AN INVESTIGATION AND COMPARISON OF VEHICLE ACCIDENDS
AND MOVING VIOLATIONS AS REPORTED BY SELECTED STUDENTS
IN SUMMER AND TRADITIONAL NORTH CAROLINA DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAMS

BY

Horlin Carter

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHIILBOPHY

Department of Educational Administration and CUrriculun

1983

IJl‘

Copyright by
HORLIN CARTER
1983

ABSTRACT
AN INVESTIGATION AND COMPARISON OF VEHICLE ACCIDENTS
AND MOVING VIOLATIONS AS REPORTED BY SELECTED STUDENTS
IN SUMMER AND TRADITIONAL NORTH CAROLINA DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAMS
By

Horlin Carter

The central purpose of this study was to determine if there was a
difference in vehicle accident involvement and moving violation convic-
tions of students taught to drive in summer (over a short 1ength.of time)
driver education programs versus students taught in traditional (over a
longer period of time) driver education programs.

The study used a self-reporting driver education evaluation survey as
the instrument to determine if summer or traditional driver education
programs indicated differences on high school drivers' accident involve-
ment and convictions for moving violations.

The sample population of this study consisted of 465 students from 10
high schools; 175 students who had completed driver education in the sum-
mer of 1981, and 290 students who had completed driver education in the
traditional or regular school year of 1980—81.

The students and the ten schools in this study were randomly selected
in North Carolina.

During the fall of 1982, the students were asked to respond to the
Driver Education Evaluation Survey. The data collected from.the survey

consisted.of the students' responses to 70'items which were divided into

four major categories: (1) suggestions for improving driver education
courses, (2) driving experience, (3) collision experience, and (4) type of
crash.

The data collected from the responses to the survey were tabulated
and analyzed using a t-test for primary questions and a chi square test
for the secondary variables.

Major findings of this study showed:

1. There was not a significant difference between vehicle accident in-
volvement of students who completed a traditional or sumner driver educa-
tion program.

2. There was not a significant difference between moving violation con-
victions of students who completed a traditional or sunmer driver educa-
tion program.

3. The more miles the students drove 12 months prior to the study the
fewer traffic accident involvements and moving violation convictions they
experienced.

4. The students that had been licensed to drive for longer periods of
time, had fewer traffic accident involvements.

5. Males had more Moving violation convictions than fetmles.

DEDICATION

This study is dedicated to:
Mrs. L. Ophelia Carter, my mother
Tracy Renee, my daughter

Horlin, Jr., my son

Also dedicated to my sisters, brothers, and their families:
Dorothy, Orlin, Viola, Shirley, William,
Wanda, Reginald, Thurmond, and Adele

and Renee, my niece

Horlin Carter

East Lansing, Michigan 1983

ii

ACKNOWLEIISMENTS

The author wishes to express appreciation to the following indi-
viduals for their assistance and support:

The doctoral guidance conmittee: Dr. Donald L. Snith, Chairman; Dr.
Robert O. Nolan, Dr. Charles A. Blackman, and Dr. Charles V. Mange.

Thanks is also due to the following brancheslof the armed forces for
their assistance and support:

U.S. Air Force, North Carolina Air National Guard, and the Michigan
Air National Guard.

Thanks is also due to the selected schools and students in North

carolina for participating in this study.

iii

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES . . . .

CHAPTER

1.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THEPROBLEM .......

Introduction . . .

Statement of the Problem ..............

Definitions _. . ...........

Limitations of the Study . . . . . . .

Basic Assumptions Related to the Study . .

PurposeoftheStudy. . . . . . . . .
Justification for the Study . . . . .

The Hypothesis . . .

Sunnary ...............
The Organization of the Study . . . .
REVIEWOFLITERATURE. . . . . . . . .
Introduction ...... . . . . . . .

Driver Record Studies

Summer School Effectiveness Studies .

Driver Education Effectiveness Studies .

iv

10
10
10
11
12
14
14
18
18
18
22

24

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Driver Education Cbst Studies ........... 33
Studies That Used the Survey/Questionnaire Data

Gathering Technique . . . .......... . 35

Summary ........... . . . . ....... 38
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . ....... 44
Population . .......... . . . . . . . . . . 44
Sampling Design .................. 44
Survey Instrument ................ . 46
Data Collection ............... . . . 47
Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . ......... . 48
Summary ...................... 52
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . ...... . . . . . 54
Data Analyses . . . . . ............. . 55
Analysis of Time Period HSDE Received . ..... . 60
Analysis of Traffic Accident Involvement . . . . . . 70
Analysis of Moving Violations . . . . ...... . 82
Analysis of Students in the Study . . ....... 92
Summary .......... . . ......... . 104

SUMMARY, (DNCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND RECIMMENDATIONS 108

Summary . ........... . . . . . . . . . . 108

TABLE OF CDNTENTS

Page
Conclusions . . . .......... . . .' . . . . 112
Discussion.............. ...... 112
Recomnendations............. ..... 115
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................ 116
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Driver Education Evaluation Survey . 121
Appendix B: Descriptive Analysis of School Program 124
Appendix C: Guides for Administration of Survey 125
Appendix D: Sample of letters Sent to the Schools 127
Appendix B: List of Schools in the Study . . . . 128

vi

Table

1a.

2a.

3a.

5a.

6a.

7a.

LIST OF TABLES

Traffic Accident Involvement by Time Period
HSDE Received (Across Time Period) . . . . .

Traffic Accident Involvement by Time Period
HSDE Received (Within Time Period) .....

Moving Violations by Time Period HSDE Received
(Across Time Period) . . ....... .

Nbving Violations by Time Period HSDE Received
(Within Time Period) ............

Sex by Time Period HSDE Received (Across Time
Period) . .......... . .......

Sex by Time Period HSDE Received (Within Time
Period). ..... . . . ..... . . . .

Age by Time Period HSDE Received (Across Time
Period) . . ............ . . .

Age by Time Period HSDE Received (Within Time
Period) .................

Miles Driven Past 12 Lbnths by Time Period HSDE
Received (Across Time Period) . . . . . .

Miles Driven Past 12 Months by Time Period HSDE
Received (Within Time Period) . .....

Grade Point Average by Time Period HSDE Received
(Across Time Period) . . . . . . .....

Grade Point Average by Time Period HSDE Received
(Within Time Period) . . .......

Time Since Licensed to Drive by Time Period HSDE
Received (Across Time Period) . . ......

Time Since Licensed to Drive by Time Period HSDE
Received (Within Time Period) . . .

vii

Page

57

57

59

59

61

61

63

63

65

65

67

67

69

69

Table

9a.

10.

10a.

11.

11a.

12.

12a.

13.

13a.

14.

14a.

15.

Traffic Accident Involvement by Sex (Across
Sex) . . . . . .....

Traffic Accident Involvement by Sex (Within
Sex) . . . . . . . . . . .....

Traffic Accident Involvement by Age (Across
Age) . . ....... . . . . . . . .

Traffic Accident Involvement by Age (Within
Age ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Traffic Accident Involvement by Miles Driven Past
12 Months (Across Miles Driven)

Traffic Accident Involvement by Miles Driven Past
12 Months (Within Miles Driven) . .....

Traffic Accident Involvement by Moving Violations
(Across Moving Violations) . ..... . . .

Traffic Accident Involvement by Moving Violations
(Within Moving Violations) .........

Grade Point Average by Traffic Accident Involvement
(Across Traffic Accident) . . ..... . .

Grade Point Average by Traffic Accident Involvement
(Within Traffic Accident) . . . ......

Time Since Licensed to Drive by Traffic Accident
Involvement (Across Traffic Accident) . .

Time Since Licensed to Drive by Traffic Accident
Involvement (Within Traffic Accident)

Moving Violations by Time Period HSDE Received
(Across Time Period) . . ........ .

Moving Violations by Time Period HSDE Received
(Within Time Period) . ......... .

Grade Point Average by Moving Violations (Across
Moving Violations). . . . . . . . . .

viii

71

71

73

73

75

75

77

77

79

79

81

81

83

83

85

Table

15a.

16.

16a.
17.

17a.

18.

18a.

19.

19a.

20.

20a.
21.

21a.

22.

22a.

23.

23a.

Grade POint Average by Moving Violations (Within
Moving Violations) .............

Moving Violations by Sex (Across Sex) .
Moving Violations by Sex (Within Sex) .

Time Since Licensed to Drive by Moving Violations
(Across Moving Violations) . . . . . . . . .

Time Since Licensed to Drive by Moving Violations
(Within Moving Violations) . . . . . . . . .

Moving Violation by Miles Driven Past 12 Months
(Across Miles Driven) . . . . . . . . . . .

Moving Violation by Miles Driven Past 12 Months
(Within Miles Driven) . . . . ......

Time Since Licensed to Drive by Miles Driven Past
12 Mbnths (Across Miles Driven) . .....

Time Since Licensed to Drive by Miles Driven Past
12 Months (Within Miles Driven) . . . . . .

Time Since Licensed to Drive by Sex (Across Sex)
Time Since Licensed to Drive by Sex (Within Sex)

Time Since Licensed to Drive by Grade Point
Average (Across Grade Point Average) .

Time Since Licensed to Drive by Grade Point
Average (Within Grade Point Average) . . . .

Grade Point Average by Miles Driven Past 12 Months
(Across Miles Driven) . . . . . . .....

Grade Po: “1. Average by Miles Driven Past 12 Months
(Within Miles Driven) . . . . ......

Miles Driven Past 12 Months by Sex (Across Sex) .

Miles Driven Past 12 Months by Sex (Within Sex) .

ix

Page

85

87

87

89

89

91

91

93

93
95

95

97

97

99
101

101

Table

24.

24a.

Grade Point Average by Sex (Across Sex) . . . .

Grade POInt Average by Sex (Within Sex) . . .

Page
103
103

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. The Traffic Situation; Travel, Deaths, and Death
Rates . ......... . . ......... 2
2. Age of Victim for All thor Vehicle Accidents—
1979 . . . . ................. 4
3. Requency of Accidents and Personal Injury Ages
16-34 ..... . . . . ......... . . . 5
4. Analysis of Results Summary . . .......... 105

xi

CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

 

The motor vehicle accident problem in the United States over the past
ten years (1970-1980) has reached epidemic proportions. In 1970, United
States motor vehicle drivers traveled approximately 1.1 billion miles,
experienced approximately 54,633 deaths, and had a death rate per
100,000,000 vehicle miles of approximately 4.88 (See Figure 1). In 1980,
U.S. motor vehicle drivers traveled approximately 1,511 billion miles,
experienced 52,600 deaths, and had a death rate per 100,000,000 vehicle
miles of 3.481. The decline in notor vehicle fatalities in the seventies
was suspected to be due to highway and vehicle engineering, education, and
fewer vehicle miles traveled. Highway safety problems are very serious.
The following facts from 1980 are presented to emphasize this point:2

1. 52,600 highway fatalities

2. 2,000,000 persons suffered disabling injuries

3. $13.4 billion property damage crashes

4. $39.3 billion lost in highway crashes

The U.S. Department of Transportation Driver Education Evaluation
Program (DEEP) Study states the following about the highway safety pro-

blem:3

 

 

   
    
  
 

 

 

210
VEHICLE MILES (in 10 billions)
180
..,DEATH
150 .’ RATE
I
O
,1
I
120 + I.’ DEATHS
" - VEHICLE MILES [,1' 60,000
m .0. ' ... O
a. /
DEATHS 40,0(O
60 DEATH RATES*
30 ’0”. if ...'ooocoo.....’°O-.OIO. . ZO’OCD
—" ' O o O 9..
0 “i,” A
*Deaths per 100,900,000 vehicle miles 0
1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980

FIGURE 1

THE TRAFFIC SITUATION
TRAVEL, DEATHS AND DEATH RATES

Source: National Safety Cbuncil. Accident Facts, 1981 Edition.

 

Chicago: National Safety Council, 1981, p. 40.

a. Highway crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans
under the age of 40.

b. Highway crashes are the leading cause of accidental death for
all ages.

c. Highway crashes account for 94% of all transportation-related
deaths in America.

d. Highway crashes kill more Americans in one year than were killed
in the Vietnam War in ten years.

Of the 52,600 deaths from motor vehicles in 1980, the age group 15-24
had the highest number (18,800), with a death rate per 100,000 population
of 45.0. The only group that approximated this by nunber is the 16,100
deaths suffered by the 25-44 age group, but their death rate per 100,000
population was only approximately 25.0. The 75 and over age group had the
second highest death rate (approximately 30.0), but only experienced 2,700
deaths from notor vehicles (see Figure 2).

The frequency of accidents and personal injury to the age group 15-24
was also very high (see Figure 3). The ratio of personal injury accidents
to total accidents peaked at age 23 (see Figure 3).

Motor vehicle accidents and deaths cost this country approximately
$39.3 billion in 1980. With the increasing cost of certain public agency
activities (such as police, fire, courts, etc.), the motor vehicle acci-
dent cost will be even more astronomical to our nation.

"After more than 50 years of high school driver education (HSDE) dur-
ing which time it appears to have gone through phaseS<of uncontrolled
developnent, made futile attempts to maintain quality control, undergone
extreme criticism, and finally shown significant signs of objective cur-

riculum development and evaluation-—its actual effectiveness as a crash

DEATH RATE

40

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

AGE 0-4 5—14 15—24 25—44 45-64 65-74 75 8: Over
DEATI‘B 1500 2600 1880 16 , 000 7900 3000 2700

 

FIGURE 2

AGE OF VICTIM FOR
ALL MOI“? VEHICLE ACIIIDENTS-1979

Source: National Safety Council. Accident Facts, 1981 Edition.
Chicago: National Safety Council, 1981, p. 42.

Drivers in Accidents, as percent of licensed

 

 

Ratio of personal injury accidents per 100 drivers

 

 

8
H
8-:
8.
f5 .‘3
L0 c:
9 73-21
E; 8
15 —- . Cd
1.5

§ ‘ (Scale at right) — .5
I \ ,\ __ _ __.. w

G) / '— "' -'
g \ ’1 \\/”’ a;
g 10 P ‘ ’r 1.0 I:
m j V _ 13
g 8
‘° E
'5 5 F (Scale at left) —0-5 2

'J)
S d
3:. fife
:- 2
o J L l I I l l l I l I V
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25—29 30-34
FIGURE 3

Frequency of Accidents and Personal Injury Ages 16—34

Source: lbnald C. Pelz.

Driver Behavior, Cause and Effect.

"Driver Motivation and Attitudes",
Insurance Institute for Highway

 

SafetyWashington, D.C., 1968, p. 103.

drivers (Conn. 1955)

reduction countermeasure is still undetermined. Early studies conducted
in the 1950's and 1960's concluded that high school driver education re-
duced crashes and violations by 50 percent anong those persons exposed to
it. These studies did not control for a variety of contaminating pre-
selection factors, which were found by later investigation to account for
most of the reported effect. Thus, their conclusions were incorrect."4

"Some critics have claimed that high school driver education has no
effect in reducing crashes, and has little potential for such an effect.
Such claims cannot be supported."5

It is imperative that aspects of program cost, including the salaries
of staff, the types of instructional program employed, the size of the
enrollment of the program, the time of the day and of the year that in-
struction is provided, location of the sclool to population centers, and
the average expenditure per pupil in the district, as well as other fiscal
variables be studied. Decision makers in the local schools and at the
state level must determine whether there are alternatives in driver edu-
cation which offer savings without negatively affecting the quality of the

program or the snoothness of school operations.8

Statement of the Problem

 

The problem for this study was: do short, condensed, and less costly
sumner driver education programs produce comparable or better drivers than
long, expanded, and nore costly traditional driver education programs as
measured by accident involvement, moving violation convictions, and other

criteria?

Definitions

 

The following definitions were used in this study:

(bllision: When your car hits something or was hit by something caus-
ing any damage or injury.7

BTW: The behind-the-wheel phase of the driver education program (on and
off-street).

Schools: The North Carolina Secondary Public Schools about which data
were received.

Eligibile Student: Any youth between the ages of 14 years-6 months
to 18 who resides in the State of North Carolina, regardless of
whether or not the individual is currently enrolled in any other
course in any school that the district operates.

Driver and Traffic Safety Education: The formal learning program and
experiences provided by the school for the purpose of helping stu-
dents become good traffic citizens and to use notor vehicles
safely and efficiently.8

Standard Course: The traffic safety program which includes both classroom
and laboratory instruction and meets all minimun standards set forth

in the 1964 Safety Conference.9

Classroom Instruction: Group instruction which covers such content areas
as traffic citizenship, laws and regulations, characteristics of
drivers, role of government, autonobile use and traffic problems.10

Traditional or Regular School: The period during which instruction is
offered during the normal school hours of the typical 36-week school
year.

Driving Simulation: A teaching method employing both films and electro-
mechanical devices designed to represent the driver's compartment of
the autonobile through which students develop proper judgment and
behavior responses as well as manipulative skills.11

Multiple-Car Driving Range: An off—street area on which a number of cars
are used simultaneously to provide laboratory instruction under the
supervision of one or more teachers.12

School Safety Supervisor: A person, often on the staff of a school dis-
trict, who is responsible for school traffic safety programs, plan-
ning and operation, including curricular activities and personnel
performance.13

Accident: An unforeseen and sudden occurrence which results in property
damage, personal injury, or death with causal factors arising from an
identifiable series of events or conditions.14

Split Schedule: A classroom-laboratory schedule in which the student com-
pletes all requirements of time and instruction in the classroom,
and then at some later time (days, weeks, or nonths) begin the lab-

oratory instruction.

Summer School: This includes instruction offered during the weeks of
summer in which school is not normally in session.

Concurrent Schedule: A driver education course in which classroom.and
laboratory phases of the program are integrated into a single course.
Students flow from one phase to another on a day—to—day basis in
order for instruction to have maximum effectiveness.15

Cbnviction: The finding by a court that a person is guilty of violating
a law as charged.16

Citation: A summons to appear before a court of law at a specified time
to determine the guilt or innocence of the person charged with vio—
lating a traffic 1aw.17

Approved Driver Education Cburse: Any driver education course certified
by the State Department of Public Instruction or State Board as meet-

ing at least minimum requirements of the North Chrolina Driver Educ—

 

ation Act.l8

Practice Driving: That part of laboratory instruction which provides
learning experiences for the student as an operator when behind-the—
wheel of a dual—control car in traffic on public roadways under the
direct supervision of a qualified teacher instructing from the front
seat of the car.19

DOT: U.S. Department of Transportation.

NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

HSDE: High School driver education.

Accident Involvement: Any accident involving a motor vehicle in trans-
port (in motion, in readiness for motion, or on a roadway, but not
parked in a designated parking area) that results in death, injury,

or property damage.20

10

Limitations of the Study

 

1.

Data collection was limited to student responses to the "Driver Edu-
cation Evaluation Survey."

The accident and violation experience was for 500 students who com-
pleted driver education in 1980-81 school year and 1981 summer pro—
gram. Accidents and violations were the criteria used in the study.

The study focused only on public driver education programs, not com-
merical or private driving sclools.

The type of degree or preparation of teachers was not under investi—
gation. All the teachers in programs that were studied had met mini-
mum requirements for driver education instructor approval.

The quality of the driver education programs in the study was not
under investigation. All of the programs had met the minimum re—
quirements for driver education program approval .

Data was limited to North Carolina.

Basic Assumptions Related to the Study

 

1.

The data reported by the randomly-selected students on the self-
reporting questionnaire were accurate.

The instruction shéet for the administration of the self-reporting
questionnaire was read the same way to all of the groups examined in
that particular school.

All the programs in the study offered the state-required 30 tours of
classroom and six (6) hours of behind—the-wheel instruction.

All the programs in the study used the same state driver education
curriculum.

Purpose of the Study

 

The purpose of the study was to determine if there was a difference

in accident involvement and moving violation convictions of students

taught to drive in summer (over a slort length of time) driver education

programs versus students in traditional (over a longer period of time)

driver education programs .

11

Justification for the Study

 

School districts througrout North Carolina are faced with the problem
of tight budgets, and the expenditures for the continuation of course
offerings are rising every year. State aid for schools is determined by
enrollment, and for most North Carolina Schools the enrollment is declin—
ing as inflation increases. Schools are attempting to continue to offer
programs at a minimal expense. Driver education programs are being offered
increasingly in the summer as a result. Summer driver education programs
save the school districts money in several ways: (1) Teachers work under
a summer contract where no fringe benefits are paid, (2) teachers are not
paid for days off, (3) teachers work by the hour so this allows more stu-
dents to complete the program since the teachers usually work long hours,
and (4) students usually have to pay a course fee to take driver education
in the summer. This helps to offset costs to run the summer programs.

