Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 May 10;19(5):e0301115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301115

The self-reported driving and pedestrian behaviour of adults with developmental coordination disorder

Isobel Shipley 1, Maaike Esselaar 1, Samuel Wood 1, Johnny V V Parr 1, David J Wright 2, Greg Wood 1,*
Editor: Marcus Tolentino Silva3
PMCID: PMC11086845  PMID: 38728334

Abstract

Background

Developmental coordination disorder (DCD) affects movement coordination, but little is known about how the condition impacts the behaviours of car drivers and pedestrians.

Aims

This study examined the self-reported driving and pedestrian behaviours of adults with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD).

Methods and procedures

One hundred and twenty-eight participants (62 adults with DCD vs. 66 TD adults) responded to an online survey asking them about their perceptions of confidence and self-reported driving and pedestrian behaviours in the real-world.

Outcomes and results

Results suggested that adults with DCD felt less confident and reported more lapses in attention (e.g., forgetting where their car was parked) and errors (e.g., failing to check their mirrors prior to a manoeuvre) when driving compared to typically developed (TD) adults. Adults with DCD also reported feeling less confident and reported less adherence to road traffic laws (e.g., not waiting for a green crossing signal before crossing the road) when walking as pedestrians.

Conclusions and implications

These results offer some much-needed insight into the behaviours of those with DCD outside of the laboratory environment and underline the need for research investigating the driving and pedestrian behaviours of individuals with DCD in ‘real-world’ contexts.

Introduction

Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD), also known as dyspraxia, is a neurodevelopmental disorder that is primarily characterised by poor motor control and coordination. Those with DCD experience movement difficulties that are substantially below that expected given the individual’s chronological age and which occur despite typical levels of neurological and intellectual function [1]. As well as impaired motor control, individuals with DCD often have poor spatial awareness [2], a reduced ability to judge distances [3], poor reaction time [4] and a reduced ability to process multiple stimuli [5]. It is perhaps unsurprising then that individuals with DCD often struggle to learn and perform activities of daily living, struggle when playing sports and struggle when navigating complex real-world environments [1].

One complex, real-world environment that has received research attention in relation to DCD is driving a car. Experimental studies using driving simulators have previously shown that drivers with DCD have more collisions, drive more slowly, and drive closer to on-coming traffic [6]. Drivers with DCD also show larger variance in car heading and make more steering adjustments on straight roads [7], show difficulties in steering when turning bends and take 50% more time to react to pedestrians in their path [8], compared to drivers without DCD. To date, only one study has attempted to document the driving behaviour of individuals with DCD in real-world driving contexts outside of the laboratory. Kirby, Sugden, and Edwards [9] used a semi-structured questionnaire to examine the driving experiences of young adults (17–25 years) with DCD. They found that drivers with DCD had felt less confident and needed a greater number of attempts to pass their theory and practical tests, drove significantly fewer miles per week, and experienced fewer traffic collisions and parking violations compared to typically developed adults. Although there is some disparity in these research findings, it is clear that driving is very challenging for individuals with DCD. Additionally, very little is known about why individuals with DCD drive differently (i.e., faster, or slower) or have more or less traffic violations compared to ‘typically developed’ (TD) adult drivers. These driving behaviours might be attributable to differences in confidence, aggressive driving behaviours, lapses in attention, or simply that individuals with DCD make more driving errors.

