Comparison of self-report and objective measures of driving behavior and road safety: A systematic review |
| |
| Institution: | 1. School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia Campus, Brisbane 4072, Australia;2. University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, University of Michigan, 2901 Baxter Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA;3. Queensland University of Technology, Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q), Victoria Park Road, Kelvin Grove, Queensland 4059, Australia;1. Department of Neurology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA;2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA;3. Veteran’s Administration Health Care System, Iowa City, IA, USA;4. Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA;5. Public Policy Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA;6. Neurological Sciences, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA;1. Cognition, Langues, Langage, Ergonomie – Laboratoire Travail et Cognition (CLLE-LTC), UMR 5263, CNRS, Université de Toulouse Le Mirail, Toulouse, France;2. Université de Lyon, F-69622 Lyon, France;3. IFSTTAR, LESCOT, F-69675 Bron, France;4. Laboratoire d’Etude des Mécanismes Cognitifs (EMC), EA 3082, Université Lumière Lyon 2, Lyon, France;1. Curtin-Monash Accident Research Centre (C-MARC), Curtin University, Perth, Australia;2. Eye & Vision Epidemiology Research (EVER) Group, Perth, Australia;3. School of Population Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | IntroductionThis research systematically reviewed the existing literature in regards to studies which have used both self-report and objective measures of driving behavior. The objective of the current review was to evaluate disparities or similarities between self-report and objective measures of driving behavior.MethodsSearches were undertaken in the following electronic databases, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Scopus, for peer-reviewed full-text articles that (1) focused on road safety, and (2) compared both subjective and objective measures of driving performance or driver safety. A total of 22,728 articles were identified, with 19 articles, comprising 20 studies, included as part of the review.ResultsThe research reported herein suggested that for some behaviors (e.g., driving in stressful situations) there were similarities between self-report and objective measures while for other behaviors (e.g., sleepiness and vigilance states) there were differences between these measurement techniques. In addition, findings from some studies suggested that in-vehicle devices may be a valid measurement tool to assess driving exposure in older drivers.ConclusionsFurther research is needed to examine the correspondence between self-report and objective measures of driving behavior. In particular, there is a need to increase the number of studies which compare “like with like” as it is difficult to draw comparisons when there are variations in measurement tools used.Practical applicationsIncorporating a range of objective and self-report measurements tools in research would help to ensure that the methods used offer the most reliable measures of assessing on-road behaviors. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
