<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="https://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Transport Research International Documentation (TRID)</title>
    <link>https://trid.trb.org/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://trid.trb.org/Record/RSS?s=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" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Copyright © 2026. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.</copyright>
    <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
    <managingEditor>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>tris-trb@nas.edu (Bill McLeod)</webMaster>
    
    <item>
      <title>Coast Guard: Monitoring of Disability Evaluation System Could Be Improved</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2639367</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Coast Guard, a military service within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for various missions including ports, waterways, and coastal security; drug interdiction; and search and rescue. In carrying out the Coast Guard’s missions, some of its approximately 55,000 active duty and reserve service members may become injured or ill. The Coast Guard’s disability evaluation system (DES) determines whether injured or ill members are medically fit to perform their duties and, if not, whether they are eligible for certain disability benefits. The Coast Guard opened about 140 DES cases in 2024. Section 11243 of the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (Pub. L. No. 117-263, 136 Stat. 2395) contains a provision for the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the Coast Guard’s DES. This report examines the DES process, its timeliness goals and challenges in meeting them, and the extent to which the Coast Guard has applied leading practices for program monitoring to this process.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 09:44:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2639367</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Investigating the needs of people with disabilities to ride public transport routes involving transfers</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2134938</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Most studies on the operation and planning of integrated systems have been based on the needs of public transport users without disabilities. However, people with disabilities face different challenges when riding public transport. This study adopts Weber’s Law "Just Noticeable Difference" to investigate the travel time savings and transfer time desired by public transport users with disabilities when selecting a route with transfer(s). An online survey was undertaken in major cities around New Zealand. A total of 108 public transport users with disabilities who have traveled independently in the last five years participated. Results show a variation among the travel time savings required by different groups of users with disabilities when choosing transfers. Participants with multiple impairments were less willing to choose a transfer route (k=0.458), followed by participants with cognitive impairments (k=0.315). There is a negligible difference in willingness between participants with physical (k=0.255) and visual impairments (k=0.253). Findings from this study are expected to assist transport planners and public transport operators in reconsidering how they design integrated systems to ensure ease of transfers for people with disabilities.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Mar 2023 09:27:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2134938</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Recommendations for Driving After Neuropsychological Assessment: A Survey of Neuropsychologists</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1707087</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This study surveyed 309 clinical neuropsychologists on the frequency with which they made recommendations about driving, such as to take an on-road driving test, to their patients. Data on characteristics of patients, providers, and practices was also collected. First, multiple linear regressions were performed to determine which characteristics predicted driving-related recommendations in a general sense. Regression analysis was then performed on significant characteristics in order to determine individual contributions of each characteristic to the likelihood of each recommendation. Neuropsychologists shared that they gave a range of driving recommendations to most clinical populations, except for psychiatric patients. They were more likely to recommend that patients change their driving habits (for example, to drive with lower frequency) than to recommend that patients stop driving altogether. Several characteristics were linked to patients' receiving a broad driving recommendation, such as higher severity of impairment, higher average age, higher caregiver presence, and higher patient motivation. Three of these factors generally predicted frequency of all individual driving recommendations: higher frequency of individualized recommendations, higher caregiver presence, and greater number of recommendations given. The overall results suggest that in addition to patients' diagnoses, patient and provider characteristics contribute to the likelihood of neuropsychologists' providing driving-related recommendations.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2020 15:49:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1707087</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Validation of the Paratransit Skills Assessment for Paratransit Travel and Mobility of Adults on the Autism Spectrum</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1590706</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Paratransit Skills Assessment (PaSA) was developed in 2011 to assist individuals on the autism spectrum in accessing public paratransit services. Paratransit is a demand-responsive service that often has variable schedules and routes, and may be designated for transportation-disadvantaged populations. It is a criterion-referenced assessment which was designed with three hierarchical sections for the three different paratransit service types as well as a trip planning and scheduling section. It is composed of 37 discrete tasks that are used to make a determination if an individual can use paratransit independently. This paper is on the validation process. The validation process was conducted with 98 study subjects who participated in the PaSA, of which 86 were retested, with 60 retests with non-paratransit users through in-vehicle trips, and 26 retests with current users through interviews about their revealed experiences in using paratransit services. The results indicate that PaSA is able to predict the capabilities of individuals on the autism spectrum to use paratransit services with a 96.4% accuracy and a correlation coefficient of 0.995. The study subjects were found to be non-homogeneous in abilities and skills while the outcomes were found to be highly to moderately reliable. The research findings including the high accuracy rate provide validation that the PaSA is a reliable method for predicting an individual’s ability to use paratransit services independently. However, individuals that were found to only have the six basic skills required for independent travel were recommended to have additional training prior to independent travel. These validation results can be useful for transit providers, transportation experts, and professionals working on issues with transportation-disadvantaged populations.