Adelaide Driving Self-Efficacy Scale (ADSES)

Overview

We conducted a literature search to identify all relevant publications examining the psychometric properties of the Adelaide Driving Self-Efficacy Scale. Only two studies have been identified (Stapleton, Connolly & O’Neill, 2012; George, Clark & Crotty, 2007). Additional research on the psychometric properties of this scale is required as most information currently available originates from the authors of the scale.

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Stapleton, Connolly & O’Neill (2012) recruited 46 patients with stroke (average 2 months post-stroke) to examine use of the ADSES and the proxy version of the ADSES (ADSES-P) to assess driving post-stroke. The authors noted a ceiling effect for all individual items on the ADSES and ADSES-P. The authors explained this effect by the fact that most participants were at an early stage of stroke and may not have been aware of the impact of the stroke on their driving.

Reliability

Internal consistency:
George, Clark and Crotty (2007) examined the internal consistency of the ADSES in a sample of 81 patients with stroke and 79 non-stroke individuals, using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Internal consistency of the scale was excellent (α = 0.98), and remained unchanged across all items.

Inter-rater:
No studies have examined the inter-rater reliability of the ADSES.

Intra-rater:
No studies have examined the intra-rater reliability of the ADSES.

Test-retest:
No studies have examined the test-retest reliability of the ADSES.

Validity

Content:
George, Clark and Crotty (2007) conducted a literature review regarding self-efficacy and older drivers, then combined this information with their own clinical experience to generate a list of driving behaviours that can be influenced by medical conditions such as a stroke. Content validity was tested by an expert group composed of (i) mobility instructors of the Guide Dogs Association of South Australia and Northern Territory Inc.; (ii) driver-trained occupational therapists; and (iii) the project steering committee, and resulted in a final list of 12 items.

Criterion:
Concurrent:
No studies have examined the concurrent validity of the ADSES.

Predictive:
Stapleton et al. (2012) recruited 46 patients with stroke (average 2 months post-stroke) to compare ADSES and ADSES-P scores with on-road driving assessments, using Spearman’s rho. On-road driving assessments were conducted with 35 participants using the Jewish Rehabilitation Hospital Road Evaluation Form (JRHREF) and the Test Ride for Investigating Practical Fitness to Drive (TRIP) – Belgian version. Results showed adequate correlations between the ADSES and on-road driving assessments (JRHREF, r=0.497; TRIP, r=0.433) and adequate to excellent correlations between the ADSES-P and on-road driving assessments (JRHREF, r=0.614; TRIP, r=0.507).

George, Clark and Crotty (2007) examined criterion validity of the ADSES by comparing ADSES scores with a standardized on-road assessment, in a sample of 45 participants with stroke (n=34), traumatic brain injury/other condition and older drivers. An independent samples t-test was used to examine the relationship between ADSES scores and pass/fail results of an on-road driving assessment. Results showed a significant relationship between total ADSES scores and on-road driving performance for the whole cohort and the stroke subgroup (p˂0.01, p˂0.05 respectively), whereby people who failed the on-road driving assessment obtained a lower ADSES total score. These results demonstrated that driving self-efficacy as measured by the ADSES was predictive of on-road driving assessment outcome.

Construct:
Convergent/Discriminant:
McNamara, Walker, Ratcliffe & George (2015) examined the convergent validity of the ADSES and the Driving Habits Questionnaire (DHQ) in a sample of 40 patients with stroke who returned to driving in the previous 3 years, using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. There was a significant relationship between ADSES and three aspects of the DHQ: (i) driving space (r=0.35); (ii) number of kilometers driven per week (r=0.43); and (iii) self-limiting driving (r=0.63).

Stapleton, Connolly & O’Neill (2012) examined convergent validity of the ADSES and ADSES-P in a sample of 46 patients with stroke (average 2 months post-stroke), using Spearman’s rho. Results showed an excellent correlation at initial assessment (r=0.707) and at 6-month follow-up (r=0.927). While there was no significant difference in ADSES scores from initial assessment to 6-month follow-up, there was a significant difference in ADSES-P scores between the two time-points (p=0.028).

Known groups:
McNamara, Ratcliffe & George (2014) examined known group validity of the ADSES in a sample of 40 patients with stroke who returned to driving and 114 older drivers who have not had a stroke, using Mann–Whitney U-test. There was no significant difference in ADSES scores between drivers following stroke and those who have not had a stroke (t(153) = 0.32, P = 0.58).

George, Clark and Crotty (2007) examined known group validity of the ADSES by comparing ADSES scores of participants with stroke (n=81) and a normative sample of individuals who had not had a stroke (n=79), using an independent samples t-test. There was a significant difference in ADSES scores between groups (p˂0.05).

Responsiveness

No studies have examined the responsiveness of the ADSES.

References
    • George, S., Clark, M., & Crotty, M. (2007). Development of the Adelaide driving self-efficacy scale. Clinical Rehabilitation, 21(1), 56-61.
    • McNamara, A., Ratcliffe, J., & George, S. (2014). Evaluation of driving confidence in post‐stroke older drivers in South Australia.Australasian Journal on Ageing33(3), 205-207.
    • McNamara, A., Walker, R., Ratcliffe, J., & George, S. (2015). Perceived confidence relates to driving habits post-stroke.Disability and Rehabilitation37(14), 1228-1233.
    • Stapleton, T., Connolly, D., & O’Neill, D. (2012). Exploring the relationship between self‐awareness of driving efficacy and that of a proxy when determining fitness to drive after stroke. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 59(1), 63-70.