|
Abstract
|
OBJECTIVE: We explored the convergent and discriminant validity of three driving simulation scenarios by comparing behaviors across gender and age groups, considering what we know about on-road driving.
BACKGROUND: Driving simulators offer a number of benefits, yet their use in real-world driver assessment is rare. More evidence is needed to support their use.
METHOD: A total of 104 participants completed a series of increasingly difficult driving simulation scenarios. Linear mixed models were estimated to determine if behaviors changed with increasing difficulty and whether outcomes varied by age and gender, thereby demonstrating convergent and discriminant validity, respectively.
RESULTS: Drivers adapted velocity, steering, acceleration, and gap acceptance according to difficulty, and the degree of adaptation differed by gender and age for some outcomes. For example, in a construction zone scenario, drivers reduced their mean velocities as congestion increased; males drove an average of 2.30 km/hr faster than females, and older participants drove more slowly than young (5.26 km/hr) and middle-aged drivers (6.59 km/hr). There was also an interaction between age and difficulty; older drivers did not reduce their velocities with increased difficulty.
CONCLUSION: This study provides further support for the ability of driving simulators to elicit behaviors similar to those seen in on-road driving and to differentiate between groups, suggesting that simulators could serve a supportive role in fitness-to-drive evaluations.
APPLICATION: Simulators have the potential to support driver assessment. However, this depends on the development of valid scenarios to benchmark safe driving behavior, and thereby identify deviations from safe driving behavior. The information gained through simulation may supplement other forms of assessment and possibly eliminate the need for on-road testing in some situations.
Language: en |