Establishing the Predictive Validity of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills for Driving Performance Outcomes

Author:

Dickerson Anne E.1,Wu Qiang2,Houston Helen3,Cassidy Therese4,Touchinsky Susan5

Affiliation:

1. Anne E. Dickerson, PhD, OTR/L, SCDCM, FAOTA, FGSA, is Professor and Director, Research for Older Adult Driver Initiative (ROADI), Department of Occupational Therapy, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC; dickersona@ecu.edu

2. Qiang Wu, PhD, is Professor, Department of Public Health, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.

3. Helen Houston, MS, OTR/L, is Occupational Therapy Clinical Specialist, ECU Health Medical Center, Greenville, NC.

4. Therese Cassidy, OTD, OTR/L, CDRS, is CEO, Fitness to Drive–Health Promotions Partners, Colorado Springs, CO.

5. Susan Touchinsky, OTR/L, SCDCM, CDRS, is Owner, Adaptive Mobility Services, LLC, Orwigsburg, PA.

Abstract

Abstract Importance: Although the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) is an excellent tool for evaluating the functional performance of instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), a limited number of studies have used the AMPS for decisions regarding the IADL of fitness to drive and community mobility. Objective: To determine the specificity and sensitivity of the AMPS as a tool for determining a person’s fitness to drive. Design: Cross-sectional observational design. Setting: Three driving rehabilitation programs in three states. Participants: Participants were 388 community-living adults (M age = 68.74 yr, SD = 11.53); 196 adults were recruited before completing a comprehensive driving evaluation, and 192 were recruited in two other studies of older drivers. Outcome and Measures: AMPS and results of comprehensive driving evaluation or on-road assessment. Results: Using a logistical regression, AMPS Motor and Process Skills scores yielded a sensitivity of 84.6% and a specificity of 88.8%. The odds ratio of the AMPS Motor Skills score was .347; for the AMPS Process Skills score, it was .014. Using cross-validations, the model with AMPS Motor and Process scores produced a cross-validation area under the curve of .918, with sensitivity and specificity of 84.6% and 88.4%, respectively, and a probability greater than .334 was used for predicting a fail or drive-with-restriction evaluation. Conclusions and Relevance: The AMPS Motor and Process Skills scores revealed significant differences between those who failed or had driving restrictions and with those who passed the driving evaluation, which supported the AMPS as an effective tool for predicting fitness to drive. Plain-Language Summary: This study demonstrates how the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS), as a top-down occupational therapy assessment tool, can be used to differentiate between medically at-risk drivers who are likely to pass a comprehensive driving evaluation and those who are likely to fail or need restrictions. AMPS will assist occupational therapy practitioners in determining who is most appropriate to receive driving rehabilitation services and/or when to refer a person for a comprehensive driving evaluation.

Publisher

AOTA Press

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3