Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 28
28
· It may be necessary to provide consistent and uniform or directly from carriers (FMCSA Medical Review Board
testing conditions to obtain consistent results. 2007). This includes knowledge training in classrooms and
skill training on ranges (restricted off-road lots) and on-
1. Provide reasonable accommodations for people with road. New drivers must pass a CDL knowledge test to get
disabilities. No group should be disadvantaged by the their learners permits before behind-the-wheel training.
test or test conditions per se. Then they must pass a road and range driving skills test to
2. Maintain test security. For example, if specific test get their CDL. A new CDL range testing regimen has been
items on a knowledge test or inventory are not secure, developed and is being gradually adopted by different states.
applicants could memorize correct answers or other- The new test is intended to correspond more closely to real-
wise "game" the test. On the other hand, for some job world job requirements (Brock et al. 2007). The text box
qualifications it may be advisable to publicize specific contains the six basic range maneuvers required in the new
test items which must be passed. For example, case skills test (Brock et al. 2005).
study Carrier C has a video on its website showing all
of its physical ability test items. Currently, there are no specific U.S. federal training
· Maintain the security and confidentiality of test results. requirements except for classroom instruction on four
· Interpret test results correctly. Make sure that decision special topics not related directly to the driving task. The
makers understand the tests and what test results mean. four topics are HOS compliance, drug and alcohol regu-
Ensure that all test reports are easy to understand. lations, driver health and wellness, and whistleblower
protection. Other countries have specific training require-
ments relating to duration and quality of training, and at
SAFETY-RELATED DRIVER EMPLOYMENT TESTS this writing FMCSA is considering such requirements for
the United States.
Job Knowledge, Skill, and Training
Carriers are obviously concerned about the quality of
Chapter two reviewed basic federal commercial driver quali- entry-level driver training. School quality is judged by repu-
fications and some of the records that carriers are required tation, school certifications, and carriers' own experiences.
to keep of required checks made during selection and hiring. Duration of school training is apparently not a good predictor
Carriers must ensure that their drivers meet these require- of driver success. Across six large fleets and nearly 17,000
ments. Many also make further efforts to assess driver job entry-level drivers, the American Transportation Research
knowledge and skill. Carrier actions to do this are covered Institute (2008) compared the duration and subject content
in the project survey results (chapter four) and in carrier case of basic training with subsequent driver safety. Basic train-
studies (chapter five). ing contact hours ranged from 88 to 272, but training hours
did not correlate significantly with subsequent driver crashes
and violations. Hours of training in various specific topic
New CDL Skills Test: areas did not correlate well either. This finding is not sur-
Required Range Maneuvers prising, given the many driver individual differences largely
unaffected by training, the many other factors affecting on-
· Straight-line backing the-job safety, and the fact that, in general, differences in
training do not have long-term effects on employee on-the-
· Offset backing to the right job performance (Brock et al. 2007; Knipling 2009a).
· Offset backing to the left Driving Record
· Sight-side parallel parking Obtaining driver records is not a "test" in the usual sense, but
it functions in the same manner as a screening tool. Carriers
· Conventional parallel parking are obliged to review State Motor Vehicle Records (MVR)
for traffic violations and convictions. A new national pro-
· Alley dock gram allows carriers to voluntarily access crash and roadside
inspection data as well.
Source: Brock et al. (2005)
State Motor Vehicle Records
Carrier assessment of driver knowledge and skill focuses The FMCSRs (49 CFR 391.51) require motor carriers to
first on drivers' training histories, especially for newer obtain driver applicant MVRs covering the preceding 3
drivers. Entry-level drivers may receive formal training at years from state agencies (FMCSA 2008). This includes
community colleges, private truck driver training schools, every state in which a driver has been licensed during that
OCR for page 29
29
period. The MVR provides information on driver moving will become standard procedure for most safety-conscious
violations, other vehicle-related violations, involvement of carriers. Some progressive carriers plan to obtain PSP
crashes, and license suspensions. Crash preventability or records on their current drivers to further refine and inter-
"fault" is not specifically indicated, though traffic violations nally validate their selection of PSP data.
associated with crashes are shown. FMCSA (2008) provides
a form letter for MVR requests to state agencies. After a Medical Conditions and Physical Capabilities
driver is hired, carriers must obtain the driver's updated
MVR annually, and the driver must prepare and furnish a Medical Conditions
list of driving violations for the previous year.
