ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023
Validation of a computerized driving simulator test of cognitive abilities for fitness-to-drive assessments.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Driving requires a series of cognitive abilities, many of which are affected by age and medical conditions. The psychosocial importance of continued driving ushers the need for valid measurements in fitness-to-drive assessments. A driving simulator test could prove useful in these assessments, having greater face validity than other off-road tests and being more cost-effective and safer than ordinary on-road testing. The aim of this study was to validate a driving simulator test for assessment of cognitive ability in fitness-to-drive assessments. Methods: The study included 67 healthy participants. Internal consistency of the simulator subtests was estimated. A correlation analysis between results on the simulator and the cognitive tests Trail Making Test (TMT) A and B and the Useful field of View test (UFOV) and multiple regression analysis were conducted. Finally, a comparison of results between age groups (>65 years) and (<65 years) was done. Results: Results showed good internal consistency. Significant and moderate correlations were found for all reaction time in the simulator's subtests and UFOV 3, and all but two with TMT A. Lane positioning in the simulator showed significant and low to moderate correlations with UFOV 3 in all subtests. Reaction time and Double reaction time on subtest 3 were significantly correlated with UFOV 2 and UFOV 3 and TMT A, respectively. Test on Centerline (position) in subtest 3 as dependent variable was significantly correlated with UFOV 3. Significant means differences and large effect sizes between the age groups were found for all reaction time and lane positioning tests. Conclusion: The findings of concurrent validity, especially with TMT A and UFOV 3 and its sensitivity for age-related differences, indicate potential for the simulator to be used as a complement in fitness-to-drive assessments. However, a clinical study is necessary to further examine its usefulness for patients with cognitive deficits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.