Date Presented 04/04/19
This study compared drivers using GPS and written directions on unfamiliar routes. Participants were 80 drivers (half in their 60s and half in their 70s); half familiar and half unfamiliar with GPS. All drivers were scored on each route. Drivers in their 60s and familiar with GPS were safer. While age is an important factor in driving, familiarity with GPS appears to improve safety for all. Implications for practitioners will be discussed as driving is a critical IADL that supports productive aging.
Primary Author and Speaker: Anne Dickerson
PURPOSE: Aging typically coincides with declines in cognitive, physical, and psychomotor abilities. These declines may make it more difficult for older drivers to scan the environment adequately in order to make decisions and to react as they drive.1 While extensive research has shown degradation of spatial abilities with age,2 relatively little is known about effects of age on wayfinding, important for driving, particularly to unfamiliar destinations. Electronic navigation systems (ENSs or GPSs), are a relatively new technology that could be useful for older drivers by offsetting some of the physical and cognitive issues that affect driver safety. However, little is known as to how older drivers interact with in-vehicle technologies, especially ENSs. Such systems potentially could be useful to prolong the driving careers of older adults or drivers with mild cognitive issues who have problems wayfinding.3 On the other hand, they may increase the workload of the older driver. This study explored how older drivers use ENS devices on unfamiliar routes and compared the driving performance of drivers who are familiar or unfamiliar with GPS when using the systems.
DESIGN: The primary research question was whether driving performance improved when older drivers used GPS when driving to an unfamiliar destination over written directions.
METHODS: Participants were 40 drivers 60-69 years old and 40 drivers 70-79 years old, all screened with the AMPS prior to driving. Participants were classified as “GPS Familiar” or “GPS Unfamiliar” based on a screening questionnaire. Equal numbers of familiar and unfamiliar participants were included within each age range (4 blocks). They drove four drives, one familiar destination without GPS, and 3 unfamiliar drives: one using paper directions, one with GPS, and the third drive was a second drive with GPS. A driving rehabilitation specialist (DRS) drove with the participants and scored their performance on each route using a point system. A portable tracking device collected position data. The two routes with paper and GPS were similarly designed with turns, lights, and distance and all were counterbalanced for order. A mixed model ANOVA was used where familiarity with GPS and age group were between-subject variables and driving performance using GPS or paper directions was within-subject variable.
RESULTS: The main within subjects effect of type of directions (paper directions or ENS) was statistically significant, F=5.2, p=.025, with participants driving more safely when using the GPS. Across the two unfamiliar drives, there were significant between subjects effects for familiarity, F=4.6, p=.035, and age group, F= 17.6, p<.001; familiar drivers were rated safer than unfamiliar drivers and drivers in their 60s were safer than drivers in the 70s. No interaction effects were significant.
CONCLUSION: Both age and familiarity groups exhibited safer driving behaviors when using GPS compared to using paper directions. Drivers in their 60s exhibited safer behaviors those in their 70s. Drivers familiar with GPS showed safer behaviors compared to unfamiliar drivers. Unfamiliar drivers in their 70s showed the worst overall driving safety behavior. These findings, supporting previous studies results,1 suggest that age is an important factor in driving safety. However, familiarity with GPS devices appeared to improve safety for drivers in both age groups. This has important implications for practitioners who can not only encourage their clients to use GPS, but teach them how to use the devices if they are not familiar. As driving and community mobility is a critical IADL to seniors, this would support productive aging and perhaps prolong an older adult’s driving lifespan to maintain high quality of life.
References
1. Dickerson, A.E., Molnar, L.J., Bédard, M., Eby, D.W., Classen, S., & Polgar, J. (November 1, 2017). Transportation and Aging: An Updated Research Agenda for Advancing Safe Mobility. Journal of Applied Gerontology, online, doi.org/10.1177/0733464817739154
2. Head, D., & Isom, M. (2010). Age effects on wayfinding and route learning skills. Behavioural Brain Research, 209(1), 49-58.
3. Eby, D. W., & Kostyniuk, L. P. (1999). An on-the-road comparison of in-vehicle navigation assistance systems. Human Factors, 41(2), 295.