Traditional driver education programs cost the school districts more
money: (1) Teachers work under contracts that provide fringe benefits;
(2) teachers are paid fOr sick days during regular school year; (3) teach-
ers work under a term contract rather than on an hourly basis; and (4)
students do not pay a course fee to take driver education.

There is little conclusive data available at this time that would
aIIOW’fOP adequate comparisons of drivers.from summer driver education
programs with drivers from traditional driver education programs.

If the less expensive summer driver education program graduates are
comparable to traditional program graduates in terms of the study crite—
ria, then summer programs could be justified in the State of North Caro-

lina.

12

The Hypotheses

 

“01:

”02‘

H2a:

There will be no difference in the accident involvement between
students taught to drive in a summer driver education program and
students taught to drive in a traditional driver education program.

There will be a difference in the accident involvement between stu-
dents taught to drive in a summer driver education program and stu-
dents taught in a traditional driver education program.

There will be no difference in the number of convictions for moving
violations of students taught in a summer or a traditional driver
education program.

There will be a difference in the number of convictions for moving
violations of students taught in a summer or a traditional driver
education program.

13

First Hypothesis:

 

HO: U1 = U2
TMSG TMSG

Legend: U1 = Sumner driver education accident group mean
U2 = Traditional driver education accident group mean
T = Time licensed in months
M :. Miles driven
S = Sex of students
G = Grade Point Average

Alternate Hypothesis:

TMSG TMSG
Legend: U1 = Summer driver education accident group mean
U2 = Traditional driver education accident group mean
T = Time licensed in months
M = Miles driven
S = Sex of students
G = Grade POint Average

Second Hypothesis:

I'bg: U1 U2
TMSG TMSG

 

Legend: U1
Uz

Sumner driver education violation group mean
Traditional driver education violation group mean
Time licensed in months

Miles driven

Sex of students

Grade Point Average

maize
II II II II II II

Al ternat ive Hypothesis :

HZa: U1 ,1 U2
“TMS“_G TMSG

 

Legend: U1 Summer driver education violation group mean

U2 = Traditional driver education violation group mean
T = Time licensed in months

M = Miles driven

S = Sex of students

G == Grade Point Average

14

Summary
In 1980, United States motor vehicle drivers traveled approximately

1,511 billion miles, experienced 52,600 deaths, and had a death rate per
100,000 vehicle miles of 3.48.21 Of the 52,600 deaths from motor vehicles
in 1980, the age group 15—24 had the highest number (18,800), with a
death rate per 100,000 population of 45.0.

It is imperative that aspects of program cost be studied in order to
maximize the program. Decision makers on the local school level must make
difficult decisions about alternatives in driver education which appear to
offer savings to the school operations. They must determine if the sav-

ings will negatively affect the quality of the driver education program.

Organization of the Study

 

Chapter One contained the Problem, Introduction, Statement of the
Problem, Definitions, Limitations of the Study, Basic Assumptions Related
to the Study, Purpose of the Study, Justification for the Study, and The
Hypotheses.

Chapter Two contains a Review of Literature and Research for the
Study. The review of literature and research identifies research which
has been conducted investigating the effectiveness of driver education,
studies which utilized socioeconomic data, and driver records studies.

Chapter Three contains the Design and Metrodology for the Study. It
also contains information concerning the Population, the Sampling Design,

the Data, the Analysis of Data, and Summary.

15

Chapter Four contains the Analysis of the Data for the Study.
Chapter Five summarizes the research, draws conclusions from the

findings, and includes recommendations for further study.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

FOOTNOTES

National Safety Cbuncil. Accident Facts, 1981 Edition. Chicago:
National Safety Cbuncil, 1981, pp. 40-41.

 

Ibid., pp. 3-5.

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. The Driver Education EValuation Program (DEEP) Study
(A Report to the CbngreSS), July, 1975.

 

 

Ibid., pp. 1.
Ibid., pp. 1.
Budig, Ronald L. "A Study of the Cbsts of Driver Education Programs

in the Public Schools of Illinois." Illinois State University, 1976.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977, 37, no. 7, 4006-A.

 

Quensel, Warren P. and Dr. Joseph E. Talkington. Traffic and Safety
Education Section, Home Ebonomics and Industrial Technology Depart-
ment, Illinois State Unversity. Driver Education Curriculum Mate-
rials for Illinois Demonstration center and Satellite Schools.

 

 

Springfield: Illinois Office of Education, 1976.

National Commission on Safety Education. High Sctool Driver Educa—
tion, Policies and Recommendations. Washington, DC: National Edu-

 

 

cation Association, 1964.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.

American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association. Sixth
National Cmference on Safety Education Proceedings, Volume IV.

 

Washington, DC: ADTSEA, 1980.
Ibid.

Aaron, James E. and Marland K. Strasser. Driver and Traffic Safety

 

Education. New York: The MacMillan company, 1974.

16

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

17

American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association. Sixth
National Cbnference on Safety Education Proceedings, VOlume IV.

 

Washington, DC: ADTSEA, 1980.
Ibid.

North carolina. North carolina General Statues (1976), Chapter 115C—
215. Raleigh: North Carolina State Board of Education, January 22,
1976.

Illinois Office of Education. Driver Education for Illinois Youth,
Section 1.01. Springfield, ILL.: Office of Education, 1972.

 

National Safety Council. Accident Facts, 1981 Edition. Chicago:
National Safety Cbuncil, 1981.

 

Ibid., p. 40.41.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LTTERATURE

Introduction

 

This review'of literature will provide a background of related re-
search in the areas of driver record studies, summer school effectiveness
studies, driver education effectiveness studies, driver education cost
studies, and general studies that used the survey/questionnaire data

gathering technique.

Driver Record Studies

 

A study by Gutshall, Harper, and Burkel, showed that generally, in-
telligence and socioeconomic status were influencing factors in the total
numberlof violation points accumulated over a five year period. After
closer examination, the driving records indicated that subjects from high
socioeconomic groups received more speeding violations than those of lower
socioeconomic groups. However, the low intelligence group had more points
fOr violations, other than speeding, than the average and above average
intelligence groups.

The low intelligence group differed significantly from the average
grouplon the factors of combined accidents and violations. However, the
low intelligence group did not differ significantly from the high intelli-
gence groups on these same factors (accidents and violations).

Studies have verified that drivers 16-25 years of age have a higher
proportion of accidents in relation to the total number'of’drivers in

their age group than do older drivers.2

18

19

Dubin3 stated that the high rate of accidents cannot be attributed to
any deficiency in the sensory and physical functions. He believes the
main causes of accidents in the 16-25 age group were experience, emotional
and social immaturity, and temperamental qualities. Kaestner8 studied the
records of 904 licensed Oregon drivers involved in fatal accidents (1961—
62), which then were compared with ttose of a randomly selected control
group from the general driving population. The expected disproportionate
number of males and young, inexperienced drivers of both sexes were noted.
They also were much more likely to have had a traffic conviction within 12
months immediately prior to a fatal accident. Among the males involved in
the fatal accidents, those in their 30's and 40's, and even older, had
conviction patterns similar to those of the youngest drivers in the con-
trol group.

Kaestner suggested that fatal accident drivers, as a group, may pos-
sess less maturity than ordinarily expected for their respective chrono-
logical years.

In reporting on 32,387 driver records in injury producing accidents,
characteristics of several driver groups were studied by Campbell5. With
respect to accident type, older drivers and females showed relatively
less involvement in single car accidents. But, in two car accidents, they
showed a relatively high frequency for being involved.

Campbell also found that age and sex differences by time and day of
the accident were factors. Males (particularly younger ones) were involv-
ed in more night and weekend accidents. This seemed apparent since they

had more exposure during these times.

20

Levonian6 studied 7,430 CalifOrnia drivers who had come to the De—
partment of Motor Vehicles field offices to renew their driver's licenses.
He wanted to determine whether prediction of recorded accidents and con-
victions could be made on the basis of driver characteristics other than
previous accidents and convictions.

Levonian used measures on thirty-five predictor variables obtained on
each subject. Data from half<of the subjects were used to select a subset
of these variables and to generate an equation intended to maximize the
prediction of whether each of the remaining 3,715 subjects would be clas-
sified as a negligent operator over the three year period following li—
cense renewal. The results of this study indicated that negligent opera—
tors could be identified correctly at a statistically significant level on
the basis of four variables; driving exposure (reported annual mileage),
age, sex, and marital status.

Carlson and Klein7, in a study of Michigan drivers showed that sons
of fathers with no traffic convictions had .75 (1.41 vs 2.16) fewer vio-
lation points per individual than sons of fathers with convictions. Carl-
son and Klein also stated that students with grade point averages higher
than 2.6 have fifteen percent fewer convictions (.29 vs .44) than students
with grade point averages of 2.6 or lower.

Pelz and Schuman8 revealed that over a one year period, in a study of
3,000 suburban drivers (age 16-25 and 35-44), that young men aged 18 and
19 had more violations than men either younger or older. With road expe-
rience controlled by age when driving was learned, the same peak at 18 or
19 years appeared (except that among men who learned at age 15, the recom-
mended age for driver education), the crash and violation peaks were de-

layed one or two years.

21

Pelz and Schuman also found that for young men the accident rate more
than doubled between 16 and 19 (from under 20 crashes per 100 drivers to
over 45 per 100), and thereafter stowed an irregular decline toward the
middle age, with a hint of secondary peaks at 22 and 24. For violations
and warnings, the age effect for young males was even more profound; a
steady rise and trebling of the rate between 16 and 19, and thereafter a
steady drop toward middle age with a possible secondary peak at age 24.

Sigrori and Bowmang, in their study on personality and traffic acci—
dents, felt that driving behavior is dependent upon tmo kinds of factors;
those pertaining to the skill of the driver and ttose imposed by the task
or driving situation. These antlers thought that tension and low tension
tolerance have much in common with susceptibility to automobile accidents.

In referring to violations and accidents of young males, a study was
completed by Boyce and Dax10 in Australia of intelligence and driving of-
fences in young males. Of four hundred young males aged 17 to 21 years,
with intelligence quotients of 100 I.Q. and above group, 74 had been con-
victed of traffic offences. Of the 263 in the dull and backward group
with current licenses, 105 had been convicted of traffic offenses. The
results of Boyce and Dax study were:

1. The intellectually dull and backward had more traffic convic-
tions than the average to bright.

2. The number of first offences were almost the same for both
groups. More people in the dull group had repeated offences.
Dull students may have been less able to avoid being apprehend-
ed.

3. More dull persons commit serious offences because they lack the
moral standards and community responsibility of ttose wlo are
brighter.

22

Both groups in the Boyce and Dax study were unconcerned about non-
serious offences (non-moving violations). The intelligent group had more
understanding and would deliberately avoid commdtting (or being apprehend-
ed committing) serious offences of which they had more understanding of
the nature or consequence. Again, the authors pointed out that the study
did not appear to indicate that the dull are a greater liability on the
road, but only that their handicap makes them more apt to be convicted of
the non—moving offences.

A study by Buttiglieri and Guenette11 reviewed the driving records of
neuropsychiatric patients with active driver's licenses in Sepulveda
(California) Veterans Administration Hospital. The 165 patient sample had
accident and violation records which did not differ significantly from the
California male driving population. Eighty percent of the sample had no
accidents and more than two-thirds of the sample had no more than one
driving violation during the three years preceding hospitalization. There
was no clear cut difference in negligent-operator point count between the
patient group and the California male driving population except at the
high point end of the point-count distribution for a very small proportion

of patients.

summer School Effectiveness Studies

 

Summer school sessions are normally offered for the purposes of en-
richment, acceleration, reduction of the academic load during the regular
school year, or to make up for an earlier failure. The fOllowing studies
dealt with the effectiveness of summer school classes offered in driver

education and other areas of the study.

23

(bpleylz tested the difference in academic achievement between stu-
dents in summer school and in the regular high scrool in the areas of Eng-
lish, American and world history, chemistry, economics, biology, algebra,
and geometry. In his study, he found differences only in the area of
economics. In ecoromics, the achievement scores of the regular school
year were superior to the sumer scrool scores. Results were based on
standardized achievement tests administered to both groups.

Leach13 found that students in a summer biology program did well or
better than students in traditional biology classes. Students were eval—
uated after 180 tours of instruction through the use of standardized bio-
logy tests. The sample of male volunteers was equated on the basis of
age, I.Q., and previous science courses. The sumer program was taken "in
the field," which included camping outdoors and exploration.

Walker14, through the use of two Summer School (bncepts Scales, re-
ported that students in secondary sumer schools in Missouri held a higher
concept of summer school than of the regular term. The report further
stated that students attending summer school for the purpose of "make-up"
held a higher concept of summer school than those attending for the pur-
pose of ”enrichment," and that an inverse relationship existed between
students' regular term grade-point averages and the level of their con-
cepts of sumrer scrool.

Tack15 included 339 driver education classes in his study, with 3,236
students being interviewed and included. His findings concerning the
comparison of summer and tradtional school year driver education programs

were as follows:

24

1. Between students taught in the summer as opposed to semester,
significant differences were found in the amount of knowledge
learned. Although the gains in knowledge scores were statis-
tically siginficant in both time periods, the serester-taught
students had significantly greater gains.

2. Summer students were found to have significantly fewer moving
violation convictions and suspensions/revocations than semester-
taught students. However, when the influence of other variables
known to be related to driving records were taken into consid-
eration, the time at which a male student took driver education
had no effect on future driving. The female, as compared to the
male student taking driver education in the summer had fewer
accidents, moving violations, and.officia1 actions.

3. Sumer taught students rated their instructors significantly
lower on items relating to: (a) the instructor satisfactorily
answering their questions, (b) the instructor being a better
than average teacher, (0) the instructor providing a good com-
bination of lecture and discussion in the classroom, and (d) the
instructor being concerned whether students learned the mate-
rial. In general, sumler students' responses to interview items
indicated they enjoyed driver education less as compared to
semester students' responses.

Driver Education Effectiveness Studies

 

Shively and Asher16 felt that socioeconomic status was a deciding
variable that differentiated between scrools that offer driver education
and ones that did not. The variables that differentiated between students
clustered around academic knowledge, intelligence, socioeconomic status,
and socioecoromic variables.

One of the earlier studies evaluating the effectiveness of driver
education was done by Smith17 in Detroit, Michigan. His was a two-stage

evaluation model:

25

1. Inspection and observations of on—street routes, ranges, simu-
lation laboratories, classroom instruction, and a reviewrof pro-
gram costs; and

2. A pilot study to determine whether the findings from violation
records in the Secretary of State's Office would give some clues
as to the effectiveness of range training as compared to on-
street training in Detroit.

Smith reported inefficient use~of facilities and cars, and recom—
mended Changes in scheduling, staffing, and class size. He recommended
that on-street programs be replaced with "improved" range programs and
additional driving simulator installations made possible by federal gov-
ernment matching funds.

The pilot study of the effectiveness of the Detroit driver education
program included "a sample so small that differences shown have no statis-
tical significance."18 No conclusions about the relative effectiveness of
on—range and on—street driving practice could be drawn from the pilot
study.

Lyle19 compared driver record information of driver education gradu-
ates with records of non-driver education graduates over a period of five
years. Conclusions reached upon examination of data included:

1. Driver education students appear to have learned more about

driving practices that would enable them to achieve better

driving records than other drivers.

2. Students in driver education seem to have developed more experi-
ence in defensive driving than other students.

3. The driver education program provides a variety of learning
experiences that help develop more conscientious drivers.

4. Through efforts to increase driver training programs and their
effectiveness, it should be possible to produce young drivers
who will display even better records of driver performance.

In a study by Kavanaugh, Kemper, and K1amn20, 1,455 Illinois junior

and senior high school students were surveyed and the following facts

found:

26

19% had received high school driver education

10% had a.commercial course

59% were taught by parents

4% were taught by other adults
3% were taught by a brother or a sister
5% were taught by other persons

The high school trained drivers had 27 accidents per 100 students as
compared to 41 accidents per 100 students who had learned to drive by
other methods.

Kavanaugh21 reported that 8 of the 100 high school trained drivers
collected traffic violation tickets while 25 of the 100 parent-trained
students received tickets.

The California Driver Training Evaluation Study by JOnes22 investi-
gated the effectiveness of driver training (laboratory phase) in rela-
tionship to cost and other factors. The study was established by state
legislative action, Assembly Bill 1486 (1969-Veysey), for the purpose of
comparing benefits and costs of driver training as given in California
high schools by certified high school teachers with that given by com—
mercial driving school instructors. Additionally, the bill specified a
comparison of the standard six-hour training, or its legal simulator—
assisted substitute (short training programs) with an enriched program
providing four extra hours behind-the-wheel (long training programs).

TWelve thousand high school students were selected randomly and
assigned to programs and trained by public high school or commercial
school instructors in long or short training courses. This study was

limited to the laboratory phase of the driver education program. All stu-

dents had completed or were enrolled in the classroom phase.

27

This study used driving records (official) as well as school district

socioecoromic data .

Major findings of the study were as follows:

A.

D.

E.

Trained variables

1. Students trained in the long programs were superior.
2. Males were superior in all variables except those measuring
attiudes.

Licensing variables

1. The long programs resulted in higher road test scores and
shorter licensing delays.

2. There were no differences between the standard simulator
and standard six-hour BTW program.

3. Females require much longer to be licensed and fewer are
licensed.
4. Licensing rate for trainees were low (4% at 6 months and

73% at about 2 years).

Driving records

1. Citations
a. Students trained in public programs had somewhat fewer
citations.
b. No consistent reliable differences were found between
simulator and six—tour programs.
c. Males' driving records indicated greater accident in-

volvement and violation experience.

2. Accidents

a.

b.

Cbst

There was no difference between the accident rates

of public and commercially trained students.

There were no differences in accident rate between
those trained in short and those trained in long pro-
grams.

There was no difference between simulator and stand-
ard six-hour programs .

Males' driving records indicated greater accident in-
volvement and violation experience.

Very few students reported practice during or after training.

Little use was made of student observation time in car.

28

1. Cbst varied greatly among the school districts and among
commercial schools.

2. Public school programs cost were greater than commercial
programs.

Jones23 further stated: "Since driver training is justified and
funded as an accident countermeasure, then accident experience of the ex-
perimental group is the most important criterion of training effective-
ness."

Ten percent of the students in the Galifornia study had one or more
accidents on record. Comparisons of the records for commercially vs.
publicly trained groups showed there was no difference between them in
accident experience during the first year of driving. Jones also stated
that any effect of training would be expected to show up during the first
year if at all.

Another study that examined the effectivenesslof driver education was
undertaken by the State of New York. Klepak24 analyzed cost variations in
a statewide sample of sixty—seven New YOrk public school driver education
programs in 1972—73. Although no data were presented to justify the
statement, Klepak reported no demonstrable difference in the effectiveness
between instructional methods or types of program schedules.

In a study on the effects of driver education on driver knowledge and
attitudes by Loft25 in Indianapolis and Marion Cbunty, Indiana, he found
that in using the Siebrecht Attitude Scale there were slight differences
in favor of the students that had taken driver education. The girls in
the driver education schools showed a better attitude than the girls in

the non-driver education schools.

29

On the knowledge test of rules of the road, etc., the trained high
school students seeled to fare better.

This study analyzed 2,442 students. One thousand, six hundred seven
had valid licenses and they were checked with records of the Indiana De-
partment of Motor vehicles for violations and citations. Loft concluded
that driver education was influential in reducing accidents and traffic
violations for teenage drivers.

Kavanaugh, Kemper, and Klammz6 showed in their study of high school
students in Illinois how important the automobile was in the lives of stu-
dents. Shively and Asher27, Gutshall, et al.28, and Bologna29 also re-
ported how important automobiles were to the Educable Mentally Handicapped
students. All of the authors stated how important a role the automobile
has played in almost everyone's life in this country. Further, there was
perhaps no group to which the automobile is more important than today's
teenagers. ”More than just a means of transportation, to these youngsters
the automobile is a symbol of prestige, social status, and most of all
maturity and freedom they are so eager to assume."30

The authors agreed that in many cases, particularly among teenage
boys, the automobile has becomelone of their major focal points of exis—
tence. Much of their free time is spent driving automobiles, tinkering
with automobiles, reading, talking, thinking, and dreaming about automo-
biles.

