Traffic&Transportation Journal
Sign In / Sign Up


Exploring Factors That Influence Instant Delivery Service Riders’ Red Light Running Behaviour – Development and Validation of a Questionnaire Based on the Theoretical Domains Framework
Keywords:instant delivery service riders, red light running behaviour, quantitative, theoretical domains framework, questionnaire development and validation


To develop effective interventions to transit the instant delivery service riders towards avoiding red light running behaviour, a valid and reliable questionnaire is needed to identify the potential theoretical factors that influence the intention. This study describes the development and validation of the red light running behaviour causes questionnaire based on the theoretical domains framework. First, the exploratory factor analysis was used to identify the initial questionnaire’s underlying structure, including a set of 67 items in 13 domains. Next, confirmatory factor analysis was undertaken to assess the questionnaire’s reliability, discriminant validity and goodness of fit. CFA produced a proper fit with adequate discriminant validity and internal consistency. CFA and Cronbach’s alpha results in the final version of the RLRBCQ consisted of 39 items assessing 13 domains, explaining 69.799% of the variance, and internal consistency reliability values ranging from 0.710 to 0.825. These results suggest that the RLRBCQ demonstrates reliable, stable and valid properties, which can be used to assess potential determinants of avoiding red light running behaviour following the domains of the TDF. It can be utilised by safety managers and practitioners to guide the design of interventions for various traffic safety behaviours.


