SpringerLink
Log in

Older drivers’ attitudes and preferences about instrument cluster designs in vehicles revealed by the Dashboard Questionnaire

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Older drivers are a rapidly growing demographic group worldwide; many have visual processing impairments. Little is known about their preferences about vehicle instrument cluster design. We evaluated the psychometric properties of a questionnaire on “dashboard” design for a population-based sample of 1000 older drivers. Topics included gauges, knobs/switches, and interior lighting; items were statements about their visual design. Response options used a Likert-scale (“Definitely True” to “Definitely False”). Factor and Rasch analyses identified underlying subscales. Driver responses revealed four thematic subscales fitting the Rasch model: cognitive processing, lighting, pattern recognition, and obstructions. Internal consistency of subscales was acceptable (0.70–0.87); all possessed a sufficiently unidimensional structure. Opportunities for improvement were identified (item scope, category ordering, discrimination of respondents’ perception levels). Assessment of motor vehicle dashboard preferences indicated cognitive processing, lighting, pattern recognition, and obstructions are areas relevant to older drivers. Future work will examine the relationship between older drivers’ visual function (e.g., contrast sensitivity, visual processing speed) and their design preferences as revealed by the Dashboard Questionnaire, with the aim to optimize instrument cluster displays for older drivers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

Data requests can be made to the corresponding author.

References

  • Andrich D (1995) Models for measurement, precision, and the nondichotomization of graded responses. Psychometrica 60:7–26

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Andrich D (2010) Understanding the response structure and process in the polytomous Rasch model. In: Nering M, Ostini R (eds) Handbook of Polytomous Item Response Theory Models. Routledge, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Badia X, Prieto L, Linacre JM (2002) Differential item and test functioning (DIF & DTF). Rasch Meas Trans 16:889

    Google Scholar 

  • Bond T, Fox CM (2015) Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Routledge, New York,

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho R, Soares M (2012) Ergonomic and usability analysis on a sample of automobile dashboards. Work 41:1507–1514. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0345-1507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charness N (2008) Aging and human performance. Hum Factors 50:548–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comrey AL, Lee Howard B (1992) A first course in factor analysis, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Congdon N, O’Colmain B, Klaver CCW, Klein R, Mun˜oz B, Friedman DS, Kempen J, Taylor HR, Mitchell P, Hyman L (2004) Causes and prevalence of visual impairment among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol 122:477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Draba RE (1977) The Identification and Interpretation of Item Bias (Research Memorandum No. 25). The University of Chicago Department of Education Education Statistics Laboratory, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher WP (2007) Rating scale instrument quality criteria. Rasch Meas Tran 21:1095

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher WP Jr (1993) Measurement-related problems in functional assessment. Am J Occup Ther 47:331–338. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.47.4.331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green P, Kerst J, Ottens D, Goldstein S, Adams S (1987) Driver preferences for secondary controls (UMTRI-87–47). The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbeth N, Blumenthal D (2019) 20 Automobiles in context. In: Meiselman HL (ed) Context. Woodhead Publishing, pp 409–430

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp S, Grace RC (2010) When can information from ordinal scale variables be integrated? Psychol Methods 15:398–412. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linacre J (2002a) What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Meas Trans 16:878

    Google Scholar 

  • Linacre JM (2002b) Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Appl Meas 3:85–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Linacre J (2003) What is item response theory, IRT? A tentative taxonomy. Rasch Meas Trans 17:926–927

    Google Scholar 

  • Linacre JM (2017a) DIF, DPF, bias, interactions concepts. https://www.winsteps.com/winman/difconcepts.htm. Accessed 9 March 2022

