[Home ] [Archive]   [ فارسی ]  
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit :: Contact ::
Main Menu
Home::
Journal Information::
Articles archive::
For Authors::
Publication Ethics::
Editorial policy::
Contact us::
Site Facilities::
Reviewe::
::
Citation Impact
..
Search in website

Advanced Search
..
Receive site information
Enter your Email in the following box to receive the site news and information.
..
COPE Membership

AWT IMAGE

..
Creative Commons Licence
..
Open access
..
:: Volume 11, Issue 2 (Summer 2023) ::
Iran J Health Educ Health Promot 2023, 11(2): 109-126 Back to browse issues page
Examining the psychometric properties, factor structure and validity of the driving risk perception scale based on the protection motivation theory and fatal factors in young drivers as a mediator in the risky driving behavior model: in the path analysis study
Fatemeh Farzadi , Gholamhossein Maktabi * , Ahmad Moradi
Abstract:   (1552 Views)
Background and Objectives: The possible effects on risky driving of young drivers such as age and gender cannot be changed, however, to know the interventions to reduce risky driving behaviors, young drivers, examining psychological variables can be helpful. Coping appraisal and threat appraisal variables from protection motivation theory can help to understand young drivers' decision-making for risky driving behavior.

Materials and Methods: This research consists of two parts. The first part was to investigate the psychometric properties of risk perception scale in young drivers based on the theory of protection motivation. For instrument validity, content validity with the opinion of 11 experts, face validity, construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis) and convergent validity were used, and its reliability was checked by internal consistency method (Cronbach's alpha). And the second part was conducted in the form of route analysis to investigate the decision-making model of young drivers to carry out risky driving behavior. The present sample consisted of 350 young drivers of Ahvaz city, who were selected by available and voluntary sampling method. Subjects responded to driving risk perception questionnaires based on protection motivation for 5 fatal factors, driving risk perception and risky driving behavior. The current questionnaire contains 30 items, which include two subscales: confrontational assessment and threat assessment.

Results: After going through the validity and reliability stages of the questionnaire, from the initial 30 questions, 3 questions were removed in the form and content validity check stages, and finally 27 questions remained. Examining the results of construct validity using confirmatory factor analysis showed (RMSEA=0.07) and χ2/df=2.76 (p<0.001). The reliability of the instrument was obtained using internal consistency (0.92-0.95). In the second part of the research, using path analysis, the relationship between coping evaluation variables and threat evaluation with risky driving behavior of young drivers was modeled with the mediation of perceived risk in two models of inconsistent and protective decision making. Both maladaptive and protective models showed a good fit with the data (RMSEA=0.04 and RMSEA=0.06). The threat assessment model was able to explain about 50% of the variance of perceived risk and the general model about 30% of the variance of risky driving behavior. In addition, in this model, the path between perceived severity and perceived risk had the highest relationship value (β=0.56). In the second model, i.e. protective path, coping evaluation explained 14% of the variance of perceived risk and the overall model explained 34% of the variance of risky driving behaviors. Also, in the protective pathway model, the relationship between response costs and perceived risk was the highest (β=-0.55). An interesting result in this study was the mediation of perceived risk between reward and response costs with risky driving behavior.

Conclusions: the scale of risk perception in young drivers based on the theory of protection motivation as a reliable and valid tool can be used together with other psychological investigations and high-risk behaviors of drivers and our insight about the influencing factors on how young drivers make decisions to design interventions in to improve their driving safety. Also, examining the relationships between variables in the form of path analysis helps us understand the factors that encourage young drivers to engage in risky driving behaviors (threat-inconsistent path) and why young novice drivers may decide not to engage in risky driving (protective path) it helps.

