuously
appearing flashlights, other versions are now available, including a model built into a
clipboard (PAS Systems International, 1999).
37
2.4.4. Ignition Interlock Devices
Ignition interlock devices (IIDs) are designed to prevent drivers convicted of DWI
from starting their motor vehicles if they have alcohol in their bloodstream (Coben &
Larkin, 1999). In the US, this threshold level is generally set at .025 (Voas, Blackman,
Tippetts and Marques, 2002). The idea of preventing drivers from driving after
consuming alcohol first surfaced in the late 1960s. Introduced to the US in the mid
1980s, IIDs have spread in application, with over 43 states having adopted some form of
legislation addressing the use of these devices (Frank, 1997; Governors Highway Safety
Association, 2003).
IIDs consist of two components. First is the head unit, which serves to collect a
sample of the driver’s breath. Second is the control module, which is securely connected
to the vehicle. It performs the analysis of the breath sample and, if warranted, prevents
ignition of the vehicle’s engine (Comeau, 2000). Modern IIDs are capable of recording
all attempts to start a vehicle and can require vehicle operators provide rolling retests.
These latter tests involve drivers having to perform additional alcohol-free breath tests
while driving in order to keep the vehicle’s engine running (Marques, Voas, Tippetts &
Beirness, 1999).
Most research into IIDs has focused on the devices’ impact on DWI recidivism, rather
than their accuracy and precision. Every identified study of IIDs’ impacts on recidivism
found that the devices are, when installed on a vehicle, effective in reducing recidivism
(Tippetts & Voas, 1997; Beck, Rauch & Baker, 1997; Voas, Marques, Tippetts &
38
Beirness, 1999; Weinrath, 1997). Other research involving IIDs has examined less
impact-oriented issues, including:
(a) The use of IID-recorded start attempts to identify drivers at highest risk for DWI
recidivism (Marques, Tippetts, Voas & Beirness, 2001);
(b) The ability to and result of efforts to motivate DWI offenders to enter an IID
program (Voas, Blackman, Tippetts & Marques, 2002);
(c) The use of global positional satellite (GPS) technology to precisely monitor the
location of a violator’s vehicle (Comeau, 2000);
(d) The impact of combining adding human services intervention efforts to IID
programs (Marques, Voas, Tippetts & Beirness, 1999);
Ignition interlock devices continue to be the subject of administrative and impact
evaluation. While past research indicates IIDs can have positive impact while installed,
their long term behavioral effects remain undetermined.
2.4.5. Coin Operated Breath Testers
Designed for point-of-purchase breath alcohol testing, coin operated breath testers
(COBTs) permit drinkers to self-test their BrAC. These counter- or wall-mounted
devices hold the potential to earn profits for establishments that offer them for their
patrons’ use. Several other potential benefits have been noted by COBT distributors.
First, it is claimed that COBTs serve to reduce impaired driving. Second, they can serve
to educate consumers, thereby encouraging them to drink moderately and at an
appropriate pace. Third, COBTs offer establishments an objective and tactful way to
39
cease service to specific individuals and thus prevent service of additional alcohol to an
intoxicated patron (The Alcohol Alert System, 2002). While some of the distributors’
claims may come across as too-good-to-be-true, what little research exists on COBTs
tends to support the performance of the devices.
As with IIDs, most research into COBTs has focused on social impacts. Identified
studies have supported the use of COBTs as part of an overall impaired driving
prevention strategy (Haworth and Bowland, 1995; Wundersitz, 2002). However, the
availability of these devices in the US remains limited.
2.4.6. Pocket-Model Breath Testers
There is a lack of evaluation of the performance of pocket-model breath testing
devices. Published works concerning PMBTs generally consist of newspaper or Internet
articles introducing and describing the devices. Only one scientific study examining a
PMBT could be identified. NHTSA tested one such model, sold as the ABI, and found
that it met the Federal performance standards for alcohol screening devices (U.S.
Department of Transportation, 2002b).
In a New York Times article, Stellin (2001) described the units’ technologies,
accuracy, costs and sizes. A member of the New York Highway Patrol who was
interviewed for the article stated that using PMBTs was better than guessing about how
much alcohol is too much.
In his article in The Courier-Journal, Muhammad (2000) wrote that such devices have
sales appeal that is politically correct, but raised questions about the devices’ initial
40
calibration. He also posited that PMBTs could be used to persuade party guests to
engage a taxi rather than drive home themselves and/or to allow the body to learn
individual cues associated with intoxication. Muhammad further suggested that, if
wisely used, the devices could help prevent a DWI arrest or an alcohol-related motor
vehicle crash. However, he cautioned that if used unwisely, PMBTs could cause a
drinker to think he or she is more sober than he or she really is.
CNN interviewed a law enforcement officer involved in DUI training about PMBTs
(CNN, 2002). The officer agreed that such devices were needed because of alcohol’s
effects on the brain and the resulting inability to think clearly. He also emphasized that
the decision about whether or not to drive should be made prior to the consumption of
any alcohol.
WCCO-TV (2003) tested two PMBTs using human drinkers, comparing the results to
Minnesota’s state-approved EBT. They found that one device did not work at all and the
second device, the ABI Personal Breath Alcohol Screener, read higher than the state’s
EBT, at multiple BrACs.
The relative lack of experimental research on PMBTs has been repeatedly confirmed,
indicating a need to examine these devices’ performance (A.W. Jones, personal
communication, December 6, 2002; M. Cowan, personal communication, April 1, 2002;
M. Parker, personal communication, April 1, 2002; R. G. Gullberg, April 1, 2002; J. F.
Frank, personal communication, April 2, 2002). Parties who might be interested in an
analysis of the performance of these devices could include drinkers, alcohol-serving
41
establishments, emergency room personnel, probation officers, workplace testing
personnel, law enforcement and the devices’ manufacturers.
42
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
3.1. Test Devices
Eight small scale, reusable breath alcohol testing devices were procured for this study.
All were readily available; one device was obtained through a local retailer and all others
were obtained via Internet-based retailers. Per device costs ranged from $40 to $104,
excluding shipping charges. All the devices provided numerical readouts of estimated
BrAC, to the hundredth of one percent (two digits to the right of the decimal). One of
the devices tested, the ABI Professional Breath Alcohol Screener, is on NHTSA’s
Conforming Products List.
The option of requesting the manufacturers and/or merchants of the devices to provide
the instruments free of charge for testing was considered and discarded. This decision
helped keep the study as pure from potential contamination as possible, serving to
maximize study integrity. Had the manufacturers been aware of the study and provided
the devices, the chance of obtaining a device whose performance would be substantially
different from the population of all devices of that model would have increased,
weakening the study.
The devices were of two types: those that employed a mouthpiece to facilitate direct
insertion of breath to the unit’s sensor (4), and those that did not feature a mouthpiece
(4). The latter devices featured a breath port into which the user expires his or her
43
breath. Descriptions and specifications of each device tested can be found in Appendix
A. Upon acquisition, each device was randomly assigned a letter, ranging from A to H.
Only one of each model of device was tested. The author recognizes the possibility
that any device’s performance could have been affected by handling prior to arrival for
testing. Each device did arrive apparently undamaged, with all packing materials intact
and unblemished. Great care was exercised in the storage and handling of each device
upon arrival, so as to minimize the effects upon performance. All devices were stored
and transported together in the same container, such that all devices would be subject to
identical conditions (temperature, movement, etc.). In addition, no test device was used
other than during the testing procedures, reducing the possibility of performance
differences resulting from differential use.
3.2. Pilot Testing
All pilot and additional laboratory testing was conducted at the Texas Department of
Public Safety (DPS) building at 1540 East Highway 6 Bypass, Bryan, Texas. This
location’s breath testing technical supervisor, Margaret Parker, oversees such testing
operations throughout nine counties and facilitated the testing of the instruments. All
data were collected in the facility’s conference room, under fluorescent lighting
conditions. There were no nearby sources of radio frequency interference.
3.2.1. Phase One Pilot Testing
This testing had several goals:
44
(a) Determine the appropriate testing time interval, partially dependent upon the
devices’ recovery times;
(b) Create a method of consistently delivering alcohol samples to the devices;
(c) Develop the apparatus to deliver an alcohol sample to the non-mouthpiece
devices.
Based on this testing, it was determined that the time interval between successive tests
could not be less than two minutes. Thus the minimum testing interval was set at two
minutes.
Further, an alcohol sample delivery system was developed for both types of devices.
The system for mouthpiece devices used surgical tubing to direct the alcohol sample. At
the input (human) end of the tube, a standard DPS mouthpiece was attached; the other
end of the tube was connected directly to the solution simulator. The simulator’s exit
tube was connected directly to the device’s mouthpiece. Plastic, funnel-shaped reducers
were used as needed to ensure proper mating between the connections. This provided
direct input with a flexible tube through which the alcohol sample could flow without
contamination or dilution.
The delivery system for non-mouthpiece devices also used surgical tubing with a DPS
mouthpiece at the input end. Most of the non-mouthpiece devices’ instructions stated a
recommended distance between the user’s mouth and the device’s input port. This
distance ranged from 1.3 cm to 3.8 cm. If a non-mouthpiece device’s instructions did
not include such a recommended distance, the distance was set at a default of 1.3 cm.
45
As several of the non-mouthpiece devices were quite small, a small vice was used to
hold the smaller devices steady for all tests. Cardboard or thin rigid plastic was used to
form a stable mounting point for the tubing; the mounting extended perpendicularly
from each non-mouthpiece device, allowing the tube to be pointed directly at the
devices’ input ports.
It was also determined that wet bath breath alcohol solution simulators could be
effectively used to deliver alcohol samples to both mouthpiece and non-mouthpiece
devices. National Draeger, Inc. Mark IIA simulators (see Appendix B) were used for
this purpose (Draeger, 2003). The alcohol mixtures consisted of a combination of
distilled water and a predetermined amount of 200 proof alcohol designed to produce
certain equivalent measures of BrAC. The alcohol came from the DPS stock. The DPS
technical supervisor prepared all the solution sample mixtures according to DPS
standards.
For each group of tests at each alcohol level, 500ml of mixture was inserted into the
simulator. The solution was then warmed by the simulator’s integral heating element to
the proper temperature, 34ºC, ±.5ºC. Temperature was verified at the start of each test
run with an NIST-certified thermometer. The simulator’s integral agitating propeller
served to maintain a properly blended solution.
Because a given simulator sample’s alcohol strength will diminish as breath is blown
through the mixture, only 20 tests were conducted with each sample. After 20 tests, the
solutions were discarded. Further, solutions were changed to different alcohol strengths
only on an increasing basis. That is, only the next stronger solution was permitted to be
46
inserted into a given simulator. This was done to avoid a situation where any residual
alcohol in a simulator would be at a strength higher than the subsequent mixture,
possibly contaminating the next mixture.
3.2.2. Phase Two Pilot Testing
This testing had two goals:
(a) Test the devices’ abilities to resist yielding false positive readings;
(b) Test the devices’ abilities to resist yielding false negative readings.
Eight devices were tested in this experiment. To assess their ability to minimize false
positive readings, each device was tested 20 times at an alcohol level of .00. This is the
same concentration at which NHTSA tests PBT devices. To create this non-alcohol
sample, only pure distilled water was inserted into the simulator, so as to employ the
same procedure of blowing through a simulator at all alcohol levels. To assess the
device’ ability to minimize false negative readings, each device was tested 20 times at an
alcohol level of .032. NHTSA also specifies this test level in its testing protocol.
After installing fresh batteries in all devices and prior to collecting data at either level,
two “warm-up” tests were performed, but data were not recorded. This was done in
order to:
(a) Ensure that each device’s sensor had reached operating temperature;
(b) Determine that each device was functioning properly.
Tests were conducted at two minute intervals. At the halfway mark (after 10 tests), the
tubing was temporarily disconnected between the simulator and device and shaken to
47
remove any condensation that might have accumulated in the system. To enhance
consistency among samples, a single human provided all breath samples for all alcohol
positive tests.
To advance to Experiment One, each device was required to meet the following
performance criteria:
(a) Yield no more than one positive result in 20 trials at an alcohol level of .00
(positive equaling .02 or higher);
(b) Yield no more than one non-positive (below .02) result in 20 trials at an alcohol
level of .032.
Data were recorded on pre-prepared data forms, along with the temperature of the
solution.
For all pilot testing and Experiment One, human breath was expired through the
simulator mixture into each device. Prior to providing breath samples through the
simulators, the human breath provider’s BrAC was measured using a calibrated
Intoxilyzer 5000 (Intoxilyzer) to ensure that the provider’s breath was free of alcohol.
This model Intoxilyzer is the latest version used by DPS. The Intoxilyzer instruments
are the only evidential breath testing equipment used in Texas; it is the standard used
throughout the state.
In addition, each solution mixture was tested 20 times, in recirculation mode, by a
calibrated Intoxilyzer in order to confirm the targeted strength of the mixture. No data
were recorded from the pilot tests, all of which were performed at .08 alcohol
48
concentration. All breath samples were provided by one individual, who was trained a
priori by Department of Public Safety personnel to provide adequate breath samples.
3.3. Experiment One
The goal of this experiment was to assess the accuracy and precision of the devices at
multiple alcohol levels, under laboratory conditions. In its assessment of these
measures, NHTSA tests each device at the following alcohol levels: .02, .04, .08 and
.16. In order to maintain a full range of .02 increments between .02 and .10, the devices
were also tested at the .06 and .10 alcohol levels. Each device was tested 20 times at
each alcohol level, resulting in a total of 120 tests per device.
Alcoholic simulator solutions were created by the method given in the Pilot Testing.
As in the Pilot Testing, two warm-up tests were performed with each device at each
alcohol level, prior to collecting data. Also, the same procedure for removing any
condensation was employed. Tests were conducted at two minute intervals. Data were
recorded on pre-prepared data forms, along with the temperature of the solution.
3.4. Experiment Two
The goal of this experiment was to assess the devices’ performance under actual
drinking (in vivo) conditions. As such, volunteer participants agreed to consume alcohol
and provide numerous breath samples. For such tests to be performed, it was necessary
to obtain approval from the Texas A&M University Institutional Review Board (IRB),
49
which oversees all research involving humans. All aspects of this study were approved
by the IRB.
3.4.1. Participants
3.4.1.1. Participant Eligibility
Participants were limited to those between the ages of 21 and 34. This limitation was
imposed for several reasons. First, this age range represents the group of drivers that are
most involved in fatal DWI behavior in Texas (Texas Department of Public Safety,
1999). Second, the age range was limited to restrict the effect of large age variation on
the breath test results. A total of eleven (11) participants from the local community were
included in the study.
3.4.1.2. Participant Screening
Potential participants were pre-screened to exclude:
(a) Pregnant females
(b) Non drinkers
(c) Heavy/problem drinkers
(d) Alcoholics
(e) Diabetics
(f) Those allergic to alcohol.
50
The Alcohol Use Disorder Inventory Test (AUDIT) questionnaire developed by the
World Health Organization in 1987 and the Numerical Drinking Profile were used as the
first-line screening instruments (see Appendixes C and D). Potential participants scoring
a 6 or below on the AUDIT were eligible for participation. Alternatively, potential
participants with an NDP score of 3 or less were eligible to participate.
