Background: To maintain the mobility of older people in later life, it is essential to sustain their autonomy; however, driving is a complex task, requiring a large range of visual, psychomotor and cognitive abilities. Subsequently, a key issue is to measure and evaluate the fitness to drive of older drivers. Several methods have been proposed, among them the useful field of view (UFOV) test. Objective: The present study aimed to identify driving characteristics in older drivers and the relationship between the UFOV test and the on-road driving results. Method: A total of 80 drivers aged 70 years or older performed both the UFOV test and the on-road driving assessment. The ‘B On-Road' (Behaviour On-Road) protocol was used for the fitness-to-drive assessment. Results: ‘Driving too fast' was the item reported most often during the on-road assessment, followed by problems with the manual gearbox and ‘attention to signs, road lines and traffic lights'. Overall, the results showed that the older the driver, the more errors were reported during the on-road driving assessment, as well as the slower the performance on the UFOV test. A significant relationship between the total number of on-road errors, as measured by the B On-Road protocol, and the UFOV 3, which stresses the capacity of selective attention, was found. Conclusion: The recommendation is still to use on-road driving assessment to fully assess fitness to drive for older drivers whose ability to drive requires assessment. However, to supplement this, the UFOV test, in particular the UFOV 3, is a valuable complement in selecting those drivers requiring to be assessed.

Keywords:
Older drivers, Useful field of view test, On-road driving, Fitness to drive
1.
Mollenkopf H, et al: The role of driving in maintaining mobility in later life: a European view. Gerontechnology 2002;1:231-250.
2.
Svensson H: Travel habits among older people: today and six years ago. Paper presented at the TRANCED conference, Lisbon, July 2015.
3.
O'Hern S, Oxley J: Understanding travel patterns to support safe active transport for older adults. J Transport Health 2015;2:79-85.
4.
Lyman S, et al: Older driver involvements in police reported crashes and fatal crashes: trends and projections. Inj Prev 2002;8:116-120.
5.
Rosenbloom S, Herbel S: The safety and mobility patterns of older women: do current patterns foretell the future? Public Works Management Policy 2009;13:338-353.
6.
OECD: A Good Life in Old Age?: Monitoring and Improving Quality in Long-Term Care. Paris, OECD Publishing, 2013.
7.
Anstey KJ, et al: Cognitive, sensory and physical factors enabling driving safety in older adults. Clin Psychol Rev 2005;25:45-65.
8.
MacLeod K, Satariano WA, Ragland DR: The impact of health problems in driving status among older adults. J Transport Health 2014;1:86-94.
9.
Kent R, et al: Structural and material changes in the aging thorax and their role in crash protection for older occupants. Proc 49th STAPP Car Crash Conf, Washington, 2005.
10.
Evans L: Traffic Safety. Bloomfield Hills, Science Serving Society, 2004.
11.
Skyving M, Berg H-Y, Laflamme L: A pattern analysis of traffic crashes fatal to older drivers. Accid Anal Prev 2009;41:253-258.
12.
Viano D, Ridella S: Significance of Intersection Crashes for Older Drivers. Warrendale, Society of Automotive Engineers, 1996.
13.
Villalba J, Kirk A, Stamatiadis N: Effects of Age and Cohort on Older Drivers. SAE Tech Pap 2001, DOI: 10.4271/2001-01-3349.
14.
Oxley J, Fildes B, Corben B, Langford J: Intersection design for older drivers. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 2006;9:335-346.
15.
Stav WB, et al: Predictability of clinical assessments for driving performance. J Saf Res 2008;39:1-7.
16.
Kay L, et al: Validity and reliability of the on-road assessment with senior drivers. Accid Anal Prev 2008;40:751-759.
17.
Fox GK, Bowden SC, Smith DS: On-road assessment of driving competence after brain impairment: review of current practice and recommendations for a standardized examination. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:1288-1296.
18.
Anstey KJ, et al: Cognitive, sensory and physical factors enabling driving safety in older adults. Clin Psychol Rev 2005;25:45-65.
19.
Lee HC, Cameron D, Lee AH: Assessing the driving performance of older adult drivers: on-road versus simulated driving. Accid Anal Prev 2003;35:797-803.
20.
Di Stefano M, Macdonald W: Assessment of older drivers: relationships among on-road errors, medical conditions and test outcome. J Saf Res 2003;34:415-429.
21.
Selander H, et al: Older drivers: on-road and off-road test results. Accid Anal Prev 2011;43:1348-1354.
22.
Dobbs A, Heller R, Schopflocker D: A comparative approach to identify unsafe older drivers. Accid Anal Prev 1998;30:363-370.
23.
Clay OJ, et al: Cumulative meta-analysis of the relationship between useful field of view and driving performance in older adults: current and future implications. Optom Vis Sci 2005;82:724-731.
24.
Ball K, Owsley C: The useful field of view test: a new technique for evaluating age-related declines in visual function. J Am Optom Assoc 1993;64:71.
25.
Owsley C, Ball KK, Keeton DM: Relationship between visual sensitivity and target localization in older adults. Vis Res 1995;35:579-587.
26.
Cross JM, et al: Visual and medical risk factors for motor vehicle collision involvement among older drivers. Br J Ophthalmol 2009;93:400-404.
27.
Roenker DL, et al: Speed-of-processing and driving simulator training result in improved driving performance. Hum Factors 2003;45:218-233.
28.
Classen S, et al: Gender differences among older drivers in a comprehensive driving evaluation. Accid Anal Prev 2013;61:146-152.
29.
Broberg T, Dukic Willstrand T: Safe mobility for elderly drivers: considerations based on expert and self-assessment. Accid Anal Prev 2014;66:104-113.
30.
Edwards JD: The useful field of view test: normative data for older adults. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2006;21:275-286.
31.
Reitan R: Trail Making Test. Manual for Administration and Scoring. Tuscon, Neuropsychological Laboratory, 1986.
32.
Tombaugh TN: Trail Making Test A and B: normative data stratified by age and education. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2004;19:203-214.
33.
IBM Corporation: IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, IBM Corp, 2012.
34.
Selander H, Bolin I, Falkmer T: Does automatic transmission improve driving behavior in older drivers? Gerontology 2012;58:181-187.
35.
George S, Crotty M: Establishing criterion validity of the Useful Field of View assessment and Stroke Drivers' Screening Assessment: comparison to the result of on-road assessment. Am J Occup Ther 2010;64:114-122.
36.
Sekuler AB, Bennett PJ, Mamelak M: Effects of aging on the useful field of view. Exp Aging Res 2000;26:103-120.
37.
Salthouse TA: Adult Cognition: An Experimental Psychology of Human Aging. New York, Springer, 1982.
38.
Baldock MRJ, Berndt A, Mathias JL: The functional correlates of older drivers' on-road driving test errors. Top Geriatr Rehabil 2008;24:204-223.
39.
Odenheimer GL, et al: Performance-based driving evaluation of the elderly driver: safety, reliability, and validity. J Gerontol 1994;49:153-159.
40.
Lundberg C, Hakamies-Blomqvist L: Driving tests with older patients: effect of unfamiliar versus familiar vehicle. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 2003;6:163-173.
41.
Selander H, et al: Older drivers: on-road and off-road test results. Accid Anal Prev 2011;43:1348-1354.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.