An application of the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire in a large Australian organisational fleeting setting : can it predict crashes and demerit point loss?

This study reports on the utilisation of the Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) to examine the self-reported driving behaviours of a large sample of Australian fleet drivers (N = 3414). Surveys were completed by employees before they commenced a one day safety workshop intervention. Factor analysis techniques identified a three factor solution similar to previous research, which was comprised of: (a) errors, (b) highway-code violations and (c) aggressive driving violations. Two items traditionally related with highway-code violations were found to be associated with aggressive driving behaviours among the current sample. Multivariate analyses revealed that exposure to the road, errors and self-reported offences predicted crashes at work in the last 12 months, while gender, highway violations and crashes predicted offences incurred while at work. Importantly, those who received more fines at work were at an increased risk of crashing the work vehicle. However, overall, the DBQ demonstrated limited efficacy at predicting these two outcomes. This paper outlines the major findings of the study in regards to identifying and predicting aberrant driving behaviours and also highlights implications regarding the future utilisation of the DBQ within fleet settings.

Using the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire to predict crashes and demerit point loss : does it get better with larger sample sizes?

The Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) continues to be the most widely utilised self-report scale globally to assess crash risk and aberrant driving behaviours among motorists. However, the scale also attracts criticism regarding its perceived limited ability to accurately identify those most at risk of crash involvement. This study reports on the utilisation of the DBQ to examine the self-reported driving behaviours (and crash outcomes) of drivers in three separate Australian fleet samples (N = 443, N = 3414, & N = 4792), and whether combining the samples increases the tool’s predictive ability. Either on-line or paper versions of the questionnaire were completed by fleet employees in three organisations. Factor analytic techniques identified either three or four factor solutions (in each of the separate studies) and the combined sample produced expected factors of: (a) errors, (b) highway-code violations and (c) aggressive driving violations. Highway code violations (and mean scores) were comparable across the studies. However, across the three samples, multivariate analyses revealed that exposure to the road was the best predictor of crash involvement at work, rather than DBQ constructs. Furthermore, combining the scores to produce a sample of 8649 drivers did not improve the predictive ability of the tool for identifying crashes (e.g., 0.4% correctly identified) or for demerit point loss (0.3%). The paper outlines the major findings of this comparative sample study in regards to utilising self-report measurement tools to identify “at risk” drivers as well as the application of such data to future research endeavours.

The Driver Behaviour Questionnaire as accident predictor: A methodological re-meta-analysis

Problem The Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) is the most commonly used self-report tool in traffic safety research and applied settings. It has been claimed that the violation factor of this instrument predicts accident involvement, which was supported by a previous meta-analysis. However, that analysis did not test for methodological effects, or include contacting researchers to obtain unpublished results. Method The present study re-analysed studies on prediction of accident involvement from DBQ factors, including lapses, and many unpublished effects. Tests of various types of dissemination bias and common method variance were undertaken. Results Outlier analysis showed that some effects were probably not reliable data, but excluding them did not change the results. For correlations between violations and crashes, tendencies for published effects to be larger than unpublished ones and for effects to decrease over time were observed, but were not significant. Also, analysis using the proxy of the mean of accidents in studies indicated that studies where effects for violations are unknown have smaller effect sizes. These differences indicate dissemination bias. Studies using self-reported accidents as dependent variables had much larger effects than those using recorded accident data. Also, zero-order correlations were larger than partial correlations that controlled for exposure. Similarly, violations/accidents effects were strong only when there was also a strong correlation between accidents and exposure. Overall, the true effect is probably very close to zero (r<.07) for violations versus traffic accident involvement, depending upon which systematic tendencies in the data are controlled for. Conclusions: Methodological factors and dissemination bias have inflated the mean effect size of the DBQ in the published literature. Strong evidence of various artefactual effects is apparent. Practical Applications A greater level of care should be taken if the DBQ continues to be used in traffic safety research. Also, validation of self-reports should be more comprehensive in the future, taking into account the possibility of common method variance.