Chapter two outlined the minimum commercial driver
Commercial services such as HireRight (www.hireright. physical qualification standards per federal regulations
com; also called DAC Trucking) provide MVRs and other (49 CFR 391.41) and provided a general background on the
driver history reports on a fee basis. Such services may pro- relation between medical conditions and driver crash risk.
vide other applicant history information as well, including Extensive information on federal commercial driver medi-
employment history, drug and alcohol testing history, work- cal qualifications and the latest rules and interpretations is
ers compensation searches, criminal background checks, available at http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/
credit history, and education verification. topics/medical/medical.htm. Medical evidence reports,
medical expert panel recommendations, and agency medi-
Pre-Employment Screening Program cal review panel reports are available on the following
safety-relevant health conditions:
The Pre-Employment Screening Program (PSP) is a new
screening tool developed by FMCSA for voluntary use by · Diabetes mellitus (endocrine disease)
carriers. PSP allows motor carriers and individual drivers · Schedule II licit (prescription) medications
to obtain driving records from the FMCSA Motor Carrier · Cardiovascular disease
Management Information System (MCMIS). Once carriers · Seizure disorders
enroll in PSP (www.psp.fmcsa.dot.gov), they can pay a $10 · Sleep disorders
fee to request driver records online. PSP driver information · Renal disease
contains the most recent 5 years of crash data and 3 years of · Vision
inspection data; because it contains only information from · Musculoskeletal disease
MCMIS, it does not include traffic violation conviction data. · Hearing
PSP records state a driver's total number of crashes for the · Psychiatric disease
past 5 years and the number resulting in fatalities, injuries, · Stroke
towaways, and HAZMAT releases. Inspection data include · Multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease
the number of driver, vehicle, and HAZMAT inspections con- · Substance abuse.
ducted and the number with out-of-service violations. Spe-
cific inspection violations and out-of-service violations are These and similar reports are intended to help the agency
listed (e.g., brakes out of adjustment, flat tire/fabric exposed, develop qualifications rules using an evidence-based
driver log not current). The information on PSP was previ- approach. The agency does not necessarily adopt panel rec-
ously provided by the FMCSA Driver Information Resource. ommendations, but provides the reports online for the pur-
poses of information sharing and transparency.
Carriers are not required to use PSP, but it has been
designed to be a convenient and inexpensive way to access FMCSA provides guidance to medical examiners (and
driver records. PSP does not contain data from state DMVs motor carrier companies) in an online handbook (http://
such as non-safety-related license suspensions (e.g., relating nrcme.fmcsa.dot.gov/mehandbook/MEhandbook.htm), and
to child support). Drivers can access their own PSP records also provides training specifications for medical examiners.
without prior enrollment. Carriers' first obligations are to ensure that their driver hires
meet these qualifications. A carrier's files on drivers must
PSP is a new system just completed in 2010, so its use include a copy of the Medical Examiner's Certificate.
is not yet standard operating procedure for most carriers.
Industry interest in the system is high, however, and its use Many other health-related resources are available to carri-
is increasing rapidly. Of 65 safety manager respondents in ers and drivers. The Healthy Trucking Association of Amer-
the project survey, 45 planned to use the system, 15 were ica (http://www.healthytruck.org) publishes Driver Health
not sure, and only 5 indicated that they would not use it. As magazine and sponsors various driver health initiatives.
noted previously, the project survey sample was not based on The American College of Occupational and Environmental
structured sampling procedure and thus cannot be regarded Medicine (www.acoem.org) is oriented toward physicians
as nationally representative. Even so, it appears that PSP use and other medical professions serving industry. This non-
OCR for page 30
30
governmental organization provides books, instructional detecting OSA in their driver candidates. Another concern
programs, and webinars on various occupational safety is cardiovascular illness. Both of these conditions have well-
and health issues and practices. They include a guide to estimated associations with elevated crash risk or proximal
commercial driver medical certification (Hartenbaum et crash causation (NTSB 1990; Young et al. 1997; Starnes
al. 2010), which focuses on the latest DOT regulations but 2006; Krueger et al. 2007; Knipling 2009a).
