The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

To what extent do our walking and cycling behaviours relate to each other, and do we cycle as well as we think we do? Piloting the walking and cycling behaviour questionnaires in the UK

To what extent do our walking and cycling behaviours relate to each other, and do we cycle as well as we think we do? Piloting the walking and cycling behaviour questionnaires in the UK
To what extent do our walking and cycling behaviours relate to each other, and do we cycle as well as we think we do? Piloting the walking and cycling behaviour questionnaires in the UK
Greater uptake of active transport has been argued as necessary for the transport system to achieve relevant sustainability and public health goals; however, the research tools used to investigate behaviour when using these modes are far less well-developed than those used to investigate driving behaviour. This study takes two self-report behavioural measures, the Walking Behaviour Questionnaire (WBQ) and the Cycling Behaviour Questionnaire (WBQ), and pilots them in the UK. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses with data from 428 respondents revealed factor structures different to those described in the limited number of previous studies that used the CBQ and WBQ. Across both questionnaires, scales measuring intentional behaviour differed from original descriptions to a greater extent than did the scale concerning unintentional attention or memory errors. In addition to a validation exercise, this research explored the relationships between variables, finding a correlation between the reported performance of unintentional errors when walking and cycling. Looking in more detail at cycling behaviours, we found that those who rated themselves as more proficient cyclists also reported performing fewer unintentional cycling errors. Results also showed self-reported helmet use to bear little to no relationship with other self-reported cycling behaviours or self-rated cycling proficiency. Finally, using structural equation modelling, we demonstrated that responses to the CBQ add very little (over and above age, gender, and exposure to the road environment) to the explanation of self-reported past collision involvement. In total, only 7% of the variation in past collision involvement was explained by the included variables. We urge caution when using self-report behavioural measures that have not been validated in the context of intended use, and the importance of using such measures in combination with other approaches rather than in isolation when trying to develop an understanding of overall system performance.
Cycling behaviour, Cyclists, Pedestrians, Road safety, Self-report scales, Walking behaviour
0001-4575
Mcilroy, Rich C.
68e56daa-5b0b-477e-a643-3c7b78c1b85d
Useche, Sergio A.
122f993d-91ce-40fe-aceb-8f1fedf22275
Gonzalez-marin, Adela
6a8f0317-c0f4-4350-a7e1-c366bd8b7bc0
Mcilroy, Rich C.
68e56daa-5b0b-477e-a643-3c7b78c1b85d
Useche, Sergio A.
122f993d-91ce-40fe-aceb-8f1fedf22275
Gonzalez-marin, Adela
6a8f0317-c0f4-4350-a7e1-c366bd8b7bc0

Mcilroy, Rich C., Useche, Sergio A. and Gonzalez-marin, Adela (2022) To what extent do our walking and cycling behaviours relate to each other, and do we cycle as well as we think we do? Piloting the walking and cycling behaviour questionnaires in the UK. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 168 (4), [106597]. (doi:10.1016/j.aap.2022.106597).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Greater uptake of active transport has been argued as necessary for the transport system to achieve relevant sustainability and public health goals; however, the research tools used to investigate behaviour when using these modes are far less well-developed than those used to investigate driving behaviour. This study takes two self-report behavioural measures, the Walking Behaviour Questionnaire (WBQ) and the Cycling Behaviour Questionnaire (WBQ), and pilots them in the UK. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses with data from 428 respondents revealed factor structures different to those described in the limited number of previous studies that used the CBQ and WBQ. Across both questionnaires, scales measuring intentional behaviour differed from original descriptions to a greater extent than did the scale concerning unintentional attention or memory errors. In addition to a validation exercise, this research explored the relationships between variables, finding a correlation between the reported performance of unintentional errors when walking and cycling. Looking in more detail at cycling behaviours, we found that those who rated themselves as more proficient cyclists also reported performing fewer unintentional cycling errors. Results also showed self-reported helmet use to bear little to no relationship with other self-reported cycling behaviours or self-rated cycling proficiency. Finally, using structural equation modelling, we demonstrated that responses to the CBQ add very little (over and above age, gender, and exposure to the road environment) to the explanation of self-reported past collision involvement. In total, only 7% of the variation in past collision involvement was explained by the included variables. We urge caution when using self-report behavioural measures that have not been validated in the context of intended use, and the importance of using such measures in combination with other approaches rather than in isolation when trying to develop an understanding of overall system performance.

Text
CBQ WBQ Prepub for PURE - Accepted Manuscript
Download (566kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 6 February 2022
e-pub ahead of print date: 12 February 2022
Published date: April 2022
Additional Information: Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Elsevier Ltd Copyright: Copyright 2022 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cycling behaviour, Cyclists, Pedestrians, Road safety, Self-report scales, Walking behaviour

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 455149
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/455149
ISSN: 0001-4575
PURE UUID: 93c3fc69-974e-45f2-a822-f5125b2300d9
ORCID for Rich C. Mcilroy: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-0326-8101

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 10 Mar 2022 19:19
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 07:09

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Rich C. Mcilroy ORCID iD
Author: Sergio A. Useche
Author: Adela Gonzalez-marin

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×