Several other questions were also presented along with the alcohol abuse screening
instruments, to ascertain whether participants were diabetic, allergic to alcohol, and/or in
poor health. Potential participants who answered affirmative to any of these questions
were excluded from participation. Prospective female participants were required to
administer a portable pregnancy self-test on the day of the study to exclude all who
tested positive.
All potential participants were informed that they would consume alcoholic
beverages, provide multiple breath tests, could withdraw at any time, but must remain at
the testing site until their BrAC returned to 00. They were further informed that the
target peak BrAC would be .09.
3.4.2. Testing Location
Experiment Three was conducted at the Texas Transportation Institute Gibb Gilchrist
Building on the West Campus of Texas A&M University. A large, first-floor classroom
was used, access to which was facilitated by Dave Willis, Director of the Center for
Transportation Safety (personal communication, October 20, 2002). To reduce possible
complications associated with too many participants present at one time, two drinking
51
sessions were performed, with five and six participants in the first and second sessions,
respectively.
3.4.3. Materials
3.4.3.1. Measurement
3.4.3.1.1. BrAC Instrumentation
One Intoxilyzer unit was used at the testing location with a second unit immediately
available for backup. All eight PMBT devices were present as well, along with all
necessary tubing and connecting apparatus used for the collection of breath samples.
Drinking straws cut in half in length were used as mouthpieces. This mouthpiece was
economical, and easily replaceable should participants chew on or lose them.
3.4.3.1.2. Participant Data Collection Instrumentation
Several measurement instruments were used to collect data from the participants
throughout each session, including:
(a) Body weight scale
(b) Pregnancy tests (Equate brand, procured from WalMart)
(c) Ruler (for measuring height)
(d) Oral thermometer
52
(e) Body water content device (model BIA 3000)
(f) Stopwatches.
3.4.3.2. Dosing
To ensure the precise administration of alcohol to each participant, specialized dosing
equipment was present, including a graduated cylinder scaled in milligrams, a calculator
to compute doses to be administered, and an alcoholic beverage. The beverage served to
each participant was a mixture of vodka and orange juice, served over ice. The vodka
was 100 proof Smirnoff Number 57, procured from a local liquor merchant.
3.4.3.3. Administrative
Several administrative materials were used to facilitate the sessions. A large-readout
digital clock was positioned in the testing room to record the time of each sample
collected. To ensure seamless operation of the instruments to be tested, extra batteries
were present for each device. In addition, a first-aid kit was present during all testing.
3.4.3.4. Participant Accommodation
In order to assure a minimum level of comfort for participants during the sessions, a
controlled amount of food and beverages were on hand, including:
(a) Breakfast foods- bagels, bananas, raisin bread
(b) Miscellaneous snacks, including pretzels and party mix
(c) Bottled water.
53
The point during the sessions that each participant was given access to these food was
strictly controlled. Various forms of entertainment were provides as well, including:
(a) Games- cards, board games
(b) Music- radio/CD player
(c) TV/VCR with assorted videos.
3.4.3.5. Additional Materials
To further support the smooth conduct of each session, additional materials were on
hand. A box was provided for car keys, as any participant who drove to the testing
location had to relinquish his or her car keys. A portable folding cot, borrowed from the
Texas Transportation Institute, was present to support the acquisition of data regarding
each participant’s current body water content. Both cotton and paper towels were on
hand for any use required.
3.4.4. Personnel
In addition to the researcher, the DPS technical supervisor was present for the
duration of each session. This person assumed total responsibility for the operation of
the Intoxilyzer. Further, two sober volunteers were present for each session. These
personnel assisted with the acquisition of data and monitoring of participants.
54
3.4.5. Procedure
3.4.5.1. Initial Setup
The afternoon prior to each session, the classroom tables and chairs were arranged to
facilitate testing and participant comfort. The evening prior to each session, final contact
was made with each participant to review procedures and to maximize the chances that
each participant would be present on time and at the proper location. Participants were
asked to refrain from consuming alcohol that evening, to get a full night’s rest and to
avoid eating any breakfast foods prior to arrival at the testing site.
Upon arrival of volunteer personnel the mornings of the sessions, the Intoxilyzer and
PMBT devices were placed into their respective testing locations. At that time, fresh
batteries were installed in all PMBT devices. Breakfast foods were available for
consumption.
3.4.5.2. Upon Arrival of Participants
As participants arrived, introductions were made and each was thanked for their
participation and informed that he or she could partake of the breakfast foods. A light
breakfast was provided to control, to the degree possible, how much food was in each
participant’s stomach prior to consumption of alcohol. This helped ensure that all
participants had consumed at least some food that morning, thus minimizing any
differences in absorption time among participants. In addition, this step was taken to
55
prevent participant discomfort that could result from consuming alcohol on an empty
stomach.
After all participants had arrived, the researcher thanked them as a group and
informed them about how the day was to proceed. They were reminded that any
participant could withdraw from the experiment at any time, but once alcohol was
consumed, participants would have to remain at the testing site until their BrACs
returned to 0.00, as measured on the Intoxilyzer.
At this point, participants completed the Informed Consent forms (see Appendix E).
Each participant also agreed not to drive for 12 hours following the conclusion of the
experiment. All were assured that they would receive transportation home, should they
be unable to secure rides themselves.
During this meeting, participants were informed that the sober volunteers would guide
them through all the testing and would watch for any signs of discomfort or any other
problems on the part of the participants. The locations of the bathrooms were identified
and participants were informed that whenever they needed to use the bathroom, a sober
volunteer would accompany them to the bathroom door. This was done to ensure that all
participants were supervised at all times, and that no participants with a positive BrAC
left the testing facility.
The possibility of becoming ill due to the consumption of alcohol was discussed. A
trashcan was present in the event of regurgitation and towels were available for any
necessary cleanup. They were also informed that any participant who became sick
would no longer be able to consume alcohol nor would they be allowed to provide breath
56
samples. Any ill participant would be removed from the study, but would be required to
remain at the test site, unless medical attention became necessary.
Following this meeting, female participants completed the portable pregnancy tests.
The results of the tests were visually confirmed by a female sober volunteer. Each
participant’s body weight was then measured. No participant’s weight was made
available to the other participants.
To help maximize the consistency among the breath samples to be obtained,
participants received training in providing breath samples. Each participant provided
several breath samples into the Intoxilyzer, monitored by the DPS breath test technician.
Once the technician was satisfied that each participant had reached the required level of
competency, participants were permitted to provide samples into the test devices. Table
1 contains information on participant variables.
Table 1
Participant Variables
Participant Sex Age Weight (kg) Height (cm)
1 M 23 100.9 173
2 M 22 105.9 190
3 M 23 75.9 177
4 F 22 69.1 166
5 M 23 125.9 196
6 F 22 69.1 168
7 M 23 97.7 182
8 F 32 77.3 172
9 F 22 56.4 169
10 F 22 50.0 164
57
3.4.5.3. Dosing
The amount of alcohol that each participant would consume to reach a target peak
BrAC of .09 was computed as a function of body weight. This target peak BrAC was
chosen to maximize the chances of being able to capture data from each participant
during the post-absorptive phase as he or she “passed” through the .08 BrAC level, the
first level at which it was intended participants be tested. The DPS formula for dosing
participants was used: .9 ml per pound of body weight. Each participant was to
consume three alcoholic beverages, each of equal strength. Thus each participant’s total
amount of alcohol to be consumed was divided by three.
The breath test technician then mixed the first round of drinks, mixing the ice, vodka
and orange juice. In accordance with DPS research procedures, participants were given
15 minutes to consume each drink, for a total consumption period of 45 minutes. As
consumption began, a stopwatch was started to monitor the timing of consumption.
Participants were given a timed countdown during each drinking segment.
At the end of the first and second 15 minute consumption periods, fresh drinks were
prepared using the aforementioned procedure. Participants were closely monitored for
signs of discomfort or other problems.
3.4.5.4. Waiting Period
Following the consumption period, a 15 minute waiting period was induced. The
purpose of this period was to allow time for any residual mouth alcohol to dissipate and
to ensure that nothing else was ingested during this time. This waiting period is
58
recommended as part of any breath testing program (Dubowski, 1994; Gullberg, 2000)
and is standard procedure for Texas DPS. Again participants were closely monitored for
discomfort or other problems.
3.4.5.5. Confirmation of Post-Absorptive Phase
At the conclusion of the waiting period, each participant was tested using the
Intoxilyzer. The goal was to identify the point at which participants’ absorption had
ended. Participants provided BrAC samples approximately every five to ten minutes
during this monitoring phase. Having two successive downward BrAC readings was
used as the criteria for a participant to be considered in the post-absorptive phase.
3.4.5.6. BrAC Data Collection
Once a participant had been identified as being in the post-absorptive phase, he or she
was monitored so that a reading could be obtained at the .08 level. The goal was to test
each participant at four distinct declining levels: .08, .06, .04 and .02. As it would be
very difficult, due to random fluctuations and error, to capture a participant at exactly the
.08/.06/.04/.02 level, a range of acceptable BrACs was used. Participants’ measurements
could fall between ±.005 of the target level. Table 2 shows the target levels and the
associated acceptable range parameters.
When a participant was confirmed to be in the post-absorptive phase and within the
first range of testing (.075-.085), he or she would then provide a second sample with the
Intoxilyzer and then would provide duplicate samples with all test devices. Duplicate
59
Table 2
Acceptable Range for
Individual Testing
Target Level Acceptable Range
.08 .075-.085
.06 .055-.065
.04 .035-.045
.02 .015-.025
samples, which have been rated quite adequate for forensic uses, were collected at every
test, on every device (Gullberg, 1989). All data, including the time of each test, were
recorded on pre-prepared data forms.
In order to reduce any effects of the order of treatment, the order in which participants
provided samples with the devices was counterbalanced. A Latin Square system was
used to create different specific orders so that every participant used a different order,
with all eight devices (Bordens & Abbott, 1996). Latin Square treatment ordering
systems are appropriate when the researcher is willing to set the number of treatment
orders equal to the number of treatments, in this case eight. This involved creating eight
distinct, randomly generated treatment orders. These orders were then randomly
assigned to participants at the beginning of each data collection session. Appendix F
provides the specific counterbalanced orders of treatment.
Because the number of participants exceeded the number of treatment orders, eleven
and eight, respectively, once all eight treatment orders had been assigned once, the
remaining three participants were assigned the first three sequential testing orders.
Participants one through eight were assigned orders one through eight, respectively, and
participants nine through eleven were assigned treatment orders one through three.
60
Thus, treatment orders one through three were used twice and treatment orders four
through eight were assigned only once.
After each participant had provided duplicate samples using each test device, they
returned to the Intoxilyzer to provide a final pair of samples. Thus, a full “round” of
testing involved:
1. Providing initial (Pre) duplicate samples on the Intoxilyzer
2. Providing duplicate samples on each test device, according to the individually
assigned treatment orders
3. Providing final (Post) duplicate samples on the Intoxilyzer.
Once a participant had undergone the first round of testing at .08, he or she was
allowed access to the light snacks and bottled water. These materials were withheld
until that point to ensure that each participant was in the post-absorptive phase so as to
eliminate the possibility of food delaying any further absorption of alcohol. Participants
were periodically tested with the Intoxilyzer to identify the point at which they passed
into the next lower testing range. In between providing breath samples, participants had
access to games, Fatal Vision® impairment-simulating goggles, music and assorted
videos.
As each participant’s BrAC was found to be within the next lower test range, he or she
again provided duplicate breath samples for each device, according to his or her assigned
treatment order. After completing the round of tests, participants again provided two
final samples for the Intoxilyzer. This sequence continued through all four test ranges.
Between rounds of testing, participant variables were measured, including:
61
(a) Body water content
(b) Oral temperature
(c) Height
(d) Resting heart rate.
The results of these measurements were recorded on Participant Data Sheets (see
Appendix G).
After each participant completed the round of tests at .02, his or her BrAC was
periodically monitored using the Intoxilyzer. Once a participant’s BrAC reached 0.00,
he or she was permitted to leave the test site, via either by being picked up or a ride
home by the research personnel. No participants were allowed to leave until a 0.00 level
had been reached. Each data collection session took approximately eight hours.
Participants were thanked as they left the test site, and thanked again via email the
following day.
3.5. Limitations of the Study
This study involved several limitations, which should be taken into account when
assessing the study’s value in advancing the literature and generalizing the results to
other populations. First, only devices available in the U.S. were tested. The author
recognizes that, due to the relative ease of acquisition of products from other countries
because of the Internet, several additional numerical readout devices could have been
obtained. However, due to the additional shipping charges that would have been
involved, there would likely be little reason for any U.S.-based user to purchase a device
62
from a non-U.S. retailer. Thus, the devices tested are considered representative of the
devices conveniently available to U.S.-based users.
Second, only one of each model of PMBT was tested. It is possible that any single
device might not be reflective of the model line’s true performance capabilities.
However, it is likely that users will only purchase a single instrument, and thus will have
only one model for their use. In this respect, by testing only one of each model, this
study reflects the likely actual purchase/use scenario.
Third, the age range of participants in Experiment Two was restricted to 21-34 years.
This limitation was imposed to use participants within the age range most likely to be
involved in alcohol-related crashes (Texas Department of Public Safety, 1999). This
could limit the degree to which results could be generalized to other age groups.
Lastly, although Experiment Two was designed to simulate actual drinking
conditions, the participants did not have full control over use of the devices. Instead,
participants were told how and when to use the devices. In an actual drinking scenario,
at a bar, for example, drinkers would have to complete the additional tasks of
determining how to use the devices and make decisions regarding when to use them.
These variables were controlled for the purpose of reducing the influence of factors other
than the independent variables of interest. Thus, Experiment Two’s conditions cannot
be viewed as a totally realistic social drinking scenario.
63
3.6. Delimitations of the Study
The study also necessitated several delimitations to maximize the ability to test the
hypotheses in question. First, all samples were collected under controlled situations,
whether in the DPS laboratory or at the TTI facilities. These arrangements were
designed to help reduce the influence of outside factors affecting the dependent variable
of interest. Second, in Experiment Two, only data collected after participants were
found to be in the post-absorption phase were used for analysis. No data collected
during the absorption or diffusion phases were analyzed, although participants were
measured during these phases to determine the point at which each participant had
moved to the post-absorption phase.
64
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
4.1. General
A total of eight devices were included in the study. Because of poor function, two
devices’ results had to be discarded. During Experiments One and Two, Device G
displayed its maximum value, .19, on virtually all tests, regardless of the level of alcohol
at which it was tested; it exhibited no ratio scale properties, yielding essentially only
binomial results. Thus Device G’s data were excluded from analysis.
Approximately halfway through Experiment Two, Device H simply stopped
functioning. Although its integral power light indicated it was receiving full power, it
began to show .00 readings at all alcohol levels. Installing fresh batteries did not
alleviate this problem. Thus, Device H’s data were excluded from analysis. Because
full and useful data were not obtained for these two devices, they were both eliminated
from analysis in both experiments. The six remaining instruments yielded complete data
for all tests.