An extensive study of driving records was done in Illinois by Florio
and Huffman31, This study evaluated the driving records of over 500,000
drivers between the ages of 16 and 20 over a five year period. The con—

clusions of this study illustrated significant differences in favor of

30

driver education in both traffic law violations and motor vehicle colli-
sions. Males who had driver education had a record of 66 fewer accidents
per 1,000 drivers than those in the non—driver education groups; females
who had driver education showed a difference of 18 fewer accidents. Driv—
er education males also showed 439 fewer convictions per 1,000 drivers;
and the females, 58 fewer convictions. A.comparison of the summaries
showed that the males in the driver education group had 505 fewer convic—
tions and/or accidents per 1,000 drivers. Females compared had a differ-
ence of 76.

Boyce and Dax32 reported that males under age 25 years have a higher
death rate and injury rate from road accidents than any other age group.
A large proportion of these had been drinking and many of them had crimi-
nal records. This was a repeat of the Boyce and Dax 1973 study, which
mainly was involved in determining the driving records of low I.Q. males.
This second study tried to establish the relationshiplof driver education
and driving offences in young males. The reduction of numbers of offend-
ers and offences relating to the driver education schools were almost the
same categories as those in which the less intelligent group exceeded the
more intelligent in the first study.

Boyce and Dax, therefore, thought it possible that the greatest ef—
fects of driver education are on the less intelligent members of the
school population. Those students that took driver education had statis—
tically less repeat offences, total offences and non-moving offenses. The
authors further concluded that driver education goals should not be seek-
ing accident reduction by itself-but should be thatlof achieving a come

petent and knowledgeable traffic citizen who recognizes a high standard

31

of driving behavior,'has the interest and desire to play a part in an
efficient, integrated highway transportation system.

lbss33 studied the driving records of people who had completed either
a competency-based or 4-phase driver education program, controlling for
the variables of overall driving record, sex, number of moving violations,
and number of chargeable accidents. The study concluded that either pro-
gram was acceptable in terms of its effectiveness relating to driving per-
formance.

Dreyer and Janke34 compared range and non—range driver training,
utilizing student performance during training, performance on tests re-
quired for licensing, and the number of days between training and licens-
ing for their measurements. In that study, driver training meant the
laboratory phase only, while driver education meant the classroom phase.
California Department of Motor Vehicle files supplied information on stu-
dent accident and conviction records within the year following the begin-
ning of driver training. Results stowed that non-range students performed
significantly better on the following training variables: (1) knowledge
post-test; (2) simulator score; and (3) driver course grade. There was
not a significant difference between range and non—range students on driver
licensing test scores or in the amount of time spent in becoming licensed.
Range students had fewer total accidents than non-range students in the
year following the beginning of training. Time spent in the range during
training was not related to frequency of accidents or convictions for
range students.

Council , Roper, and Sadof35 compared range and non-range driver edu—

cation students in North Carolina. Methodology included sampling the

32

class rolls of the seven orginial range programs in North Carolina and of
seventeen randomly chosen non-range schools for the same year. Names were
then linked with subsequent driving history as recorded by the North Caro-
lina Department of Motor vehicles, and resulting data were comparatively
examined by various accident and violation classes and time periods. The
categorical analyses indicated no significant differences between the
range group and the non-range group based on accident histories.

Through the use of accident and violation involvement, Shaoul36 con—
cluded that driver education was usually observed to be significantly re-
lated to a reduction in accidents and violations. However, an investiga-
tion into the nature of this relationship showed that it was onetof asso-
ciation with a third variable, namely experience and exposure to risk,
rather than a direct causal one. The cognitive factor was an important
element in the driving task. However, he found little evidence to suggest
that driver education had been instrumental in altering driving behavior.

Conger, Miller, and Rainey37, studied the effects of driver educa—
tion, the role of motivation, intelligence, social class, and exposure,
and found some questionable results. In this study, the accident and vio—
lation records of three groups of adolescent male drivers during their
first four years of driving were compared. One group elected to take
driver education and completed the course; another group consisted.of stu-
dents wishing to take driver education but who were unable to do so; and
the third group consisted of students who did not wish to take driver
education and did not.

Conger, et al. found that subjects in selféelected groups scored

significantly lower than those in the two other groups on violations and

33

points. No significant differences were obtained for responsible acci—
dents, although the elected group and the group that did not take driver
education.scored lowest. The analysis also revealed significant differ—
ences between the three groups on exposure (miles driven per year), socio-
economic status, and intelligence.

Among findings of the Conger study was the fact that the results of
studies purporting to show differences in driver behavior between students
who have and those who have not had driver education may be influenced by

factors other than the driver training experience itself.

Driver Education Cost Studies

 

The expense involved in the operation of the driver education program
has been of prime concern. The following studies dealt with the expenses
involved in driver education, and low they vary from one program to anoth-
er.

Budig38 investigated the relationship between the average cost per
pupil for driver education in Illinois with selected variables. Those
variables included: 1) location of school in state; 2) average daily
attendance; 3) assessed valuation per pupil; 4) use of simulation, multi—
ple/car driving ranges, and/or dual-control cars as laboratory methods;
and 5) the time of day, week, or school year during which the laboratory
phase was taken.

A cost—effectiveness study of driver education was done in Texas by
Vernon and Phillips39. The study was designed to consider the effective-
ness of the "30 and 6" program and the simulator program in terms of the
effects on operators of passenger cars. Fbur program combinations were

studied:

34

1. Two-phase program A: Thirty hours of classroom instruction, six

hours of in—car observations, six hours of behind the wheel
instruction. Urban programs were identified and classified
separately from rural programs.

2. Two-phase program B: Educational television was used as the
thirty-six tours of classroom instruction, six tours of in-car
observation, and six tours of behind-the-wheel instruction were
used.

3. Three-phase program: Thirty hours of classroom instruction,

twelve tours of simulation, six hours of in-car observation, and

three hours of behind-the-wheel practice driving.

4. Four-phase program: Thirty hours of class room instruction,

twelve tours of simulation, four to six hours of in-car Observa-

tion, and three tours of on—street practice driving.
Approximately 7,000 students were selected randomly from the pool of
students who had completed a particular type of instructional program in
driver education in the sctool year 1966-67 or 1968-69. Matching cases
(controls) were young drivers who had not completed a formal program of
driver education. A data pool of 4,759 pairs of drivers was established.
Criteria used to determine effectiveness of the various programs
were: (1) performance rates: a) accident rates; b) severity rates; and
c) violation rates; (2) accident type; (3) environmental conditions; (4)
chargeable violations; and (5) moving violations. Official driving rec-
ords were the source of performance data. These data, with appropriate
facts furnished by the Texas Educational Agency, allowed the investi-
gators to rank the different driver education programs in terms of:
(1) effectiveness of the program in producing a violation and collision—
free driver; (2) the cost of providing the educational programs; and (3)
the cost—effectiveness associated with each of the four types of driver

education programs .

35

The findings of the study were:

1. Using conviction criterion, students of "30 and 6" program had
no better driving records than students wittout driver educa-
tion. Using collision criterion, students of a "30 and 6" pro-
gram had significantly greater collision involverent than their
matched pairs.

2. Using conviction criterion, students of simulator training were
significantly better drivers than those witlout driver educa-
tion. Using collision criterion, no statistically significant
differences were found.

3. Using conviction, collision, and severity criteria, simulator
training programs produced better drivers than did the "30 and
6" program.

4. Cbst per student for simulation training was significantly less

expensive than "30 and 6", and driver performance by students
taught by the simulator method was significantly better than
performance of "30 and 6" subjects. (bet per pupil for simu-
lation taught by assistants was less than cost of tlose programs
taught by certified teachers. Cost per students in the "30 and
6" programs was lower in urban than suburban areas.

Klepak40 found that programs planned with the laboratory phase (on-
street driving) conducted exclusively outside of the regular sclool day
(after school), Saturdays, or during the summer months, had per pupil
costs far lower than those programs which conducted all the driving exper—
iences during the sclool day. He attributed the lower cost to the fact
that teachers were willing to teach on an overload basis that paid them
less per contact hour than they earned during the regular sctool day.

This study along with the California study41 reported that a sizeable

amount of money could be saved by either offering the driver education out

Of the regular school day or by contracting to commerical driving schools.

Studies That Used The Survey/Questionnaire Data Gathering Technique

 

Hardt42 examined the relationship between a personal, oral interview

and a group-administered written questionnaire. The study was conducted

36

in order to examine the efficiency of the two methods when their content
is identical. The information gained through the two procedures was com-
pared in termslof agreement between methods, and between each.method and
an external criterion. The subjects were two groups of 40 Oregon high
school seniors. The subjects were randomly assigned to one of the meth-
ods. The information received was categorized either as school perform-
ance or as biographical background content. This permitted making method
comparisons in terms of two types of content. The results of the statis-
tical analyses indicated that the personal, oral interview and the group-
administered written questionnaire were highly comparable; they provide
essentially the same information.

Preston and Harris43 in their study used interviews with fifty sub-
jects (while they were in the hospital as a result of a traffic accident)
and then compared the results with police records. The results were a
very reliable measure as far as accidents and violations were concerned.
The discrepencies came where they rated themselves as drivers. Mast rated
themselves as expert or close to expert drivers. Some of the resultslof
the study were as follows:

1. Most accidents occurred on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.

2. There was no concentration of accidents on any particular day.

3. Hit-fixed objects were major factors along with overturned vehi—
cles on the roadway (22 of 50 of this type).

An unusual factor in this study was the followsup description of the
accidents by the drivers. The following are comments made:
15 - careless, preoccupied, tired, speeding, etc.
5 — partially responsible for the accident

30 - blamed other drivers and conditions

37

POIice reports showed thirty-four were responsible for the accidents.
Other drivers were only responsible for nine accidents. No responsibility
was fixed for seven accidents.

Barr, Davis, and JOhnson44 have stated that carefully planned
questionnaires, with due consideration of the ability and willingness of
potential respondents to supply data, are capable of yielding reasonably
accurate results. Also, the questionnaire survey technique of data gath-
ering is generally regarded as more dependable when used to obtain facts
rather than.opinions.

Quensel and Talkington45 of the Traffic and Safety Education Section
of the Home Economics and Industrial Technology Department at Illinois
State University conducted a four-year driver education curriculum devel-
opment project. This project was designed to assist the Illinois Office
of Education with the implementation and evaluation of the state driver
education curriculum guide. The main objective of driver education is to
help produce safer drivers, and a safe driver is defined as one who can
avoid traffic collisions. Therefore, the effectiveness of the new curri—
culum for reducing highway collisions had to be determined. Tb carry out
this type of evaluation, the collection and analysis of student collision
records was required. Student survey questionnaires were prepared for
this purpose. A three—step verification process was developed to deter-
mine if student responses represented a true record of their driving and
collision experiences. These steps included: 1) visual inspection of all
questionnaires returned; 2) personal interviews with students; and 3)
comparison of the number of collisions for representative sample with

official records in the Illinois Secretary of State's Office. This pro-

38

ject studied as a verification process, a random sample with office rec-
ords. One hundred thirty students or 29% of the 450 driver records in-
dicated fewer accidents than were reported by students. Ninety students
reported one accident, but Secretary of State records slowed tone. As a
result of these analyses, it was determined that the self-reporting survey
technique could be used as a tool for determining whether or not one driv-

er education program was more effective than another.

Summary

The investigation of the research and literature has revealed no
study in recent years which investigated the relationships of variables of
the same order as this research study. No research appears to have been
conducted to determine low the variables affect the collision experiences
of driver education students in North Carolina.

Very soon after the enactment of the Highway Safety Act of 1966,
studies evaluating the effectiveness of driver education were initiated.
One of the earlier studies was the Detroit study46. This early study did
not have many controls incorporated into it and because of the relatively
small sample, no statistical significance could be ascertained.

Recent studies of major importance concerned with the effectiveness
of driver education in reducing collisions have been done in Texas47 and
California48. A driver education program study concerned cost effective-
ness was done in New York49. All three of these studies were mainly con-
cerned with cost, although the California and Texas studies were broader
in scope than the New York study.

Lbst of the early studies in driver education were conducted to de-

termine if drivers without a formal course in driver education had fewer

39

or more accidents than those students completing a formal course. Many of
these studies did not control for exposure and the sample selection was
questionable. Most of the earlier studies showed fewer collisions for
high school driver educationztrained students, but the results are ques—
tionable since most were not controlled studies.

Studies of driving records of exceptional students in driver educa—
tion showed that they were capable of operating a.motor vehicle safely
after completing formal high school driver education programs.

Some studies have shown that young drivers have high rates of acci-
dents, but they should not be attributed to any deficiency in the sensory
and phyical functions. They should be attributed to inexperience, emo—
tional and social immaturity, and tempermental qualities.

In chapter three, the design and methodology will be presented.

10.

11.

12.

FOOTNOTES

Gutshall, Robert W., Charles Harper, and Donald Burke. Exceptional
Children, 1968, pp. 43—47.

 

Pelz, Donald C. "Driver Motivations and Attitudes." Driver Be-
havior, Cause and Effect. Insurance Institute For Highway Safety,
Washington, DC, 1968, p. 103.

 

 

Dubin, Samuel S. "EMotion and Traffic Accidents.” Traffic Safety
Research Review, 1961, 5(20), pp. 4-9.

 

 

Kaestner, Noel F. "The Similarity of Traffic Involvement Records of
YOung Drivers in Fatal Traffic Accidents." Traffic Safety Research
Review, 1964, 8(2), pp. 34—39.

 

Campbell, B.J. ”Driver Age and Sex Related to Accident Time and
Type.” Traffic Safety Research Review, 1966, 10(2), pp. 36-43.

 

Levonian, Edward. "Prediction of Accidents and convictions." Traf—
fic Safety Research Review, 1967, 11(3), pp. 75-79.

 

Carlson; W.L. and D. Klein, ”Familiar vs Institutional Socialization
of the YOung Traffic Offender.” JOurnal of Safety Research, 1970,
2(1), pp. 13—25.

 

Pelz, Donald C. and Stanley H. Schuman. "Are Young Drivers Really
Ibre Dangerous After Controlling for Exposure and Experience?" Jour—
nal of Safety Research, 1971, 3(2), pp. 68-78.

 

Signori, Edro I. and Roland G. Bowman. "On the Study of Personality
Factors in Research on Driving Behavior." Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 1974, 38(3), pp. 1067-1076.

 

Boyce, Lorinne and E. Cunningham Dax. ”Driver Education and Driving
Offenses in YOung Males." Journal of the Australian Research Board,
1975, 5(7), pp. 24-43.

 

Buttiglieri, M.W. and M. Guenette. "Driving Record of Neuropsychi-
atric Patients." JOurnal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 51(2), pp. 96-
100.

 

Copley, Patrick O'Neil. "A Study of a Surmer High School With a Com—
parative Analysis of Academic Achieverent in a Sumrer High School and
the Regular School." Arizona State University, 1967. Dissertation
Abstracts, 1968, 28, no. 7, 2434-A.

 

40

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

41

Leach, Joseph William. "An Investigation and Comparison of a Sumer
Field Biology Course With a Traditional Classroom Biology Course.
University of Georgia, 1968. Dissertation Abstracts, 1969, 29, no.
8, 2441—A.

 

Walker, Roy Lavern. "An Analysis of Students' and Teachers' Cbncepts
of Secondary Summer School." University of Missouri, 1967. Dissert-
ation Abstracts, 1968, 28, no. 7, 2509-A.

 

Tack, Leland R. Iowa Driver Evaluation Survey. Conducted under the
PRIDE (Program Research in Driver Education) Project, September,
1975.

 

Shively, JOe E. and William Asher. "Characteristics of Students Who
Could Not Take and Schools Which Did Not Offer Driver Training."
JOurnal of Educational Research, 1970, 64, pp. 185-9.

 

Smith, Lawton K. Evaluation of the Driver Education Program. The
Detroit Public Schools, June, 1968.

 

Ibid.

 

Lyle, Kathryn. "A (bmparative Study of haffic Violations of a (13m-
petency Based Driver Education Program Versus a Fbur-Phase Driver
Education Program." Texas A&M University, 1977. Dissertation Ab—
tracts International, 1977, 38, no. 4, 1941-A.

 

 

Kavanaugh, Keith J., Warren A. Kemper, and Edward R. Klamm. "The
High School Student and the Automobile." Traffic Safety Research
Review, 1960, 4(2), pp. 4-8.

 

Ibid.

 

Jones, Margaret Hubbard. California Driver Training Evaluation
Study: Final Report, Los Angeles: University of California, Decem-
ber, 1973.

 

 

Ibid.

 

Klepak, Daniel. Cost Variations in Driver Education: A Survey of 67
Public School Programs. Albany: New York State Office of Education
Review, State of New York, April, 1974.

 

 

Loft, Bernard 1. "The Effects of Driver Education on Driver Know-
ledge and Attitudes In Selected Public Secondary Schools." Traffic
Safety Research Review, 1960, 4(2), pp. 12-15.

 

Kavanaugh, Keith J., Warren A. Kemper, and Edward R. Klamm. "The
High School Student and the Automobile." Traffic Safety Research
Review, 1960, 4(2), pp. 4—8.

 

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

42

Shively, JOe E. and William Asher. "Characteristics of Students Who
Could Not Take and Schools Which Did not Offer Driver Training."
JOurnal of Educational Research, 1970, 64, pp. 185-9.

 

Gutshall, Robert W., Charles Harper, and Donald Burke. Exceptional
Children, 1968, pp. 43-47.

 

Bologna, James F. et al. "The Measurement and Clmparison of Varia-
bles Related to Driver and Highway Safety Between Educable Mentally
Retarded and Normal High School Age Students in Pennsylvania." De-
partment of Special Education, Millersville State College, Millers-
ville, Pennsylvania, 1971, pp. 127-128.

Gutshall, Robert W. , Charles Harper, and Ibnald Burke. Exceptional
Children, 1968, pp. 43-47.

 

Florio, A.E. and W.J. Huffman. "Teenage Drivers in Illinois."
Illinois Journal of Education, LV(March 1964).

 

Boyce, Lorinne and E. Cunningham Dax. "Intelligence and Driving Of-
fenses in YOung Males." JOurnal of the Australian Road Research
Board, 1973, 5(40), pp. 3—19.

 

Moss, Roy George. "A Comparative Analysis of a Competency-Based
Driver Education Program Versus a Four-Phase Driver Education Pro-
gram." Texas A&M University, 1977. Dissertation Abstracts Inter-
national, 1977, 38, No. 4, 1944—A.

 

Dreyer, Dell R. and Mary K. Janke. The Effects of Range Versus Non—
Range Driver Training on the Accident and Conviction Frequencies of
Young Drivers. Sacramento: California Department of Motor Vehicles,
May, 1977.

 

 

 

Council, Forest M., Rita B. Roper, and Michael G. Sadof. An Evalu-
ation of NOrth Carolina's Multi-Vehicle Range Program in Driver Edu-

 

cation: A (bmparison of Driving Histories Of RaIIEe and Non—Range

 

Students. Highway Safety Research Center, University of North Caro-
lina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1975.

Shaoul, Jean. The Use of Accidents and Traffic Offenses as Criteria
for Evaluating Courses in Driver Education. Salford, England:
Salford University, 1975.

 

 

Cbnger, John J., Wilbur C. Miller, and Robert V. Rainey. "Effect of
Driver Education: The Role of Motivation, Intelligence, Social
Class, and Exposure." Traffic Safety Research Review, 1968, 10(3),
pp. 67-71.

 

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

43

Budig, Ronald L. "A Study of the (bsts of Driver Education Programs
in the Public Schools of Illinois." Illinois State University,
1976. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977 , 37 , no. 7, 4006-A.

 

Verron, Ralph J. and M.B. Phillips. A Study of Public School Driver
Education in Texas. College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University.
Texas Transportation Institute, April, 1972.

 

 

Klepak, Daniel. Cost Variations in Driver Education: A Survey of 67
Public School Programs. Albany: New York State Office of Education
Review, State of New York, April, 1974.

 

 

Jones, Margaret Hubbard. California Driver fiaining Evaluation
Study: Final Report. Los Angeles: University of California, Decem-

 

 

ber, 1973.