There is also a paucity of research that has explored the pedestrian behaviour of adults with DCD in the real-world. Pedestrians are individuals who walk or travel on foot, and their behaviour is influenced by a variety of factors, including cultural norms, environmental conditions, personal motivations, and situational contexts. While there is extensive evidence to suggest that children [e.g., 10,11] and adults [e.g., 12,13] with DCD exhibit different gait characteristics when walking in laboratory environments, little is currently known about how these differences in walking translate to pedestrian behaviour in complex real-world environments that require avoiding obstacles or people, avoiding distraction, and judging speed and distance when avoiding traffic. Previous work in relation to pedestrian behaviours of people with DCD has mainly focused on the road crossing ability of children. Findings from experimental research has suggested that children with DCD leave considerably longer temporal crossing gaps to cross than TD children [14]. It has been shown that children with DCD perceived road crossing as more dangerous, walk more slowly and leave significantly less time to cross the road safely [3]. In the only study to examine road crossing in the real-world, Wilmut and Purcell [15] used questionnaires to survey adults with DCD and parents of children with DCD about their road crossing behaviours. Findings showed that adults with DCD thought that the condition impaired their road crossing ability, reported low confidence in their road crossing ability, and exhibited a greater propensity to engage in dangerous crossing behaviours (i.e., forgetting to look, running without looking, crossing between cars, crossing when they can’t see) despite understanding the risky nature of these behaviours and the likelihood of accidents. While road crossing is an inherently dangerous part of being a pedestrian, there are other aspects of pedestrian behaviour that have yet to be assessed in the adult DCD population. For example, little is known about how confident individuals feel as pedestrians generally (i.e., outside of road crossing ability), their propensity to conform to norms of pedestrian behaviour (e.g., waiting for the appropriate signal to cross), to engage in risky pedestrian behaviours like wearing headphones or looking at their phone when walking, or even to exhibit aggressive pedestrian behaviours. Finally, the investigation conducted by Wilmut and Purcell [15] did not include a control group and it is therefore difficult to assess the self-reported pedestrian behaviours reported compared to TD adult pedestrians.

The aim of this study was therefore to explore the self-reported driving and pedestrian behaviours of adults with DCD to gain an understanding of their perception of the way in which DCD impacts how they navigate these real-world environments. Due to the significant challenges in carrying out this work in real-world driving and pedestrian contexts, capturing the lived experience of individuals with DCD through self-report will further inform the limited research in this area and help to facilitate future more ecologically valid studies in real-world-contexts. Based on previous research, it was hypothesised that adults with DCD would report lower confidence when driving and report a different number of traffic collisions compared to TD adult drivers. We further hypothesised that these increased collisions would be underpinned by more lapses in attention, more driving errors, and more driving violations. In relation to pedestrian behaviour, based on previous research we hypothesised that adults with DCD would report lower confidence as pedestrians, would suffer more lapses in attention (e.g., forgetting to look), engage in more risky behaviours (e.g., wearing headphones while walking) and exhibit less positive pedestrian behaviour (e.g., less adherence to pedestrian traffic laws) compared to TD adult pedestrians.

Methods

Participants

One hundred and twenty-eight adults with or without DCD were recruited via an online survey that was distributed by word of mouth, university email addresses, and social media platforms. Convenience sampling was used as it offers advantages when studying niche populations or groups that are small or challenging to access, like adults with DCD, which often makes probability sampling impractical. This sampling method has also been used in similar studies on driving and pedestrian behaviour in DCD populations [9,15]. Participants with DCD were required to confirm they had previously received a formal DCD diagnosis. Recruitment took place between December 2022 and March 2023. The demographics of each group are presented in Table 1. Participants who held a driver’s licence answered items related to being a driver and a pedestrian, those who did not hold a licence answered items only responded to questions related to being a pedestrian. Ethics was approved by the institutional ethics committee at Manchester Metropolitan University (ID:48614). Written informed consent was taken from all participants prior to data collection.

Table 1. Participant demographics.

DCD Drivers TD Drivers DCD Pedestrians TD Pedestrians
Number of participants
46 58 62 66
Mean age (yrs.)
(SD)
41 (18) 41 (13) 38 (14) 40 (18)
Number of years held a driver licence.
(yrs.)
(SD) 		17 (13) 19 (17) - -
Gender Male = 9
Female = 36
Other = 1		 Male = 26
Female = 32
Other = 0		 Male = 14
Female = 46
Other = 2		 Male = 28
Female = 38
Other = 0
Open in a new tab

Procedure

The survey was presented to participants using the online platform https://www.jisc.ac.uk/. The questionnaire used can be found in Supplementary Material.

