4.3 Article

Predictors of Driving Outcomes in Advancing Age

期刊

PSYCHOLOGY AND AGING
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 550-559

出版社

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0026359

关键词

neuropsychological tests; safety errors; driving cessation; instrumented vehicle

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [AG 17177, AG 15071, R01 AG017177-01, R01 AG017177, R01 AG015071, R01 AG015071-01A2] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to develop predictive models for real-life driving outcomes in older drivers. Demographics, driving history, on-road driving errors, and performance on visual, motor, and neuropsychological test scores at baseline were assessed in 100 older drivers (ages 65-89 years [72.7]). These variables were used to predict time to driving cessation, first moving violation, or crash. Using Cox proportional hazards regression models, significant individual predictors for driving cessation were greater age and poorer scores on Near Visual Acuity, Contrast Sensitivity, Useful Field of View, Judgment of Line Orientation, Trail Making Test-Part A, Benton Visual Retention Test, Grooved Pegboard, and a composite index of overall cognitive ability. Greater weekly mileage, higher education, and serious on-road errors predicted moving violations. Poorer scores from Trail Making Test-Part B or Trail Making Test (B-A) and serious on-road errors predicted crashes. Multivariate models using off-road predictors revealed (a) age and Contrast Sensitivity as best predictors for driving cessation; (b) education, weekly mileage, and Auditory Verbal Learning Task-Recall for moving violations; and (c) education, number of crashes over the past year, Auditory Verbal Learning Task-Recall, and Trail Making Test (B-A) for crashes. Diminished visual, motor, and cognitive abilities in older drivers can be easily and noninvasively monitored with standardized off-road tests, and performances on these measures predict involvement in motor vehicle crashes and driving cessation, even in the absence of a neurological disorder.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据