Journal of Safety Research 50 (2014) 99–107

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Safety Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsr

The Driver Behaviour Questionnaire: A North American analysis

Sheila T.D. Cordazzo, Charles T. Scialfa ⁎, Katherine Bubric, Rachel Jones Ross
Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive, N.W. Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Introduction: The Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ), originally developed in Britain by Reason et al. [Reason,
Received 27 August 2013 J., Manstead, A., Stradling, S., Baxter, J., & Campbell, K. (1990). Errors and violations on the road: A real distinction?
Received in revised form 17 April 2014 Ergonomics, 33, 1315–1332] is one of the most widely used instruments for measuring driver behaviors linked to
Accepted 1 May 2014 collision risk. Method: The goals of the study were to adapt the DBQ for a North American driving population, as-
Available online 16 May 2014
sess the component structure of the items, and to determine whether scores on the DBQ could predict self-
reported traffic collisions. Results: Of the original Reason et al. items, our data indicate a two-component solution
Keywords:
Lapses
involving errors and violations. Evidence for a Lapses component was not found. The 20 items most closely re-
Errors sembling those of Parker et al. [Parker, D., Reason, J. T., Manstead, A. S. R., & Stradling, S. G. (1995). Driving errors,
Violations driving violations and accident involvement. Ergonomics, 38, 1036–1048] yielded a solution with 3 orthogonal
Driver behavior components that reflect errors, lapses, and violations. Although violations and Lapses were positively and signif-
Collisions icantly correlated with self-reported collision involvement, the classification accuracy of the resulting models
was quite poor. Practical applications: A North American DBQ has the same component structure as reported pre-
viously, but has limited ability to predict self-reported collisions.
© 2014 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction accounted for 33% of the variance in responses; these were identified as
violations, errors, and lapses. Violations were defined as “deliberate devi-
Drivers often engage in behaviors that pose a risk to both themselves and ations from those practices believed necessary to maintain the safe oper-
to other road users. While many of these unsafe actions are active, conscious ation of a potentially hazardous system” (pp. 1316), in other words, a
rule violations, others are the result of errors due to inexperience, momentary violation is the breach of a law or socially accepted code of behavior. Com-
mistakes or inattention. Intentional or not, both rule violations and deficien- mon examples are speeding and driving while under the influence of
cies in memory, judgment, or situational awareness can and do contribute drugs or alcohol. In contrast, errors were defined as “the failure of planned
to traffic collisions (Stanton & Salmon, 2009; Wierwille et al., 2002). Because actions to achieve their intended consequences” (p. 1315). Errors have
of this, there is a need for tools that can measure these behaviors and the been divided into slips/lapses and mistakes, both of which are unintended
frequency with which they are committed, and can determine which specific deviations of action from intention. Slips are actions that were not
actions predict traffic collision involvement. planned (e.g., turn on the headlights instead of wipers), and lapses are re-
For more than two decades, there has been a body of research pub- lated to memory failures (e.g., forget the route one is driving or locking
lished regarding the creation, modification, and evaluation of one such one's keys in the vehicle). Mistakes are faults of judgment or decision-
tool. In 1990, Reason, Manstead, Stradling, Baxter, and Campbell, intro- making, such as underestimating the speed of an oncoming vehicle.
duced a 50-item, self-report Driver Behaviour Questionnaire, in which Following on Reason et al.'s work, Parker, Reason, Manstead, and
drivers rated the frequency of risky behaviors executed while driving. Stradling (1995) selected the 8 items that had the highest component
Winter and Dodou (2010) identified almost 200 studies that have loadings for violations, errors, and lapses and administered this abbrevi-
since used the DBQ in part or in its entirety. af Wåhlberg, Dorn, and ated instrument to a sample of 1,656 British drivers, with an age range
Kline (2011) concur that the DBQ is one of the most widely used of 17–70 years. The same three-component solution reported by
instruments for measuring driving behavior. Reason et al. (1990) was obtained.
The original publication (Reason, Manstead, Stradling, Baxter, & Since its creation, the DBQ has been modified, updated, and adapted
Campbell, 1990) involved a sample of over 500 drivers at least 20 years for a variety of driving environments and populations (e.g., Aberg &
of age. Principal components analysis identified three factors that Rimmo, 1998; Bener, Ozkan, & Lajunen, 2008; Gabaude, Marquie, &
Obriot-Claudel, 2010; Kontogiannis, Kossiavelou, & Marmaras, 2002).
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 403 220 4951; fax: +1 403 282 8249.
For example, Blockey and Hartley (1995) gave an Australian version to
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.T.D. Cordazzo), [email protected] a sample of 135 predominantly young drivers. They also obtained a
(C.T. Scialfa), [email protected] (K. Bubric), [email protected] (R.J. Ross). three-component solution that explained 27.7% of the total variance,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2014.05.002
0022-4375/© 2014 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
100 S.T.D. Cordazzo et al. / Journal of Safety Research 50 (2014) 99–107

