The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Predictive validity of driving-simulator assessments following traumatic brain injury: a preliminary study
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether driving simulator and road test evaluations can predict long-term driving performance, we conducted a prospective study on 11 patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Sixteen healthy subjects were also tested to provide normative values on the simulator at baseline. METHOD: At their initial evaluation (time-1), subjects' driving skills were measured during a 30-minute simulator trial using an automated 12-measure Simulator Performance Index (SPI), while a trained observer also rated their performance using a Driving Performance Inventory (DPI). In addition, patients were evaluated on the road by a certified driving evaluator. Ten months later (time-2), family members observed patients driving for at least 3 hours over 4 weeks and rated their driving performance using the DPI. RESULTS: At time-1, patients were significantly impaired on automated SPI measures of driving skill, including: speed and steering control, accidents, and vigilance to a divided-attention task. These simulator indices significantly predicted the following aspects of observed driving performance at time-2: handling of automobile controls, regulation of vehicle speed and direction, higher-order judgment and self-control, as well as a trend-level association with car accidents. Automated measures of simulator skill (SPI) were more sensitive and accurate than observational measures of simulator skill (DPI) in predicting actual driving performance. To our surprise, the road test results at time-1 showed no significant relation to driving performance at time-2. CONCLUSION: Simulator-based assessment of patients with brain injuries can provide ecologically valid measures that, in some cases, may be more sensitive than a traditional road test as predictors of long-term driving performance in the community.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Outcome following traumatic brain injury: a comparison between 2 and 5 years after injury
OLVER, J. H., PONSFORD, J. L., & CURRAN, C. A. (1996) · Brain Injury · doi:10.1080/026990596123945 · Cited by 503
Cited by
Shechtman, O., Classen, S., Awadzi, K., & Mann, W. (2009) · Traffic Injury Prevention · doi:10.1080/15389580902894989 · Cited by 255
The emotional side of cognitive distraction: Implications for road safety
Chan, M., & Singhal, A. (2013) · Accident Analysis & Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.aap.2012.04.004 · Cited by 145
Community reintegration following acquired brain injury
McCabe, P., Lippert, C., Weiser, M., Hilditch, M., Hartridge, C., & Villamere, J. (2007) · Brain Injury · doi:10.1080/02699050701201631 · Cited by 132
Metadata
- Authors
- Lew, H. L., Poole, J. H., Lee, E. H., Jaffe, D. L., Huang, H.-C., & Brodd, E.
- Venue
- Brain Injury
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2005-03
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 177-188
- ISSN
- 0269-9052 (ISSN-L)
- 1362-301X
- OpenAlex
- W2154280008
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Predictive validity of driving-simulator assessments following traumatic brain injury: a preliminary study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/02699050400017171
- The paper
- Lew, H. L., Poole, J. H., Lee, E. H., Jaffe, D. L., Huang, H.-C., & Brodd, E. (2005). Predictive validity of driving-simulator assessments following traumatic brain injury: a preliminary study. Brain Injury. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699050400017171
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.