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
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.
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
Reliability and Validity Assessment
Carmines, E., & Zeller, R. (1979) · doi:10.4135/9781412985642 · Cited by 5,884
Effects of Cognitive Training Interventions With Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Ball, K., Berch, D. B., Helmers, K. F., Jobe, J. B., Leveck, M. D., Marsiske, M., Morris, J. N., Rebok, G. W., Smith, D. M., Tennstedt, S. L., et al. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.288.18.2271 · Cited by 2,049
Self-citationSpeed-of-Processing and Driving Simulator Training Result in Improved Driving Performance
Roenker, D. L., Cissell, G. M., Ball, K. K., Wadley, V. G., & Edwards, J. D. (2003) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.45.2.218.27241 · Cited by 469
Self-citationTransfer of a Speed of Processing Intervention to Near and Far Cognitive Functions
Edwards, J. D., Wadley, V. G., Myers, R. S., Roenker, D. L., Cissell, G. M., & Ball, K. K. (2002) · Gerontology · doi:10.1159/000065259 · Cited by 208
Self-citation
Cited by
Do “brain-training” programs work?
Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100616661983 · Cited by 1,183
The useful field of view test: Normative data for older adults
EDWARDS, J., ROSS, L., WADLEY, V, CLAY, O., CROWE, M., ROENKER, D., & BALL, K. (2006) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1016/j.acn.2006.03.001 · Cited by 231
Self-citationNoack, H., Lövdén, M., Schmiedek, F., & Lindenberger, U. (2009) · Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience · doi:10.3233/rnn-2009-0496 · Cited by 180
Tetlow, A. M., & Edwards, J. D. (2017) · Journal of Cognitive Enhancement · doi:10.1007/s41465-017-0051-2 · Cited by 69
Self-citationUsefulness of Screening Tools for Predicting Driving Performance in People With Parkinson’s Disease
Classen, S., Witter, D. P., Lanford, D. N., Okun, M. S., Rodriguez, R. L., Romrell, J., Malaty, I., & Fernandez, H. H. (2011) · American Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.5014/ajot.2011.001073 · Cited by 49
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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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.