期刊文献+

亲社会和攻击性驾驶行为量表的修订及信效度检验 被引量:12

Reliability and Validity of Prosocial and Aggressive Driving Inventory
下载PDF
导出
摘要 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Ps<0.001。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。 Objective To revise the Prosoeial and Aggressive Driving Inventory (PADI) and test its reliability and validity among the Chinese drivers. Methods 692 drivers took the test. A final Chinese version of PADI was got after the item analysis, EFA and CFA. Results PADI consisted of 28 items, which was divided into two factors. The factors'ratio of cumulative contribution was 44.14%. The indications of CFA met the requirements of psychomet- ric ( CFI = O. 90,TLI = 0.92, RMSEA = 0. 051 ). The Cronbach's αof the two subscales were 0.87 and O. 90. Person correlation between the factors and the whole inventory were 0.50 and 0.76, all Ps 〈 0.001. The Person corre- lation between the two factors of PADI and the dimensions of Big Five inventory were significant, partly. Conclusion Revised PADI can be used as an effective and reliable tool for evaluatin~ drivers't)rosocial and a^aressive behavior.
出处 《人类工效学》 2016年第6期7-10,共4页 Chinese Journal of Ergonomics
关键词 驾驶员 驾驶行为 亲社会 攻击性 人格 交通安全 心理量表 交通违章 drivers driving behavior prosocial driving behavior aggressive driving behavior personality trafficsafety psychological scale traffic violation
  • 相关文献

参考文献6

二级参考文献90

  • 1沈玮,何存道.事故驾驶员与安全驾驶员人格特征的比较研究[J].心理科学,1994,17(5):282-286. 被引量:23
  • 2蔡圣刚,高超,莫雷.上海市地铁驾驶员人格特征分析[J].人类工效学,2005,11(2):20-22. 被引量:3
  • 3Dahlen E R, White R P. The Big Five fac- tors, sensation seeking, and driving anger in the pre- diction of unsafe driving[J]. Personality and Individual Differences. 2006, 41(5): 903-915.
  • 4Miles D E, Johnson G L. Aggressive driving behaviors: are there psychological and attitudinal pre- dictors? [J]. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2003, 6(2): 147-161.
  • 5Lajunen T, Parker D. Are aggressive people aggressive drivers? A study of the relationship between self-reported general aggressiveness, driver anger and aggressive driving[J]. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2001, 33(2): 243-255.
  • 6King Y, Parker D. Driving violations, ag- gression and perceived consensus [J]. Revue Europ enne de Psychologie Applique/European Review of Applied Psychology. 2008, 58(1): 43-49.
  • 7Arthur Jr W, Doverspike D. Locus of con- trol and auditory selective attention as predictors of driving accident involvement: A comparative longi- tudinal investigation [J]. Journal of safety research. 1992, 23(2): 73-80.
  • 8Iversen H, Rundmo T. Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers [J]. Personality and Individual Differences. 2002, 33(8): 1251-1263.
  • 9Zuckerman M. The sensation seeking scale V (SSS-V): Still reliable and valid [J]. personality and individual differences. 2007, 43(5): 1303-1305.
  • 10Britt T W, Garrity M J. Attributions and personality as predictors of the road rage response [J]. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2006, 45 (1): 127-147.

共引文献47

同被引文献35

引证文献12

二级引证文献17

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部