Hardt, Fritz A. "The Cbmparability and Accuracy of Information Pro-
vided by Interview and Questionnaire Techniques." University of
Oregon, 1969. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 30, no. 8,
3320-A-3321 -A .

 

Preston, C.E. and S. Harris. "Psyctology of Drivers in Traffic Acci-
dents." Journal of Applied Psychology, 1965, 49, pp. 284—288.

 

Barr, Arvil S., Robert A. Davis, and Palmer 0. Johnson. Educational
Research and Appraisal. Chicago: J .B. Lippincott Cbmpany, 1953.

 

 

Quensel, Warren P. and Dr. Joseph E. Talkington. Traffic and Safety
Education Section, Home Economics and Industrial Technology Depart-
ment, Illinois State University. Driver Education erriculun Mate-
rials for Illinois Demonstration Center and Satellite Schools.
Springfield: Illinois Office of Education, 1976.

 

 

Smith, Lawton K. Evaluation of the Driver Education Program. The
Detroit Public Schools, June, 1968.

 

Verron, Ralph J. and M.B. Phillips. A Study of Public Sctool Driver
Education in Texas. College Station Texas: Texas A&M University.
Texas Transportation Institute, April, 1972.

 

 

Jones, Margaret Hubbard. California Driver Raining Evaluation
Study: Final Report. Los Angeles: University of California, Decem-
ber, 1973.

 

 

Klepak, Daniel. Cost Variations in Driver Education: A Survey of 67
Public School Programs. Albany: New York State Office of Education
Review, State of New York, April, 1974.

 

 

CHAPTER 3
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Population

 

The population of this study included students who had completed
driver education in school year 1980—81 in North Carolina schools which:
(1) offered traditional driver education programs during the academic

school year, and (2) offered summer driver education programs.

Sampling Design

 

This was an ex post facto study. Data were collected from a random
sample of 500 students from 10 randomly selected North Carolina Public
Schools which offered driver education. The sample was generated from the
population of North Carolina public school students who completed driver
education during the school year 1980-81 and summer 1981. A total of 500
students made up the sample for this study; two hundred and fifty students
who completed the traditional driver education program during the regular
school year, and two hundred and fifty students who had completed driver
education during the summer.

External validity in the study design was controlled by the use of
the random sampling technique permitting inference of the sample find-
ings to the population from which the sample was drawn.

A random sampling design was used as per the following:

44

45

Legend:

1 (100 Counties Tbtal)
10 (1 School per county)
25 (Students per school)
25 (Students per school)

State of North Carolina
Counties Selected

Summer Driver Education
Traditional Driver Education

Strata 2

1 x 10 x 2 x 25 = 500 students
(State of NC) (Counties) (Strata) (Students)

Where:

Surmer Driver Education: (Stratum I)

1 x 10 x 25 = 250 Students

(State of NC) (Cbunties (Students)

Traditional Driver Education: (Stratum II)

1 x 10 x 25 = 250 Students
(State of NC) (Counties) (Students)
Total = 500 Students

The age of the selected students was 16-18 years. The length of time
since completing driver education was 18-24 months. The traditional or
regular school year driver education group had 30 hours of classroom and
six hours of behind-the-wheel instruction spread over the entire semester.
The summer driver education group had 30 hours of classroom and six hours
of behind-the-wheel instruction condensed into the summer session of four
to six weeks. Both groups had completed the standard course of driver
education which requires 30 hours of classroom and six hours of behind-
the—wheel instruction.

The dependent variables were the number of accidents and the number
of convictions for moving violations per selected student. The indepen-
dent variables were the length of time the selected students have been
licensed to drive, the time of year in which the selected students com,
pleted driver education, the total miles driven following instruction per

year, grade point average, and the sex of the selected students.

Survey Instrument

 

The instrument used to collect data on the students was The Driver
Education Evaluation Survey (See Appendix A) which was developed and vali—
dated by Mr. Warren P. Quensel and the Traffic and Safety Education Staff
at Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois in 19761. The survey con-
sisted of seventy items divided into four major categories: (1) sugges-
tions for improving driver education courses, (2) driving experience, (3)
collision experience, and (4) type of crash.

This instrument was expanded by adding the following questions to
the demographic data section and the driving experience section of the
survey form: (1) Sex? (2) Grade point average? (3) When did you take
the behind-the-wheel phase of driver education? (4) When did you take the
classroom phase of driver education? (5) How many convictions have you
received for moving violations as a driver since completing driver educa-

tion?

47

The Data Col lection

 

The information that was used for the comparison of surmer and tra-

ditional driver education programs was obtained from a self-reporting

survey which is presented in Appendix A. The survey has 70 questions. The
first 28 questions were answered by all students surveyed. These ques-
tions deal with the student's sex, age, grade point average, when driver
education instruction was received, general information concerning driving
experience, suggestions for improvement of driver education, and the num-
ber of convictions for moving violations received. Questions 29 through
70 were answered by students wto had been involved in traffic accidents.

A student who had been involved in one traffic accident was asked to ans-
wer questions 28 through 44; a student who had been involved in two traf-
fic accidents was asked to answer questions 45 through 57; and a student
who had been involved in three traffic accidents was asked to answer ques-
tions 58 through 70. These questions asked specific information about the
traffic accidents in which they were involved. The questions asked con—
cerning the student's second and third traffic accidents were the same as
those dealing with the student's first traffic accident.

Initial contact with the schools involved in the randomly-selected
counties in this study was made through a teleptone call and letter to the
principal of each randomly-selected high scrool during the month of August
1982. hiring the teleplone conversation and letter, the length and con-
tent of the survey to be administered was discussed as well as the purpose
of the study. After obtaining permission to allow the survey to be admin-
istered at his/her school, the survey was completed in classes, homerooms,
and special rooms by the selected students. A person appointed by the

principal administered the survey.

48

The procedure for administration of the survey followed the same
format at each school. The students were told the purpose for conducting
the study and the role they would assume in the research. The students
were assured that their identity would remain anonymous during and follow-
ing the study. Finally, the students were instructed to read carefully
all directions preceeding the first question, as well as all other direc-
tions presented throughout the survey. After the brief instructions, the
students were requested to complete the survey which took 15 minutes on
the average.

The Descriptive Analysis of School Program Form (Appendix B) was
completed by the driver education teachers or department chairman of the
selected schools. This form provided a descriptive analysis of the in-

dividual driver education programs.

Analysis of the Data

 

Fbllowing administration of the questionnaires, the data were coded
and subsequently tabulated on IBM data cards, then computed using the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.2 For the purpose of this
study, the computer program chosen permitted additional analysis and in-
terpretation of the data.

The categorical data were analyzed by computer through the use of the
parametric statistical technique called chi square.

[chi square = :E, (observed - expected)2]
expected

 

Variables which were included for analysis in this study included sex,
whether the student received driver education instruction during the sum-
mer or during the regular school year, whether or not the student had been

involved in a traffic accident, the school the student attended, and

49

whether or not the student had been convicted for moving violations. A
.05 level of significance was used to test significance of difference of
means.

Because of the amount of data collected and the number of variables
tested, one of the first statistical treatments consisted of a simple fre—
quency tabulation of all the variables.

The interactive effect of traffic involvement and moving violaton
convictions with summer driver education and traditional driver eduction
was analyzed through the use of the multivariate analysis of variance
statistic (2 way MANOVA). A .05 level of significance was used to deter—
mine the significance of the difference of means.

The two way MANOVA is as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Way MANOVA
Male Female
Summer Y 3(—
D.E. TI TI
Y I?
C C
Trad. 5(- 5(-
D E TI TI
X If
C C
Legend:
T1 = Traffic Involverent
C = Convictions
DE = Driver Education

The Hypotheses

 

”01‘ There will be no difference in the accident involvement between
students taught to drive in a sumer driver education program and
students taught to drive in a traditional driver education program.

Hla: There will be a difference in the accident involvement between stu-
dents taught to drive in a sumer driver education program and stu-
dents taught in a traditional driver education program.

H02: There will be no difference in the number of convictions for moving
violations of students taught in a summer or a traditional driver
education program.

H23: There will be a difference in the number of convictions for moving
violations of students taught in a summer or a traditional driver
education program.

51

First Hypothesis:

 

Ho: U1 = U2
TMSG TMSG

Legend: U1 = Summer driver education accident group>mean
U2 = Traditional driver education accident group mean
T = Time licensed in.months
M = Miles driven
S = Sex of students
G = Grade Point Average

Alternate Hypothesis:

Hla: U1 1 U2

 

 

TMSG TMSG
Legend: U1 = Summer driver education accident group mean
U2 = Traditional driver education accident grouprmean
T = Time licensed in months
M = Miles driven
S = Sex of students
G = Grade Point Average

Second Hypothesis:

 

I'bz: U1 = U2
TMSG TMSG
Legend: U1 = Summer driver education violation group mean
U2 = Traditional driver education violation group mean
T = Time licensed in months
M = Miles driven
S = Sex of students
G = Grade Point Average

Alternative Hypothesis:

H221: U1 7 U2

 

 

TMSG TMSG
Legend: U1 = Summer driver education violation group mean
U2 = Traditional driver education violation group mean
T = Time licensed in months
M = Miles driven
S = Sex of students
G = Grade PDint Average

Summary

This was an ex post facto study. Data were collected from a random
sample of 500 students from ten randomly selected North carolina Public
Schools which offered driver education during the school year 1980—81 and
the summer of 1981. Of the students surveyed, two hundred and fifty had
completed the traditional driver education program during the school year,
and two hundred and fifty had completed driver education during the sum—
mer.

The categorical data were analyzed by computer through the use of the
parametric statistical technique called chi square. Variables which were
included for analysis in this study include sex, whether the student re—
ceived driver education instruction during the summer or during the regu-
lar school year, whether or not the student had been involved in a traffic
accident, the school the student attended, and whether or not the student
had been convicted for moving violations. A t—test was used to analyze
primary questions because it is a parametric statistic which is a.more
powerful test than the chi square test or a nonparametric statistic. Some
of the data were analyzed through the use of the multivariate analysis of
variance statistic (2 way MANOVA).

In chapter four, the analysis of the data will be presented.

FOOTNOTES

Quensel, Warren P. and Dr. Joseph E. Talkington. Traffic and Safety
Education Section, Home Ebonomics and Industrial Technology Depart-
ment, Illinois State University. Driver Education Curriculum Mate-
rials for Illinois Demonstration Center and Satellite Schools.
Springfield: Illinois Office of Education, 1976.

 

 

Nie, Norman and C. Hadlai Hull et a1. Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences. Second Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book (bm-
pany, 1975.

 

 

53

CHAPTER4

ANALYS IS OF THE DATA

The central purpose of this study was to determine if there was a
difference in accident involvement and moving violation convictions of
students enrolled in sumer (over a short period of time) driver education
programs versus students in traditional (over a longer period of time)
driver education programs.

The study used a self-reporting driver education evaluation survey as
the instrument to determine if summer or traditional driver education
programs indicated differences on high school drivers' accident involve-
ment and convictions for moving violations.

The sample population of this study consisted of 465 students from 10
high schools; 175 students wto had completed driver education in the sum-
mer of 1981, and 290 students who had completed driver education in the
traditional or regular school year of 1980-81.

The students and the ten sctools in this study were selected randomly
in North Carolina. Each of the 100 North Carolina counties was assigned a
number from 1 through 100. A table of random numbers was then used to
select ten counties for the study. After the ten counties were chosen,
sctools were then selected by the use of a table of random numbers. The
students in the schools were selected randomly by taking every third name
out of a list of students that completed the summer or traditional pro-

gram .

55

During the fall of 1982, the students were asked to respond to the
Driver Education Evaluation Survey (see Appendix A). The data collected
from the survey consisted of the students' responses to 70 items which
were divided into four major categories: (1) suggestions for improving
driver education courses, (2) driving experiences, (3) collision experi-
ences, and (4) type of crash. In the driving experiences category, ques—
tion #29 asked the students how many moving violation convictions they had
received since completing driver education.

The mettods of analysis used in this study were the t-test and chi
square. A t-test statistic was used primarily because it is a parametric
statistic which is a more powerful test than the chi square test or a
nonparametric statistic. A t—test provides for an analysis of the dif—
ference of the means of the two sample groups tested, while the chi square
test measures the difference in cell frequencies. A t-test statistic was
also used because it lessens the chance of making a type II error (accept—

ing a hypothesis that is false).

Data Analyses

 

The primary purpose of this study was to find if there was a differ-
ence in traffic accident involverent and moving violation convictions of
students enrolled in summer (over a short length of time) driver education
programs versus students taught in traditional (over a longer period of
time) driver education programs. In answering these questions, analyses
were also made on the following: (1) the relationship between traffic
accident involvement and the period of time in which driver education
instruction was received; (2) the relationship between traffic accident

involvement and the sex of the student; (3) the relationship between traf-

56

fic accident involvement and grade point average; (4) the relationship
between traffic accident involvement and time since licensed to drive; (5)
the relationship between traffic accident involvement and miles driven the
past twelve months; (6) the relationship between the student receiving a
conviction for a moving violation and the period of time in which driver
education instruction was received; (7) the relationship between the stu-
dent receiving a moving violation conviction and the sex of the student;
and (8) the relationship between the student receiving a moving violation
conviction and miles driven the past twelve months.

In Tables 1 and 1a, summaries of the analyses of traffic accident
involvement by the time period during which high school driver education
instruction was received are presented. Of the 465 students surveyed, 406
had no traffic accident involvement while 59 had one or more. One hundred
seventy—five or 37.6%»of the students took driver education in the summer
while 290 or 62.4% took the traditional driver education program. Of the
175 who took driver education in the summer, 152 or 86.9% had no traffic
accident involvement while 23 or 13.1% had one or more. Of the 290 who
took the traditional program, 254 or 87.6% had no traffic accident involve—
ment while 36 or 12.4% had one or more.

Upon performing a t—test, a value of 2.58 was needed for signifi-
cance. A value of 0.227 was obtained which was not statistically signi-
ficant at the 0.05 level; thus, there was not a significant difference in
accident involvement between students who completed a traditional driver
education program and those completing a summer driver education program.
That is, the number of accidents experienced by the students did not vary
significantly by the time period in which driver education instruction was

received.

57

Table 1
Traffic Accident Involvement by Time Period HSDE Received

(Across Time Period)

 

 

Traffic Accident Involvement

 

 

 

 

Time Period
HSDE Received None 1 or More Tbtal_
N % N % N %
Summer 152 37.4 23 39.0 175 37.6
Traditional 254 62.6 36 61.0 290 62.4
Total 406 100.0 59 100.0 465 100.0
Table 1a

Traffic Accident Involvement by time Period HSDE Received

(Within Time Period)

 

 

Traffic Accident Involvement

Time Period

 

 

 

HSDE Received None 1 or More Tbtal

N % N % N %
Summer 152 86.9 23 13.1 175 100.0
Traditional 254 87.6 36 12.4 290 100.00

t value = 0.227*

 

 

*Not Significant at the 0.05 level

58

In Tables 2 and’ 2a, summaries of the analyses of moving violations by
time period during which high school driver education was received are
presented. Of the 465 students surveyed, 434 of students had no moving
violation while 31 had one or more. One hundred seventy-five or 37.6%
took driver education during the summer while 290 or 62.4% took the tradi—
tional driver education program. Of the 175 who took driver education in
the summer, 14 or 8.0% had one or more moving violations. Of the 290 who
were in the traditional driver education program, 17 or 6.0% had one or
more moving violations.

Upon performing a t-test, a value of 2.58 was needed for signifi—
cance. A value of 0.863 was obtained which was not statistically signi-
ficant at the 0.05 level; thus, there was not a significant difference in
moving violation convictions between students who completed a traditional
driver education proram and those completing a summer driver education

program .

59

Table 2
Moving Violations by Time Period HSDE Received

(Across Time Period)

 

 

Moving Violations

Time Period

 

 

 

 

 

HSDE Received NOne 1 or More Total
N % N % N %
Summer 161 37.1 14 45.2 175 37.6
Traditional 273 62.9 17 54.8 290 62.4
Tbtal 434 100.0 31 100.0 465 100.0
Table 2a

Moving Violations by time Period HSDE Received

(Within Time Period)

 

 

Moving Violations

 

 

 

Time Period
HSDE Received None 1 or More Total
N % N % N %
Summer 161 92.0 14 8.0 175 100.0
Traditional 273 94.1 17 5.9 290 100.0

t value = 0.863*

 

 

*Not Significant at the .05 level

60

Analysis of Time Period HSDE Received

 

In Tables 3 - 7, the summaries of the analyses of the time period
during which high school driver education was received are presented.

In Tables 3 and 3a, summaries of the analyses of sex by time period
during which high school driver education was received are presented.

Four hundred sixty—five students participated in the study; 200 of
the students were males while 265 were females. One hundred twenty-eight
or 73.1%,of those who took driver education in the summer were males while
47 or 26.9% were females. Seventy-two or 24.8%»of those who were in the
traditional driver education program were males while 218 or 75.2% were
females.

A x2 value of 3.84 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 101.98 was obtained which was significant at the .05
level. That is, the time period in which driver education instruction was
received did vary significantly by the sex of the students. There were
siginificantly more females than males in the traditional driver education
program while significantly more males than females were in the summer

driver education program.

61

Table 3
Sex by Time Period HSDE Received

(Across Time Period)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex
Time Period
HSDE Received Male Female Total
N .72 .11 2 1‘1 E
Summer 128 73.1 47 26.9 175 37.6
Traditional 72 24.8 218 75.2 290 62.4
Tbtal 200 100.0 275 100.0 465 100.0
Table 3a
Sex by Time Period HSDE Received
(Within Time Period)
Sex
Time Period
HSDE Received Male £99219 Tbtal
E 12 E i E 2’6;
Summer 128 64.0 47 17.7 175 100.0
Traditional 72 36.0 218 82.3 290 100.0

chi square = 101.98**

 

 

**Significant at the .05 level

62

In Tables 4 and 4a, summaries of the analyses of age by time period
during which high school driver education was received are presented.

One hundred seventy-three of the students took driver education in
the summer while 282 took the traditional driver education program. Of
the 173 students in the summer driver education program, 3 or 1.7% were
15 years old, 89 or 51.4% were 16 years old, 74 or 42.8% were 17 years
old, and 7 or 4.1% were 18 years old. Of the 282 students in the tradition—
al driver education program, 104 or 36.9% were 16 years old, 165 or 58.5%
were 17 years old, and 13 or 4.6% were 18 years old. Ten students failed
to record their ages on the survey form.

A x2 value of 7.82 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 15,38 was obtained which was significant at the .05
level. That is, the time period in which driver education instruction was
received did vary significantly by the age of the student. Specifically,
significantly more 15 year old students were enrolled during the sumer
period while significantly more 16 year old and older students were en-

rolled in the traditional driver education program.

63

Table 4
Age by Time Period HSDE Received

(Across Time Period)

 

 

Time Period
HSDE Received

 

N % N % N % N % N %

 

 

 

 

Summer 3 100 89 46.1 74 31.0 7 35.0 173 38.0
Traditional 0 0 104 53.9 165 69.0 13 65.0 282 62.0
Tbtal 3 100 193 100.0 239 100.0 20 100.0 455 100.0

Table 4a

Age by Time Period HSDE Received
(Within Time Period)

Time Period Age
HSDE Received 15 16 17 18 Tbtal

 

Summer

Traditional

N % N % N % N % N %
3 1.7 89 51.4 74 42.8 7 4.1 173 100.0
0 0.0 104 36.9 165 58.5 13 4.6 282 100.0

chi square = 15.38**

 

 

**Significant at the .05 level

64

In Table 5 and 5a, summaries of the analyses of miles driven 12
months prior to the study by time period during which high school driver
education was received are presented.

Of the 175 students in the summer driver education program, 153 or
87.4% had driven 3000 or less miles while 22 or 12.6% had driven 3001 or
more miles 12 months prior to the study. Of the 290 students in the tra—
ditional driver education program, 246 or 84.8% had driven 3000 or less
miles while 44 or 15.2% had driven 3001 or more miles 12 months prior to
the study. Question #25 asked the students to respond to low many miles
they had driven 12 months prior to the study. The responses were from 0-
500 miles to 8001-12,000 miles. There were not erough responses to the
higher mileage numbers so the responses were collapsed. The students had
not driven many miles in the past 12 months. The category 2001-3000 miles
was the fourth response the students would have chosen, and the category
3001—4000 was the fifth response. This allowed for four categories of
equal length.

