驾驶安全态度量表的修订及信效度检验

目的检验修订版驾驶安全态度量表在我国驾驶员中的信度、效度和适用性。方法采用修订版安全态度量表和驾驶行为量表对202名驾驶员进行了测量,得到最终量表。结果修订版驾驶安全态度量表由18个题目组成,分为道路畅通与规则遵守、超速驾驶、激情驾驶三个维度,可以解释驾驶安全态度63.24%的变异。量表各因素与总分的相关系数在0.606~0.759之间,P0.001。量表总的内部一致性系数是0.928,各维度内部一致性系数在0.876~0.884之间。三个维度均与驾驶行为量表中的亲社会驾驶行为维度呈显著负相关、与攻击性驾驶行为维度呈显著正相关。结论修订版驾驶安全态度量表信效度良好,可以用来测量我国驾驶员的驾驶安全态度。     

道路安全的家庭氛围量表的修订及信效度检验

目的检验修订版道路安全的家庭氛围量表在我国驾驶员测量中的信度和效度。方法使用修订版道路安全的家庭氛围量表和驾驶风格量表,对321名驾驶员进行测量。结果修订后的道路安全的家庭氛围量表由36个题目组成,分为反馈、无安全承诺、榜样、监控、限制、沟通6个维度,累计方差解释率为58.84%。量表总的内部一致性系数是0.92,量表各因素与总分的相关系数在0.52~0.86之间,且相关显著。量表各维度与驾驶风格量表各维度之间的相关显著,说明量表的相容效度较好。结论修订后的道路安全的家庭氛围量表信效度良好,可以用来测量我国驾驶员对道路安全的家庭氛围的认知。     

驾驶行为量表(中国版)的制订及信效度检验

目的检验中文版驾驶行为量表(Driving Behavior Scale,DBS)在国内驾驶员群体中的信度、效度和适用性。方法采用中文版驾驶行为量表对360名驾驶员进行了测量,获得328份有效问卷,通过项目分析和因素分析,形成最终中文版量表。结果量表共有21个题目,分为3个维度:过度的安全/谨慎行为、驾驶功能缺陷和敌意/攻击行为。累计方差解释率为62.48%。量表的内部一致性系数为0.86,各个因素的内部一致性系数在0.81-0.93之间,P均0.001。修订后中文版驾驶行为量表各维度与驾驶安全态度量表各维度之间显著相关。这说明该量表的相容效度良好。结论最终中文版驾驶行为量表信效度良好,能够可靠而有效的测量国内焦虑驾驶行为。     

驾驶员自我效能感量表的修订及其信效度检验

目的检验中文驾驶员自我效能感量表在我国驾驶员群体中的信度、效度和适用性。方法使用中文版驾驶员自我效能感量表和驾驶风格量表对448名驾驶员进行测量。结果修订后的驾驶员自我效能感量表由10个题目组成,累计方差解释率为53.35%。修订后量表总的内部一致性信度为0.883。量表总分与驾驶风格量表各维度之间相关显著,表明量表的结构效度较好。量表总分与驾驶员过去一年中的交通违规次数、交通事故次数之间相关显著,表明量表的外部效度较好。结论修订后的驾驶员自我效能感量表由10个题目组成,量表的信效度较好,适合中国驾驶员应用。     

驾驶能力量表的修订及信效度检验

目的检验中文版驾驶能力量表在我国驾驶员中的信度、效度和适用性。方法使用中文版驾驶能力量表和驾驶员人格特质量表对253名驾驶员进行测试。结果修订后的驾驶能力量表由11个题目组成,累计方差解释率为49.22%,量表总的内部一致性信度为0.893,量表总分与人格特质量表各维度之间相关显著。这表明,量表的相容效度较好。量表总分与驾驶员过去一年驾驶中的交通违规次数相关显著,表明量表的外部效度较好。结论修订后的驾驶能力量表具有良好的信度与效度,可以作为测量我国驾驶员驾驶能力的一个有效工具。     

亲社会和攻击性驾驶行为量表的修订及信效度检验

目的修订驾驶员亲社会和攻击性驾驶行为量表并检验其信效度。方法采用中文版亲社会和攻击性驾驶行为量表对驾驶员进行测试,获得692份有效问卷。结果量表包括28个题目,分为2个维度,累计方差解释率为44.14%。量表的结构拟合度较好(CFI=0.90,TLI=0.92,RMSEA=0.051)。两个维度的内部一致性系数为0.87和0.90;与总分之间的相关系数为0.50和0.76,且Ps0.001。2个维度与大五人格量表各维度之间部分相关显著,表明量表具有良好的相容效度。结论修订后的驾驶员亲社会和攻击性驾驶行为量表信度和效度较好,可以作为测量我国驾驶员亲社会和攻击性驾驶行为的一个可靠而有效的工具。     

