<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>Accessible Autonomous Transportation and Services: Design Considerations From the Perspective of Consumers and Providers</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/2417402</link>
      <description><![CDATA[To understand the priorities and preferences of people with disabilities (PwDs) and older adults regarding accessible autonomous vehicles (AVs) to address existing transportation barriers., DESIGN: Two national surveys, Voice of the Consumer and Voice of the Provider, were conducted to gather feedback from accessible AV consumers and providers, respectively, in the United States. This U.S.-based study focused on PwDs and older adults who may face transportation challenges and those who provide or design AV solutions. The 922 consumers and 45 providers in the surveys encompassed a diverse range of disability types, caregiver roles, and age groups (N = 967). The main outcomes were consumer usage needs and provider preferences for features in accessible autonomous transportation. Patterns in usage needs and feature preferences through 2-step clustering algorithm were applied subsequent to the descriptive analysis of participant demographics and their responses. Participants strongly preferred AV features enhancing personal transportation, especially for rural medical appointments. Most sought comprehensive AV automated features. Wheelchair users emphasized accessible entrances, particularly for lower-income brackets ($25,000-$49,000). Provider priorities closely aligned with consumer preferences, reinforcing content validity. The study highlights the importance of prioritizing wheelchair accessibility in AVs and improving access to medical appointments, especially in rural and low-income communities. Implications include developing inclusive AV services for PwDs and underserved populations. The research establishes a foundation for a more equitable and accessible transportation landscape through AV technology integration.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Aug 2024 15:26:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/2417402</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Determinants of On-road Driving in Multiple Sclerosis</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1491790</link>
      <description><![CDATA[To investigate the cognitive, visual, and motor deficits underlying poor performance on different dimensions of on-road driving in individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS).]]></description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Dec 2017 15:56:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1491790</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Population-Based, Inception Cohort Study of the Incidence, Course, and Prognosis of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury After Motor Vehicle Collisions</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1305876</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objective of this prospective, population-based, inception cohort study was to determine the incidence, course, and prognosis of adult mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) caused by motor vehicle collisions. It took place in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada, with a population of about 1,000,000 inhabitants. The participants were all adults (N=1716) incurring an MTBI in a motor vehicle collision between November 1997 and December 1999 in Saskatchewan.The main outcome measures were age- and sex-stratified incidence rates, time to self-reported recovery, and prognostic factors over a 1-year follow-up. Of 7170 adults injured in a motor vehicle collision over the 2-year inception period, 1716 (24%) met the authors' cohort definition of MTBI. There were more women affected (53%), and MTBI was most common in the 18- to 23-year-old group. Most were not hospitalized (73%), but 28% reported loss of consciousness and 23% reported post traumatic amnesia. The annual incidence of MTBI per 100,000 adults was 106.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 98.9–113.6) in the first year and 118.3 (95% CI, 110.8–126.3) in the second year of the study. The 1-year follow-up rate was 84%. The median time to recovery was 100 days (95% CI, 97–103), and about 23% reported not having recovered by 1 year. Factors associated with delayed recovery included being older than 50 years, having less than a high school education, having poor expectations for recovery, having depressive symptoms, having arm numbness, having hearing problems, having headaches, having low back pain, and having thoracic back pain. Loss of consciousness and amnesia were not associated with recovery. MTBI affects almost a quarter of persons reporting an injury after a traffic collision. The median time to recovery is 100 days, but 23% have still not recovered by 1 year. A mix of biopsychosocial factors is associated with recovery, including a strong effect of poor expectations for recovery.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:50:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1305876</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Mild Traumatic Brain Injury After Motor Vehicle Collisions: What Are the Symptoms and Who Treats Them? A Population-Based 1-Year Inception Cohort Study</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1305877</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objective of this one-year follow-up of a population-based inception cohort study was to describe the 1-year course of symptoms following mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) sustained in a motor vehicle collision as well as patterns of care-seeking. The study took place in the province of Saskatchewan, Canada, with a population of about 1,000,000 inhabitants. Participants were persons (N=1716) sustaining an MTBI during a car collision between November 1997 and December 1999. Main outcome measures are reported as the prevalence of sleep disturbances, tiredness, dizziness, forgetfulness, vision problems, hearing problems, headache, neck pain, mid back pain, and low back pain at 6 weeks and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postcollision. At the same time points, the authors report self-reported care-seeking from registered health care professionals. A total of 1716 adults suffered MTBI after a motor vehicle collision over the 2-year inception period. Six weeks after the collision, 75% reported having more than 3 symptoms and 30% had clinically significant pain in more than 3 body sites. Over time, the prevalence of symptoms and pain decreased but they were still common after 1 year. Almost all participants sought care for their symptoms at all time points, most commonly from a physician. Care-seeking from physiotherapists, chiropractors, and massage therapists was also very common, and most participants sought care from 2 or 3 providers at all follow-up points. Up to 1 year after sustaining an MTBI during a motor vehicle collision, multiple symptoms and pain in several anatomical sites are common. Care-seeking from multiple providers continues throughout the first year post injury.