A x2 value of 3.84 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 0.41 was obtained which was not significant at the
.05 level. There was not a significant difference in the miles driven the
12 months prior to the study between students who were in the traditional

driver education program and those in the sumer driver education program.

65

Table 5
Miles Driven Past 12 Months by Time Period HSDE Received

(Across Time Period)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time Period Miles Driven Past 12 Months
HSDE Received 3000 or Less 3001 or More T9131
N % N % N %
Summer 153 38.3 22 33.3 175 37.6
Traditional 246 61.7 44 66.7 290 62.4
Total 399 100.0 66 100.0 465 100.0
Table 5a

Miles Driven Past 12 Months by Time Period HSDE Received

(Within Time Period)

 

 

 

 

 

Time Period Miles Driven Past 12 Months

HSDE Received 3000 or Less 3001 or More Total
N % N % N %

Summer 153 87.4 22 12.6 175 100.0

Traditional 246 84.8 44 15.2 290 100.0

chi square = 0.41*

 

 

*Not Significant at the .05 level

66

In Tables 6 and 6a, summaries of the analyses of grade point average
by time period during which high school driver education was received are
presented.

Of the 465 students surveyed, 175 or 37.6% took driver education in
the summer while 290 or 62.4% took the traditional driver education pro-
gram. Of the 175 students in the summer driver education program, 36 or
20.6% had a 1.00 GPA, 13 or 7.4% had a 2.00 CPA, 111 or 63.4% had a 3.00
GPA, and 15 or 8.6% had a 4.00 GPA. Of the 290 students in the tradi-
tional driver education program, 78 or 26.9% had a 1.00 GPA, 27 or 9.3%
had a 2.00 CPA, 154 or 53.1% had a 3.00 GPA, and 31 or 10.7 had a 4.00
GPA.

A x2 value of 7.82 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 4.77 was obtained which was not significant at the
.05 level. There was not a significant difference in the grade point
averages of students who were in the traditional driver education program

and students who were in the summer driver education program.

67

Table 6
Grade Raint Average by Time Period HSDE Received

(Across Time Period)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time Period Grade Point Average
HSDE Received L99 2.00 3.00 £00 M
N % N % N % N % N %
Sumer 36 31.6 13 32.6 111 41.9 15 32.6 175 37.6
Traditional 78 68.4 27 67.5 154 58.1 31 67.4 290 62.4
Tbtal 114 100.0 40 100.0 265 100.0 46 100.0 465 100.00
Table 6a

Grade Phint Average by Time Period HSDE Received

(Within Time Period)

 

 

 

Time Period Grade POint Average
HSDE Received _l_._(_)_0 2;O_0 £29 £0 _'_l_b_t_al

N % N % N % N % N %
Summer 36 20.6 13 7.4 111 63.4 15 8.6 175 100.0
Traditional 78 26.9 27 9.3 154 53.1 31 10.7 290 100.0

chi square 4.77*

 

 

*Not Significant at the .05 level

68

In Tables 7 and 7a, surmaries of the analyses of time since licensed
to drive by time period during which high sctool driver education was re-
ceived are presented. Of the 465 students surveyed, 175 or 37 .6% took
driver education in the summer while 290 or 62.4% took the traditional
driver education program. Of the 175 students in the summer driver edu-
cation program, 33 or 18.9% had driven six months or less, 93 or 53.1% had
driven six months to one year, 29 or 16.6% had driven one year to one and
one-half years, and 20 or 11.4% had driven one and one-half years plus
since licensed to drive. 0f the 290 students in the traditional driver
education program, 62 or 21.4% had driven six months or less, 108 or 37.2%
had driven six months to one year, 83 or 28.6% had driven one year to one
and one-half years, and 37 or 12.8% had driven one and one-half years plus
since licensed to drive.

A x2 value of 7.82 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 13.46 was obtained which was significant at the .05
level. That is, the time since licensed to drive did vary significantly
by the time period in which driver education instruction was received. The
students in the traditional driver education program had their licenses

longer than the students in the sumer driver education program.

69

Table 7
Time Since Licensed to Drive by Time Period HSDE Received
(Across Time Period)

 

 

Time Period Time Since Licensed to Drive
HSDE Received 6 mos/less 6 mos-1 yr 1 yr-llr yrs 1% yrs + Tbtal

 

 

 

N % N % N % N % N %
Summer 33 34.7 93 46.3 29 25.9 20 35.1 175 37.6
Traditional 62 65.3 108 53.7 83 74.1 37 64.9 290 62.4

Tbtal 95 100.0 201 100.0 112 100.0 57 100.0 465 100.0

 

 

Table 7a
Time Since Licensed to Drive by Time Period HSDE Received

(Within Time Period)

 

 

Time Period Time Since Licensed to Drive
HSDE Received 6 mos/less 6 mos-1 yr 1 yr-lls yrs 1% yrs + Tbtal

 

 

 

N % N % N % N % N %
Summer 33 18.9 93 53.1 29 16.6 20 11.4 175 100.0
Traditional 62 21.4 108 37.2 83 28.6 37 12.8 290 100.0

chi square = 13.46**

 

 

**Significant at the 0.05 level

70

Analysis of Traffic Accident Involvement

 

In Tables 8 - 13, the summaries of the analyses of traffic accident
involverent are presented.

Item 31 on the Driver Education Evaluation Survey asked for a re-
sponse to the number of traffic collisions the student was involved in
since the completion of driver education. The choices were from zero
collisions to a total of seven collisions.

In Tables 8 and 8a, surmaries of the analyses of traffic accident
involvement by sex are presented.

Of the 465 students surveyed, 406 had no traffic accident involvement
while 59 had one or more traffic accident involvements. Two hundred of
the students were males while 265 or were females. 0f the 200 males, 173
or 86.5% had no traffic accident involvement while 27 or 13.5% had one or
more traffic accident involvements. 0f the 265 females, 233 or 87.9% had
no traffic accident involvements while 32 or 12.1% had one or more traffic
accident involvements.

A x2 value of 3.84 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 0.10 was obtained which was not significant at the
.05 level. There was not a significant difference in traffic accident

involvement between males and females.

71

Table 8
Traffic Accident Involvement by Sex

(Across Sex)

 

 

Traffic Accident Involvement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

§§§ NOne 1 or More Tbtal
N % N % N %
Male 173 42.6 27 45.8 200 43.0
Female 233 57.4 32 54.2 265 57.0
Total 406 100.0 59 100.0 465 100.00
Table 8a
Traffic Accident Involvement by Sex
(Within Sex)
Traffic Accident Involvement
§§§ None 1 or More Tbtal
N % N % N %
Male 173 86.5 27 13.5 200 100.0
Female 233 87.9 32 12.1 265 100.00

chi square = 0.10*

 

 

*Not Significant at the .05 level

72

In Tables 9 and 9a, summaries of the analyses of traffic accident
involvement by age are presented.

Of the 465 students surveyed, 10 students did not indicate an age.
0f the 455 who had responded, 396 had no traffic accident involvement
while 59 had one or more traffic accident involvements. Of the 3 students
who were 15 years of age, 3 or 100.0% had no traffic accident involve-
ment. Of the 193 students who were 16 years old, 176 or 91.2% had no
traffic accident involvement, 17 or 8.8% had one or more traffic accident
involvements. 0f the 239 students who were 17 years old, 200 or 83.7% had
no traffic accident involvement, and 39‘or 16.3% had.one~or'more traffic
accident involvements. Of the 20 students who were 18 years old, 17 or
85.0% had not traffic accident involvelent, and 3 or 15.0% had one or more
traffic accident involvements.

A x2 value of 7.82 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 5.86 was obtained which was not significant at the
.05 level. There was not a significant difference in traffic accident

involvement of 15, 16, 17, and 18 year old students.

73

Table 9
Traffic Accident Involvement by Age

(Across Age)

 

 

Traffic Accident Involvement

 

Age None 1 or I'ore _T_b__til_

N % N % N %

15 3 0.8 0 0.0 3 0.7

16 176 44.4 17 28.8 193 42.4

17 200 50.5 39 66.1 239 52.5

18 17 4.3 3 5.1 20 4.4
Tbtal 396 100.0 59 100.0 455 100.0

Number of Missing Observations 10

 

 

Table 9a
Traffic Accident Involvement by Age

(Within Age)

 

 

haffic Accident Involvement

 

 

Ag None 1 or Ibre Tbtal
N % N % N %
15 3 100.0 '0 0.0 3 100.0
16 176 91.2 17 8.8 193 100.0
17 200 83.7 39 16.3 239 100.0
18 17 85.0 3 15.0 20 100.0

Number of Missing Observations = 10
chi square = 5.86*

 

 

*Not Significant at the .05 level

74

In Tables 10 and 10a, summaries of the analyses of traffic accident
involvement by miles driven 12 months prior to the study are presented.

Of the 465 students surveyed, 406 had no traffic accident involvement
while 59 had one or more traffic accident involvements. Three hundred
ninety-nine had driven 3000 or less miles the past 12 months while 66 had
driven 3001 or more miles. Of the 399 students who had driven 3000 or
less miles 12 months prior to the study, 360'or 90.2% had no traffic acci-
dent involvement, and 39 or 9.8% had one or more traffic accient involve-
ments. Of the 66 students who had driven 3001 or more miles 12 months
prior to the study, 46 or 69.7% had no traffic accident involvement, and
20 or 30.3% had one or more traffic accident involvements.

A x2 value of 3.84 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 19.73 was obtained which was significant at the .05
level. Students who had driven 3,000 miles or less in 12 months prior to
the study were significantly less involved in traffic accidents. However,
those students who had driven 3001 or more miles 12 months prior to the

study were significantly more involved in one or more traffic accidents.

75

Table 10

Traffic Accident Involvement by Miles Driven Past 12 Months

(Across Miles Driven)

 

 

Traffic Accident Involvement

Miles Driven

 

 

 

 

 

Past 12 Months None 1 or More Tbtal
N % N % N %
3000 or Less 360 88.7 39 66.1 399 85.8
3001 or More 46 11.3 20 33.9 66 14.2
Tbtal 406 100.0 59 100.0 465 100.0
Table 10a

Traffic Accident Involvement by Miles Driven Past 12 Months

(Within Miles Driven)

 

 

Traffic Accident Involvement

Miles Driven

 

 

Past 12 Months None 1 or More Tbtal
N % N % N %

3000 or Less 360 90.2 39 9.8 399 100.0

3001 or More 46 69 .7 20 30 . 3 66 100 .0

chi square = 19.73**

 

 

**Significant at the .05 level

76

In Tables 11 and'lla, summaries of the analyses of traffic accident
involvement by moving violations are presented.

0f the 465 students surveyed, 406 had no traffic accident involvement
while 59 had one or more traffic accident involvements. Of the 434 who
had no moving violations, 385 or 88.7% had no traffic accident involve-
mennts while 49 or 11.3% had one or more traffic accident involvements.

Of the 31 who had one or more moving violations, 21 or 67.7% had no traf-
fic accident involvements while lolor 32.3% had one or more traffic acci-
dent involvements.

A x2 value of 3.84 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 9.67 was obtained which was significant at the .05
level. Students who had experienced one more traffic accidents had signi-
ficantly more moving violation convictions than those students who had not

experienced traffic accidents.

77

Table 11

Traffic Accident Involvement by Moving Violations

(Across Moving Violations)

 

 

 

Traffic Accident Involvement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moving
Violations None 1 or More Tbtal
N % N % N in
None 385 94.8 49 83.1 434 93.3
1 or More 21 5.2 10 16.9 31 6.7
Total 406 100.0 59 100.0 465 100.0
Table 11a
Traffic Accident Involvement by Moving Violations
(Within roving Violations)
Traffic Accident Involvement
Moving
Violations None 1 or More Tbtal
N 5.3 N 52 N %
None 385 88.7 49 11.3 434 100.0
1 or More 21 67.7 10 32.3 31 100.0
chi square = 9.67**
**Significant at the 0.05 level

78

In Tables 12 and 12a, summaries of the analyses of grade point average
by traffic accident involvement are presented. The students in this study
had indicated their actual grade point averages on the Driver Education
Evaluation Survey form, but for statistical purposes, these grade point
averages were collapsed into categories. These categories were as follows:
GPA (lowest through 0.99 = 1), (1.00 through 1.99 = 2), (2.00 through
2.99 = 3), and (3.00 through highest = 4).

Of the 465 students surveyed, 406 or 87. % had no traffic accident
involvement while 59lor 12.7% had one or more traffic accident involve-
ments. 0f the 59 students who had one or more traffic accident involve-
ments 10 or 16.9% had a 1.00 GPA, 7 or 11.9% had a 2.00 GPA, 33 or 55.9%
had a 3.00 GPA, and 9 or 15.3% had a 4.00 GPA. 0f the 406 students with
no traffic accident involvements, 104 or 25.6% had a 1.00 GPA, 33 or 8.1%
had a 2.00 CPA, 232 or 57.1% had a 3.00 GPA, and 37 or 9.1% had a 4.00
GPA.

A x2 value of 7.82 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 4.39 was obtained which was not significant at the
.05 level. The grade point averages of the students were not significant-

ly related to traffic accident experience.

79

Table 12
Grade Point Average by Traffic Accident Involvement

(Across Traffic Accident)

 

 

Grade Point Average

Traffic Accident

 

Involvement 1.00 2 _._O_g 3.00 4.00 Tbtal
N t N 7, N % N r N %
None 104 91.2 33 82.5 232 87.5 37 80.4 406 87.3

1 or More 10 8.8 7 17.5 33 12.5 9 19.6 59 12.7

Tbtal 114 100.0 40 100.0 265 100.0 46 100.0 465 100.0

 

 

Table 12a
Grade Point Average by Traffic Accident Involvement

(Within Traffic Accident)

 

 

Grade Ibint Average

Traffic Accident

 

 

 

Involvement 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Tbtal
N % N % N % N % N %
None 104 25.6 33 8.1 232 57.1 37 9.1 406 100.0

1 or More 10 16.9 7 11.9 33 55.9 9 15.3 59 100.0

chi square = 4.39*

 

 

*Not Significant at .05 level

80

In Tables 13 and-13a, summaries of the analyses of time since licensed

to drive by traffic accident involvement are presented.

Of the 465 students surveyed, 406 had no accident involvements while
59 had one or more traffic accident involvements. Of the 406 who had to
traffic accident involvements, 268 or 66.0% had driven up to one year
since licensed to drive while 138 or 34.0% had driven one year or more.
Of the 59 who had one or more traffic accident involvements, 28 or 47.5%
had driven up to one year since licensed to drive while 31 or 52.5% had
driven one year or more.

A x2 value of 7.82 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 8.29 was obtained which was significant at the .05
level. Tlose students who had been licensed to drive for up to one year
time period were involved in significantly fewer accidents than tlose li-

censed for more than one year.

81

Table 13
Time Since Licensed to Drive by Traffic Accident Involvement

(Across Traffic Accident)

 

 

Traffic
Accident Time Since Licensed.to Drive
Involvement 6 mos/less 6 mos-1 yr 1 yr-l yrs 1 yrs +- Tbtal

 

 

 

N % N % N % N % N %
None 88 92.6 180 89.6 92 82.1 46 80.7 406 87.3
1 or More 7 7.4 21 10.4 20 17.9 11 19.3 59 12.7

Tbtal 95 100.0 201 100.0 112 100.0 57 100.0 465 100.0

 

 

Table 13a
Time Since Licensed to Drive by Traffic Accident Involvement

(Within Traffic Accident)

 

 

Traffic
Accident Time Since Licensed to Drive
Involvement 6 mos/less 6 mos-1 yr 1 yr-l yrs 1 yrs +. Tbtal

 

 

 

N % N % N % N % N %
None 88 21.7 180 44.3 92 22.7 46 11.3 406 100.0
1 or More 7 11.9 21 35.6 20 33.9 11 18.6 59 100.0

chi square = 8.29**

 

 

**Significant at the 0.05 level

82

Analysis of Moving Violations

 

In Tables 14 - 18, summaries of the analyses of moving violations by
students are presented.

Item 29 on the Driver Education EValuation Survey asked for a re-
sponse to the number of moving violation convictions the students had
received since completion of driver education. The choices were from zero
to seven moving violation convictions. If students had more than seven
accidents, they were told to write the number on the survey form.

In Tables 14 and 14a, surmaries of the analyses of moving violations
by time period during which high school driver education was received are
presented.

One hundred seventy-five of the students took driver education during
the summer, while 290 took the traditional driver education program. Of
the 175 who took driver education in the sumer, 161 or 92.0% had no mov-
ing violations while 14 or 8.0% had one or more moving violations. Of
the 290 students who were in the traditional driver education program,
273 or 91.4% had no moving violations while 17 or 5.9% had one or more
moving violations.

A x2 value of 3.84 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 0.49 was obtained which was not significant at the
.05 level. The number of students with moving violation convictions from
the traditional driver education program was not significantly different
than the number of students with moving violation convictions from the

summer driver education program.

83

Table 14
Moving Violations by Time Period HSDE Received

(Across Time Period)

 

 

Moving Violations

Time Period

 

 

 

 

HSDE Received None 1 or More .99321
N % N % N %
Summer 161 37.1 14 45.2 175 37.6
Traditional 273 62.9 17 54.8 290 62.4
Tbtal 434 100.0 31 100.0 465 100.0
Table 14a

Moving Violations by Time Period HSDE Received

(Within Time Period)

 

 

Moving Violations

Time Period

 

 

HSDE Received None 1 or More [Tbtal
N % N % N %
Summer 161 92.0 14 8.0 175 100.0
Traditional 273 94.1 17 5.9 290 100.0

chi square = 0.49*

 

 

*Not significant at the .05 level

84

In Tables 15 and 15a, summaries of the analyses of grade point aver-
age by moving violations are presented.

Of the 465 students surveyed, 434 had no moving violations while 31
had one or more moving violations. 0f the 434 students with no moving
violations, 105 or 24.2% had a 1.00 GPA, 38 or 8.8% had a 2.00 GPA, 246
or 56.7% had a 3.00 GPA, and 45 or 10.4% had a 4.00 GPA. Of the 31 stu—
dents with one or more moving violations, 9 or 29.0% had a 1.00 GPA, 2 or
6.5% had a 2.00 GPA, 19 or 61.3% had a 3.00 GPA, and 1 or 3.2% had a 4.00
GPA.

A x2 value of 7.82 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 2.05 was obtained which was not significant at the
.05 level. The grade point averages of the students were not significant-

ly related to moving violation convictions.

85

Table 15
Grade Point Average by Moving Violations

(Across Moving Violations)

 

 

Grade POint Average

 

Moving
Violations l-PP 2199 13.—00 4_-9_q real.
N % N % N % N % N %
None 105 92.1 38 95.0 246 92.8 45 97.8 434 93.3
1 or More 9 7.9 2 5.0 19 7.2 1 2.2 31 6.7

Tbtal 114 100.0 40 100.0 265 100.0 46 100.0 465 100.0

 

 

Table 15a

Grade Point Average by Moving Violations

(Within Moving Violations)

 

 

Grade Point Average

 

 

Moving
Violations l;99 2.00 .9199 4490 Tbtal
N % N % N % N % N %
None 105 24.2 38 8.8 246 56.7 45 10.4 434 100.0
1 or More 9 29.0 2 6.5 19 61.3 1 3.2 31 100.0

chi square = 2.05*

 

 

*Not Significant at the .05 level

86

In Tables 16 and 16a, summaries of the analyses of moving violations
by sex are presented.

Of the 465 students surveyed, 434 had no moving violations while 31
had.one’or more moving violations. 0f the 200 male students, 178 or 89.0%
had ro moving violations while 22 or 11.0% had one or more moving viola—
tions. Of the 265 female students, 256 or 96.6% had no moving violations
while 9 or 3.4% had one or more moving violations.

A x2 value of 3.84 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 9.40 was obtained which was significant at the .05
level. There was a significant difference in the number of moving viola-

tion convictions between male and female students.