but the loadings suggested a different composition. The components In contrast, af Wåhlberg et al. (2011) argued that the apparent
were identified as general errors, dangerous errors, and dangerous vio- correlation between DBQ responses and collision risk is an artifact of
lations. General Errors were a mixture of slips, mistakes, and uninten- common method variance and social desirability biases (af Wåhlberg,
tional violations with a variable level of risk of a collision. Dangerous 2010) stemming from the self-report nature of the instrument and
Errors were also defined as a combination of slips, mistakes, and unin- collision history. Furthermore, they contend with justification that
tentional violations, with a greater level of risk of a collision. The last self-reports of collision history are prone to systematic biases that may
component, named dangerous violations consisted of those violations inflate the correlation with other self-report measures. They found
with a high risk of collision. Blockey and Hartley suggested that the that the DBQ is able to predict only self-reported traffic collisions and
differences between their study and the original work likely were due not recorded collision data. The issue is complicated further because
to the age and gender differences in the samples, as well as the socio- while self-reported collision history is by no means perfect, archival
economic and cultural differences between the two countries. Despite collision data are also prone to inadequacies (Arthur et al., 2005).
attempting a virtually literal French translation of the Reason et al. in- In the current study, the DBQ was expanded by incorporating a
strument, Gabaude et al. (2010) also reported that their components larger sample of driving behaviors and by modifying test items to be
were more accurately defined by risk level rather than by behavior type. appropriate for a North American population of drivers. One goal was
In general, however, more recent investigations using the DBQ have to determine whether the resulting factor structure was consistent
replicated the three-component structure of violations, errors and with the interpretation that the instrument measures errors, violations
lapses. For example, in 1997, Lawton, Parker, Manstead and Stradling and lapses. A second goal was to ascertain if factor scores varied by age
refined the Violations scale by distinguishing between ordinary and and gender, as previously reported. Finally, we sought to determine
aggressive violations. Ordinary violations were actions that involved whether scores on the DBQ could predict self-reported traffic collisions
disregarding traffic laws, such as running red lights, while aggressive and if so, with what magnitude.
violations held an emotional component, and included behaviors like
getting angry and chasing another vehicle. A structure comprised of 2. Method
slips/lapses, mistakes, ordinary violations, and aggressive violations
has been broadly replicated, although the distinction between ordinary 2.1. Materials
and aggressive violations is not always obtained at the factor or compo-
nent level (Harrison, 2009; Lajunen, Parker, & Summala, 2004; Lawton, A total of 82 items from various versions of the DBQ were considered
Parker, Manstead, & Stradling, 1997; Parker, McDonald, Rabbitt, & initially for inclusion (Kline et al., 1992; Lajunen et al., 2004; Lawton
Sutcliffe, 2000; Parker et al., 1995; Rimmo, 2002). et al., 1997; Ozkan, Lajunen, & Summala, 2006; Parker et al., 1995;
The Swedish version of the DBQ (DBQ-SWE) was created based on the Parker et al., 2000; Reason et al., 1990). From those items, 19 were
original British scales (Parker et al., 1995; Reason et al., 1990), with addi- retained verbatim and 46 were modified as needed to ensure clarity
tional items measuring Errors, resulting in a 104-item scale (Aberg & and relevance for the North American driving context. One example of
Rimmo, 1998). The replication of the Reason et al. items confirmed the a modification was the item “Attempt to drive away from traffic lights
three-component solution, with 32.8% of total variance explained. in third gear” (Lajunen et al., 2004; Ozkan et al., 2006; Parker et al.,
Analysis with the new items added produced a four-component solution, 1995; Reason et al., 1990). Due to the popularization of automatic
with 44% of total variance explained. The components were identified as transmissions in North America, this item was modified to, “Attempt
violations, mistakes, errors by inattention, and errors by inexperience. to leave a parking space in the wrong gear.” A total of 17 items were
Based on the DBQ-SWE, Rimmo (2002) carried out a confirmatory fac- omitted because of repetition, unclear wording, or because they were
tor analysis of a four-factor model comprised of violations, mistakes, inat- not clearly relevant to driving safety or the North American driving
tention errors, and inexperience errors. There were approximately 5,000 context (e.g., “How often do you lock yourself out of your car with the
drivers in 4 different samples divided by age. The model was an approxi- keys still inside?”).
mate fit regardless of age and gender. The author suggested that because An additional 27 items were developed to capture behaviors
the fit to the model was adequate for each age group, differences in the deemed to be related to driving safety, but which were absent from ear-
factor structure between these groups may only be of minor importance. lier versions. For example, items related to distracted driving (e.g., “How
Although Rimmo's work suggests that factor structure is indepen- often do you talk on your cell phone when you are driving?”) and
dent of demographic characteristics, factor scores tend to be related to situations that drivers avoid or have difficulties with (e.g., “How often
both age and gender. Males score higher on the Violations factor, and do you avoid busy or complex roads and intersections?”) were added
females score higher on Lapses (Parker et al., 1995; Reason et al., to the questionnaire. These items were added because of evidence
1990; Winter & Dodou, 2010). Compared to their younger counterparts, that distraction and some kinds of impairments play an increasing role
older drivers report fewer violations and errors, but more slips and in collisions (Frittelli et al., 2009; Regan, Lee, & Young, 2009) or because
lapses (Blockey & Hartley, 1995; Parker et al., 2000; Winter & Dodou, they are particularly relevant for older drivers who make up a growing
2010). Although errors tend to decrease with age, a Swedish study dis- segment of the driving population (cf., Kline et al., 1992). Finally, 13
tinguished between errors of inexperience and errors of inattention, items with reversed wording were added to encourage respondents to
and found that errors of inattention are more prevalent in older drivers read each question more carefully and to avoid the response biases in
(Aberg & Rimmo, 1998). single-valence tests (Allen & Seaman, 2007). For example, correspond-
The DBQ has also been used as a predictor of individual differences in ing to “Drive with a seatbelt on” we added, “Drive without a seatbelt
collision involvement, but there is considerable debate concerning its on.” In total then, there were 105 items in the instrument. For this
predictive utility. Davey, Wishart, Freeman, and Watson (2007), paper, only items that most clearly matched those in two common
Ozkan and Lajunen (2005) and Parker et al. (1995) among others versions of the DBQ (Parker et al., 1995; Reason et al., 1990) were con-
have found in their samples that a higher score on the Violations com- sidered. Analysis of the entire set will form the topic of future papers.
ponent was a significant predictor of self-reported collisions. DeLucia, After pilot testing all items on a small sample of 20 specialists in driv-
Bleckley, Meyer, and Bush (2003), Freeman, Wishart, Davey, Rowland, ing, psychology, and scale construction, 5 items were added and 6 items
and Williams (2009), and Sumer (2003) reported an association be- were omitted for reasons of clarity and wording confusion. Responses
tween collisions and the Errors component. In a meta-analysis study, were recorded on a 6-point Likert-type scale with the following
Winter and Dodou (2010) concluded that Errors and Violations are anchors; never, very rarely, occasionally, often, nearly all the time, and
both associated with self-reported traffic collisions, with an overall cor- always. A complete listing of the items and the changes is shown on
relation of .10 and .13, respectively, when based on zero-order effects. Appendix 1.
 S.T.D. Cordazzo et al. / Journal of Safety Research 50 (2014) 99–107 101

