期刊文献+

驾驶安全态度量表的修订及信效度检验 被引量:4

Reliability and Validity of Driving Safety Attitude Scale in Chinese Drivers
下载PDF
导出
摘要 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,P<0.001。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。 ObjectiveObjective To test the reliability, validity and applicability of the revised version of driving safety attitude scale (DSAS) among Chinese driver measurement. Methods 202 drivers were measured with DSAS and driving behavior scale and the revision of the scale was obtained after analysis. Results The revised version of the driving safety attitude scale was composed of 18 subjects, who were divided into three dimensions: road smoothing and rule compliance, speeding driving and passion driving. The explanatory rate of variance was 63.24%. The correlation coefficients between the factors and total scores ranged from 0.606 to 0.759, all ps〈 0.001. The Cronbach's α of the whole inventory was 0.928, and all factors were between 0.876 and 0.884. All of the three dimensions were negatively correlated with pro-social driving behavior dimension in driving behavior scale, and had significant positive correlation with dangerous driving behavior dimension. ConclusionThe reliability and validity of DSAS were good, and it can be used as a tool to measure Chinese driver's driving attitude.
出处 《人类工效学》 2017年第5期25-28,共4页 Chinese Journal of Ergonomics
基金 辽宁省社科联2017年辽宁经济社会发展立项青年课题(2017lslktqn-042)
关键词 安全态度 驾驶员 亲社会驾驶行为 攻击性驾驶行为 驾驶员 交通安全 交通心理学 危险感知 safety attitude driver pro-social driving behavior aggressive driving behavior driver traffic safety traffic psychology risk perception
  • 相关文献

参考文献5

二级参考文献67

  • 1祝蓓里.POMS量表及简式中国常模简介[J].天津体育学院学报,1995,10(1):35-37. 被引量:281
  • 2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
  • 3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
  • 4梁竹苑,许燕,蒋奖.决策中个体差异研究现状述评[J].心理科学进展,2007,15(4):689-694. 被引量:24
  • 5Dahlen 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.
  • 6Miles 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.
  • 7Lajunen 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.
  • 8King 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.
  • 9Arthur 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.
  • 10Iversen H, Rundmo T. Personality, risky driving and accident involvement among Norwegian drivers [J]. Personality and Individual Differences. 2002, 33(8): 1251-1263.

共引文献38

同被引文献11

引证文献4

二级引证文献5

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