SIGNIFICANCE: Rapid growth in the technology industry recently provided consumers with novel in-vehicle safety innovations. A recent systematic review of automobile-related modifications shows how older adults receive economic benefits and performance benefits, due to familiarity, when driving an older car (Arbesman & Pellerito, 2008). Unfortunately, older cars lack the novel safety innovations of current models. Furthermore, providing a safer and newer car may be problematic without the proper guidance, training, and familiarization period for older adults.

INNOVATION: Occupational therapy practitioners will benefit from an evidence-based understanding of how to address the needs of individuals who may be seeking the use of advanced in-vehicle technologies for the first time.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS: The primary goal of this research is to increase the effective use of advanced in-vehicle technology by asking the following question: What client factors affect the acceptance and effective use of an autonomous emergency braking system (AEBS)?

RATIONALE: Although driving is integral to maintaining meaningful occupations and independence, it is an inherently dangerous task. In 2012, motor vehicle traffic fatalities and crashes were listed at 92 fatalities and 6,454 injuries per day (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA], 2014). In an attempt to ameliorate motor vehicle collisions, researchers developed a variety of advanced in-vehicle technologies to assist with driving performance skills and to work as proactive collision avoidance systems (Jenness, Lerner, Mazor, Osberg, & Tefft, 2008). Proactive collision avoidance systems, such as autonomous emergency braking, are forms of assistive technology that may address a variety of physical, cognitive, and visual limitations.

METHOD: In a quasi-experimental study, we implemented two behind-the-wheel drives. One drive had an AEBS, which is a form of advanced in-vehicle technology, and the other did not have the technology. Driving occurred within a high-fidelity simulated environment to ensure safety and consistent exposure to statistically common single-vehicle and two-vehicle precrash scenarios defined by NHTSA.

The sample’s mean age was 35.7 yr, with an average of 20 yr of driving. Relevant clinical measures consisted of the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS; Cronbach’s α = .95), the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE; Cronbach’s α = .76 to .90), miles driven per year, and motor vehicle collision instances obtained through the driving simulator. Paired-samples t test was conducted to compare crash frequencies during AEBS–on and AEBS–off scenarios. Using correlational analyses, we examined the relationship between clinical measures of interest.

RESULTS: Paired-samples t test indicated that crashes during the AEBS–on scenario (M = 0.45, SD = 0.69) were less common than in the AEBS–off scenario (M = 1.09, SD = 1.04), although this finding only approached significance, t(10) = 1.88, p = .08. Additionally, the PIADS Competence subscale was negatively correlated to miles driven annually, r(9) = −.627, p = .039. Finally, GSE was negatively correlated to age, r(9) = −.635, p = .036.

CONCLUSIONS: The data indicate an apparent impact on driving performance due to the implementation of advanced in-vehicle technology. Older drivers exhibited lower levels of self-efficacy, and the drivers traversing greater miles annually demonstrated lower levels of competence with the AEBS. Thus, it is imperative for practitioners to understand the need for proper training and a familiarization period with the use of advanced in-vehicle technology.

Arbesman, M., & Pellerito, J. M., Jr. (2008). Evidence-based perspective on the effect of automobile-related modifications on the driving ability, performance, and safety of older adults. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 173–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.62.2.173

Jenness, J. W., Lerner, N. D., Mazor, S., Osberg, J. S., & Tefft, B. C. (2008). Use of advanced in-vehicle technology by young and older early adopters: Survey results on adaptive cruise control systems (Report No. DOT HS 810 917). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2014, May). Quick facts 2012. Retrieved from http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812006.pdf