Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: Ledesma, R. D., Montes, S. A., Poó, F. M., & López-Ramón, M. F. (2014). Measuring individual differences in driver inattention: Further validation of the attention-related driving errors scale. Human Factors, 57, 193–207.

Abstract: Objective: The aim of this research was (a) to study driver inattention as a trait-like variable and (b) to provide new evidence of validity for the Attention-Related Driving Errors Scale (ARDES).
Background: Driving inattention is approached from an individual differences perspective. We are interested in how drivers vary in their propensity to experience failures of attention and in the methods to measure these differences.
Method: In a first sample (n = 301), we tested, via confirmatory factor analysis, a new theoretical model for the ARDES. In a second sample (n = 201), we evaluated the relationship between inattention and internal and external sources of distraction and social desirability bias in ARDES responses. A subsample (n = 65) was reevaluated to study temporal stability of the ARDES scores.
Results: Errors measured by the ARDES can be classified according to the driving task level at which they occur (navigation, maneuvering, or control). Differences in ARDES scores based on collision history were observed. ARDES was related to internal sources of distraction and was independent of the level of exposure to distracting activities. Test-retest showed a high degree of stability in ARDES scores. Low correlations were found with a social desirability measure.
Conclusion: ARDES appears to measure a personal trait that remains relatively stable over time and is relatively independent of distracting activities. New evidence of validity emerged for this self-report.
Application: ARDES can be used to measure individual differences in driving inattention and to help tailor preventive interventions for inattentive drivers. It can serve as an instrument of driver self-assessment in educational and training contexts.

Discussion Questions:

1. What aspects of this study allow us to define it as experiments?
2. Consider the design of the study. What is the independent variable? What are the levels of the IV? Does the design change throughout the study?
3. Were the independent variables in the experiments manipulated between-subjects or within-subjects? How do you know?
4. Did the researchers find an interaction between variables? If so, describe the interaction.

Journal Article 2: Geiger, J. R., Wilks, S. E., Lovelace, L. L., Chen, J., & Spivey, C. A. (2014). Burden among male Alzheimer’s caregivers: Effects of distinct coping strategies. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias, 30, 238–246.

Abstract: Focusing on the understudied, increasing population of male Alzheimer’s disease (AD) caregivers, the purpose of this study was to identify their likelihood of utilizing 3 coping strategies (task focused, emotion focused, and avoidance focused) and to examine the effects of each coping strategy on caregiving burden. Data were collected from 138 male AD caregivers in southern United States, including geographically proportional representation of African Americans in the sample. Stepwise regression revealed effects of each coping strategy on caregiving burden, controlling for demographics. The sample reported high burden. Task focused was the highest reported coping strategy. Yet, regression models indicated no significant effect of task-focused coping on burden outcomes. Emotion-focused and avoidance-focused coping each showed significant proportional effects on burden. Implications suggest that emotion- and avoidance-focused coping among male AD caregivers may be maladaptive, that is, reinforcing burden. Male AD caregivers may benefit from more task-focused coping, such as planning and active problem solving.

Discussion Questions:

1. What aspects of this study allow us to define it as experiments?
2. Consider the design of the study. What is the independent variable? What are the levels of the IV? Does the design change throughout the study?
3. Were the independent variables in the experiments manipulated between-subjects or within-subjects? How do you know?
4. Did the researchers find an interaction between variables? If so, describe the interaction.