Beyond relevant cognitive tests, a simulated driving activity could be useful to observe performance and behaviour in a standardized ‘driving-like’ situation and provide information on attention, reaction time and information processing speed when evaluating the ability to continue driving after a brain injury or disease. The aim was to develop and evaluate concurrent validity and internal consistency of a computerized simulated driving task tool.
Methods
Results from a new tool (CyberSiM, including three subtests and four result variables) were compared with results from the Trail Making Test, Useful Field of View test and Nordic Stroke Driver Screening Assessment. There were 126 healthy adults included in the study.
Results
The correlation analysis showed significant correlations (p<0.001) for CyberSiM reaction time and all cognitive tests except for Useful Field of View 1. The CyberSiM showed good internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha=0.85.
Conclusion
The analysis of concurrent validity showed conformity to most cognitive tests. CyberSiM might be a useful complement to cognitive testing with the opportunity to observe some behaviours ‘in a driving-like activity’. Further studies on clinical groups are needed to confirm its usefulness.
BallKClayOWadleyV, et al. (2005) Predicting driving performance in older adults with the useful field of view test: A meta-analysis. In: Proceedings of the Third International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, Rockport, Maine, June 27–30, Iowa City. Iowa: University of Iowa, Public Policy Center, pp.51–57.
2.
BallKOwsleyCSloaneM, et al. (1993)
Visual attention problems as a predictor of vehicle crashes in older drivers.Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science34(11): 3110–3123.
3.
BallKRoenkerDWadleyV, et al. (2006)
Can high-risk older drivers be identified through performance-based measures in a department of motor vehicles setting?Journal of American Geriatric Society54(1): 77–84.
4.
BrooksJGoodenoughRCrislerM, et al. (2010)
Simulator sickness during driving simulation studies.Accident Analysis and Prevention42(3): 788–796.
5.
ClayOWadleyVEdwardsJ, et al. (2005)
Cumulative meta-analysis of the relationship between useful field of view and driving performance in older adults: Current and future implications.Optometry and Vision Science82(8): 724–731.
6.
EdwardsJRossLWadleyV, et al. (2006)
The useful field of view test: Normative data for older adults.Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology21: 275–286.
7.
FieldsSUnsworthC (2017)
Revision of the competency standards for occupational therapy driver assessors: An overview of the evidence for the inclusion of cognitive and perceptual assessments within fitness-to-drive evaluations.Australian Occupational Therapy Journal64(4): 328–339.
8.
HandleyJThomasRMcKennaP, et al. (2017)
On the road again: Assessing driving ability in patients with neurological conditions.Practical Neurology17(3): 203–206.
9.
HirdMEgetoPFischerC, et al. (2016)
A systematic review and meta-analysis of on-road simulator and cognitive driving assessment in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment.Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease53(2): 713–729.
10.
LafontSLaumonBHelmerC, et al. (2008)
Driving cessation and self-reported car crashes in older drivers. The impact of cognitive impairment and dementia in a population-based study.Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology21(3): 171–182.
11.
LarssonHLundbergCFalkmerT, et al. (2007)
A Swedish survey of occupational therapists’ involvement and performance in driving assessments.Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy14: 215–222.
12.
LincolnNBRadfordKANouriFM (2012) Stroke Drivers Screening Assessment: Revised Manual.
Nottingham, UK:
University of Nottingham.
13.
LundbergC (2003) Manual for the Nordic Stroke Driver Assessment (NorSDSA).
Blidö, Sweden:
NorSDSA Produktion Görel Caneman and Catarina Lundberg [in Swedish].
14.
LundbergCCanemanGSamuelssonSM, et al. (2003)
The assessment of fitness to drive after a stroke: The Nordic Stroke Driver Screening Assessment.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology44(1): 23–30.
15.
McManusBCoxMKVanceDE, et al. (2015)
Predicting motor vehicle collisions in a driving simulator in young adults using the Useful Field of View Assessment.Traffic Injury Prevention16(8): 818–823.
16.
MarshallSCMolnarFMan-Son-HingM, et al. (2007)
Predictors of driving ability following stroke: A systematic review.Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation14(1): 98–114.
17.
MatasNNettelbeckTBurnsN (2016)
Assessment of driving simulator validity and acceptability for older adult drivers. Advances in Transportation Studies39: 69–88.
18.
MathiasJLucasL (2009)
Cognitive predictors of unsafe driving in older drivers: A meta-analysis.International Psychogeriatrics21(4): 637–653.
19.
MukakaMM (2012)
A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research.Malawi Medical Journal24(3): 69–71.
20.
NouriFLincolnN (1992)
Validation of a cognitive assessment: Predicting diving performance after stroke.Clinical Rehabilitation6: 275–281.
21.
NovackTBañosJAldersonA, et al. (2006)
UFOV performance and driving ability following traumatic brain injury.Brain Injury20(5): 455–461.
22.
OrtolevaCBruggerCVan der LindenM, et al. (2012)
Prediction of driving capacity after traumatic brain injury: A systematic review.Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation27(4): 302–313.
23.
PatelKD (2014) Neuropsychological factors associated with Useful Field of View. MSc Thesis, College of Arts and Sciences, Ohio University.
24.
RoyMMolnarF (2013)
Systematic review of the evidence for Trails B cut-off scores in assessing fitness-to-drive.Canadian Geriatrics Journal16(3): 120–142.
25.
SamuelssonKModig-ArdingILWressleE (2018)
Driving after an injury or disease affecting the brain: An analysis of clinical data. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 81(7): 376–383.
26.
Sanchez-CubilloIPerianezJAdrover-RoigD, et al. (2009)
Construct validity of the Trail Making Test: Role of task-switching, working memory, inhibition/interference control, and visuomotor abilities.Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society15(3): 438–450.
27.
SchultheisMWhippleE (2014)
Driving after traumatic brain injury: Evaluation and rehabilitation interventions.Current Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Reports2(3): 176–183.
28.
SelanderHJohanssonKLundbergC, et al. (2010)
The Nordic Stroke Driver Screening Assessment as predictor for the outcome of an on-road test.Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy17(1): 10–17.
29.
Seong-YoulCJae-ShinLA-YoungS (2014)
Cognitive test to forecast unsafe driving in older drivers: Meta-analysis.NeuroRehabilitation35: 771–778.
30.
ShinarDOppenheimI (2011) Review of models of driver behaviour and development of a unified driver behaviour model for driving in safety critical situations. In: CacciabuePCHjälmdahlMLuedtkeA, et al. (eds) Human Modelling in Assisted Transportation.
Milan:
Springer-Verlag, p. 215.
31.
TombaughTN (2004)
Trail Making Test A and B: Normative data stratified by age and education.Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology19(2): 203–214.
32.
VaucherPHerzigDCardosoI, et al. (2014)
The trail making test as a screening instrument for driving performance in older drivers; A translational research.BMC Geriatrics14(1): 123.
33.
Visual Awareness Research Group (2009) UFOV User’s Guide Version 6.1.4.
Birmingham, Alabama:
Visual Awareness.
34.
WinterLMoriartyHShortT (2017)
Self-reported driving difficulty in veterans with traumatic brain injury: Its central role in psychological well-being. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation9(9): 901–909.
