ArticleTechnology and disability2020
Reliability of a virtual reality driving simulator for individuals with neurological disorders.
Article in Technology and disability, 2020. 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVirtual reality (VR) offers an innovative method to assess the impact of neurocognitive deficits on daily activities like driving.
objectiveThis study sought to evaluate the reliability of a VR driving simulator (VRDS) in assessing driving behaviors.
methodsParticipants included 91 individuals with a neurological condition (e.g., acquired brain injury, multiple sclerosis) and 59 participants with no history of neurological disorder. Internal consistency and split half reliability were examined from data for all participants for driving speed, lane positioning, and steering on a rural segment of the virtual reality driving simulator route. Test-retest reliability was examined for data from the 22 drivers who completed the same route sections across two time periods.
resultsInternal consistency and split half reliability were excellent (alphas > 0.90) for speed and lane positioning on a basic rural route. Test-retest reliability was variable with adequate to good reliability of lane positioning and steering but poor reliability of speed.
conclusionsFindings suggest that VRDS is a generally reliable instrument for measuring speed, lane positioning, and steering in a virtual basic rural driving environment. Reliability of repeated testing is not consistent, likely due to practice effects, highlighting the importance of using a comparison group in VRDS studies.
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.