OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to (a) compare Cognitive Behavioral Driver's Inventory (CBDI) scores for clients who passed and failed a driving evaluation and for diagnostic groups (left cerebrovascular accident [CVA], right CVA, traumatic brain injury [TBI], and cognitive decline); (b) determine sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the CBDI; (c) compare validity of the CBDI with other tools; and (d) identify factors associated with outcome. PARTICIPANTS: This historical cohort study included clients with neurological conditions who completed a driving evaluation. MEASURES: CBDI, Motor-Free Visual Perception Test (MVPT), Bells test, and driving results were extracted from the charts. RESULTS: Mean CBDI (p < 0.0001) and MVPT (p < 0.0001) scores were significantly worse for those failing compared to passing the driving evaluation. Sensitivity of the CBDI was 62%, specificity was 81%, positive predictive values were 73%, and negative predictive values were 71%. Results varied according to diagnostic group. CONCLUSIONS: The CBDI is not sufficiently predictive of outcome to replace a driving evaluation, and is predictive only for clients with R-CVA and TBI. Evaluation of driving should vary according to diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to (a) compare Cognitive Behavioral Driver's Inventory (CBDI) scores for clients who passed and failed a driving evaluation and for diagnostic groups (left cerebrovascular accident [CVA], right CVA, traumatic brain injury [TBI], and cognitive decline); (b) determine sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the CBDI; (c) compare validity of the CBDI with other tools; and (d) identify factors associated with outcome. PARTICIPANTS: This historical cohort study included clients with neurological conditions who completed a driving evaluation. MEASURES: CBDI, Motor-Free Visual Perception Test (MVPT), Bells test, and driving results were extracted from the charts. RESULTS: Mean CBDI (p < 0.0001) and MVPT (p < 0.0001) scores were significantly worse for those failing compared to passing the driving evaluation. Sensitivity of the CBDI was 62%, specificity was 81%, positive predictive values were 73%, and negative predictive values were 71%. Results varied according to diagnostic group. CONCLUSIONS: The CBDI is not sufficiently predictive of outcome to replace a driving evaluation, and is predictive only for clients with R-CVA and TBI. Evaluation of driving should vary according to diagnosis.
Authors: Lesley A Ross; Olivio J Clay; Jerri D Edwards; Karlene K Ball; Virginia G Wadley; David E Vance; Gayla M Cissell; Daniel L Roenker; John J Joyce Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2009-02-04 Impact factor: 4.077