Commentaries and Responses to "The Driver Behaviour Questionnaire as a predictor of accidents: A meta-analysis" [Commentaries lead by Anders af Wahlberg; Responses lead by J.C.F. de Winter]

The following discussion is in response to a 2010 article published in the Journal of Safety Research by J.C.F. de Winter and D. Dodou entitled “The Driver Behaviour Questionnaire as a predictor of accidents: A meta-analysis” (Volume 41, Number 6, pp. 463-470, available on sciencedirect.com). The editors are pleased to provide a forum for this exchange and welcome further comments.

Identifying an appropriate driving behaviour scale for the occupational driving context : the DBQ vs. the ODBQ

Self reported driving behaviour in the occupational driving context has typically been measured through scales adapted from the general driving population (i.e. the Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ)). However, research suggests that occupational driving is influenced by unique factors operating within the workplace environment, and thus, a behavioural scale should reflect those behaviours prevalent and unique within the driving context. To overcome this limitation, developed the Occupational Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (ODBQ) which utilises a relevant theoretical model to assess the impact of the broader workplace context on driving behaviour. Although the theoretical argument has been established, research is yet to examine whether the ODBQ or the DBQ is a more sensitive measure of the workplace context. As such, this paper identifies selected organisational factors (i.e. safety climate and role overload) as predictors of the DBQ and the ODBQ and compares the relative predictive value in both models. In undertaking this task, 248 occupational drivers were recruited from a community-oriented nursing population. As predicted, hierarchical regression analyses revealed that the organisational factors accounted for a significantly greater proportion of variance in the ODBQ than the DBQ. These findings offer a number of practical and theoretical applications for occupational driving practice and future research.

The risky behaviour of young drivers : developing a measurement tool

The contribution of risky behaviour to the increased crash and fatality rates of young novice drivers is recognised in the road safety literature around the world. Exploring such risky driver behaviour has led to the development of tools like the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) to examine driving violations, errors, and lapses [1]. Whilst the DBQ has been utilised in young novice driver research, some items within this tool seem specifically designed for the older, more experienced driver, whilst others appear to asses both behaviour and related motives. The current study was prompted by the need for a risky behaviour measurement tool that can be utilised with young drivers with a provisional driving licence. Sixty-three items exploring young driver risky behaviour developed from the road safety literature were incorporated into an online survey. These items assessed driver, passenger, journey, car and crash-related issues. A sample of 476 drivers aged 17-25 years (M = 19, SD = 1.59 years) with a provisional driving licence and matched for age, gender, and education were drawn from a state-wide sample of 761 young drivers who completed the survey. Factor analysis based upon a principal components extraction of factors was followed by an oblique rotation to investigate the underlying dimensions to young novice driver risky behaviour. A five factor solution comprising 44 items was identified, accounting for 55% of the variance in young driver risky behaviour. Factor 1 accounted for 32.5% of the variance and appeared to measure driving violations that were transient in nature - risky behaviours that followed risky decisions that occurred during the journey (e.g., speeding). Factor 2 accounted for 10.0% of variance and appeared to measure driving violations that were fixed in nature; the risky decisions being undertaken before the journey (e.g., drink driving). Factor 3 accounted for 5.4% of variance and appeared to measure misjudgment (e.g., misjudged speed of oncoming vehicle). Factor 4 accounted for 4.3% of variance and appeared to measure risky driving exposure (e.g., driving at night with friends as passengers). Factor 5 accounted for 2.8% of variance and appeared to measure driver emotions or mood (e.g., anger). Given that the aim of the study was to create a research tool, the factors informed the development of five subscales and one composite scale. The composite scale had a very high internal consistency measure (Cronbach’s alpha) of .947. Self-reported data relating to police-detected driving offences, their crash involvement, and their intentions to break road rules within the next year were also collected. While the composite scale was only weakly correlated with self-reported crashes (r = .16, p < .001), it was moderately correlated with offences (r = .26, p < .001), and highly correlated with their intentions to break the road rules (r = .57, p < .001). Further application of the developed scale is needed to confirm the factor structure within other samples of young drivers both in Australia and in other countries. In addition, future research could explore the applicability of the scale for investigating the behaviour of other types of drivers.