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2019 16:06:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1590706</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Railroad Retirement Board: Actions Needed to Improve the Effectiveness and Oversight of Continuing Disability Reviews</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1502735</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) is an independent agency that administers disability benefits for railroad workers. In fiscal year 2016, about 31,000 railroad workers with disabilities received $1.1 billion in disability benefits. RRB is generally required to periodically assess beneficiaries’ medical condition or earnings through continuing disability reviews (CDRs) to verify that they remain eligible for disability benefits. This report examines the extent to which RRB (1) conducts medical and earnings CDRs to ensure the continued eligibility of disability beneficiaries, and (2) oversees the CDR program. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) analyzed data provided by RRB for CDRs completed in fiscal years 2014-2016, the only years for which complete data were available. GAO also reviewed RRB’s policies and procedures, a nongeneralizable random sample of 14 CDR cases that were completed in fiscal year 2016, and relevant federal laws and regulations; and interviewed RRB officials. Congress should consider giving RRB access to the National Directory of New Hires, a national database of wage and employment information that would enable it to identify potential overpayments sooner. GAO is also making three recommendations to RRB, including that it reconsider the purpose and value of high-risk CDRs, and routinely compile and analyze CDR data to improve oversight. RRB agreed with these recommendations.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2018 11:42:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1502735</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Agreement Between Physician Rating and On-Road Decision for Drivers with Multiple Sclerosis</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1371597</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The recommendation of the referring physician is paramount in the decision making process of fitness to drive for individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS). This medical advice is carefully considered by fitness to drive officials when making a final decision. In this study, the authors sought to determine the reliability between physician recommendation and decision of the on-road assessor in 95 individuals with MS. The percentage agreement (po) and prevalence and bias adjusted kappa (PABAK) were used as measures of reliability. The on-road assessor found no concerns on the road in 87 (92%) of the individuals; 6 (6%) exhibited difficulties on the road that were of concern; and 2 (2%) were advised to discontinue driving based on the findings of the road test. The po between referring physician and on-road assessor was 83%. The PABAK showed a reliability coefficient of 0.76 (p < 0.0001). No differences were found in po between neurologists (83%) and general practitioners (88%, Fisher’s Exact = 0.56). Binocular acuity correlated significantly with the on-road driving decision (Spearman Rho = -0.30; p = 0.004). The authors conclude that, in this sample of drivers with MS, physicians were most of the time accurate in their appraisal of their patients’ driving capabilities.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2015 16:25:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1371597</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Upper Extremity Injury Study: Recommendations for Injury Prevention Priorities</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1366998</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A large-scale accident study of injuries in Phases four, five and six of the United Kingdom (UK) Cooperative Crash Injury Study (CCIS) accident database showed that upper extremity injuries were increasing in frequency in frontal impacts, particularly when an airbag deployed. However, it was difficult to identify injury mechanisms and costs from the information in the database. Therefore, an in-depth case-by-case study of upper extremity injuries has been undertaken to determine the mechanisms, costs and long-term consequences (disability or impairment) of the injuries, in order to set priorities for injury prevention. The study has been undertaken in three phases: (1) A retrospective study of medical notes (74 cases), giving more detail on the specific upper extremity injuries and the mechanisms that could have caused them. (2) A prospective study of patients recruited at an Emergency Department (25 cases), with a follow-up of up to six months to assess longer-term consequences of the injury. (3) A review of physiotherapy treatment case notes (288 cases), looking at cases that may not have been assessed at a hospital Emergency Department. Four hospitals and three physiotherapy practices were recruited to this study. Evaluations of short and long-term costs and residual impairment resulting from these injuries have been made. The long-term costs were assessed through surgical costs, cost of other treatment and time off work, whilst impairment was assessed qualitatively by range of motion, pain and functional impairments and quantitatively using the American Medical Association Guides. This study offers a unique insight into the mechanisms causing and long-term consequences arising from specific upper extremity injuries. From this, priorities for injury prevention are presented. A potential limitation of the study is the extent to which the three samples are representative of the UK population.