危险驾驶行为量表的修订及信效度检验

目的修订驾驶员危险驾驶行为量表,并检验其信效度。方法在线发放450份危险驾驶行为量表和安全态度量表,收回有效问卷432份。结果修订后的危险驾驶行为量表共18个题目,分为过度自信、驾驶超速和违反交通规则三个维度。量表的内部一致性系数为0.93。修订后量表各维度与总分的相关系数在0.66~0.91之间,均P0.001。修订后的量表与安全态度量表各维度显著相关。这说明修订后量表相容效度高。结论修订后的危险驾驶行为量表具有良好的信效度,可作为测量我国驾驶员危险驾驶行为的一个工具。     

驾驶员危险知觉技能自我评估量表的修订及其信效度检验

目的 检验中文版危险知觉技能自我评估量表在我国驾驶员群体中的信度、效度和适用性.方法 使用中文版危险知觉技能自我评估量表和人格特质量表对260名驾驶员进行测量.结果 修订后的危险知觉技能量表由6个题目组成,累计方差解释率为59.408％.修订后量表总的内部一致性信度为0.861.量表总分及各个题目得分与驾驶员交通事故和...     

交通替代攻击问卷的修订与信效度检验

目的 修订交通替代攻击问卷并检验其在我国驾驶员群体中的信效度。方法 采用交通替代攻击问卷对317名驾驶员进行施测,共获得305份有效问卷。通过分析后得到修订版的中国交通替代攻击问卷。结果 修订后的交通替代攻击问卷共保留24个题目,累积方差贡献率56.278%;该问卷的模型拟合度较好(GFI=0.870,IFI=0.920,TLI=0.911,NFI=0.860,CFI=0.919,RMSEA=0.062,χ²/df=2.148,SRMR=0.045)。问卷总的内部一致性系数为0.894,问卷各维度的内部一致性系数在0.677～0.936。问卷各维度与总分的相关系数在0.588～0.845之间,且相关显著。问卷各维度与亲社会和攻击性驾驶行为量表之间部分相关显著,说明修订后的问卷具有良好的相容效度。结论 修订后的交通替代攻击问卷信度和效度较好,可以作为测量我国驾驶员交通替代攻击的一个可靠而有效的工具。     

交通安全文化量表的修订及其信效度检验

目的对交通安全文化量表进行修订。方法采用交通安全文化量表和驾驶行为量表对610名驾驶员进行测量。结果修订后的交通安全文化量表由24个题目组成,分为书面文化、听觉文化、口头文化、外向型文化、责任心文化以及内向型文化6个维度,可以解释交通安全文化47. 21%的变异。在量表中,各因素与总分的相关系数在0. 619～0. 685之间,P 0. 001。量表总的内部一致性系数为0. 798,各维度的内部一致性系数在0. 671～0. 782之间。量表各维度与亲社会驾驶行为维度呈显著正相关,与攻击性驾驶行为维度呈显著负相关。说明量表具有良好的相容效度。结论修订后的交通安全文化量表具有良好的信效度,可以作为测量我国驾驶员安全文化的一个有效工具。     

营运驾驶员驾驶风格研究

目的探索了解我国营运驾驶员的驾驶风格特点,以及驾驶风格与交通违规之间的关系。方法在辽宁省沈阳、大连两个城市现场选取170名营运驾驶员完成中文版驾驶风格量表。结果驾驶风格的性别差异显著。男性驾驶风格以冒险型和愤怒型为主,女性驾驶风格以焦虑型为主。驾驶员在感觉寻求、愤怒、分心维度上的得分随着年龄的增长而下降。有交通违规记录的驾驶员在愤怒、冒险、分心和焦虑维度上的得分均高于无违规记录的驾驶员,且差异显著。结论驾驶员的驾驶风格越倾向于冒险型、愤怒型和焦虑型,他们的交通违规次数也越多,应当针对危险驾驶行为采取适当有效的预防和干预措施。     

The Dula Dangerous Driving Index in China: An investigation of reliability and validity

The aim of this study was to translate the Dula Dangerous Driving Index (DDDI) into Chinese and to verify its reliability and validity. A total of 246 drivers completed the Chinese version of the DDDI and the Driver Behavior Questionnaire (DBQ). Specific sociodemographic variables and traffic violations were also measured. A confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the internal structure of the DDDI, and the four-factor model was supported in China. Measures of convergent and criterion validity demonstrated that the Chinese DDDI was valid. Its convergent validity was supported by its positive relationship with the DBQ, and its criterion validity was tested using its relationship with self-reported accident involvement and traffic violations. Finally, score comparisons between different demographic groups revealed significant differences, thereby linking age and driving years to dangerous driving.     