4.2. Pilot Testing
One goal of the pilot testing was to provide a level of initial screening of performance
to determine whether devices would advance to further testing. In the assessment of the
65
devices’ abilities to minimize false positive and false negative readings, 320 total tests
were performed (eight devices, each tested 20 times at .00 and at .032).
In the assessment of false positives using the .00 simulator mixture (distilled water
only), all devices displayed .00 on all 20 tests. That is, no device yielded results above
.00 at any time during this testing.
In the assessment of false negatives using the .032 simulator mixture, all devices
yielded readings at or above the .02 threshold level. That is, no device read below .02
during this testing. Figure 1 shows the mean BrAC results of each device when tested at
.032.
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
A B C D E F
Device
BrAC Result
Figure 1. Mean BrAC results of each device tested at .032.
66
4.3. Experiment One
In the assessment of the devices’ accuracy and precision in this experiment, 960 total
tests were performed: eight devices, each tested 20 times at six different alcohol levels.
As in the pilot testing, the validity of each simulation concentration was verified through
20 tests using the Intoxilyzer.
Table 3 contains the mean values broken out by device at each concentration level.
Figure 2 shows the graphic representation of these results. Figure 3 shows each device’s
accuracy results separately, plotted against the simulator standards. No single device
met the NHTSA criteria for accuracy at all concentrations. The mean results show that
five out of the six devices read higher than the simulator standard.
Table 3
Mean Test Results for
Each Device at Each Concentration
Simulator Device
Conc A B C D E F
.02 .010 .036 .030 .020 .014 .034
.04 .047 .069 .038 .048 .062 .047
.06 .094 .117 .082 .084 .060 .057
.08 .080 .152 .119 .132 .081 .073
.10 .095 .196 .155 .181 .109 .080
.16 .141 .327 .250 .190 .169 .117
To assess precision, the standard deviation (SD) of results was computed for each
device at each concentration level. This yielded a value that reflects the spread of scores
of each device at each concentration (the smaller the SD value, the tighter the dispersion
of the scores around their mean). In certifying devices for its Conforming Products List,
67
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.16
Simulator Alcohol Level
Mean BrAC Result
Sim
A
B
C
D
E
F
Figure 2. Mean BrAC results of devices at each simulator concentration.
68
0
0.12
0.24
0.36
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.16
Device A
Sim
0
0.12
0.24
0.36
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.16
Device C
Sim
0
0.12
0.24
0.36
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.16
Device E
Sim
0
0.12
0.24
0.36
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.16
Device B
Sim
0
0.12
0.24
0.36
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.16
Device D
Sim
0
0.12
0.24
0.36
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.16
Device F
Sim
Figure 3. Mean results for each device at each simulator concentration. Simulator test
level is shown on X-axis, test result on Y-axis.
69
NHTSA requires that the standard deviations of results at each of these concentrations be
≤ .0042. Table 4 contains the SDs for each device at each level. Those results marked
with an asterisk meet the NHTSA standard for precision. Figure 4 displays the devices’
precision across the six alcohol levels. No single device met the NHTSA criteria for
precision at all concentrations.
Table 4
Standard Deviations for Each Device at Each Concentration
Simulator Device
Concentration A B C D E F
.02 .0000* .0051 .0000* .0000* .0049 .0052
.04 .0047 .0037 .0044 .0052 .0052 .0042*
.06 .0050 .0066 .0089 .0088 .0000* .0043
.08 .0000* .0049 .0049 .0135 .0031* .0055
.10 .0051 .0083 .0076 .0185 .0031* .0073
.16 .0072 .0109 .0132 .0000* .0059 .0043
Note. * SD ≤ .0042
70
0
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.016
0.02
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.16
Device A
0
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.016
0.02
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.16
Device C
0
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.016
0.02
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.16
Device E
0
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.016
0.02
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.16
Device B
0
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.016
0.02
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.16
Device D
0
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.016
0.02
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.16
Device F
Figure 4. Standard deviations of each device at each simulator concentration. Simulator
test level is shown on X-axis, standard deviation on Y-axis.
71
4.4. Experiment Two
4.4.1. Participant Eligibility
All females performed a portable pregnancy test during the orientation phase and all
results indicated negative. A single sober volunteer confirmed all pregnancy test results
as being negative. Thus, all female and male participants were eligible to continue in
this experiment.
4.4.2. Participant Functioning
Eleven people participated in the third experiment, with five and six participants in
sessions one and two, respectively. During the first session, one female participant
became ill during the consumption phase, after having consumed approximately twothirds
of the total dose. After she regurgitated, she remained at the testing site, and a
sober volunteer was assigned to closely monitor her. The monitor administered cold
towels to the participant’s forehead and neck, with positive results. She continued to
feel better as time passed. Because of this event, this participant was withdrawn from
the experiment and was not permitted to consume additional alcohol. Thus, no data
were collected from this participant, who remained at the testing site until her BrAC
reached .00.
After consuming the full dose assigned, participant four reached a peak BrAC of only
.067. She agreed to consume an additional measured alcoholic beverage to reach the
target peak BrAC of .09. This additional dosing was successful; she subsequently
72
reached the target peak. A total of ten participants completed a total of 640 tests (ten
participants providing duplicate samples at four concentrations with each device).
4.4.3. Data Screening
4.4.3.1. Duplicate Samples
For analysis, the duplicate results from each device at each level were averaged, and
the mean was carried forward into subsequent analysis. The acquisition of duplicate
readings was performed to help reduce the impact of any single measurement. Table 5
displays the means and standard deviations of the means of the duplicate samples from
all ten participants for each device at each concentration.
Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations for Each Device at Each Concentration
Concentration
Device .02 .04 .06 .08
Intox .023 (.001) .039 (.005) .058 (.004) .080 (.004)
A .060 (.016) .083 (.018) .104 (.018) .152 (.042)
B .069 (.021) .122 (.039) .146 (.046) .178 (.059)
C .038 (.008) .070 (.012) .095 (.022) .123 (.018)
D .042 (.012) .073 (.034) .096 (.033) .093 (.040)
E .038 (.007) .065 (.015) .081 (.013) .103 (.012)
F .020 (.009) .033 (.017) .037 (.012) .043 (.010)
4.4.3.2. Pre and Post Intoxilyzer Readings
The purpose of collecting duplicate readings from the Intoxilyzer before and after
each round of tests was to capture the results of any significant elimination occurring
73
during each run through the devices. The mean and standard deviation of the results of
the pretest Intoxilyzer tests were .05006 and .021, respectively. The mean and standard
deviation of the results of the posttest Intoxilyzer tests were .04646 and .021,
respectively. The mean and standard deviation of the Pre and Post Intoxilyzer
differences were .0036 and .0044, respectively.
To determine if there was a statistical difference between the Pre and Post readings, a
one-tailed, paired sample t-Test was performed, using an alpha level of .05. This
revealed a significant difference in BrAC between the Pre and Post Intoxilyzer tests (t =
6.50, p ≤ .000, one-tailed).
If this significant elimination was left unaccounted for, it would be impossible to
attribute any subsequent differences observed between the Intoxilyzer and the test
devices exclusively to the performance of the devices. Thus, to eliminate this potential
confounding factor, it was necessary to correct for the significant elimination between
Pre and Post Intoxilyzer tests during runs through the test devices.
The total difference over time between the mean Pre and Post Intoxilyzer readings
was .00360 (.05006 - .04646), equating to a mean elimination rate of .00045 per device
(.00360/8). The mean elapsed time for a participant to make a complete pass through all
the devices, providing duplicate samples, was 13.4 minutes. Thus, over this period of
time, the mean amount of alcohol eliminated was .00360. This equates to a mean hourly
elimination rate of .016, which falls in line with accepted rates of elimination between
.015 and .017 (Baselt, 1996).
74
To accomplish the correction, each device score was corrected backward in time
toward the Pre Intoxilyzer reading. That is, a multiple of .00045 was added to each
reading, depending on the order in which each device was in a given participant’s
assigned treatment order (excluded devices G and H’s positions in the assigned
treatment orders were accounted for in this correction procedure). Table 6 shows the
order of the device, following the Pre Intoxilyzer reading, and the corresponding amount
added accomplish this correction. Table 7 shows the corrected means and standard
deviations for each device at each level.
Table 6
Amount Added to Each
Device, Based on
Testing Order
Order Amount
Of Device Added
1 .00045
2 .00090
3 .00135
4 .00180
5 .00225
6 .00270
7 .00315
8 .00360
4.4.3.3. Outliers
To identify potential extreme cases, standardized scores (Z-scores) were computed for
each case for all the devices, including the Intoxilyzer. A Z-score is the number of
standard deviations that a value is below or above the mean. Cases whose standardized
scores exceed 3.29 were considered potential outliers (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). No
75
Table 7
Corrected Means and Standard Deviations for Each Device
at Each Concentration
Concentration
Device .02 .04 .06 .08
Intox .023 (.001) .039 (.005) .058 (.004) .080 (.004)
A .062 (.016) .085 (.018) .106 (.018) .154 (.042)
B .071 (.021) .124 (.039) .148 (.047) .180 (.058)
C .039 (.007) .071 (.011) .097 (.021) .125 (.017)
D .044 (.012) .075 (.034) .098 (.033) .095 (.040)
E .040 (.007) .066 (.015) .082 (.013) .105 (.011)
F .023 (.009) .035 (.017) .038 (.012) .045 (.009)
single case exceeded the 3.29 threshold; thus, each variable was considered to be free of
outliers.
4.4.3.4. Nonlinearity and Heteroscedasticity
To assess nonlinearity and heteroscedasticity, bivariate scatterplots were created and
examined at each level of concentration between the Intoxilyzer and each device
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). The plots did not reveal evidence of nonlinearity nor
deviation from homoscedasticity.
4.4.3.5. Normality
Normality of distributions was assessed by analyzing skewness and kurtosis values. A
relatively conservative alpha (.001) was used to assess the Z-scores computed for
skewness and kurtosis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). No Z-score exceeded the alpha76
defined criterion value of 3.75. Thus, the distributions of all variables were considered
to be approximately normal.
4.4.4. Main Analysis
Fortunately, the data involved in this study lend themselves well to graphical
representation. Figure 5, which displays the means of each device at each concentration
in line graph form, provides another graphical display of the data. The mean results
show that five of the six devices read higher than the Intoxilyzer. Figure 6 shows the
devices’ accuracy on an individual basis, plotted against the Intoxilyzer results. Figure 7
show each device’s precision under the simulated field conditions.
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Alcohol Concentration Mean BrAC Result
Intox
A
B
C
D
E
F
Figure 5. Mean BrAC results for devices at each alcohol concentration.
77
0
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.2
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Device A
Intox
0
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.2
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Device C
Intox
0
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.2
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Device E
Intox
0
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.2
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Device B
Intox
0
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.2
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Device D
Intox
0
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.2
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Device F
Intox
Figure 6. Mean Intoxilyzer and device results for each device at each concentration.
Test level is shown on X-axis, test result on Y-axis.
78
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Device A
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Device C
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Device E
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Device B
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Device D
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Device F
Figure 7. Standard deviations of each device at each concentration. Test level is shown
on X-axis, standard deviation on Y-axis.
79
The next goal was to determine whether the results of the test devices were
significantly different from those of the Intoxilyzer. A two-way Repeated Measures
Analysis of Variance was performed, as each participant provided samples at each
concentration and with each device (Field, 2000). That is, each participant provided
measurements at each combination of the independent variables (Concentration and
Device). Note that the results of seven instruments are included in this analysis: the six
test devices plus the Intoxilyzer. Table 8 shows the results of the related Mauchly’s
Test, which tests for the condition of sphericity.
Table 8
Results of Mauchly’s Test
Within Approx.
Subjects Mauchly’s Chi-
Effect W Square df Sig.
Concentration .304 9.193 5 .104
Device .000 71.666 20 .000
Mauchly’s test was found to be significant for Device at the .05 level, indicating that
the condition of sphericity was not met for that variable. Thus, the F-values in the main
analysis required correction. Table 9 shows the results of the Repeated Measures
Analysis of Variance, with both uncorrected and corrected degrees of freedom available
for correction due to violation of sphericity. The Greenhouse-Geisser, Huynh-Feldt and
Lower-bound correction factors, which adjust the degrees of freedom used to assess the
observed F-ratio, are labeled GG, HF and LB, respectively. The condition under which
sphericity is assumed is labeled as SA.
80
Table 9
Results of Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance
Sum of Mean
Source Squares df Square F Sig.
Concentration SA .17700 3.000 .05912 147.270 .000
GG .17700 1.885 .09412 147.270 .000
HF .17700 2.367 .07492 147.270 .000
LB .17700 1.000 .17700 147.270 .000
Error SA .01084 27.000 .00040
(Conc) GG .01084 16.961 .00064
HF .01084 21.307 .00051
LB .01084 9.000 .00120
Device SA .24100 6.000 .04011 29.667 .000
GG .24100 1.566 .15400 29.667 .000
HF .24100 1.838 .13100 29.667 .000
LB .24100 1.000 .24100 29.667 .000
Error SA .07302 54.000 .00135
(Device) GG .07302 14.098 .00518
HF .07302 16.544 .00441
LB .07302 9.000 .00811
Concentration SA .00321 18.000 .00179 7.776 .000
* Device GG .00321 4.355 .00738 7.776 .000
HF .00321 8.945 .00359 7.776 .000
LB .00321 1.000 .03213 7.776 .021
Error SA .03718 162.000 .00030
(Conc * GG .03718 39.194 .00095
Device) HF .03718 80.501 .00046
LB .03718 9.000 .00413
Note that repeated measures analysis yields a separate error term for each main effect
and interaction. The Lower-bound correction factor was selected because it is the most
conservative of the three corrective options. This factor was used to assess all three
effects, the main effects for Concentration and Device and the interaction, even though
81
the assumption of sphericity was not violated for Concentration. Table 10 contains only
the Lower-bound results of the analysis.
Table 10
Results of Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance, Lower Bound Values
Sum of Mean
Source Squares df Square F Sig.
Conc .17700 1.000 .17700 147.270 .000
Error .01084 9.000 .00120
(Conc)
Device .24100 1.000 .24100 29.667 .000
Error
(Device) .07302 9.000 .00811
Conc* .00321 1.000 .03213 7.776 .021
Device
Error .03718 9.000 .00413
(Conc*
Device)
There was a significant main effect of Concentration (F(1, 9) = 147.27, p < .001).
This indicated that if the different devices are ignored, there were significant differences
among results at the four levels of concentration. This result was expected; indeed the
different levels of concentration should be reflected in the measurements at each level.
There was also a significant main effect for Device (F(1, 9) = 29.667, p < .001). This
indicates that if the different concentrations are ignored, there were significant
differences among the seven devices.
A significant interaction between Concentration and Device was also observed (F(1,
9) = 7.776, p < .05). This indicates that the devices produced different results
82
depending on the level of alcohol concentration. That is, the effect of Device was not
independent of Concentration.
