Research Papers
Included below is a selection of current and past peer reviewed research that utilizes our tools and services.
Summary: The Vitals cognitive assessment has been validated using a large sample of 2,167 commercial drivers, encompassing all vehicle types.
Conclusions: The assessment exhibits high accuracy in predicting high-risk road outcomes for commercial drivers. Participants who failed a standard on-road evaluation also displayed reduced success in Judgment, Memory, and Control tasks compared to those who passed.
Summary: Application of tablet-based cognitive tasks is investigated in identifying unsafe drivers in a population of healthy and at-risk for driving older adults.
Conclusions: High accuracy and reliable prediction of unsafe drivers using cognitive-only tasks in a sample of older adults demonstrates the efficacy of a widely available screening tool that can be applied in other cognitively impaired populations such as drug users.
Summary: “This study examined the usefulness of the DriveABLE cognitive assessment tool (DCAT) in predicting the driving risk factor of stroke patients, and compared the cognitive and driving functions of two groups discriminated by DCAT.”
Conclusions: “DCAT is a useful tool for predicting the risk of driving. In addition, it can predict the driving ability of stroke patients related to the cognitive function.”
Summary: The goal of the research was to evaluate screening tests to use to test senior drivers at license renewal time. While this is not what DriveABLE technology is intended to be used for the results provide an in-depth comparison with other methods to evaluate drivers.
Conclusions: “The preliminary findings of this study showed that there was a strong relationship between on-road driving performance and overall scores on the DriveABLE. Those participants who performed well on the DriveABLE test tended to pass the on-road driving test. The strong statistical association found for the overall DriveABLE and driving test provides strong support for consideration of this test as a screening test within a licensing context.”
“Preliminary analyses indicated that two of the four screening tests, DriveABLE and CALTEST, were significantly associated with on-road driving performance.”
Summary: “To determine the test–retest reliability of a computerized preroad screen of prerequisite skills required for safe driving. Subjects & Methods: Driveable Screen administered to 39 individuals referred for driving evaluation due to cognitive decline or stroke.”
Conclusions: “Excellent reliability was found on probability of failing the Road Test (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.908; CI = 0.832–0.950). The test–retest reliability of the subtests ranged from fair to substantial. Conclusions: The Screen demonstrates sufficient test–retest reliability to encourage its use.”
Summary: “This retrospective study evaluated the predictive validity of pre-road testing using the DriveABLE Screen. Fifty-two clients with varying health conditions were consecutively referred to a private practice that conducts comprehensive driving evaluations.”
Conclusions: “Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were generated using the Road Test as the criterion outcome. The positive predictive validity of the Screen in identifying those who would fail the Road Test was 97% (n= 32 of 33). The negative predictive validity was 47%. The sensitivity was 76% with a corresponding specificity of 90%.
“The DriveABLE Screen, when used as a case finding tool, is highly predictive of clients who will fail an on-road driving evaluation.”
Summary: “Through a review of the literature, the authors explore the effects of normal aging and cognitive impairment on driving safety. Specific assessment tools used to assess driving ability are examined and the role of health professionals in driver assessment is discussed.”
Conclusions: “it is evident from the review of the literature that many of the assessments used by health care professionals do not have a standardized, reliable and valid approach to assessing driving safety in people with dementia. Aside from DriveABLE there is no test which adequately mimics the skills required for driving. Unfortunately DriveABLE is not accessible to all communities”.
“The DriveABLE assessment (A. R. Dobbs, 1997) is the most effective driving evaluation tool to date to predict driving safety. It is concluded that health professionals need to find methods to identify at-risk drivers with dementia. Collaboration among physicians, occupational therapists, governing bodies, and clients is essential to ensure a standardized approach in addressing this issue”.
Summary: “The identification of unsafe older drivers is a current and important challenge. In the present research, a comparative approach was used in which the on road driving errors and expert evaluations of older drivers with clinically significant declines in mental abilities (N = 155) were compared to the errors and evaluations of a normal elderly control group (N = 68) and a normal younger control group (N = 30).
Conclusions: “The results indicate that the conventional criteria used in North America for licensing new drivers is inappropriate for license removal in experienced drivers. The results also indicate that hazardous errors were the single best indicator of membership in the group of older drivers with clinical impairment.”
Summary: “The current non-experimental observational study adds to the body of evidence and literature by describing, from a person – environment – occupation model, the on-road performance of 115 licensed drivers who had dementia. The purpose is to potentially prescribe the essential criteria of environmental and driving tasks for on-road assessment inclusion.”
Conclusions: “Within the dementia-affected population, as with non-impaired drivers, common driver-habit-related error such as signal lapses and poor parking capacity is demonstrated. These “non-criterion” errors did not differentiate between pass or fail outcomes, however, “criterion” errors such as hazardous or speed errors (Dobbs et al., 1998) did differentiate between and the pass or fail outcomes. These results support previous literature that stresses assessment must be sensitive and decrease the potential for discriminatory assessment practices between healthy aged or other functionally impaired drivers and those with dementia (Dobbs et al., 1998; Lundberg, 2003). This study also supports previous research by demonstrating that within the dementia population error performance varies, with the younger and less cognitively impaired drivers performing better than their older and more severely impaired peers. Regardless of gender, errors increased in both frequency and severity with advancing age and cognitive decline.”
Summary: “The study identified the types of driving errors that distinguish and differentiate the cognitively impaired group as well as a set of driving errors typical of both cognitively impaired and normal experienced drivers but differing in the number and severity of errors. A set of errors was also identified that did not differentiate the groups and should not be used in evaluating a person’s competence to drive.”
Summary: “Assessing an older driver’s ability to safely navigate the roads is a challenge faced increasingly by healthcare professionals. This article discusses this problematic issue and offers an evaluation of an available tool, DriveABLE™, to accomplish this difficult task.”