Purchase this article with an account.
NR Phelps, MC M Dunne; Can Static or Kinetic Visual Attention Tests Adequately Predict Crash-Risk and Driving Performance in Police Drivers? . Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2002;43(13):4710.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
Purpose: To examine the ability of the UFOV test (a static visual attention test) and the DRTS (a kinetic visual attention test) as a means of predicting police drivers' crash risk and driving performance. Methods: Data were analysed from 25 male police drivers aged between 29 and 62 years. Crash histories were obtained from police records. Driving performance was based upon a percentage examiner-rated open-road driving score. Each subject performed both visual attention tests, the order of which was balanced to avoid learning effects. Statistical analysis of the drivers involved splitting them into sub-samples of above and below median visual attention and driving performance. Crash histories were naturally dichotomised. Data were arranged into 2x2 contingency tables and the statistical significance of each association was determined using Fisher's exact probability test. Relative risks (RR) were calculated and used to compare static (UFOV) and kinetic (DRTS) visual attention tests. Results: Neither of the visual attention tests exhibited statistically significant associations with either crashes (RRUFOV = 2.6, PUFOV = 0.23; RRDRTS = 1.1, PDRTS ≷0.99) or driving performance (RRUFOV = 0.5, PUFOV = 0.59; RRDRTS = 1.5, PDRTS = 0.43). Interestingly, both tests were better at identifying drivers with greater crash risk than was driving performance (RRdriving score = 0.5, Pdriving score = 0.64). Conclusion: The driving sample investigated in this study was too limited to draw firm conclusions. Nevertheless, the static (UFOV) visual attention test was more able to predict crash risk whilst the kinetic (DRTS) visual attention test was more able to predict driving performance.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only