When a significant interaction is observed between variables, interest in their main
effects becomes secondary to the interaction relationship (Howell, 1997). To explore the
dynamics of the interaction between Concentration and Device, it was necessary to
compute simple main effects. These values show the effect of Device, collapsed across
levels of Concentration, and the effect of Concentration, collapsed across levels of
Device. Table 11 contains the simple main effects. Due to the existence of separate
error terms for each effect, pooled error terms were computed to assess each set of
simple main effects, using Equation 1.
Table 11
Simple Main Effects
Source SS df MS F
Concentration
Conc at Device Intox .017774 3 .005925 2.220883
Conc at Device A .045692 3 .015231 5.709106*
Conc at Device B .062725 3 .020908 7.837359*
Conc at Device C .039727 3 .013242 4.963791*
Conc at Device D .018572 3 .006191 2.320517
Conc at Device E .022445 3 .007482 2.804456
Conc at Device F .002560 3 .000853 .319863
Error 18 .002668
Device
Device at .02 .019947 6 .003325 .543022
Device at .04 .053856 6 .008976 1.466128
Device at .06 .075048 6 .012508 2.043060
Device at .08 .123963 6 .020660 3.374665*
Error 18 .006122
Note. * p < .05
83
MainEffect Error
MainEffect Error
df df
SS SS
+
+
(1)
For Concentration at Device, the error term used was
.00612
9 9
.07302 .03718 =
+
+
Critical Value (3,18) = 3.16
For Device at Concentration, the error term used was
.00267
9 9
.01084 .03718 =
+
+
Critical Value (6,18) = 2.66
Since the main focus was among differences between certain pairs of devices, the
simple main effects showing the effect of Device collapsed across levels of
Concentration were of most interest. Only at one alcohol level, .08, was the F value for
Device significant at the .05 level. This indicates that at this alcohol level, there are
differences among the seven devices, but the F value does not indicate between which
pairs of devices those differences exist. Thus it was necessary to perform multiple
comparison (post hoc) analysis to determine the specifics of the relationships. At the
three lower alcohol levels (.02, .04 and .06), the test devices’ results were not found to
be significantly different from those of the Intoxilyzer.
84
The relationships of most interest were those between the Intoxilyzer and each test
device (i.e., Intoxilyzer and Device A, Intoxilyzer and Device B, etc.). Relationships
between pairs of test devices are not of interest in this study. Dunnett’s Test was
selected as the appropriate multiple comparison method because it is specifically
designed to examine comparisons between multiple experimental treatments and a single
control treatment. Its strength is increased power, relative to other tests such as Fisher’s
LSD, Tukey’s tests or the Scheffé test (Howell, 1997). For this study, the test devices
were considered the experimental treatments and the Intoxilyzer was considered the
control treatment.
Accordingly, Dunnett’s Test was used to compute the critical difference that must
exist between means to be considered significantly different at the .08 alcohol level.
Equation 2 represents the computation to arrive at this critical difference value (Howell,
1997).
Critical value
n
X X t MSerror
c j d
( − ) = 2 (2)
The critical value for a significant difference to exist between the Intoxilyzer and any
test device was computed to be .099028. Table 12 displays the values of the differences
between the results of the Intoxilyzer and each test device at the .08 level. For the
performance to be considered significantly different from the Intoxilyzer, the value
shown in the table must exceed .099028.
85
Table 12
Differences Between Intoxilyzer and
Each Device at .08 Concentration
Device Difference
A .074055
B .100010*
C .045330
D .015465
E .025285
F .034950
Note. * > .099028
Only Device B (at the .08 level) was significantly different from the Intoxilyzer. At that
level, the mean of Device B’s results was .18 and the mean of the Intoxilyzer’s results
was .08. Despite the apparent large differences between means shown in Figure 6, the
remaining devices were not significantly different from the Intoxilyzer at the .08 alcohol
level or at the other three levels.
In addition, the relationship between each test instrument and the Intoxilyzer was
examined. Table 13 displays the Pearson Product Moment correlations between the
Intoxilyzer and each test device. These relationships are further represented in Figure 8,
shown in decreasing strength with the Intoxilyzer.
Table 13
Correlations Between
Intoxilyzer and Each Device
Correlation Value
Device with Intoxilyzer Sig.
A .818 .000*
B .636 .000*
C .891 .000*
D .497 .001*
E .899 .000*
F .588 .000*
Note. * Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
86
0.899 0.891
0.818
0.636 0.588
0.497
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
E C A B F D
Device
R value
Figure 8. Correlations between the Intoxilyzer and each device.
87
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
5.1. Hypotheses Testing
At the outset, specific research hypotheses were proposed for testing. Each
hypothesis will be examined in turn.
5.1.1. Experiment One
5.1.1.1. Hypothesis One
Under laboratory conditions, each PMBT device will be less accurate than the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) criteria at each alcohol level
(will yield a systematic error greater than ± .005).
HO: Systematic error ≤ ± .005 at each alcohol level
HA: Systematic > ± .005 at each alcohol level
This hypothesis was rejected. Experiment One revealed that only three devices yielded a
systematic error ≤ ± .005, each at only one of the six concentrations (see Table 3). No
single device met the NHTSA criteria for accuracy at all concentrations.
88
5.1.1.2. Hypothesis Two
Under laboratory conditions, each PMBT device will be less precise (more variable)
than the NHTSA criteria at each alcohol level (will yield a standard deviation greater
than .0042).
HO: Standard deviation ≤ .0042 at each alcohol level
HA: Standard deviation > .0042 at each alcohol level
This hypothesis was rejected. Experiment One revealed that five of the devices yielded
standard deviations ≤ .0042, but not at all six concentrations (see Table 4). No single
device met the NHTSA criteria for precision at all concentrations.
5.1.1.3. Hypothesis Three
Under laboratory conditions, each PMBT device will become less accurate as test
BrAC increases (systematic error will increase when measured at .02, .04, .06, .08, .10
and .16).
HO: Systematic error at .02 ≤ .04 ≤ .06 ≤ .08 ≤ .10 ≤ .16
HA: Systematic error at .02 > .04 > .06 > .08 > .10 > .16
The results failed to support the rejection of this hypothesis. Table 5 shows no clear
trend of increasing SE of each device at each concentration. Rather, the devices’ SEs
seems to defy an increasing or decreasing trend across concentrations; Figure 3 confirms
the lack of observed increasing or decreasing trends.
89
5.1.1.4. Hypothesis Four
Under laboratory conditions, each PMBT device will become less precise (more
variable) as test BrAC increases (standard deviation will increase when measured at .02,
.04, .06, .08, .10 and .16).
HO: Standard deviation at .02 ≤ .04 ≤ .06 ≤ .08 ≤ .10 ≤ .16
HA: Standard deviation at .02 > .04 > .06 > .08 > .10 > .16
The results failed to support the rejection of this hypothesis. Figure 4 shows no clear
trend of increasing SD of each device at each concentration. Rather, the devices’ SDs
showed no consistent increasing or decreasing trends across concentrations. No single
device yielded an increasing trend across all concentrations, although Device D
experienced an increasing SD trend until the .16 alcohol level was reached.
5.1.2. Experiment Two
5.1.2.1. Hypothesis Five
Under simulated field conditions, each PMBT device will yield results significantly
different than results from a calibrated Intoxilyzer 5000 breath alcohol test instrument.
HO: Intoxilyzer = A = B = C = D = E = F = G = H at each alcohol level
HA: Intoxilyzer ≠ A ≠ B ≠ C ≠ D ≠ E ≠ F ≠ G ≠ H at each alcohol level
90
Overall, the results failed to support the rejection of this hypothesis. Only one test
device, at one concentration (Device B at .08) differed significantly from the Intoxilyzer.
Though Figure 5 suggests large differences between the test devices and the Intoxilyzer,
the within-device variability was substantial enough to prevent the devices from yielding
results significantly different from the Intoxilyzer.
5.2. Precision
The test devices tended to perform with less precision than that required by NHTSA.
When tested using simulators, the mean SD of the devices exceeded the NHTSA
maximum .0042 criteria by 31%. In Experiment Two, the devices’ mean SD was over
five times the Intoxilyzer mean SD.
Precision is the foundation for effective breath test devices. It could be argued that to
be useful, a device must first exhibit acceptable precision before accuracy is addressed.
A device could exhibit systematic readings above or below one’s true BrAC and still be
of utility to its user, but if the device does not exhibit adequate precision, then the
device’s utility would be substantially, if not completely, diminished. Thus, a device
could be precise but of limited accuracy and still be of use. However, a device that
exhibits accuracy but little precision would be of limited or no use.
A user’s perception of a device’s precision would likely develop from his or her
repeated testing of the device. If repeated readings were relatively similar, then a user
might not question the device’s consistency at all. However, if its readings were random
and different, a user might completely discount the device as useless. Rather than a
91
device meeting or not meeting an a priori objective standard for precision, it may be that
each user will self-determine his or her tolerance for consistency.
5.3. Accuracy
The test devices, as a whole, tended to yield readings consistently higher than the
standards to which they were compared. The sole exception to this finding was Device
F, which in Experiment Two consistently read below the Intoxilyzer results. One
device, Device B, yielded readings up to 225% higher than the standard.
In theory, if a given device did read consistently high or low, and the user was aware
of this performance aspect, the user could “correct” for these differences and take the
provided data and convert it to useful information. However, given that many users may
have a positive alcohol level, and given that judgment and reasoning are the first areas of
the brain to be affected by alcohol, users may be unable to effectively perform this
correction, even if they had correct information on a given device’s performance.
In terms of application, if these devices were to err, it could be argued that it would be
preferred that they overestimate BAC. That is, it would be better if they yielded results
higher than users’ actual BrACs, rather than lower than actual BrACs. An above-actual
BrAC trend would be in what could be considered the “conservative” direction. If users
are employing the information from these devices to make decisions after having
consumed alcohol, it would be preferable if they believed that their alcohol levels were
at or higher than their actual levels. Thus, given that error in accuracy exists, it is at
92
least in the “preferable” direction. It is unknown if the devices’ tendencies toward
above-true readings were intentional on the part of the devices’ manufacturers.
Device F’s performance is of special concern in this respect. Its readings could cause
a user to believe his or her BAC is lower than it actually is. If the user is employing the
information to make a decision whether to continue to drink or to operate a motor
vehicle, the user might come to believe that his or her ability to drive is not impaired
when in reality it is, with potentially tragic consequences. It is even possible that this
type of information would be more harmful than having no objective measure of one’s
alcohol level.
However, if a device reads so high that the user disbelieves its result, the user could
completely discount and/or discard the result. For example, if a drinker of average
weight consumed two standard drinks and a correctly-used device subsequently yielded
a BrAC of .08, this reading might be considered unrealistically high (the true BrAC
would be approximately .04-.05), with the device becoming considered ineffective by
the user. In terms of design, a balance between believable/reasonable readings and
unbelievable/unreasonable readings must be achieved to result in the devices’ applied
utility.
The finding that the devices’ results were not, with one exception (Device B at .08),
significantly different from the Intoxilyzer results under actual drinking conditions
speaks to both precision and accuracy. When the results are represented graphically (see
Figure 6), the degree of positive systematic error relative to the Intoxilyzer appears to be
substantial. Device B, for example appears to read quite high, relative to the standard.
93
However, the variability of the test devices’ results was substantial and apparently
without pattern. For example, at the .06 level, the mean BrAC result for Device B was
.148, yet its readings over the ten tests at that level ranged from .042 to .193, indicating
substantial variability in measurement.
This degree of error was large enough to preclude the test devices’ results being
judged as significantly different from those of the Intoxilyzer (with Analysis of
Variance, the greater the variance, the less likely differences will be detected). In this
case, it suggests a situation where the strict statistical results do not necessarily match
the possible applied interpretations of the devices’ performances. The lack of
statistically significant differences between the test devices and the Intoxilyzer at the
three lowest alcohol levels certainly would not preclude a user from determining that a
given device’s performance at a certain alcohol level would be so far off from the true
BrAC as to be considered unfit for its purpose.
5.4. Relationship to Intoxilyzer
Experiment Two used an Intoxilyzer 5000 as the standard to which the test
instruments were compared. The main analysis sought to assess the existence and
specifics of any differences between this standard and the devices. However, the
relationship between these devices and the Intoxilyzer can also provide a picture of the
devices’ performance. Table 13 contains the correlation values for each pair of
instruments. Of first note is that all the correlation values are positive. This means that
94
all Intoxilyzer-test device pairs covary in the same direction. That is, as the Intoxilyzer
readings increase, so do those of the corresponding test device.
Second, all the correlations are statistically significant. This means that the
relationship between the Intoxilyzer and each device is not linearly independent. The
results confirm that there is some meaningful relationship between the pairs of
instruments. Third, the test devices’ correlations with the Intoxilyzer are not equal.
Some test devices’ results are closer to the Intoxilyzer’s performance than others.
Device E and Device D, respectively, are most and least correlated with the Intoxilyzer.
These relationships are reflected in the plots of the means of the instruments appearing
in Figure 6. Note that a significant and/or high correlation between two variables does
not necessarily mean that their numerical values are close to one another, only that the
values covary. For example, a test instrument could have a significant and high
correlation with the Intoxilyzer, yet read 50% higher than the Intoxilyzer.
5.5. Summary
The results of the study lead to several areas of summarization. First, this is the first
study that could be identified which thoroughly evaluated the performance of pocketmodel
breath testers. As such, it was exploratory in nature. It also focused on the group
of devices as a whole, and examined each device’s performance in detail.
Second, as a group the devices did not meet the NHTSA criteria for precision. This is
not particularly surprising, as one would not expect devices costing as little as onetwelfth
the average PBT to perform as well as the more expensive and complex
95
instruments. However, as discussed previously, this does not necessarily mean that these
devices are not useful. Indeed, intended users might be willing to accept levels of
precision far lower than NHTSA requires. NHTSA-certified devices tend to be used for
law enforcement forensics purposes, which understandably require stringent
performance specifications. The results of such devices are sometimes introduced as
evidence in courts of law, with far-reaching legal and personal ramifications.
In comparison, the PMBTs are far more likely to be in more casual circumstances and
manner, by drinkers for whom the utility of the devices would not often extend beyond
personal use in decision-making. While the devices might be considerably less precise
than other classes of breath testing instruments, their performance could still be
considered by their users as completely acceptable.
Third, the devices as a whole did not meet the NHTSA criteria for accuracy. In
addition, the devices tended to overestimate actual BrAC. Thus, the instruments
provided results in a conservative direction, in terms of the use of results in making
decisions. If NHTSA certified instruments exhibited this same tendency and the results
of which were attempted to be used in the prosecution of suspected alcohol-impaired
drivers, the results would likely be inadmissible because of the strong prejudice against
the suspect.
It is possible that users, if aware of a device’s tendency to read high, could perform a
reasonably accurate correction to obtain a useful approximation of their alcohol level.
However, if a device reads consistently and unrealistically high, there could be a risk of
96
the user discarding the results of the instrument and determining its overall utility to be
zero.