[1] Zheng Y, et al. Crash involvement and risky riding behaviors among delivery riders in China: The role of working conditions. Transportation Research Record. 2019;2673(4):1011-1022. DOI: 10.1177/0361198119841028.
[2] Zhang F, Ji Y, Lv H, Ma X. Analysis of factors influencing delivery e-bikes’ red-light running behavior: A correlated mixed binary logit approach. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2021;152:105977. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2021.105977.
[3] Ulleberg P, Rundmo T. Personality, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of risky driving behaviour among young drivers. Safety Science. 2003;41:427-443. DOI: 10.1016/S0925-7535(01)00077-7.
[4] Nelson E, Atchley P, Little TD. The effects of perception of risk and importance of answering and initiating a cellular phone call while driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2009;41(3):438-444. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.01.006.
[5] Atchley P, Atwood S, Boulton A. The choice to text and drive in younger drivers: Behavior may shape attitude. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2011;43(1):134-142. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.08.003.
[6] Gravina NE, King A, Austin J. Training leaders to apply behavioral concepts to improve safety. Safety Science. 2019;112:66-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.10.013.
[7] Wiegand D. Exploring the role of emotional intelligence in behavior-based safety coaching. Journal of Safety Research. 2007;38:391-398. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2007.03.010.
[8] DePasquale JP, Geller ES. Critical success factors for behavior-based safety: A study of twenty industry-wide applications. Journal of Safety Research. 1999;30(4):237-249. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-4375(99)00019-5.
[9] Myers WV, et al. The implementation and maintenance of a behavioral safety process in a petroleum refinery. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. 2010;30(4):285-307. DOI: 10.1080/01608061.2010.499027.
[10] Michie S, et al. From theory to intervention: Mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques. Applied Psychology. 2008;57(4):660-680. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00341.x.
[11] Michie S, et al. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: A consensus approach. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2005;14(1):26-33. DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2004.011155.
[12] Taylor N, et al. Development and initial validation of the Influences on Patient Safety Behaviours Questionnaire. Implementation Science. 2013;8:81. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-81.
[13] Guo Y, Li Z, Wu Y, Xu C. Exploring unobserved heterogeneity in bicyclists’ red-light running behaviors at different crossing facilities. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2018;115:118-127. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2018.03.006.
[14] Wang Z, et al. Awareness, riding behaviors, and legislative attitudes toward electric bikes among two types of road users: An investigation in Tianjin, a municipality in China. Traffic Injury Prevention. 2019;20(1):72-78. DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2018.1511898.
[15] Yao L, Wu C. Traffic safety for electric bike riders in China: Attitudes, risk perception, and aberrant riding behaviors. Transportation Research Record. 2012;2314(1):49-56. DOI: 10.3141/2314-07.
[16] Yang H, et al. Predicting e-bike users’ intention to run the red light: An application and extension of the theory of planned behavior. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2018;58:282-291. DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2018.05.027.
[17] Qin H, Wei Y, Zhang Q, Ma L. An observational study on the risk behaviors of electric bicycle riders performing meal delivery at urban intersections in China. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 2021;79:107-117. DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2021.04.010.
[18] Shen X, et al. The application and extension of the theory of planned behavior to an analysis of delivery riders’ red-light running behavior in China. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 2020;144:105640. DOI: 10.1016/j.aap.2020.105640.
[19] Fan Z, Huitao LYU, Xiaoyan S, Haoxue LIU. Study on takeaway deliverers’ red light running behavior based on planned behavior theory. China Safety Science Journal. 2019;29(5):1-6. DOI: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2019.05.001.
[20] Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implementation Science. 2012;7(1):37. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-37.
[21] Amemori M, et al. Assessing implementation difficulties in tobacco use prevention and cessation counselling among dental providers. Implementation Science. 2011;6(1):50. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-50.
[22] Atkins L, et al. A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implementation Sci. 2017;12(1):77. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9.
[23] Dyson J, Lawton R, Jackson C, Cheater F. Does the use of a theoretical approach tell us more about hand hygiene behaviour? The barriers and levers to hand hygiene. Journal of Infection Prevention. 2011;12:17-24. DOI: 10.1177/1757177410384300.
[24] French SD, et al. Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: A systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implementation Science. 2012;7(1):38. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-38.
[25] Duncan EM, et al. Learning curves, taking instructions, and patient safety: Using a theoretical domains framework in an interview study to investigate prescribing errors among trainee doctors. Implementation Science. 2012;7(1):86. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-86.
[26] Huijg JM, Gebhardt WA, Dusseldorp E, et al. Measuring determinants of implementation behavior: Psychometric properties of a questionnaire based on the theoretical domains framework. Implementation Science. 2014;9(1):33. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-33.
[27] Taylor N, Lawton R, Conner M. Development and initial validation of the determinants of physical activity questionnaire. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2013;10(1):74. DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-10-74.
[28] Huijg JM, et al. Discriminant content validity of a theoretical domains framework questionnaire for use in implementation research. Implementation Science. 2014;9(1):11. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-11.
[29] Taylor N, Lawton R, Slater B, Foy R. The demonstration of a theory-based approach to the design of localized patient safety interventions. Implementation Science. 2013;8(1):123. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-123.
[30] Taylor N, et al. Collaborating with front-line healthcare professionals: The clinical and cost effectiveness of a theory based approach to the implementation of a national guideline. BMC Health Services Research. 2014;14(1):648. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-014-0648-4.
[31] Curcuruto M, Griffin MA, Kandola R, Morgan JI. Multilevel safety climate in the UK rail industry: A cross validation of the Zohar and Luria MSC scale. Safety Science. 2018;110:183-194. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.02.008.
[32] Griffin M, Neal A. Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2000;5. DOI: 10.1037//1076-8998.5.3.347.
[33] Clarke S. The relationship between safety climate and safety performance: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2006. DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.11.4.315.
[34] Morgan JI, Curcuruto M, Steer M, Bazzoli A. Implementing the theoretical domains framework in occupational safety: Development of the safety behaviour change questionnaire. Safety Science. 2021;136:105135. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105135.
[35] Smith JD, et al. Application of the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify factors that influence hand hygiene compliance in long-term care. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2019;101(4):393-398. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2018.12.014.
[36] Tristani L, Bassett-Gunter R. Making the grade: teacher training for inclusive education: A systematic review. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. 2019;20. DOI: 10.1111/1471-3802.12483.
[37] Fornell C, Larcker DF. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981;18(3):382-388. DOI: 10.2307/3150980.
[38] Kraft P, Rise J, Sutton S, Røysamb E. Perceived difficulty in the theory of planned behaviour: Perceived behavioural control or affective attitude? British Journal of Social Psychology. 2005;44:479-496. DOI: 10.1348/014466604X17533.
[39] Seward K, et al. Measuring implementation behaviour of menu guidelines in the childcare setting: Confirmatory factor analysis of a theoretical domains framework questionnaire (TDFQ). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):1-9. DOI: 10.1186/s12966-017-0499-6.
Copyright (c) 2023 Fei YE, Wen CHENG

Published by
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Transport and Traffic Sciences
Online ISSN
Print ISSN
SCImago Journal & Country Rank
Publons logo
© Traffic&Transportation Journal