Measures

Confidence and driving collisions

Confidence when driving was measured by asking participants “How confident do you feel when driving?” and participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Extremely confident). The number of collisions was measured by asking “How many collisions with other cars, people or objects have you experienced when you have been driving?”. Confidence as a pedestrian was measured by asking “How confident do you feel when crossing the road or walking next to the road?” and participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Extremely confident).

Driving behaviour

The Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) [16] was used to assess self-reported driving behaviour. The DBQ contained 24 items related to four different behaviours: errors, lapses of attention, ordinary violations, and aggressive violations. Participants answered on a Likert scale (0 = never to 5 = always) and the mean score for each driving behaviour was calculated by aggregating responses from questions related to each behaviour [17]. Definitions and example questions for each behaviour are shown in Table 2. A meta-analysis of 174 studies revealed the DBQ to have good predictive validity of road traffic accidents [18].

Table 2. Definition of the types of driving behaviour with example questions from the DBQ.
Driving Behaviour Definition Example
Errors Deficiency in knowledge of traffic rules and/or in the inferential processes involved in making a decision. ‘Fail to check the rear-view mirror before a manoeuvre’
Lapses of attention Unintentional deviation from practices related to a lack of concentration on the task, forgetfulness.
 ‘Forget where you left your car in the car park’
Ordinary violations Deliberate deviation from social rules without intention to cause injury or cause damage. ‘Overtake a slow driver on the inside’
Aggressive behaviour A tendency to misinterpret other road users’ behaviour resulting in the intention to annoy or danger. Race away from the traffic lights to beat another driver’
Open in a new tab

Pedestrian behaviour

The Pedestrian Behaviour Questionnaire (PBQ) [19] was used to assess self-reported pedestrian behaviour. All participants answered 21 items from PBQ which contains items on four different behaviours: positive behaviours, violations, lapses of attention, and aggressive behaviours. The mean score for each pedestrian behaviour was calculated by aggregating responses from questions related to each behaviour [19]. Definitions and example questions for each behaviour are shown in Table 3. Participants answered on a Likert scale (0 = never to 5 = always). The PBQ has been shown to have good construct validity and test-retest reliability [19].

Table 3. Definition of the types of pedestrian behaviour with example questions from the PBQ.
Pedestrian Behaviour Definition Example
Positive behaviour Behaviour that seeks to avoid violation or error and/or seeks to ensure traffic rules compliance
 I cross the street after all the vehicles are stopped and the pedestrian light is green.
Violations Deliberate deviation from social rules without intention to cause injury or cause damage.
 I cross the street, talking on a cell phone or listening to music with my headphones.
Lapses of attention Unintentional deviation from practices related to a lack of concentration on the task; forgetfulness
 I follow other people who cross the street unsafely in dangerous situations.
Aggressive behaviour A tendency to misinterpret other road users’ behaviour resulting in the intention to annoy or endanger others. I get angry with other road users (driver, pedestrian, cyclist) and insult them.
Open in a new tab

Data analysis

Internal consistency and scale reliability was determined for each subscale of each questionnaire using Cronbach’s alpha. For the DBQ, errors (α = .76), lapses of attention (α = .80), ordinary violations (α = .84) and aggressive behaviour (α = .81), were found to be reliable and consistent. For the PBQ, scales related to positive behaviour (α = .70), violations (α = .77), lapses of attention (α = .81), and aggressive behaviour (α = .71) were found to be reliable and consistent. These values represent acceptable-to-good internal consistency across all sub-scales [20].

As data were non-parametric, separate Mann-Whitney U tests were run to determine the differences between the DCD and TD groups for confidence, number of collisions, and for each subscale of the DPQ and the DBQ.

Results

Driving behaviour

Adults with DCD self-reported less confidence when driving (z = 3.35, p < .001) compared to TD adults. There was no significant difference between the number of driving collisions reported between DCD and TD individuals (z = 1.23, p = .220).

