The role of ecological validity in hazard perception assessment

• Two tasks for hazard perception assessment were compared.
• Experienced and learner drivers performed one of the tasks.
• Ecological validity and scenario type have an effect on test quality.
• No hazard scenarios: higher impact of expertise for the high-validity task.
• Materialized hazards: high impact of expertise for both tasks.

Hazard perception is one of the few quantifiable components of driving competency that can explain the high crash risk of novice drivers (see Horswill & McKenna, 2004). Some studies focused on investigating the stimulus part of hazard perception items by comparing several design features of the displayed traffic scenarios (e.g. Malone et al., 2012; Scialfa et al., 2013). Other empirical studies have been conducted to address the reaction part of hazard perception items (e.g. Vlakveld, 2014). Among others, existing hazard perception tests differ with respect to the ecological validity – the similarity to real-world demands – of the task that has to be completed by the participants (simple reaction, hazard localization, simulated driving, etc.). Based on the findings of general expertise research (see Glaser & Chi, 1988), the hypothesis of the present experiment was that an increased ecological validity of a hazard perception task has a positive effect on the magnitude of performance differences between more and less experienced drivers. 104 learner drivers and 51 experienced drivers were randomly assigned either to a less ecological valid version (multiple choice task) or a higher ecological valid version (reaction task) of a hazard perception test. In both conditions, the same 20 animated hazardous or non-hazardous traffic scenarios were presented. Overall, the experienced drivers outperformed the learner drivers. Principally, both of the applied versions of the test provided a criterion valid measure of driving expertise. However, increasing the ecological validity of the test by using a reaction task was especially beneficial for certain types of scenarios, leading to higher expertise-related differences. In addition, the reaction task provides response time measure as a further valid performance indicator. This allows the identification of those participants who are indeed able to detect a hazard in a certain scenario, but still have deficits in response time, compared to more experienced drivers. According to the present study, it is recommended to choose the reaction task over the multiple choice task to test hazard perception. Whether a further increase in ecological validity of the task would be useful, should be tested empirically in future research.