OBJECTIVE We report on item development and validity testing of a self-report older adult safe driving behaviors measure (SDBM). METHOD On the basis of theoretical frameworks (Precede–Proceed Model of Health Promotion, Haddon’s matrix, and Michon’s model), existing driving measures, and previous research and guided by measurement theory, we developed items capturing safe driving behavior. Item development was further informed by focus groups. We established face validity using peer reviewers and content validity using expert raters. RESULTS Peer review indicated acceptable face validity. Initial expert rater review yielded a scale content validity index (CVI) rating of 0.78, with 44 of 60 items rated ≥0.75. Sixteen unacceptable items (≤0.5) required major revision or deletion. The next CVI scale average was 0.84, indicating acceptable content validity. CONCLUSION The SDBM has relevance as a self-report to rate older drivers. Future pilot testing of the SDBM comparing results with on-road testing will define criterion validity.

The Useful Field of View Ò (UFOV) and Trail Making Test Part B (Trails B) are measures of divided attention.We determined which measure was more accurate in predicting on-road outcomes among drivers (N 5 198, mean age 5 73.86, standard deviation 5 6.05). Receiver operating characteristic curves for the UFOV (Risk Index [RI] and Subtests 1-3) and Trails B significantly predicted on-road outcomes. Contrasting Trails B with the UFOV RI and subtests, the only difference was found between the UFOV RI and Trails B, indicating the UFOV RI was the best predictor of on-road outcomes. Misclassifications of drivers totaled 28 for the UFOV RI, 62 for Trails B, and 58 for UFOV Subtest 2. The UFOV RI is a superior test in predicting on-road outcomes, but the Trails B has acceptable accuracy and is comparable to the other UFOV subtests.

We employed item response theory (IRT), specifically using Rasch modeling, to determine the measurement precision of the Fitness-to-Drive Screening Measure (FTDS), a tool that can be used by caregivers and occupational therapists to help detect at-risk drivers. We examined unidimensionality through the factor structure (how items contribute to the central construct of fitness to drive), rating scale (use of the categories of the rating scale), item/person-level separation (distinguishing between items with different difficulty levels or persons with different ability levels) and reliability, item hierarchy (easier driving items advancing to more difficult driving items), rater reliability, rater effects (severity vs. leniency of a rater), and criterion validity of the FTDS to an on-road assessment, via three rater groups (n = 200 older drivers; n = 200 caregivers; n = 2 evaluators). The FTDS is unidimensional, the rating scale performed well, has good person (> 3.07) and item (> 5.43) separation, good person (> 0.90) and item reliability (> 0.97), with < 10% misfitting items for two rater groups (caregivers and drivers). The intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficient among the three rater groups was significant (.253, p < .001) and the evaluators were the most severe raters. When comparing the caregivers' FTDS rating with the drivers' on-road assessment, the areas under the curve (index of discriminability; caregivers .726, p < .001) suggested concurrent validity between the FTDS and the on-road assessment. Despite limitations, the FTDS is a reliable and accurate screening measure for caregivers to help identify at-risk older drivers and for occupational therapy practitioners to start conversations about driving.

No abstract