Every article published in JVIB after January 1, 2012, that includes original data and meta-analyses needs to include a structured abstract of no more than 300 words. Abstracts should be prepared in JVIB style—see Instructions for Preparing Structured Abstracts. Other articles need to include an unstructured abstract of no more than 50 words that summarizes the objective, main points, and conclusions of the article.

Abstracts are not required for Research Reports, Practice Reports, Around the World, Practice Perspectives, editorials, commentaries, or special features. If you are unsure whether to write a 50- or 300-word abstract, please submit a 300-word abstract. The editors will provide additional guidance during the peer review process.

What Does a Structured Abstract Look Like?

A structured abstract is an abstract with distinct, labeled sections for rapid comprehension (see Figure 1). Standardized formats for structured abstracts have been defined for original research studies and review articles. A commonly used structure for journal abstracts is Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD), a defacto standard that reflects the process of scientific discovery. JVIB's structured abstracts will also include Information for Practitioners (IMRAD-P), which is an aspect of research that is essential to individuals working in the field of visual impairment and blindness.

Figure 1

A structured abstract from the May 2005 issue of JVIB. The article is available online here: www.afb.org/afbpress/pubjvib.asp?DocID=JVIB990504. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 99, 286–302.

Driver Behavior in Yielding to Sighted and Blind Pedestrians at Roundabouts

Duane R. Geruschat and Shirin E. Hassan

Abstract
Introduction: This study evaluated drivers' behavior in yielding the right-of-way to sighted and blind pedestrians who stood at different stopping distances from the crosswalk lines at entry and exit lanes at two different roundabouts.
Methods: Two multilane roundabouts were studied. At each roundabout a study participant with or without a long cane approached the crosswalk, stopping 12 inches from the curb, stopping on the curb, or stopping 12 inches in the street.
Results: Vehicle speed accounts for 56% of the variability; low speeds (< 15 mph) had yields of 75%, high speeds (> 20 mph) had yields of > 50%. A significantly higher percentage of drivers yielded to pedestrians when entering the roundabout than when exiting it, F (1, 30) = 99.7, p < .001. Stopping position of pedestrians found an effect between 12 inches from the curb and standing 12 inches in the street [F (1, N = 360) = 7.2, p < .005]. Long canes affected yielding: 60% of drivers yielded to pedestrians without long canes at the entry lane, and 76% of drivers yielded to pedestrians with long canes, chi 2 (1, N = 240) = 6.2, p < .05.
Discussion: The findings demonstrate that drivers' willingness to yield to pedestrians is affected by whether pedestrians are attempting to cross at the entry or exit to the roundabout, the speed of the moving vehicle, and, under some conditions, the presence of a long cane.
Implications for Practitioners: O&M instructors can teach that each leg of a roundabout presents a unique crossing experience. When crossing an entry lane with slow moving vehicles, pedestrians can expect drivers to yield. Conversely, at exit lanes when vehicles are moving at a high rate of speed, pedestrians should anticipate that drivers will not yield and they should expect to wait for a crossable gap.

Instructions for Preparing Structured Abstracts

Every article published in JVIB after January 1, 2012, that includes original data and meta-analyses needs to include a structured abstract of no more than 300 words using the following headings: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Implications for Practitioners (IMRAD-P). The following descriptions indicate what information should be included under each heading of IMRAD-P.

Introduction:

The abstract should begin with a sentence or two explaining the importance of the study question. State the precise objective or study question addressed in the report (that is, use the language "To determine whether . . . "). If more than one objective is addressed, the main objective should be indicated and only key secondary objectives stated. If an a priori hypothesis was tested, it should be stated.

Methods:

Describe the basic design of the study. State the years of the study and the duration of follow-up. If applicable, include the name of the study (the Longitudinal Study of Special Education, for example). Describe the study setting to assist readers to determine the applicability of the report to other circumstances, for example, public school, school for the blind, rehabilitation center, university, medical facility, or low vision clinic. State important eligibility criteria and key sociodemographic features of the participants. The numbers of participants and how they were selected should be provided In follow-up studies and surveys, the proportion of participants who completed the study must be indicated. For selection procedures, these terms should be used, if appropriate: random sample (where random refers to a formal, randomized selection in which all eligible individuals have a fixed and usually equal chance of selection); population-based sample; referred sample; consecutive sample; volunteer sample; or convenience sample. The essential features of any interventions should be described, including their method and duration of administration. Indicate the primary study outcome measurement(s) as planned before data collection began.

Results:

The main outcomes of the study should be provided and quantified, including confidence intervals (for example, 95%) or P values. Explain outcomes or measurements unfamiliar to a general education and rehabilitation readership. Important measurements not presented in results should be declared. If differences for the major study outcome measure(s) are not significant, the practice implications should be stated. All surveys should include response rates.

Discussion:

Provide only conclusions of the study directly supported by the results, avoiding speculation and overgeneralization. Indicate whether there were any limitations to your study or if additional study is required. Give equal emphasis to positive and negative findings of equal scientific merit.

Implications for practitioners:

In general, data-based studies are completed for the purpose of determining the effect(s) of differing approaches to providing services. Authors are expected to address the possible implications of their research for the practitioner. Although one study does not often change educational or rehabilitation practice, it is possible to offer suggestions for ways in which the research can influence or adjust the way that services are provided.

Next Permissions and Reprints