Analysis of the DBQ revealed that there was no significant difference between driving violations (z = 1.40, p = .161) or aggressive driving behaviours (z = 0.65, p = .514) between DCD and TD groups. However, adults with DCD reported experiencing more self-reported driving errors (z = 2.01, p = .045) and more lapses in attention (z = 5.69, p < .001) compared to TD adults (Table 4).

Table 4. Self-reported confidence when driving, number of collisions and driver behaviours for DCD and TD groups (*p < .05, ** p < .001).

DCD Drivers TD Drivers
Confidence when driving 2.98**
(1.13)		 3.97
(1.19)
Number of collisions 1.67
(2.49)		 1.03
(1.20)
Errors 1.94*
(0.15)		 1.63
(0.21)
Lapses of attention 2.87**
(0.11)		 1.89
(0.16)
Ordinary violations 1.76
(0.25)		 1.93
(0.13)
Aggressive behaviours 1.84
(0.13)		 1.92
(0.16)
Open in a new tab

Pedestrian behaviour

Adults with DCD self-reported less confidence (z = 4.08, p < .001) and reported significantly less positive pedestrian behaviours as measured by the PBQ (z = 2.33, p = .020) compared to their TD counterparts. Further analyses revealed no significant differences were evident in violations (z = 1.19, p = .232), lapses in attention (z = 1.26, p = .206) or aggressive behaviours (z = 1.28, p = .201) between groups.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to understand more about the self-reported driving and pedestrian behaviours of adults with DCD. Regarding self-reported driving behaviours, it was hypothesised that adults with DCD would report lower confidence when driving and experience a different number of collisions. Results provided some support for these hypotheses in that adults with DCD reported lower confidence when driving compared to TD adults. There were, however, no differences in the number of self-reported collisions between the two groups, yet adults with DCD did report experiencing significantly more lapses of attention and making more errors when driving (see Table 3).

Lower confidence in individuals with DCD is well documented both as a general self-concept [21] and a domain-specific construct related to driving [9]. Lower confidence in adult drivers with DCD is intuitively understandable given their previous experiences of needing a greater number of attempts to pass their theory and practical tests [9], evidence that suggests they may experience more traffic collisions [6] and their general experience of struggling with motor tasks as a result of having lived with DCD all their lives [1]. This lower confidence may also be a reason why adults with DCD self-report driving slower and less often than typically developing adult drivers [9]. The findings from the DBQ indicate that adult drivers with DCD self-report experiencing more lapses of attention and making more errors when driving. Given their awareness of these issues, it is understandable that they are less confident when driving. It appears, therefore, that adult drivers with DCD may develop compensatory strategies to mitigate these issues, such as only driving when necessary and lowering their general driving speed when they do drive. Use of such compensatory strategies by adult drivers with DCD may explain why our findings show no differences in self-reported traffic collisions between the two groups. Although speculative, children and adults with DCD are known to develop compensatory strategies to cope with and overcome their motor coordination difficulties [22]) and so it is plausible that this may extend to driving behaviours.

In relation to pedestrian behaviour, it was hypothesised that adults with DCD would report less confidence as pedestrians and exhibit more risky behaviours compared to TD adults. Support was found for these predictions as pedestrians with DCD did indeed report lower levels of confidence and reported exhibiting less positive pedestrian behaviours compared to TD adults (Table 5). This lower confidence suggests that these self-perceptions are not just related to driving but extend to pedestrian behaviours too. This again corroborates previous research reporting lower levels of general self-confidence in individuals with DCD [21] and this may be related to the negative experiences individuals with DCD have perhaps faced as children and adults during road crossing [15,23]. Adults with DCD also reported engaging in significantly fewer positive (i.e., riskier) pedestrian behaviours compared to TD adults. The behaviours centre around observing the priorities of traffic, taking greater care at night-time, crossing in appropriate places and at appropriate times (e.g., when faced with a green walk signal), averting dangerous crossing situations, and attempting to estimate vehicle speeds and crossing gaps. Interestingly, many of these ‘risky’ behaviours have also been shown in previous experimental research [14,15,23,24]. Previous research has suggested that adults with DCD understand the risky nature of these behaviours and the likelihood of accidents [14]; our results also show that they are aware that they engage in these risky behaviours when pedestrians. As the data from the PBQ indicates no differences in lapses of attention, violations, or aggressive behaviours between adults with and without DCD (Table 5), it is likely that other factors may underpin this riskier pedestrian behaviour reported by adults with DCD. One possibility is that although adults with DCD are aware of what constitutes safe pedestrian behaviour, it is only in practice, where the execution of these behaviours is dependent on their impaired perceptual abilities, that they find themselves in compromised and potentially unsafe pedestrian scenarios. In essence, it may not be that they wilfully engage in unsafe pedestrian behaviours, but rather that they often find themselves in these situations due to their impaired perceptual abilities.