2.2. Procedures items that were substantively identical. The direction of the difference
was positive for some of the pairs of items (N = 8) but negative for
This DBQ was distributed in two separate mailings to 15,000 ran- other pairs of items (N = 5). This suggested that respondents had diffi-
domly selected, currently licensed Alberta Motor Association (AMA) culties responding to reverse-coded items. As a consequence, reversed
members over 30 years of age. Because of the lack of younger drivers items were eliminated (N = 13). All missing data (.8%) were replaced
in the AMA membership roles, we collected younger drivers' data with the mean of each variable, based on the entire sample.
from the undergraduate student population at the University of Calgary. The original DBQ (Reason et al., 1990) had 50 items (9 mistakes, 19
Participants in this sample held a valid driver's license, were enrolled in violations, and 22 slips/lapses). In our adaptation and revision, the
psychology courses, and were given course credit for their participation. wording of 29 of these items was modified for clarity among North
There was no monetary compensation or inducement provided to American drivers and 14 items were omitted because they were
the AMA members for responding. This study was approved by the repetitious, confusing, or had an unclear meaning (e.g., “Park on a
Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board (CFREB) of the University of double-yellow line and risk a fine”). Thus, of the original 50 items, 36
Calgary (File # 7207). items were retained (7 mistakes, 13 violations, and 16 slips/lapses).
Reason et al. (1990) analyzed their data using principal components
2.3. Participants analyses (PCA), with a Varimax rotation. For ease of comparison, the
same approach was used here.
Of the questionnaires distributed to AMA members, 19.35% (N = Principal components analysis is a data reduction procedure that is
2902) were completed and returned. Reflecting the population distribu- designed to transform a matrix of correlations into a set of orthogonal
tion of the province, 68% came from people in the Calgary or Edmonton variables that are linear combinations of the original scores. The first
areas. Those few participants from the AMA sample under the age of 30 component accounts for the largest proportion of variance in the
(N = 29) or missing data on age (N = 27) and participants without a original variables. Successive components account for the maximum
valid driver's license (N = 7) were excluded. Thus, the AMA sample remaining variance with the restriction that they are uncorrelated
contained data from 2,839 drivers. An additional 484 University of with previously extracted components. Examination of the component
Calgary students completed and returned the survey. From the student loadings (often setting a criterion minimum loading for inclusion in
sample, participants over the age of 30 (N = 23) or missing data on age the component) provides guidance into the interpretation of the com-
(N = 5) were excluded from analyses, yielding 456 respondents. Table 1 ponents. Thus, if the first component consists of items that are related
provides the percentage of participants by age and gender in both to trait A but not trait B, then it is labeled Trait A. The components can
samples. be rotated so as to bring about “simple structure,” where items tend to
In the AMA sample, approximately one-half (53.9%) of the respon- load on one and only one component, facilitating their interpretation.
dents were females. Drivers were, on average, 60.65 years old (SD = Reason et al. (1990) reported that their DBQ yielded three
13.81 years). They rated themselves as generally healthy, with an aver- components, accounting for about 33% of the total variance; violations,
age of 4.04 (SD = .76) on a scale of 1 (very poor) to 5 (excellent). They errors and lapses. In contrast, our data initially produced a six-
had held a valid license for a mean duration of 41.39 years (SD = component solution that explained 40.37% of the total variance. A
13.77 years). Most of the participants (72.4%) reported their annual forced, three-component solution with Varimax rotation, explained
driving distance to be between 5,000 and 25,000 km/year. Some 13% in- 30.96% of the variance, however, the loadings were inconsistent with
dicated that they had experienced at least 1 collision in the past 2 years. the assertion that violations, errors and lapses were being measured.
In the student sample, 42.8% were female with a mean age of Examination of the scree plot suggested a two-component solution
20.95 years (SD = 2.16 years). They had held a driver's license for an with a total variance of 27.06%. For comparison, Table 2 shows the
average of 3.72 years (SD = 2.25 years). For 68.9%, their self-reported prominent loadings with the components labeled from Reason et al.
annual distance driven was between 5,000 and 25,000 km/year. By (1990).
self-report, like the AMA sample, their general health was quite good The first component is a mix of slips/lapses and mistakes that could
(M = 4.35, SD = .69). Reflecting the greater collision risk among be called Errors. As a single scale, it has considerable internal consisten-
younger drivers, 26.7% (N = 122) reported that they had experienced cy, with a Cronbach's alpha of .86 and an average inter-item correlation
at least 1 collision in the past 2 years. of .22. The second component appears to be indexing the propensity for
The sampling strategy was intended to gather data from across the Violations. As a single-component scale, it also has considerable
age span of current drivers but produced a group that did not match reliability, indicated by a Cronbach's alpha of .74 and a mean inter-
the general driving population in age. Specifically, compared to U.S. item correlation of .20.
(U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, As noted previously, Parker et al. developed a shorter version of the
2011) and Canadian (Government of Canada, Transport Canada, 2012) DBQ by selecting 24 of the original 50 items that had high loadings on
statistics, the current data set contains an over-representation of older only 1 of the 3 components obtained. They reported that a PCA with a
drivers. Varimax rotation produced a solution with three components account-
ing for 37.4% of the variance in scores, which they interpreted as
3. Results measuring violations, errors and lapses.
We had 20 items that closely resembled those used by Parker et al.
Items that were reverse-coded, when transformed for comparison, Following their example, these items were analyzed using PCA and a
resulted in significantly different responses on 12 out of 13 pairs of Varimax rotation. A forced, three-component solution accounted for

Table 1
Participants grouped by age in decades and gender in each sample.

Student sample(N = 456) AMA sample (N = 2,839)

Age b19 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70–79 80+ Total

Male 2.4% 5.4% 1.9% 4.7% 9% 10.5% 9.6% 4.1% 47.6%

Female 1.1% 4.8% 4.7% 7.4% 13.1% 10.1% 7.5% 3.8% 52.4%
Total 3.5% 10.2% 6.6% 12.1% 22.1% 20.6% 17.1% 7.9% 100%
102 S.T.D. Cordazzo et al. / Journal of Safety Research 50 (2014) 99–107

Table 2
Rotated component matrix (limited to a 2-component solution).

