Citation

Edwards JD, Vance DE, Wadley VG, Cissell GM, Roenker DL, Ball KK. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 2005; 27(5): 529-543.

Affiliation

Department of Psychology, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA. edwardjd@uah.edu

Copyright

(Copyright © 2005, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/13803390490515432

PMID

16019630

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.

Language: en