The Behaviour of Young Novice Drivers Scale (BYNDS)

The contribution of risky behaviour to the increased crash and fatality rates of young novice drivers is recognised in the road safety literature around the world. Exploring such risky driver behaviour has led to the development of tools like the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) to examine driving violations, errors, and lapses. Whilst the DBQ has been utilised in young novice driver research, some items within this tool seem specifically designed for the older, more experienced driver, whilst others appear to asses both behaviour and related motives. Therefore there is a need for a risky behaviour measurement tool that can be utilised with young drivers with a provisional (intermediate) driving licence.

The wrong tool for the job? The predictive powers of the DBQ in a sample of Queensland motorists

Introduction This study reports on the application of the Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) to examine the self-reported driving behaviours (e.g., speeding, errors & aggressive manoeuvres) and predict crash involvement among a sample of general Queensland motorists. Material and Methods Surveys were completed by 249 general motorists on-line or via a pen-and-paper format. Results A factor analysis revealed a three factor solution for the DBQ which was consistent with previous Australian-based research. It accounted for 40.5% of the total variance, although some cross-loadings were observed on nine of the twenty items. The internal reliability of the DBQ was satisfactory. However, multivariate analysis using the DBQ revealed little predictive ability of the tool to predict crash involvement or demerit point loss e.g. violation notices. Rather, exposure to the road was found to be predictive of crashes, although speeding did make a small contribution to those who recently received a violation notice. Conclusions Taken together, the findings contribute to a growing body of research that raises questions about the predictive ability of the most widely used driving assessment tool globally. Ongoing research (which also includes official crash and offence outcomes) is required to better understand the actual contribution that the DBQ can make to understanding and improving road safety. Future research should also aim to confirm whether this lack of predictive efficacy originates from broader issues inherent within self-report data (e.g., memory recall problems) or issues underpinning the conceptualisation of the scale.

The relative impact of work-related stress, life stress and driving environment stress on driving outcomes

Previous research has shown the association between stress and crash involvement. The impact of stress on road safety may also be mediated by behaviours including cognitive lapses, errors, and intentional traffic violations. This study aimed to provide a further understanding of the impact that stress from different sources may have upon driving behaviour and road safety. It is asserted that both stress extraneous to the driving environment and stress directly elicited by driving must be considered part of a dynamic system that may have a negative impact on driving behaviours. Two hundred and forty-seven public sector employees from Queensland, Australia, completed self-report measures examining demographics, subjective work-related stress, daily hassles, and aspects of general mental health. Additionally, the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) and the Driver Stress Inventory (DSI) were administered. All participants drove for work purposes regularly, however the study did not specifically focus on full-time professional drivers. Confirmatory factor analysis of the predictor variables revealed three factors: DSI negative affect; DSI risk taking; and extraneous influences (daily hassles, work-related stress, and general mental health). Moderate intercorrelations were found between each of these factors confirming the ‘spillover’ effect. That is, driver stress is reciprocally related to stress in other domains including work and domestic life. Structural equation modelling (SEM) showed that the DSI negative affect factor influenced both lapses and errors, whereas the DSI risk-taking factor was the strongest influence on violations. The SEMs also confirmed that daily hassles extraneous to the driving environment may influence DBQ lapses and violations independently. Accordingly, interventions may be developed to increase driver awareness of the dangers of excessive emotional responses to both driving events and daily hassles (e.g. driving fast to ‘blow off steam’ after an argument). They may also train more effective strategies for self-regulation of emotion and coping when encountering stressful situations on the road.

