Driver Distraction Susceptibility Questionnaire (DDSQ)

Abstract

The Susceptibility to Driver Distraction Questionnaire (SDDQ) is a specialized psychometric instrument designed to quantify individual differences in the tendency to engage in distracting behaviors while operating a vehicle, as well as the susceptibility to distractions arising involuntarily from the environment. Developed by Feng, Marulanda, and Donmez in 2013, the SDDQ provides a multi-dimensional assessment encompassing six key components of distraction. These components include actual engagement in distracting activities, attitudes and beliefs regarding distraction (such as perceived control), perceived social norms related to driving behavior, and sensitivity to external, involuntary stimuli. The scale is crucial for research seeking to understand the psychological and behavioral antecedents of unsafe driving practices and driver distraction.

Keywords

Driver distraction, driving safety, self-report measure, voluntary distraction, involuntary distraction, Theory of Planned Behavior, transportation research, behavioral psychology, crash risk.

Authors

Jing Feng, Susana Marulanda, Birsen Donmez.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the SDDQ is to measure the underlying propensity of drivers to experience distraction, rather than merely recording past distracted driving incidents. The instrument aims to differentiate between two major forms of distraction: Voluntary Distraction, which involves intentional engagement in secondary tasks (e.g., texting or adjusting the radio), and Involuntary Distraction, which involves susceptibility to unavoidable stimuli (e.g., surrounding traffic incidents or a phone ringing). By assessing these dimensions, the SDDQ provides researchers with a tool to identify individuals most at risk for distraction-related errors and collisions, informing targeted intervention strategies aimed at improving driving safety.

Construct

The SDDQ measures a composite construct of distraction susceptibility, which is further broken down into several distinct psychological domains. These domains are heavily influenced by the principles of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), particularly concerning voluntary actions. The six underlying constructs measured by the SDDQ are:

• Distraction Engagement: The self-reported frequency of engaging in specific distracting activities while driving.
• Attitude: The driver’s personal valuation or judgment concerning the acceptability of engaging in distracting activities while driving.
• Perceived Behavioral Control: The driver’s belief in their ability to maintain safe driving performance even when engaging in secondary tasks.
• Perceived Social Norms (Other Drivers): The belief regarding how often other drivers engage in distracting behaviors.
• Perceived Social Norms (Peers and Important Individuals): The perceived expectation or behavior of close associates regarding distracting driving.
• Susceptibility to Involuntary Distraction: The degree to which external or internal stimuli (unrelated to voluntary tasks) capture the driver’s attention involuntarily.

Validity

While specific detailed analyses of criterion and discriminant validity are typically provided in the accompanying literature, the development of the SDDQ was closely linked to established behavioral theories, suggesting strong theoretical grounding for its construct validity. The original research relating the SDDQ scores to other self-reported measures of driving behavior—such as crash involvement, speeding, and aggressive driving—suggests that the scale possesses strong predictive capability regarding real-world driving outcomes.

Furthermore, the clear differentiation between voluntary and involuntary distraction sections strengthens the instrument’s ability to isolate distinct psychological pathways leading to impaired driving performance, supporting the scale’s structural validity.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the SDDQ subscales, as measured by Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients, indicates acceptable to strong reliability across its various dimensions. The reliability scores reported in the source material are generally robust, particularly for the TPB-related components.

The reported Cronbach’s Alpha scores for the subscales are:

• Engagement: 0.66
• Attitude: 0.67
• Perceived control: 0.80
• Perceived norms from other drivers: 0.73
• Perceived norms from peers and important individuals: 0.81
• Involuntary Susceptibility: 0.69

These values suggest that the items within each factor cohere well, particularly in measuring constructs related to control and social influence.