Table 16

87

Moving Violations by Sex

(Across Sex)

 

 

Moving Violations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex ane 1 or More Tbtal
N % h T» N %
Male 178 41.0 22 71.0 200 43.0
Female 256 59.0 9 29.0 265 57.0
Tbtal 434 100.0 31 100.0 465 100.0

Table 16a
Moving Violations by Sex
(Within Sex)
Moving Violations

Sex None 1 or More Tbtal
N % N % N %
Male 178 89.0 22 11.0 200 100.0
Female 256 96.6 9 3.4 265 100.0

chi square = 9.40**

 

 

**Significant

at the .05 level

88

In Tables 17 and 17a, summaries of the analyses of time since li-
censed to drive by moving violations are presented.

Of the 465 students surveyed, 434 had no moving violations while 31
had.onelor more violations. Of the 434 who had no moving violations, 282
or 64.9% had driven up to one year, while 152 or 35.1% had driven one or
more years since licensed to drive. Of the 31 who had one or more moving
violations, 14 or 45.2% had driven up to one year, while 17 or 54.8% had
driven one or more years since licensed to drive.

A x2 value of 7.82 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 7.14 was obtained which was not significant at the
.05 level. The students who had their license to drive one year and more
did not experience significantly more violation convictions than those

students who had their license to drive one year and less.

89

Table 17

Time Since Licensed to Drive by Moving Violations

(Across Moving Violations)

 

 

 

Time Since Licensed to Drive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Moving
Violations 6 mos/less 6 mos-1 yr 1 yr-Dg yrs 1% yrs + Tbt§l_
N % N % N % N % N %
None 93 97.9 189 94.0 102 91.1 50 87.7 434 93.3
1 or More 2 2.1 12 6.0 10 8.9 7 12.3 31 6.7
Tbtal 95 100.0 201 100.0 112 100.0 57 100.0 465 100.0
Table 17a
Time Since Licensed to Drive by Moving Violations
(Within Moving Violations)
Time Since Licensed to Drive
Moving
Violations 6 mos/less 6 mos-1 yr 1 YEP-135 yrs 11: yrs + Tbtal
N % N % N % N % N %
None 93 21.4 189 43.5 102 23.5 50 11.5 434 100.0
1 or More 2 6.5 12 38.7 10 32.3 7 22.5 31 100.0

Chi square = 7.14*

 

 

*NOt Significant at the .05 level

90

In Tables 18 and 18a, summaries of the analyses of moving violations
by the miles driven 12 months prior to the study are presented.

Of the 465 students surveyed, 399 or 85.8% had driven 3000 or less
miles the past 12 months, while 66 or 14.2% had driven 3001 or more miles
Of the 399 who had driven 3000 or less miles, 381 or 95.5% had no moving
violations, while 18 or 4.5% had one or more moving violations. Of the 66
who had driven 3001 or more miles, 53 or 80.3% had no moving violations
while 13 or 19.7% had one or more moving violations.

A x 2 value of 3.84 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 18.62 was obtained which was significant at the .05
level. Students wlo had driven 3001 or more miles 12 months prior to the
study received significantly more moving violation convictions than tlrose

students who had driven 3000 or less miles 12 months prior to the study.

91

Table 18
Moving Violations by Miles Driven Past 12 ibnths

(Across Miles Driven)

 

 

Moving Violations

Miles Driven

 

 

 

 

Past 12 Months NOne 1 or More Tbtal
N % N % N %
3000 or Less 381 87.8 18 58.1 399 85.8
3001 or More 53 12.2 13 41.9 66 14.2
Tbtal 434 100.0 31 100.00 465 100.0
Table 18a

Moving Violations by Miles Driven Past 12 Months

(Within Miles Driven)

 

 

Moving Violations

Miles Driven

 

 

Past 12 Months None 1 or More Tbtal
N % N % N %

3000 or Less 381 95.5 18 4.5 399 100.0

3001 or More 53 80.3 13 19.7 66 100.0

chi square = 18.62**

 

 

**Significant at the 0.05 level

92

Analysis of Students-in the Study

 

In Tables 19—24, summaries of the analyses of students in the study
are presented.

In Tables 19 and 19a, summaries of the analyses of time since li-
censed to drive by miles driven 12 months prior to the study are present—
ed. Of the 465 students surveyed, 399 had driven 3000 or less miles in
the past 12 months, while 66 had driven 3001 or more miles. Of the 399
who had driven 3000 or less miles, 275 or 69.0% had driven up to one year
since licensed to drive, while 124 or 31.0% had driven one or more years.
Of the 66 who had driven 3001 or more miles the past 12 months, 21 or
31.8% had driven up to one year, while 45 or 68.2% had driven one year or
more since licensed to drive.

A x2 value of 7.82 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 37.21 was obtained which was significant at the .05
level. Those students who had a shorter time period in which they had
been licensed to drive had driven fewer miles 12 months prior to the

study .

93

Table 19
Time Since Licensed to Drive by Miles Driven Past 12 Months

(Across Miles Driven)

 

 

Time Since Licensed to Drive

Miles Driven
Past
12 Months 6 mos/less 6 mos—1 yr 1 yr-la yrs Th yrs + Total

 

 

 

 

N % N % N % N % N %
3000 or less 92 96.8 183 91.0 85 75.9 39 68.4 399 85.8
3001 or more 3 3.2 18 9.0 27 24.1 18 31.6 66 14.2

Tbtal 95 100.0 201 100.0 112 100.0 57 100.0 465 100.0

 

 

Table 19a
Time Since Licensed to Drive by Miles Driven Past 12 Months

(Within Miles Driven)

 

 

Time Since Licensed to Drive

Miles Driven
Past
12 Months 6 mos/less 6 mos-1 yr 1 yr—1%_yrs 1% yrs + Tbtal

 

 

 

 

N % N % N % N % N %
3000 or less 92 23.1 183 45.9 85 21.3 39 9.7 399 100.0
3001 or more 3 4.5 18 27.3 27 40.9 18 27.3 66 100.0

chi square = 37.21**

 

 

**Significant at the 0.05 level

94

In Tables 20 and 20a, summaries of the analyses of time since li-
censed to drive by sex are presented.

Of the 465 students surveyed, 200 were males, while 265 were females.
Of the 200 males, 139 or 69.5% had driven up to one year, while 61 or
30.5% had driven one year or more since licensed to drive. Of the 265
females, 157 or 59.2% had driven up to one year while 108 or 40.8% had
driven one year or more since licensed to drive.

A x2 value of 7.82¢or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 7.73 was obtained which was not significant at the
.05 level. There was not a significant difference in the amount of time

since licensed to drive between males and females.

95

Table 20
Time Since Licensed to Drive by Sex

(Across Sex)

 

 

Time Since Licensed to Drive

 

 

 

_S_e_x 6 mos/less 6 nos-1 yr 1 yr--11/2 yrs 1», yrs + Total

N % N % N % N % N %

Male 42 44.2 97 48.3 36 32.1 25 43.9 200 43.0
Female 53 55.8 104 51.7 76 67.9 32 56.1 265 57.0

Tbtal 95 100.0 201 100.0 112 100.0 57 100.0 465 100.0

 

 

Table 20a
Time Since Licensed to Drive by Sex

(Within SeX)

 

 

Time Since Licensed to Drive

 

 

 

 

 

_S_ex 6 mos/less 6 mos-1 yr 1 yr-l 1eyrs 1 1/,,yrs + _TbLal
N % N % N % N % N %
Male 42 21.0 97 48.5 36 18.0 25 12.9 200 100.0
Female 53 20.0 104 39.2 76 28.7 32 12.1 265 100.0

chi square = 7.73*

 

 

*Not Significant at the .05 level

96

In Tables 21 and 21a, summaries of the analyses of time since li—
censed to drive by grade point average are presented.

0f the 465 students surveyed, 296 had driven uplto one year since
licensed to drive, while 169 had driven one year or more. Of the 114 stu-
dents who had a 1.00 GPA, 73 or 64.1% had driven one year or less while 41
or 35.9% had driven more than one year. Of the 40 students who had a 2.00
GPA, 24 or 60.0% had driven one year or less while 16 or 40.0% had driven
more than one year. Of the 265 students who had a 3.00 GPA, 172 or 64.9%
had driven one year or less while 9310r 35.1% had driven more than one
year. Of the 46 students who had a 4.00 GPA, 27 or 58.7% had driven one
year or less while 19 or 41.3% had driven more than one year since li—
censed to drive.

A x2 value of 15.92 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 10.42 was Obtained which was not significant at the
.05 level. There was not a significant difference in amount of time since
the students had been licensed to drive and the students' grade point

averages.

97

Table 21

Time Since Licensed to Drive by Grade Point Average

(Across Grade Point Average)

 

 

Time Since Licensed to Drive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

chi square = 10.42*

Grade
Pbint
Average 6 mos/less 6 mos-1 yr 1 yr-lg yrs 1% yrs + Tbtal
N % N % N % N % N %
1.00 24 25.3 49 24.4 33 29.5 8 14.0 114 24.5
2.00 10 10.5 14 7.0 11 9.8 5 8.8 40 8.6
3.00 50 52.6 122 60.7 54 48.2 39 68.4 265 57.0
4.00 11 11.6 16 8.0 14 12.5 5 8.8 46 9.9
Tbtal 95 100.0 201 100.0 112 100.0 57 100.0 465 100.0
Table 21a
Time Since Licensed to Drive by Grade Point Average
(Within Grade Point Average)
Time Since Licensed to Drive
Grade
Pbint
Average 6 mos/less 6 mos-1 yr 1 yr-lg yrs 1% yrs + Tbtal
N % N % N % N % N %
1.00 24 21,1 49 43.0 33 28.9 8 7.0 114 100.0
2.00 10 25.0 14 35.0 11 27.5 5 12.5 40 100.0
3.00 50 18.9 122 46.0 54 20.4 38 14.7 265 100.0
4.00 11 23.9 16 34.8 14 30.4 5 10.9 46 100.00

 

 

*Not Significant at the

.05 level

98

In Tables 22 and 22a, summaries of the analyses of grade point aver-
age by miles driven during 12 months prior to the study are presented.

0f the 465 students surveyed, 399 had driven 3000 or less miles the
past 12 months, while 66 had driven 3001 or more miles. 0f the 399 stu-
dents who had driven 3000 or less miles, 105 or 26.3% had a 1.00 GPA, 31
or 7.8% had a 2.00 GPA, 225 or 56.4% had a 3.00 GPa, and 38 or 9.5% had a
4.00 GPA. Of the 66 students who had driven 3001 or more miles prior to
the study, 9 or 13.6% had a 1.00 (PA, 9 or 13.6% had a 2.00 GPA, 40 or
60.6% had a 3.00 GPA, and 8 or 12.1 had a 4.00 GPA.

A x2 value of 7.82 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 6.54 was obtained which was not significant at the
.05 level. There was not a significant difference in the miles driven 12

months prior to the study and the students' grade point averages.

99

Table 22
Grade Pbint Average by Miles Driven Past 12 Months

(Across Miles Driven)

 

 

Grade Point Average
Miles Driven

Past
12 Months 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Tbtal

N % N % N % N % N %
3000 or less 105 92.1 31 77.5 225 84.9 38 82.6 399 85.8
3001 or more 9 7.9 9 22.5 40 15.1 8 17.4 66 14.2

Tbtal 114 100.0 40 100.0 265 100.0 46 100.0 465 100.0

 

 

Table 22a
Grade Point Average by Miles Driven Past 12 Months

(Within Miles Driven)

 

 

Grade Point Average
Miles Driven

Past
12 Months 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Total

N % N % N % N % N %
3000 or less 105 26.3 31 7.8 225 56.4 38 9.5 399 100.0
3001 or more 9 13.6 9 13.6 40 60.6 8 12.1 66 100.00

chi square = 6.54*

 

 

*Not Significant at the .05 level

100

In Tables 23 and 23a, summaries of the analyses of miles driven dur-
ing 12 months prior to the study by sex are presented.

Of the 465 students surveyed, 399 had driven 3000 or less miles in
the past 12 months, while 66 had driven 3001 or more miles. 0f the 200
male students, 169 or 84.5% had driven 3000 or less miles while 31 or
15.5% had driven 3001 or more miles. Of the 265 female students, 230 or
86.8% had driven 3000 or less miles while 35 or 13.2% had driven 3001 or
more miles 12 months prior to the study.

A x2 value of 3.84 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 0.32 was obtained which was not significant at the
.05 level. There was not a significant difference in the miles driven 12

months prior to the study between males and females.

101

Table 23

Miles Driven Past 12 Months by Sex
(Across Sex)

 

 

Miles Driven Past 12 Months

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex 3000 or less 3001 or More Tbtal
N % N % N %

Male 169 42.4 31 47.0 200 43.0
Female 230 57.6 35 53.0 265 57.0
Tbtal 399 100.0 66 100.0 465 100.0

Table 23a
Miles Driven Past 12 Months by Sex
(Within Sex)
Miles Driven Past 12 Months

Sex 3000 or less 3001 or More 'Bgtal
N % N % N %

Male 169 84.5 31 15.5 200 100.0
Female 230 86.8 35 13.2 265 100.0

chi square = 0.32*

 

 

*Not Significant at the .05 level

102

In Tables 24 and 24a, summaries of the analyses of grade point aver-
age by sex are presented.

Of the 465 students surveyed, 200 were males while 265 were females.
0f the 200 male students, 48 or 24.0% had a 1.00 GPA, 17 or 8.5% had a
2.00 CPA, 121 or 60.5% had a 3.00 GPA, and 14 or 7.0% had a 4.00 GPA. Of
the 265 female students, 66 or 24.9% had a 1.00 GPA, 23 or 8.7% had a 2.00
GPA, 144 or 54.3% had a 3.00 GPA, and 32 or 12.1% had a 4.00 GPA.

A x2 value of 7.82 or greater was needed for significance at the .05
level. A x2 value of 3.77 was obtained which was not significant at the
.05 level. There was not a significant difference in the grade point

averages between males and females.

103

Table 24
Grade Point Average by Sex

(Across Sex)

 

 

Grade Point Average

 

 

 

 

N % N % N % N % N %

Male 48 42.1 17 42.5 121 45.7 14 30.4 200 43.0

Female 66 57.9 23 57.5 144 54.3 32 69.6 265 57.0

Tbtal 114 100.0 40 100.0 265 100.0 46 100.0 465 100.0

Table 24a
Grade Point Average by Sex
(Within Sex)
Grade Point Average

N % N % N % N % N %
Male 48 24.0 17 8.5 121 60.5 14 7.0 200 100.0
Female 66 24.9 23 8.7 144 54.3 32 12.1 265 100.0

chi square = 3.77*

 

 

*Not Significant at the .05 level

104

Summary

Summaries of the findings of this study are presented in Figure 4.
The two major research hypotheses were tested by the use of t—tests.
Traffic accident involvement by the time in which driver education in—
struction was received was not significant at the .05 level. Moving
violation convictions by the time in which driver education instruction
was received also was not significant at the .05 level. In both in-
stances, the traffic accident involvements and the numberwof moving vio—
lation convictions did not vary significantly by whether driver education
instruction was received during the regular school year or during the
summer.

The following are additional analyses that did prove to be signi-
ficant at the .05 level: (1) the time in which driver education instruc-
tion was received when correlated to sex; (2) the time in which driver
education instruction was received when correlated to age; (3) the number
of moving violation convictions when correlated to sex; (4) the number of
moving violation convictions when correlated to miles driven the past 12
months; (5) the traffic accident involvelents when correlated to miles
driven the past 12 months; (6) the traffic accident involvements when
correlated to the number of moving violation convictions; (7) the time
since licensed to drive when correlated to the traffic accident involve-
ments; and (8) the time since licensed to drive when correlated to the
miles driven the past 12 months.

All of the other analyses in the study were not statistically signi—

ficant at the .05 level.

105

FIGURE 4

ANALYSIS OF RESULTS SUMMARY

 

 

Calculated Critical

Research Stat. Value of Value of

Hypothesis Test Significance Test Stat. Decision

Sex by Time

HSDE Received x2 3.84 101.98** Reject Ho

Age by Time

HSDE Received x2 7.82 15.38** Reject Ho

Miles Driven

Past 12 Months

by Time HSDE x2 3.84 0.41* Fail to Reject

Received , Ho

Moving Violations

by Sex t 2.58 3.06** Reject Ho

Moving Violations

by Miles Driven

Past 12 Months x2 3.84 18.62** Reject HO

Traffic Accident

Involvement

by Sex t 2.58 0.453* Fail to Reject
Ho

Moving Violations

by HSDE Received t 2.58 0.863* Fail to Reject
Ho

Traffic Accident

Involment by Time

HSDE Received t 2.58 0.227* Fail to Reject
Ho

Traffic Accident

Involment by Age x2 7.82 5.86* Fail to Reject
Ho

 

*Not Significant at the .05 level
**Significant at the .05 level

106

Figure 4 (continued)

 

 

Calculated critical
Research Stat. Value of Value of
Hypothesis Test Significance Test Stat. Decision
Traffic Accident
Involment by Miles
Driven Past 12
Months x2 3.83 19.73** Reject Ho
Traffic Accident
Involvement by
Moving
Violations x2 3.84 9 67** Reject Ho

GPA by Traffic

Accident

Involvement x2 7.82 4.39* Fail to Reject
Ho

GPA by Moving

Violations x2 7.82 2.05* Fail to Reject
Ho

GPA by Time

HSDE Received x2 7.82 4.77* Fail to Reject
Ho

Miles Driven

Past 12 Months

by Sex x2 3.84 0.32* Fail to Reject
Ho

GPA by Miles

Driven

Past 12 Months x2 7.82 6.54* Fail to Reject
Ho

GPA by Sex x2 7.82 3.77* Fail to Reject
Ho

Time Since

Licensed to

Drive by GPA x2 16.92 10.42* Fail to Reject
Ho

 

*Not Significant at the .05 level
**Significant at the .05 level

107

Figure 4 (continued)

 

Calculated Critical
Research Stat. Value of Value of
Hyppthesis Test Significance Test Stat. Decision

 

Time Since

Licensed to

Drive by Sex x2 7.82 7.73* Fail to Reject
Ho

Time Since

Licensed to

Drive by Time

HSDE Received x2 7.82 13.46** Reject Ho

Time Since

Licensed to

Drive by Traffic

Accident

Involvement x2 7.82 8.29** Reject Ho

Time Since

Licensed to

Drive by Moving

Violations x2 7.82 7.14* Fail to Reject
Ho

Time Since

Licensed to

Drive by Miles

Driven Past 12

Months x2 7.82 7.21** Reject Ho

 

*Not Significant at the 0.05 level
**Significant at the .05 level

In Chapter 5, the summary, conclusions, discussion, and recommenda-

tions will be presented.

CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, AND REUNMENDATIONS

Summary

The central purpose of this study was to determine if there was a
difference in accident involvement and moving violation convictions of
students enrolled in summer (over a short length of time) driver education
programs versus students taught in traditional (over a longer period of
time) driver education programs.

The study used a self-reporting driver education evaluation survey
(Appendix A) as the instrurent to determine accident involvement and mov-
ing violation conviction.

A review of the literature indicated that no research had been con—
ducted to determine if the time period in which high sctool driver educ-
ation was received to a student's first accident was a factor in the col-
lision experience of driver education students in North Carolina. The
review of literature also showed that most of the early studies in driver
education were conducted to determine if drivers witlout a formal course
in driver education had fewer or more accidents than tlose students com-
pleting a formal course. Many of these studies did rot control for expo-
sure, and their sample selection was questionable. Most of the studies
stowed fewer collisions for high sctool driver education trained students,
but the results were questionable since most were not scientifically con—

trolled studies.

108

109

The survey instrument for this study was completed by a randomly
selected sample population of 465 high school students from ten randomly
selected high scIools in North Carolina. The students selected had com—
pleted the driver education programs in the sumer of 1981 and the 1980-81
academic school year. Of the 465 students surveyed, 175 had completed
driver education in the surmer while 290 had completed driver education in
the academic school year.

During the fall of 1982 the students were asked to respond to the
Driver Education Evaluation Survey. The students surveyed had completed
the regular school year driver education program in June 1981, and the
students in the summer driver education program had completed the program
in August 1981. The period of time under investigation was from June 1981
(when the regular program ended) and August 1981 (when the sumer program
ended) to October 1982 (when all of the selected students from both pro-
grams responded to the Driver Education Evaulation Survey). The data
collected from the survey consisted of the students' responses to 70 iters
divided into four major categories: (1) suggestions for improving driver
education courses, (2) driving experience, (3) collision experience, and
(4) type of crash. In the driving experience category, question #29 asked
the students how many moving violation convictions they had received since
completing driver education.