Brief items Mean (SD) Reason's factors⁎ Component loadings

Misjudge the distance between oncoming vehicles 1.34 (.51) M .637

Fail to notice pedestrians crossing 1.53 (.59) S .597
Turn left into the path of an oncoming vehicle 1.32 (.51) M .589
Fail to notice someone stepping out from behind a bus 1.48 (.58) S .566
Underestimate the speed of an oncoming vehicle 1.63 (.64) S .540
Ignore a yield sign and almost collide 1.25 (.48) V .540
Slam on the brakes to avoid a collision 1.79 (.68) S .536
Get into the wrong lane when approaching 1.72 (.75) M .536
In a line of cars nearly hit the car in front of you 1.39 (.59) S .517
Switch on one thing instead of another 1.64 (.72) S .517
Fail to notice someone waiting at a crosswalk 1.82 (.64) V .514
Brake too hard on a slippery road 1.58 (.64) M .512
Miss your exit on a highway 2.03 (.69) S .476
Hit something when backing up 1.33 (.53) M .459
Misjudge the space available in a parking lot 1.27 (.52) M .440
Forget where you parked your car 2.09 (.89) S .439
Forget that you have your high beams on 1.71 (.64) S .403
Attempt to pass a vehicle that was signaling 1.20 (.48) S .393
Realize you have no clear recollection of the road 1.81 (.84) S .388
When turning right nearly hit a cyclist 1.20 (.45) S .386
Attempt to leave a parking space in the wrong gear 1.18 (.44) S .386
Intending to drive to destination A, realize you are en route to B 1.85 (.77) S .386
Fail to check your mirrors before pulling 1.57 (.82) S .381
Deliberately disregard the speed limit 1.85 (1.07) V .707
Drive especially close to or flash the car in front of you 1.32 (.65) V .644
Try to pass in risky circumstances 1.47 (.72) V .642
Disregard red lights or stop signs at night 1.23 (.58) V .587
Drive while looking at a map or GPS 2.39 (1.11) S .569
Get involved in unofficial races 1.16 (.49) V .545
Drive as fast along country roads at night on low beams 1.65 (1.07) M .493
Take a chance and run a red light 1.29 (.56) V .422
Feel angered by another driver's behavior 1.11 (.44) V .392
Check your speedometer and discover that you are faster 2.97 (1.08) V .348
Fail to yield right-of-way to a bus 1.49 (.81) V .310
Drive the wrong direction down a deserted one-way street 1.11 (.35) V .309
Drive over the legal blood-alcohol limit 1.24 (.63) V .274⁎⁎
Amount of variance explained 16.21% 10.85%
⁎ From Reason et al. (1990); Slips/Lapses (S), Mistakes (M) and Violations (V). Items are abbreviated.
⁎⁎ Because of the strong relationship between alcohol and traffic collisions we decided to keep this item, even though the loading is less than the .30 cut-off used otherwise.

35.71 % of the total variance, and the loadings we obtained were similar Consistent with Parker et al. (1995), the first component reflects er-
to those of Parker et al. (1995). Table 3 shows the results with the com- rors plus two items designated as lapses. Cronbach's alpha for these
ponents labeled to compare results. Factor loadings of less than .30 are items is .74 and the average inter-item correlation is .30. The second
omitted for the sake of clarity. and third components appear to measure lapses and violations. The

Table 3
Rotated component matrix (limited to a 3-component solution).

Brief items Mean (SD) Parker's factors⁎ Component loadings

Ignore a yield sign and almost collide 1.25 (.48) E .614

Fail to notice pedestrians crossing 1.53 (.59) E .589
Underestimate the speed of an oncoming vehicle 1.63 (.64) E .582
Get into the wrong lane when approaching 1.72 (.75) L .545
Fail to check your mirrors before pulling 1.57 (.82) E .511
In a line of cars nearly hit the car in front of you 1.39 (.59) E .503
Brake too hard on a slippery road 1.58 (.64) E .483
When turning right nearly hit a cyclist 1.20 (.45) E .479
Hit something when backing up 1.33 (.53) L .473
Attempt to pass a vehicle that you hadn't noticed was signaling 1.20 (.48) E .412
Intending to drive to destination A, realize you are en route to B 1.85 (.77) L .686
Forget where you parked your car 2.09 (.89) L .659
Realize you have no clear recollection of the road 1.81 (.84) L .595
Switch on one thing instead of another 1.64 (.72) L .560
Attempt to leave a parking space in the wrong gear 1.18 (.44) L .402
Drive especially close to or flash the car in front of you 1.32 (.65) V .722
Get involved in unofficial races 1.16 (.49) V .649
Deliberately disregard the speed limit 1.85 (1.07) V .645
Feel angered by another driver's behavior 1.11 (.44) V .549
Drive over the legal blood-alcohol limit 1.24 (.63) V .277⁎⁎
Amount of variance explained 15.03% 10.42% 10.26%
⁎ From Parker et al. (1995); Errors (E), Lapses (L) and Violations (V). Items are abbreviated.
⁎⁎ Because of the strong relationship between alcohol and traffic collisions we decided to keep this item, even though the loading is less than the .30 cut-off used otherwise.
 S.T.D. Cordazzo et al. / Journal of Safety Research 50 (2014) 99–107 103

Lapses component has an internal consistency of .61 (inter-item corre- Table 5

lation average = .24). The Violations component yielded a Cronbach's Component predictors of self-reported collisions using logistic regressions.

