Driving safety improves after individualized training: An RCT involving older drivers in an urban area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to reproduce the results of a previous investigation on the safety benefits of individualized training for older drivers. We modified our method to address validity and generalizability issues.Methods: Older drivers were randomly assigned to one of the 3 arms: (1) education alone, (2) education + on road training, and (3) education + on road + simulator training. Older drivers were recruited from a larger urban community. At the pre- and posttests (separated by 4 to 8 weeks) participants followed driving directions using a Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation system.Results: Our findings support the positive influence of individualized on-road training for urban-dwelling older drivers. Overall, driving safety improved among drivers who received on-road training over those who were only exposed to an education session, F(1, 40) = 11.66, P = .001 (26% reduction in total unsafe driving actions [UDAs]). Statistically significant improvements were observed on observation UDAs (e.g., scanning at intersections, etc.), compliance UDAs (e.g., incomplete stop), and procedural UDAs (e.g., position in lane).Conclusion: This study adds to the growing evidence base in support of individualized older driver training to optimize older drivers’ safety and promote continued safe driving.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".