Real or imagined? A study exploring the existence of common method variance effects in road safety research

Common method variance (CMV) has received little attention within the field of road safety research despite a heavy reliance on self-report data. Two surveys were completed by 214 motorists over a two-month period, allowing associations between social desirability and key road safety variables and relationships between scales across the two survey waves to be examined. Social desirability was found to have a strong negative correlation with the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) sub-scales as well as age, but not with crashes and offences. Drivers who scored higher on the social desirability scale were also less likely to report aberrant driving behaviours as measured by the DBQ. Controlling for social desirability did not substantially alter the predictive relationship between the DBQ and the crash and offences variables. The strength of the correlations within and between the two waves were also compared with the results strongly suggesting that effects associated with CMV were present. Identification of CMV would be enhanced by the replication of this study with a larger sample size and comparing self-report data with official sources.

It wasn't my fault : does crash culpability improve predictive outcomes in a self-report study?

Introduction: Research that has focused on the ability of self-report assessment tools to predict crash outcomes has proven to be mixed. As a result, researchers are now beginning to explore whether examining culpability of crash involvement can subsequently improve this predictive efficacy. This study reports on the application of the Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) to predict crash involvement among a sample of general Queensland motorists, and in particular, whether including a crash culpability variable improves predictive outcomes. Surveys were completed by 249 general motorists on-line or via a pen-and-paper format. Results: Consistent with previous research, a factor analysis revealed a three factor solution for the DBQ accounting for 40.5% of the overall variance. However, multivariate analysis using the DBQ revealed little predictive ability of the tool to predict crash involvement. Rather, exposure to the road was found to be predictive of crashes. An analysis into culpability revealed 88 participants reported being “at fault” for their most recent crash. Corresponding between and multi-variate analyses that included the culpability variable did not result in an improvement in identifying those involved in crashes. Conclusions: While preliminary, the results suggest that including crash culpability may not necessarily improve predictive outcomes in self-report methodologies, although it is noted the current small sample size may also have had a deleterious effect on this endeavour. This paper also outlines the need for future research (which also includes official crash and offence outcomes) to better understand the actual contribution of self-report assessment tools, and culpability variables, to understanding and improving road safety.

Articulating cooperative systems and driver behaviour theories

There has been increased research interest in Co-operative Vehicle Infrastructure Systems (CVIS) from the eld of Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). However most of the research have focused on the engineering aspects and overlooked their relevance to the drivers' behaviour. This paper argues that the priority for cooperative systems is the need to improve drivers decision making and reduce drivers' crash risk exposure to improve road safety. Therefore any engineering solutions need to be considered in conjuction with traffic psychology theories on driver behaviour. This paper explores the advantages and limitations of existing systems and emphasizes various theoretical issues that arise in articulating cooperative systems' capabilities and drivers' behaviour.

Driver behaviour and decision making at railway level crossings : An exploratory on-road case study

Crashes at rail level crossings represent a significant problem, both in Australia and worldwide. Advances in driving assessment methods, such as the provision of on-road instrumented test vehicles, now provide researchers with the opportunity to further understand driver behaviour at rail level crossings in ways not previously possible. This paper gives an overview of a recent on-road pilot study of driver behaviour at rail level crossings in which 25 participants drove a pre-determined route, incorporating 4 rail level crossings, using MUARC's instrumented On-Road Test Vehicle (ORTeV). Drivers provided verbal commentary whilst driving the route, and a range of other data were collected, including eye fixations, forward, cockpit and driver video, and vehicle data (speed, braking, steering wheel angle, lane tracking etc). Participants also completed a post trial cognitive task analysis interview. Extracts from the wider analyses are used to examine in depth driver behaviour at one of the rail level crossings encountered during the study. The analysis presented, along with the overall analysis undertaken, gives insight into the driver and wider systems factors that shape behaviour at rail level crossings, and highlights the utility of using a multi-method, instrumented vehicle approach for gathering data regarding driver behaviour in different contexts.