also includes expanded interpretations from the medical
literature and recommendations from the FMCSA Medical Physical Capabilities
Review Board. This private sector information supplements
that provided by FMCSA. Some companies require drivers to pass a physical activity
test before hire. Such tests are not intended to detect specific
As discussed in chapter two, the medical profile of U.S. medical conditions, but rather to assess drivers' and other
commercial drivers is generally poor. Compared with the employees' abilities to perform the physical tasks required
general population, commercial drivers are more likely to be in the job. For example, case study Carrier C tests driver
sedentary, overweight, have a cardiovascular condition, be abilities to carry, lift, climb, and crawl, all tasks performed
smokers, and have poor eating habits (Krueger et al. 2007; around a truck and as part of the job. A principal motivation
FMCSA 2010). Medical conditions can reduce driver safety for conducting such tests is to reduce workers compensa-
and employment success in three general ways: tion claims associated with loading/unloading, vehicle entry
and exit, and other potentially injurious tasks involved in
· Chronic performance decrements truck and bus driving. The MediGraph Software Functional
· Catastrophic performance failures (termed "critical Capacity Evaluation (Medigraph FCE; www.functional-
non-performance" in crash causation studies) capacity-evaluation.com) is an objective procedure to test
· Absenteeism and reduced employment longevity. individual work capability. Its website claims that it has
been scientifically peer reviewed. The full FCE requires an
Carriers are required by law to ensure that drivers meet array of equipment, including an inclinometer/goniometer
medical qualifications, but meeting this requirement does (for assessing head movement capability), treadmill, timer/
not eliminate their concerns regarding crash risk and car- stopwatch, adjustable-height shelving, lifting box, balance
rier liability. Whether a medical condition is identified as beam, assorted weights, and various smaller items. Specific
the direct cause of a crash or is merely suspected as an scored tasks are performed on each. Performance scores on
associated factor, carriers have high liability exposure individual tasks generate assessments of capabilities in vari-
when unhealthy drivers are involved in crashes. In some ous areas, including standing/walking, lifting, pushing/pull-
respects, carriers are caught between two needs. On the one ing, balance, dexterity, and perception. Scale scores can be
hand, drivers meeting all legal medical requirements can compared with a government defined job class and its asso-
still have medical conditions that contribute to crashes and ciated strength requirements from the Dictionary of Occu-
cause liability. On the other hand, employee selection meth- pational Titles. Like other physical and psychomotor tests,
ods should be fair, criterion-based, and legally defensible the FCE could identify some drivers with physical deficits
in relation to all driver traits, including medical conditions. inconsistent with safe driving. Beyond that, it is not intended
It is important that managers without medical training not to differentiate safe and unsafe drivers.
be making medical decisions. Employers are given more
leeway in regard to medical conditions than other traits, Commercially Available Safety-Relevant Selection Tests
however, because the ADA does not apply to transportation
safety-sensitive positions. Accommodations need not be This section presents commercially available selection tests
made for commercial driver medical conditions with known marketed for use for selecting safe fleet drivers, or that could
linkage to safety risks. be promising candidates for such use. Tests are described
in regard to the personal traits they seek to measure, how
In the project safety manager survey, the condition "poor they are administered, test content, and key findings relat-
general physical health" was given an average 5-point Likert ing to their validity. The similarity of test items to job tasks
scale rating of 3.6 by safety managers. This placed it about determines its content validity. The degree to which the test
in the middle of 12 personal characteristics listed in terms captures conceptual human traits relevant to safety reflects
of their perceived relation to crash risk. On the safety man- construct validity. The degree to which test scores correlate
ager (SM) form, 43 of 65 respondents indicated that their with job performance criteria, especially in future predic-
driver candidates completed a medical history questionnaire tions, is its criterion-related validity. Although test validity
during the selection process. Some top carriers have their is a key concern, this project did not formally validate any
own medical units, which perform a standardized medi- selection instrument. Motor carriers wishing to use these or
cal examination of applicants. This exam may duplicate a other selection instruments should seek more in-depth infor-
driver's existing medical certification or may involve higher mation on them, and also fully understand the legal require-
standards. Carriers interviewed seem most concerned about ments for selection test use.
