An Evaluation of the Roadwise Review: A Mixed Methods Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this mixed methods study was to perform an evaluation of the Roadwise Review CD-ROM (RWR), a self-screening tool for older drivers. METHODS: Ninety-six older drivers (67 to 91) used the RWR with a research assistant at two different sites, and then completed written surveys (closed and open-ended questions) immediately after the session as well as two weeks later. In addition, RWR test results by these 96 older drivers were compared to the results of the original sample that was used to establish normative data for the RWR. RESULTS: When test scores were evaluated, almost all participants (96%) were found to have at least one impairment. The rates of impairment varied dramatically between tests from 3 percent (visual acuity) to 75 percent (visual search). Several average test scores were found to be different from the original samples upon which the normative data were derived. Several factors were found that influenced these older drivers' scores on the various components of the RWR, although the explanatory power was very low. Participants reported that the RWR was useful, they made changes to their driving, and talked to their family and friends about driving. Participants also provided many good suggestions for improvements of this tool. CONCLUSION: The RWR offers promise for older drivers to self-screen their ability to drive as well as provide education on safe driving, however modifications are recommended for this tool.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".