Older Adults’ Motivations for Participating in a “Tune-Up” of Their Driving Skills: A Multi-Stakeholder Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Driver training has the potential to keep older adults safe behind-the-wheel for longer, yet there is limited evidence describing factors that influence their willingness to participate in training. Focus groups with community-dwelling older drivers ( n = 23; 70–90 years) and semi-structured interviews with driving instructors ( n = 6) and occupational therapists ( n = 5) were conducted to identify these factors. Qualitative descriptive analyses highlighted how self-awareness of behind-the-wheel abilities in later life can influence an older adult’s motivation to participate in driver training, as well as their willingness to discuss their behaviors. Collision-involvement and near-misses prompted participants to reflect on their driving abilities and their openness to feedback. Participants’ preferences for learning contexts that use a strengths-based approach and validate the driving experience of older drivers, while providing feedback on behind-the-wheel performance, were raised. Older driver training initiatives that consider the needs of the aging population in their design can promote road safety and community mobility.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".