Seraina Agramunt1, Lynn Meuleners2, Kyle Chi Chow1, Jonathon Q Ng3, Nigel Morlet3. 1. Curtin-Monash Accident Research Centre (C-MARC), Curtin University, Perth, Australia; Eye & Vision Epidemiology Research (EVER) Group, Perth, Australia. 2. Curtin-Monash Accident Research Centre (C-MARC), Curtin University, Perth, Australia; Eye & Vision Epidemiology Research (EVER) Group, Perth, Australia. Electronic address: l.meuleners@curtin.edu.au. 3. Eye & Vision Epidemiology Research (EVER) Group, Perth, Australia; School of Population Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Advances in technology have made it possible to examine real-world driving using naturalistic data obtained from in-vehicle monitoring devices. These devices overcome the weaknesses of self-report methods and can provide comprehensive insights into driving exposure, habits and practices of older drivers. AIM: The aim of this study is to compare self-reported and objectively measured driving exposure, habits and practices using a travel diary and an in-vehicle driver monitoring device in older drivers with bilateral cataract. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was undertaken. Forty seven participants aged 58-89 years old (mean=74.1; S.D.=7.73) were recruited from three eye clinics over a one year period. Data collection consisted of a cognitive test, a researcher-administered questionnaire, a travel diary and an in-vehicle monitoring device. Participants' driving exposure and patterns were recorded for one week using in-vehicle monitoring devices. They also completed a travel diary each time they drove a motor vehicle as the driver. Paired t-tests were used to examine differences/agreement between the two instruments under different driving circumstances. RESULTS: The data from the older drivers' travel diaries significantly underestimated the number of overall trips (p<0.001), weekend trips (p=0.002) and trips during peak hour (p=0.004). The travel diaries also significantly overestimated overall driving duration (p<0.001) and weekend driving duration (p=0.003), compared to the data obtained from the in-vehicle monitoring devices. No significant differences were found between instruments for kilometres travelled under any of the driving circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study found that relying solely on self-reported travel diaries to assess driving outcomes may not be accurate, particularly for estimates of the number of trips made and duration of trips. The clear advantages of using in-vehicle monitoring devices over travel diaries to monitor driving habits and exposure among an older population are evident.
BACKGROUND: Advances in technology have made it possible to examine real-world driving using naturalistic data obtained from in-vehicle monitoring devices. These devices overcome the weaknesses of self-report methods and can provide comprehensive insights into driving exposure, habits and practices of older drivers. AIM: The aim of this study is to compare self-reported and objectively measured driving exposure, habits and practices using a travel diary and an in-vehicle driver monitoring device in older drivers with bilateral cataract. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was undertaken. Forty seven participants aged 58-89 years old (mean=74.1; S.D.=7.73) were recruited from three eye clinics over a one year period. Data collection consisted of a cognitive test, a researcher-administered questionnaire, a travel diary and an in-vehicle monitoring device. Participants' driving exposure and patterns were recorded for one week using in-vehicle monitoring devices. They also completed a travel diary each time they drove a motor vehicle as the driver. Paired t-tests were used to examine differences/agreement between the two instruments under different driving circumstances. RESULTS: The data from the older drivers' travel diaries significantly underestimated the number of overall trips (p<0.001), weekend trips (p=0.002) and trips during peak hour (p=0.004). The travel diaries also significantly overestimated overall driving duration (p<0.001) and weekend driving duration (p=0.003), compared to the data obtained from the in-vehicle monitoring devices. No significant differences were found between instruments for kilometres travelled under any of the driving circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study found that relying solely on self-reported travel diaries to assess driving outcomes may not be accurate, particularly for estimates of the number of trips made and duration of trips. The clear advantages of using in-vehicle monitoring devices over travel diaries to monitor driving habits and exposure among an older population are evident.
Authors: L J Molnar; D W Eby; J M Vivoda; S E Bogard; J S Zakraksek; R M St Louis; N Zanier; L H Ryan; D LeBlanc; J Smith; R Yung; L Nyquist; C DiGuiseppi; G Li; T J Mielenz; D Strogatz Journal: Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav Date: 2018-03-15
Authors: Carrie Huisingh; Emily B Levitan; Marguerite R Irvin; Paul MacLennan; Virginia Wadley; Cynthia Owsley Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 4.799