Table 5. Self-reported confidence as a pedestrian and pedestrian behaviours for DCD and TD groups (*p < .05, ** p < .001).

DCD Pedestrians TD Pedestrians
Confidence when walking 3.05**
(1.11)		 4.26
(1.00)
Positive behaviours 3.09*
(0.62)		 3.40
(0.77)
Violations 2.29
(0.83)		 2.12
(0.85)
Lapses of attention 1.66
(0.93)
 1.76
(0.81)
Aggressive behaviours 1.58
(0.83)		 1.48
(0.84)
Open in a new tab

Taken together these findings highlight a general feeling of lower confidence when navigating real-world environments in adults with DCD. This is in sharp contrast to previous experimental studies using simulated (i.e., computer-based) pedestrian [24] and driving environments [6–8] that found no differences in confidence between individuals with and without DCD. An explanation for these contradictory findings could therefore be related to differences in study methodologies. For example, laboratory-based experiments in virtual environments have no real physical consequences of the driving or pedestrian behaviours performed by participants. This may inflate the confidence of individuals with DCD and is maybe the cause of reckless behaviours witnessed in both simulated driving [6–8] and simulated pedestrian contexts [24]. There are obvious limitations to self-report measures used in this study also, and the disparity between self-reported and objective measures of driving behaviour and road safety have been documented [25]. Therefore, there is a clear need for the examination of the behaviour of individuals with DCD in everyday, real-world environments. While such research offers some unique challenges, the availability and accessibility of technologies (e.g., mobile eye-tracking) may offer solutions for understanding the perceptual-cognitive strategies used by adults with DCD in real-word driving and pedestrian contexts. Future work should also investigate the relationship between anxiety and confidence in individuals with DCD when navigating the real world. Anxiety typically shares an inverse relationship with perceptions of self-confidence [26], so it is possible that lower confidence in driving and pedestrian context could be anxiety-induced. Given the reported past experiences in these contexts (e.g., more collisions) this interaction is likely and worthy of future investigation. Finally, a limitation of this work is that we did not account for co-occurring conditions like ADHD that are prevalent in the DCD population and have been previously shown to affect at least some aspects of road crossing behaviour (i.e., looking behaviours [15]). Future research should take greater consideration of co-occurring conditions and their mediating role in pedestrian and driving behaviour.

Data Availability

All data are available via the Open Science Framework (See here: https://osf.io/7cb9w/).

