MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031901287 · doi:10.1080/15389580590969184

An Exploratory Study on the Predictive Elements of Passing On-the-Road Tests for Disabled Persons

2005· article· en· W2031901287 on OpenAlexaff
Shawn Marshall, Malcolm Man‐Son‐Hing, Frank Molnar, Lynn Hunt, Hillel M. Finestone

Bibliographic record

VenueTraffic Injury Prevention · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsÉlisabeth Bruyère HospitalOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLogistic regressionDescriptive statisticsPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational safety and healthCohortInjury preventionRegression analysisCohort studyApplied psychologyMedicinePsychologyMedical emergencyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Driving evaluations are performed by Occupational Therapists to evaluate drivers with disability. They include both off-road and on-road assessments. Many aspects of driving are examined during the on-road assessment. The main objective of this study is to identify the elements of the Occupational Therapy on-road driving assessment that are most predictive of the overall driving evaluation. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study took place at a provincially approved Driving Assessment Program. Records of 700 participants with various disabilities who completed a driving assessment between 1995 and 2003 were reviewed. Only clients who completed the on-road assessment were included in the study. At our center, 11 driving elements comprised of 34 items were used as independent variables and rated as pass (acceptable or good) or fail (borderline or poor). Analysis was completed with descriptive statistics and use of logistic regression to identify elements that contributed most significantly to the overall driving evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 628 clients completed the on-road assessment with an overall pass rate of 50%. Logistic regression modeling identified poor anticipation of road hazards, observation of environment, improper stopping position, poor visual scanning, poor knowledge of the rules of the road, and increasing age as predictive of failure for all participants. Further analysis grouped subjects according to disability to identify similarities and differences between pass/fail predictors. Both similarities and differences in predictive elements were found between cognitive and physical diagnostic groupings. Most notably, the physical diagnostic grouping showed that cognitive, not physical elements of the on-road test, predicted failure of the overall driving evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Of the 11 elements considered in the on-road evaluation, specific cognitive ones such as anticipates potential hazards, scanning, observes for pedestrians, and proper stopping position tend to contribute more to the prediction of pass or fail than others. These elements should be considered as components of on-road assessments by other Driving Assessment Programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraffic Injury PreventionSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207