Central Institute for Labour Protection - National Research Institute, Department of Ergonomics, Laboratory of Social Psychology, Czerniakowska 16, 00-701 Warsaw, Poland.
University of Warsaw, Faculty of Psychology, Stawki 5/7, 00-183 Warsaw, Poland.
Accid Anal Prev. 2014 Sep;70:293-300. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2014.04.001. Epub 2014 May 13.
This paper presents the results of a study aimed at validating psychological questionnaires evaluating temperamental and personality features. It discusses their usefulness in diagnosing drivers' aptitude for safe driving and working as professional drivers. Three psychological questionnaires were validated: the Formal Characteristics of Behaviour - Temperament Inventory (FCB-TI), the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire - Revised and Short Scale (EPQ-R (S)) and the Impulsiveness Questionnaire (IVE). Three groups of drivers (n=246) aged 19-75 participated in the study. Group I (professional drivers; n=96) and Group II (nonprofessional drivers; n=75) had never been involved in road crashes, whereas Group III (nonprofessional drivers; n=75) were offenders involved in fatal injury road crashes. Criterion-related validity, Cronbach's alpha and Guttman split-half reliability coefficient were in assessing the psychometric properties of the questionnaires. There were some significant differences between Groups II and III for most traits. However, contrary to expectations, higher Emotional Reactivity, Perseveration and lower Endurance as well as higher Neuroticism, Impulsiveness and Venturesomeness were determined for Group II than for Group III. Additionally, the temperament and personality profile of Group II turned out to be less fitted to the profile of safe drivers than that of Group III, whose profile was actually similar to that of Group I. This seems to result from a high tendency for a positive self-presentation among Group I and Group III (a significantly higher result on the Lie scale in comparison with Group II). The results suggest that if psychological tests are to decide on whether a person may be a professional driver or may drive vehicles, the three questionnaires (FCB-TI, EPQ-R(S) and IVE) do not provide a valid diagnosis of professional drivers' aptitude because of drivers' high tendency for positive self-presentation. However, they can be used in job counselling and in screening high-risk drivers.
本文介绍了一项旨在验证评估气质和个性特征的心理问卷的研究结果。它讨论了这些问卷在诊断驾驶员安全驾驶和从事专业驾驶员工作能力方面的有用性。验证了三种心理问卷:行为气质特征问卷(FCB-TI)、艾森克人格问卷修订版和短量表(EPQ-R(S))和冲动问卷(IVE)。三组年龄在 19-75 岁的驾驶员(n=246)参加了研究。第 I 组(专业驾驶员;n=96)和第 II 组(非专业驾驶员;n=75)从未发生过道路事故,而第 III 组(非专业驾驶员;n=75)是涉及致命伤害道路事故的罪犯。在评估问卷的心理测量特性时,采用了效标关联效度、克朗巴赫α和古特曼分半信度系数。大多数特征方面,第 II 组和第 III 组之间存在一些显著差异。然而,与预期相反,第 II 组的情绪反应性、坚持性较低,而耐力、神经质、冲动性和冒险性较高,第 II 组的这些特征高于第 III 组。此外,第 II 组的气质和个性特征与第 III 组的安全驾驶员特征相比,拟合度较低,而第 III 组的特征实际上与第 I 组相似。这似乎是由于第 I 组和第 III 组的积极自我表现倾向较高(与第 II 组相比,Lie 量表的得分显著较高)所致。结果表明,如果心理测试决定一个人是否可以成为专业驾驶员或驾驶车辆,那么由于驾驶员有较高的积极自我表现倾向,三种问卷(FCB-TI、EPQ-R(S)和 IVE)不能对专业驾驶员的能力做出有效诊断。然而,它们可用于职业咨询和筛选高风险驾驶员。