Factor Analysis

The structure of the SDDQ is based on a clear multi-factor model derived from the distinct components of distraction and behavioral theory. The scale is empirically segmented into six factors: Distraction Engagement (Section 1), Attitude, Perceived Control, Perceived Social Norms (split into two factors), and Susceptibility to Involuntary Distraction (Section 3). This factorial structure, confirmed through quantitative analysis during development, ensures that each dimension of driver distraction is assessed independently, providing nuanced insights into individual differences.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report Psychometric Questionnaire

Format: Multi-section questionnaire utilizing Likert-type scales and frequency scales.

Language Available: English (as per original publication).

Population Group: Licensed drivers.

Age Group: Adults (typically used with general driving population samples).

Population Details: Developed and validated using samples of general drivers, often drawn from academic or community settings for transportation research.

Test Methodology: The scale is administered via paper or electronically. Responses are scored based on the specific response format for each section, allowing researchers to generate scores for the six distinct subscales of distraction susceptibility.

Keywords

SDDQ, Jing Feng, Susana Marulanda, Birsen Donmez, transportation psychology, behavioral safety, driving performance, self-report, driver distraction.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Affiliation is with the University of Toronto (indicated by email domains).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The SDDQ was developed and published in 2013, with the primary academic publication appearing in 2014. For permission regarding use, researchers should contact the corresponding authors, Jing Feng, Susana Marulanda, or Birsen Donmez. The scale is often utilized in academic transportation and human factors research.

The original PDF manuscripts detailing the instrument’s development and validation can be accessed via the following links:

• http://www4.ncsu.edu/se‎lectjfeng2/Feng_Marulanda_Donmez_2014_TRR_manuscript.pdf
• http://assets.conferencespot.org/fileserver/file/65807/filename/14-3009.pdf

The test year for the initial development and validation is 2013.

Reference’s

The primary reference for the Susceptibility to Driver Distraction Questionnaire (SDDQ) is:

Feng. Jing., Marulanda. Susana., and Donmez. Birsen. (2014). Susceptibility to Driver Distraction Questionnaire (SDDQ): Development and Relation to Relevant self-reported measures. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2434; 26-34.

Items of the Susceptibility to Driver Distraction Questionnaire (SDDQ)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

Section 1: Distraction Engagement

When driving, you:

1. hold phone conversations
2. manually interact with a phone (e.g., sending text messages).
3. adjust the settings of in vehicle technology technology (e.g., radio channel or song se‎lection).
4. read roadside advertisements.
5. continually check roadside accident scenes if there are any.
6. chat with passengers if you have them.
7. daydream.

Response Scale for Section 1: Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Often, Very Often

Section 2: Attitude and Beliefs about Voluntary Distraction

[Attitude] You think, it is alright for you to drive and:

1. hold phone conversations.
2. manually interact with a phone (e.g., sending text messages).
3. adjust the settings of in in-vehicle technology (e.g., radio channel or song se‎lection).
4. read roadside advertisements.
5. continually check roadside accident scenes if there are any.
6. chat with passengers if you have them.

[Perceived control] You believe you can drive well even when you:

1. hold phone conversations.
2. manually interact with a phone (e.g., sending text messages).
3. adjust the settings of in in-vehicle technology (e.g., radio channel or song se‎lection).
4. read roadside advertisements.
5. continually check roadside accident scenes if there are any.
6. chat with passengers if you have them.

[Perceived social norms 1] Most drivers around me drive and:

1. hold phone conversations.
2. manually interact with a phone (e.g., sending text messages).
3. adjust the settings of in in-vehicle technology (e.g., radio channel or song se‎lection).
4. read roadside advertisements.
5. continually check roadside accident scenes if there are any.
6. chat with passengers if you have them.

Response Scale for Section 2: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree

Section 3: Susceptibility to Involuntary Distraction

While driving, you find it distracting when

1. your phone is ringing.
2. you receive an alert from your phone (e.g., incoming text message).
3. you are listening to music.
4. you are listening to talk radio.
5. there are roadside advertisements.
6. there are roadside a accident scenes.
7. a passenger speaks to you.
8. Day dreaming

Response Scale for Section 3: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree, Never Happens