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:50:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1305877</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Wheelchair-related accidents: Relationship with wheelchair-using behavior in active community wheelchair users</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1116350</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The objective of this study is to report the prevalence, mechanisms, self-perceived causes, consequences, and wheelchair-using behaviors associated with wheelchair-related accidents. Th design is a case-control study in the general community. Participants are a sample of experienced, community-dwelling, active manual and powered wheelchair users (N=95) recruited from a hospital assistive technology service center. Wheelchair-using behaviors, wheelchair-related accidents over a 3-year period, and the mechanisms and consequences of the accidents. Among the 95 participants, 52 (54.7%) reported at least 1 accident and 16 (16.8%) reported 2 or more accidents during the 3 years prior to the interview. A total of 74 accidents, were categorized into tips and falls (87.8%), accidental contact (6.8%), and dangerous operations (5.4%). A logistic regression found individuals who failed to maintain their wheelchairs regularly (odds ratio [OR]=11.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.62–48.61) and used a wheelchair not prescribed by professionals (OR=4.31; 95% CI, 1.10–16.82) had significantly greater risks of accidents. In addition to the risk factor, lack of regular wheelchair maintenance, the Poisson regression corroborated the other risk factor, seat belts not used (incident rate ratio=2.14; 95% CI, 1.08–4.14), for wheelchair-related accidents. Wheelchair-related accidents are closely related to their wheelchair-using behaviors. Services including professional evaluation, repair, maintenance, and an educational program on proper wheelchair use may decrease the risks of wheelchair accidents.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 07:27:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1116350</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Patterns, predictors, and associated benefits of driving a modified vehicle after spinal cord injury: Findings from the National Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1103879</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In order to investigate the patterns, predictors, and benefits associated with driving a modified vehicle for people with spinal cord injuries, a cross-sectional retrospective survey was designed in which 3726 people post-Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) from the National Model SCI Systems (MSCIS) Database participated, using sixteen MSCISs throughout the United States. The primary outcomes which were measured were driving, employment, and community reintegration post-SCI. The results showed that 36.5% of the sample drove a modified vehicle after SCI, and noteworthy predictors for this included being married at injury, paraplegia, length of time since injury, race, gender, and wheelchair activity rate. In addition, driving increased the odds of being employed at follow-up by almost 2 times. Furthermore, drivers tended to have higher community reintegration scores, as well as small health-related quality-of-life gains. The authors conclude that the associated benefits of driving and the relatively low percentage of drivers post-SCI in this sample demonstrate the need to increase rehabilitation and assistive technology services and resources in the United States dedicated to facilitating post-SCI driving.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:10:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1103879</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Investigation of factors associated with manual wheelchair mobility in persons with spinal cord injury</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1103876</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In order to quantify wheelchair mobility of persons with a spinal cord injury (SCI) and to assess the relationship between wheelchair mobility and demographics, type of manual wheelchair, and participation in persons with spinal cord injury, a cross-sectional study was conducted with 132 persons with SCI, using six Model Spinal Cord Injury Systems. Wheelchair-related mobility characteristics were measured by a data-logging device, and community participation was measured by the short form of the Craig Handicap Assessment Recording Technique (CHART). The results showed that age, race, and employment status were significant factors in speed and distance traveled. A moderate relationship between wheelchair mobility data and CHART score was also found. These results suggest a need for future investigation of influencing factors, as well as the efficacy of a quantitative method for tracking wheelchair mobility in community settings. This could serve as a way of identifying community participation for persons with SCI.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:10:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1103876</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Driving with a Chronic Whiplash-Associated Disorder: A Review of Patients' Perspectives</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1089499</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The study objective was documenting troublesome driving tasks and any driving behavior changes reported by people with chronic whiplash-associated disorders (WADs). This descriptive study through semistructured interview was conducted in a tertiary institution. Thirty three chronic WAD patients participated. Main outcome measures consisted of perceived changes in driving behavior after a whiplash injury, troublesome driving tasks, semistructured interview about presenting symptoms, self-rating perceived current driving ability, exposure section of the Driving Habit Questionnaire, visual analog scale for neck pain at rest and while driving, and the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Study results show that 24 out of 33 participants (73%) reported a driving ability decrease, rating an average of 6.7±2.2 on an 11-point scale (0: unable to drive; 10: driving at preinjury level). These subjects also had higher NDI scores (41.8%±18.4%), experienced greater neck pain while driving (5.7±2.1/10) and at rest (4.3±2.1/10), and reported more frequent decreased concentration than those who rated their driving ability at preinjury levels (ie: 10). The most frequently nominated troublesome driving tasks were reversing/reverse parking, prolonged driving, and checking blind spots, and the most frequently nominated driving behavior changes included greater use of trunk rotation (75%), more cautious driving (50%), more anxiety/nervousness while driving (54%), and altered steering wheel grip (63%). The study suggests that a new scale may be required for the chronic whiplash population, since it appears to have unique troublesome driving tasks (eg: prolonged driving, checking blind spots) that are not readily detected in currently available driving ability/difficulty scales.