alpha of .55 and an average inter-item correlation of .21. Scale Dependent Predictor R2 Beta p
Regression-type component scores (DiStefano, Zhu, & Mindrila,
Parker et al. items Collisions Errors b.001 .061 .203
2009) from the Reason et al. (1990) and Parker et al. (1995) items Lapses .007 .171 b.001
were regressed on age, gender, and annual distance driven. Table 4 Violations .010 .196 b.001
summarizes these results. Reason et al. items Collisions Errors .003 .106 .027
Violations .017 .254 b.001
For the Parker et al. solution, violations and lapses decreased signif-
icantly with age, while there was no age effect for Errors. Similarly, for
the Reason et al. solution, older adults had lower Violations scores, collision risk (Davey et al., 2007; Freeman et al., 2009; Ozkan & Lajunen,
while there was no association between age and Errors. Males had 2005; Winter & Dodou, 2010), although this association does not obtain
higher scores on the violations component under both solutions, but uniformly and has been challenged on methodological grounds (af
there was no systematic gender effect on Errors. Lapses, calculated Wåhlberg et al., 2011).
only for the Parker et al. solution, were of greater magnitude for females. In the current study, items from the original scale developed by
Interestingly, as exposure increased, drivers reported fewer Lapses and Reason et al. (1990) revealed a structure of two components that can
Errors, but more Violations on Parker et al. items. Similar results were be interpreted as violations and errors. These results are not consistent
found for the comparable Reason et al. components. with Reason et al.'s data that indicated a Lapses component. In some
Binary logistic regression, often used to predict a dichotomous ways, this should not be surprising because our instrument was a mod-
outcome variable from a set of continuous or categorical predictors, ification of the original DBQ both in number and content. Fourteen
was used to determine the ability of the DBQ component scores to items had to be excluded from the original scale because they were
predict self-reported collision involvement. Table 5 shows that most not related clearly to driving safety (i.e., “Lock yourself out of your car
DBQ components are positively correlated with self-reported collisions with the keys still inside”), or because they concerned behaviors
and, in the case of violations and lapses, the association is significant. encountered infrequently in North America (i.e., “Forget which gear
However, the low r-squared values indicate that less than 1% of the var- you are currently in and have to check with your hand”). Still, the cur-
iance in collisions can be accounted for by these predictors. Additionally, rent implementation had an adequate sample of items from all three
the technique allows one to determine the accuracy with which a per- components and the failure of a Lapses component to emerge suggests
son can be classified into the collision or no-collision group, with perfect that these items are in need of revision.
accuracy reflecting both good sensitivity and specificity. Unfortunately, At the measurement model level, our results are in broad agreement
while the classification accuracy of the resulting model was 85%, no one with, and provide an independent, North American assessment of
was predicted to have a collision. That is, because most individuals were Parker et al. (1995) with respect to the component structure of the
collision-free and the association with component scores was so low, DBQ. Similar to their work, the 20 items most closely resembling their
the best prediction for an individual is that they did not report a instrument yielded a solution with three orthogonal components that
collision. appear to reflect errors, lapses and violations.
There are several other ways in which our data are consistent with the
4. Discussion extant literature (Winter & Dodou, 2010) and particularly with that of
Parker et al. (1995). In both studies, males were more likely than females
Since its introduction (Reason et al., 1990), the Driver Behaviour to report violations and age was negatively correlated with Violations
Questionnaire has been used extensively in the attempt to measure scores. In both cases, females scored higher on the Lapses component.
risk-increasing driver behaviors and to predict collision risk. While the As well, non-significant effects of gender were found for the Errors com-
underlying variables measured by the DBQ vary, sometimes substantial- ponent. The only substantive difference between these studies was that
ly across implementations and populations (e.g., Blockey & Hartley, while we found age to be negatively associated with Lapses, Parker et al.
1995; Gabaude et al., 2010), there is some agreement that it provides (1995) found no association between these variables.
an index of violations, mistakes or errors, as well as lapses in attention Can the DBQ be used to predict collision risk? Like Parker et al.,
(Aberg & Rimmo, 1998; Lawton et al., 1997; Parker et al., 1995; Violations scores were associated with self-reported collisions. In con-
Rimmo, 2002). Some components are associated with demographic var- trast, however, we found that Lapses (using the Parker et al. component
iables such as age and gender (Blockey & Hartley, 1995; Parker et al., scores) and Errors (using the Reason et al. component scores) were also
2000). Additionally, there is some evidence that DBQ scores can predict significant predictors of collisions.
Both, Parker et al. (1995) and Reason et al. (1990) suggested that
violations and errors are risky driver behaviors and that lapses are rela-
Table 4 tively harmless. It is no doubt true that violations (e.g., excessive speed)
Demographic predictors of component scores.
and errors/mistakes (e.g., underestimating speed of an oncoming vehi-
Scale Dependent Predictor R2 Beta p cle) are related to collision risk, especially in young adult drivers
Parker et al. items Age .001 .030 .088 (McGwin & Brown, 1999). However, it has become increasingly clear
Errors Gender⁎ b.001 b.001 .985 that lapses, broadly construed as inattention, are an important contrib-
Distance .003 −.054 .002 utor to collisions, including “looked-failed-to-see” incidents (Hills,
Age .032 −.178 b.001
1980; Koustanai, Boloix, Elslande, & Bastien, 2008). In fact, in their
Lapses Gender⁎ .031 .177 b.001
Distance .009 −.094 b.001 meta-analysis, Winter and Dodou (2010) included lapses of several
Age .159 −.399 b.001 types in their Errors category and found that Errors so defined were
Violations Gender⁎ .046 −.213 b.001 positively correlated with self-reported collision involvement.
Distance .026 .160 b.001 The associations found between DBQ component scores and self-
Reason et al. items Errors Age b.001 .006 .743
Gender⁎ .010 .102 b.001
reported collisions suggest some criterion-based validity to the instru-
Distance .012 −.108 b.001 ment. The correlations, in the expected direction, are quite small in
Violations Age .250 −.500 b.001 magnitude. In fact, the associations are so small that adding information
Gender⁎ .044 −.209 b.001 about a person's component scores does not influence whether they are
Distance .037 .192 b.001
predicted to be collision-involved. Thus, from a practical point of view,
⁎ (Male = 1, Female = 2). the current DBQ is of no predictive utility for collision risk.
104 S.T.D. Cordazzo et al. / Journal of Safety Research 50 (2014) 99–107

