OBJECTIVES: To conduct a pilot study to evaluate the predictive value of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test (MoCA) and a brief test of multiple object tracking (MOT) relative to other tests of cognition and attention in identifying at-risk older drivers, and to determine which combination of tests provided the best overall prediction. METHODS: Forty-seven currently licensed drivers (58-95 years), primarily from a clinical driving evaluation program, participated. Their performance was measured on: (1) a screening test battery, comprising MoCA, MOT, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Trail-Making Test, visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and Useful Field of View (UFOV) and (2) a standardized road test. RESULTS: Eighteen participants were rated at-risk on the road test. UFOV subtest 2 was the best single predictor with an area under the curve (AUC) of .84. Neither MoCA nor MOT was a better predictor of the at-risk outcome than either MMSE or UFOV, respectively. The best four-test combination (MMSE, UFOV subtest 2, visual acuity and contrast sensitivity) was able to identify at-risk drivers with 95% specificity and 80% sensitivity (.91 AUC). CONCLUSIONS: Although the best four-test combination was much better than a single test in identifying at-risk drivers, there is still much work to do in this field to establish test batteries that have both high sensitivity and specificity.
OBJECTIVES: To conduct a pilot study to evaluate the predictive value of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test (MoCA) and a brief test of multiple object tracking (MOT) relative to other tests of cognition and attention in identifying at-risk older drivers, and to determine which combination of tests provided the best overall prediction. METHODS: Forty-seven currently licensed drivers (58-95 years), primarily from a clinical driving evaluation program, participated. Their performance was measured on: (1) a screening test battery, comprising MoCA, MOT, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Trail-Making Test, visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and Useful Field of View (UFOV) and (2) a standardized road test. RESULTS: Eighteen participants were rated at-risk on the road test. UFOV subtest 2 was the best single predictor with an area under the curve (AUC) of .84. Neither MoCA nor MOT was a better predictor of the at-risk outcome than either MMSE or UFOV, respectively. The best four-test combination (MMSE, UFOV subtest 2, visual acuity and contrast sensitivity) was able to identify at-risk drivers with 95% specificity and 80% sensitivity (.91 AUC). CONCLUSIONS: Although the best four-test combination was much better than a single test in identifying at-risk drivers, there is still much work to do in this field to establish test batteries that have both high sensitivity and specificity.
Authors: Margaret G O'Connor; Lissa R Kapust; Bixuan Lin; Ann M Hollis; Richard N Jones Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2010-05-07 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Sarra Nazem; Andrew D Siderowf; John E Duda; Tom Ten Have; Amy Colcher; Stacy S Horn; Paul J Moberg; Jayne R Wilkinson; Howard I Hurtig; Matthew B Stern; Daniel Weintraub Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-12-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Shannon L Risacher; Darrell Wudunn; Susan M Pepin; Tamiko R MaGee; Brenna C McDonald; Laura A Flashman; Heather A Wishart; Heather S Pixley; Laura A Rabin; Nadia Paré; Jessica J Englert; Eben Schwartz; Joshua R Curtain; John D West; Darren P O'Neill; Robert B Santulli; Richard W Newman; Andrew J Saykin Journal: Neurobiol Aging Date: 2012-10-18 Impact factor: 4.673
Authors: Marian E Betz; David B Carr; Carolyn DiGuiseppi; Jason S Haukoos; Steven R Lowenstein; Robert Schwartz Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Kristin J Ford; Allen Joop; Raima A Memon; Kimberly H Wood; Karlene Ball; Gary R Cutter; David C Schwebel; Amy W Amara Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2017-10-04 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Andrew J Tatham; Erwin R Boer; Carolina P B Gracitelli; Peter N Rosen; Felipe A Medeiros Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2015-05-22 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Dafne Piersma; Anselm B M Fuermaier; Dick de Waard; Ragnhild J Davidse; Jolieke de Groot; Michelle J A Doumen; Ruud A Bredewoud; René Claesen; Afina W Lemstra; Annemiek Vermeeren; Rudolf Ponds; Frans Verhey; Wiebo H Brouwer; Oliver Tucha Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Carrie Huisingh; Cynthia Owsley; Virginia G Wadley; Emily B Levitan; Marguerite R Irvin; Paul MacLennan; Gerald McGwin Journal: Geriatrics (Basel) Date: 2018-03-06