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:56:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1366998</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Practices for Establishing ADA Paratransit Eligibility Assessment Facilities</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1347164</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The report examines the state of the practice in implementing and conducting determinations of ADA paratransit eligibility. It identifies and documents the types of facilities and equipment that are being used and the characteristics, benefits, and costs of establishing ADA paratransit assessment facilities for in-person interviews and functional assessments. The report is intended for transit managers and eligibility process managers who are considering options for making ADA paratransit eligibility determinations. Information was acquired through a literature review and detailed survey responses from 24 of 30 selected agencies, yielding a response rate of 80%. Also, five case examples offer more detailed information on the variety of transit agency approaches and types of facilities and equipment used.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:39:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1347164</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Railroad Retirement Board: Total and Permanent Disability Program at Risk of Improper Payments</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1317252</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In recent years, the U.S. Department of Justice has investigated and prosecuted railroad workers who were suspected of falsely claiming over $1 billion in disability benefits, raising concerns about Railroad Retirement Board's (RRB’s) disability claims process. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to evaluate the integrity of RRB's disability program. This report examines (1) whether RRB's policies and procedures for processing claims were adequate to ensure that only eligible claimants receive total and permanent (T&P) disability benefits; and (2) the extent to which RRB’s management strategy ensures that approved claims are accurate and addresses program risks. To answer these questions, GAO reviewed T&P determination policies and procedures, interviewed RRB officials in headquarters and four district offices—selected for geographic dispersion—reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, and reviewed a nongeneralizable random sample of 10 T&P cases that were approved in fiscal year 2012 to illustrate RRB’s claims process. GAO recommends that RRB explore options for obtaining more timely earnings information; revise its policy concerning the supervisory review of disability claims; establish a regular quality assurance review of T&P disability decisions; develop a performance goal to track decision  accuracy; and develop and implement fraud awareness policies, procedures, and annual training. RRB agreed with these recommendations.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2014 10:50:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1317252</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Medical Aspects of Fitness to Drive: The Human Factors Role</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1304874</link>
      <description><![CDATA[There currently are no guidelines for orthopedic surgeons and other stakeholders to follow when addressing the ability of post-orthopedic surgery and trauma patients to return to driving. This article reviews some of the research on the physical and cognitive demands of driving and the medical aspects of fitness to drive. The authors suggest areas of research that need attention and research methodology that can contribute to the establishment of evidence-based guidelines. Human factors/ergonomics professionals should take a role in the process and be included as core members of the multidisciplinary team needed to establish the guidelines.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2014 09:19:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1304874</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Predictors of driving in individuals with relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1257544</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The authors reported previously on the performance of the Stroke Driver Screening Assessment (SDSA), a battery of four cognitive tests that takes less than 30 min to administer. The SDSA predicted the driving performance of participants with multiple sclerosis (MS) on a road test with 86% accuracy, 80% sensitivity, and 88% specificity.  In this study, the authors investigated if the addition of driving-related physical and visual tests and other previously identified cognitive predictors, including performance on the Useful Field of View test, result in a better accuracy of predicting participants’ on-road driving performance. Forty-four individuals with relapsing–remitting MS (age = 46 ± 11 years, 37 females) and Expanded Disability Status Scale values between 1 and 7 were administered selected physical, visual and cognitive tests including the SDSA. The model that explained the highest variance of participants’ performance on a standardized road test was identified using multiple regression analysis. A discriminant equation containing the tests included in the best model was used to predict pass or fail performance on the test. Performance on 12 cognitive and three visual tests were significantly associated with performance on the road test. Five of the tests together explained 59% of the variance and predicted the pass or fail outcome of the road test with 91% accuracy, 70% sensitivity, and 97% specificity. The authors concluded that participants’ on-road performance was more accurately predicted by the model identified in this study than by using only performance on the SDSA test battery. The five psychometric/off-road tests should be used as a screening battery, after which a follow-up road test should be conducted to finally decide the fitness to drive of individuals with relapsing–remitting MS. Future studies are needed to confirm and validate the findings in this study.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:36:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1257544</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Continuous measures of driving performance on an advanced office-based driving simulator can be used to predict simulator task failure in patients with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1248041</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Some obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome patients are at higher risk than others of being involved in road traffic accidents. It has not been possible to identify this group from clinical and polysomnographic information or by using simple simulators. The authors explore the possibility of identifying this group from variables generated in an advanced PC-based driving simulator. In this study, all patients performed a 90 km motorway driving simulation. Two events were programmed to trigger evasive actions, one subtle where an alert driver should not crash, while for the other, even a fully alert driver might crash. Simulator parameters including standard deviation of lane position (SDLP) and reaction times at the veer event (VeerRT) were recorded. There were three possible outcomes: 'fail', 'indeterminate' and 'pass'. An exploratory study identified the simulator parameters predicting a 'fail' by regression analysis and this was then validated prospectively. 