 
Keywords: Protection motivation Theory-Response Efficacy-Response costs-perceived risk-risky driving
Full-Text [PDF 839 kb]   (925 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Health psychology
Received: 2022/10/21 | Accepted: 2023/04/11
References
1. Cordellieri P, Baralla F, Ferlazzo F, Sgalla R, Piccardi L, Giannini AM. Gender effects in young road users on road safety attitudes, behaviors and risk perception. Frontiers in psychology. 2016; 27;7:1412 [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01412] [PMID] [PMCID]
2. Mekonnen TH, Tesfaye YA, Moges HG, Gebremedin RB. Factors associated with risky driving behaviors for road traffic crashes among professional car drivers in Bahirdar city, northwest Ethiopia, 2016: a cross-sectional study. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine. 2019; 24(17): 2-9. [DOI:10.1186/s12199-019-0772-1] [PMID] [PMCID]
3. Scott-Parker B, Watson B, King MJ, Hyde MK. A further exploration of sensation seeking propensity, reward sensitivity, depression, anxiety, and the risky behaviour of young novice drivers in a structural equation model. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2013; 50: 465-471. [DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2012.05.027] [PMID]
4. Grace PS, Sumit K, Chakraborty N. Sensation seeking and peer passenger influence on risky driving among novice drivers in Udupi Taluk, India. Clinical epidemiology and global health. 2020; 1;8(3):653-5. [DOI:10.1016/j.cegh.2019.12.020]
5. Farshad AA, Alimohammadi I, Abolghasemi J, Jamalizadeh Z. The relation of aggression with the average of speed and lane deviation in taxi drivers of Tehran. Iran Occupational Health. 2018,10;15(4):1-7.
6. Harbeck EL, Glendon AI, Hine TJ. Young driver perceived risk and risky driving: A theoretical approach to the "fatal five". Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour. 2018; 1;58:392-404. [DOI:10.1016/j.trf.2018.06.018]
7. Nordfjærn T, Jørgensen S, Rundmo T. A cross-cultural comparison of road traffic risk perceptions, attitudes towards traffic safety and driver behaviour. Journal of Risk Research. 2011; 14: 657-684. [DOI:10.1080/13669877.2010.547259]
8. Glendon AI. Traffic psychology: A state-of-the-art review. In P. R. Martin, F. M. Cheung, M. C. Knowles, M. Kyrios, L. Littlefield, J. B. Overmier, & J. M. Prieto (Eds.), The IAAP handbook of applied psychology (pp. 545-558). (2011a). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
9. Rosenstock IM. The health belief model and preventive health behavior. Health Education Monographs. 1974; 2(4): 354-386. [DOI:10.1177/109019817400200405]
10. Rogers R W. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. The Journal of Psychology. 1975; 91: 93-114. [DOI:10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803] [PMID]
11. Cathcart RL, Glendon AI. Judged effectiveness of threat and coping appraisal anti-speeding messages. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2016;1;96:237-48. [DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2016.08.005] [PMID]
12. Zhang L, Zhang CH, Shang L. Sensation-seeking and domain-specific risk taking behavior among adolescents: Risk perceptions and expected benefits as mediators. Personality and Individual Differences. 2016; 101:299-305. [DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.002]
13. Ivers R, Senserrick T, Boufous S, Stevenson M, Chen HY, Woodward M, Norton R. Novice drivers' risky driving behavior, risk perception, and crash risk: findings from the DRIVE study. American journal of public health. 2009; 99(9):1638-44. [DOI:10.2105/AJPH.2008.150367] [PMID] [PMCID]
14. Li Z, Wang C, Fu R, Sun Q, Zhang H. What is the difference between perceived and actual risk of distracted driving? A field study on a real highway. PLoS one. 2020; 2;15(4):e0231151. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0231151] [PMID] [PMCID]
15. McNally B, Bradley GL. Re-conceptualising the reckless driving behaviour of young drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2014; 1;70:245-57. [DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2014.04.014] [PMID]
16. Rhodes N, Pivik K. Age and gender differences in risky driving: The roles of positive affect and risk perception. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2011, 43: 923-931. [DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.015] [PMID]
17. Wohleber RW, Matthews G. Multiple facets of overconfidence: Implications for driving safety. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2016; 43: 265-278. [DOI:10.1016/j.trf.2016.09.011]
18. Babcicky P, Seebauer S. Unpacking Protection Motivation Theory: evidence for a separate protective and non-protective route in private flood mitigation behavior. Journal of Risk Research. 2019; 2;22(12):1503-21. [DOI:10.1080/13669877.2018.1485175] [PMID] [PMCID]
19. Amaral RA, Malbergier A, Lima DR, Santos VC, Gorenstein C, de Andrade AG. Intention to drive after drinking among medical students: contributions of the protection motivation theory. Journal of addiction medicine. 2017; 1;11(1):70-6. [DOI:10.1097/ADM.0000000000000276] [PMID]
