MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913664913 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00253

The Concurrent Criterion Validity of the 32-Item Fitness-to-Drive Screening Measure

2019· article· en· W2913664913 on OpenAlexaff
Shabnam Medhizadah, Sherrilene Classen, Andrew M. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceiver operating characteristicFalse positive paradoxYouden's J statisticConcurrent validityPsychologyPredictive validityProxy (statistics)Measure (data warehouse)StatisticsComputer sciencePsychometricsClinical psychologyData miningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. The Fitness-to-Drive Screening Measure© (FTDS) is a free online screening tool that identifies at-risk older drivers. This tool screens for at-risk drivers using proxy rater responses (family, friends, and caregivers) to 54 driving-related items. Consumer usage analysis of the FTDS determined that reducing the time commitment to complete the 54-item FTDS might increase usability and uptake of the tool. To address this need, we used classical test theory and exploratory factor analysis to construct a 32-item version of the FTDS. This study aims to establish the concurrent criterion validity of the 32-item FTDS. Method. Two hundred older driver on-road assessments and 200 caregiver FTDS responses were used to generate a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, in which we plotted the rate of true positives against the rate of false positives, calculated the area under the curve (AUC), and used Youden’s index to identify the optimal cut-point for the 32-item FTDS. In this study, the true positive rate was the 32-item FTDS’ ability to predict a fail when the older driver actually failed the on-road assessment, and the false positive rate was the the 32-item FTDS’ ability to predict a pass when the older driver actually passed the on-road assessment. We computed the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and total number of misclassifications for the optimal cut-point. Results. The ROC curve results indicated an acceptable AUC, with a magnitude of .75, p <.05. At the optimal cut-point of 4.87, the 32-item FTDS had a sensitivity of .74, specificity of .69, positive predictive value of .30, negative predictive value of .93 and 61 (of 200) misclassifications. Conclusion. Although the 32-item FTDS met the criterion (AUC .75, p <.05.) for good concurrent criterion validity in predicting older driver on-road outcomes, it also misclassified 30% of the drivers and as such may be overly sensitive.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207