Even if there is poor classification accuracy of self-reported collisions Bener, A., Ozkan, T., & Lajunen, T. (2008). The Driver Behaviour Questionnaire in Arab Gulf
countries: Qatar and United Arab Emirates. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40,
based on the DBQ, such an instrument has the potential to provide 1411–1417.
valuable information relevant to driver training and evaluation. Indeed, Blockey, P. N., & Hartley, L. R. (1995). Aberrant driving behavior: Errors and violations.
there is a significant association between self-reported collisions and be- Ergonomics, 38, 1759–1771.
Davey, J., Wishart, D., Freeman, J., & Watson, B. (2007). An application of the Driver Be-
haviors such as violations. These results are consistent with the findings haviour Questionnaire in an Australian organisation fleet setting. Transportation
of previous studies (Davey et al., 2007; Ozkan & Lajunen, 2005; Parker Research Part F, 10, 11–21.
et al., 1995), in that a higher score on the Violations component is a DeLucia, P. R., Bleckley, M. K., Meyer, L. E., & Bush, J. M. (2003). Judgements about collision
in younger and older drivers. Transportation Research Part F, 6, 63–80.
significant predictor of self-reported collisions. In our data, both the Vio-
DiStefano, C., Zhu, M., & Mindrila, D. (2009). Understanding and using factor scores:
lations and the Lapses component were significant predictors of collision. Considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research &
Given the size of the driving population, even a small relationship may Evaluation, 14, 1–11.
Dobbs, B. M., & Schopflocher, D. (2010). The introduction of a new screening tool for the
have important economic and safety consequences. If, for example, 1%
identification of cognitively impaired medically at-risk drivers: The SIMARD a modi-
of the collisions can be predicted and there are around 10.8 million fication of the DemTect. Journal of Primary Care & Community Health, 1, 119–127.
collisions in a given year (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012) at an average cost Drummer, O. H., Gerostamoulos, J., Batziris, H., Chu, M., Caplehorn, J., Robertson, M. D.,
of $17,000 for property and liability, then there is the potential to save et al. (2004). The involvement of drugs in drivers of motor vehicles killed in
Australian road traffic crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 239–248.
approximately $1.8 B. Freeman, J., Wishart, D., Davey, J., Rowland, B., & Williams, R. (2009). Utilising the Driver
Additionally, normative data, were it to become available, could be Behaviour Questionnaire in an Australian organisational fleet setting: Can it identify
used by drivers to gauge their relative standing in respect of behaviors risky drivers? Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 20, 38–45.
Frittelli, C., Borghetti, D., Ludice, G., Bonanini, E., Maestri, M., Tognoni, G., et al. (2009). Ef-
that are amenable to remediation (e.g., inadequate mirror checking or fects of Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment on driving ability: A con-
propensity toward distraction). An easily accessed version of the DBQ trolled clinical study by simulated driving test. International Journal of Geriatric
could also be used to assess longitudinal change in global driving difficul- Psychiatry, 24, 232–238.
Gabaude, C., Marquie, J. -C., & Obriot-Claudel, F. (2010). Self-regulatory driving behaviour
ties or specific driving behaviors that may signal the need for more ex- in the elderly: Relationships with aberrant driving behaviours and perceived abilities.
tensive evaluation. This may be particularly valuable to older drivers, Le travail humain, 73, 31–52.
for whom a variety of medical conditions (e.g., dementia) impair driving Government of Canada, Transport Canada (2012). Number of licensed drivers by gender
and by age. http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/roadsafety/tp-tp3322-2004-page11-701.htm
performance (Dobbs & Schopflocher, 2010). (Retrieved from)
Future research must incorporate more items to address the kinds of Harrison, W. (2009). Reliability of the driver behaviour questionnaire in a sample of
behaviors and contexts that are not sampled adequately in the current novice drivers. Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference,
Sydney, New South Wales.
version. Two areas of specific concern are distractions (e.g., texting, talking
Hills, B. L. (1980). Vision, visibility and perception in driving. Perception, 9, 183–216.
at cell phone) and impairment in perception and cognition, the latter rel- Kline, D. W., Kline, T. J., Fozard, J. L., Kosnik, W., Schieber, F., & Sekuler, R. (1992). Vision,
evant not only to the aging population, but also to those driving with def- aging and driving: The problems of older drivers. Journals of Gerontology, 47, 27–34.
icits in attention (Poulsen, Horswill, Wetton, Hill, & Lim, 2010), operating Kontogiannis, T., Kossiavelou, Z., & Marmaras, N. (2002). Self-reports of aberrant behav-
iour on the roads: Errors and violations in a sample of Greek drivers. Accident
vehicles under the influence of drugs that influence performance Analysis and Prevention, 34, 381–399.
(Drummer et al., 2004), and shift workers. We have already begun this re- Koustanai, A., Boloix, E., Elslande, P. V., & Bastien, C. (2008). Statistical analysis of “looked-
search and intend to report the results of this effort in the near future. but-failed-to-see” accidents: Highlighting the involvement of two distinct
mechanisms. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 40, 461–469.
Another direction for future research would be the replication of Lajunen, T., Parker, D., & Summala, H. (2004). The Manchester Driver Behaviour
these same items in other samples from the North America, as the Questionnaire: A cross-cultural study. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 231–238.
sample limitations in this study, especially with the younger drivers, Lawton, R., Parker, D., Manstead, A. S. R., & Stradling, S. G. (1997). The role of affect in
predicting social behaviors: The case of road traffic violations. Journal of Applied
limit the generalizability of our results. Indeed, the younger drivers Social Psychology, 27, 1258–1276.
were not recruited from the random sample because the host organiza- McGwin, G., & Brown, D. B. (1999). Characteristics of traffic crashes among young,
tion has relatively few younger members. Rather, participants were all middle-aged, and older drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 31, 181–198.
Ozkan, T., & Lajunen, T. (2005). A new addition to DBQ: Positive driver behaviours scale.
recruited from the same institution (University of Calgary). The other Transportation Research Part F, 8, 355–368.
age groups were not completely random either, as they were all recruit- Ozkan, T., Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (2006). Driver Behaviour Questionnaire: A follow up
ed from a list of AMA members. Therefore, the replication of these scales study. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38, 386–395.
Parker, D., McDonald, L., Rabbitt, P., & Sutcliffe, P. (2000). Elderly drivers and their
in a truly random sample would help to establish the reliability and
accidents: The aging driver questionnaire. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32,
generalizability of the DBQ NA version. However, even if the present 751–759.
sample is not a perfect fit with the North American population, the Parker, D., Reason, J. T., Manstead, A. S. R., & Stradling, S. G. (1995). Driving errors, driving
reported DBQ serves as a strong foundation for establishing a North violations and accident involvement. Ergonomics, 38, 1036–1048.
Poulsen, A. A., Horswill, M. S., Wetton, M. A., Hill, A., & Lim, S. M. (2010). A brief office-
American version of the instrument. based hazard perception intervention for drivers with ADHD symptoms. Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 44, 528–534.
Reason, J., Manstead, A., Stradling, S., Baxter, J., & Campbell, K. (1990). Errors and
Acknowledgments violations on the road: A real distinction? Ergonomics, 33, 1315–1332.
Regan, M. A., Lee, J. D., & Young, K. L. (2009). Driver distraction: Theory, effects and
This research was funded by a grant from the Alberta Motor Associ- mitigation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Rimmo, P. -A. (2002). Aberrant driving behaviour: Homogeneity of a four-factor structure
ation. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the staff of the in samples differing in age and gender. Ergonomics, 45, 569–582.
Alberta Motor Association, whose efforts were indispensable in the data Stanton, N. A., & Salmon, P. M. (2009). Human error taxonomies applied to driving: A ge-
collection phase of this study. neric driver error taxonomy and its implications for intelligent transport systems.
Safety Science, 47, 227–237.
Sumer, N. (2003). Personality and behavioral predictors of traffic accidents: Testing a
References contextual mediated model. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 949–964.
U.S. Census Bureau (2012). Motor Vehicle Accidents and Fatalities. http://www.census.
Aberg, L., & Rimmo, P. A. (1998). Dimensions of aberrant behavior. Ergonomics, 41, 39–56. gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf ([Data file]. Retrieved from)
af Wåhlberg, A. E. (2010). Social desirability effects in driver behavior inventories. Journal U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (2011). Highway
of Safety Research, 41, 99–106. statistics 2011: Distribution of licensed drivers-2011 by sex and percentage in each
af Wåhlberg, A., Dorn, L., & Kline, T. (2011). The Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire age group and relation to population. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/
as a predictor of road traffic accidents. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 12, 66–86. statistics/2011/dl20.cfm ([Data file]. Retrieved from)
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, C. A. (2007). Likert Scales and data analyses. Quality Progress, 40, Wierwille, W. W., Hanowski, R. J., Hankey, J. M., Kieliszewski, C. A., Lee, S. E., Medina, A.,
64–65. et al. (2002). Identification and evaluation of driver errors: overview and recommen-
Arthur, W., Bell, S. T., Edwards, B. K., Day, E. A., Tubre, T. C., & Tubre, A. H. (2005). Conver- dations. Final Report for Federal Highway Administration contract DTFH 61-97-C-00051.
gence of self-report an archival crash involvement data: A two-year longitudinal Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
follow-up. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Winter, J. C. F., & Dodou, D. (2010). The Driver Behaviour Questionnaire as a predictor of
47, 303–313. accidents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Safety Research, 41, 463–470.
 S.T.D. Cordazzo et al. / Journal of Safety Research 50 (2014) 99–107 105