OCR for page 31
31
and a specificity of 82% in relation to an on-road evaluation.
Disclaimer Here, sensitivity is defined as the percentage of subjects fail-
ing the road test given a test prediction of failure. Specificity
No selection test or other product or service was formally is measured by the percentage passing the road test given a
evaluated for this report. Specific products and services test prediction of passing. The test does not attempt to pre-
are described as examples for reader edification. No dict success for all subjects, however. No prediction is made
endorsement of any product or service by the authors or for those scoring in the middle, where pass-fail predictions
by TRB is implied or intended. are more likely to be incorrect.
DCAT identifies individuals with cognitive impairments
Much of the information on the following tests was but is not predictive of safe driving across normal driving
obtained from product websites or, in some cases, direct populations. The test may be useful, however, to obtain base-
discussions with test vendors. The authors strive to present line measures of individual driver performance. These data
only objective information here. When possible, support- may be useful if issues arise in the future about a driver's
ing evidence from the scientific research literature has been fitness, such as with school bus drivers, who may drive well
cited. More basic scientific research presented in chapter two into their older years.
is also relevant. As the disclaimer also states, however, no
endorsement of any product or service by the authors or pub- The development and validation of DCAT (A. R. Dobbs, per-
lisher of this report is intended. sonal communication, 2010) involved performance compari-
sons among three groups of drivers: older cognitively impaired,
DriveABLE older normal, and young normal. The two older groups aver-
aged about age 70, versus 36 for the young group. Over a 2-day
The DriveABLE Cognitive Assessment Tool (DCAT, www. period, each subject performed 14 different timed cognitive
driveable.com) is a 30-40 minute computer-based test of tasks and took an on-road driving test. The six dynamic tasks
dynamic performance (Dobbs, 2009). It was developed and were those most predictive of driving performance.
validated in relation to other cognitive tests for the purpose
of identifying drivers with cognitive or related sensorimotor The purpose of DriveABLE is not to classify the full
deficits predictive of impaired driving. Most often it is used range of drivers but rather to identify those too cognitively
in the assessment of older drivers, and it is effective in cap- impaired to drive safely. Classifying drivers in just two cat-
turing "competence" errors; that is, errors made by incom- egories based on the test would result in too many incorrect
petent drivers but not by those within normal ranges. DCAT classifications. Therefore, three prediction zones were estab-
includes six kinds of tasks measuring reaction time, span of lished: a strong prediction of road test failure, and indetermi-
attentional field, decision making, executive functions, and nate "gray area," and a strong prediction of road text success.
hazard identification. DCAT presents the test-taker with six These were applied to 234 older drivers referred for testing
dynamic tasks: by the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles and Highway
Safety because they had possible indications of cognitive
· Motor speed and control task incapacity for driving. The following "truth table," orga-
· Span of attention field task (ability to notice events in nized similar to the Figure 8 selection model, shows the clas-
the periphery of the visual field) sification results. Although none of the predictions is perfect,
· Spatial judgment and decision-making task (judging drivers in the two extreme prediction groups had sharply dif-
space and time in driving maneuvers) ferent success likelihoods in the actual road test.
· Speed of attentional shifting task (among different
hazards when driving)
· Executive function task (planning and executing TABLE 2
maneuvers) DCAT VALIDATION "TRUTH TABLE"
· Identification of driving situations task (recognizing Road Test Result Predict DCAT Prediction Predict Pass
crash threats as they arise). Fail No Prediction
Passed Road Test 2% 24% 32%
DCAT is not a driving simulator. Most of its tasks resemble
Failed Road Test 18% 19% 4%
simple computer games where the user responds by means
of push buttons or touch-screen responses, although the last
task presents videos of actual driving situations. Automated Dobbs (personal communication 2010) presents a fuller
test scoring provides normative scores for each task and an discussion of the validation methodology and results. Simi-
overall probability for success in the criterion test, an on- lar results are presented for a second validation group. Based
road evaluation. The DriveABLE website reports an overall on the research, a distinction is made between test and driv-
DCAT prediction accuracy of 95%, with a sensitivity of 93% ing errors indicative of cognitive impairment (discriminat-
OCR for page 32
32
ing errors) and those simply indicative of bad driving habits WayPoint®
(nondiscriminating errors). Normal subjects may make mul-
tiple nondiscriminating errors, perhaps indicative of care- WayPoint is a 4-minute Internet-based sensorimotor test,
less driving. The more serious discriminating errors seen in similar in some ways to the Trail-making Test Form B. Both
cognitively impaired subjects are indicative of incapacity to tests were introduced in chapter two. Subjects alternately
drive safely. connect numbered and alphabetized boxes (i.e., 1, A, 2, B, 3,
C) that are presented in random spatial patterns of increas-
Daecher Driver Profile ing complexity. Increased complexity is achieved by adding
distracting icons to the mix of letters and numbers. Figure
The Daecher Driver Profile (www.safetyteam.com) is an 9 shows WayPoint screens with and without distracters. The
online inventory questionnaire taken by drivers to assess dashed line shows the path of error-free performance.
their beliefs, attitudes, personality, opinions, and other per-
sonal characteristics related to success as a professional
driver. The Driver Profile is a 165-item questionnaire that
consists of 117 true-false items relating to personality charac-
teristics and 48 multiple-choice items on driver background
and attitudes predictive of safe driving. Administration time
is about 30 minutes for most respondents. The profile is auto-
matically scored, with results (an algorithmically derived
prediction of the applicant's probability of success) provided
to the employer customer. Daecher's promotional materials
state that the test is "effective in selecting commercial driv- FIGURE 9 Plain and embellished WayPoint worksheets.
ers who-- (Courtesy : WayPoint.)
· Have a high level of safety awareness Haphazard, mistake-prone WayPoint performance sug-
· Follow rules and regulations gests a similar approach to driving. When the icons are
· Are responsive to customer problems added to the test, a large decrement in performance suggests
· Maintain a courteous and professional manner that the individual could be highly distractible; for example,
· Are more likely to be seen by their supervisors as by a billboard or a cell phone message. In contrast, accord-
`superior' employees." ing to company literature, little or no decrement in per-
formance (undistractible) suggests that the individual has
Development of the profile was funded by a national "tunnel vision" and might not notice peripheral or surprise
insurer of commercial vehicle operators. Daecher's web- crash hazards. Neither extreme of distractibility is associ-
site states that the test has been independently validated ated with safe driving; the middle of the distractibility scale
using a concurrent criterion-related methodology. That is said to be ideal.
is, working commercial drivers' profile responses and
job ratings were compared and found to correlate sig- This U-shaped relationship between distractibility and
nificantly. Each of five subtest scores (corresponding to crash proneness was found in vendor validation studies
the driver characteristics listed above) correlated mod- involving drivers of both trucks and cars. In one study, 63
erately with driver job performance ratings. According tractor-semitrailer drivers took the WayPoint assessment.
to the website, the study conformed to applicable EEOC When their test scores were compared with preventable col-
guidelines for the validation of selection procedures and lision data from company records, the safest drivers scored in
does not discriminate against minorities. The company the middle of the distractibility scale, whereas those at both
also claims that it is difficult for drivers to falsely make extremes had higher risk. Similar results were reported for a
themselves "look good" on the test. A 7-step summary of much larger sample of noncommercial drivers. The WayPoint
the Daecher validation process is provided in Appendix developer also provided unpublished data on 121 Metropoli-
B. Their reported validation coefficient is +0.33, putting tan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority transit bus operators.
it in the "likely to be useful" range per the DOL guide- WayPoint scores for these operators followed the U-shaped
lines discussed earlier. function for preventable crashes, unpreventable crashes, cus-
tomer complaints, and absent days. Median WayPoint scores
The company also provides a Professional Driver Hir- were predictive of best performance per all four job criteria.
ing Program guide for "recruiting, screening, and selecting
the best candidates." Appendix F of CTBSSP Synthesis 1 The concept of a U-shaped relationship between distract-
(Knipling et al. 2003) provides related driver selection infor- ibility and crash proneness is by no means established as
mation and materials contributed by the Daecher Consulting fact, but it could be consistent with existing information
Group to that effort. about proximal crash causes. In the LTCCS, 19% of truck
OCR for page 33
33
at-fault multivehicle crashes had a CR of inattention (i.e., tract" renewed every 12 months. Driver must affirm
distraction, daydreaming), whereas an equal 19% had a CR that he or she agrees to or will abide by 45 safety-
of "looked but did not see." "Looked but did not see" could related practices.
be construed as "undistractibility" in this model of driver · RiskCOACH: Short training and other recommended
crash risk based on WayPoint. interventions aimed at specific risks.
