Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 313

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cumulative Meta-analysis of the Relationship Between Useful Field of View and Driving Performance in Older Adults: Current and Future Implications

CLAY, OLIVIO J., WADLEY, VIRGINIA G., EDWARDS, JERRI D., ROTH, DAVID L., ROENKER, DANIEL L., BALL, KARLENE K.·2005·Optometry and Vision Science

Abstract

PURPOSE: Driving is a complex behavior that requires the utilization of a wide range of individual abilities. Identifying assessments that not only capture individual differences, but also are related to older adults' driving performance would be beneficial. This investigation examines the relationship between the Useful Field of View (UFOV) assessment and objective measures of retrospective or concurrent driving performance, including state-recorded accidents, on-road driving, and driving simulator performance. METHOD: The PubMed and PsycINFO databases were searched to retrieve eight studies that reported bivariate relationships between UFOV and these objective driving measures. Cumulative meta-analysis techniques were used to combine the effect sizes in an attempt to determine whether the strength of the relationship was stable across studies and to assess whether a sufficient number of studies have been conducted to validate the relationship between UFOV and driving performance. RESULTS: A within-group homogeneity of effect sizes test revealed that the samples could be thought of as being drawn from the same population, Q [7] = 11.29, p (one-tailed) = 0.13. Therefore, the effect sizes of eight studies were combined for the present cumulative meta-analysis. The weighted mean effect size across the studies revealed a large effect (Cohen's d = 0.945), with poorer UFOV performance associated with negative driving outcomes. This relationship was robust across multiple indices of driving performance and several research laboratories. CONCLUSIONS: This convergence of evidence across numerous studies using different methodologies confirms the importance of the UFOV assessment as a valid and reliable index of driving performance and safety. Recent prospective studies have confirmed a relationship between UFOV performance and future crashes, further supporting the use of this instrument as a potential screening measure for at-risk older drivers.

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 · 10.1097/01.opx.0000175009.08626.65

Cites

33 of 33 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

Show all 33 references

Cited by

See all 313

Metadata

Authors
CLAY, O. J., WADLEY, V. G., EDWARDS, J. D., ROTH, D. L., ROENKER, D. L., & BALL, K. K.
Venue
Optometry and Vision Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-08
Volume
82
Issue
8
Pages
724-731
ISSN
1040-5488 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2119450676
Cited by
313
References
33
FWCI
28.79
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: Cumulative Meta-analysis of the Relationship Between Useful Field of View and Driving Performance in Older Adults: Current and Future Implications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.opx.0000175009.08626.65
The paper
CLAY, O. J., WADLEY, V. G., EDWARDS, J. D., ROTH, D. L., ROENKER, D. L., & BALL, K. K. (2005). Cumulative Meta-analysis of the Relationship Between Useful Field of View and Driving Performance in Older Adults: Current and Future Implications. Optometry and Vision Science. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.opx.0000175009.08626.65

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.