Appendix 1. List of items and its changes from the originals.

Reason et al. (1990) wording Parker et al. (1995) wording Final item Reason for the changes

Attempt to drive away from traffic lights in Attempt to drive away from traffic Attempt to leave a parking space in the Revised for clarity (most people drive an
third gear lights in third gear wrong gear automatic transmission)
Check your speedometer and discover that Check your speedometer and discover Changed wording slightly for clarity
you are unknowingly traveling faster that you are traveling faster than the
than the legal limit posted speed limit
Lock yourself out of your car with the keys Omitted because not related to driving
still inside safety.
Become impatient with a slow driver in Become impatient with a slow driver in Omitted for repetition
the outer lane and overtake on the inside the outer lane and overtake on the
inside
Drive as fast along country roads at night Drive as fast along country roads at Revised wording for North America
on dipped lights as on full beam night on low beams as you would on (NA) context
high beams
Attempt to drive away without first having Omitted for repetition
switched on the ignition
Drive especially close or ‘flash’ the car in Drive especially close to the car in front Drive especially close to or ‘flash’ the Altered the original wording for clarity
front as a signal for that driver to go as a signal for that driver to go faster or car in front of you to try and get them
faster or get out of your way get out of your way to go faster or get out of your way
Forget where you left your car in a multi- Forget where you left your car in a car Forget where you parked your car Revised for NA context and clarity
level car park park
Distracted or preoccupied, realize Realize that the vehicle ahead has Changed original wording for clarity
belatedly that the vehicle ahead has slowed, and have to slam on the brakes
slowed, and have to slam on the brakes to avoid a collision because you were
to avoid a collision distracted or preoccupied
Intend to switch on the windscreen wipers, Switch on one thing, such as the Switch on one thing, such as the Wording from Parker et al. (1995)
but switch on the lights instead, or vise headlights, when you meant to turn on headlights, when you meant to turn on
versa something else, such as the wipers something else, such as the wipers
Turn left onto a main road into the path of Turn left into the path of an oncoming Revised wording to avoid repetition of
an oncoming vehicle that you hadn't vehicle that you hadn't seen other items
seen, or whose speed you had misjudged
Misjudge your gap in a car park and nearly Misjudge the space available in a Revised wording for NA context
(or actually) hit adjoining vehicle parking lot and nearly (or actually) hit
another vehicle
‘Wake up’ to realize that you have no clear Realize you have no clear recollection Realize you have no clear recollection Wording from Parker et al. (1995)
recollection of the road along which you of the road along which you have just of the road along which you have just
have just traveled been traveling been traveling
Miss your exit on a motorway and have to Miss your exit on a highway and have Revised wording for NA context
make a lengthy detour to make a detour
Forget which gear you are currently in and Omit because few drivers have manual
have to check with your hand transmission
Stuck behind a slow-moving vehicle on a Try to pass in risky circumstances Revised wording for brevity and clarity
two-lane highway, you are driven by when stuck behind a slow-moving ve-
frustration to try to overtake in risky hicle on a two-lane highway
circumstances
Intending to drive to destination A, you Intending to drive to destination A, you Intending to drive to destination A, you Revised for clarity
‘wake up’ to find yourself en route to B, ‘wake up’ to find yourself en route to B, realize that you are actually en route to
where the latter is the more usual journey perhaps because the latter is your more destination B, perhaps because desti-
usual destination nation B is your more usual destination
Take a chance and cross on lights that have Take a chance and run a red light Revised wording for NA context
turned red
Angered by another driver's behavior, you Angered by another driver's behavior, Feel angered by another driver's Revised wording for clarity
give chase with the intention of giving you give chase with the intention of behavior and chase after him/her with
him/her a piece of your mind giving him/her a piece of your mind the intention of giving him/her a piece
of your mind
Try to overtake without first checking your Omitted for repetition
mirror, and then get hooted at by the car
behind which has already begun it's
overtaking maneuver
Deliberately disregard the speed limits late Disregard the speed limits late at night Deliberately disregard the speed limit Original wording
at night or very early in the morning or early in the morning late at night or very early in the
morning
Forget when your road tax/insurance Omitted because it does not happen
expires and discover that you are driving often
illegally
Lost in thought, you forget that your lights Forget that you have your high beams Revised for NA context and clarity
are on full beam until ‘flashed’ by other on until ‘flashed’ by other motorists
motorists
On turning left, nearly hit a cyclist who has On turning left, nearly hit a cyclist who When turning right, nearly hit a cyclist Revised wording for NA context
come up on your inside has come up on your inside who has come up beside you
In a queue of vehicles turning left on to a Queuing to turn left onto a main road, In a line of cars turning left onto a main Reworded for clarity
main road, pay such close attention to you pay such close attention to the road, pay such close attention to the
the traffic approaching from the right main stream of traffic that you nearly main stream of traffic that you nearly
that you nearly hit the car in front hit the car in front hit the car in front

(continued on next page)

106 S.T.D. Cordazzo et al. / Journal of Safety Research 50 (2014) 99–107

Appendix
(continued)
1 (continued)
Reason et al. (1990) wording Parker et al. (1995) wording Final item Reason for the changes

