建立运动和过程技能评估对驾驶性能结果的预测效力。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Anne E Dickerson, Qiang Wu, Helen Houston, Therese Cassidy, Susan Touchinsky
{"title":"建立运动和过程技能评估对驾驶性能结果的预测效力。","authors":"Anne E Dickerson, Qiang Wu, Helen Houston, Therese Cassidy, Susan Touchinsky","doi":"10.5014/ajot.2024.050687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Although the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) is an excellent tool for evaluating the functional performance of instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), a limited number of studies have used the AMPS for decisions regarding the IADL of fitness to drive and community mobility.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the specificity and sensitivity of the AMPS as a tool for determining a person's fitness to drive.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional observational design.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Three driving rehabilitation programs in three states.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Participants were 388 community-living adults (M age = 68.74 yr, SD = 11.53); 196 adults were recruited before completing a comprehensive driving evaluation, and 192 were recruited in two other studies of older drivers.</p><p><strong>Outcome and measures: </strong>AMPS and results of comprehensive driving evaluation or on-road assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using a logistical regression, AMPS Motor and Process Skills scores yielded a sensitivity of 84.6% and a specificity of 88.8%. The odds ratio of the AMPS Motor Skills score was .347; for the AMPS Process Skills score, it was .014. Using cross-validations, the model with AMPS Motor and Process scores produced a cross-validation area under the curve of .918, with sensitivity and specificity of 84.6% and 88.4%, respectively, and a probability greater than .334 was used for predicting a fail or drive-with-restriction evaluation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>The AMPS Motor and Process Skills scores revealed significant differences between those who failed or had driving restrictions and with those who passed the driving evaluation, which supported the AMPS as an effective tool for predicting fitness to drive. Plain-Language Summary: This study demonstrates how the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS), as a top-down occupational therapy assessment tool, can be used to differentiate between medically at-risk drivers who are likely to pass a comprehensive driving evaluation and those who are likely to fail or need restrictions. AMPS will assist occupational therapy practitioners in determining who is most appropriate to receive driving rehabilitation services and/or when to refer a person for a comprehensive driving evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":48317,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Occupational Therapy","volume":"78 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Establishing the Predictive Validity of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills for Driving Performance Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Anne E Dickerson, Qiang Wu, Helen Houston, Therese Cassidy, Susan Touchinsky\",\"doi\":\"10.5014/ajot.2024.050687\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Although the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) is an excellent tool for evaluating the functional performance of instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), a limited number of studies have used the AMPS for decisions regarding the IADL of fitness to drive and community mobility.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the specificity and sensitivity of the AMPS as a tool for determining a person's fitness to drive.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional observational design.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Three driving rehabilitation programs in three states.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Participants were 388 community-living adults (M age = 68.74 yr, SD = 11.53); 196 adults were recruited before completing a comprehensive driving evaluation, and 192 were recruited in two other studies of older drivers.</p><p><strong>Outcome and measures: </strong>AMPS and results of comprehensive driving evaluation or on-road assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Using a logistical regression, AMPS Motor and Process Skills scores yielded a sensitivity of 84.6% and a specificity of 88.8%. The odds ratio of the AMPS Motor Skills score was .347; for the AMPS Process Skills score, it was .014. Using cross-validations, the model with AMPS Motor and Process scores produced a cross-validation area under the curve of .918, with sensitivity and specificity of 84.6% and 88.4%, respectively, and a probability greater than .334 was used for predicting a fail or drive-with-restriction evaluation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>The AMPS Motor and Process Skills scores revealed significant differences between those who failed or had driving restrictions and with those who passed the driving evaluation, which supported the AMPS as an effective tool for predicting fitness to drive. Plain-Language Summary: This study demonstrates how the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS), as a top-down occupational therapy assessment tool, can be used to differentiate between medically at-risk drivers who are likely to pass a comprehensive driving evaluation and those who are likely to fail or need restrictions. AMPS will assist occupational therapy practitioners in determining who is most appropriate to receive driving rehabilitation services and/or when to refer a person for a comprehensive driving evaluation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Occupational Therapy\",\"volume\":\"78 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Occupational Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2024.050687\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Occupational Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2024.050687","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:尽管运动和过程技能评估(AMPS)是评估日常生活工具性活动(IADLs)功能表现的绝佳工具,但将 AMPS 用于决定是否适合驾驶和社区移动的 IADL 的研究数量有限:目的:确定AMPS作为判断驾驶能力工具的特异性和敏感性:设计:横断面观察设计:环境:三个州的三个驾驶康复项目:参与者: 388 名社区生活的成年人(中位年龄 = 68.74 岁,标差 = 11.53);其中 196 名成年人是在完成综合驾驶评估之前招募的,另外 192 名是在另外两项针对老年驾驶者的研究中招募的:结果与测量:AMPS和综合驾驶评估或道路评估结果:采用逻辑回归法,AMPS运动和过程技能评分的灵敏度为84.6%,特异性为88.8%。AMPS运动技能得分的几率比为0.347;AMPS过程技能得分的几率比为0.014。通过交叉验证,AMPS运动和过程得分模型的交叉验证曲线下面积为0.918,灵敏度和特异度分别为84.6%和88.4%,预测失败或限制驾驶评估的概率大于0.334:AMPS运动和过程技能评分显示,未通过或受限驾驶评估者与通过驾驶评估者之间存在显著差异,这支持AMPS成为预测驾驶能力的有效工具。通俗摘要:本研究证明了运动与过程技能评估(AMPS)作为一种自上而下的职业治疗评估工具,可用于区分可能通过综合驾驶评估的高危驾驶者和可能未通过评估或需要限制驾驶的驾驶者。AMPS 将协助职业治疗从业人员确定哪些人最适合接受驾驶康复服务,以及/或何时转介患者接受综合驾驶评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Establishing the Predictive Validity of the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills for Driving Performance Outcomes.

