Sentence examples for driving outcomes from inspiring English sources

Impact on industry: Given the significantly higher risk of adverse driving outcomes associated with ADHD, industry needs to better screen for ADHD among employees who drive as part of employment so as to improve safety and reduce costs.

But companies are looking beyond cost savings to driving outcomes.

Gender and driver's age are additional factors examined in relation to driving outcomes and personality.

Our goal was to examine the association between ADHD and specific driving outcomes in a sample of adults using a driving simulator.

The current study addressed these limitations and examined the unique associations among ADHD, Depression, and adverse driving outcomes, independent of self-selection, driving exposure, and referral bias.

Results from correlations and Structural Equation Modeling using AMOS 6 indicated that direct personality effects on driving outcomes were few, whereas personality had significant correlations with aberrant driving behavior, showing that personality is a distal but important predictor of negative driving outcomes.

Predictors of driving outcome after traumatic brain injury.

The driving outcome in this study was a composite measure of driving crashes (fault not determined) and driving citations, including the self-report of being involved in a crash, receiving a moving violation, or being stopped by the police in the past year (Marottoli et al. 1994).

In fact, the purpose of this study is not to obtain a precise measurement of individual or even group competence, but to provide important data for the purpose of evaluating program effectiveness and driving outcome-based curricular improvement.

Crashing is a concerning driving outcome for older adults, as crash outcomes are more often deadly for this population than for younger adults (Lyman et al. 2002).

Poorer RPW scores (completing the task in > 7 s compared to completing it in ≤ 7 s) were associated with a higher risk for the composite driving outcome in unadjusted (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.0 3.8) analyses but not in an adjusted binomial risk model.