Differentiating risky and aggressive driving: Further support of the internal validity of the Dula Dangerous Driving Index

The Dula Dangerous Driving Index (DDDI) is a cross-cultural validated instrument that measures simultaneously various manifestations of behaviours, cognitions, and affects associated with dangerous driving. The aims of the study were to translate the DDDI into French and then to verify the validity and reliability of the French version of the scale by means of observed behaviours on a driving simulator, and of self-reported measures of driving behaviours, personality and sociodemographic characteristics. A first sample of 395 drivers completed self-reported questionnaires and a second sample of 75 male drivers also completed tasks on a driving simulator. A confirmatory factorial analysis supported the internal validity of the scale. Findings also show that the French version of the DDDI yields good internal consistency, concomitant and convergent validity for each subscale (risky driving, negative cognitive/emotional driving and aggressive driving) and total score. The scale was useful to differentiate sociodemographic and psychological profiles associated with each subscale.     

中德驾驶员驾驶愤怒行为比较

目的采用中文版与德文版Driving Angry Scale（DAS）对中国大陆与德国驾驶员进行施测,比较中德两国驾驶员驾驶愤怒水平的差异。方法将DAS分别翻译为中文与德文,通过纸质问卷发放以及网络调查的方式对259名中国大陆的驾驶员与472名德国驾驶员的愤怒驾驶水平进行测量。结果中国驾驶员的驾驶愤怒概念与13项目6维度模型拟合较好,德国驾驶员的驾驶愤怒概念则与14项目6维度模型拟合较好;中国驾驶员总的驾驶愤怒水平要显著低于德国驾驶员,且中国被试随着年龄的增加,驾驶愤怒水平也在增加;德国驾驶员的驾驶愤怒水平则是随着年龄的增加而减少,且随着驾龄增加而减少。结论中国驾驶员的＂驾驶愤怒＂概念与原6维度模型有较大差别,而德国驾驶员的＂驾驶愤怒＂概念组成则与原先的6维度模型差别不大。     

Development of a short form of the driving anger expression inventory

The present study developed a revised version of the driving anger expression inventory (25-items) and a short (15-item) version using data from 551 drivers. Split half factor analyses on both versions confirmed the original four factors; personal physical aggressive expression, use of a vehicle to express anger, verbal aggressive expression and adaptive/constructive expression. The two DAX versions were strongly correlated, demonstrating the suitability of both forms of the scale and the aggressive forms of expression were higher for drivers who reported initiating road rage interactions. Total aggressive expression was also higher for drivers who reported recent crash-related conditions, such as: loss of concentration, losing control of their vehicle, moving violations, near-misses and major crashes. The revised DAX and DAX-short provide shorter versions of the 49-item DAX that can more easily be combined with other questionnaires and require smaller sample sizes to analyse. Further research is required to validate these tools among different samples and populations.     

Validation of the Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire (DATQ) in a Chinese sample

The relationship between driving anger and negative driving outcomes, such as dangerous driving behaviors and traffic violations, has been the topic of several studies, but few studies have explored drivers’ angry thoughts when they encounter anger-provoking situations and the potential consequences of such thoughts. The purpose of this study was to investigate drivers’ angry thoughts behind the wheel and their relationship with dangerous driving behaviors. A total of 303 Chinese drivers completed the Chinese version of the Driver’s Angry Thoughts Questionnaire (DATQ), the Dula Dangerous Driving Index (DDDI) and the Driving Anger Scale (DAS). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the Chinese DATQ yielded a five-factor solution with 20 items that showed the best goodness of fit for the data. The brief DATQ also showed good reliability and validity. Three forms of aggressive thinking were positively correlated with dangerous driving behaviors, and coping self-instruction was negatively correlated with dangerous driving behaviors and traffic violations. More importantly, aggressive thinking mediated the effect of driving anger on dangerous driving behaviors, indicating the importance of thoughts behind the wheel. These results provide evidence supporting the development of strategies to reduce and prevent aggressive driving and accidents.     

谈判主观价值问卷的修订及信效度检验

本研究引进谈判主观价值问卷（SVI）,首次在国内加以修订。对该问卷所有项目进行翻译、修改,并采用两人组分配式模拟谈判情境,对问卷进行了项目分析、信度分析、聚合与辨别效度分析。分配与整合式模拟谈判的结果均验证了该问卷的三因子结构。本研究表明中文版谈判主观价值问卷具有良好的信度、效度,是谈判社会心理结果的有效测量工具。