ArticleInternational journal of occupational medicine and environmental health2026
Tracking risk-taking behind the wheel: Which indicator of risky driving is the most useful in driving simulator studies? A pilot study.
Article in International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Behind the Wheel of a Truck Simulator: Comparison of Self-Reported, Performance-Based, and Simulation Methods for Predicting Driver Traffic Offences.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study evaluated the validity and usefulness of selected indicators for assessing risky driving behavior in truck simulator research, which is critical for developing ecologically valid and reliable research methods in the domain of traffic safety and public health. The aims were to present various risky driving indicators, assess their validity, compare their utility, and provide guidance for future simulator-based research. MATERIAL AND
methodsThirty professional truck drivers took part in experimental and control drives in a truck simulator. The experimental drive contained 12 decision-making situations requiring driver response, while the control scenario followed the same route without these situations. Data included qualitative behavioral indicators assessed by an observer (speed reduction, stopping, bypassing, no reaction) and quantitative speed parameters automatically recorded by the simulator. Participants also provided their traffic violation history. Analyses employed mixed linear models, intraclass correlation coefficients, and reliability testing.
resultsOnly 5 of 12 decision-making situations demonstrated diagnostic value in differentiating drivers. Among qualitative indicators, speed reduction proved most useful, while among quantitative measures, the difference between maximum and minimum speed showed the highest reliability (α = 0.71). Cluster analysis identified 2 driver groups that significantly differed in their speed adjustment behavior (p = 0.033, d = 0.7), with drivers reporting more traffic violations showing smaller speed adjustments.
conclusionsThis pilot study demonstrates that dynamic indicators based on speed changes are more useful for assessing risky driving than simple speed parameters. Acceptable reliability (α > 0.70) was achieved with a set of 5 appropriately selected decision-making situations. Driving simulator research benefits from careful selection of test scenarios and a multi-method approach to evaluation, including control drive comparisons. These preliminary findings provide practical guidance for designing simulator-based assessments of risky driving behavior. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2026;39(2):202-22.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.