· BenchMARKING: Carrier self-audits in which they
Scheig Hiring and Performance System can anonymously benchmark their company's crash
data and safety standards with other organizations and
The Scheig system (www.scheig.com) provides a three-phase network with other fleet managers.
hiring process based on a job analysis: (1) applicant assess-
ment questionnaire; (2) applicant structured interview; and, Virtual Risk Manager uses carrier and driver inputs from
for those hired, (3) performance evaluation. Scheig's descrip- audits, crash data, risk assessments, training results, and
tion of its job analysis says that several hundred job-specific electronic license checks. The company states that its prod-
behaviors are generated for each job analyzed. Using these job ucts were developed based on research, trials, and user eval-
behaviors, Scheig produces behaviorally based job descrip- uations by two universities in the United Kingdom involving
tions and uses them to develop the assessment questionnaire. groups of 8,000, 16,000, and 26,000 drivers. It also asserts
The assessment contains two sections, an "interest and will- that one truck fleet reduced claims by 25% and driver at-fault
ingness" checklist and a forced-choice questionnaire. The incidents 75% over a 12-month period.
interest and willingness checklist lists around 100 behaviors,
often with an embedded standard of acceptable performance The company's website and promotional materials report
(though one intended not to be obvious to the test-taker). An a study on the RoadRISK application. Six different driving
example behavior is "Seeks assistance, advice, or directions if risk measures were compared with individuals' numbers of
unsure how to handle a task or situation." The applicants indi- collisions. Subjects were mostly engineers and managers
cate two responses for each behavior: the degree of experience rather than commercial drivers. The six measures of risk
they have doing the behavior, and whether they are willing or were as follows:
unwilling to meet that condition of the job. The forced-choice
questionnaire asks applicants to choose between two actual · Exposure to risk, based on 26 questions about age, type
job behaviors. Both choices are intended to sound equally of driving, and amount of driving
"good," though one choice actually indicates high perfor- · Attitudes about driving, based on 10 multiple-choice
mance and the other indicates low performance in the context questions
of the job analysis. From the same job analysis data, Scheig · Driving behavior, based on 10 multiple-choice
says it develops a behaviorally based structured interview as questions
a second screening step for those passing the questionnaire · Knowledge of the rules of the road, based on 10 knowl-
phase. The third phase, performance evaluation, is not part edge questions
of hiring in itself but rather a check on the hiring decision for · Hazard perception, based on subject responses to the
each new hire, an aid to new employee performance improve- presentation of 15 pictures of potentially hazardous
ment, and a method of further validating and refining the road situations
whole selection process. Past clients include BASF and Chev- · Total score, a composite of the above.
ron in chemicals, and SYSCO and Food Services of America
in food preparation and distribution. All six scale scores were reported to vary with actual
crash experience. The knowledge score was the weakest pre-
Virtual Risk Manager dictor, whereas the exposure, behavior, and total scores were
the strongest predictors.
Interactive Driver Systems (www.virtualriskmanger.net)
incorporates various sources of information to assess indi- More detail on RoadRISK research was provided in
vidual driver risk, aggregate risk for a company, and provide a conference presentation by Rea et al. (2004). In one of
risk-reduction training and interventions. Its service compo- several different research studies cited (the one involving
nents include the following: 16,000 drivers), drivers with low (bad) RoadRISK scores
were 2.2 times more likely to have three or more crashes
· RoadRISK: Online driver questionnaire intended to during a 3-year period than those who scored high (good).
tap driver safety attitudes, hazard perception, behav- The authors acknowledged that part of this effect was
iors, knowledge, and risk exposures. derived from exposure differences between the groups.
