Test–Retest Reliability of the Susceptibility to Driver Distraction Questionnaire

Marulanda, Susana; Chen, Huei-Yen Winnie; Donmez, Birsen · 2015 · Crossref

DOI: 10.3141/2518-07

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study evaluates the test-retest reliability of the Susceptibility to Driver Distraction Questionnaire (SDDQ), a tool designed to measure drivers’ susceptibility to both voluntary and involuntary distractions. The motivation for this research stems from the need for valid, reliable instruments to assess driver distraction, which is a significant cause of motor vehicle crashes. The SDDQ distinguishes between voluntary engagement in secondary tasks and involuntary attention diversion, aiming to facilitate the development of targeted mitigation strategies and the evaluation of in-vehicle technologies. While previous studies had established the questionnaire’s content validity and internal consistency, this paper specifically addresses its stability over time. The researchers assessed reliability using two samples. The primary sample consisted of 43 adults aged 25–39 who completed the SDDQ twice, with a mean interval of approximately 20 days. A secondary sample of 10 participants was retested after a mean interval of 8 months to examine long-term consistency. The SDDQ comprises 39 items across six subscales: self-reported distraction engagement, attitudes towards distractions, perceived control of driving while distracted, descriptive social norms, injunctive social norms, and susceptibility to involuntary distractions. Reliability was measured using intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficients for subscale averages and weighted kappa statistics for individual items. Results indicated that the SDDQ demonstrates good to excellent test-retest reliability for subscales measuring self-reported distraction engagement, attitudes towards distractions, and descriptive social norms in the short-term sample. Perceived control showed fair reliability. However, the injunctive social norms and susceptibility to involuntary distraction subscales exhibited poor reliability (ICC < 0.4) in the short-term sample. Analysis of individual items within these poorly performing subscales revealed fair to substantial agreement, suggesting that specific items, particularly those regarding roadside advertisements and accident scenes, may lack strong associated social norms or contextual specificity, leading to inconsistent responses. In the long-term sample, reliability for engagement and attitudes remained good, while descriptive norms dropped to poor and involuntary distraction improved to good, though the small sample size limits the generalizability of these long-term findings. The study concludes that the SDDQ is generally reliable for measuring voluntary distraction factors but requires revision for the injunctive norms and involuntary distraction subscales. The authors recommend removing items with weak social norms, separating combined activities (e.g., texting vs. general phone use), and adding contextual details to improve response accuracy. These findings support the use of the SDDQ for research and recruitment purposes while highlighting necessary modifications to enhance its psychometric properties. Future work should validate these revisions with larger samples and establish predictive validity through simulator studies.

Key finding

The Susceptibility to Driver Distraction Questionnaire demonstrates good to excellent test-retest reliability for most subscales, but the injunctive social norms and involuntary distraction subscales exhibit poor reliability and require revision.

Methodology

survey

Sample size: 43

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• dbq psychometrics
• mind wandering
• temporal
• stress driving
• visual
• external distraction

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Empirical Findings: self report data, observational prevalence
• Methodological Resource: validation psychometrics