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Blank R., Barnett A. L., Cairney J., Green D., Kirby A., Polatajko H., et al. (2019) ‘International clinical practice recommendations on the definition, diagnosis, assessment, intervention, and psychosocial aspects of developmental coordination disorder.’ Developmental medicine and child neurology, 61(3) pp. 242–285. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.14132 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gomez A., & Sirigu A. (2015). Developmental coordination disorder: core sensori-motor deficits, neurobiology and etiology. Neuropsychologia, 79, 272–287. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.09.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Purcell C., Wilmut K. and Wann J. P. (2017) ‘The use of visually guided behaviour in children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) when crossing a virtual road.’ Human movement science, 53 pp. 37–44. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2016.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Henderson L., Rose P., & Henderson S. (1992). Reaction time and movement time in children with a developmental coordination disorder. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33(5), 895–905. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1992.tb01963.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Delgado-Lobete L., Pértega-Díaz S., Santos-del-Riego S., & Montes-Montes R. (2020). Sensory processing patterns in developmental coordination disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and typical development. Research in developmental disabilities, 100, 103608. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103608 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gentle J., Brady D., Woodger N., Croston S. and Leonard H. C. (2021) ‘Driving skills of individuals with and without Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD/Dyspraxia).’ Frontiers in human neuroscience, 15 p. 635649. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.635649 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.de Oliveira R. F., & Wann J. P. (2011). Driving skills of young adults with developmental coordination disorder: Regulating speed and coping with distraction. Research in developmental disabilities, 32(4), 1301–1308. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2010.12.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.De Oliveira R. F. and Wann J. P. (2012) ‘Driving skills of young adults with developmental coordination disorder: Maintaining control and avoiding hazards.’ Human movement science, 31(3) pp. 721–729. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2011.06.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kirby A., Sugden D. and Edwards L. (2011) ‘Driving behaviour in young adults with developmental co-ordination disorder.’ Journal of adult development, 18(3) pp. 122–129. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Parr J. V., Foster R. J., Wood G., & Hollands M. A. (2020). Children with developmental coordination disorder exhibit greater stepping error despite similar gaze patterns and state anxiety levels to their typically developing peers. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14, 303. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00303 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Parr J. V., Foster R. J., Wood G., Thomas N. M., & Hollands M. A. (2020). Children with developmental coordination disorder show altered visuomotor control during stair negotiation associated with heightened state anxiety. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 512. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.589502 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Du W., Wilmut K., & Barnett A. L. (2015). Level walking in adults with and without developmental coordination disorder: an analysis of movement variability. Human movement science, 43, 9–14. doi: 10.1016/j.humov.2015.06.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wilmut K., Gentle J., & Barnett A. L. (2017). Gait symmetry in individuals with and without developmental coordination disorder. Research in developmental disabilities, 60, 107–114. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2016.11.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Purcell C., Wann J. P., Wilmut K., & Poulter D. (2011). Roadside judgments in children with Developmental Co-ordination Disorder. Research in developmental disabilities, 32(4), 1283–1292. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2010.12.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wilmut K. and Purcell C. (2020) ‘The lived experience of crossing the road when you have developmental coordination disorder (DCD): The perspectives of parents of children with DCD and adults with DCD.’ Frontiers in psychology, 11 p. 587042. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.587042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Reason J., Manstead A., Stradling S., Baxter J. and Campbell K. (1990) ‘Errors and violations on the roads: a real distinction?’ Ergonomics, 33(10–11) pp. 1315–1332. doi: 10.1080/00140139008925335 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wood G., Hartley G., Furley P. A., & Wilson M. R. (2016). Working memory capacity, visual attention and hazard perception in driving. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(4), 454–462. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.De Winter J. C. F., & Dodou D. (2010). The Driver Behaviour Questionnaire as a predictor of accidents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Safety Research, 41(6), 463–470. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2010.10.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bazargan H. S., Haghighi M., Heydari S. T., Soori H., Shahkolai F. R., Motevalian S. A., et al. (2020). Developing and validating a measurement tool to self-report pedestrian safety-related behavior: The Pedestrian Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ). Bulletin of Emergency & Trauma, 8(4), 229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.George D., & Mallery P. (2016). IBM SPSS Statistics 23 Step by Step: A simple guide and reference. (14th ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Harris S., Wilmut K., & Rathbone C. (2021). Anxiety, confidence and self-concept in adults with and without developmental coordination disorder. Research in developmental disabilities, 119, 104119. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2021.104119 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Missiuna C., Gaines R., Mclean J., DeLaat D., Egan M., & Soucie H. (2008). Description of children identified by physicians as having developmental coordination disorder. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 50(11), 839–844.21. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03140.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Wilmut K., & Purcell C. (2021). The nature of the risk faced by pedestrians with neurodevelopmental disorders: a systematic review. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 149, 105886. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2020.105886 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Purcell C., & Romijn A. R. (2017). Appropriateness of different pedagogical approaches to road safety education for children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD). Research in Developmental Disabilities, 70, 85–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2017.08.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kaye S. A., Lewis I., & Freeman J. (2018). Comparison of self-report and objective measures of driving behavior and road safety: A systematic review. Journal of safety research, 65, 141–151. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2018.02.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hanton S., Mellalieu S. D., & Hall R. (2004). Self-confidence and anxiety interpretation: A qualitative investigation. Psychology of sport and exercise, 5(4), 477–495. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Marcus Tolentino Silva