20. Glendon AI, Prendergast S. Rank-ordering anti-speeding messages. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2019; 1;132:105254. [DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2019.07.030] [PMID]
21. Tay R, Watson B. Changing drivers' intentions and behaviours using fear-based driver fatigue advertisements. Health Marketing Quarterly. 2002; 19(4): 55-68. [DOI:10.1300/J026v19n04_05] [PMID]
22. Ghasemi B, Kyle GT, Absher JD. An examination of the social-psychological drivers of homeowner wildfire mitigation. Journal of environmental psychology. 2020; 1;70:101442. [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101442]
23. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications; 2015, 3.
24. Kyriazos TA. Applied psychometrics: sample size and sample power considerations in factor analysis (EFA, CFA) and SEM in general. Psychology. 2018;9(08):2207. [DOI:10.4236/psych.2018.98126]
25. Tehrani H, Nejatian M, Moshki M, Jafari A. Psychometric properties of Persian version of depression literacy (D-Lit) questionnaire among general population. International Journal of Mental Health Systems. 2022;16(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-928019/v1 [DOI:10.1186/s13033-022-00550-x]
26. Marsh HW, Hau K-T, Wen Z. In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural equation modeling. 2004;11(3):320-41. [DOI:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2]
27. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in nursing & health. 2007;30(4):459-67. [DOI:10.1002/nur.20199] [PMID]
28. Cureton EE, D'Agostino RB. Factor analysis: An applied approach: Psychology press; 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315799476 [DOI:10.4324/9781315799476.]
29. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Streiner DL, King DR. Clinical impact versus factor analysis for quality of life questionnaire construction. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 1997;1;50(3):233-8. [DOI:10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00377-0] [PMID]
30. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior research methods. 2008; 40(3):879-91. [DOI:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879] [PMID]
31. Harbeck EL, Glendon AI. How reinforcement sensitivity and perceived risk influence young drivers' reported engagement in risky driving behaviors. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2013; 1;54:73-80. [DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2013.02.011] [PMID]
32. Maktabi G. The Causal Relationship between Behavioral Activator System and Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) with Tendency to Dangerous Driving Behavior with Mediation of Risk Perception in Driving and Decision Making Styles among Car Drivers of Ahvaz City, Iran. Journal of Modern Psychological Researches. 2020; 20;15(57):169-80.
33. Yang L, Zhang X, Zhu X, Luo Y, Luo Y. Research on risky driving behavior of novice drivers. Sustainability. 2019 Oct 9;11(20):5556. [DOI:10.3390/su11205556]
34. Maxwell SE, Cole DA, Mitchell MA. Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation: Partial and complete mediation under an autoregressive model. Multivariate behavioral research. 2011;30;46(5):816-41. [DOI:10.1080/00273171.2011.606716] [PMID]
35. Glendon AI, Walker BL. Can anti-speeding messages based on protection motivation theory influence reported speeding intentions?. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2013; 1;57:67-79. [DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2013.04.004] [PMID]
36. Wohleber RW, Matthews G. Multiple facets of overconfidence: Implications for driving safety. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2016; 43: 265-278. [DOI:10.1016/j.trf.2016.09.011]
37. Constantinou E, Panayiotou G, Konstantinou N, Loutsiou-Ladd A, Kapardis A. Risky and aggressive driving in young adults: Personality matters. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2011;1;43(4):1323-31. [DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2011.02.002] [PMID]
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA

Ethics code: EE://1400/3/02/3808/scu.ac.ir



XML   Persian Abstract   Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Farzadi F, Maktabi G, Moradi A. Examining the psychometric properties, factor structure and validity of the driving risk perception scale based on the protection motivation theory and fatal factors in young drivers as a mediator in the risky driving behavior model: in the path analysis study. Iran J Health Educ Health Promot 2023; 11 (2) :109-126
URL: http://journal.ihepsa.ir/article-1-2283-en.html


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 11, Issue 2 (Summer 2023) Back to browse issues page
فصلنامه آموزش بهداشت و ارتقاء سلامت ایران Iranian Journal of Health Education and Health Promotion
Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.05 seconds with 43 queries by YEKTAWEB 4657