Sawada Tatsunori, Tomori Kounosuke, Hamana Haruka, Ohno Kanta, Seike Yosuke, Igari Yo, Fujita Yoshio
Department of Occupational Therapy, Tokyo University of Technology, Tokyo.
Department of Rehabilitation, IMS Yokohama Kariba Neurosurgery Hospital, Kanagawa.
Int J Rehabil Res. 2019 Dec;42(4):289-299. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000374.
The on-road driving test is considered a 'gold standard' evaluation; however, its validity and reliability have not been sufficiently reviewed. This systematic review aimed to map out and synthesize literature regarding on-road driving tests using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist. Cochrane Library, PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases were searched from initiation through February 2018. All articles addressing reliability or validity of on-road driving tests involving adult rehabilitation patients were included. The search output identified 513 studies and 36 articles, which were included in the review. The Washington University Road Test/Rhode Island Road Test, performance analysis of driving ability, test ride for investigating practical fitness-to-drive, and K-score demonstrated high reliability and validity in regard to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments checklist. The Washington University Road Test/Rhode Island Road Test and test ride for investigating practical fitness-to-drive were analyzed based on Classical Test Theory techniques, and performance analysis of driving ability and K-score were analyzed based on Item Response Theory techniques. The frequency of studies were Washington University Road Test/Rhode Island Road Test (n=9), Test Ride for Investigating Practical fitness-to-drive (n=8), performance analysis of driving ability (n=4), and K-score (n=1). From the viewpoint of accuracy and generalization, the Washington University Road Test/Rhode Island Road Test, test ride for investigating practical fitness-to-drive, and performance analysis of driving ability were identified as highly qualified concerning on-road driving tests. However, the ability to assess real-world driving depends on various environmental conditions.
道路驾驶测试被视为一种“黄金标准”评估;然而,其有效性和可靠性尚未得到充分审查。本系统评价旨在使用基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准清单来梳理和综合有关道路驾驶测试的文献。从数据库建立到2018年2月,对Cochrane图书馆、PubMed、CINAHL和Web of Science数据库进行了检索。纳入所有涉及成人康复患者道路驾驶测试可靠性或有效性的文章。检索结果确定了513项研究和36篇文章,这些都纳入了本评价。华盛顿大学道路测试/罗德岛道路测试、驾驶能力表现分析、调查实际驾驶适宜性的试驾以及K评分在基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准清单方面显示出高可靠性和有效性。华盛顿大学道路测试/罗德岛道路测试和调查实际驾驶适宜性的试驾基于经典测试理论技术进行分析,驾驶能力表现分析和K评分基于项目反应理论技术进行分析。研究频率为华盛顿大学道路测试/罗德岛道路测试(n = 9)、调查实际驾驶适宜性的试驾(n = 8)、驾驶能力表现分析(n = 4)和K评分(n = 1)。从准确性和普遍性的角度来看,华盛顿大学道路测试/罗德岛道路测试、调查实际驾驶适宜性的试驾以及驾驶能力表现分析在道路驾驶测试方面被确定为高度合格。然而,评估实际驾驶的能力取决于各种环境条件。