· DriverINDEX: Predictive model to identify clients' Nevertheless, individual scales were each associated
most "at-risk" drivers. with crash risk. For example, the mean number of crashes
· RiskFOUNDATION: Carrier safety policy and prac- over a 3-year period for three attitude-scale groups were
tices guide structured as a carrier-driver "safety con- as follows:
OCR for page 34
34
· Low (bad) attitude score (N = 3,616): 0.32 crashes ProfileXT®
· Medium attitude score (N = 6,200): 0.25 crashes
· High (good) attitude score (N = 16, 106): 0.22 crashes. Like MindData, ProfileXT is a commercially available general-
purpose employee selection instrument that is normed against
MindData Attitude Index a company's current employees. The 60-minute test is admin-
istered online and generates specific scale scores under the
MindData (www.minddata.com) offers a general-purpose categories "thinking and reasoning," "behavioral traits," and
employee selection test that is validated against a company's "occupational interests." Improved employee selection is the
successful and unsuccessful employees. Its use for selecting principal use of this and similar assessment profiles, but they
drivers for a trucking company, for example, would require can also be used for employee placement, promotion, coaching,
administration of the test to current drivers along with objec- and job description development. Case Study F describes the
tive data on those drivers' safety or other measures of job use of ProfileXT by a medium-size private carrier to improve
performance quality. Its core test, called the MindData Atti- its driver hiring. The carrier administered the profile to current
tude Index 100 (MD/100), is a personality profile that gener- drivers, and found that prominent behavioral traits of success-
ates scale scores for 10 traits: ful drivers included "manageability" and "accommodating-
ness." Occupational interests associated with good drivers
· Aggressiveness --the degree to which wants or included "mechanical" and "people service." Some personal
demands are made known traits usually prized in employees, including assertiveness,
· Compassion--the level of concern or disinterest in the decisiveness, and an occupational interest in enterprise, were
needs of others not necessarily characteristic of successful drivers.
· Compliance --the tendency to resist or obey rules and
regulations NEO Five-Factor Inventory
· Diplomacy --the level of communication, from diplo-
matic to blunt The NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) is a 60-item
· Concentration --the ability to concentrate on a task questionnaire that classifies people on five scales: Neuroti-
despite distraction cism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Consci-
· Optimism --the level of optimism or pessimism entiousness. Secondary scales derivable from NEO data can
· Sensitivity --how criticism will be handled assess additional traits like impulsivity/impatience and Type
· Commitment--the extent to which promises may be A personality. As discussed in chapter two, these personality
reliably kept traits are relevant to personal risk perception and risk-related
· Sociability --the extent to which one enjoys or avoids behaviors. The NEO-FFI is used extensively in research,
dealing with others psychological assessment, and personnel selection for non-
· Ethics --a representation of one's value system. driving jobs. Its use in selecting drivers or other safety-sen-
sitive jobs is probably limited, but some studies have shown
A longer version of the index assesses 10 additional traits: that specific NEO scale scores are related to driving safety
adaptability, anxiety, decisiveness, determination, drive, and also to employee retention.
initiative, meticulousness, organization, stamina, and trust.
Some tested traits may be strongly related to driving safety, Strong safety evidence comes from a meta-analysis of 47
others moderately, and others not at all. Determination of studies of the five NEO personality factors in occupational and
the relevance of any one scale would be based on data from nonoccupational settings (Clarke and Robertson 2005). The
current employees, as well as other studies of personal traits meta-analysis found that, across a number of different coun-
relevant to safety. For example, traits like aggressiveness tries and jobs, individuals low in both agreeableness and con-
and compliance have both face validity (apparent validity) as scientiousness were more likely to be involved in accidents.
safety predictors, as well as extensive corroborative evidence "The results revealed criterion-related validity for two per-
from various studies. Other traits like diplomacy, sensitivity, sonality dimensions, agreeableness and conscientiousness, of
and sociability may be measured reliably by the text but have 0.26 and 0.27, respectively, indicating that individuals low in
little or no predictive validity in relation to driving safety. agreeableness and low in conscientiousness are more liable to
be accident-involved." Another rationale for assessing these
The MindData Attitude Index can be administered either two personality traits is that they relate to other aspects of
online of offline. The original form of the test has been adju- success as a commercial driver. Most notably, agreeableness
dicated and approved by a federal court as meeting EEOC relates to customer relations, and conscientiousness relates
validation guidelines, although the company's website does to load security and financial dealings. The study also found
not indicate the specific jobs to which this validation applies. that neuroticism (anxiety level) was associated with number
MindData markets its products as tools for both employee of accidents in occupational settings. Extraversion was also
selection and promotion. an accident predictor, but only in nonoccupational settings.