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:42:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1089499</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Driving Behaviors Among Community-Dwelling Persons with Multiple Sclerosis</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/1083998</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article reports on a study that examined driver behaviors and patterns among drivers with multiple sclerosis (MS) as a function of disease severity as well as in comparison to drivers without MS. All data were collected in an outpatient research setting.  The study included community-dwelling persons (n=66) with clinically definite MS who were active drivers and healthy controls (n=30). Driving characteristics measures included driving frequency (defined in days and miles driven per week), self-reports of voluntarily limited driving behaviors, changes in driving since MS diagnosis, and self-rating as a driver. Driving performance was also assessed by using pass/borderline performance on a clinical behind-the-wheel evaluation. The results showed a significant difference in driving frequency with MS participants reporting they drove fewer days per week than the healthy controls. This was also seen between cohorts of MS drivers, with high Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) participants driving less frequently than the low EDSS group. Descriptive observations suggested that participants with moderate EDSS scores drove less and engaged in more self-limiting behaviors. Participants with high EDSS scores were more likely to report changing their driving behavior after diagnosis and were more likely to not pass the behind-the-wheel evaluation.  The authors conclude with a discussion of questions regarding the overall sensitivity of the most commonly used clinical driving assessment method (the behind-the-wheel evaluation) to accurately capture driving capacity in the milder stages of the MS disease process. They contend that repeated assessment of driving ability may be the most effective approach for identifying driving difficulties among persons with MS.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2010 07:26:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/1083998</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Retraining Visual Processing Skills to Improve Driving Ability after Stroke</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/925058</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article reports on a study undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of retraining using the Dynavision on driving performance of people with stroke.   Stroke patients at an outpatient rehabilitation clinic in Australia (n = 26), referred for driving assessment, participated in the randomized controlled trial. Participants received retraining with the Dynavision apparatus for 18 sessions or received no intervention (they were placed on a waiting list).  The Dynavision apparatus is designed to train underlying skills, such as executing a continuous wide scan, and combining motor and visual processing into a motor response.  The primary outcome was an assessment of on-road ability. Secondary outcomes included measures of response speed, visual scanning, and self-efficacy.  The study found no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in their on-road assessments in terms of pass or fail; the primary outcome measure; or the results on the secondary outcome measures of response speed, visual scanning, and self-efficacy.  The authors conclude that, in this small trial, training underlying skills using the Dynavision apparatus did not improve the outcomes of an on-road assessment for people after strokes.  The authors call for larger trials to evaluate devices that claim to retrain underlying skills related to driving.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 08:21:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/925058</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Vision and Driving in Multiple Sclerosis</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/920272</link>
      <description><![CDATA[This article reports on a between-group comparison study undertaken to examine the relationship between measures of visual dysfunction and driving performance in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS).  The study included persons (n = 66) with MS of the relapsing remitting type (26 self-reporting visual difficulties; 40 self-reporting no visual difficulties) and 26 age- and sex-matched healthy controls.  Measures of vision included visual acuity, depth perception, and color perception. Driving was measured using documented accident/violation rate and self-reported driving behaviors.  The authors' quantitative analysis only revealed that MS persons with self-reported visual difficulties performed significantly worse than healthy controls on color perception. There were no group differences on driving behaviors, and correlational analysis revealed a lack of relationship between the selected visual (visual acuity, depth perception, color perception) and driving performance measures (documented accident/violation rate and self-limiting driving behaviors).  The authors conclude that persons with MS who self-reported difficulties with vision had acceptable visual acuity, despite demonstrating impairment in color perception. The fact that visual acuity remains the most common measure for visual fitness to drive remains problematic. There is a need to further define measures of visual dysfunction relevant to driving among this clinical population.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:37:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/920272</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Patient Factors Associated With Return to Driving Poststroke: Findings From a Multicenter Cohort Study</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/920551</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The aim of this research is to estimate the extent to which body structure, function, activity, and context explain driving resumption poststroke at 1 year. The method used was a cohort study with relationships modeled in a path analysis. The setting was 3 urban Canadian communities. Paricipants were patients admitted to hospital with acute stroke who had driven before their stroke (n=290) who participated in a longitudinal study of stroke outcomes. The main outcome measure was driving resumption 1 year after the initial stroke diagnosis. 