The data collected from responses to the survey were tabulated and
analyzed using a t-test for the primary questions and chi square for the
secondary variables.

One purpose of this study was to find if there was a difference in

traffic accident involverent of students completing summer (over a sl'ort

110

length of time) driver education programs versus students taught in a
traditional (over a longer period of time) driver education programs.

Upon performing a t—test, a value of 2.58 was needed for significance. A
value of 0.227 was obtained which was not statistically significant at the
0.05 level; thus, there was not a significant difference in accident in-
volvement between students who completed a traditional or sumer driver
education program. That is, the number of accidents experienced by the
students did not vary significantly by the time period in which driver
education instruction was received.

The second purpose of this study was to find if there was a differ-
ence in moving violation convictions of students taught to drive in summer
(over a short length of time) driver education programs versus students
taught in traditional (over a longer period of time) driver education
programs.

Upon performing a t-test, a value of 2.58 was needed for signifi-
cance. A value of 0.863 was obtained which was not statistically signfi-
cant at the 0.05 level; thus, there was not a significant difference in
moving violation convictions between students who completed a traditional
or a surmer driver educaton program. That is, the number of moving viola—
tion convictions experienced by the students did not vary significanty by
the time period in which driver education instruction was received.

There were other analyses performed in order to get a more complete
picture of the collected data from the randomly selected sample population
of North Carolina driver education students. The following are the re-

sults of the analyses that were performed at the .05 level:

111

1. There was a significant relationship between traffic accident
involverent and miles driven the 12 months prior to the study.
The more miles the students had driven, the fewer traffic
accidents.

2. There was to significant relationship between traffic accident
involverent and the sex of the student.

3. There was no significant relationship between traffic accident
involverent and grade point average.

4. There was a significant relationship between traffic accident
involvement and time since licensed to drive. The longer the
students had been licensed to drive, the fewer traffic accidents.

5. There was a significant relationship between moving violation
convictions and the sex of the student. Males experienced more
convictions.

6. There was no significant relationship between time since licens-
ed to drive and moving violation convictions.

7. There was a significant relationship between moving violation
convictions and miles driven the past 12 months. The more the
students drove, the fewer moving violation convictions.

8. There was no significant relationship between moving violation
convictions and grade point average.

The more miles students had driven 12 months prior to the study, the
fewer moving violation convictions and traffic accidents they experienced.
This also related to time since licensed to drive. The longer the student
had been licensed to drive, the fewer moving violation convictions. Males
experienced more moving violation convictions, but experienced fewer traf-
fic accidents. The older a student was in the study, the fewer traffic
accidents he/she experienced. Grade point average did not influence wteth-
er or not the student received a moving violation conviction or experienced
a traffic accident. The grade point average did relate to how long a stu-
dent had been licensed to drive; the higher the grade point average, the

longer a student had been licensed to drive.

112

(bnclusions

 

This study was designed primarily to determine if there was a dif-
ference in accident involvement and moving violation convictions of stu-
dents completing a traditional driver education program versus students
taught in a summer driver education program,

There appeared to be no relationship between accident involvement and
whether or not the student took driver education in the summer or during
the regular school year in North carolina. There also appeared to be no
relationship between moving violation convictions of the two groups who

had received driver education instruction at different times of the year.

Discussion

 

A study of this type and magnitude should have uncovered variables
that distinguish between graduates of traditional and sumer driver edu-
cation programs. The results of this study did rot do such. There were
not any differences between the two groups as far as traffic accidents and
moving violations were concerned, but differences did appear in some of
the variables. As for moving violations and traffic accidents it might be
that the length of time since the students were licensed to drive had much
to do with why there were no differences between the two groups. There
was a relatively small amount of time between when a student received a
license and when a student had an accident or received a moving violation
conviction.

There may be significant differences between the two groups, but the
criteria used in this study were rot able to discern them. Using traffic
accidents and moving violation convictions as the criteria could actually

be the reason for rot finding differences. There have been shortcomings

113

in the past with the use of driving records as valid criteria for measur-
ing driver performance. One example of a shortcoming might be increased
traffic enforcement in effect at the timelof the issuance of the moving
violation citation. Another shortcoming would be the inadequate accident
report form (some do not contain enough information to answer much needed
questions about a particular traffic accident); there is a lack.of uni-
fbrmity in accident report forms (all do not ask the same questions); and
lastly, drivers experience few accidents during their driving careers
(traffic accidents are rare event). The theories of learning that the
writer has been exposed to over the last 15 years tend to suggest that
learning material over a short period of time is inferior to learning over
a longer extended period of time. It also stands to reason that a student
exposed to a dynamic teacher for an extended period of time will have a
better working knowledge of material presented. Also, the positive atti—
tude from a dynamic teacher should have greater carryover value for the
student. The student will have a more positive attitude toward himself/
herself and the material presented.

Driver education teachers frequently complain about not having enough
time in the recommended 30 hours of classroom instruction to teach the
required driver education material. It does not seem possible that they
could teach driver education concepts and do a good job in a shortened
summer school programh In the short amount of time a student is exposed
to driver education concepts during the summer, there is not enough
time to develop positive attitudes and long lasting skills. It stands to
reason that they would tend to show poorer driving records and have a

greater number of moving violation convictions.

114

The purpose of driver education is rot only the prevention of traffic
accidents and violation convictions; it also teaches respect for one's
fellow man by learning about sharing the highway transportation system,
and it also teaches proper attitudes toward man made and natural laws.

There is a need for driver education in the scl'ools. Students learn
good citizenship and that being a law abiding person transfers to the use
of the highways and other transportation systers. Students learn to be
good consurers, especially when purchasing vehicles and accessories. Stu-
dents learn about insurance and financial responsibility laws as they
relate to vehicle ownership. Students learn the psyclological, physio-
logical, and sociological aspects of driving and using vehicles in the
highway transportation system. Lastly, students learn the interrela-
tionships between man, the vehicle, and the environment in which these
operations take place. Vehicles play a very important role in the economy
of our country, and the wise use of resources related to their use is of
utmost importance. Driver education attempts to convey this important

message to its students.

Recommendations For Further Study

 

The following are recommendations for further study based on the data
from this study:

1. A replication of this study using greater number of students who
have had five years or more driving experience.

2. A study to be done that would develop other criteria (beside
driver records and violation convictions) to measure the worthi—
ness of driver education programs.

3. A replication of this study in a large scrool district where
randomly assigned students from the same school could be used.

115

A replication of this study in a larger sclool district with
students wto had at least three years of driving experience.
Randomly selected sclools would use either an old or new driver
education curriculum guide for instruction in the classroom
phase.

Recommendations

 

The following are recommendations based on the findings of this

study:

1.

Because of the increased cost of operating a regular school year
driver education program, the school district could offer an
expanded summer driver education program and complete more stu-
dents for approximately the same cost. The school district
would receive more funds from the state for operating the pro-
gram.

Students enrolled in either the traditional driver education
program or the summer driver education program stould get driv-
ing experience with parents and friends (using urban and rural
driving environments) while under the control of the high school
driver education program. Ibpefully, this would allow for more
discussion of potential problems to which they have been ex-
posed.

Driver education teachers of traditional programs and sumer
programs should stress the economics of maintaining a driving
record that is free of moving violation convictions and traffic
accidents; we could all pay higher costs for insurance premiuls
and vehicle repair bills if additional points are added to our
driving records. Emphasis should also be placed on the male
driver education students since they received more moving vio—
lation convictions.

 

BIBLImRAPHY

BIBLICXERAPHY

Aaron, James E., and Marland K. Strasser. Driver and Traffic Safety
Education. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1974.

 

American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association. .§l§th National
Conference on Safety Education Proceedings, Volume IV. Washington,
DC: ADTSEA, 1980.

 

 

Anderson, William G. In-C‘ar Instruction: Mettods and Content. Reading,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1977 .

 

Barr, Arvil S., Robert A. Davis, and Palmer 0. Johnson. Educational Re-
search and Appraisal. Chicago: J.B. Lippincott Cbmpany, 1953.

 

 

Bologna, James F. et al. "The Measurement and Comparison of Variables
Related to Driver and Highway Safety Between Educable Mentally Re-
tarded and Normal High School Age Students in Pennsylvania." Depart—
ment of Special Education, Millersville State College, Millersville,
Pennsylvania, 1971, pp. 127-128.

Boyce, Lorinne, and E. Cimningham Dax. "Intelligence and Driving Offenses
in Young Males." Journal of the Australian Road Research Board,
1973, 5(40), pp. 3-19.

 

Boyce, Lorrine and E. Cunningham Dax. "Driver Education and Driving 0f-
fenses in Young Males." Journal of the Australian Road Research
Board, 1975, 5(7), Pp. 24—43.

 

Budig, Ronald L. "A Study of the Cbsts of Driver Education Programs in
the Public Schools of Illirois." Illinois State University, 1976.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 1977, 37 , no. 7, 4006-A.

 

Buttiglieri, M.W., and M. Guenette. "Driving Record of Neuropsychiatric
Patients." Journal of Applied Psyctology, 1967, 51(2), pp. 96-100.

 

Campbell, B.J. "Driver Age and Sex Related to Accident Time and Type."
Traffic Safety Research Review, 1966, 10(2), pp. 36—43.

 

Campbell, William Giles, Stephen Laughan Ballou, and Carole Slade. Form
and Style, Theses, Reports, Term Papers. Sixth Edition. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1982.

 

 

Carlson, W.L., and D. Klein. "Familiar vs Institutional Socialization of
the Young Traffic Offender." Journal of Safety Research, 1970, 2(1),
pp. 13-25.

116

117

Cbnger, JOhn J., Wilbur C. Miller, and Robert V. Rainey. "Effect of
Driver Education: The Role of Motivation, Intelligence, Social
Class, and EXposure." Traffic Safety Research Review, 1966, 10(3),
pp. 67-71.

 

Copley, Patrick O'Neil. "A Study of a Summer High School With a (bmpara—
tive Analysis of Academic Achievement in a Summer High School and the
Regular School." Arizona State University, 1967. Dissertation Ab—
stracts, 1968, 28, no. 7, 2434—A.

 

Council, Forrest M., Rita B. Roper, and Michael G. Sadof. An EValuation
of NOrth carolina's Multi-Vehicle Ragge Program in Driver Education:
A Comparison of Driving Histories of Range and Non-Range Students.
Highway Safety Research Center, University of North carolina, Chapel
Hill, NOrth carolina, 1975.

 

 

 

Dreyer, Dell R., and Mary K. Janke. The Effects of Rangngersus Non-Range
‘Driver Trainigg on the Accident and Conviction Frequencies of YOung
Drivers. Sacremento: California Department of Motor Vehicles, May,
1977.

 

 

Dubin, Samuel S. "Ehotions and Traffic Accidents." Traffic Safety Re-
Search Review, 1961, 5(20), pp. 4-9.

 

 

Florio, A.E., and W.J. Huffman. "Teenage Drivers in Illinois." Illinois
Journal of Education, LV(March 1964).

 

Guam Office of Highway Safety. A Study on Traffic Accident Involvement of

 

Guam's Driver Education Students. Department of Public Works, Gov—
ernment of Guam, 1975.

 

Gutshall, Robert W. "can He Be Taught to Drive?" Safety Education,
1963, 43, pp. 12-14.

 

Gutshall, Robert W. "The Handicapped Driver." Safety Education, 1961,
41, pp. 6—8.

 

Gutshall, Robert W., Charles Harper, and Ronald Burke. Exceptional Chil-
dren, 1968, pp. 43—47.

 

Hardt, Fritz A. "The (bmparability and Accuracy of Information Provided
by Interview and Questionnaire Techniques." University of Oregon,
1969. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, 30, no. 8, 3320-A-
3321—A.

 

Harrington, David M. "Factor Analysis of Driver Record." Traffic Safety
Research Review, 1968, 12(3), pp. 81-86.

 

 

Harrington, David M. The Ybung Driver Follow-Up Study: An Evaluation
of the Role of Human Factors in the First Four Years of Driving.
Sacremento: California State Department of Motor Vehicles, 1971.

 

 

118

Hull, C. Hadlai, and Norman H. Nie. SPSS Update 7—9. New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Company, 1981.

 

Illinois Office of Education. Driver Education for Illionis Youth, Sec-
tion 1.01. Springfield, IL: Office of Education, 1972.

 

Jones, Margaret Hubbard. California Driver Raining Evaluation Study: A
Final Report, Los Angeles: University of California, December, 1973.

 

 

Kaestner, Noel F. "The Similarity of Ti'affic Involvement Records of Young
Drivers in Fatal Traffic Accidents." Traffic Safety Research Review,
1964, 8(2), pp. 34-39.

 

Kavanaugh, J. Keith, Warren A. Kemper, and Edward R. Klamm. "The High
School Student and the Automobile." Traffic Safety Research Review,
1969, 4(2), Pp. 4-8.

 

Klepak, Daniel. Cost Variations in Driver Education: A Survey of 67
Public Sclool Programs. Albany: New York State Office of Education
Review, State of New York, April, 1974.

 

 

Leach, Joseph William. "An Investigation and Comparison of a Summer Field
Biology Course with a Tradition Classroom Biology Course." Univer-
sity of Georgia, 1968. Dissertation Abstracts, 1969, 29, no. 8,
2441-A.

 

Levonian, Edward. "Prediction of Accidents and Convictions." Traffic
Safety Research Review, 1967, 11(3), pp. 75-79.

 

Loft, Bernard 1. "The Effects of Driver Education on Driver Knowledge and
Attitudes in Selected Public Secondary Schools." Traffic Safety
Research Review, 1960, 4(2),pp. 12-15.

 

 

Lyle, Kathryn. A Comparative Study of fiaffic Violations of Selected
Students in the Memphis City School System. Memphis: Division of
Research, Memphis City Schools, March, 1976. .

 

 

Moss, Roy George. "A (bmparative Analysis of a Competency-Based Driver
Education Program Versus a Four—Phase Driver Education Program."
Texas A&M University, 1977. Dissertation Abstracts International,
1977, 38, no. 4, 1941-A.

National Commission on Safety Education. High School Driver Education
Policies and Recommendations. Washington, DC: National Education
Association, 1964.

 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Planning, and Evaluation.
A National Estimate of Performance. July, 1975.

 

119

National Safety council. Accident Facts, 1982 Edition. Chicago: Nation-
al Safety Cbuncil, 1982.

 

National Safety council. Accident Facts, 1981 Edition. Chicago: Nation-
al Safety Cbuncil, 1981.

 

Nie, Norman C., Hadlai Hull, et. Statistical Package for the Socail Sci—
ences. Second Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book (bmpany, 1975.

 

North Carolina Department of hansportation. North Carolina Traffic
Accident Facts, 1980 Edition. Raleigh: NOrth Carolina Department of
Transportation, 1980.

 

 

NOrth carolina General Statues (1976), Chapter 115C-215. Raleigh: North
carolina State Board of Education, January 22, 1976.

Peck, Raymond, and Ronald S. Coppin. "The Prediction of Accident Involve-
ment Using Concurrent Driver Record Data." Traffic Safety Research
Review, 1967, 11(2), pp. 34—40.

 

Pelz, Donald C., and Stanley H. Schuman. "Are YOung Drivers Really More
Dangerous After Controlling for Exposure and Experience?" Journal
of Safety Research, 1971, 3(2), pp. 68-78.

 

Pelz, Donald C. "Motivations and Attitudes." Driver Behavior, Cause
and Effect. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Washington, DC,
1968, pp. 103.

 

 

Preston, C.E., and S. Harris. "Psychology of Drivers in Traffic Acci-
dents." JOurnal of Applied Psychology, 1965, 49, pp. 284-288.

 

Quensel, Warren P., and Dr. Joseph E. Talkington. Traffic and Safety
Education Section, Home Economics and Industrial Technology Depart-
ment, Illinois State University. Driver Education curriculum Mate-
rials for Illinois Demonstration Center and Satellite Schools.
Springfield: Illinois Office of Education, 1976.

 

 

Shaoul, Jean. The Use of Accidents and Traffic Offenses as criteria for
Evaluating Courses in Driver Education. Salford, England: Salford
University, 1975.

 

 

Shively, JOe E., and William Asher. "Characteristics of Students Who
Could Not Take and Schools Which Did Not Offer Driver Training."
Journal of Education Research, 1970, 64, pp. 185-9.

 

Signori, Edro I., and Roland G. Bowman. "On the Study of Personality
Factors in Research on.Eriving Behavior." Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 1974, 38(3), pp. 1067-1076.

 

120

Smith, Lawton K. Evaluation of the Driver Education Proggam. The Detroit
Public Schools, JUne, 1968.

Tack, LeLand R. Iowa Driver Education Evaluation Survey. Conducted Under
the PRIDE (Program Research in Driver Education) Project, September,
1975.

 

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin—
istration. The Driver Education Evaluation Prggram (Deep) Study (A
Report to the Congress), July, 1975.

 

Van Fleet, Eric Lynn. "An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Illi-
nois Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum As Measured by
Student Self-Reporting Accident Involvement." Michigan State Uni—
versity, 1979. Dissertation Abstracts, 1980, 40, no. 9-10, 5217-A.

 

Vernon, Ralph J., and M.B. Phillips. A Study of Public Sclool Driver Edu—
cation in Texas. (bllege Station, Texas: Texas A&M University.
Texas Transportation Institute, April, 1972.

 

Walker, Roy Lavern. "An Analysis of Students' and Teachers' Concepts of
Secondary Summer School." University of Missouri, 1967 . Dissert-
ation Abstracts, 1968, 28, no. 7, 2509-A.

 

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A

DRIVER EDUCATION SURVEY

121

u¢0> doocon uauaoou 0:» ocausn .n mossy. ocu unease .H
~cowuousoo u0>auo «0 cause soon-noun on» oxnu 30> use :02: .n
ua0> #0050. undamou 0:» mcwuaa .n

 

 

 

 

 

wells. 0:» acquan .d eduloh .N
snowy-09o. u0>uuo uo can: .a
ounce doozzronulocunon 0:» 03a» 30> use :05: .N xom .A
0onu0>¢ acuom coauo om<
uoaq unuuh oooo
can: «cocoa
came
«down acaaou-u :uuoz .0u0nu600u0
>uaau0>aca cunum has acaaouuu suuoz
c0auaozom u0>wuo a >u0uam «0 .uaun
u0ua0u0um acaunaou¢ .uOuuao Guano:
”can: u:0> uou nxcoze
.cao 30>

gnu-sauna anon 0:» 0x03 Ounces .0u0u0uose .o>az uuo>euo nc0a-a~.00 u0

ava>u on» nus: 0o 0» meanu>cn 0>an co>auo comes on: .nocadn .u0§«u on»
us 050 page 0a acouu0aaa u« as .u0>030: .Auauou cu udsuauuao 0n >05
oouu0300u oocowuomxo mca>uuo 0» vauouou coauaSHOuCM on» no Onom

.0000 on :00 u:0|0>0uAl« Iduooua uou cacao—ocoaeouou .conk

.naaumOua «00:0. «0 n0a>u can nasaum u0>auo >o ocuuoauu on. penis

roses. on as“: nausea» one .>u«uu0>«:= ouuum 96¢ .0.2 0» ocean! no
senses «noun 0 >9 a: ooxo«n on due: onwaccoau-ozc ocuouaioo one

 

.Aaaou>aocw
:0 0 o 000 coo 0n 0 “A“: ecu 0 can a aucuog 00 ~ouo‘
team on Add) cooconnou uao> .>03 can» an .uwoan naouo a :0 cougaeou
on. >~c0 nonasc >2 o0u>~nco on use) ooa>0un 50> cowuaauoucu one

 
 

.c0uu003o0 u0>uuo
:4 0I0u00nm 0x0- 0» cu. 0) «a unauuoalu anal cu coda-uoaoou uao> .0m
.cII~30un on. caucusuonxo ocu>uuo uao> anon. ecuuaIuOuca oow>0ua coo
0:3 0:0 >~=0 0:» on. 20> .>~A-au0< .ooauaou cosy-0:00 u0>uuo 0:»
mcw>0uaaa uou «sumac: >u0> no: .u clay can» u- cana~w0>a coaualuouCa
ozu .0n~< .uouooou can». Iona Inca-«Adan oeuunuu anon. caduceuoucu
eucanaou u0 cuauauun :«auno 0a >Auo00 on. vascuuuuo >u0> on an
.unu 0- on: 0>as IOualu-aau u=0>
on. 50> Icouuuaaoo cuuuauu 0:» u0u nuances ecu on. .nocux any .uone::
0;» 30:8 0» 000: 0) .oasu on 03 .0>eu00no0 can» mca>0anua cu. accen-
u20> loan oucoonu. AA.) 30: ago ocau 0» one: 03 .ncoaueuaou uuuuauu
ou0>a ou0>auo ago: 0» ca coauauaoo u0>quo «0 0>au00floo cast .59

.nfldumOua couuaoaoo u0>wuo undue.» «0 uu0=o0um cue) Inoquua noun-0:00
u0>uuo,u0llsn «0 .30300ua 0:» ouoaeou 0a 00.: on due) c0uuaau0ucu
ness .acudouao suuoz ca aauoOua coaunusoo u0>auo on» 0>0uaau duo:
can noes) couuaeuoucu caouno 0a nu >0>u=n can» «0 0a0auaa one

>0>u=m «0 wocouuoasn oca oooz
>N>¢Dm zo~9<=q¢>u zoneeoaom mm>~ma

«map

>H~mmu>aza mh<sm z<u~ruuz
mmpm<o zmomoz

>m

>m>¢=m
zo~s<34<>m
zo~s<u=au
mm>~ao

 

20.. .o 8.5. N .0 2.8... 2-..: .e 2.8.. 2-2 .6 2.8... N-.. .N

008.. «N-.. .N 2.8... 2-.. .n 90.5... a.-. .n 2.8... To ..
08.0248 «:7: UCC 9.0000

we. cou:.oe oc....0 soon so. 0.: ocean. >cnu no: .co.n...ou o..:. a on: so. ..