Importance: Although the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS) is an excellent tool for evaluating the functional performance of instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), a limited number of studies have used the AMPS for decisions regarding the IADL of fitness to drive and community mobility.

Objective: To determine the specificity and sensitivity of the AMPS as a tool for determining a person's fitness to drive.

Design: Cross-sectional observational design.

Setting: Three driving rehabilitation programs in three states.

Participants: Participants were 388 community-living adults (M age = 68.74 yr, SD = 11.53); 196 adults were recruited before completing a comprehensive driving evaluation, and 192 were recruited in two other studies of older drivers.

Outcome and measures: AMPS and results of comprehensive driving evaluation or on-road assessment.

Results: Using a logistical regression, AMPS Motor and Process Skills scores yielded a sensitivity of 84.6% and a specificity of 88.8%. The odds ratio of the AMPS Motor Skills score was .347; for the AMPS Process Skills score, it was .014. Using cross-validations, the model with AMPS Motor and Process scores produced a cross-validation area under the curve of .918, with sensitivity and specificity of 84.6% and 88.4%, respectively, and a probability greater than .334 was used for predicting a fail or drive-with-restriction evaluation.

Conclusions and relevance: The AMPS Motor and Process Skills scores revealed significant differences between those who failed or had driving restrictions and with those who passed the driving evaluation, which supported the AMPS as an effective tool for predicting fitness to drive. Plain-Language Summary: This study demonstrates how the Assessment of Motor and Process Skills (AMPS), as a top-down occupational therapy assessment tool, can be used to differentiate between medically at-risk drivers who are likely to pass a comprehensive driving evaluation and those who are likely to fail or need restrictions. AMPS will assist occupational therapy practitioners in determining who is most appropriate to receive driving rehabilitation services and/or when to refer a person for a comprehensive driving evaluation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
10.30%
发文量
406
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOT) is an official publication of the American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc. and is published 6 times per year. This peer reviewed journal focuses on research, practice, and health care issues in the field of occupational therapy. AOTA members receive 6 issues of AJOT per year and have online access to archived abstracts and full-text articles. Nonmembers may view abstracts online but must purchase full-text articles.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信