Screening for Driver Disorientation at the Iowa Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division
archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified
Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)
Summary
This study addresses the growing public health challenge of cognitive impairment among older drivers, which significantly increases collision risk and fatality rates. As the population of adults aged 65 and over expands, licensing agencies face difficulties in identifying drivers with dementia or disorientation, who may present as confused or belligerent during administrative interactions. Existing gold-standard assessments, such as on-road driving tests, are resource-intensive and difficult to administer routinely in Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) offices. To address this gap, the researchers evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and usefulness of the Driver Orientation Screen for Cognitive Impairment (DOSCI), a brief screening tool designed to detect disorientation to person, place, and time. The study specifically investigated whether DOSCI performance correlates with driver licensing outcomes in a real-world administrative setting. The research was conducted as a pilot study at the Iowa Department of Transportation between October 2014 and August 2015. The sample consisted of 2,510 DOSCI screens administered to 2,399 licensed drivers who visited MVD field offices for reasons such as medical referrals, vision checks, or re-examinations. The DOSCI comprises nine questions assessing orientation and memory, with a "pass" defined as two or fewer incorrect responses and a "fail" as three or more. MVD staff, trained through a multi-modal program, administered the paper-based tool verbally. Data collected included staff ratings of the tool’s ease of administration, client acceptance, and usefulness on a 5-point scale, as well as the final licensing outcome (license issued vs. not issued). Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses using Chi-square tests to determine the association between DOSCI results and licensing decisions. The results indicated that the DOSCI was highly feasible and well-received. Staff reported a mean ease of administration score of 4.76 and client acceptance of 4.67, with assessments taking an average of 1.70 minutes. While 90.3% of clients passed the screen, those who failed had significantly higher odds of not receiving a driver’s license compared to those who passed (Odds Ratio = 2.556, 95% CI 1.920–3.404). Additional significant predictors of license denial included older age, female gender, and a history of prior examinations. The study noted limitations, including missing data for licensing outcomes and the potential for non-cognitive factors like test anxiety or medical conditions to influence DOSCI scores. The significance of this study lies in its demonstration that a simple, low-cost screening tool can effectively identify drivers requiring further evaluation for cognitive impairment. By integrating the DOSCI into standard licensing procedures, agencies can more efficiently flag at-risk individuals for comprehensive cognitive testing or on-road assessments. This approach supports traffic injury prevention by identifying impaired drivers before they cause collisions, thereby balancing the need for public safety with the mobility needs of an aging population. The findings suggest that the DOSCI serves as a valuable first-step screening instrument for licensing agencies nationwide.
Key finding
Clients who failed the Driver Orientation Screen for Cognitive Impairment had 2.556 times higher odds of not receiving a driver's license than those who passed the assessment.
Methodology
field_study
Sample size: 2399
Provenance
The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via author_sweep_intake on 2026-05-28.
| Stage | Outcome | Tool | Model | Prompt | Attempts | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| discover | success | author_sweep | — | — | 2 | 2026-05-28 |
| archive | success | canonical_url | — | — | 11 | 2026-06-06 |
| extract | success | cached | — | — | 3 | 2026-06-10 |
| clean | success | clean | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| chunk | success | chunk | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| embed | success | embed | Qwen/Qwen3-Embedding-8B | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| enrich | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-28 |
| promote | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-04 |
| summarize | success | llm | qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant | summ-v5 | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
| tag | success | vector_similarity | — | — | 15 | 2026-06-11 |
| verify | success | — | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.
Topics
Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.
Information type
What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).
- Methodological Resource: validation psychometrics