177 patients (61%) returned to driving after 1 year. Direct relationships were found between measures of strength and motor activity (Stroke Impact Scale), cognition (Mini-Mental State Examination), type of stroke (hemorrhagic vs ischemic), and driving resumption at 1 year. The effects of stroke severity, fatigue, and sex on driving resumption were mediated through strength and motor activity shown by a model that had excellent fit (comparative fit index=.985, Tucker-Lewis Index=.952, root mean square error of approximation=.046). It is concluded that there are multiple direct and indirect influences on driving resumption at 1 year, from the type of stroke, physical strength and motor activity, cognition, sex, and fatigue measured at 3 months. The paths outlined by this model highlight how stroke sequelae influence community mobility, as well as factors related to driving resumption that are amenable to intervention.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:36:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/920551</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Examining the Relationship Between Cognition and Driving Performance in Multiple Sclerosis</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/920550</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The aim of this research is to identify cognitive predictors of driving performance after multiple sclerosis (MS). A prospective design examining predictive value of cognitive measures on driving performance was used. All data was collected in an outpatient research setting and outpatient driver rehabilitation program. Participants were community-dwelling persons (N=66) with clinically defined MS (86% relapsing-remitting, 14% progressive) with a mean age of 43.47 years. All were active drivers who met vision requirements established by their respective states, and none required adaptive driving equipment. Participants were administered a comprehensive neuropsychologic assessment and a clinical behind-the-wheel (BTW) driving evaluation. Additional measures of driving performance included history of traffic violations and collisions (since MS onset). Logistic regression indicated that information processing speed (Symbol Digit Modality Test [SDMT]) was the strongest predictor of BTW performance. A logistic regression revealed that the strongest predictors of collision and violation frequency were visuospatial learning and recall (7/24 Spatial Recall Test [SPART 7/24]). These findings indicate that information processing and visuospatial skills are predictive of driving performance among persons with MS. These measures (SDMT and SPART 7/24) may serve as screening methods for identifying the potential impact of cognitive impairment on driving. The findings raise questions regarding the appropriateness of the BTW evaluation to evaluate driving difficulties accurately among individuals with MS.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:36:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/920550</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Predicting Fitness to Drive in People With Cognitive Impairments by Using DriveSafe and DriveAware</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/920488</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The aim of this article is to examine the psychometric properties of DriveSafe and DriveAware and their predictive validity. A prospective study was used to compare screening tests with criterion standard. The setting was 2 driving rehabilitation centers affiliated with a university and a geriatric rehabilitation facility. The participants consisted of a consecutive sample of drivers with functional impairments (n=115) and a subgroup of drivers with cognitive impairments (n=96) referred for a driving assessment.  Driving performance was measured by a standardized assessment in real traffic. Rasch analysis provided evidence for construct validity and internal reliability of both tests. Tests trichotomized drivers into unsafe, safe, and further testing categories. The optimal lower cutoff identified unsafe drivers with a specificity of 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 83–100) in the test sample and 96% (95% CI, 80–100) in the validation sample. The optimal upper cutoff identified safe drivers with a sensitivity of 93% (95% CI, 77–99) and 95% (95% CI, 76–100), respectively. It is concluded that by using DriveSafe and DriveAware, drivers with cognitive impairments referred for a driving assessment can be categorized as unsafe, safe, or requiring further testing, with only 50% needing an on-road assessment. Before clinical practice is changed, these findings should be replicated.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:36:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/920488</guid>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Conceptualizing and Measuring Confidence in Older Drivers: Development of the Day and Night Driving Comfort Scale</title>
      <link>https://trid.trb.org/View/899384</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The study objective was examination and measurement of older adult driving confidence. Study design constructed an examination, item generation, and rating through focus groups; used Rasch analysis for scale refinement in conducting psychometric testing; and examined how driver characteristics and driving habits were associated with testing-retesting, as well as the latter's reliability. Study setting was senior housing, senior centers, and retirement complexes in Ontario, Canada. Study participants were drawn from convenience samples of seven counselors, as well as current drivers (n=143) (range: 66-92 years). Main outcome measurement was obtained using the inductively-developed Day (DCS-D) and Night (DCS-N) Driving Comfort Scales. Study results show that older drivers believed in the importance of specifying driving context (e.g., traffic flow, speed), of separating day and night driving, and of considering confidence in their own abilities and discomfort caused by other drivers. Rasch analysis showed both hierarchical and unidimensional aspects to the final 16-item DCS-N and 13-item DCS-D, with good respective person (.96, .89) and item (.97, .98) reliabilities. Test-retest reliability was good for the DCS-N (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=.88) and adequate for the DCS-D (ICC=.7). There was significant association between scores and perceived abilities, situational avoidance, and reported driving frequency. The authors conclude that for research and practice, the Driving Comfort Scales are promising new tools.]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:03:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://trid.trb.org/View/899384</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>