Cited by 259Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyTransportation and Mobility InnovationsTraffic and Road Safety

Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess pedestrian receptivity toward fully autonomous vehicles

Deb, Shuchisnigdha, Strawderman, Lesley, Carruth, Daniel W., DuBien, Janice, Smith, Brian, Garrison, Teena M.·2017·Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.trc.2017.08.029

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Deb, S., Strawderman, L., Carruth, D. W., DuBien, J., Smith, B., & Garrison, T. M.
Affiliations
Mississippi State University (US)
Corresponding author
Deb, Shuchisnigdha
Venue
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-11
Volume
84
Pages
178-195
ISSN
0968-090X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2751103733
Cited by
259
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 7
FWCI
20.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Transportation and Mobility Innovations
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Traffic and Road Safety
Keywords
fully automated vehicles, questionnaire development, trust in autonomous vehicles, social norms, compatibility, pedestrian behavior, personal innovativeness, urban-rural differences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review