Fourth, the devices exhibited no clear trend of decreasing precision. This was
surprising, given the expectation that the devices’ performance in this area would
deteriorate as the tested alcohol levels increased. It appears that the precision among
different levels of alcohol concentration approached a pattern of randomness; no clear
pattern of change in performance was evident. Fifth, no clear trend of increasing
systematic error was observed. Also surprising, it was expected that systematic error
would increase with the tested alcohol level.
Sixth, the performances of the devices were dependent upon the levels of alcohol at
which they were tested. Revealed by the significant interaction between Device and
Concentration in Experiment Three, this was not expected. Review of the graphical
representations of these data indicates that the devices’ performancse most closely match
that of the Intoxilyzer at the lowest test level (.02). As the alcohol level increased, the
dependence upon the concentration levels became more variable. This could have
implications regarding the devices’ use in actual drinking conditions, where some
drinkers’ alcohol levels could be substantially above the maximum tested in Experiment
Two. Because it was deemed inappropriate and potentially unsafe to dose participants to
higher levels than the maximum levels achieved, no data were collected at higher levels
from human participants. Although the laboratory-based Experiment One was able to
test the instruments at higher levels, the devices’ performance at higher levels with
97
human participants could provide additional information with which to assess the
instruments.
Seventh, virtually every breath test instrument, regardless of price or complexity,
requires users to wait up to 15 minutes before providing a sample. This function is
imposed to allow adequate time for any residual mouth alcohol to dissipate, so that the
sample reflects the alcohol level in the blood and lungs as accurately as possible. It is
quite possible, however, that this waiting period would not be strictly observed by users
of PMBTs. In a situation where a drinker is at a party, perhaps among friends who also
wish to test their alcohol levels, the waiting period may even be nonexistent. In this
case, the results of the test could yield a reading that is much higher than the true BrAC.
There seems to be little that can be done to overcome this possibility with these devices.
To achieve the best results, users will have to follow the manufacturer’s directions
closely.
98
CHAPTER VI
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
6.1. Recommendations for Future Research
During the efforts to answer the questions proposed in this study, several other
potential related areas for quantitative and objective research surfaced, including:
(a) Specificity. While all the devices tested did successfully detect the presence of
alcohol, it is possible that substances other than alcohol could cause the devices
to register the presence of alcohol (Harding, 1996; Dubowski, 1992). Thus
additional testing to assess the instruments’ specificity to alcohol should be
performed. Substances such as tobacco, perfumes and colognes and others could
be studied in this respect.
(b) Impact Resistance. Due to the portable nature of these devices, it is quite likely
that users will wish to transport them. As a result, the instruments could be
subjected to physical jostling and impacts. Research should be undertaken to
evaluate the short- and long-term effects of physical impacts. One option could
involve testing the devices on a shake table, a system that subjects objects to
vibrations at specified frequencies and on multiple axes.
(c) Ambient Temperature. Although it is likely that these instruments will most
often be used indoors, at comfortable room temperatures, they could be used in
more extreme temperature environments. Thus, the impact of substantially
99
colder and warmer ambient temperatures upon the devices’ performance should
be assessed. Results could lead the manufacturers in developing recommended
use protocols.
(d) Calibration. Given that virtually all PMBTs are calibrated at the factory and do
not permit subsequent (re)calibration by their users, the duration of calibration is
of interest. The performance of devices could be affected by changes in
calibration, possibly gradual, over time and through repeated use. The accuracy
and precision of a given device could be assessed, using time and/or level of use
as independent variables. This could give potential purchasers some information
regarding devices’ anticipated lengths of service. Also, the option of presenting
used devices to the manufacturers for recalibration could be explored.
(e) Inter-model Performance. This study examined only one model of each device
available. No information about variability among multiple models of the same
device was obtained; this area of interest remains open. A suitable number of the
same model of device should be obtained, then tested for performance
differences among the units. This could reveal useful information regarding the
effects of quality control and inter-device reliability.
(f) Actual Drinking Conditions. Although this study tested the devices using human
participants (Experiment Two), the conditions under which this took place
remained under control by the research personnel. An appropriate next step,
following these experiments, would be to test the devices under less controlled,
more realistic conditions.
100
At least two possible scenarios exist in this regard. First, the device could be
tested in social situations, such as at bars and private parties, in which the
researcher manipulates the devices. That is, the researcher would provide the
instruments, ensure that they are properly warmed up, explain to participants how
to use them, and even maintain physical control of the instruments. This could
result in the acquisition of more real-world data under the supervision of the
researcher.
Second, the devices could be tested in these same situations, yet without the
researcher’s guidance as to when and how to use the devices. Thus, participants
would be required to make their own decisions regarding the application of these
devices. A controlled drinking situation similar to that used in Experiment Two
could be employed. This could yield valuable information regarding how such
instruments would actually be used under conditions that would be considered
realistic and expected by manufacturers and users.
(g) Device Readout System. This study examined only devices that provide a
numerical readout of estimated BrAC. As previously noted, other PMBT devices
that provide ranges of output or binary output are available. These devices
should undergo rigorous evaluation as well. This might require the use of
research designs different from those employed in this study, appropriate to the
categorical nature of the data that these devices provide. Several issues could be
of interest, including:
101
(1) Minimum Response Level- the lowest value at which the
devices read positive for alcohol
(2) Category Threshold- the actual levels at which devices indicate
that a user has moved to the next higher category (in order to
assess the accuracy of manufacturer-claimed and -specified
thresholds)
(3) Maximum Response Level- the highest level of BrAC to which
the devices would respond.
(h) Law Enforcement Application. PMBTs might be able to play a role in the
enforcement of impaired driving laws. The generally accepted non-technological
system of assessing impairment is the application of standardized field sobriety
tests (SFSTs). These tests were developed to aid law enforcement officers in
evaluating a suspected impaired driver. These partially subjective tests are
widely used and involve suspects performing several psychomotor tasks such as
heel-to-toe walking, balance maintenance and officers observing suspects’ eyes
for signs of alcohol impairment (Stuster, 2001).
However, concerns about officers’ abilities to administer these tests exactly as
specified have been raised. A major concern is officers’ abilities to continue to
perform the tests in a precisely standardized way, over the officer’s career. In his
study of the maintenance of SFST administration skills, Merkley (2002) found a
gradual but definite deterioration in officers’ abilities to perform the tests. Thus,
there may be a growing need to further objectify methods of approximating a
102
driver’s BAC at the initial point of contact. One of the test devices, the ABI unit,
has already been placed on NHTSA’s PBT Conforming Product List. Additional
research could explore the potential for other PMBT devices, including those
with non-numerical output features, to aid officers in assessing suspected
impaired drivers’ alcohol levels.
These devices’ performances in all of the areas discussed herein are ripe for future
evaluation. Therefore, further research should be conducted toward answering these
questions.
6.2. Recommendations for PMBT Manufacturers
This study revealed several recommendations for manufacturers who are interested in
developing increasingly effective PMBTs, including:
(a) Start Timer. A countdown timer could be integrated to help the user determine
when the required waiting period is complete. The user could be alerted by an
audible alarm, perhaps complemented by a vibrating mechanism. The user
simply punches a button, and 15 minutes later, the device alerts him or her that it
is ready for use.
(b) Recovery Alert. Similarly, an alarm could be employed to notify the user when
the device is fully recovered from the previous test. This way, the user would not
have to watch the instrument uninterruptedly, waiting for it to indicate readiness
for testing.
103
(c) Poor Sample Alert. A system could be integrated to monitor the airflow (a
miniature spirometer) and the length of expiration. If either of these do not meet
the device’s internal requirements, the test would be aborted. This could be
substantially helpful, as most first-time users tend to not exhale long enough to
obtain a full sample of deep-lung air. Accordingly, there would need to be a
system to inform the user as to why the test was aborted, informing he or she of
the need to blow harder or longer on the next attempt.
(d) Sample Alert Beep. This alert would inform the user, once blowing, when he or
she can stop blowing into the device. This would simplify the test procedure:
blow until you hear the beep. It could also aid in the collection of more
consistent samples.
(e) Distance Mechanism. For non-mouthpiece instruments, a mechanism could be
employed to ensure a consistent distance between the user’s mouth and the
device’s input port. This could involve, for example, a short arm that can be
swiveled upward (like the antenna of an inexpensive hand-held two-way radio),
the tip of which could rest on the user’s chin.
(f) Calibration System. An effective system by which the user could calibrate the
instrument would further aid in obtaining accurate and precise results. With the
expectation that any instrument’s calibration will change over time and use, a
method to reset its measurement system should only enhance a device’s utility.
This could even be made to occur automatically, performed each time the Start
104
Timer (see above) is activated. Such an automated function could reduce the
chance of increased operator error due to existing alcohol impairment.
(g) Design. The devices tested were all sole-function units, similar in appearance to
no other object. Perhaps these devices could be made to simulate common
objects, such as a pager, or be integrated into cell phones, personal digital
assistants (PDAs), wallets/pocketbooks, voice recorders, flashlights, cigarette
lighters, or other items that would not be considered unusual if present in an
actual drinking situation. Some potential users might prefer devices whose
purpose is relatively concealed.
(h) Protection. Several devices tested came with protective cloth bags. These could
be effective in preventing damage in between uses, but a hard-plastic, form-fitted
sheath could provide even more protection. Such forms should not be difficult to
prepare, especially if they are initially designed in conjunction with the device.
(i) Power Source. All the devices tested were battery-powered. For real-world use,
this would necessitate occasionally replacing discharged batteries. One option
would be to use integrated rechargeable batteries. A table-top charger could be
included with the testing instrument.
(j) Drink Counter. Some users might find it useful to keep an objective measure of
the number of drinks they have consumed. A simple clicker-type counter
integrated into a device could serve this function.
(k) Useful Information. The devices could also contain information useful to
drinkers, such as a toll-free number to call for a taxi. They could also display
105
appropriate preventive messages, such as “Don’t drink after drinking!” or “If in
doubt, call a cab!” or other suitable text.
In general, it has been recommended that PMBT-type devices should remain as simple
as possible. A.W. Jones suggested that such devices should not be made too
complicated and that simpler devices that place little interpretive demands on their users
could hold the most potential for effective application (personal communication,
December 11, 2002). Given that many drinkers would use such devices in an alcohol
positive state, minimizing the devices’ complexity of use could result in optimal utility
for the user.
6.3. Recommendations for Addressing Research Methodological Issues
This study revealed several insights into the testing of PMBTs, which might assist in
additional research of these devices. These include:
(a) Simulator Solutions. The simulator solutions used in the pilot testing and
Experiment One were invaluable. These units provided stable and easy-to-use
samples with which to test the devices under highly controlled conditions. The
national specifications for the use of simulators are easily obtained and promote
consistency among research efforts using simulators. Where highly controlled
conditions are sought, simulators are quite capable of contributing to reducing
the impact of extraneous variables.
(b) Human Participants. Experiment Two involved two separate drinking sessions,
and accommodated a maximum of six drinkers per session. This was a
106
manageable number of drinking participants. However, several factors could
affect the decision regarding how many drinking participants can be
accommodated in future projects, including:
(1) Number of sober volunteers. The presence and assistance of
sober volunteers is invaluable. They can assist with the testing
of instruments and the control and comfort of participants.
Having at least one sober volunteer per drinking participant is
ideal. Additionally, as the number of volunteers present
increases, so does the number of drinking participants that can
be handled.
(2) Number of devices to be tested. The number of devices can be a
factor because if the number of devices is few and the number of
drinking participants is large, substantial delays could result in
obtaining measurements from each drinker. This potential
problem could be ameliorated by selecting an appropriate
experimental design. For example, it may not be necessary for
each drinker to provide duplicate samples with each device at
each alcohol level (a completely within-subjects design).
(3) Testing facilities. If the testing facilities are large enough, they
may not have an impact on the maximum number of
participants. However, most testing facilities will not be
unlimited in size, and the size should be taken into account in
107
determining how many participants can be comfortably
accommodated.
6.4. Conclusion
This exploratory study showed that the tested devices demonstrated the ability to
detect the presence of alcohol. However, as a whole, the devices exhibited less precision
and greater systematic error than NHTSA standards specify for instruments to be placed
on its Conforming Products List. Further, the devices as a whole overestimated actual
BrAC. Thus, the systematic error was in a conservative direction.
Additionally, this systematic error was different at different levels of alcohol, as
evinced by the significant interaction between Device and Concentration. The devices’
performances under human drinking conditions appeared to decrease somewhat as
alcohol levels increased. Further, under actual drinking conditions, the devices were not
(with one exception, Device B at .08) found to have performed differently from the
Intoxilyzer, despite sometimes large percentage differences between mean results. This
suggests that the test devices’ variability is large enough to warrant concern over their
ability to perform their intended function: providing users with usable information
regarding individual alcohol levels.
Devices A, C and E were the best performing devices, in terms of accuracy and
precision. Any of these three has the potential to provide users with information that
could be effectively used to make improved decisions regarding personal alcohol levels.
The lower performing devices (B, D and F) are not recommended for use by people
108
seeking to obtain useful information regarding personal alcohol levels. Device F could
be especially risky to use, as it consistently underestimated BrAC. However, more
research is needed before any device receives solid recommendation or condemnation
for use as intended.
Although other aspects of these devices’ performances remain to be investigated, it is
hoped that this study contributes to the understanding and potential uses of this relatively
new class of breath alcohol testing devices. It is also hoped that the study contributes
toward the eventual improvement of information that consumers of alcohol can use to
make better decisions, and toward reducing the incidence of impaired driving throughout
the world.
109
REFERENCES
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 1997. Road rage: How to avoid aggressive driving.
Brochure. Washington, DC.
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2001, May. The role of driver distraction in traffic
crashes. Washington, DC: Stutts, J.C., Reinfurt, D.W, Staplin, L. & Rodgman, E.A.
AlcoPro, 2003. CheckPoint breath alcohol test- .02 threshold level. Alcohol Testing
Kits. Available at: http://64.88.157.60/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&
Store_Code=A&Product. Accessed January 3, 2003.
Autoweek Online, 2002. Beta vs. VHS? Fuel cell developers take differing tacks in
search for hydrogen Holy Grail. Autoweek Archives. Available at:
http://www.autoweek.com/search/search_display.mv?port_code=autoweek. Accessed
December 29, 2002.
Baselt, R.C., 1996. Disposition of alcohol in man. In: Garriott, J.C. (Ed.), Medicolegal
Aspects of Alcohol. Lawyers and Judges Publishing Company Inc., Tucson, AZ, pp.
65-83.
Beck, K.H., Rauch, W.J., Baker, E.A., 1997. The effects of alcohol ignition interlock
license restrictions on multiple alcohol offenders: A randomized trial in Maryland. In:
Mercier-Guyon, C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on
Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Annecy, France, pp. 177-183.
Bordens, K.S., Abbott, B.B., 1996. Research Design and Methods: A Process Approach.
Mayfield Publishing Co., Mountain View, CA.
Brown, O.M., 1994. Breath alcohol after using mouthwash. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 271(18),
1401.
