An assessment of behavioral tests to detect impaired drivers

368778Final reportScanned by Ecompex on April 13 2007PDFResearch PaperDOT-HS-806-211NTIS-PB83119073DTNH-22-80-C-07565Impaired driversCase studiesBehaviorLegal factorsUnited StatesUnited States. National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationSnapper, K. J. (Kurt J.)Seaver, D. A.Schwartz, J. P.Decision Science Consortium, Inc.United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Problem-Behavior Research DivisionLevine, Elliot R.NTL-SAFETY AND SECURITY-SAFETY AND SECURITYNTL-SAFETY AND SECURITY-Human FactorsNTL-SAFETY AND SECURITY-Highway SafetyNTL-LAWS AND REGULATIONS-LAWS AND REGULATIONSNHTSA - Behavioral Safety ResearchThis study was conducted to assess the feasibility and practicality of roadside behavioral tests for driving impairment. Such tests are seen as complementary to chemical tests of blood drug concentration. Methodological issues in the use of behavioral tests are identified and discussed focusing specifically on the validity of behavioral measures. It is argued that if validity is defined as predicting accidents, it will always be low for any behavioral test as well as for chemical tests because of the inherent unpredictability of accidents. The rationale for using behavioral tests, particularly a battery of behavioral tests, to detect driving impairment is, then, that such tests can measure the level of behavioral skills involved in driving. In order to evaluate various behavioral tests, a large literature was reviewed to identify potential tests and any previous studies of them. Criteria for evaluating the tests were developed, including validity, reliability, ease of operational use, safety, and diagnosticity. Each of 54 tests were scored on each criterion, and criteria were weighted by their relative importance from the perspectives of researchers and users to produce an overall index of the feasibility of each test. Tests that were rated highly include visual acuity, finger-to-finger, finger-to-nose, and romberg (and modified romberg). An analysis was also performed of legal issues relating to the use of roadside behavioral tests. Such tests appear to have useful status as evidence (primarily circumstantial), and probably can be used without a need for expert witnesses. /Abstract from report summary page