Citation

Korner-Bitensky N, Bitensky J, Sofer S, Man-Son-Hing M, Gelinas I. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2006; 60(4): 428-434.

Affiliation

McGill University, Faculty of Medicine, School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, 3630 Promenade Sir William Osler, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1Y5. nicol.korner-bitensky@mcgill.ca

Copyright

(Copyright © 2006, American Occupational Therapy Association)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

16915873

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine off-road and on-road driving evaluation practices of clinicians in the United States and Canada who assess individuals with disabilities for fitness to drive. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 114 clinician attendees at the 2003 annual Association of Driver Educators for the Disabled with driving assessment experience ranging from 1 month to 25 years. MEASURES: Information was elicited regarding the clinician, clientele, referral practices, and off-road and on-road driving evaluation practices and retraining practices using a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: Participants were largely occupational therapists (68%) who worked in 42 different states and provinces. The most prevalent clientele were persons with traumatic brain injury (97%) and stroke (96%). Testing times greater than 60 min were common for both the off-road (61%) and on-road (49%) evaluations. Commonly performed off-road assessments included the Brake Reaction Timer; Trail Making Test, Parts A and B; and the Motor Free Visual Perception Test, used by 73%, 72%, and 66%, respectively; comprehensive computer-based driving evaluation was rare. Sixty-one percent indicated that all clients underwent on-road evaluation regardless of the off-road results. Finally, 78% used a standard driving route, whereas 24% used a scoring system to evaluate on-road driving. CONCLUSION: Driving assessment in Canada and the United States is multidimensional and time-intensive. Although the domains being assessed are similar across clincians, specific off-road and on-road assessment practices vary greatly. The majority use nonstandardized on-road assessments.

Language: en