Burns, M., Fiorentino, D., 2002. The effects of low BACs on driving performance. In:
Mayhew, D., Dussault, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on
Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Stockholm.
Caplan, Y.H., 1996. Blood, urine, and other fluid and tissue specimens for alcohol
analysis. In: Garriott, J.C. (Ed.), Medicolegal Aspects of Alcohol. Lawyers and
Judges Publishing Company, Inc., Tuscon, AZ, pp. 137-150.
CMI, 2002a. Breath alcohol testing basics. Why breath alcohol analysis? Available at:
http://www.alcoholtest.com/whybaa.htm. Accessed July 5, 2002.
110
CMI, 2002b. Electrochemical fuel cell breath analysis. Available at:
http://www.alcoholtest.com/ecfuel.htm. Accessed April 18, 2002.
CMI, 2003a. Intoxilyzer 5000EN. CMI Online. Available at:
http://alcoholtest.com/intox5000.htm. Accessed January 4, 2003.
CMI, 2003b. Intoxilyzer 400PA. CMI Online. Available at:
http://alcoholtest.com/intox400pa.htm. Accessed January 3, 2003.
CNN, 2002. Personal breathalyzers: Worth the blow? CNN.com. Available at:
http://cnn.technology.printthis.clickability.com/pt/printThis?clickMap. Accessed June
6, 2002.
Coben, J.H., Larkin, G.L., 1999. Effectiveness of ignition interlock devices in reducing
drunk driving recidivism. Am. J. Prev. Med. 16(1S), 81-87.
Columbia Laboratory Services, 2003. ALERT® hand-held pre-arrest breath alcohol
tester. ALERT Model J4 Personal Alcohol Breath Tester. Available at:
http://www.columbialab.com/cgi-bin/web_store.cgi? Accessed January 3, 2003.
Comeau, F.J.E., 2000. Ignition interlock devices support program development. In:
Laurell, H., Schlyter, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on
Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Paper #904. Stockholm.
Davis, M., 2002, December 30. Hail anti-screw-up technology. Autoweek 52, 9.
Dennis, M.E., 1995. Effects of alcohol on driving task abilities. Chron. Am. Driver
Traffic Safety Ed. Assoc. Summer, 6-7.
Deveaux, M., Gosset, D., 2000. Testing for ethanol in alternate specimens. In: Laurell,
H., Schlyter, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Alcohol,
Drugs and Traffic Safety. Paper # 802. Stockholm.
Draeger, 2003. Mark IIA simulator. Available at:
http://www.draeger.com/us/ST/products/product-mk2.htm. Accessed January 1, 2003.
Drug Library, 2003. Infrared absorption. Breath alcohol instrumentation: A proposal in
commercial taxonomy. Available at: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/
driving/s5p4.htm. Accessed January 3, 2003.
Dubowski, K.M., 1979. Breath-alcohol simulators: Scientific basis and actual
performance. J. Anal. Tox. 3(3), 177-182.
111
Dubowski, K.M., 1985. Absorption, distribution and elimination of alcohol: Highway
safety aspects. J. Studies Alcohol Suppl. 10, 98-108.
Dubowski, K.N., 1992. The technology of breath-alcohol analysis. DHHS Publication
No. ADM 92-1728. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Rockville,
MD.
Dubowski, K.N., 1994. Quality assurance in breath-alcohol analysis. J. Anal. Tox. 18(6),
306-311.
Dubowski, K.M., 2002, December. Theory and practice of breath-alcohol analysis. In:
Joiner, J. (Chair), The Robert F. Borkenstein Course on Alcohol and Highway Safety:
Testing, Research and Litigation. Bloomington, IN.
Dubowski, K.M., Essary, N.A., 1991. Evaluation of commercial breath-alcohol
simulators: Further studies. J. Anal. Tox. 15(5), 272-275.
Dubowski, K.M., Essary, N.A., 1992. Field performance of current generation breathalcohol
simulators. J. Anal. Tox. 16(5), 325-327.
Dubowski, K.M., Essary, N.A., 1996. Vapor-alcohol control tests with compressed
ethanol-gas mixtures: Scientific basis and actual performance. J. Anal. Tox. 20(6),
484-491.
Dubowski, K.M., Essary, N.A., 1999. Measurement of low breath-alcohol
concentrations: Laboratory studies and field experience. J. Anal. Tox. 23(6), 386-395.
Ezelle, S., 2002. The mark of a man. Newsletter Int. Assoc. Chem. Testing 13(3), 1-3.
Fell, J.C., Hendricks, D.L., Freedman, M., 2000. The relative frequency of unsafe
driving acts in serious traffic crashes. In: 44th Annual Proceedings of the American
Association for Automotive Medicine. Chicago, pp.508-511.
Ferguson, S.A., Wells, J.K., Lund, A.K., 1995. The role of passive alcohol sensors in
detecting alcohol-impaired drivers at sobriety checkpoints. Alcohol Drugs Driv. 11(1),
23-30.
Fiandach, E.L., 2002. How does infrared technology work? Fiandach’s NY DWI- Q&A:
Infrared technology. Available at: http://nydwi.com/dwiquanda/infrared.html.
Accessed December 15, 2002.
Field, A., 2002. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows. Sage Publications,
London.
112
Forrester, M., 1997. The advantage of roadside evidential breath alcohol testing systems
and important design considerations. In: Mercier-Guyon, C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the
14th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Annecy, France,
pp. 317-322.
Foss, R.D., Voas, R.B., Beirness, D.J., 1993. Using a passive alcohol sensor to detect
legally intoxicated drivers. Am. J. Pub. Health 83(4), 556-560.
Frank, J.F., 1997. Ignition interlock devices: An overview and the future. In: Mercier-
Guyon, C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs
and Traffic Safety. Annecy, France, pp. 171-176.
Freudenrich, C.C., 2002. How breathalyzers work. HowStuffWorks. Available at:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/breathalyzer.htm/printable. Accessed April 2, 2002.
Governors Highway Safety Association, 2003. State impaired driving laws. State
Information. Available at: http://www.ghsa.org/html/state_info/impaired_laws.html.
Accessed January 3, 2003.
Gullberg, R.G., 1989. Breath alcohol test precision: An In Vivo vs. In Vitro evaluation.
For. Sci. Int. 43(3), 247-255.
Gullberg, R.G., 1990. The mathematical analysis of breath alcohol profiles generated
during breath exhalation. J. Anal. Tox. 14(6), 358-367.
Gullberg, R.G., 1991. Differences between roadside and subsequent evidential breath
alcohol results and their forensic significance. J. Studies Alcohol 52(4), 311-317.
Gullberg, R.G., 2000. Methodology and quality assurance in forensic breath alcohol
analysis. For. Sci. Rev. 12(49), 50-66.
Gullberg, R.G., 2002a. Forensic breath alcohol instrumentation. In: Joiner, J. (Chair),
The Robert F. Borkenstein Course on Alcohol and Highway Safety: Testing, Research
and Litigation. Bloomington, Indiana.
Gullberg, R.G., 2002b. Instructional topics. In: Joiner, J. (Chair), The Robert F.
Borkenstein Course on Alcohol and Highway Safety: Testing, Research and
Litigation. Bloomington, Indiana.
Gullberg, R.G., Zettl, J.R., 2002. Analytical principles and current issues in breath test
instrumentation. In: Joiner, J. (Chair), The Robert F. Borkenstein Course on Alcohol
and Highway Safety: Testing, Research and Litigation. Bloomington, Indiana.
113
Hanson, G.R, Venturelli, P.J., Fleckenstein, A.E., 2002. Alcohol: Pharmacological
effects. In: Drugs and Society. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, Massachusetts,
180-199.
Harding, P., 1996. Methods for breath analysis. In: Garriott, J.C. (Ed.), Medicolegal
Aspects of Alcohol. Lawyers and Judges Publishing Company, Inc., Tuscon, AZ, pp.
181-217.
Harding, P., 2002. Analysis of defense challenges to breath- and blood-alcohol testing.
In: Joiner, J. (Chair), The Robert F. Borkenstein Course on Alcohol and Highway
Safety: Testing, Research and Litigation. Bloomington, Indiana.
Harding, P.M., Laessig, R.H., Field, P.H., 1990. Field performance of the Intoxilyzer
5000: A comparison of blood- and breath-alcohol results in Wisconsin drivers. J. For.
Sci. 45(5), 1022-1028.
Harding, P., McMurray, M., Laessig,R., Simley, D., Correll, P., Tsunehiro, J., 1992. The
effect of dentures and denture adhesives on mouth alcohol retention. J. For. Sci. 37(4),
999-1007.
Haworth, N., Bowland, L., 1995. Estimation of benefit-cost ratios for coin-operated
breath testing. Monash University Accident Research Centre. Report #82. Available
at: http://www.general.monash.edu.au/MUARC/rptsum/ab82.htm. Accessed August
21, 2002.
Hlastala, M.P., 1998. The alcohol breath test- a review. J. Appl. Phys. 84(2), 401-408.
Hlastala, M.P., 2002. Invited editorial on “The alcohol breath test.” J. Appl. Phys. 93(2),
405-406.
Howell, D.C., 1997. Statistical methods for psychology. Duxbury Press, Belmont,
CA.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2002. Fatality facts: General. Available at:
http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/fatality_facts/general.htm. Accessed January
4, 2003.
Intoximeters, 2002. The need for blood alcohol testing. Intoximeters, Inc. Available at:
http://www.intox.com/fuelcell.asp. Accessed April 16, 2002.
Intoximeters, 2003. Alco-Sensor. Products. Available at:
http://www.intox.com/products/as_fb.asp?pn=11-0020-00. Accessed January 3, 2003.
114
Jones, A.W., 1978. Evaluation of breath alcohol instruments II. In vivo experiments with
Alcolmeter Pocket Model. For. Sci. Int., 12(1), 11-23.
Jones, A.W., 1985a. Evaluation of breath alcohol instruments III. Controlled field trial
with Alcolmeter Pocket Model. For. Sci. Int. 28(3-4), 147-156.
Jones, A.W., 1985b. Evaluation of breath alcohol instruments IV. Roadside tests with
Alcolmeter Pocket Model. For. Sci. Int. 28(3-4), 157-165.
Jones, A.W., 2002, December. Measuring alcohol in blood and breath for forensic
purposes- A historical review. Paper presented at The Robert F. Borkenstein
Course on Alcohol and Highway Safety: Testing, Research and Litigation.
Bloomington, IN.
Jones, A.W., Andersson, L., 1996. Variability of the blood/breath alcohol ratio in
drinking drivers. J. For. Sci. 41(6), 916-921.
Jones, A.W., Goldberg, L., 1978. Evaluation of breath alcohol instruments I. In vitro
experiments with Alcolmeter Pocket Model. For. Sci. Int. 12(1), 1-9.
Jones, I.S., Lund, A.K., 1986. Detection of alcohol-impaired drivers using a passive
alcohol sensor. J. Police Sci. Admin. 14(2), 153-160.
Jones, R.K., Lacey, J.H., 2001. Alcohol and highway safety 2001: A review of the state
of knowledge. DOT Report HS 809 383.
Joseph, J., 2002. Are breath tests accurate? ABC News.com. Available at:
http://absnews.go.com/sctions/living/DailyNews/duibreathtests_990118.html.
Accessed April 2, 2002.
Lestina, D.C., Lund, A.K., 1992. Laboratory evaluation of two passive alcohol sensors.
J. Studies Alcohol 53(4), 328-334.
Logan, B.K., Distefano, S., Case, G.A., 1998. Evaluation of the effect of asthma inhalers
and nasal decongestant sprays on a breath alcohol test. J. For. Sci. 43(1), 197-199.
Logan, B.K., Gullberg, R.G., 1998. Lack of effect of tongue piercing on an evidential
breath alcohol test. J. For. Sci. 43(1), 239-240.
Low Priority, 2002, December 7. Low priority assigned to highway safety. Status
Report: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 37(10), 1-7.
Lucas, D.M., 2000. Professor Robert F. Borkenstein- An appreciation of his life and
work. For. Sci. Rev. 12(1), 2-21.
115
Marques, P.R., Tippetts, A.S., Voas, R.B., Beirness, D.J., 2001. Predicting repeat DUI
offenses with the alcohol interlock recorder. Accid. Anal. Prev. 33(5), 609-619.
Marques, P.R., Voas, R.B., Tippetts, A.S., Beirness, D.J., 1999. Behavioral monitoring
of DUI offenders with the alcohol ignition interlock recorder. Addiction 94(12), 1861-
1870.
Mason, M.F., Dubowski, K.M., 1996. Breath as a specimen for analysis of ethanol and
other low molecular weight molecules. In: Garriott, J.C. (Ed.), Medicolegal aspects of
alcohol. Lawyers and Judges Publishing Company, Inc., Tucson, AZ, pp. 171-180.
Melethil, S.K., 2002. Breath tests for blood alcohol determination: Partition ratio.
Forensic-Evidence.com. Available at: http://www.forensicevidence.
com/site/Biol_Evid/Breath_Tests.html. Accessed April 18, 2002.
Merkley, R.J., 2002. Officer competency in the Texas Standardized Field Sobriety
Testing Program: A quantitative study. Unpublished master’s thesis, Texas A&M
University, College Station.
Method, P.F., Reed, J.M., Kamendulis, L.M., Klaunig, J.E., 2002. Stability of BAC
Datamasters used for evidentiary alcohol breath testing in Indiana. Paper presented at
the 15th Annual Meeting of the International Association for Chemical Testing.
Austin, TX.
Moskowitz, H., 2002. Alcohol and drugs. In: Dewar, R.E., Olson, P.L (Eds.) Human
Factors in Traffic Safety. Lawyers and Judges Publishing Company, Inc., Tucson, AZ,
pp. 177-207.
Moskowitz, H. & Fiorentino, D., 2002. A review of experimental studies of low BAC
effects on skills performance. Paper presented at the 16th International Conference on
Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Montréal, Canada.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, 2003. Did you know… Stats and resources. Available
at: http://www.madd.org/stat/0,1056,4456,00.html. Accessed January 3, 2003.
Muhammad, L., 2000. You bet your license. The Courier-Journal. Available at:
http://www.louisvillescene.com/features/2000/scene20001209drinking.html. Accessed
June 6, 2002.
National College for DUI Defense, 2002. Breath analysis. Available at:
http://www.ncdd.com/breath.html. Accessed April 16, 2002.
116
National Commission Against Drunk Driving, 2002a. Detecting, testing, and arresting
impaired drivers. Alcohol Technology Resource Center. Available at:
http://www.ncadd.com/techcenter/detecting/overview/oversbt.html. Accessed May 1,
2002.
National Commission Against Drunk Driving, 2002b. Preventing and detecting underage
drinking. Alcohol Technology Resource Center. Available at:
http://www.ncadd.com/techcenter/detecting/overview/overpas.html. Accessed May 1,
2002.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1982. Preliminary breath testing for
drinking-driving enforcement: Instructor’s manual. Washington, DC.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1998. Drowsy driving and automobile
crashes. NCSDR/NHTSA Expert Panel on Driver Fatigue and Sleepiness. DOT
Report HS 808 707.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2003a. Crashworthiness. Research and
development project summaries. Available at: http://www.nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/
departments/nrd-01/projectsummaries.html. Accessed January 2, 2003.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2003b. Traffic engineering
considerations. Lessening effects of the impaired driver. Available at:
http://www.mhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/safesobr/17qp/standless.html. Accessed
January 2, 2003.