72 patients were included in the exploratory phase and 133 patients in the validation phase. 65 (32%) patients completed the run without any incidents, 45 (22%) failed, 95 (46%) were indeterminate. Prediction models using SDLP and VeerRT could predict 'fails' with a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 96%. The models were subsequently confirmed in the validation phase. Using continuously measured variables it has been possible to identify with a high degree of accuracy a subset of patients with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome who fail a simulated driving test. This has the potential to identify at-risk drivers and improve the reliability of a clinician's decision-making.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2013 15:22:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1248041</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Determinants of fitness to drive in Huntington disease</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1245360</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This study identifies the most accurate clinical predictors of fitness to drive (FTDr) in Huntington disease (HD). The cross-sectional study included 60 active drivers. 30 were patients with manifest HD and 30 were age- and gender-matched healthy controls. The mean (SD) age of the HD group was 50 years and median disease duration was 24 months. A clinical battery consisting of a driving history questionnaire, the cognitive section of the Unified Huntington's Disease Rating Scale (UHDRS), Trail Making Test, and Mini-Mental State Examination, as well as a driving simulator evaluation, were administered to all participants. In addition, the subjects with HD completed the motor, behavioral, and Total Functional Capacity sections of the UHDRS and underwent an official FTDr evaluation with visual, neuropsychological, and on-road tests. The blinded neurologist's appraisal of FTDr and the 3 most predictive clinical tests were compared with the official pass/fail FTDr decision. The patients with HD performed worse on all tests of the clinical battery and driving simulator than the healthy controls. Fifteen patients with HD (50%) failed the FTDr evaluation. The blinded neurologist correctly classified 21 patients (70%). The Symbol Digit Modalities Test, Stroop word reading, and Trail Making Test B provided the best model to predict FTDr, correctly classifying 26 patients (87%). Half of active drivers with HD fail a driving evaluation and pose a potential hazard on the road. These results suggest that those at risk can accurately be identified using a clinical screening tool.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:45:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1245360</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Drivers with parkinson's disease: Who participates in research studies?</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1245359</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Concern about the effects of Parkinson's disease (PD) on driving competence has precipitated many studies, although most have consisted of small samples. Findings are difficult to interpret and compare as researchers have employed different inclusion/exclusion criteria and rarely provide information on the number of PD patients who are no longer driving, fail to meet other criteria, or refuse to participate. The present study examined barriers to participation and representativeness of research participants by screening PD patients at a movement disorder research center to develop a profile of patients who were currently driving versus those who had stopped driving, and to ascertain eligibility and willingness to participate in driving research. Over 13 months, 128 PD patients were screened; 62% men; with UPDRS motor scores ranging from 8.5 to 68. Only 66% were still driving, and compared to those who had stopped driving, current drivers were more likely to be men, younger, experienced less severe motor dysfunction and were less likely to report freezing symptoms. Less than half (48%) who were eligible for the study agreed to participate. The primary reasons for refusal was having their driving assessed and fear of being reported to licensing authorities. Recruitment of women and participants from various ethnic, educational and socioeconomic backgrounds are important when considering the generalizability of study findings and are needed to develop fitness to drive guidelines in persons with PD.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:45:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1245359</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Work disability after road traffic injury in a mixed population with and without hospitalisation</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1245826</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Background: Studies addressing work disability after road traffic injury are generally aimed at seriously injured hospital patients, and less is known about the disability burden associated with injuries not requiring hospitalisation. The aim of this study was to describe the distribution and determinants of work disability outcomes for patients with musculoskeletal and orthopaedic traffic injuries, including those not sufficiently severe to require hospitalisation. Methods: Persons injured in road traffic accidents in 2005–2007 claiming compensation via the Transport Accident Commission (Victoria, Australia) were included if they had compensated time off work, and their most serious injury was musculoskeletal or orthopaedic (n = 5970). Work disability outcomes were determined from income compensation payments over 17 months following the accident. Logistic regression models were used relating demographic and injury characteristics to work disability. Results: Of the injuries, 59% required hospitalisation; 15% required hospitalisation of >1 week. Long-term work disability was common with 32% of injuries resulting in work disability ≥6 months after the accident. The duration of work disability increased markedly with length of hospital stay. Those with no hospital stay accounted for 27% of all work disability days; those with ≤7 days in hospital (including no hospital stay) accounted for 71%. Female sex, age ≥35 years and early opioid prescriptions were also risk factors for work disability ≥6 months after the accident. Conclusion: The majority of work disability days were among patients with one week or less in hospital. Because (short) hospitalisation was relatively common after traffic accidents, the relative work disability burden of non-hospitalised injury is not as great as in a mixed injury aetiology population.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 09:00:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1245826</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>