Drive back from a party, restaurant, or pub, Drive even though you realize that you Drive even though you realize that you Parker et al. (1995) wording
even though you realize that you may be may be over the legal blood-alcohol may be over the legal blood-alcohol
over the legal blood-alcohol limit limit limit
Have an aversion to a particular class of Have an aversion to a particular class of Omitted after pilot testing
road user, and indicate your hostility by road user, and indicate your hostility
whatever means you can by whatever means you can
Lost in thought or distracted, you fail to Fail to notice someone waiting at a Reworded to accommodate NA context
notice someone waiting at a zebra crosswalk and for clarity
crossing, or a pelican crossing light that
has just turned red
Park on a double-yellow line and risk a fine Omit for NA context
Misjudge speed of oncoming vehicle when Underestimate the speed of an Underestimate the speed of an Changed wording for clarity
overtaking oncoming vehicle when overtaking oncoming vehicle when passing on a
two-lane highway
Hit something when reversing that you Hit something reversing that you had Hit something when backing up that Changed wording for clarity
had not previously seen not previously seen you did not see
Fail to notice someone stepping out from Fail to notice someone stepping out Original wording
behind a bus or parked vehicle until it is from behind a bus or parked vehicle
nearly too late until it is nearly too late
Plan your route badly, so that you meet Omitted because irrelevant to driving
traffic congestion you could have safety
avoided
Overtake a single line of stationary or Omitted because irrelevant to driving
slow-moving vehicles, only to discover safety
that they were queuing to get through a
one-lane gap or roadwork lights
Overtake a slow-moving vehicle on the Omitted after pilot testing
inside lane or hard shoulder of a motor-
way
Cut the corner on a right-hand turn and Omitted after pilot testing
have to swerve violently to avoid an
oncoming vehicle
Get into the wrong lane at a roundabout or Get into the wrong lane at a Get into the wrong lane when Revised for clarity
approaching a road junction roundabout or approaching a junction approaching an intersection or
roundabout
Fail to read the signs correctly, and exit a Misread the signs and exit a Omitted because roundabouts are
roundabout on the wrong road roundabout on the wrong road infrequent in NA and redundant with
respect to other items
Fail to give way when a bus is signaling its Fail to yield right-of-way to a bus that is Revised wording for clarity
intention to pull out signaling its intention to pull out
Ignore ‘give way’ signs, and narrowly avoid Miss ‘give way’ signs, and narrowly Ignore a yield sign and almost collide Revised wording for clarity and NA
colliding with traffic having the right of avoid colliding with traffic having the with traffic having the right-of-way context
way right of way
Fail to check your mirror before pulling Fail to check your rearview mirror Fail to check your mirrors before Original wording (Reason et al., 1990)
out, changing lanes, turning, etc. before pulling out, changing lanes, etc. pulling out, changing lanes, turning,
etc.
Attempt to overtake a vehicle that you Attempt to overtake someone that you On a two-lane road, attempt to pass a Reworded for clarity and NA context
hadn't noticed was signaling its hadn't noticed to be signaling a right vehicle that you hadn't noticed was
intention to turn right turn signaling its intention to turn left
Deliberately drive the wrong way down a Drive the wrong direction down a Revised wording to make a S/L/M –
deserted one-way street deserted one-way street would be very rare if deliberate
Disregard red lights when driving late at Disregard red lights or stop signs when Added wording to make more
night along empty roads driving late at night along empty roads comprehensive
Drive with only ‘half-an-eye’ on the road Drive while looking at a map or GPS Revised wording for clarity and NA
while looking at a map, changing a device, changing the radio station, etc. context
cassette or radio channel, etc.
Fail to notice pedestrians crossing when Fail to notice pedestrians are crossing Fail to notice pedestrians crossing Original wording (Reason et al., 1990)
turning into a side-street from a main when turning into a side-street from a when turning into a side-street from a
road main road main road
Get involved in unofficial ‘races’ with other Get involved in unofficial ‘races’ with Get involved in unofficial ‘races’ with Original wording (Reason et al., 1990)
drivers other drivers other drivers
‘Race’ oncoming vehicles for a one-car gap Omitted because it is confusing and
on a narrow or obstructed road unclear
Brake too quickly on a slippery road and/or Brake too quickly on a slippery road Brake too hard on a slippery road or Revised wording for clarity
steer the wrong way in a skid and/or steer the wrong way in a skid steer the wrong way in a skid
Misjudge your crossing interval when Misjudge the distance between Revised wording for clarity and NA
turning right and narrowly miss collision oncoming vehicles when turning left context
and narrowly miss a collision
Cross a junction knowing that the Omit for repetition
traffic lights have already turned
against you
 S.T.D. Cordazzo et al. / Journal of Safety Research 50 (2014) 99–107 107

Sheila T. D. Cordazzo is a Senior Researcher Assistant in the Perceptual and Cognitive Katherine Bubric is a graduate student at Cornell University, currently pursuing a M.S. in
Aging Laboratory at the University of Calgary. She obtained her Ph.D. in Developmental Human Environment Relations with a concentration in Human Factors and Ergonomics.
Psychology in 2008 from the Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Currently she is Her current research focuses on the ways in which college students use laptop computers
been conducting research concerned with developing and analyzing screening techniques in non-traditional configurations, and the associated postural concerns. She also holds a
to predict driving performance. B.Sc. in Psychology from the University of Calgary, where she was involved in research
related to vision, aging and driving.

Charles (Chip) Scialfa has been a professor at the University of Calgary since 1989, where Rachel Jones Ross is a Ph.D. student in Experimental Psychology at the University of
his research program has focused on visual and cognitive aging. He has examined the con- Calgary. Her research interests began in Social Psychology, with a focus on unforgiveness.
trol of eye movements, acuity and contrast sensitivity, visual search and visual attention. Some of the projects she has worked on include the development and validation of a mea-
Applied work has examined the behavioral consequences of distraction while driving, sure to assess unforgiveness, and developing a theoretical model of how unforgiveness is
Web navigation, automation and driving performance. Since 2007, research has been experienced. More recently her interest in research brought her to the Perceptual and Cog-
directed to the prediction of driving performance using brief screening tests, including a nitive Aging Laboratory, where she is researching various aspects of driving, including
North American Hazard Perception Test. predicting on-road performance in both healthy and cognitively impaired older adults.