Orit Shechtman1, Sherrilene Classen, Kezia Awadzi, William Mann. 1. Department of Occupational Therapy and National Older Driver Research and Training Center, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA. oshectm@phhp.ufl.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Driving simulation provides a convenient and safe method for assessing driving behaviors. Many authors, however, agree that validation is a key component of any study that utilizes simulators to assess driving performance. The purpose of this study was to test driver response validity by discerning whether behavioral responses of drivers, as expressed by type and number of errors, are similar on the road and in the simulator. METHODS: We replicated real-world intersections in our driving simulator (STISIM M500W; Systems Technology Inc.) and assessed the number and type of driving errors committed by the same 39 participants while negotiating a right and a left turn both on the road and in the simulator. RESULTS: We found no significant interactions between the type of vehicle (road vs. simulator) and the type of turn (right versus left) for any of the driving errors, indicating that the same trends exist between driving errors made on the road and in the simulator and thus suggesting relative validity of the simulator. We also found no significant differences between the road and the simulator for lane maintenance, adjustment to stimuli, and visual scanning errors, indicating absolute validity for these types of errors. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest early support for external validity for our driving simulator, indicating that the results of assessing driving errors when negotiating turns in the simulator can be generalized or transferred to the road under the same testing conditions. A follow-up study with larger sample size is needed to establish whether driving performance in the simulator is predictive of driving performance on the road.
OBJECTIVE: Driving simulation provides a convenient and safe method for assessing driving behaviors. Many authors, however, agree that validation is a key component of any study that utilizes simulators to assess driving performance. The purpose of this study was to test driver response validity by discerning whether behavioral responses of drivers, as expressed by type and number of errors, are similar on the road and in the simulator. METHODS: We replicated real-world intersections in our driving simulator (STISIM M500W; Systems Technology Inc.) and assessed the number and type of driving errors committed by the same 39 participants while negotiating a right and a left turn both on the road and in the simulator. RESULTS: We found no significant interactions between the type of vehicle (road vs. simulator) and the type of turn (right versus left) for any of the driving errors, indicating that the same trends exist between driving errors made on the road and in the simulator and thus suggesting relative validity of the simulator. We also found no significant differences between the road and the simulator for lane maintenance, adjustment to stimuli, and visual scanning errors, indicating absolute validity for these types of errors. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest early support for external validity for our driving simulator, indicating that the results of assessing driving errors when negotiating turns in the simulator can be generalized or transferred to the road under the same testing conditions. A follow-up study with larger sample size is needed to establish whether driving performance in the simulator is predictive of driving performance on the road.
Authors: Andrew J Tatham; Erwin R Boer; Peter N Rosen; Mauro Della Penna; Daniel Meira-Freitas; Robert N Weinreb; Linda M Zangwill; Felipe A Medeiros Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Sarah Cheng; Helaina Klein; Dirk-Uwe Bartsch; Igor Kozak; Thomas D Marcotte; William R Freeman Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Sherrilene Classen; Yanning Wang; Sandra M Winter; Craig A Velozo; Desiree N Lanford; Michel Bédard Journal: Am J Occup Ther Date: 2013 Jan-Feb
Authors: Andrew Vakulin; Stuart D Baulk; Peter G Catcheside; Nick A Antic; Cameron J van den Heuvel; Jillian Dorrian; R Doug McEvoy Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2011-06-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: William C Chen; Eric Y Chen; Rahiwa Z Gebre; Michelle R Johnson; Ningcheng Li; Petr Vitkovskiy; Hal Blumenfeld Journal: Epilepsy Behav Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 2.937