Comparison of Driving Errors Between On-the-Road and Simulated Driving Assessment: A Validation Study

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.

Keywords:

• Driving simulator
• Driving assessment
• Validation

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funding of this research under Project #:DOT DTFH61–03-H-00138; the Gainesville Traffic Engineering Department, Gainesville, Florida; and the National Older Driver Research and Training Center (NODRTC), University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, for its support.

Notes

∗Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.