National Patent Analytical Systems, 2003. BAC Datamaster. Breath alcohol testing.
Available at: http://www.npas.com/breathtest.htm. Accessed January 3, 2003.
National Safety Council, 2001. Injury Facts, 2001 Edition. Itasca, IL.
National Safety Council, 2002. Injury Facts, 2002 Edition. Itasca, IL.
Olson, P.L., 1986. Identifying alcohol-impaired drivers. UMTRI Research Review
16(3), 1-11.
PAS Systems International, 1999. Detection…the first step… Brochure. Fredericksburg,
VA.
Progress Against, 2002. Progress against DWI deaths appears stalled. Join together
online. Available at: http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/summaries/
reader/0,1854,553295,00.html. Accessed October 21, 2002.
117
Reckers, R., Breen, M., 2002. The Alcosensor IV-XL at point of arrest as a portable
evidential breath test (PEBT). Paper presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the
International Association for Chemical Testing. Austin, TX.
Scott, S.R., Breen, M.H., 2000. California Department of Justice evidential portable
alcohol system (EPAS). In: Laurell, H., Schlyter, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th
International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Paper # 203.
Stockholm, Sweden.
Shinar, D., 1978. Psychology on the Road. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Silverstein, S.J., Nathan, P.E., Taylor, H.A., 1974. Blood alcohol level estimation and
controlled drinking by alcoholics. Beh. Therapy 5, 1-15.
Smart Start, 2003. What is an interlock. Available at:
http://www.smartstartinc.com/whtis_il.html. Accessed May 23, 2003.
Speck, P.R., McElroy, A.J., Gullberg, R.G., 1991. The effect of breath alcohol simulator
solution volume on measurement results. J. Anal. Tox. 15(6), 332-335.
Spector, N.H., 1971. Alcohol breath tests: Gross errors in current methods of measuring
alveolar gas concentrations. Science 172(3978), 57-59.
Stellin, S., 2001. How it works: Knowing when it’s time to designate another driver.
New York Times. Available at: http://query.nytimes.com/search/restricted/
article?res=FA0916FA38550C748EDDAB0994D9. Accessed July 7, 2002.
Stuster, J., 2001. Development of a standardized field sobriety tests (SFST) training
management system. DOT Report HS 809 400.
Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., 1996. Using Multivariate Statistics. HarperCollins, New
York.
Taylor, M.D., Hodgson, B.T., 1995. Blood/breath correlations: Intoxilyzer® 5000C,
Alcotest® 7110, and Breathalyzer® 900A breath alcohol analyzers. Can. Soc. For.
Sci. 28(2), 153-164.
Texas Department of Public Safety, 1999. Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents.
Texas DWI Education Program, 2001. Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse.
The Alcohol Alert System, 2002. Introducing the alcohol alert system. Available at:
http://www.alcoholalert.com/system.htm. Accessed August 21, 2002.
118
Tippetts, A.S., Voas, R.B., 1997. The effectiveness of the West Virginia interlock
program on second drunk driving offenders. In: Mercier-Guyon, C. (Ed.), Proceedings
of the 14th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Annecy,
France, pp. 185-192.
U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1993. Highway safety programs: Model specifications for devices to measure breath
alcohol. Federal Register 58(179), pp. 48705-48710.
U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1994. Highway safety programs: Model specifications for screening devices to
measure alcohol in body fluids. Federal Register 59(147), pp. 39382-39390.
U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
2002a. Traffic Safety Facts 2000: A compilation of motor vehicle crash data from the
Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System. DOT Report
HS 809 337.
U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
2002b. Highway safety programs: Model specifications for devices to measure breath
alcohol. Federal Register 67(192), pp. 62091-62093.
Van Tassel, W.E., Manser, M.P., 2000. Participant-predicted, observed, and calculated
peak blood alcohol levels: A gender-specific analysis. In: 44th Annual Proceedings of
the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Chicago, pp. 367-
377.
Voas, R.B., Blackman, K.O., Tippetts, A.S., Marques, P.R., 2002. Evaluation of a
program to motivate impaired driving offenders to install ignition interlocks. Accid.
Anal. Prev. 34(4), 449-455.
Voas, R.B., Marques, P.R., Tippetts, A.S., Beirness, D.J., 1999. The Alberta Interlock
Program: The evaluation of a province-wide program on DUI recidivism. Addiction
94(12), 1849-1859.
WCCO-TV, 2003. WCCO-TV puts personal alcohol breath analyzers to the test.
Available at: http://wcco.com/specialreports/local_story+037155819.html/
resources_storyPrintableView. Accessed June 13, 2003.
Weinrath, M., 1997. The ignition interlock program for drunk drivers: A multivariate
test. Crime Del. 43(1), 42-59.
Wells, J.K., Preusser, D.F., Williams, A.F., 1992. Enforcing alcohol-impaired driving
and seat belt use laws, Binghamton, NY. J. Safety Res. 23(2), 63-71.
119
Wundersitz, L.N., 2002. An evaluation of coin-operated breath testing machines in
South Australia licenses premises. Paper presented at the 16th International
Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Montréal, Canada.
Zancaner, S., Giorgetti, R., Cavarzeran, F., Snenghi, R., Castagna, F., Ferrara, S.D.,
2000. Use of breath test as evidence. Comparison between BrACs and BACs in a
driving population. In: Laurell, H., Schlyter, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th
International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety. Stockholm, Sweden
pp. 1231-1235.
120
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE IMAGES OF QUANTITATIVE PMBT MODELS
121
Device A: Safe Mate
Energy Source 2 AA batteries
Battery Life Can use more than 800 times
Display 20 stage LCD
Dimensions 89.5×30×16.5mm
Weight 43g (including batteries)
Material ABS Resin (Acrylic Fiber)
Sensor Type MEMS Semiconductor
A Fast, Reusable, Pocket-sized Alcohol Detection Device for Use Anywhere, Anytime
Alcohol Consumption or Intoxication is a Concern. Digital LCD Readout of Percentage
BAC test results, Manual and Self-Calibration Feature. Micro Sized, Discreet.
Incorporates the new MEMS* microchip gas sensor technology.
Despite its micro size, the SAFEMATE™ Personal Digital Alcohol Breath Analyzer is a
sensitive scientific instrument employing the latest semiconductor technology to convert
breath alcohol content to equivalent blood alcohol content (BAC) within seconds.
Results are displayed digitally on a backlit LCD display panel. The SAFEMATE™
employs the recently developed and most advanced *MEMS" gas sensor which is
alcohol specific thereby minimizing the possible interference from other environmental
factors.
122
Device B: Blue Breathalyzer
The Blue is a popular consumer-oriented breathalyzer. Manufactured in the U.S. by
Lifeloc Technologies, the Blue uses a highly-selective semiconductor sensor to provide
reliable accuracy from 0.00 to .40% BAC. The Blue comes with removable
mouthpieces shaped to help maximize testing accuracy and extend the life of the unit.
The three digit LED displays the exact BAC value, not just a range. The Blue uses
semiconductor technology very similar to the CA-2000, providing amazingly fast and
accurate results.
Sophisticated, highly-selective semiconductor sensor provides highly reliable accuracy
3 digits digital LED display (0.xx% BAC/BRAC)
Wide detection range : 0.00 - 0.40% BAC
Long-term stability
Compact & light weight hand-held device
Short warm-up, response, and recovery times
3,000 test lifetime
4 AA Batteries included
Audible alarm alerts user to positive test
123
Device C: AlcoScan CA2000
• Sophisticated, highly-selective semiconductor sensor provides highly reliable
accuracy
• 3 digits digital LED display (0.xx% BAC/BRAC)
• Wide detection range : 0.00 - 0.40% BAC
• Long-term stability
• Compact & light weight hand-held device
• Short warm-up, response, and recovery times
• 3,000 test lifetime
• 9V Alkaline battery & one cigar Jack DC adapter included
• Audible alarm alerts user to positive test
SPECIFICATIONS
• Size: 120 mm x 60mm x 25 mm
• Weight: 200 gram
• Housing: Shock resistant, molded plastic
• Sensor: Highly selective semi-conductive oxide alcohol sensor
• Response time: 3 sec
• Warm up time: 20 sec
• Recovery time (sensor pure): 30 sec
• Battery life: About 200 tests
• Battery: 9V alkaline
• External power supply: Optional 12V DC adapter
• Accuracy: 0.01% at 0.10%BAC
124
Device D: Elan
Specifications
Size: 3.50 in x 1.25 in x 0.5 in
Weight: 105 grams
Sensor: Semi-conductor sensor
Specificity: Specific for alcohol
Ambient Temperature: 0 °C to 40 °C (30 °F to 100 °F)
Purge Cycle (Initial Test): 6 seconds
Breath Sample: 5 second moderate and continuous breath sample
Analysis Time: 10 seconds
Recycle (Recovery) Time: 10 seconds
A higher reading will take a longer recycle time
BAC Readout Format: % BAC
Range of Measurement: 0.000 to 0.350% BAC (0 to 350 mg%)
Accuracy: ±0.01 @ 0.100% BAC (±10 @ 100 mg%)
Smoking Caution: Wait 10 minutes
Drinking Caution: Wait 10 minutes
(After consumption of alcohol)
Display: 3-Digit LCD readout
Battery Pack: Two (2x) “AAA” alkaline battery (Included)
Mouthpieces: NONE, Passive Test Only
125
Device E: ABI Professional Breath Alcohol Screener
Features of the ABI:
• Blow-time is 4.5 seconds (per DOT regulations)
• Analyze blood alcohol percentage
• Breathalyzer
• Indicate 0.01-0.40 %BAC Range
• Alcohol detector/tester
• DOT Approved Instrument
ABI Complete Package Includes:
• Breathalyzer
• Hard plastic cover for safe carriage
• Car adapter
• 9V DC battery, 300+ tests
• Hand carry bag
• 5 Mouth Pieces - extra pieces available
• Hand strap
126
Device F: Sharper Image BT300
Digital Alcohol Breath Tester lets you know who's had enough.
• Accurately estimates your blood alcohol content (BAC) in just seconds.
• Digital Signal Processor technology.
• Blow into tube. Reading is indicated on the LCD screen to nearest .001 percent.
• Warnings alert you to a BAC of 0.050% or higher.
Find your blood alcohol content (BAC) in seconds simply by blowing into the Digital
Alcohol Breath Tester. Easy to use and completely non-invasive, it displays your BAC
within a range of .000% to .200% The LCD screen lights for easy reading at night and
warns you with beeps and an on-screen alert when your BAC surpasses 0.050%.
Measures a compact 4 3/4" x 2 1/2" x 1 1/4". Runs on one 9v battery (included). Comes
with two plastic mouthpieces. 90-day warranty. Caution: The impairment effects from a
specific alcohol level can vary from driver to driver. Never drink and drive.
127
Device G: PNI BT3300
PNI BT3300 Digital Alcohol Detector Features:
• Utilizes advances semi-conductor gas sensor technology to measure the level of
alcohol in your blood via a breath sample
• Easily fits into your pocket, purse, or day planner, about the same size as a
lighter
• Clearly displays level of blood alcohol concentration (%BAC) in increments of
0.01% ranging from 0.00% to 0.19 %BAC
• Simple to use, takes only a few seconds
• Audible alerts tell you when the unit is ready for use and after a breath sample
registers
• Error warning tells you when an incomplete breath sample was taken
• Operates for over 300 uses on 2 AAA batteries
• Dual battery low alerts tell you when the batteries should be replaced, and when
they are too low to take an accurate reading
• 3.5" long x 1.25" wide x 0.5" thick, 1.6oz.
128
Device H: AlcoScan AL2000
The AlcoScan AL2000™ Alcohol Breath Analyzer is a highly sensitive scientific
instrument which employs an advanced integrated microchip to determine equivalent
blood alcohol content within a ten step range of <.01% to .10>%. Easy and convenient to
use, the AlcoScan AL2000 has 10 progressive LED indicators plus audible warning
codes to clearly indicate levels of intoxication within seconds.
The AL2000 employs the recently developed and most advanced *MEMS gas sensor
which is alcohol specific eliminating the possible interference from other environmental
factors. This professional LED step model is used by many law enforcement and
institutional agencies as a relatively low cost frontline field sobriety test for suspect
drunk drivers and intoxicated individuals.
Ten (10) Progressive levels of calculated BAC % from <=0.01% through => 0.10%
Accurate to within (+/-) 10% of calculated versus actual BAC levels
Colored LED 10 Step Display with Audible Beeps
Power on Self Test and Visual Ready Prompt
No special Mouthpiece Required
Displays Test results in Two (2) Seconds
Test Recycle time < Twenty (20) Seconds
Advanced Semiconductor Microchip Alcohol Sensor
Power Supply: Three 1.5V AAA Batteries (included)
Approximately Three (3) Continuous Hours Usage Time Between Battery Change
Weight: 125 grams, 4.4 ounces
Dimensions: H=14 cm (5.5") W=5 cm (2") Depth=2 cm (.7") Pocket sized
129
APPENDIX B
CLOSED SYSTEM WET BATH SIMULATOR
130
The Draeger Mark IIA Simulator is the preferred, court-proven breath alcohol simulator.
The Mark IIA provides an electronically controlled alcohol reference gas to the breath
analyzer by converting an alcohol solution (with a precisely known concentration of
alcohol) to a vapor, simulating a human breath sample.
The Mark IIA is designed for use with all Draeger alcohol-measuring devices, as well as,
other Evidential Breath Testers (EBT) or Preliminary Breath Testers (PBT). Frequent
calibration testing of an EBT or PBT with the Mark IIA Simulator assures calibration
integrity, aiding accuracy verification in court.
Features Include:
Mercury temperature sensor
34°C ± .2°C (NHTSA)
6 foot power cable
Solution volume: 500 ml
131
APPENDIX C
THE ALCOHOL USE DISORDER INVENTORY TEST
132
Participant Screening Instrument
This document is intended to provide project personnel information about potential
participants in a study in which alcohol will be consumed. Please be honest in
answering the following questions.
Additional Details
Length of Study: The entire session is expected to take between 7-8 hours, including
time for consumption and elimination of alcohol.
Females: No pregnant females will be permitted to participate in this study. All females
selected for participation will have to perform a portable pregnancy test before
being allowed to consume alcohol.
Non-drinkers: Non-drinkers will not be permitted to participate in this study.
Body Weight: Your body weight will be used to determine how much alcohol you will
be asked to consume.
Restricted Location: Once you agree to participate and begin consuming alcohol, you
are free to withdraw from the study at any time, but you must agree to remain at
the testing site until your blood alcohol level returns to 0.00%. Any participant
who attempts to leave the testing site before all his/her alcohol is eliminated will
be forcibly retained at the testing site.
