Free
Research Article
Issue Date: July/August 2006
Published Online: July 01, 2006
Updated: April 30, 2020
Validity of the Cognitive Behavioral Driver’s Inventory in Predicting Driving Outcome
Louise Bouillon; Barbara Mazer; Isabelle Gelinas
Author Affiliations
  • Louise Bouillon, BSc(OT), is Occupational Therapist, Jewish Rehabilitation Hospital, 3205 Place Alton Goldbloom, Chomedey, Laval, Quebec, Canada H7V1R2
  • Barbara Mazer, PhD, is Research Associate, Centre de Recherche Interdisciplinaire en Réadaptation du Montréal (CRIR), Jewish Rehabilitation Hospital, 3205 Place Alton Goldbloom, Laval, Quebec, Canada H7V1R2; and Assistant Professor, McGill University School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Quebec, Canada; barbara.mazer@mcgill.ca
  • Isabelle Gelinas, PhD, is Associate Professor, McGill University School of Physical and Occupational Therapy, Centre de Recherche Interdisciplinaire en Réadaptation du Montréal (CRIR), Jewish Rehabilitation Hospital, Laval, Quebec, Canada H7V1R2
Article Information
Community Mobility and Driving / Neurologic Conditions / Driving
Research Article   |   July 01, 2006
Validity of the Cognitive Behavioral Driver’s Inventory in Predicting Driving Outcome
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, July/August 2006, Vol. 60, 420-427. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.60.4.420
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, July/August 2006, Vol. 60, 420-427. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.60.4.420
This content is PDF only. Please click on the PDF icon to access.
Abstract

OBJECTIVE. This study seeks to (a) compare Cognitive Behavioral Driver’s Inventory (CBDI) scores for clients who passed and failed a driving evaluation and for diagnostic groups (left cerebrovascular accident [CVA], right CVA, traumatic brain injury [TBI], and cognitive decline); (b) determine sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the CBDI; (c) compare validity of the CBDI with other tools; and (d) identify factors associated with outcome.

PARTICIPANTS. This historical cohort study included clients with neurological conditions who completed a driving evaluation.

MEASURES. CBDI, Motor-Free Visual Perception Test (MVPT), Bells test, and driving results were extracted from the charts.

RESULTS. Mean CBDI (p < 0.0001) and MVPT (p < 0.0001) scores were significantly worse for those failing compared to passing the driving evaluation. Sensitivity of the CBDI was 62%, specificity was 81%, positive predictive values were 73%, and negative predictive values were 71%. Results varied according to diagnostic group.

CONCLUSIONS. The CBDI is not sufficiently predictive of outcome to replace a driving evaluation, and is predictive only for clients with R-CVA and TBI. Evaluation of driving should vary according to diagnosis.