Development of a contextually relevant Cognitive Driving Screen: CoDriS

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17159/2310-3833/2026/vol56no1a2

Keywords:

Cognitive driving screen, Driving fitness , Instrument development

Abstract

Occupational therapists conducting comprehensive driving evaluations, assess whether a driver has the necessary motor, cognitive, visual and sensory skills to navigate traffic. Commonly used cognitive assessments are not driving-specific and have no normative data for South Africa. This presents challenges for occupational therapist assessing fitness to drive. The Cognitive Driving Screen (CoDriS) is an online screening instrument developed to bridge the gap between clinical cognitive assessment and on-road performance. Using Kalkbrenner's MEASURE framework, this scientific letter outlines the first four steps in the instrument's development: defining the construct, establishing the empirical framework, developing a theoretical blueprint and synthethising content and scale. CoDriS assesses relevant cognitive domains and incorporates trip planning and driving knowledge using contextual, accessible formats. Insight is evaluated by comparing self-assessment scores with actual performance. The tool uses automated scoring and is designed to minimse languages, literacy and motor limitations. Further validation is underway.  

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

  • Ms Ulla Worthmann, Worthmann & Associates

    Occupational therapist in private practice, Worthmann & Associates in Cape Town. 

  • Dr. Susan de Klerk, Stellenbosch University

    Senior lecturer in Occupational Therapy, University of Cape Town 

References

See PDF for full list of references

Published

27-02-2026

Data Availability Statement

Research has not been published.

How to Cite

Worthmann, U., & De Klerk, S. (2026). Development of a contextually relevant Cognitive Driving Screen: CoDriS. South African Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.17159/2310-3833/2026/vol56no1a2
Views
  • Abstract 58
  • PDF 55
  • Plagiarism Report 8