22 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-31342The self-reported driving and pedestrian behaviour of adults with Developmental Coordination DisorderPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wood,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

ACADEMIC EDITOR: 1. Clarify Study Objective: The objective of the study needs to be clearly defined. Understanding self-reported behavior should be framed within a broader, clearly articulated objective (required for acceptance).

2. Methodology and Data Collection: Address concerns about the appropriateness of the methodology, especially regarding the reliance on self-reported behaviors. Clarify the sampling method used and its adequacy for the study's goals (required for acceptance).

3. Representation of Previous Studies: Accurately and clearly represent previous studies in the field, highlighting the novel aspects of the current study (required for acceptance).

4. Consistency and Reliability of DBQ and PBQ: Ensure and demonstrate the consistency and reliability of responses in the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) and Pedestrian Behaviour Questionnaire (PBQ) (required for acceptance).

5. Gender Distribution Control: Explain how the differences in gender distribution between DCD and non-DCD samples were accounted for in the study (required for acceptance).

6. Detailed Analysis of DCD Group: Provide more detailed information about the group with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD), including inclusion criteria and any co-occurring conditions (recommended modifications).

7. Recruitment Methods for Both Groups: Elaborate on how the DCD group and the control group were recruited, ensuring transparency in the process (recommended modifications).

8. Influence of Age and Driving Experience: Investigate and discuss how age or years of driving experience might influence confidence or behavior, especially in the DCD group (recommended modifications).

9. Limitations of Self-Report in Study Design: Include a discussion on the limitations of self-reporting, particularly in the context of comparing lab-based and real-world situations (recommended modifications).

10. Aggregation of Questions within Constructs: Clarify how questions within the same construct were aggregated and the impact of this approach on statistical power (recommended modifications). 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 06 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marcus Tolentino Silva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is an interesting paper which addresses an area of research which is understudied. The manuscript is well written and clear in the methodologies used, however, it is lacking in detail in places and I think a more detailed analysis of the data would really support the conclusions. There are also some other points that I would like the authors to consider before I would be happy to accept this paper for publication:

1. I don't believe the authors have well represented some of the previous studies within this field. For example, the Wilmut and Purcell study cited did consider confidence and also adherence to road regulations (waiting for the green man etc) - what this paper adds that the previous paper did no consider was an inclusion of a control group. These nuanced differences should be really clear so that there is a clear and accurate novelty of the study. This is just one example, a discussion of the relevant papers in more depth would really support the argument for the study.

2. I would like to know more about both groups. Firstly the group with DCD - what information was given with regards to this, did these individuals have to have a diagnosis of DCD or just suspect that they had DCD? Where any co-occurrences present? This is particularly important as previous work have considered the co-occurrence of ADHD and ASD in road crossing behaviour and so if this study did not consider those co-occurrences some mention of this should be provided in the discussion.

3. I would also be interested to know how the two groups were recruited - through the same means? Or were the control group individuals known to the researchers - very little information is given about this.

4. I wonder whether age or years driving influences confidence or behaviour? This is a statistical consideration that the authors have not included - but I would imagine confidence, especially in driving might increase with age in controls - what is the relationship in the DCD group.