OCR for page 35
35
Driver Behavior Questionnaire · Risk perception scales:
Worry and insecurity (emotion-based)
The Driver Behavior Questionnaire (DBQ; Parker et al. Assessment of crash probability
2001) is a questionnaire that asks subjects to indicate on a Concern (cognition-based)
six-point scale (from "never" to "all the time") how often · Risk-taking attitudes:
they engage in faulty or dangerous driving behaviors. Exam- Attitude toward rule violation and speeding
ple behaviors include speeding in residential areas, racing Attitude toward careless driving of others
starts from traffic lights to beat other drivers, backing into Attitude toward drinking and driving.
other objects, skidding on a slippery road, and steering the
wrong way into a skid. One version of the DBQ has 24 items Two statistical models, the Logit model and the Structural
and yields three measures of driver behavior--violations, Equation Model, were used to identify "influential paths" of
errors, and lapses, defined as follows: influence among the scales and driver behavioral history. Inter-
relationships were seen between violation history (serious and
· Violations: deliberate deviations from rules ordinary), crashes, and various risk perception and risk-taking
· Errors: mistakes; intended actions with unintended measures. The scale "attitude toward rule violation and speed-
consequences ing" was found to have the strongest interrelationships with
· Lapses: executions of unintended actions. other risk perception and behavioral measures. Figure 10 shows
these relationships. Thiffault (2007) also noted the associations
According to Sullman et al. (2002), only the "violations" of violations and attitudes about them with crash risk.
score correlates significantly with past and future crash
involvement. This relation has been found across many dif-
ferent samples and countries, however. Sullman et al. (2002)
enlisted the cooperation of five New Zealand trucking com-
panies to administer the test to 378 truck drivers. Their most
common admitted aberrant behaviors were disregarding
highway speed limits, sounding their horns in anger, and
showing other forms of anger toward other drivers. Drivers FIGURE 10 Correlations among key risk attitudes, risk
with high DBQ violations were 50% more likely than other perceptions, and behaviors. (Source : Based on Ma et al.
drivers to have been involved in a crash over the previous 3 2010.)
years. They also tended to be younger and less experienced.
The study noted that these significant associations emerged Driver Stress Inventory
from the study, even though truck driver subjects might have
understated their bad driving behaviors on the questionnaire. The Driver Stress Inventory (DSI; Matthews et al. 1996,
This suggests that the real associations may be even greater 1997) assesses driver emotions about driving, including fear,
than those measured. Unfortunately, it also suggests that if anger, and boredom. The DSI is an experimentally validated
driver applicants took the test, they would "see through" the questionnaire designed to assess an individual's vulnerabil-
intent of many questions and minimize any indications of ity to stress during driving and to evaluate the coping meth-
misbehavior and risk. ods employed in stressful driving situations. The DSI has
two sections. The first section contains 12 items to evaluate
A study conducted in China used a different version of the driving habits and history, including the number of years a
DBQ to explore relationships among risk perception, risk- driver has been licensed, the typical number of days driven
taking attitudes, and behavioral history, including serious in a week, the typical roads traveled on, the number of miles
violations, ordinary violations, and crashes. Ma et al. (2010) driven annually, and the number and severity of accidents
administered the DBQ to 248 taxi and bus drivers in Wuhan, in the past 3 years. The second section consists of 48 Lik-
China. Subjects responded on a Likert scale to risk percep- ert scale items describing attitudes and emotional reactions
tion and risk-taking related items such as the following: experienced while driving. These are designed to assess a
driver on five dimensions of driver stress vulnerability:
· "Worried for yourself being injured in a traffic crash?" aggression, dislike of driving, hazard monitoring, thrill-
· "Many traffic rules must be ignored to ensure traffic seeking, and fatigue proneness. Sample items (each requir-
flow." ing a 10-point Likert scale response ranging from "Not at
· "If you are a good driver it is acceptable to drive a little all" to "Very much.") include the following:
faster."
· Does it worry you to drive in bad weather?
Several statistical methods were used to distill the mul- · At times, I feel like I really dislike other drivers who
tiple answers into a smaller number of psychological scales: cause problems for me.
