Anne E. Dickerson, PhD, OTR/L, SCDCM, FAOTA, FGSA, is Professor and Director, Research for Older Adult Driver Initiative (ROADI), Department of Occupational Therapy, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC;
Qiang Wu, PhD, is Professor, Department of Public Health, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC.
Am J Occup Ther. 2024 Sep 1;78(5). doi: 10.5014/ajot.2024.050687.
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.
To determine the specificity and sensitivity of the AMPS as a tool for determining a person's fitness to drive.
Cross-sectional observational design.
Three driving rehabilitation programs in three states.
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.
AMPS and results of comprehensive driving evaluation or on-road assessment.
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.
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.
尽管评估运动和过程技能(AMPS)是评估工具性日常生活活动(IADLs)功能表现的出色工具,但很少有研究使用 AMPS 来做出与驾驶和社区流动性的 IADL 相关的决策。
确定 AMPS 作为确定一个人驾驶能力的工具的特异性和敏感性。
横断面观察设计。
三个州的三个驾驶康复计划。
参与者为 388 名居住在社区的成年人(M 年龄=68.74 岁,SD=11.53);196 名成年人在完成全面驾驶评估前被招募,192 名成年人在另外两项关于老年司机的研究中被招募。
AMPS 和全面驾驶评估或道路评估的结果。
使用逻辑回归,AMPS 运动和过程技能分数的敏感性为 84.6%,特异性为 88.8%。AMPS 运动技能分数的优势比为.347;对于 AMPS 过程技能分数,它是.014。使用交叉验证,AMPS 运动和过程分数的模型产生了交叉验证曲线下面积.918,敏感性和特异性分别为 84.6%和 88.4%,预测失败或限制驾驶评估的概率大于.334。
AMPS 运动和过程技能分数在那些失败或有驾驶限制的人与通过驾驶评估的人之间显示出显著差异,这支持 AMPS 作为预测驾驶能力的有效工具。
非专业人员可忽略此内容。