Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 281

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reliability and Validity of Useful Field of View Test Scores as Administered by Personal Computer

Edwards, Jerri D., Vance, David E., Wadley, Virginia G., Cissell, Gayla M., Roenker, Daniel L., Ball, Karlene K.·2005·Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology

Abstract

The Useful Field of View test (UFOV(1)) is a measure of processing speed that predicts driving performance and other functional abilities in older adults. In comparison to a number of other visual and cognitive measures, the UFOV measure has consistently been found to be the strongest predictor of motor vehicle crashes of older adults. This measure has valuable applications in that computerized, performance-based measures that are predictive of crashes in the elderly population can provide an objective criterion for determining the need for driver restriction or rehabilitation. Administration of the UFOV test has evolved from the standard version (administered via touch-screen with the Visual Attention Analyzer) to two briefer versions, which are administered on a personal desktop computer (PC) using either a touch screen or mouse response option. These new versions of the test are briefer and require less specialized equipment, making the test more portable and practical for use in clinical settings. This study examined the reliability and validity of the scores from these two new versions. Results indicate that test-retest reliabilities of the scores from the UFOV PC versions are high (r's= 0 .884 for mouse and 0.735 for touch), and performance on both PC versions correlates well with performance on the standard version (r's = 0.658 for mouse and 0.746 for touch). Furthermore, scores were highly correlated (r = 0.916) when participants used either a touch screen or a mouse to input responses. In conclusion, the reliability and validity coefficients are of sufficient magnitude to make the touch and mouse PC versions of the UFOV practical for use in clinical evaluations.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/13803390490515432

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 281

Metadata

Authors
Edwards, J. D., Vance, D. E., Wadley, V. G., Cissell, G. M., Roenker, D. L., & Ball, K. K.
Venue
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology
Published
2005-07
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
529-543
ISSN
  • 0165-0475 (ISSN-L)
  • 1380-3395
  • 1744-411X
OpenAlex
W2113682883
Cited by
281
References
4
FWCI
25.30
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

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.