0.? .0 88> N .o 05:00 073 .o 00.000 2A: .0 0.2000 70 .N
00.000 31$ .> 05:00 0.12 .a 05:00 3-.. .n 00.000 To A
20.02.00 000000 000 .0... 0:.

0003.0: 00.3.... :00: 00> 00: 2.000 >0- :0: 00.03.00 000000 0 00: 00> .2

to... .o 88. N .e 2.8... 2-2 .0 2.8... 2.... .e 008.. N-.. .N
858.. 8-2 .N 2.5.. 3-: .h 90...... a.-. .. 2.8... To ..
2.000000: 00.03.00

.8: o... 26.8 SE... :03 8. 02 2.8... .2... 8.. .8358 a o... 8. ..

00.00 .o 0.... .o 00.... .0 000 .N
:0 .n .00.. .a 0... .n 0000 .—
0535 0 00 00: 00> 9.0: 000.3200 03.0.. >0- 33..

.:

.cn

.om

.2

.530000 000.30. 0:. .0300 0000—0 .5333“.
.0 00.03.00 0 0. 00>—0.0a 000: 0.0: 00> .. 0003000 0.. 0000 .00 00 00> 00:. .0000

 

 

122

0. mm 0030000 0. 0000000. 50> : 000.0 .0 003.200 03.0.. 0 00 3. 30000 00:.
.>5..:. .0 000-]. 0000 00.0000 00.50.50 >0 3... 00.. .0 00.50.00 3.: .3 .00> .—
0. .2000 .00 00 3!... 00030000 000:. 0.00.: 9.00.. .0030: 0030000 0.... 0.5.0: 00.0.:

.00>

0:. 0“ 0000.505 50> 00030000 .00: 30.... .0050 0:. 03.31-803.090 00.0.20“.

50. .0 0... .N
0.... .n 00.... .n . 000 .~
«00300000 .03.... 00...... 00> 0.0: 0003 >0- :0:

02.00 .0 0.... .0 00.5 .0 000 .N.

0.0 .> .00. .n 0.... .n 0000 .—

...00300000 .0300 0030.50 000.0

.05.... 0 00 0030.0... «5.60 .0. 003000. 00> 2.0: 0.0303000 >0- :0:

 

00:0 80.2.38 .0 00:0 R5048: .o 00:0 ocean—8N 500:0 80723 .N
00.40 800493 .N 00:0 807.com .a 00:0 087.8. .n 00:0 8n-.. ..
«05000 0.40... .00. 0:. 00...... 00> 9.0: 0030 >0l 00:33::

00.40 8m .0): .o 00:0 STRN. .0 00:0 87.2 .0 00:0 87: .N
00:0 8943 .> 00:0 0242 .a 00:0 02-8— .n 00:0 on-.. 4
2.000 0000 0...... 00> 00 .0005; 0:. 00 .0020 >0! :0: .009

050: on 5.6 .0 050: >72 .0 0.50: 3-0 .0 0.00: «in .N

0.00: 2-0. ... 0.50: 2-2 .a 0.50: 0-0 .n 050: Nio ..

2.0.03

1.0000... .3000 80.000 :0 05.3. 003.5 00000 00> 00 003 :03 30: .000:

1.000.030 0 000.050 .0 00000.0..0 .N
003 3.33 a 8000.0...0 .a 003 .00.: .n 30.0.00 ..

l

900...... 50> .0 .000 00 00> 00 00:) .25.... .0... o 0. >800... 300.. 0:. 00.50

8000.030 0 80.0.0.- .0 9.000.030 .~
003 35.0 .000 8000.030 . 003 .00.: .n 90.0.00 .—
0053... .00> .0 .000 00 00> 00 00.... £00039... 0c

0‘.

.3

.o~

.aN

.cN

.3

.2

._~

«8-2. .0 30.2 .e 8n-.. .N
2.... .608 .N .378 .. 09.2 .n 02 :00 e8. 4
3.8.3

000 £8.33 .0500; >53... «1000300.. 00 0000 0. 003.5 50> .0 :03 00.. .8

.050 .o 8.00... .c 0.00.0: .N
55.30 .n 00.3030. .n :30 50> .q
@035 ~25! 00> 00 .8 08.... 0. .0—

~\~ 2 .0 N} 3 .N
2 .n 0. ..
$0.002 0.03.0 50> 00:000. 00> 00.... 00> 0.0.. 30 :9. .0.

00.30.... .0 300.0: .N
0.9.5.. .0 .05—5 00 0000 .550 .n 500... .n 000—0 ..
«00...... 50> .0 .000 00 00> 00 00.... 5.3 .:

 

8.00. No.05 .0 0030.00... 30000 .0 £005.: 00070.... «05. .N
0>0..00... .0 0>03000.9.0 .n 0.00.30 >30 4
.82.... .8. .o .8... 8 8.. 8 38... .6 £1.02 .6 9.0. .0... .0 .0.

IE 8.. 8.... 8. .26 .a
08.. .6 8.... 8. 55... .c 98.. .e 8.... .N 5...... .N
82 .e 8:... R .05... .n lo: .6 8:... E .05... ..
«8.... 9.3 05...... .8. .o .0... 88 :10 .2-
88.neeNhN .e 83.3.3. .n
2.... a 3 N: n .0 .08. N: N o. N .. .8. . 3 008... 0 .N
28. N: n 3 n .N 28. N 3 N: . .c .8. .3 2.8... e ..
No.0... 3 0.0.8: 2.... 8.. 8.... 08.. e. 8.. one. .5: .2'
2.8... N. 3 e. .e 2.8.. o 3 e .c 2.8.. c 3 N .N
2.8.. N. .96 N 008... e. o. a .N 2.8.. e 3 c .n .58.. N o. .5 ..

«00.00...

50> 0:000. 00> 30 00300000 .035 0030—900 00> .030 9.3000 >0- :8. .2'
03-300 .00: 50> 0..- 0000—0 .050 .0:

0.0 00> 2 $0.10: 0030000 0.... 0.0.0: 300.: 0:. F0035 50> .0 .005: 0:. 03....
:0... 000003098 50> 003.0000 .00: :03: 00.20 000 0:3 3033-100003003 00.2.75

 

00.2 5 .5035. 5:5 .qul
9.3.... .2

2000. .8 .0. 000: $3000. .Bll
00000 0.00 00302.. .0

0.00 .050 00.000:

3.800.... .0... 8 9.0.75

.5... .0 05......

I... E 6...... 00.8...

00000: 00000 00303.

0 0 0 0 0
.J‘OND

. .025 000000: 0 00.0000: .030 5... I030... .000 0.... 00.. 00> a... 1:0: 03. :000
.0 .00.. 0. Co 00000 0 .00 0000.01-00.00“. 0030000“. .03.: 0030.9. .0. 00300000...

112223

ooo~u .0>0 .0 coo~n10nna .0 acma1om~a .N
oco~a1coc.w .m On>1ooma .n emu“ 03 00 .3
0.00 .00> 03 000000 0000 :0:

0.00 .0 000 03 03000 .n

0.00 .0 000 03 000.0n0. .~ >.00 000000 >3.000.0 .—

0:00.0 000 000..00 30:
000.3000000

.0 .00 .0030 000 300 0.0 .0 000.0 003 00330.00. .0
000000 00000

.0 000030.0 00000n0.0 .h 0.0.> 03 003.0. .n
.000.0 .000.0 0,30 300 000 .0 000.300000 .0. 300. 003 00000 .~
000.0 .0 0.00040 000 300 0.0 .m 0000 ..

«>00 0. .0x00 00> 0.0 00030.0 30::

_ 003.30000.0
.0 .00 .0030 000 300 0.0 .0
000000 000000
.0 000.0... 0.003.... .0 0.0.. o. 00.... ..
.000.» .000.0 00.0 300 0.0 .0 000.3.0000 .0. 300. 003 00000 .N
000.0 .0 0.00000 000 300 0.0 .n 0000 ..
«>00 .0 .0x00 .00..0 .0030 003 0.0 03030.0 30::

000.0 003 00.30..0. .0

.0.030.0. 00003 .0 0000 .0 030.0 a .0030 .0 00x0.0 0000 .N
00000 00000.00. .n 0:..0030 3000 .n 00.40.: 0.0: .3
0000.0 003 0.0>0 03 >.3 00> 0.0 00:

 

 

 

 

 

.0. ..0 .c.

$fl| .RI:.SI:
.0011: .n..1:. .~.111
..01:: .0011: ...:::
.0011: .nn1:: .oa11:
000.9 000.0 :00.u
u..:. 0:00.. 0....

 

 

0:..o.: .0 0...... o:....:o .n

003.00 .0 00.0000 .n 000053 .a

0.0.8.... .. 900:0... 0:... .. 08...... 0.08 ..

..0>«.0 .0030 0:

.. x00.0 0>003. 000.000 .0>q.0 .0030 003 000 00000000 30::

0:.xo.: .0 0...... o:..o.:. .n
00.0.00 .0 00.0000 .0 0030.03 .~
00.0.00 .5 00.00000 000. .0 3500.30 0500 .3
000.:00 00> 0.0: 00>00000 300:

“0.0.0x0. 00003 .0 000: .o 00 000: .n
00.3.00.» .0 00.. 0... 00.. 0.0:. .:0... .n

00.. 0:... u... 0.0:. 0:... .. 00.0 0:... 00.. 0.0:. .:0... .~
00.0 3.0. 00.. 0.000 300.. .0 000 .00. .3
«no... a... :0... 0:. 0.0 so:

..000 .00.. .0.00. .00... no... ..
:.... a. .0 0.0.:0. 00...: .n
030>0.0300 .m .000 .0 300.3 .N
0.0>0.0 .0 :0..300000 .0 .00 000>00 .003000 .3
.00....:. .0: .00... .o:.o .u::

.0.0.000. 00003 .0 000: .m

00 >100 a .0 00 3100 a. .0 000100 0 .0 00 3100 on .N
00 0100 . .h 00 0.100 > .n 00 0:00 3 .n 00 03:00 h .3
0:000.: :aa.u 0.0 :.:x

.>0« .0 000 .N
00300013000 .n >.0 .3
0000..00 000. .0 00.3.0000

.0>0.0 .0

>03000. :0 .0..0300 0000. .h >~.0 .n

...:0:1o>.:o .0 ...::3001.:0..... ..

003...::0>.00 .m 30>0310>.00 .n 33.0001000.0.30 .N
...:000010>.00 .> 0033330130000.30 .0 ~0>0313:0.0.30 ..
>03000. .0 00>3 30:3

.0.0.0x0. 000:. .0 000: .o 30. 000.000 .0

00.000.0 a: .n >000»..0 .n
00.0.0000 .0 000030000030. 0000.00 0. .N
000000.030. .n 00.3000.00:. 30 .~

«00000: 000.0 003 0.0 0.0:)

.000000 .. 3000000 0 03..0 03 00.. 300.
10000 00003 300.0 0>003

 

 

 

.0. .0. .o.
.c.111 ...1:: .0n111
.n.::1 .0011: ...11:
.~0::1 .0.::: .0n111
.‘ol '3' .nnl
.0011: ...1:: ..n11:
.00111. .0.::1 .n0111
.0011: ...11: .Nn111

:o..0 :...0 :o...

u..:. 0:0000 0....

 

 

 

.0000. .000. 000 000.0 :300 03 >.000 000.30000 ~3<

.30. 0. ..00. .o: on 0.:.

. 8'5

0..:. 0:3 .0. 0.0000: .0030 0:3 000 .:00.0 000000 0:3 .0. >.00 >a1nc 0.0000: 00.3
1......00 0.3 .:00.0 30... 0:3 .0. >H00 HHHNn 0.0.0.0: 0030000 on. .5300 .000... 0:3 0.
.0000: 00.30000 0:3 >0 00.000 3000 0:0 0:3 .0 .0000: 0:3 0...: 0000.011:00.0 .0 00>—

 

APPENDIX B

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PROGRAM

1291

 

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL PROGRAM
SCHOOL CODE YEAR
Classroom
Period minutes; Days per week Weeks ;

Total Clock hours

Laboratory
Simulator: period minutes;
weeks ;
Range: period minutes; Days
weeks ;

On-Street: period minutes;

weeks

Total Clock Hours As Driver

TOTAL CLOCK HOURS OF PRACTICE:

Simulator
hours

range

 

.;. 4 .;. 2
Class and Lab Correlation

Lab starts: concurrent with cl

Total Simulator Clock Hours

Total Range Clock Hours

Total Clock Hours As Observer

plus hours plus hours

Days per week

per week

Days per week

on-street
equals
total hours

ass; days after class starts;

after class is completed;

Teacher Assignment

 

No. of teachers: full Time ;
50-70% DE ;
No. of teachers:
class only ;

simulator only

class and BTW ;
class and range
range and BTW

class, range and BTW

class, simulator, range and BTW

75% DE
20-40% DE

BTW only '

range only ;
class and simulator
; simulator and BTW
class, simulator and BTW

o
9

APPENDIX C

GUIDES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF SURVEY

GUIDES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF
DRIVER EDUCATION EVALUATION SURVEY

( ) - Statements in parentheses are instructions to follow for the person
administering the survey questionnaire.

“ " - Statements within quotation marks are those to be read aloud to
students.

INTRODUCTION

(Make general announcement--have some extra pencils)--"Today, you are
being asked to fill out a questionnaire on your driving experiences so far.
The purpose and need for this information is explained on the first page . . .
You may use pencil or pen . . . Do not begin writing until the instructions
are given."

(Pass out survey forms and have students read the need and purpose with
you.)--"Please read to yourself while I read aloud the purpose and importance

of the survey."

INSTRUCTIONS

"On the first line, write the date."

"On the next line, you are to print our school code number if you com-
pleted driver education in this high school. If you did not complete driver
education in this high school, then print the name of the public or private
school on this line. If you did not complete a course in driver education,
then write NONE on this line."

"Please print your name."

"In the next two blanks, write in your age and grade point average."

"Questions l-3 are to be answered by placing the one best answer to

each question on the blank line provided."

12K3

"Now, turn to page two and read the instructions carefully. Please
listen to some special instructions before you begin writing."

"Note that you may check one or more of the items numbered 4-l2. All
other questions from number l3 on call for just the ONE best choice. Feel
free to write an explanation of your choice if necessary. Those of you who
way not have a driver's license yet need answer only those questions that
apply to you. Leave the rest blank.”

"Now, look at questions 23, 24, and 25. It may be hard to estimate
the number of miles you have driven the last year. However, knowing about
how many hours you drive each week should help you figure out how many miles
you drive during an average month. Then, you should be able to make a better
estimate of how many miles per year. Of course, you will need to add in any
long vacation trips if you did most of the driving."

"For question 23, do not count any collisions you might have had before

 

completing the driver education course."

"Remember the definition of a collision is as follows: If your car hits
something or was hit by something causing ggy_damage or injury, then count it
as a collision or crash."

"Now, turn to the last two pages. Please note that there is a separate
column for each collision or crash."

"When you have completed the questionnaire, turn it over and wait until
I ask for them to be collected."

"Are there any questions? You may begin."

(Collect and return to person in charge.)

Thank you for your assistance:

Horlin Carter, Assistant Professor
Dept. of Safety & Driver Education
North Carolina A & T State University

APPENDIX D

SAMPLE OF LETTERS SENT TO THE SG‘IIDLS

127

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EASTLANSING-floniom asaza

 

CONTINUING EDUCATION SERVICE 0 HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY CENTER 0 KELLOUG CENTER

July 25, l982

Mr. Armand Mando, Principal
Ashebrook High School

2222 New Hope Road
Gastonia, NC 28052

Dear Mr. Mando:

I spoke to you on the phone in May 1982 concerning the administration of a
driver education survey to your students who had completed driver education
in the l980-81 academic school year and summer l98l. I have enclosed a copy
of the questionnaire and instructions for administering the survey. I need
permission to give the survey to fifty (50) of your students. Twenty-five
(25) from the 1980-Bl academic school year program and twenty-five (25)

from the l98l summer driver education program. I have randomly selected ten
schools in North Carolina for my study, and Ashebrooke High School is one of
them.

I am completing a doctoral program at Michigan State University in Traffic

and Safety Education. The topic of my dissertation is a comparison and in-
vestigation of accidents and moving violations of selected students in North
Carolina who completed driver education in the academic school year programs
versus students who completed driver education in the summer programs. The
academic school year l980-8l and summer l98l is the year under study. For the
study, I wish to have 50 randomly selected students from the total program:
twenty-five from the l980-8l academic school year program and twenty-five

from the l98l summer program. It should only take the students 26-30 minutes
to complete the surveys.

If possible, I would like to either administer the surveys or have someone at
the school administer them between August 30, l982 and September 24, l982. A
positive answer will be greatly appreciated. I will make further arrange-
ments upon hearing from your office.

I will be returning to Greesnboro, NC July 29, l982, but I will not be at my
office until August l6, l982. Please forward your reply to my attention at
the f0llowing address:

Department of Safety and Driver Education
Price Hall, Room 113

North Carolina A&T State University
Greensboro, NC 274ll

Sincerely.yours,

Horlin Carter

MSU Is on Affirmative Action I Equal Opponum‘ry IHSII'UUOD

HC/ljt
Enclosure

APPENDIX E

LIST OF SCHOOLS IN THE STUDY

128

SCHOOLS IN THE STUDY

Scotland County High School

Mr. Anzel Harrel, Driver Education Cbordinator
Box 272

Laurinburg, North carolina 28352

Garinger East High School

Mr. B.B. Delaine, Driver Education Coordinator
P.O. Box 30035

Charlotte, NOrth carolina 28230

Southwestern Randolph Senior High School

Mr. Robert L. Brewer, Driver Education Cbordinator
Route 3

Asheboro, North carolina 27203

Ashbrook High School

Mr. Armand Mando, Principal
2222 Newhope Road

Gastonia, North Chrolina 28052

Ayden-Grifton High School

Mr. Claude Kennedy, Driver Education Department Chairman
Route 3, Box 172

Ayden, North Carolina 28513

Page High School

Mrs. Elizabth Bell, Central Administration
Greensboro Public Schools

712 N. Eugene Street

Greensboro, North carolina 27402

North Eorsyth High School

Mr. Julian Gibson, Principal

Rbute 7

575 Shattalon Drive

Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27106

Southeast High School

Mr. Kenneth Turnage, Driver Education Director
Route 1, Box 206

Halifax, North Carolina 27839

Lee Senior High School

Dr. George Seagraves, Principal
P.O. Box 1010

Sanfbrd, North Carolina 27330

10.

129

Freedom High School

Mr. Ron Black, Driver Education Coordinator
Route 12, Box 27

Ibrganton, North Carolina 28655