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。     

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。     

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。     

多维度驾驶风格量表的修订及初步应用

目的:检验修订版多维度驾驶风格量表在我国驾驶员测量中的信度、效度和适用性。方法:采用"滚雪球"方法在全国20个大中城市先后分两次选取总共655名驾驶员参加本次研究,样本分为两部分。结果:样本1的测量结果显示:修订后的驾驶风格量表由24个题目组成,分为5个因素,累计贡献率为54.27%。量表各因素与总分的相关系数在0.60~0.77之间,均P0.001。量表总的内部一致性系数为0.86,各个因素的内部一致性系数在0.70~0.82之间。样本2的测量结果验证了修订版驾驶风格量表的结构有效性和适用性。结论:修订版驾驶风格量表具有良好的信度和效度,可以作为今后进一步研究的测量工具。     

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。     

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。     

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。     

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。     

多维度交通心理控制源量表的修订及信效度分析

目的修订多维度交通心理控制源量表及检验其信效度。方法两次随机选择了700名驾驶员,被试依次完成了多维度交通心理控制源量表和驾驶行为量表。结果修订后的多维度交通心理控制源量表共16个项目,分为其他驾驶员、自我、车辆和环境、命运4个维度。量表总的信度是0.87。各因素与量表总分的相关系数都在0.55以上,且P0.01,表明量表的内容效度较好。结论修订后的多维度交通心理控制源量表信效度良好,可以做为测量我国驾驶员心理控制源的一个工具。     

Parents’ perceptions of the family climate for road safety

The current study examined the applicability of the Family Climate for Road Safety Scale (FCRSS; Taubman-Ben-Ari and Katz-Ben-Ami, 2013) to the parents of young drivers. The sample consisted of 549 parents and 234 of their children, all of whom completed the FCRSS. In addition, the parents completed the multidimensional driving style inventory (MDSI; Taubman-Ben-Ari et al., 2004) and provided background data (e.g., age, gender). Confirmatory factor analysis supported a slightly modified structure of the scale for parents. Examination of the correlations revealed significant weak to strong associations between parents’ scores on the various FCRSS dimensions on the one hand, and their self-reported driving styles and offspring’s perceptions of the family climate for safety on the other. The findings indicate that the FCRSS is suitable for use with the parents of young drivers, and that perceptions of the family climate are shared by the two generations. Furthermore, they show that family climate is related to parents’ customary driving behavior, with the careful driving style positively related to the positive dimensions of the FCRSS. The discussion stresses the importance of the parents’ influence on the manner in which their children drive, and the multifaceted nature of this influence. Moreover, it indicates the potential value of the FCRSS, both for research and for designing interventions and measuring their effectiveness.     

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.     

Mental self-government: development of the additional democratic learning style scale using Rasch measurement models

This paper describes the development and validation of a democratic learning style scale intended to fill a gap in Sternberg's theory of mental self-government and the associated learning style inventory (Sternberg, 1988, 1997). The scale was constructed as an 8-item scale with a 7-category response scale. The scale was developed following an adapted version of DeVellis' (2003) guidelines for scale development. The validity of the Democratic Learning Style Scale was assessed by items analysis using graphical loglinear Rasch models (Kreiner and Christensen, 2002, 2004, 2006) The item analysis confirmed that the full 8-item revised Democratic Learning Style Scale fitted a graphical loglinear Rasch model with no differential item functioning but weak to moderate uniform local dependence between two items. In addition, a reduced 6-item version of the scale fitted the pure Rasch model with a rating scale parameterization. The revised Democratic Learning Style Scale can therefore be regarded as a sound measurement scale meeting requirements of both construct validity and objectivity.     

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.     

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.     

Family climate for road safety: A new concept and measure

This research adapted the workplace concept of safety climate to the domain of safe driving, defining a new construct of “family climate for road safety”. Four studies were conducted in Israel with the aim of developing and validating a multidimensional instrument to assess this construct among young drivers. Study 1 (n = 632) focused on developing the Family Climate for Road Safety Scale (FCRSS), a self-report scale assessing the family climate by means of seven aspects of the parent–child relationship: Modeling, Feedback, Communication, Monitoring, Noncommitment, Messages, and Limits. Significant differences were found between young men and women on all factors. In addition, significant associations were found between the FCRSS factors on the one hand, and the reported frequency of risky driving and personal commitment to safety on the other. Studies 2–4 confirmed the factorial structure of the FCRSS and the reliability of its factors, adding to its criterion and convergent validity. Study 2 (n = 178) yielded significant associations between the scale and young drivers’ perception of their parents as involved, encouraging autonomy, and providing warmth; Study 3 (n = 117) revealed significant associations between the scale and youngsters’ reported proneness to take risks while driving, as well as significant associations between the factors and various dimensions of family functioning; and Study 4 (n = 156) found associations between the FCRSS factors and both driving styles (risky, angry, anxious, careful) and family cohesion and adaptability. The discussion deals with the validity and utility of the concept of family climate for road safety and its measurement, addressing the practical implications for road safety.     

Assessing dangerous driving behavior during driving inattention: Psychometric adaptation and validation of the Attention-Related Driving Errors Scale in China

Driver inattention is a significant cause of motor vehicle collisions and incidents. The purpose of this study was to translate the Attention-Related Driving Error Scale (ARDES) into Chinese and to verify its reliability and validity. A total of 317 drivers completed the Chinese version of the ARDES, the Dula Dangerous Driving Index (DDDI), the Attention-Related Cognitive Errors Scale (ARCES) and the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) questionnaires. Specific sociodemographic variables and traffic violations were also measured. Psychometric results confirm that the ARDES-China has adequate psychometric properties (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88) to be a useful tool for evaluating proneness to attentional errors in the Chinese driving population. First, ARDES-China scores were positively correlated with both DDDI scores and number of accidents in the prior year; in addition, ARDES-China scores were a significant predictor of dangerous driving behavior as measured by DDDI. Second, we found that ARDES-China scores were strongly correlated with ARCES scores and negatively correlated with MAAS scores. Finally, different demographic groups exhibited significant differences in ARDES scores; in particular, ARDES scores varied with years of driving experience.