Breath Tests: You will be asked to performed repeated deep-lung breath tests, perhaps
over 200 during the study.
Food: Only a few light snacks will be provided during the study, as it must be ensured
that ingested materials do not interfere with the breath tests.
133
PART I
Please mark “True” or “False” to the following questions:
________ I am not allergic to alcohol and have no reasons to believe I would
experience any negative consequences as a result of consuming alcohol.
________ I am in good health and have no reasons to believe I should not be a
candidate for this study.
________ I have consumed alcohol in the past and do not currently consider myself
to be a non-drinker.
________ I am not diabetic.
134
PART II
Alcohol Use Disorder Inventory Test (World Health Organization, 1987)
This instrument will be used to identify potential participants for an alcohol-related
study. Please circle the letter corresponding to your answer.
1. How often do you have drinks containing alcohol?
(one drink is a beer, glass of wine, or mixed drink)
a. Never
b. Monthly or less
c. 2-4 times a month
d. 2-4 times a week
e. 4 or more times a week
2. How many drinks containing alcohol do you have on a typical day when you are
drinking?
a. 1 or 2
b. 3 or 4
c. 5 or 6
d. 7 to 9
e. 10 or more
3. How often do you have six or more drinks on one occasion?
a. Never
b. Less than monthly
c. Monthly
d. Weekly
e. Daily or almost daily
4. How often during the past year have you been unable to stop drinking once you
started?
a. Never
b. Less than monthly
c. Monthly
d. Weekly
e. Daily or almost daily
135
5. How often during the past year have you failed to do what was normally expected of
you because of drinking?
a. Never
b. Less than monthly
c. Monthly
d. Weekly
e. Daily or almost daily
6. How often during the past year have you needed a drink in the morning to get going
after a heavy drinking session?
a. Never
b. Less than monthly
c. Monthly
d. Weekly
e. Daily or almost daily
7. How often during the past year have you had a feeling of guilt or remorse after
drinking?
a. Never
b. Less than monthly
c. Monthly
d. Weekly
e. Daily or almost daily
8. How often during the past year have you been unable to remember what happened
the night before because of drinking?
a. Never
b. Less than monthly
c. Monthly
d. Weekly
e. Daily or almost daily
9. Have you or someone else been injured as a result of your drinking?
a. No
b. Yes, but not in the past year
c. Yes, during the past year
136
10. Has a relative, friend, doctor or other health worker been concerned about your
drinking or suggested you cut down?
a. No
b. Yes, but not in the past year
c. Yes, during the past year
Thank you for your participation! You will be contacted if selected to participate.
Name ________________________
Phone # _______________________
Email _____________________________________
137
Alcohol Use Disorder Inventory Test World Health Organization, 1987
Scoring:
Questions 1-8 a = 0 points
b = 1 point
c = 2 points
d = 3 points
e = 4 points
Questions 9-10 a = 0 points
b = 2 points
c = 4 points
Totals:
8-15 may indicate a problem with alcohol use
16 or more suggests a more serious problem; you should contact your physician or an
alcohol-treatment program for help
138
APPENDIX D
THE NUMERICAL DRINKING PROFILE
139
NDP - ADAPTED
Name Date
Please read each question carefully, and then check the most correct answer in
the box provided. Check only one box for each question.
1. How many times have you been arrested on charges involving alcohol?
(Do not count the present DWI arrest.) ___________(Times)
2. Is someone close to you concerned about your drinking?
Yes ( ) No ( )
3. With whom did you do most of your drinking before this arrest?
Husband/Wife ( ) Relative ( ) Friends ( )
Strangers ( ) Alone ( )
4. Do you believe your drinking may be causing you problems?
Yes ( ) No ( )
No, but it used to cause me problems ( ) Not Sure ( )
5. Do you want help for a drinking problem?
Yes ( ) No ( ) Not Sure ( )
6. Do you feel you are a normal drinker?
Yes ( ) No ( )
7. Have you ever awakened the morning after some drinking the night
before and found you could not remember a part of the evening?
Yes ( ) No ( )
8. Does your wife, husband, a parent, or other near relative ever worry or
complain about your drinking?
Yes ( ) No ( )
9. Can you stop drinking without a struggle after one or two drinks?
Yes ( ) No ( )
10. Do you ever feel bad about your drinking?
Yes ( ) No ( )
11. Do your friends or relatives think you are a normal drinker?
Yes ( ) No ( )
140
12. Do you ever try to limit your drinking to certain times of the day or to
certain places?
Yes ( ) No ( )
13. Are you always able to stop drinking when you want to?
Yes ( ) No ( )
14. Have you ever attended a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous?
Yes ( ) No ( )
15. Have you gotten into fights when drinking?
Yes ( ) No ( )
16. Has drinking ever created problems between you and your wife, husband,
parent, or other near relative?
Yes ( ) No ( )
17. Has your wife, husband, a parent, or other near relative ever gone to
anyone for help about your drinking?
Yes ( ) No ( )
18. Have you ever lost friends because of drinking?
Yes ( ) No ( )
19. Have you ever gotten into trouble at work because of drinking?
Yes ( ) No ( )
20. Have you ever lost a job because of drinking?
Yes ( ) No ( )
21. Have you ever neglected your obligations, your family, or your work for 2
or more days in a row because you were drinking?
Yes ( ) No ( )
22. Do you drink before noon fairly often?
Yes ( ) No ( )
23. Have you ever been told you have liver trouble? Cirrhosis?
Yes ( ) No ( )
24. After heavy drinking, have you ever had Delirium Tremens (DT’s) or
severe shaking?
Yes ( ) No ( )
141
25. After heavy drinking, have you ever heard voices or seen things that
weren’t really there?
Yes ( ) No ( )
26. Have you ever gone to anyone for help about your drinking?
Yes ( ) No ( )
27. Have you ever been in hospital because of drinking?
Yes ( ) No ( )
28. Have you ever been a patient in a psychiatric hospital or on a psychiatric
ward of a general hospital?
Yes ( ) No ( )
29. Have you ever been in a hospital to be “dried out” (detoxified) because of
drinking?
Yes ( ) No ( )
30. Have you ever been in jail, even for a few hours, because of drunkenness
behavior? (Count the present arrest)
Yes ( ) No ( )
142
NUMERICAL DRINKING PROFILE (NDP)
(Adapted Version)
The Numerical Drinking Profile uses personal data items and
the score from the modified scoring version of the MAST (Michigan
Alcoholism Screening Test) to aid instructors in determining the
extent of a person’s drinking problem.
The personal data items (questions 1-5 on the NDP) relate to
the number of alcohol arrests, with whom they did most of their
drinking, alcohol causing them problems, someone being concerned
about their drinking, and whether they want help for a drinking
problem.
The MAST portion consists of 25 yes/no questions about
drinking (questions 6-30 on the NDP). Scores may range from 0 to
25 with scoring done by adding one point for each response which
matches answers identified as an indication of an alcohol problem.
Classification of DWI offenders along the problem-drinking
continuum is done by a process of elimination. There are 3 main
categories: Evident Problem, Potential Problem, and No Problem.
The scoring procedure is as follows:
1. Score the MAST portion of each person’s NDP
(questions 6-30) using the MAST key provided. (see
following page)
143
2. Enter the name of each person on the NDP Worksheet.
3. Fill in the boxes under the “Evident Problem,” “Potential
Problem,” and “No Problem” categories for each person.
This is done by placing a check mark in each box with
which the person’s answers on the NDP Test Form
agrees. Place a zero in any box for which there is
disagreement by the person so that you will know each
answer has been considered. Note: Any one answer
which agrees with an item in a higher category
automatically places the individual in that category.
There is no need to score the other categories.
Total the check marks for each category and enter the total
number of items checked for each category in the appropriate box.
Refer to the NDP key to determine into which category each person
belongs.
Be sure that the correct category is consulted to prevent an
inappropriate classification.
MAST KEY
6. NO 11. NO 16. YES 21. YES 26. YES
7. YES 12. YES 17. YES 22. YES 27. YES
8. YES 13. NO 18. YES 23. YES 28. YES
9. NO 14. YES 19. YES 24. YES 29. YES
10. YES 15. YES 20. YES 25. YES 30. YES
144
Place a check mark for each answer on the person’s MAST
Test (items 6-30) which agrees with the keyed responses.
Place a zero (0) on any item for which the person disagrees
with the keyed response.
The total number of checks on numbers 6-30 =
MAST score.
NDP KEY
NOTE: Any one answer which agrees with an item in a higher
category automatically places the individual in that
category. (For example, one or more agreeing
answers in the Evident Problem category means that
the other categories do not apply.)
EVIDENT PROBLEM
1 qualifying answer = NDP of 6
2 - 3 qualifying answers = NDP of 7
POTENTIAL PROBLEM
1 qualifying answer = NDP of 2
2 qualifying answers = NDP of 3
3 qualifying answers = NDP of 4
4 - 6 qualifying answers = NDP of 5
NO PROBLEM
3 qualifying answers = NDP of 1
145
APPENDIX E
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
146
Informed Consent
An Analysis of Performance of the Next Generation of Breath Alcohol
Instruments: Civilian Breath Testers
Introduction
• I understand that I will participate in a Texas A&M University Center for Alcohol
and Drug Education Studies (CADES) research study to examine the reliability and
validity of a new class of breath alcohol measurement devices: civilian breath testers.
I understand that the experiment will be an 8 hour period at the Texas A&M
University Riverside Campus and that I will be one of approximately 20 participants
involved in the study. I will be asked to consume 101 proof (50.5% alcohol)
alcoholic beverages and that the target maximum breath alcohol concentration
(BrAC) for all participants will be .08% (80 mg/dl; approximately 3 drinks for
females and 4 drinks for males).
• I understand that I will be asked to provide numerous breath samples into several
breath alcohol measurement devices and that I will be asked to provide saliva
samples for a saliva-based breath alcohol measurement device.
• I understand that this study will last a total of approximately 8 hours, including the
time it takes for my BrAC to return to 0.00.
• I understand that discomfort might result from possible hangover effects of alcohol
consumption.
• I understand that I may benefit directly by gaining personal experience about the
relationship between subjective feelings of alcohol impairment and the quantitative
measurement of my BrAC.
• Although no monetary compensation will be provided, I understand that my
participation is voluntary and that I may withdraw from the experiment at any time.
I further understand that if I withdraw from the experiment prior to its conclusion, I
agree to remain at the testing site until my BrAC returns to 0.00.
• Should I, in the judgment of the project personnel, become a risk to self or others,
my participation will be terminated by the principal investigator.
_________ _________
Initial/Date
147
• I understand that in the event of a medical emergency, project personnel can contact
medical attention providers on my behalf and that all medical expenses incurred will
be my responsibility.
• I understand that I will be asked to complete a pre-screening instrument and a survey
regarding my experiences in the study.
• For female participants: I understand that pregnant women should not consume
alcohol and I agree to remove myself from any participation if I am pregnant. I
further understand that I will have to perform a portable pregnancy test before being
allowed to consume alcohol.
• I understand that this study is confidential and that the researchers will securely store
all information related to the study in Room 204, G. Rollie White Coliseum, for a
period of three (3) years.
• I understand that my car keys will be collected upon arrival at the testing site and
that they will not be returned to my until my BrAC has returned to 0.00.
• I understand that law enforcement personnel can detain me if I attempt to leave the
testing site prior to my BrAC returning to 0.00, even if I have withdrawn from the
study before its conclusion.
• I understand that a specific individual will be assigned to monitor me throughout the
experiment and that this person will remain near me at all times.
• Any significant new findings developed during the course of the research that may
relate to my health or my willingness to continue participation will be provided to
me immediately upon discovery.
I understand that this research study has been reviewed by and approved by the
Institutional Review Board – Human Subjects in Research, Texas A&M University. For
research related problems or questions regarding subjects’ rights, I can contact the
Institutional Review Board through Dr. Michael W. Buckley, Director of Support
Services, Office of Vice President for Research at (979) 458-4067.
148
I have read and understand the explanation provided to me. I have had all my questions
answered to my satisfaction, and I voluntarily agree to participate in this study.
I have been given a copy of this consent form.
___________________________________ _____________
Signature of Subject Date
___________________________________ _____________
Principal Investigator Date
Contact Person: Dr. Maurice E. Dennis
or William E. Van Tassel
G. Rollie White Coliseum, Room 204
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843-4243
(979) 845-3019
med@hlkn.tamu.edu or wvantassel@hlkn.tamu.edu
149
APPENDIX F
LATIN SQUARE COUNTERBALANCING SYSTEM
150
Latin Square
1. Bordens & Abbot (1996)
2. Appendix column #32, selected by Kathy Durkin
3. #25 selected by Christie Dickson
4. Column #32
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 F H A B D G C E
2 C E F G A D H B
3 D F G H B E A C
4 H B C D F A E G
5 E G H A C F B D
6 A C D E G B F H
7 G A B C E H D F
8 B D E F H C G A
151
APPENDIX G
PARTICIPANT DATA SHEET
152
Participant Data Form
Participant Number ______
Name ___________________________ Age ______
Sex ____ Date of Birth
__________________
Pregnancy Test
Verification _________ (Pos. or Neg.)
Weight _________ lbs.
Height _______ cm.
Heart Rate ____________
Oral Temperature _________
Body Water Content:
Resistance
Reactance
Spirometry Results
______________________________
______________________________
153
VITA
WILLIAM EDWARD VAN TASSEL
Address 158 Read Building, Dept. of HLKN, College Station, TX 77843
Education Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Ph.D., August 2003
University of Central Oklahoma, Edmond, OK
M.A. Psychology, August 1997
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
M.B.A., May 1992, B.B.A., May 1990
Professional Assistant Lecturer. Texas A&M University, Health & Kinesiology.
Experience Teaching undergraduate classes in the Health and Safety Program.
September 2002 – August 2003.
Research Associate. Center for Alcohol and Drug Education Studies.
Responsible for conducting and oversight of alcohol and drug related
Research. September 1999 to December 2001.
Selected Van Tassel, W.E. & Dennis, M.E. (2002). Beyond the norm with
Publications instructor preparation: Observational experiences. The Chronicle of the
American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association,
50(4), 3, 12.
Van Tassel, W.E. & Dennis, M.E. (2002). Civilian breath testers: A
new approach to breath-alcohol testing. Texas Journal of Alcohol and
Traffic Safety. Volume 02(3), 3-4.
Van Tassel, W.E. & Dennis, M.E. (2002). Beyond the norm with
instructor preparation: Special topics. The Chronicle of the American
Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association, 50(3), 4, 14.
Van Tassel, W.E. and Manser, M.P. (2000). Participant-predicted,
observed and calculated peak blood alcohol levels: A gender-specific
analysis. Proceedings of the 44th Annual Conference of the Association
for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Chicago.
Professional OSHA Training Institute Southwest Education Center. Contract
Activities Instructor. 1997 – current.
Editor of The CADES Newsletter, a publication of the Center for Alcohol
and Drug Education Studies at Texas A&M University. 1998 – 2003.

San Diego DUI lawyers at www.SanDiegoDUIlawyer.com offer more information.