Measuring attentional ability in older adults: Development and psychometric evaluation of driverscan

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 66, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 984-1000

  Hoffman, Lesa ^a   Yang, Xiangdong ^b   Bovaird, James A ^c   Embretson, Susan E ^d  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^d GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Aging; Change detection; Item response theory; Visual attention

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750704917     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: 15523888     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164406288170     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Ball, K. K., & Owsley, C. (1993). The Useful Field of View test: A new technique for evaluating age-related declines in visual function. Journal of the American Optomological Association, 63, 71-79.
2. Brodeur, D. A., & Enns, J. T. (1997). Covert visual orientingacross the lifespan. CanadianJournal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 20-35.
3. Chun, M. M., & Wolfe, J. M. (2001). Visual attention. In E. B. Goldstein (Ed.), Blackwell's handbookof perception (pp. 272-310). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
4. Craik, F. I. M. (1977). Age differences in human memory. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp. 384-420). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
5. D'Aloisio, A., & Klein, R. M. (1990). Aging and the deployment of visual attention. In J. Enns (Ed.), Advances in psychology (Vol. 69, pp. 447-466). North Holland: Elsevier.
6. De Boeck, P., & Wilson, M. (2004). Explanatory item response models. New York: Springer.
7. Du Toit, M. (2003). IRT from SSI. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
8. Embretson, S. E. (1983). Construct validity: Construct representation versus nomothetic span. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 179-197.
9. Embretson, S. E. (1998). A cognitive design system approach to generating valid tests: Application to abstract reasoning. Psychological Methods, 3, 380-396.
10. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Fischer, G. H. (1973). The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37, 359-374.
12. Folk, C. L., & Hoyer, W. J. (1992). Aging and shifts of visual spatial attention. Psychology and Aging, 7, 453-465.
13. Folk, C. L., & Lincourt, A. E. (1996). The effects of age on guided conjunction search. Experimental Aging Research, 22, 99-118.
14. Gottlob, L. R., & Madden, D. J. (1998). Time course allocation of visual attention after equating for sensory differences: An age-related perspective. Psychology and Aging, 13, 138-149.
15. Greenwood, P. M., & Parasuraman,R. (2004). The scaling of spatial attention in visual search and its modification in healthy aging. Perception & Psychophysics, 66 (1). 3-22.
16. Hasher, L., & Zacks, R. T. (1988). Workingmemory, comprehension,and aging:A review and a new view. In G. K. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 22, pp. 193-225). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
17. Hoffman, L., McDowd, J. M., Atchley, P., & Dubinsky, R. (2005). The role of visual attention in predicting driving impairment in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 20 (4). 610-622.
18. Hollingworth, A., & Henderson, J. M. (2000). Semantic informativeness indicates the detection of changes in natural scenes. Visual Cognition, 7, 213-235.
19. Humphrey, D. G., & Kramer, A. F. (1997). Age differences in visual search for feature, conjunction, and triple-conjunction targets. Psychology and Aging, 12, 704-717.
20. Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., Neter, J., & Li, W. (2004). Applied linear statistical models (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
21. Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practical test problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22. Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
23. Madden, D. J., Gottlob, L. R., & Allen, P. A. (1999). Adult age differences in visual search accuracy: Attentional guidance and target detectability. Psychology and Aging, 14, 683-694.
24. McDowd, J. M., & Shaw, R. J. (2000). Attention and aging: A functional perspective. In F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (2nd ed., pp. 221-292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25. Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (1998-2004). Mplus user's guide (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
26. Owsley, C., Ball, K., McGwin, G., Jr., Sloane, M. E., Roenker, D. L., White, M. F., et al. (1998). Visual processing impairment and risk of motor vehicle crash among older adults. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 1083-1088.
27. Owsley, C., Ball, K. K., Sloane, M. E., Roenker, D. L., & Bruni, J. R. (1991). Visual/cognitive correlates of vehicle accidents in older drivers. Psychology and Aging, 6, 403-415.
28. Plude, D. J., & Doussard-Roosevelt, J. A. (1989). Aging, selective attention, and feature integration. Psychology and Aging, 4, 98-105.
29. Pringle, H. L., Irwin, D. E., Kramer, A. F., & Atchley, P. (2001). The role of attentional breadth in perceptual change detection. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 89-95.
30. Rensink, R. A., O'Regan, J. K., & Clark, J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8, 368-373.
31. Rijmen, F., Tuerlinckx, F., De Boeck, P., & Kuppens, P. (2003). A nonlinear mixed model framework for item response theory. Psychological Methods, 8, 185-205.
32. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph, No. 17.
33. Samejima, F. (1995). Acceleration model in the heterogeneous case of the general graded response model. Psychometrika, 60, 549-572.
34. Scholl, B. J. (2000). Attenuated change blindness for exogenously attended items in a flicker paradigm. Visual Cognition, 7, 377-396.
35. Scialfa, C. T., & Joffe, K. M. (1997). Age differences in feature and conjunctionsearch: Implications for theories of visual search and generalized slowing. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 4, 227-246.
36. Seiple, W., Szlyk, J. P., Yang, S., & Holopigian, K. (1996). Age-related functional field losses are not eccentricity dependent. Vision Research, 36, 1859-1866.
37. Sekuler, A. B., Bennett, P. J., & Mamelak, M. (2000). Effects of aging on the useful field of view. Experimental Aging Research, 26, 103-120.
38. Smith, E. V., Jr. (2001). Evidence for the reliability of measures and validity of measure interpretation: A Rasch measurement perspective. Journal of Applied Measurement, 2, 281-311.
39. Truskosky, D. M. (2000).An empirical examinationof classical test theory and item response theory parameters: Implications for research and practice in small-and large-sample assessments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
40. Werner, S., & Thies, B. (2000). Is "change blindness" attenuated by domain-specific expertise? An expertnovice comparison of change detection in football images. Visual Cognition, 7, 163-173.
41. Williams, P., & Simons, D. J. (2000). Detecting changes in novel, complex three-dimensionalobjects. Visual Cognition, 7, 297-322.
42. Wolfe, J. (2000). Visual attention. In K. K. De Valois (Ed.), Seeing (2nd ed., pp. 335-386). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.