Comparison of data presented in Avaluator, page 19, and literature  Jan Uttl, www.avadata.org updated 2008-02-13
The role of Training in recreational Avalanche Accidents in the United States, Ian McCammon, NOLS, ISSW 2000
Evidence of heuristic traps in recreational avalanche accidents, Ian McCammon, NOLS, ISSW 2002
Heuristic Traps in Recreational Avalanche Accidents: Evidence and Implications, Ian McCammon, Avalanche News, No. 68, Spring 2004
Image of the graph from McCammon, 2002					Image of Figure 1 from McCammon, 2004
The Canadian Avalanche Centre has a link to background info on Avaluator development, which leads to the above articles. The ADFAR page appears dated. It mentions “Beta testing Card 1”, which could possibly be Avaluator prototype?
It appears that Figure 1 from the article (McCammon, 2002), “Hazard scores of recreational avalanche accidents in the US 1972-2001 does not quite compare to the chart in Avaluator. According to article data, the chart should look like this:
Hazard score	Avaluator	McCammon 2002	McCammon 2004		Hazard score	Avaluator Σ	McCammon 2002 Σ	McCammon 2004 Σ
0	0	0	3.9		0	0	0	3.9
1	0	8.5	7		1	0	8.5	10.9
2	2	17.5	15.8		2	2	26	26.7
3	6	27.5	25.6		3	8	53.5	52.3
4	15	26	25		4	23	79.5	77.3
5	30	15	18		5	53	94.5	95.3
6	37	5	4.3		6	90	99.5	99.6
7	10	0.5	0.3		7	100	100	99.9
	Obvious Clues	Avaluator	McCammon 2002	McCammon 2004
	7	0	0	0.1
	6	10	0.5	0.4
	5	47	5.5	4.7
	4	77	20.5	22.7
	3	92	46.5	47.7
	2	98	74	73.3
	1	100	91.5	89.1
	0	100	100	96.1
Conclusion: The research data presented in both 2002 and 2004 articles appear to be in good agreement. If the research data are correct, then Avaluator significantly overestimates accidents prevented. E.g., Using the “4 or less” clues criteria, user will incorrectly believe that they would prevent 77% of accidents, while according to the research data they would only prevent 21% or 23%.
The Avaluator Card may lead to accidents and/or deaths by giving users false confidence in the stability of the snowpack!