  • Linacre JM (2017b) Winsteps®. 3.93.0. Beaverton, Oregon: Winsteps.com

  • Liu Y, Wu AD, Zumbo BD (2009) The impact of outliers on Cronbach’s coefficient alpha estimate of reliability: ordinal/rating scale item responses. Educ Psychol Meas 70:5–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164409344548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo C, Liang W-M, Hang L-W, Wu T-C, Chang Y-J, Chang C-H (2015) A psychometric assessment of the St. George’s respiratory questionnaire in patients with COPD using rasch model analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 13:131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGwin G Jr, Chapman V, Owsley C (2000) Visual risk factors for driving difficulty among older drivers. Accid Anal Prev 32:735–744. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(99)00123-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers LS, Gamst GC, Guarino AJ (2013) Performing data analysis using IBM SPSS. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Owsley C (2016) Vision and aging. Ann Rev Vision Sci 2:255–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owsley C, Stalvey B, Wells J, Sloane ME (1999) Older drivers and cataract: driving habits and crash risk. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 54A:M203–M211. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/54.4.M203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owsley C, McGwin G, Seder T (2011) Older drivers’ attitudes about instrument cluster designs in vehicles. Accid Anal Prev 43:2024–2029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owsley C, McGwin G, Searcey K (2013) A population-based examination of the visual and ophthalmological characteristics of licensed drivers aged 70 and older. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 68:567–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prevent Blindness America (2008) Vision problems in the U.S., prevalence of adult vision impairment and age-related eye disease in America (4th ed).

  • Rasch G (1960) Studies in mathematical psychology: I probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Nielsen & Lydiche, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasch G (1980) Some probabilistic models for intelligence and attainment tests. University of Chicago, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbloom S, Santos R (2014) Understanding older drivers: an examination of medical conditions, medication use, and travel behavior. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Salzberger T (2010) Does the Rasch model convert an ordinal scale into an interval scale? Rasch Meas Trans 24:1273–1275

    Google Scholar 

  • Strayer DL, Cooper JM, Goethe RM, McCarty MM, Getty DJ, Biondi F (2019a) Assessing the visual and cognitive demands of in-vehicle information systems. Cogn Res Princ Implic 4:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-019-0166-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strayer DL, Cooper JM, McCarty MM, Getty DJ, Wheatley CL, Motzkus CJ, Goethe RM, Biondi F, Horrey WJ (2019b) Visual and cognitive demands of carplay, android auto, and five native infotainment systems. Hum Factors 61:1371–1386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819836575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2007) Using multivariate statistics, 5th edn. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Tefft BC (2017) Rates of motor vehicle crashes, injuries and deaths in relation to driver age, United States, 2014–2015. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014 2015/#:~:text=The%20crash%20rate%20of%20drivers,had%20the%20lowest%20crash%20rate. Accessed 6 June 2021

  • Tennant K, Pallant J, Pallant JF (2006) Unidimensionality matters! (A tale of two Smiths?). Rasch Meas Trans 20:1048–1051

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Linden W, Hambleton R (eds) (1997) Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Werner JS, Schefrin BE, Bradley A (2010) Optics and vision of the aging eye. In: Bass M, Enoch JM, Lakshminarayanan V (eds) Handbook of Optics. McGraw Hill, New York, p 14.1-14.31

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

General Motors PRVA0258, National Institutes of Health R01EY018966, P30AG022838, and P30EY003039, EyeSight Foundation of Alabama, and Research to Prevent Blindness.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 University Boulevard, Suite 609, Birmingham, AL, 35233, USA

    Thomas A. Swain, Gerald McGwin Jr, Carrie E. Huisingh & Cynthia Owsley

  2. Department of Human Studies, School of Education, University of Alabama at Birmingham, EB 233, Birmingham, AL, 35294-1250, USA

    Scott W. Snyder

  3. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1665 University Blvd, Birmingham, AL, 35294-0022, USA

    Thomas A. Swain & Gerald McGwin Jr

  4. General Motors R&D Center, Warren, MI, 48090, USA

    Thomas Seder

Authors
  1. Thomas A. Swain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scott W. Snyder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gerald McGwin Jr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carrie E. Huisingh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thomas Seder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cynthia Owsley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GM, TS, and CO: were responsible for the conception and design of the Dashboard Questionnaire. CO and GM: were responsible for the overall study design and data collection. SS: completed and interpreted all Rasch analyses, with involvement from TAS, GM, CH, and CO. TAS, CH, SS, GM, and CO: all drafted portions or substantively revised the manuscript. All authors approved the final version and each take responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of all work presented.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas A. Swain.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Informed consent

The University of Alabama at Birmingham Institutional Review Board approved this study (#080214009). All participants completed informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 16 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Swain, T.A., Snyder, S.W., McGwin, G. et al. Older drivers’ attitudes and preferences about instrument cluster designs in vehicles revealed by the Dashboard Questionnaire. Cogn Tech Work 25, 65–74 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-022-00710-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-022-00710-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation