@article {1363249,
	title = {Can we improve clinical prediction of at-risk older drivers?},
	journal = {Accid Anal Prev},
	volume = {59},
	year = {2013},
	month = {2013 Oct},
	pages = {537-47},
	abstract = {OBJECTIVES: To conduct a pilot study to evaluate the predictive value of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test (MoCA) and a brief test of multiple object tracking (MOT) relative to other tests of cognition and attention in identifying at-risk older drivers, and to determine which combination of tests provided the best overall prediction. METHODS: Forty-seven currently licensed drivers (58-95 years), primarily from a clinical driving evaluation program, participated. Their performance was measured on: (1) a screening test battery, comprising MoCA, MOT, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Trail-Making Test, visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and Useful Field of View (UFOV) and (2) a standardized road test. RESULTS: Eighteen participants were rated at-risk on the road test. UFOV subtest 2 was the best single predictor with an area under the curve (AUC) of .84. Neither MoCA nor MOT was a better predictor of the at-risk outcome than either MMSE or UFOV, respectively. The best four-test combination (MMSE, UFOV subtest 2, visual acuity and contrast sensitivity) was able to identify at-risk drivers with 95\% specificity and 80\% sensitivity (.91 AUC). CONCLUSIONS: Although the best four-test combination was much better than a single test in identifying at-risk drivers, there is still much work to do in this field to establish test batteries that have both high sensitivity and specificity.},
	keywords = {Accidents, Traffic, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Attention, Automobile Driver Examination, Automobile Driving, Cognition, Contrast Sensitivity, Decision Support Techniques, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Status Schedule, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Pilot Projects, Predictive Value of Tests, Risk Assessment, Trail Making Test, Visual Acuity, Visual Field Tests},
	issn = {1879-2057},
	doi = {10.1016/j.aap.2013.06.037},
	author = {Bowers, Alex R and Anastasio, R Julius and Sheldon, Sarah S and O{\textquoteright}Connor, Margaret G and Hollis, Ann M and Howe, Piers D and Horowitz, Todd S}
}
