December 2002
Volume 43, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   December 2002
Can Static or Kinetic Visual Attention Tests Adequately Predict Crash-Risk and Driving Performance in Police Drivers?
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • NR Phelps
    Accident Research Unit School of Psychology Nottingham University Nottingham United Kingdom
  • MC M Dunne
    Neuoscience Research Institute Aston University Birmingham United Kingdom
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships    N.R. Phelps, Vauxhall Motors F; M.C.M. Dunne, None.
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science December 2002, Vol.43, 4710. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      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)

  • Supplements

Abstract: : 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.

Keywords: 326 attention • 619 vision and action 

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.