5. I was really pleased to see that the authors made comparisons between lab based (no risk) and real world situations. However, no discussion is included regarding the limitations of self-report in this context.

Reviewer #2: This study investigated the differences between the behaviours of drivers and pedestrians with and without Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD). While the study subject is very interesting, there are major flaws with the study:

- The objective of the study is not clear. Understanding self-reported behaviour of a group of drivers and pedestrians is not an objective, but a task. What is it that the authors aim to understand (fundamentally) using these self-reported behaviours?

- The methodology is not appropriate to address the research gap. As I understand from the manuscript, the identified research gap is that most studies have investigated the behaviours of DCD drivers and pedestrians in simulated environments, which may not be exactly the same as in real-world environments. However and as the authors have mentioned themselves, studying self-reported behaviours has biases and lack of reliability as well. How can the authors claim that studying self-reported behaviours is addressing the gap above?

- Reliance on self-reported behaviours is even more acute when it comes to the DCD people. As the authors have mentioned, DCD is a neurodevelopmental disorder which, in addition to impaired motor control, may impact cognitive functionality (e.g. spatial awareness, ability to judge distances, reaction time, ability to process multiple stimuli) too. This essentially creates a chicken-egg problem. The self-reported behaviours may well have been influenced by these cognitive disabilities.

- What sampling method was used to collect data? From what I can see, the authors have used convenience sampling, which is characterized with insufficient power to identify differences between population subgroups.

- The gender distribution is very different among the DCD and non-DCD samples. How did the authors control for that?

- The DBQ and PBQ have many items within the same construct. I cannot see the consistency and reliability tests for these items. Did the authors ensure consistency and reliability in the responses?

- The DBQ and PBQ have many items within the same construct. I can see that the authors have applied the Mann-Whitney tests on the whole construct (e.g. errors, lapses, etc.) but how did they aggregate the questions within he same construct? Did they take the average (which by and of itself may have resulted in lack of statistical power).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Marcus Tolentino Silva

22 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-31342R1The self-reported driving and pedestrian behaviour of adults with Developmental Coordination DisorderPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wood,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 07 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marcus Tolentino Silva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

1. Explicitly articulate the rationale behind the significance and contribution of your work in the manuscript.

2. Ensure this discussion directly responds to the reviewer's comment, highlighting the novelty and utility of your findings.

3. Include a clear justification and discussion of your use of convenience sampling within the manuscript.

4. Discuss the implications of this sampling method on the validity and generalizability of your results.

5. If applicable, describe any strategies employed to mitigate potential biases associated with convenience sampling.

6. Clarify how questions within the same construct were aggregated.

7. Provide justification for this methodological choice, if not already done, to enhance the reader's understanding of your analytical approach.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I would like to thank the authors for addressing my comments, I am happy to recommend this for publication

Reviewer #2: Thank you for addressing my comments. However, in addition to the response letter, the authors must bring their responses in the manuscript as well:

• I would like to see the authors reasoning on the value of their work (i.e. their response to my second comment) in the manuscript as well. I think this is a key discussion that must be in the manuscript to pinpoint the contribution of this work.

• Likewise, the authors must bring the discussion around convenience sampling inside the manuscript too.

• The way they have aggregated the questions within the same construct (taking the average) must be stated in the manuscript too.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 2

Marcus Tolentino Silva

12 Mar 2024

The self-reported driving and pedestrian behaviour of adults with Developmental Coordination Disorder

PONE-D-23-31342R2

Dear Dr. Wood,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Marcus Tolentino Silva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I didn't raise any issues in this second round and so I have nothing to comment on - I am still happy to recommend this paper for publication

Reviewer #2: I have no further comments, thank you for your efforts to address my comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Marcus Tolentino Silva

29 Apr 2024

PONE-D-23-31342R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wood,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof Marcus Tolentino Silva

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer Responses Plos.docx

    pone.0301115.s001.docx (21.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer Response R2.docx

    pone.0301115.s002.docx (14.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All data are available via the Open Science Framework (See here: https://osf.io/7cb9w/).

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES