MSU EURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to [JBRARJES remove this checkout from “ your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped beIow. a v 5“ .. A STUDY OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TWO ALTERNATIVE DRIVER EDUCATION LABORATORY SCHEDULES BY Darrel Verne Jensen A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1982 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TWO ALTERNATIVE DRIVER EDUCATION LABORATORY SCHEDULES BY Darrel Verne Jensen This study was undertaken to determine if there were any differences between a program offering driver education students 30 hours of classroom, 16 hours of simulation, and 2 hours of on-street instruction and one offering 30 hours of classroom, 12 hours of simulation, and 3 hours of on- street instruction. A road test, knowledge test, and atti- tude inventory were utilized to determine differences between the control and treatment groups. Analysis of variance was employed to determine dif- ferences in road test scores between the control and experi— mental groups. Student's E was used to compare the knowl- edge test scores prior to and after treatment. Pearson Product Moment £_was used to examine relationships between the second trial of the road test, and times driven rural, urban, and total. Because the results of the data from the Mann Inventory yielded nominative data, chi square was employed to analyze attitude differences between the two Darrel Verne Jensen groups and to examine the relationship of attitude to road tESt scores . The conclusions of this study were: The safe driving behavior of students who received 16 hours of simulation instruction and 2 hours of on-street instruction was essentially the same as students who received 12 hours of simulation instruction and 3 hours on-street instruction. The Safe Performance Curriculum Knowledge Test and the road test based on driver performance measure- ment research measured different things. Driving experience outside of the driver education setting can be beneficial to safe driving behavior. One trial over the road test route is sufficient if the route is well designed and the rater is properly trained in driver performance measurement. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is submitted with deep appreciation to Larry Vice, James McDowell, and the staff at Education Ser- vice Unit Three in Omaha, Nebraska. Their assistance in the administrative aspects of this study, along with the data collection, was invaluable. Recognition should also be given to the Independent Insurance Agents in the Omaha area who provided resources to enable this study to be done. The faculty and staff at Michigan State University were extremely helpful in the technical advisement necessary. Frederick Vanosdall's assistance in setting up the route, collecting the data, and providing guidance relative to pre- vious work were of utmost importance. The patient guidance given by my advisor, Dr. Robert Gustafson, was also deeply appreciated. The interest in the study by my colleagues and pro- fessional peers, such as Duane Schmidt of the Nebraska Department of Education, provided much impetus toward com- pletion of the task. Finally, the support given by my wife, Linda, and children, especially Scott, who assisted with tabulation of the data, was an inspiration. ii LIST OF LIST OF CHAPTER I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES I O I O O O I O O O O O FIGURES O O O O O O I O O O 0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . Research Questions . . . . . . Null and Alternative Hypotheses . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . Delimitations . . . . . . . . . Basic Assumptions . . . . . . . Organization of Remaining Chapters . . REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . Review of Driver Education Research . Simulation Research . . . . . . . Driver Performance Measurement Research Road Tests Evaluated Against Driver Performance Measurement . . . . . METHODS OF PROCEDURE . . . . . . . Sample . . . . . . . . . . Teacher Workshop . . . . . . . . Collection of Data . . . . . . . Measurement Tools . . . . . . . Road Test . . . . . . . . . . Methodology . . . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . Major Hypothesis . . . . . . . . Subhypotheses . . . . . . . . . iii Page vi mflxlmUINWNI-J H \D 17 22 31 36 CHAPTER Page V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 70 Summary of Study . . . . . . . . . . 70 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . 76 Suggestions for Further Research . . . . 78 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 APPENDICES ' Appendix A. Simulation and On-Street Schedules . . . . 88 B. Driving Knowledge Test. . . . . . . . 91 C. The Mann Inventory . . . . . . . . . . 101 D. The Road Test . . . . . . . . . . . 104 E. Illustration of Road Test Sequence . . . . 110 F. Student Information Sheet. . . . . . . . 117 G. Road Test Directions . . . . . . . . . 119 iv Table 3:1. 3:2. 3:3. 3:4. 4:1. 4:7. 4:8. 4:9. 4:10. 4:11. 4:12. LIST OF TABLES Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Age and Gender of All Subjects . . . . . Times Driven Before and During Treatment . . Driving Experience . . . . . . . . . Frequency Distribution of Road Test--Tria1 Two Scores (12 x 3) . . . . . . . . . . Frequency Distribution of Road Test--Trial Two Scores (16 x 2) . . . . . . . . . . Mean Road Test Scores--Trial Two . . . . . Variation of Road Test Scores on Trial Two . Road Test Trial One Analyzed by Group and Rater Road Test Trial Two Analyzed by Group and Rater Knowledge Test Before Treatment . . . . . Knowledge Test After Treatment . . . . . Observed and Expected Frequencies from Mann Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Times Driven and Scores on Road and Knowledge Test . . Road Test Trial Two Scores Compared to Mann Inventory Results . . . . . . . . . Times Driven Correlated with Scores on Road Test Trial Two . . . . . . . . . . Page 38 38 39 50 55 56 57 58 60 60 61 62 63 64 66 68 Figure 5:1. LIST OF FIGURES Comparison of Pattern Scores on Road Test Trial One and Trial Two . . . . . vi Page 74 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The goals of a driver education program are usually divided into four major areas of concern. These are knowl- edge, skill, attitude, and habit. As a response to these concerns, objectives are formulated relating to the cogni- tive, psychomotor, and affective domains. As experiences are provided, the student tends to internalize the driving task allowing for attendance to the perceptual judgments related to driving and respond to the situation by using appropriate skills. The modes usually used to provide these experiences have been classroom, range, simulation, and on street.1 The primary focus of this study was on the mani- pulation of variables related to the simulation and on- street modes. Statement of the Problem There has been a continual development of expertise in the utilization of simulation during the past 1Sixth National Conference on Safety Education, Pro- ceedings Vol. II, Policies and Guidelines for Driver and Traffic Safety Education, American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association, 1201 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washing- ton, D.C. 20036, p. 8. quarter-century.2 Because of rising energy costs and the problem in some localities of providing a broad range of driving experiences, it was important to thoroughly examine the potential of simulation as it related to the novice driver. It may be economically and educationally sound to use simulation experiences to meet objectives related to the driving task in a more comprehensive fashion. However, it was not known how different ratios of simulation and on- street affect the product of a driver education program. Purpose of the Study Most authorities in driver education viewed twelve hours of simulation and three hours of on-street as the most acceptable combination. The traditional acceptance of this program, however, had not been empirically examined.3 This study attempted to determine if there was a difference in the quality of a driver education program giving thirty hours of classroom instruction, sixteen hours of simulation instruction, and two hours of behind-the-wheel (16 x 2), compared to thirty hours of classroom instruction, twelve hours of simulation instruction, and three hours behind-the- wheel (12 x 3). The 16 x 2 alternative was selected as a viable one because it could be scheduled in a very efficient manner. Other alternatives considered, such as three to one ratio, would either have resulted in an evident program reduction or would have unnecessarily complicated the 3 21bid., p. 49. Ibid., p. 65. scheduling habits of driver education teachers and school administrators. Definition of Terms 16 x 2 16 x 2 was operationally defined as the experimental group of subjects which received thirty hours of classroom, sixteen hours of simulation, and two hours of on-street. 12 x 3 12 x 3 referred to the control group of subjects given thirty hours of classroom, twelve hours of simulation, and three hours of on-street. Driver Performance Measurement (DPM) DPM was a measure of driver performance developed by the Michigan State University Highway Traffic . Safety Center and was found to be valid and reliable when using two raters on a specified route. Road Test The road test was an evaluation tool developed for this project that was based upon the DPM, but which used only one rater. Behind-the-wheel Behind-the-wheel referred to instruction which took place on public streets and highways. Simulation Simulation referred to the subject driving a mock car, responding to specific programmed situations projected on a screen. Research Questions The major research questions this study addressed was: 0 Is there a difference in driving performance between a group of driver education students who have had thirty hours of classroom, sixteen hours of simula- tion, and two hours behind-the-wheel (experimental), compared to the performance of a group who had thirty hours of classroom, twelve hours of simulation, and three hours behind-the-wheel (control)? There were also several related questions. These were: - Is there a difference between the experimental and control group on the Safe Performance Curriculum knowledge test when administered before treatment? - Is there a difference between the experimental and control group on the Safe Performance Curriculum knowledge test when administered after treatment? - Is there a difference between the experimental and control group on the Mann Inventory when administered after treatment? - Is there a relationship between the results of the standardized knowledge test and performance on the second trial of the road test? - Is there a relationship between the results of the Mann Inventory and the second trial of the road test? - Is there a relationship between the urban driving experiences of the subjects and performance on the second trial of the road test? - Is there a relationship between the rural driving experiences of the subjects and performance on the second trial of the road test? - Is there a relationship between the combined driving experiences of the subjects and performance on the second trial of the road test? To answer these research questions, ninety-six stu- dents were divided into two equal groups--an experimental group and a control group. The primary test instrument used to determine differences in driving behavior was a road test developed on the basis of Driver Performance Measurement research. Other tools used included a knowledge test given before and after the instruction. Minutes in simulation, behind-the-wheel, and observation of other student drivers were recorded. The two groups were then compared based upon the data generated. A detailed description of the methodology used to analyze the data is discussed later in the methodology chapter. The The Null and Alternative Hypotheses major hypothesis tested was: There is no difference in the driving performance of the experimental and control group as measured by a road test. H0: H H1: H1 # H2 sub-hypotheses were: There is no difference between the experimental and control group on the Safe Performance Curriculum knowledge test when administered before treatment. H0: H1 = H2 H1: Hl # H2 There is no difference between the experimental and control group on the Safe Performance Curriculum knowledge test when administered after treatment. H0: H1 = H2 H1: Hl # H2 There is no difference between the experimental and control group on the Mann Inventory when adminis- tered after treatment. H0: H1 = H2 H1: Hl # H2 There is no relationship between performance on the first trial of the road test compared to performance on the second trial. H0: H : = 0 1 0 p 97‘ - There is no relationship between the results of the Safe Performance Curriculum knowledge test and the second trial of the road test. H H P=0 9:40 0 1 - There is no relationship between the results of the Mann Inventory and performance on the second trial of the road test. 0 =0 H : p H1: p # 0 - There is no relationship between urban driving experiences of the subjects and the second trial of the road test. H0: p = 0 H1: p # 0 - There is no relationship between rural driving experiences of the subjects and performance on the second trial of the road test. H p = 0 0: H1: p # 0 ° There is no relationship between the combined driv- ing experiences of the subjects and performance on the second trial of the road test. H0: p = 0 H1: p # 0 Limitations This study was limited to students taught through the driver education services provided by an Educational Service Unit in a suburban city in the Midwest. Although most experts accepted a concurrent program as most desirable,4 scheduling at the Educational Service Unit was not concurrent. Teacher training was limited to a seminar which included research procedures and scheduling. Content con- sistency or philosophical differences were not thoroughly examined. Delimitations This study was delimited to the evaluation of two programs. The first was the 12 x 3 program that the Edu- cational Service Unit had operated for some years. The 16 x 2 program was an attempt to determine the effects on students' driving performance when more simulation and less on-street was provided. This study was delimited to ninety subjects from the sophomore class of a high school. It was conducted during the first semester of the 1980-81 school year. Basic Assumptions There were several basic assumptions associated with this study. The first was that driver education generally is beneficials and that, specifically, the simulation phase contributed positively to the driver education process6 by substituting for actual behind-the-wheel experience. It was assumed that the subjects in the 16 x 2 group were the same as the subjects in the 12 x 3 group. A 5 6 41bid., p. 14. Ibid., p. 5. Ibid., p. 49. knowledge test was given prior to treatment to determine if this assumption was correct. It was also assumed that significant variation was not caused by teacher ability or effectiveness. Some control was provided by the fact that all the teachers had driver education endorsements, but individual teaching abilities might have varied. Organization of Remaining Chapters The following chapter is the review of literature. This review includes descriptions of driver education research, simulation research, driver performance measure- ment research, and road tests evaluated against DPM. Chap— ter III describes the design and methodology of the research. This includes a description of the sample, the teacher work- shop held prior to the implementation of the study, the col- lection of data, and the measurement tools. Chapter IV describes the analysis of data for each hypothesis. Chapter V, the final chapter, states the conclusions and identifies some implications for driver education. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE There were four major topics investigated in the literature review for this study. These included a review of driver education research, studies involving simulation, research of driver performance measurement, and a review of road tests evaluated against driver performance measurement. Review of Driver Education Research In 1957 the National Education Association's Research Division in collaboration with the National Commission on Safety Education prepared a document which examined the research accomplished in driver education prior to that date. It was recognized that these studies generally had serious limitations. In fact, the more rigorously the study had been controlled, the smaller the differences tended to be. The conclusion was: The studies show indisputably that those who have had driver education have better drivigg records than those who have not had driver education. 1National Commission on Safety Education, "A Critical Analysis of Driver Education Research," National Education Association, 1957, p. 56. 10 This analysis was conducted by sending a form letter to a selected list of ninety-one deans of graduate schools of education. This letter requested copies of any study which had been done relevant to driver education. A further search was made concerning master theses and doctoral dis- sertations. This survey identified fourteen state studies and fourteen studies of city programs. The following gen- eralizations were made in a summary of those studies com- pleted in 1961 by the National Commission on Safety Education. Most of the studies have found that the drivers who are graduates of a high-school course in driver education have fewer accidents and violations than drivers with no formal high-school course in driver education. The evi- dence presented in this report may be regarded as conclusive. The amount of superiority shown for the trained drivers varied greatly among the studies. However, the studies which appear to have controlled a maximum of variables have found for trained males a superior per- formance of 30 to 50 percent for the initial period of driving. The exact percentage does not seem as import- ant as the fact that it consistently reflected superior performance. The drivers who completed a course in classroom and practice driving instruction generally were found to have a better record than drivers whose course was limited to classroom instruction. The evi- dence here is strong. It appears that the salutary effect of driver edu- cation is most evident in the early stages of driving. As experience increases, the performance of the trained and untrained drivers tends to equalize. Further investigation of the lasting effect of driver educaSion is needed to establish generalization in this area. Studies in the 19603 and early 19703 continued to project driver education as a valuable traffic accident 2National Commission on Safety Education, "Summary of Results of Studies Evaluating Driver Education," National Education Association, 1961. ll countermeasure. Reports from the National Safety Council3 and the American Automobile Association4 indicated that those who had driver education had lower accident rates than those who did not take driver education. It has been sug- gested that attitude and motivation have played a part in the differences. A study by Loft indicated that those who had taken driver education scored higher in driving knowledge and attitude as measured by the Siebrecht Attitude Scale.5 The limitations of the studies done in the 19503 were described by Conger, Miller, and Rainey as they pointed out that motivation, intelligence, social class, and exposure were not adequately controlled in the research.6 As a reaction to the previous quasi experimental research conducted in driver education some studies in the 19703 seriously questioned the value of high school driver education. Margaret Hubbard Jones in a study conducted for the California legislature suggested that commercial schools could teach the laboratory phase of driver education more 3National Safety Council, Driver Education Status Report, Chicago, 1974. 4E. Allgaier, Driver Education Reduces Accidents and Violations, American Automobile Association, No. 3782, 1964. 5Bernard I. Loft, "The Effects of Driver Education on Driver Knowledge and Attitudes in Selected Public Schools,” Traffic Safety Research Review, June 1960, pp. 13-14 0 6J. J. Conger, W. C. Miller, and R. V. Rainey, "Effects of driver education: the role of motivation, intel- ligence, social class, and exposure," Traffic Safety Research Review, 10(3), 1966. 12 cost effectively.7 The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in a study conducted to determine the effect of driver education on teenaged drivers fatal crash involve- ment concluded that driver education greatly increased the number of drivers licensed among persons sixteen-seventeen years old without reducing the fatal crash involvement rate per licensed driver of that age. Just as the proponents of driver education received criticism for their research efforts, so did Jones' and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety for their research attempts. Following is a list of conclusions from each study and replies by prominent safety educators who have analyzed the studies. Conclusions from the California Driver Training Evaluation Study: "A. Immediate criteria "1. Commercially trained students were somewhat superior on most training variables. "2. Students trained in the long programs were superior. "3. Students trained in the short simulator pro- grams were inferior to all other groups. "4. Males were superior in all variables except those measuring attitudes. "B. Intermediate criteria "1. Commercially trained students score signifi- cantly higher on the Department of Motor Vehicles Road Test, but the difference is small. "2. The long programs result in higher road test scores and shorter licensing delays. 7Margaret Hubbard Jones, "California Driver Training Evaluation Study," Summaryof Final Report to the California Legislature, December, 1973. 13 "3. There are no differences between the standard simulator and standard six hour in-car program . "4. Females require much longer to be licensed and fewer are licensed. "5. Licensing rate for trainees is low (47 percent at six months and 73 percent at about two years). "C. glpimate criteria "1. Citations: "a. Students trained in public programs may have somewhat fewer citations, but the difference is exceedingly small. "b. No consistent reliable differences between long and short programs and between simulator and six-hour programs were found. "c. Males have worse records. "2. Accidents: "a. There is no difference in accident rate between publicly and commercially trained students. "b. There is no difference in accident rate between those trained in short and those trained in long programs. "c. There is probably no difference between simulator and standard six-hour programs, but there is a suggestion that the six- hour program students may have a slightly worse record. 8 "d. Males have worse records." After reviewing critiques of the California Driver Training Evaluation Study, a summary was written by Smith for the American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Associ- ation. Smith concluded: Numerous studies comparing the driving records of students completing a driver education course and those not receiving such instruction have not shown a signifi- cant difference. Therefore, the CDTES has not shown anything different than what has been shown about driver education itself. As with previous driver education studies, the CDTES used what many traffic safety research people have found 81bid. 14 to be an unreliable criterion, driving records (acci- dents and violations) over a relatively short period of time. The CDTES also fails to account for the inherent differences which may exist between students choosing to enroll in a commercial driving school program and those choosing a public school course. Cost differentials between commercial and public school programs are suspect, due to the fact that com- plete financial records of the commercial schools were not available and were therefore never viewed by the CDTES staff. The higher costs attributed to the simulator pro- grams over the BTW programs in the public schools can be explained by the fact that simulation is primarily taught during the school day, while BTW is basically an after-school hours program. The lower rate of pay accounts for this reported lower BTW program cost over simulation instruction. According to the California Committee for Traffic Safety Education's analysis of Dr. Goldstein's review, the immediate criterion of instructors' evaluations of their own students, both public school and commercial, is subject to the"halo" effect. There are differing standards for these instructors' evaluations. In addition, the use of road licensing examinations as an intermediate criterion has limitations. Many such examinations have been shown to have low reliability. In summary, the commercial schools were not truly randomly selected. Thirteen of 158 were selected, with 34 having declined. A good experimental design should account for those declining. In their study done for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Robertson and Zador purported that: Fatal crash involvement of teenagers per licensed drivers and per population in twenty-seven states were related to the proportions who received driver educa— tion. Among sixteen-seventeen year olds, driver edu- cation greatly increased the number of licensed drivers without decreasing the fatal crash involvement per ten thousand licensed drivers. About 80 percent of the sixteen-seventeen year olds who obtained licenses would not be licensed until age eighteen or thereafter if there were no driver education in high schools. The net 9Donald L. Smith, "Summary of the Critiques," American Driver and Traffic Safety, 1201 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. 15 effect is much higher death involvement rates per ten thousand population on average, in states with greater proportions of sixteen-seventeen year olds receiving driver education. At least two thousand fatal crashes per year that would not otherwise occur are attributed to increased licensure of sixteen-seventeen year olds because of driver education. The data indicate that most teenagers would obtain licenses when they are eighteen-nineteen years old, irrespective of driver edu- cation, and that death involvement rate per ten thousand licensed eighteen-nineteen year old drivers was unaf- 10 fected by either driver education or delayed licensure. Cushman in his objections to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study charged: It was irrational to state that about 80 percent of the sixteen-seventeen year olds who obtained licenses would not be licensed until age eighteen or thereafter. If there were no driver education in high schools fatalities would be reduced, as they would be by taking any significant number of the motoring public from the highway.11 Cushman also criticized the lack of an adequate experimental research design. It seemed somewhat ironic that the same criticism used by Cushman was also used by the Insurance Institute and others in their criticisms of early driver education research that found a large (as much as 50 percent) accident reduction due to driver education. Recently, more modest claims have been made regard- ing the value of driver education. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has taken the position that a 10Leon S. Robertson and Paul Zador, "Driver Edu- cation and Fatal Crash Involvement of Teenaged Drivers," Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, October 1977. 11William D. Cushman, "Commentary on the Research Report: Driver Education and Fatal Crash Involvement of Teenaged Drivers," Amegican Driver and Traffic Education Association, December 5, 1977. 16 quality high school driver education program is capable of a 10-15 percent effect in terms of reducing the probability of crash involvement among those who have taken it.12 As a response to the lack of adequate experimental design, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has funded two related projects which have been carefully designed. In 1973, research conducted in Kansas City by the staff of Central Missouri State University randomly assigned students to three different groups. The first group (control) did not participate in driver education. The second group took a predriver licensing (PDL) course designed to bring them to the level for successfully passing their license examination. The third group was given the Safe Performance Driving Curriculum (SPC) which was felt to be the best driver education curriculum available. The second phase of this study continued in Dekalb County, Georgia, and used a similar design. This research design used accident records and violations to determine the effectiveness of driver education as an accident counter- measure. Because it takes several years of analysis for accident records and violations to be used as a criterion for accident countermeasure evaluation, it was not appro- priate to include any results of that research in this paper. 12The Driver Education Evaluation Program (DEEP) Study, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Report to the Congress, July 1975, p. 1. 17 Simulation Research The first simulator program was conducted at Lane Technical High School in Chicago.13 Since that time, there has been considerable development of the technology, some research has been done, and considerable discussion has centered around the contribution of simulation to driver education. In a study of the Aetna Drivo-trainer conducted in Los Angeles students were divided into two groups. The con- trol group received six hours of on-street training, while the experimental group received three hours of on-street training and sixteen hours in the simulator. Results indi- cated that practically the same progress in driving skill and knowledge was experienced by both groups.14 Using the Iowa Driver's License Examination Score sheet and a final driver's test as evaluation instruments, researchers at Iowa State University found no difference in driver education students using simulation as a substitute 15 for a portion of on-street driving. Bernoff in an excerpt from a dissertation completed at the University of 13Herbert J. Stack, History of Driver Education in the United States (Washington: National Education Associa- tion, National Commission on Safety Education, 1966), p. 36. 14An Evaluation of the Teaching Effectiveness of the Aetna Drivo-trainer (A condensed report of the Los Angeles Study; Hartford, Connecticut: Aetna Casualty and Surety Division), p. 17. 15Gordon J. Rhum and Bertram L. Woodcock, "The Effectiveness of the Aetna Drivo-trainer in Driver Educa- tion," July 1956. 18 California in 1958 concluded that the Drivo—trainer had the potential for providing superior training when combined with on-street driving as part of the laboratory experience as opposed to on-street only.16 In a 1959 evaluation of the Aetna Drivo-trainer com- pleted in New York researchers found no significant differ- ences in driver knowledge, driver attitude, and emergency judgment as measured by paper and pencil tests using a con- trol and Drivo-trainer group. However, on the Driver IQ test and student self-estimates of driver growth, some sig- nificant differences were obtained in favor of the Drivo- trainer groups.17 Negative and/or positive transfer of simulation to on-street behavior has been of considerable interest among driver educators. A review of evaluation studies of the Drivo-trainer and the Auto trainer was accomplished by Eales in 1961. He suggested that more attention be given to transfer of learning by manufacturers and teachers.18 16Louis I. Bernoff, An experimental Study of Teach- ing Efficiency of the Aetna Drivo-traineg, Aetna Life and Casualty, Hartford, Connecticut, June 1958. 17George Forlano and J. Wayne Wrightstone, "An Evaluation of the Aetna Drivo-trainer in Selected New York City Schools," Divisional Bulletin No. 3, October 1959. 18John R. Eales, "The Use of Simulators in Driving Training," Reprint from California Schools, XXXII, No. 11 (November 1961), California State Department of Education. 19 Commenting on the transfer of learning, Dr. Bishop stated in a 1963 study conducted for the Florida Department of Education: Intergroup comparison of road test scores strongly suggests that simulator instruction overall transfers positively to actual driving performance. The simulator group (twelve hours of simulator and three hours behind- the-wheel) scored approximately 10 points better than the six hours behind-the-wheel group and over 20 points better than the three hours behind-the-wheel group. Furthermore, the component analysis indicates that the most significant transfer occurs on extremely important factors in driving, such as, (l) intersection observi9 ance, (2) intersection speed, and (3) speed control. A study funded by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education reported that with an integrated teaching approach, the new simulator with its immediate learning reinforcement can be used to substi- tute nine hours of simulated training for three of six hours of behind-the-wheel and three of six hours of observation in a dual-control car. In addition, the integrated simulator method produced significantly better results than did the nonsimulator approach in specific skills involving road position, turn signals, intersections, knowledge of stopping, night speed, headlights, and passing.20 19Richard W. Bishop, "Evaluating Simulator Instruc- tion for Accomplishing Driver Education Objectives," Florida Institute for Continuing University Studies, Talahassee, Florida, 1963. 20U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, "Immediate Standardized Learning Rein- forcement to a Complex Mental-Motor Skill (Driver Training) Using Electronically-coordinated Motion Pictures," Title VII Project Number 1090, National Defense Education Act of 1958, p. 2. 20 In 1964, Nolan evaluated the relative effectiveness of students taught by using the Drivo-trainer compared to students taught using the multiple—car off—street driving range. Results indicated both Drivo-training and multiple car groups made significant positive mean changes in general driving knowledge.21 Gustafson in 1965 compared the instruc- tional effectiveness of the All-state Driver-trainer with the instruction on the multiple car off-street driving range and found no significant differences between the experimental and control groups in general driving knowledge, specific driving knowledge, driving attitude, or on the traffic prob- lems and road problems sections of the final road test. There was a significant difference found on the vehicle handling section of the final road test in favor of the group 22 Bishop combining both simulation and range with on-street. has suggested that perception and decision-making were taught better in the simulation mode, while basic control maneuvers were taught better through the use of the multiple-car- range.23 21Robert O. Nolan, "A Comparative Study of the Teach- ing Effectiveness of the Multiple Car Off-Street Driving Range and the Aetna Drivo-trainer," (Ph.D. dissertation), Michigan State University, 1964. 22Robert E. Gustafson, "A Study to Compare the Effec- tiveness of Instruction in the Allstate Good Driver Trainer and on the Multiple Car Off-Street Driving Range with the Multiple Car Off-Street Driving Range," (Ph.D. dissertation), Michigan State University, 1965. 23Richard W. Bishop, "Questions and Answers About Driving Simulators," Safety Education, Vol. 44, No 4 (Decem- ber 1964): PP. 8-11. 21 There has been some evidence that technology advance- ment is capable of developing a superior simulation system. Gilliland, addressing the North Carolina's Symposium on High- way Safety, gave credence to the potential to create computer-generated imagery and thus allow for variation of feedback based upon the response of the simulator operator.24 Research, as well as authorities in driver educa- tion, have consistently maintained that experience in the field has demonstrated that in the hands of knowledgeable teachers, the driving simulator mode can be effective in helping beginning and experienced drivers attain a wide variety of cognitive, perceptual-motor, and affective learn- ings which are related to desirable performance within the highway transportation systems.25 24Gene M. Gilliland, "Applications of Computer Gener- ated Imagery to Driver Training, Highway Resarch, and Design, Simulation: Its role in Driver Research and Design," North Carolina_§ymposium, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Vol. 8, Spring 1973. 25Sixth National Conference on Safety Education, Proceedings Vol. II, Policies and Guidelines for Driver and Traffic Safety Education, American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association, 1201 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washing- ton, D.C. 20036. 22 Driver Performance Measurement Research Developmental As early as 1940 it was becoming evident that prob- lems occurred when using driver records as a predictor of driving performance.26 Waller stated that the most frequently used measure for driver performance was subsequent driving records. This method has consistently been demonstrated to be inferior.27 In a study conducted by the Michigan State University Highway Traffic Safety Center, it was found that the DPM was superior to accidents and violations as a measure of safe driving behavior.28 In 1963, Greenshields suggested that it was possible to record and identify driving patterns and thus classify 29 Using a Drivo Meter in 1968, Greenshields and drivers. Platt measured the behavioral patterns exhibited among high risk drivers compared to those of low risk drivers. They 26P. W. Cobb, "The Limit of Usefulness of Accident Rate as a Measure of Accident Proneness," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1940, 24, 154-159. 27Patricia F. Waller, Liva U. Li, Robert G. Hall, and Jane C. Stutts, Driver Performance Tests and Their Role and Potential, University of North Carolina, Highway Research Center, March 1978. 28T. W. Forbes, R. O. Nolan, F. L. Schmidt, and F. E. Vanosdall, "Driver Performance Measurement Based on Dynamic Driver Behavior Patterns in Rural, Urban, Suburban, and Freeway Traffic, Accident Analysis and Prevention," Vol. 7, pp. 257-280, Pergamen Press, 1975. 29B. D. Greenshields, "Driving Behavior and Related Problems," Highway Research Board, No. 25, Washington, D.C., 1963. 23 concluded that there was revealed in ordinary driving those behavior patterns that lead to safety or probability of mis- 30 haps on the highway. The DPM goes beyond this pattern of driving behavior by applying that behavior to a sampling of real-world driving experiences in the real-world environ- ment.31 Waller agreed with the findings of the developers of DPM when she indicated "it appears that the DPM can be used to detect specific driving errors."32 Michigan State University Of particular importance to the Michigan Road Test Project was the research carried out at Michigan State University in 1973 by Forbes and his associates, on driver performance measurement (DPM). It provided an extensive review of the research literature related to driving tests. The primary purpose of that research project was to develop an intermediate criterion for the evaluation of driver edu- cation, driver licensing, driver improvement programs, etc. The need for such a criterion had long been recognized because of the inadequacy of accident records as a criterion. Not only are accident rates difficult to predict, but they contain biases of various kinds (lack of control for expo- sure, biases in reporting, etc.). In addition, it takes 30B. Greenshields and F. Platt, "Development of a Method of Predicting High Accident and High Violation Driv- ers," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1967, 51, 205-210. 31 Forbes, Nolan, Schmidt, and Vanosdall, loc. cit. 32Waller, Li, Hall, and Stutts, loc. cit. 24 years to collect a sufficient amount of accident data to evaluate programs. The research approach adopted by Forbes et a1., dif- fered in important ways from previous methods of evaluating driver performance. It focused specifically on the safety- related aspects of driver performance. Driver knowledge and skills were only of interest insofar as they resulted in behavior directly related to safe and efficient driving. The DPM method focused on driving in traffic situations, as did most road tests. In contrast to the conceptualization of the driving task of Allen, Alexander, and Lunenfeld (1971), which saw the driving task as organized hierarchi- cally from micro to macro levels, traffic situational per- formances were chosen because they were most directly relevant to safe driving. In the DPM research, a team of experts in driver education, driver licensing, and driver behavior applied the techniques of human factors systems analysis to typical traffic environments in locations with hazard potentials. Observed sequences of driving behaviors were recorded by all observers, with attention given to interrelationships and timing in relation to potential hazards. Emphasis was placed on both situational factors and patterns of behaviors, including timing. Painstaking descriptions of the many behavior patterns and how they increased or decreased hazard potential were prepared. The psychological functions 25 required for "suitable" behaviors (behaviors that decreased or did not increase hazard) were determined for each location. From the DPM project evolved a method of driver performance measurement, through the use of the "content validation" procedure often used in construction of psycho- logical tests. Six Behavioral Environment Traffic Situa- tional Sequences that could be connected into an l8-mile course were selected from candidate locations of a 45-mile course. The course adequately sampled driving in rural, urban, suburban, and residential areas and on freeways. After the DPM route had been developed, a compara- tive study was conducted to determine how many of the behav- iors rated as critical in the HumRRO task analysis report (McKnight et al., 1970) were considered relevant to traffic situation performance. Of the 367 "critical" behaviors identified in 17 of the HumRRO tasks, 217 were encountered in the DPM route. Of the remaining 150 critical behaviors, 123 might occur on DPM runs, depending upon conditions of vehicle equipment, roadway, traffic, or weather. In conclusion, the evidence indicated that there was a general factor of safe driving, and that the DPM method provided a valid and reliable measure of this factor. Since this safe driving factor was what a driver licensing road test should measure, DPM was determined to be a sound cri- terion for validating road tests. 26 Research Studies of Road Tests Several studies have been conducted on road tests in different states. Kaestner (1967) studied a 1 percent random sample of nearly thirteen thousand drivers' records, comparing road test scores with violation and accident experience for both male and female drivers of various ages. His analysis indicated that: The relationship between driver license examination records and subsequent driving experience was analyzed in terms of those who passed with a very high score (90 or above), versus those who just barely passed (70-75). Here it was found that actual passing scores of male licensees on both the law test and the drive test were unrelated to subsequent accident records. However, for male licensees there was a tendency for those who passed with the highest scores, that is 90 or more, to be more likely to drive conviction-free from the time of licens- ing. In marked contrast to this, female licensees who passed the law test or drive test with very high scores were significantly more likely to drive accident-free from the time of licensing. There is also a slight but insignificant tendency for female licensees passing the drive test to have fewer convictions for traffic viola- tions. Kaestner concluded: ". . . it is apparent that the relationship between performance on driver license examinations and subsequent driving record is a rather complex one." It might be added that studies using accident and conviction rates, known to be unreliable and biased cannot be expected 53 produce large stable relationships with road tests. McRae (1968) reported a comparative analysis of road test performance scores for three different groups of drivers. Drivers' records were selected from the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles. The first group involved drivers with no accidents or violations; the second 33Phase III, Michigan Road Test Evaluation Study, Michigan State University Highway Traffic Safety Center and Department of Psychology. November 1977, p. 20. 27 group involved drivers with minor accidents and no viola- tions; and the third group involved drivers having both accidents and violations. Using road test scores, various statistical analyses were performed to determine the rela- tionship between the road test scores and drivers' subse- quent records. Again, these unreliable criteria produced small and uncertain relationships. The authors suggested "driver skills" as an area for future study.34 McGlade (1960) developed a road test synthesizing material gathered from forty-six licensing agencies. The test-retest reliability for the same rater was .77, and the interrater reliability for two raters on the same run was .88. The relevant correlation, between raters and between runs, was not computed.35 Wisconsin (1970) designated a task force to evaluate its driver license examining methods and to develop a compre- hensive method of evaluating driver skills. This study surveyed various road testing procedures, facilities, and equipment throughout the United States. It prompted a review of Wisconsin's own road testing procedures and resulted: "1. In modifications in the tasks tested and in the criteria used for their evaluation; "2. In the consideration of off-street testing due to the increasing volumes of tests: and "3. In the rejection of the use of simulation in road testing procedures." 34 35 Ibid., pp. 20-21. Ibid., p. 21. 36 Ibid., p. 21. 28 Johns and Bundy reported results with an instru- mented vehicle, a modification of that used by Platt (1964), and Greenshield (1964). Test-retest reliabilities ranged from .39 to .74 for different indices. All indices changed with changes in routes and traffic density. Correlations of the indices with ratings by one examiner ranged from .04 to .70; the highest correlation was interpreted as reflecting a factor called "smoothness" of driving.37 Driving Research Studies Since the research by Forbes et a1. (1963), two studies of importance have appeared. Biehl et a1. (1975), reported factor analyses of two parallel sets of data col- lected in Vienna and in Tubingen on forty observer-rated variables chosen to be representative of driving behavior as a whole. Routes were 40 km and 35 km in length chosen to sample all types of driving. A total of 382 male volunteer drivers were rated, most of them by more than one rater. Three factors, and possibly a fourth, showed clear replication in the two data-sets. The first factor included careless and risky behaviors as opposed to careful ones, and the name "actively careless driving behaviors" was suggested. The second factor included speed variables, along with good vehicle control skills. A driver high on this factor drove fast, but not unsafely. The suggested name was "driving speed." The third factor seemed to combine a relaxed body 37Ibid., pp. 22-23. 29 posture and a "good driver" general impression with deci- sive, goal-oriented driving. The name "goal-oriented decisive driving style" was suggested. The fourth factor included smooth vs. abrupt vehicle handling, and perhaps also appropriate unhesitating behavior. The name "balanced driving style" was suggested. A factor suggestive of lack of driving skill was found in only one data-set. Of present interest was the finding that the safety-related behaviors seemed to cluster together, and were not related signifi- cantly to the other factors. This research indicated the existence of a general safe-driving factor relevant to the purposes of a driver licensing road test.38 Jones (1977) at UCLA had been developing a driving test procedure for use near the end of the high school driver education course. The approach differed from pre- vious methods in that: ”1. Driver behaviors to be observed were apparently derived from the instructional objectives of the Safe Driver Performance Curriculum; "2. Behaviors to be rated were defined as objectively as possible so judgment could be minimized (only one behavior was rated at a time and other behav- iors were ignored); raters who rode in the cars were teacher aides trained to code the specific behavior at each point on the route. Specifi- cations for the route were given. Fourteen scores were computed, from which subtotals for Observing, Control, Judgment, and Miscellaneous were computed along with a total score. In addition to these 381bid., pp. 22—23. 30 scores from the coders, who rode in the back seat, there was a hazard score based on the judgment of the instructor in the front seat and a score for the number of times the instructor had to assume control.39 Road Test Procedures In contrast to research efforts regarding measure- ment of driver performance, all states have been assessing drivers' abilities to operate motor vehicles using various road testing procedures. The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) "Testing Drivers, A Manual for Driver License Administrators," reviewed various approved road test scoring systems that meet or that can be adapted to meet the described purposes of road tests as set forth by AAMVA. Standards for road test route contents were described; however, no standard procedure for evalu- ating driver performance were provided in this manual. Of the fourteen systems described, most can be categorized as demerit systems. Eleven such systems were described. In general, these methods used a prepared score sheet that identified the maneuvers, skills, abilities to handle road and traffic problems, and code each maneuver on the test route as good, fair, bad, or failing. The pass- ing scores varied and were usually set by each state. 39Ibid., p. 23. 31 The AAMVA Region II and the Northwestern University Traffic Institute (NUTI) systems were different and con- sidered each driver performance or maneuver as acceptable, good, or needing further training. The AAMVA approach yielded a total score, using a scoring procedure modeled after that prepared by Baker and Carmichael (1960). The NUTI system scored vehicle handling, handling traffic prob- lems, road problems, and provided for a final percentage score. In both the AAMVA and NUTI systems, a basis for immediate rejection or failure were described.40 Road Tests Evaluated Against Driver Performance Measurement Developing a new method of road testing involved two interrelated procedures: (1) the selection of road test routes; and (2) the procedures for administering the road test, scoring, and evaluating drivers' performances. It was decided that the new procedure for road testing would, like DPM, provide examiners with criteria for scoring drivers' performances within specific segments of the road- way. DPM concepts of driving behavior patterns in relation to the dynamic traffic situation were important bases for judging driving behavior and were the basis for the new method. It was agreed that, if given enough structure of the examining task, examiners could learn to score driver behavior in terms of decreasing or increasing the hazards 40113161.. pp. 24-25. 32 intrinsic to specific segments of roadway. DPM concepts of driving behavior patterns in relation to the dynamic traffic situation were important bases for judging driving behavior and were the bases for the new method. It was agreed that, if given enough structure of the examining task, examiners could learn to score driver behavior in terms of decreasing or increasing the hazards intrinsic to specific segments of roadway as the driver responded to the dynamic traffic situations present at the time. Further discussion and tryout led to the decision that ratings of drivers' pat- terns of behaviors, search, speed control, and direction control were feasible. In contrast to the six weeks allotted for DPM training, it was decided that the new method training must be held in two weeks. The examiners to be trained would have familiarity with road testing procedures and this would be an advantage. However, their way of using the old method would be ingrained and this could be a disadvantage. Application of the DPM Method Project staff reviewed the basic concepts and principles of DPM and identified the following as the basis for the new road test method: 1. Dynamic traffic environment--the ways in which all types of traffic components (pedestrians, vehicles, bicycles, etc.) are constantly changing speed, density, direction, and response to the controls imposed on the system. 2. Driving behavior patterns--driving behaviors occur- ring in a series (simultaneously or sequentially) 33 in response to a changing traffic situation, such as searching, changing speed, and changing directions in relation to the timing required by the location and traffic situation. Interrelationships between driving behaviors and traffic situations--interactions occurring whenever a driver begins responding to traffic situations as determined from his search, speed control, and direction control. Readily observable driving behavior elements: a. Search--where the driver systematically looks for possible sources of traffic information. b. Speed control--the driver's use of accelerator on brake to change speed or velocity of the vehicle with timing to fit traffic and driving task requirements. c. Directional control--steering control of the vehicle such as coordination of steering in turning maneuvers with speed and timing adjusted for environmental conditions. d. Relative timing-~where search, speed control, and/or directional control are executed in relation to other vehicles, traffic situations, and changing traffic requirements at each point through the various locations. Judgments and decisions--those driver performances required by the driving task requirements attendant to dynamic traffic situations that can be inferred from observed driving behavior patterns or driving behaviors. Hazardous and potentially hazardous traffic situations--in the former situations, conflicts or crashes occur, and in the latter, the capability for a situation to produce conflicts or crashes exists. Observation zones--the designated areas within test sequences where driver behavior patterns are observed. Recording zones--designated areas between test sequences that provide ample time for rating the observed driver's performances following each test sequence. Determining satisfactory/unsatisfactory driving behavior patterns and elements--the decisions or ratings made based upon observed driver performances that reduce hazard or increase hazard respectively. 34 10. Rating procedure--a process for rating drivers' performances with the driver behavior pattern for test segments marked satisfactory or unsatisfactory first, then each behavior element (search, speed control, and direction control) marked in that order. Using these concepts and principles as guidelines, the new method was expected to provide a more reliable method for measuring safe and efficient driver performance than the current (old) road test procedure.41 A road test for use in driver licensing has been positively correlated to the DPM. The goals of: (1) sur- veying road testing procedures and (2) the development of a reliable test to measure driver performance were achieved. Results of the correlational data analysis clearly indicated experienced driver examiners, trained in the new method, could use it under actual field conditions more consistently than other equally experienced examiners using the current method. In addition, the data analysis, using the DPM method as the criterion, showed the new method was sub- stantially more reliable and valid as a measure of safe and skillful driving than the old road test method. Over forty routes have been developed for license testing using these procedures.42 A study completed in Michigan in 1978 involving high school students who previously completed driver education gives evidence to support that a road 411bid., pp. 39-42. 42Frederick Vanosdall Interview, August 1980. 35 test using the DPM as a criterion is a superior evaluation method when compared with previous road tests.43 43Kara L. Schmitt, "Michigan's Driver Education Evaluation Project: Classroom Testing and In-Car Develop- ment," Transpprtation Research Record 672 (Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 1978). CHAPTER III METHODS OF PROCEDURE This chapter describes the sample in terms of age, sex, driving experience, and method of selection. Also described are the teacher seminar held prior to the study, the collecting of the data, and the tools used to collect the data. Thorough attention is given in this chapter to the development of the road test which was critical to the validity and reliability of this study. The procedures of administering the road test are also described in detail. The chapter is concluded with a methodology section describ- ing the test statistics used. The procedures described have been approved by the Michigan State University Commit- tee on Research Involving Human Subjects. Sample Selection The sample was selected from the students partici- pating in six classroom driver education classes taught through an Educational Service Unit in a suburban high school. There were twenty-nine students in each of these six classes. 36 37 After the classroom portion of the course, students were assigned to simulation classes. Because of a limit of sixteen to each simulation class, there were more groups of simulation than there had been classrooms. Schedule changes halfway through the semester limited the students available for either the 16 x 2 or 12 x 3 groups. From the students with no schedule conflict, ninety-six students were randomly Fe selected and placed in simulation classes. This resulted in E. six simulation classes of sixteen students each. These six 4 classes were randomly assigned to the 12 x 3 or the 16 x 2 groups. All random selection took place by drawing from a hat. The total sample was ninety-six subjects, with forty- eight in the 16 x 2 group and forty-eight in the 12 x 3 group. There were six students who did not complete the course. Two students moved from the area and four others were eliminated because of medical problems. This left a total of ninety students with forty-five in the control group and forty-five in the treatment group. 1593 The ages of the groups were almost identical. Each group averaged fifteen years, eleven months, and eighteen days of age. The age range of the 16 x 2 group was fifteen years, four months to seventeen years and six months, while the age range of the 12 x 3 group was fifteen years, three months to seventeen years and ten months. Table 3:1 depicts the age breakdown. 38 Table 3:1.-‘Age.* Group Youngest Oldest Mean 16 x 2 15 years, 4 months 17 years, 6 months 15 years, 11 months 12 x 3 15 years, 3 months 17 years, 10 months 15 years, 11 months *Ages of the control and treatment groups compared; n = 45 for each group. ng This study included forty-eight males and forty-two females. The 16 x 2 group had nineteen females and twenty- six males, while the 12 x 3 group had twenty-three females and twenty-two males (Table 3:2). There were three females and three males seventeen years of age. Of those sixteen years of age, fourteen were female, while eighteen were male, and of those fifteen years of age, 24 were female and 28 were male. Table 3:2.-~Age and Gender of All Subjects. Age Male Female 15 28 24 16 17 15 17 3 3 39 Driving Experience Experience was defined as times driven rural and times driven suburban with the teachers accepting student self-reports. These reports were taken prior to treatment and continued at two-week intervals during treatment. A check was made for student accuracy and honesty by one rater asking some of the subjects after the road test, how many times they had previously driven. These answers corresponded closely with the self-reports. The 12 x 3 group reported more driving experience than the 16 x 2 group. This was true for both rural and suburban self-reports. The mean times driven rural, suburban, and combined total for both the control and treatment groups are illustrated in Table 3:3. Table 3:3.--Times Driven Before and During Treatment. Mean Times Driven 12 x 6 16 x 2 Suburban 20.6 17.6 Rural 16.5 14.0 Combined 37.1 31.6 Teacher Workshop An important prerequisite to the study, but not a part of the study, was a seminar held with the teachers and Service Unit Administrators. The goal of the seminar was to reduce variability in the results of the study due to 40 instructional differences. The objects of the three-day workshop included: 1. Assurance that subjects received as nearly as pos- sible the same classroom content. 2. Determination of simulation and on-street schedules gor each group. These schedules appear in Appen- ix A. 3. Assurance that simulation and on-street instruction for the 12 x 3 group would remain consistent with instruction previously used. “E! 4. Development of criteria for reporting time spent in simulation, BTW, and in the classroom. 5. Criteria for reporting driving experiences were developed. Since all subjects used the new edition of Sports- manlike Driving and the same teacher taught the classroom in both groups, the difficulty in controlling teacher variance for the subjects was greatly reduced. A second teacher was responsible for simulation instruction, while the classroom instructor and a third instructor were responsible for BTW instruction. Because one of the two BTW instructors was relatively new to the system (2nd year), the BTW instructors drove the routes used in the 12 x 3 program to insure consistency. Content and scheduling for the 16 x 2 group was developed, based upon the assumption that fewer hours would result in some vehicle control problems, so early content in simulation emphasized turning, backing, and other basic con- trol tasks. Since most driver education professionals agree 41 that perception is the largest advantage of simulation,1 emphasis in the middle and latter stages was placed upon content that would lead to perceptual development. The primary concern in the development of the 16 x 2 group was with the driver who had not previously driven. Since Driver Performance Measurement research showed that residential driving produced more errors, this experience was delayed. Initial driving lessons emphasized perceptual developments, and were conducted in a safe location deter- mined by the teacher's judgment of student driving behavior and progress. Basically, every attempt was made to leave all the same driving experiences in the 16 x 2 program that previously were used by the teachers in the 12 x 3 program, but the experiences were shortened. The only real exception was the dropping of the parking lesson from the content of the 16 x 2 group (see Simulation and BTW Schedules in Appendix A). The last major issue in the seminar was related to the reporting of driving experiences. The teachers had observed that most driving experience among similar students had occurred in either a suburban or a rural environment. These two categories were chosen with the understanding that heavy traffic experiences would be placed in the suburban category, while light traffic experiences would be placed in the rural category. 1Richard W. Bishop, "Questions and Answers About Driving Simulators," Safety Education, Vol. 44, No. 4 (December 1980), pp. 8-11. 42 The students were told to report all driving experi- ences, categorizing them either as suburban or rural. It was recognized that students would not always report heavy and/or light driving experiences uniformly--but total number of times (rural and suburban) driven was the primary crite- rion used for analysis. These experiences were reported by the subjects prior to treatment and at two-week intervals during treatment. Collection of Data Teachers at the school collected the data related to the driving experiences of the students. They also main- tained records regarding the amount of simulation and BTW time experienced each week. This record was carefully scrutinized to determine the amount of time each subject experienced in each mode and the degree of integration that occurred. Most authorities agreed that a concurrently scheduled program is superior to one that is run sequen- tially.2 After completion of the program, the road test was given. The data analyzed included the knowledge tests before and after treatment, the attitude scale, road tests, and experience reports as they related to the road test. 2Sixth National Conference on Safety Education, Proceedings Vol. II, Policies and Guidelines for Driver and Traffic Safety Education, American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association, 1201 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washing- ton, D.C. 20036, p. 14. 43 Measurement Tools The Knowledge Test The knowledge test instrument used was a fifty-six item test developed in conjunction with the Safe Performance Curriculum. This test has been thoroughly analyzed for reliability and validity.3 This test was administered after the classroom phase, by the classroom teacher, just before actual simulation treatment started. The purpose was to determine if there were any initial differences between the two groups which could significantly affect the study. The test was given again after the simulation and BTW were completed. Both administrations of the test were correlated with the second trial of the road test. Results were analyzed for the pur- pose of determining relationships between knowledge and per- formance on the road test. The knowledge test appears in Appendix B. The Attitude Scale In 1967, Frank Kenel, through use of the Mann Inven- tory, attempted to classify young drivers into behavioral categories and determine the relationships of these 3Horace W. Ray, Statistical Analysis of Preliminary Data for the Safe Performance Curriculum Driving Knowledge Test, Interim Report Contract No. DOT HS 6-01462, (Spring- field, Virginia: National Technical Information Service, 1979). 44 categories to subsequent driver performance.4 The three categories used in the pilot study were utilized in this study to determine if there was any relationship between performance on the road test and the three behavioral cate- gories identified in the pilot study. These three catego- ries were aggressive, constricted, and average. The Mann Inventory was administered, by the classroom teacher, after BTW was completed. The Mann Inventory appears in Appendix C. Road Test Development Another critical prerequisite, but not a part of the study, was the development of the road test route. The road test to be used as the evaluative criteria for driving performance was developed with the assistance of Fred Vanosdall and Aubrey Bradshaw from the staff of the Michigan State University Highway Safety Center. The route was designed to sample the driving environment representative of the driving experiences in the area where the study took place. The route development process was patterned after the procedure used in DPM research. Development of the route was initiated by identify- ing the need for samples from rural, suburban, expressway, 4Francis C. Kenel, "Effectiveness of the Mann Inventory in Classifying Young Drivers into Behavioral Categories and its Relationship to Subsequent Driving Per- formance," Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. 45 business, and residential traffic environments. A route was selected that sampled each of these environments. After careful consideration, it became apparent that the initial route selected was too long for practical use in the study and at least one required behavior pattern had the potential for being too difficult for the subjects to handle. This experience involved a merge of two expressways and required a weave across traffic with a resulting exit immediately after the weave. Due to these problems a second route was identified. This route more realistically sampled the driving environ- ments and had the added advantage of administration within the time constraints. This route included sequences from rural, expressway, suburban, and residential environments. This route also provided for a warm-up period before testing and a sequential pattern from less difficult to more dif- ficult. A schematic of this route is found in Appendix D. After the selection of the route in terms of time, driving environment, and sequence, the tasks required were identified, the observable behaviors were developed, and the psychological functions were determined. Directions for the subjects to follow were also determined and standardized for each sample environment. A rater score form was then developed, based upon the criteria listed above. Sixteen patterns were identified with an indication of satisfactory or unsatisfactory to be given for each pattern. Search, speed control, and directional control were also scored as 46 satisfactory or unsatisfactory for each pattern. Safe driv- ing performance consistent with timing of required behaviors was the criterion for scoring subjects. The rating form is included in Appendix E. The next step in the route development process was to have drivers unfamiliar with the route drive the route while observers evaluated the directions and determined if the tasks, behaviors, and functions were compatible with the route. Minor revisions were made after two driver edu- cation experts and four students, who had completed driver education within the previous two months, drove the route. These pilot measures also provided the opportunity to prac- tice rating and to check for interrater compatibility. Rat— ing on the first two students was remarkably close, a dif- ference of only two and three patterns, respectively. The second two students resulted in a greater discrepancy between scores as given by the raters, but upon examination the differences were due primarily to a disagreement between search related to head checks and mirror usage. This incon- sistency was resolved by discussion and the concurrence that search would be related to what actually was happening rather than a subjective view of what should be happening. Development of the route was concluded by the com- pilation in written form of a student information sheet given to the subject prior to driving (Appendix F), direc- tions for the subject (Appendix G), the rate scoring form, a map of the route, a schematic of each sequence, a listing 47 of the satisfactory observable behaviors, a listing of the driving task requirements, and a listing of the psycho- logical functions. These criteria were based upon the DPM research which demonstrated validity and reliability in the discrimination of safe and unsafe driving behavior. Con- fidence in the validity of this road test route was further reinforced by the road test route that was previously highly correlated with the DPM research. Over forty such routes have been established in Michigan for licensing purposes. Frederick Vanosdall, highly involved with most of the pre- Ivious DPM research, as a staff member of the Michigan State University Highway Traffic Safety Center, personally super— vised the development of the route with the intention of ensuring route compatibility with previous DPM research. He also trained the other rater. Administration of Road Test The road test was administered by two raters, Darrel Jensen and Frederick Vanosdall. The testing began Decem- ber 5, 1980, and finished December 20, 1980. All testing was done between the hours of 8:15 a.m. and 3:45 p.m. It had been determined during route development that traffic patterns were most consistent during those hours. The route was driven on December 4, by the administrators of the Ser- vice Unit and on December S, by rater number one, prior to testing. Since the route was developed in August 1980, and testing did not take place until December 1980, careful 48 scrutiny was given to determine if any environmental changes had occurred which could affect subject performance. The initial testing began December 5, with the testing of six subjects. On December 7, 1980, both raters studied the route to determine possible changes. After deliberation, it was agreed that line of sight was changed in some loca- tions because foliage that had been present in August was gone in December. Other minor alterations such as sign and road surface changes had occurred. Despite these minor alterations of the route, it was agreed that there was no change in the human performance requirements other than degree of requirement, which would affect all subjects equally. A problem developed in the first day of testing that was resolved by the raters before the testing of the remainder of the subjects continued. It was necessary to abort the route with one subject, because of inability to handle the complex requirements. It was agreed that if in the rater's judgment the subject could not safely perform, then that portion of the route would be deleted and the sub- ject would be given unsatisfactories for that portion. It was further resolved that if in the rater's judgment, the second trial would be too dangerous, the subject would be given the same score as received on trial one. The pattern score was the primary concern of the rater. Subjects were scored on their ability to safely perform at the appropriate time the required functions of 49 that pattern. Those functions were determined by the behav- ior exhibited by most drivers in a similar environment. Timing was an important consideration as the subjects were scored using criteria previously identified. Of less importance was the scoring of the three major elements mak- ing up the pattern. Search, speed control, and direction control were scored, with timing as an integral part of safe driving behavior. These elements were of more value as descriptive tools than in the statistical data analysis. Testing was scheduled to resume on December 8, but was delayed by an ice storm. This gave additional time for procedural review, but did cause some scheduling problems. It became necessary to test on Saturday mornings, in addi- tion to the Monday through Friday schedule. The traffic on Saturday may not have been as consistent as on the week days. Nine subjects were tested on Saturday, four from the 16 x 2 group and five from the 12 x 3 group. Rater number one tested sixty-two subjects while rater number two tested twenty-eight subjects. The testing was completed December 20, 1980. Methodology Statistical Measures It was found in previous DPM research that relia- bility goes up with the number of runs, therefore, the score from the first trial is not a very reliable indicator of 50 safe and unsafe driving behavior.5 Three trials were not possible given the number of subjects and the time con- straints. Therefore, the second trial of the road test was used to test the primary hypothesis: There is no difference in the driving performance of the experimental (16 x 2) and control (12 x 3) groups as measured by a road test. A two- way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used with an alpha level of .05. Driving experience was controlled by compar- ing the lower experienced 16 x 2 group with the lower experienced 12 x 3 group; the high experienced 16 x 2 group 'with the high experienced 12 x 3 group; and the middle third of the 16 x 2 group with the middle third of the 12 x 3 group. This design appears in Table 3:4. Table 3:4.--Driving Experience. Group Low Experience Medium Experience High Experience 16 x 2 0-17 Times Driven 18-36 Times Driven Over 37 Times Driven 12 x 3 0-22 Times Driven 23-42 Times Driven Over 42 Times Driven Of less concern, but still of interest, were the relationships between: 5T. W. Forbes, F. E. Vanosdall, F. L. Schmidt, R. W. Frankmann, R. O. Nolan, D. L. Smith, G. S. Burtnett, and J. W. Lounsbury, Research on Driver Performance Measurement, Phase I--Method Development and Pilot Study, National High- way Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Trans- portation, Washington, D.C., September 1972, p. 47. 51 --the two trials of the road test --the Safe Performance Curriculum knowledge pretest and the second trial of the road test --the Safe Performance Curriculum knowledge posttest and the second trial of the road test. --the driving experience of the subjects Pearson's Product Moment was used to analyze the relationships between these variables. A .05 alpha level of significance was selected. The results of these cor- relations appear in Table 4:8 in the next chapter. For the knowledge test, the pre-post test control group design was used to test the hypothesis that there was no difference between the groups before and after treatment, and also, to determine whether one group had gained significantly more than the other. A test for independent means was used to analyze the pre- and post-test comparisons. For the purpose of analyzing the relationship of attitude to the scores on the second trial of the road test, the Mann Inventory was used. Since this inventory involved the use of three categories (nominal data), the chi square test of significance was employed to test the related hypothesis. Anticipated Conclusions It was anticipated that all subjects would score higher on the first trial of the road test compared to the second trial. It was further anticipated that those with more experience would score higher on the road test than those with less experience. 52 A positive correlation was expected between the results of the knowledge tests, the attitude scales, and the experience reports, when compared to the results of the road tests. It was expected that this would be true of both groups. It was also expected that the 12 x 3 group would score better on the road tests because of the addi- tional time they spent behind-the-wheel. The following chapter will describe the results of the data analysis and how these results compared to anticipated conclusions. .I..- CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA This chapter presents the statistical tests used to analyze the data gathered in this research. Each hypothesis is given, followed by the predetermined alpha level. This was established as .05 for this research. The calculated value of the test statistic was then compared with the table value or computed probability level to determine whether or not the hypothesis was rejected. The first section is an analysis of the data related to the major hypothesis, and information relative to the results of that hypothesis, including comparison of the results of the two raters who scored the road test. The second section gives the analysis obtained from the test statistics of each subhypothesis and the relevant analysis of each subhypothesis. The summary of this chapter describes the types of statistical tests employed. Major Hypothesis Distribution of Data The hypothesis of most interest in this research was: 53 54 Hol: There is no difference in the driving performance of the experimental and control groups as measured by a road test. To analyze the data comparing the performance of the experimental and control groups, a two-way analysis of vari— ance was used with an alpha of .05 selected as the level of rejection. It was proposed that four experience groups be 1 identified which would have resulted in twelve in each cell. Because six subjects dropped out of the study, three experi- ence groups were used. This resulted in a larger 3 in each cell and provided a more powerful test. The use of an equal number of subjects in each cell was still possible-- (n = 15). Table 4:1 depicts the frequency distribution of the total satisfactory patterns from the second trial of the road test for the control group. Table 4:2 depicts the frequency distribution of the total satisfactory patterns from the second trial of the road test for the treatment group. The possible scores ranged from 0-16. The scores ranged from 1 to 15 in the control group and from 1 to 14 in the treatment group. 55 Table 4:l.-—Frequency Distribution of Road Test--Trial Two Scores (12 x 3). Satisfactory F O R OF 0 O O I O 0 Patterns Score req e1 req Cum Freq Cum Rel Freq 0 1 3 3/45 = .067 3 .067 2 3 4 3 3/45 = .067 6 .134 5 2 2/45 = .044 8 .178 6 2 2/45 = .044 10 .322 7 1 1/45 = .022 11 .344 8 7 7/45 = .156 18 .400 9 3 3/45 = .067 21 .467 10 4 4/45 = .089 25 .556 11 4 4/45 = .089 29 .645 12 8 8/45 = .178 37 .823 13 3 3/45 = .067 40 .890 14 4 4/45 = .089 44 .979 15 1 1/45 = .022 45 1.001 16 a? 56 Table 4:2.--Frequency Distribution of Road Test--Trial Two Scores (16 x 2). P:::::::CS:::e Freq. Re1.Freq. Cum.Freq. Cum.Rel.Freq. 0 1 1 1/45 = .022 l .022 2 3 1 1/45 = .022 2 .044 4 5 1 1/45 = .022 3 .066 6 3 3/45 = .067 6 .133 7 2 2/45 = .044 8 .177 8 5 5/45 = .111 13 .288 9 5 5/45 = .111 18 .399 10 6 6/45 = .133 24 .532 ll 8 8/45 = .178 32 .710 12 8 8/45 = .178 40 .888 13 3 3/45 = .067 43 .955 14 2 2/45 = .044 45 .999 15 16 . .. ‘I': Mean Scores of Road Test-- Trial Two Table 4:3 depicts the mean scores (total number of satisfactory patterns) from the second trial of the road test. The mean scores of the control group increased as the experience level increased. This was also true of the treat- ment group. The treatment group scored higher in the lower ' experience partition, but the control group scored higher in the middle and high experience partitions. It can be observed from reading Table 4:3 that no significant inter- action occurred. Table 4:3.--Mean Road Test Scores--Trial Two. Low Medium High . Group Experience Experience Experience Marg1nals 16 x 2 8.000 9.867 11.267 9.711 12 x 3 5.867 10.067 11.867 9.267 Marginals 6.933 9.967 11.567 9.489 Analysis of Variance Between Groups by Times Driven The analysis of variance F test statistic reveals a score of .2719 when comparing the means of the control and treatment groups. This was compared with the table (x = <.05) value of 39.0, therefore, the hypothesis that there was no difference between the experimental and con- trol groups was not rejected. 58 When comparing the results of the mean scores of times driven, the test statistic revealed a score of 10.1652. This compared with the table value (x < .05) of 38.5, therefore the hypothesis that there was no difference was not rejected. These results indicate that as measured by the road test no difference was found in the safe driving behavior of the two groups. When considering times driven, an even smaller dif- ference between the groups was evident. These results are depicted below in Table 4:4. Table 4:4.--Variation of Road Test Scores on Trial Two. Approximate . . Significance Source SS DF MS F.Stat1st1c . . Probab1l1ty of F Statistics Between groups 4.444 1 4.444 2.720 .654 Within groups 332.289 2 166.144 10.165 .090 Error 32.689 2 16.344 a.= .05 Because of the concern for safety, it was necessary to discontinue the road testing of eleven subjects. One was aborted on sequence five and six, one on sequence five only, one after sequence two, and the other eight aborted all of trial two. In these cases, as the raters agreed earlier, the scores from the first trial were used. Six of the eleven aborted trials were by rater number two, while five 59 were by rater number one. Seven of the subjects were from the control group and four were from the treatment group. These eleven subjects had very little driving experience prior to the road test (§'= 12.72 total times driven). Rater Reliability Previous DPM research has demonstrated that rater reliability was very high when proper training was given. The use of two raters has consistently demonstrated the reliability. Since time and financial limitations required that one rater be used rather than two, it was essential to look closely at possible rater scoring differences. Rater one administered the road test to sixty-two subjects and rater two administered it to twenty-eight subjects. An analysis of variance was done by group and rater for road test one and again for road test two. There were no significant interactions in either of these analyses. There were no significant differences in the road test scores in either trial when comparing the control group with the experimental group with rater one and rater two. An alpha level of .05 was again employed. Analysis of the data revealed that the differences were not significant. The results of the analysis for the first trial are depicted in Table 4:5 and the second trial in Table 4:6. 60 Table 4:5.--Road Test Trial One Analyzed by Group and Rater. Source of Variation 33 DF MS F . Agpic’xmate S1gn1f1cance of F Main effects 22.266 2 11.133 1.079 .345 Between groups 21.071 1 21.071 2.042 .157 Raters within groups 1.731 1 1.721 .167 .684 a = .05 Table 4:6.--Road Test Trial Two Analyzed by Group and Rater. Source of Variation SS DF MS F Significance of F Main effects 13.047 2 6.523 .597 .553 Between groups 3.861 1 3.861 .354 .554 Raters within groups 8.603 1 8.603 .785 .377 2-way interactions 18.209 1. 18.209 1.667 .200 Explained 31.256 3 10.419 .954 .418 Residual 939.233 86 10.920 Total 970.489 89 10.904 61 Subhypotheses Knowledge Test Before Treatment H02: There is no difference between the experimental and control group on the Safe Performance Cur- riculum knowledge test when administered before treatment. In addition to the random selection of classes for treatment and control, a knowledge test was given prior to treatment. A t test for independent means was used to statistically determine any differences (a < .05). A t value of .27 was obtained. The subhypothesis was rejected. The results, as depicted in Table 4:7, indicate the two groups were almost identical in knowledge as measured by the Safe Performance Curriculum Knowledge Test. This supported the earlier assumption that due to random selection of classes before treatment, there were no differences between the treatment and control groups. Table 4:7.--Know1edge Test Before Treatment. Standard 2-Tail Group Mean Deviation E Value Probability 16 x 2 30.044 3.729 .27 .788 12 x 3 29.822 4.080 a = .05 n = 45 Knowledge Test After Treatment H03: There is no difference between the experimental and control group on the Safe Performance 62 Curriculum knowledge test when administered after treatment. Both the treatment group and control group scored much higher on the knowledge test given after treatment. Although the spread between means was slightly higher, there continued to be no significant difference in knowledge after treatment. These results are depicted in Table 4:7 and can be compared with Table 4:8 for differences between pre- and post-test. The failure to reject the null hypothesis at the .05 level indicates the two groups were not significantly different in their acquisition of knowledge related to the driving task. Although not statistically significant, the 16 x 2 group did register a slightly higher gain from the pretest to the posttest. Table 4:8.--Knowledge Test After Treatment. Standard 2-Tail Group Mean Deviation t—Value Probability 16 x 2 46.156 4.411 1.44 .154 12 x 3 44.500 6.910 a = .05 n = 45 for each group Difference Between Groups on Mann Inventory H04: There is no difference between the experimental and control group on the Mann Inventory when administered after treatment. 63 The level of accepted significance was .05. The Chi Square test yielded a score of .6598 which was compared with the table value of 5.991. Therefore, the hypothesis was not rejected. No significant differences in attitude were found between the treatment and control groups as measured by the Mann Inventory. These results are presented in Table 4:9. Table 4:9.--Observed and Expected Frequencies from Mann Inventory. A ressive Constrictive Avera e ROW 99 g Total 16 x 2 Observed 10.0 2 33.0 45 Expected 8.5 2 34.5 12 x 3 Observed 7.0 2 36.0 45 Expected 8.5 2 34.5 Total 17.0 4 69.0 a = .05 x2 = .6598 Table Value = 5.991 Comparison of the Two Trials-- Road Test H05: There is no relationship between performance on the first trial of the road test compared to performance on the second trial. There was a very high positive correlation between the two trials of the road test (r = .6806) indicating that those who performed well on trial one, also did well on 64 trial two. Conversely, those who performed poorly on trial one, also performed poorly on trial two. This was signifi- cant as measured by the Pearson Product p Correlation Method at the .001 level. The predetermined level of alpha was .05, therefore, the null hypothesis of no relationship between trials one and two is rejected. This indicates high probability of route difficulty consistency and rater reli- ability in scoring. See Table 4:10. Table 4:10.--Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Times Driven and Scores on Road and Knowledge Test. RDTOTl RDTOT2 K1 K2 TDRT .4952 .5918 .1205 .1502 p = .001* p = .001* p = .258 p = .158 ROTOTl .6806 .0058 .0732 p = .001* p = .957 p = .493 ROTOT2 .6806 .0297 .1002 p = .001* p = .781 p = .347 a = .05 TORT - Times driven total ROTOTl - Road test trial 1 ROTOT2 - Road test trial 2 K1 - Knowledge test before treatment K2 - Knowledge test after treatment Comparison of Knowledge Test and Trial Two of Road Test H06: There is no relationship between the results of the Safe Performance Curriculum knowledge test and the second trial of the road test. A low positive correlation was seen between the knowledge pretest and the scores on the second trial of the 65 road test (r = .0297). This was also true of the correlation between the scores on the knowledge posttest and the scores on road test two (5 = .1002). The calculated probability of significance was .78 for the knowledge test prior to treat- ment. This is above the rejection level of .05. There- fore, the null hypothesis was not rejected and no relation- ship seemed to be present. For the correlation between the knowledge test after treatment the null hypothesis again was not rejected. The calculated level for probability was .347, again higher than alpha .05. These results indicated that those who scored high on the knowledge tests were gene- rally not the best performers behind the wheel (see Table 4:10). Mann Inventory and Second Trial of Road Test H07: There is no relationship between the results of the Mann Inventory and performance on the second trial of the road test. The computed chi square statistic is 18.26. The chi square table indicates a score of 102 is needed at the .05 level to result in rejection of Ho. This indicates a failure to reject the hypothesis and no significant rela- tionship was found between the scores on the Mann Inventory and the second trial of the road test. These results appear in Table 4:11. 66 Table 4:11.--Road Test Trial Two Scores Compared to Mann Inventory Results. Road Test Trial Two Scores TOTAL 1 2 3 4 5 6 '7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Aggressive 1 1 1 2 1 3 6 l l 17 Constricted 2 1 1 4 Average 3 1 3 2 4 3 8 6 7 12 8 6 5 1 69 TOTAL 4 0 l 3 3 5 3 12 8 10 12 15 7 6 l 90 a = .05 X = 8.26 Table Value = 102 Times Driven Rural Compared to Scores on Road Test Trial Two H08: There is no relationship between urban driving exper1ences of the subjects and the second tr1al of the road test. Pearson Product Moment E was used to test the rela- tionship between rural times driven and the second trial of the road test. An alpha level of .05 was used. The resulting correlation coefficient was 5 = .6078. The table value for E’at the .05 level with df = 43 was .304. Therefore, the hypothesis was rejected. There was a significant relationship found between the number of rural times driven and the score on the second trial of the road test. These results are depicted in Table 4:12. 67 Times Driven Suburban Compared to Scores on Road Test Trial Two H09: There is no relationship between rural driving experiences of the subjects and performance on the second trial of the road test. Pearson Product Moment 5 was used to test the rela- tionship between suburban times driven and the second trial of the road test. Again, an alpha level of .05 was used. The resulting correlation coefficient was E = .5680. The table value for E at the .05 with df = 43 was .304. There- fore, the hypothesis was rejected. There was a significant relationship found between the number of suburban times driven and the score on the second trial of the road test. These results are depicted in Table 4:12. Total Times Driven Compared with the Second Trial of Road Test Ho : There is no relationship between the combined 10 . . . . dr1v1ng exper1ences of the subjects and perform- ance on the second trial of the road test. A significance level of .05 was selected and the Pearson Product Moment £_was employed. This resulted in a correlation coefficient of .5918. The probability of the results being due to chance was p = .001, therefore, the hypothesis was rejected. This indicated that a significant relationship did exist between total times driven and the score on the second trial of the road test. These results were expected, since a high correlation was present in the comparison between suburban times driven and rural times 68 driven, and the second trial of the road test (see Table 4:12). Table 4:12.--Times Driven Correlated with Scores on Road Test Trial Two. Times Driven Road Test Trial Two Rural r = .6078 Suburban r = .5680 Total r = .5918 a = .05 Summary of Statistical Analysis A two-factor analysis of variance was used to test the major hypothesis. Road test scores given by the two raters were also tested using the two-way analysis of vari- ance. This could have been done through an analysis of covariance, but since previous research had indicated high rater compatability when raters were well trained, this alternative was not used. Several E tests were used for testing the between- group differences in the knowledge tests. Because nominal data was used for the Mann Inventory, chi square was uti- lized for tests related to the Mann Inventory. Pearson Product Moment £_was utilized in analyzing the following relationships: 69 Performance on the first trial of the road test com- pared to the second trial of the road test. Results of the Safe Performance Curriculum knowledge test compared to the second trial of the road test. Comparisons of times driven rural, suburban, and total with the second trial of the road test. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter summarizes the purpose and methodology employed in this study. The findings and resulting conclu- sions are given. Based upon these results, recommendations are then given concerning simulation programs and implica- tions for additional research. This chapter is concluded with a discussion section that points out a number of impli- cations that are not significantly demonstrated by the data gathered, but may be of some interest in future studies related to simulation. Summary of Study Purpose of Study This study was undertaken to determine if there were any differences between a program offering driver education students 30 hours of classroom, 12 hours of simulation, and 3 hours of on-street instruction and one offering 30 hours of classroom, 16 hours of simulation, and 2 hours of on- street instruction. 70 71 Methodology Analysis of variance was employed to determine differ- ences in road test scores between the control and experi- mental groups. Student's t_was used to compare the knowledge test scores prior to and after treatment. Pearson Product Moment 5 was used to examine relationships between the second trial of road test, and times driven rural, urban, and total. Because the results of the data from the Mann Inventory yielded nominative data, chi square was employed to analyze attitude differences between the two groups and to examine the relationship of attitude to road test scores. Results of Data Analysis The results of the road test scores indicated there was no difference between the safe driving behavior of the treatment and control groups. This was also true concerning the knowledge tests. While improvement from knowledge pre- test to posttest was very apparent, this improvement was present in both the treatment and control groups. No signi- ficant differences in knowledge between the groups was found before or after treatment. Just as no differences were found between road test scores and knowledge test scores, this was also true of attitude scores as measured by the Mann Inven- tory. Neither was there a significant relationship found between attitude as measured by the Mann Inventory and the road test. 72 Several significantly high correlations were found. A very high correlation was found between the first trial and the second trial of the road test. This was significant at the .001 level with a Pearson correlation coefficient of r = .6808. Significantly high correlations were also found between the road test and times driven rural, suburban, and total. ' Conclusions Differences Between Gropps It was concluded that the safe driving behavior of students who received sixteen hours of simulation instruction and two hours on-street instruction was essentially the same as students who received twelve hours of simulation instruc- tion and three hours of on-street instruction. No signifi- cant differences were found between the 12 x 3 and 16 x 2 groups on the road test. This indicates that 16 hours of simulation and 2 hours on-street may result in as safe driving ability as 12 hours of simulation and 3 hours of on-street. It is concluded that simulation can be an effective substitute for on-street driving. If time on- street is decreased then the instructional time spent there should be efficient and representative of requirements of the driving task. This is consistent with the literature on simulation reviewed in Chapter II. Not only were the differences found slight, but the mean score of the 16 x 2 group was slightly superior to the mean score of the 12 x 3 73 group. The mean score on the second road test was 9.27 for the 12 x 3 group, while the mean score of the 16 x 2 group was 9.71. Some improvement seemed to take place during testing. This can be observed by comparing the pattern scores on road test trial one and road test trial two (see Figure 5-1). This differs somewhat from DPM research in that previously it has been found that scores frequently deteriorate with familarity to the route. Although there was more improvement in the knowledge scores of the 16 x 2 group, this difference was not signi- ficant. This small difference may give some credence to the argument that additional simulation increases knowledge related to safe driving behavior, but additional evidence must be present before such a conclusion could be made. The attitude differences as indicated by the Mann Inventory were not significant. More sophisticated use of the Mann Inventory has been made and if used here could have possibly detected larger differences. Even though sixty- nine of the subjects were scored as average, they were evenly divided between the two groups. There was no rela- tionship found between the road test scores and the scores on the Mann Inventory. This may be indicative of a per- sonality fluctuation with different attitudes present while taking a classroom paper and pencil test, compared to a road test requiring psycho-physical capabilities. 74 .039 amass was 0:0 Hmwua pmma omom so mouoom snouumm mo somflummfiou .Hlm ousmflm amass wow so ouoom I downs and so ouoom D new iNoo Hem mom “OM —0m 0 0‘ CV man a on NON HON "OH H. . ‘ v _ V _ o OH om won ow _ on 1 1 cm 75 Conclusions Resulting from Correlations It was concluded that the Safe Performance Curriculum knowledge test and the DPM road test measured different things. Findings in the study indicated that the correla- tion between these two tests was very low. While knowledge test results were found to have a low relationship to road test scoring, the same was not true for times driven prior to and during treatment. It was also concluded that driving experience out- side of the driver education setting can be beneficial to safe driving behavior. A high correlation was found between times driven and the scores on road test trial two. This was true of suburban, rural, and the combined total. Secondary Observations There were other conclusions which were apparent, but were not as well defined by the data. These are described below along with the supporting information. It was concluded that one road test is probably sufficient if the route is well designed and the rater is properly trained in DPM. There was a high correlation found between road test trial one and road test trial two. Analysis of driver behavior on specific portions of the test route suggested that students could generally handle low volume traffic, but as the complexity of the traffic environment increased, the capability of the subjects 76 decreased. This was generally true on the test route as segments one and two, while requiring specific safe behaviors, did not require the subject to make a high volume of decisions in a short time period. Segments 3, 4, and 5 required more decisions in a short period of time and the demand for accuracy was greater. This comparison can be visualized on the graph in Figure 5-1. Residential areas are often thought of as a safe environment for beginning drivers. This was not necessarily true because of the very poor search habits used by drivers at unmarked intersections. This can be seen by examination of sequences 6.1 and 6.2 which were unmarked intersections (Figure 5-1). It was evident that collisions did not occur frequently because of the low traffic volume, not because of safe driving behavior. Recommendations Simulation as a Substitute Since there were no significant differences found in the road test scores, the knowledge test scores, and the attitude scores of the subjects, it is recommended that simulation continue to be used as a partial substitute for on-street driving. It is evident that simulation can assist in achieving the objectives that are usually included in both classroom and on—street modes of teaching driver education. It is highly desirable then for simulation to be used to enhance both of these modes rather than act as a substitute 77 for either. It is unfortunate that this utopia can exist in only a small number of places. Since it is not economically feasible for simulation to act as an enhancement, as opposed to a partial substitute, it is highly recommended that more flexible scheduling be utilized. Students must be treated individually. Those who are less experienced should receive more driving time in class while those with more experience should be provided enriched educational experiences (simulation). To provide this flexible schedule, the teacher must set up a road test route using established DPM research procedures. The teacher must also be trained as a DPM rater. It is further recommended that driving experiences be designed rather than spontaneously occur. Parent involve- ment programs should be developed which provide for guidance at home in driver develOpment. If driver education is main- tained at the sophomore level, a parental involvement program can be implemented. The extent to which simulation can be substituted should be determined by the following: 1. An appropriately designed DPM road test which is representative of the local area. 2. Properly trained teachers, especially in terms of teaching simulation and DPM. 3. A designed parental involvement program. 78 If all of the above are present, sixteen hours of simulation and two hours behind-the-wheel can be utilized, resulting in safe on-road driving behavior. Suggestions for Further Research It is highly recommended that additional research be done to determine how simulation functions as a substitute for on-street driving. This is necessary because of the educational necessity to teach most efficiently and because of our economic conditions related to fuel consumption and school budgets. Improvements can be made in the design utilized. Some of this has been documented by previous DPM research. The use of two raters is desirable from a methodological standpoint, however there must be a balance between the number of subjects and raters. Perhaps since DPM research has demonstrated that well-trained DPM raters with a traffic safety background have very high positive correlations in their rating, future research should concentrate on training raters and using as many subjects as necessary for appro- priate methodological adaptation. Future research should attempt to use a 30 hour classroom and 6 hour on-street program as a control group and a group using 30 hours of classroom and 16 hours of simulation, and 2 hours on-street as a treatment group. Another important research project indicated by this study should identify levels of competencies required for entry 79 into the traffic world. Then, those students with less driving competency would be given more hours of on-street instruction, while giving those with more driving competencies could be given more simulation instruction. Another research effort and perhaps the one most urgent is to design a study which includes parent involve- ment. Perhaps giving one to two hours of actual on-street instruction when the parent is involved in a systematic way would result in a superior program. Discussion Rater Observations There were many interesting facets to this study for which data were not collected. The raters made as many notes on the road test instrument as time would allow. One rater commented on the high number of near misses. Near misses included actions of other drivers which caused potential accident situations in addition to the subjects, inadequate driving. It was specifically noted on the rating forms that nineteen subjects handled four way stops inappropriately. No specific attempt was made by raters to subjectively rate drivers as constricted, average, or aggressive, but in some cases the comments on the road test score sheet described driver attitude. Fourteen of the subjects were described in rater comments as aggressive drivers. Four of these were also identified by the Mann Inventory as aggressive. Seven subjects were described by raters as constricted, while 80 three different subjects were identified by the Mann Inventory as constricted. There seems to be little relationship to the road test and the Mann Inventory as used in this study. More sophisticated use of the Mann Inventory has been made and if used perhaps would have resulted in closer relation- ships. It was evident from comments made by the road test raters' evaluations that students used very low speed driving as compensation for inadequate directional control and lack of timing in search. This may be necessary in initial training, but adequate prescriptional teaching techniques should be applied for correction rather than just waiting for experience to correct the problem. Implications for Teacher Training This study indicates that high quality instruction is very important. Perhaps it is time that students in driver education are taught according to their individual needs. Experienced drivers do not seem to benefit nearly as much as inexperienced by one-on-one on-street instruction. Continued research should help to determine the educational experiences needed by the inexperienced driver as opposed to those experiences needed by those who manipulate the vehicles well but are in need of a more perceptual educational approach. Efforts made to improve driver education will be futile if teacher preparation is neglected. Teachers must improve in designing routes based on DPM research. Teachers 81 must apply instructional techniques appropriate to simula- tion instruction. They must also involve the home in the learning process if driver education is going to success- fully contribute to the goal of accident reduction and mobility efficiency in the highway transportation system. L IST OF REFERENCES L IST OF REFERENCES Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. "Toward a Generation of Safer Drivers." Information and Education Depart- ment, Hartford, Connecticut, 1956. Aetna Casualty and Surety Division. "An Evaluation of the Teaching Effectiveness of the Aetna Drivo-trainer." A condensed report of the Los Angeles Study, Hart- ford, Connecticut, 1955. Allgaier, E. Driver Education Reduces Accidents and Viola- tions. American Automobile Association, Falls Church, Virginia, No. 3782, 1964. American Driver and Traffic Education Association, Sixth National Conference on Safety Education, Proceedings. "Policies and Guidelines for a School Safety Pro- gram," Vol. I. Washington, D.C., December 1978. . "Policies and Guidelines for Driver and Traffic Safety Education," Vol. II. Washington, D.C., December 1978. . "Dictionary of Safety Education Terms," vo1. IV. Washington, D.C.: American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association, December 1978. Bernoff, Louis I. An Experimental Study of Teaching Effi- ciency of the Aetna Drivo Trainer. Hartford, Conn.: Aetna Life and Casualty, June 1958. Bishop, Richard W. Evaluating Simulator Instruction for Accomplishingypriver Education Objectives. Talahassee, Florida: Florida Institute for Continuing University Studies, October 1963. . "Questions and Answers About Driving Simulators." Safety Education, V01. 44, No. 4 (December 1964). 82 83 Campbell, Donald T. and Stanley, Julian G. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago, 111.: Rand, McNally, and Company, 1966. Conger, J. J.; Miller, W. C.; and Rainey, R. V. "Effects of Driver Education: The Role of Mbtivation, Intelli- gence, Social Class, and Exposure." Traffic Safety Research Review, 10(3)(1966). Cobb, P. W. ”The Limit of Usefulness of Accident Rate as a Measure of Accident Proneness." Journal of Applied Psychology, No. 24 (1940). Cushman, William D. Commentaryyon the Research Report: Driver Education and Fatal Crash Involvement of Teenaged Drivers. Washington, D.C.: American Driver and Traffic Education Association, December 5, 1977. Eales, John R. The Use of Simulators in Driver Trainipg. Reprint from California Schools. California State Department of Education, XXXII, No. 11 (November 1961). Forbes, T. W.; Nolan, R. O.; Schmidt, F. L.; and Vanosdall, F. E. "Driver Performance Measurement Based on Dynamic Driver Behavior Patterns in Rural, Urban, Suburban, and Freeway Traffic." Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 7 (1975). ; Vanosdall, F. E.; Schmidt, F. L.; Frankmann, R. W.; Nolan, R. 0.; Smith, D. L.; Burtnett, G. S.; and Lounsbury, J. W. Research on Driver Performance Measurement, Phase I Method Development and Pilot Study. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State Uni- versity Departments of Psychology and Highway Traffic Safety Center, September, 1971; revised September 1972. Forlano, George; Wrighstone; and Wayne, J. An Evaluation of the Aetna Drivo-trainer in Selected New York City Schools. Division Bulletin No. 3, October 1959. Gilliland, Gene M. Applications of Com uter Generated Imagery to Driver Training) Highway Research, and Design, Simulation: It's Role in Driver Research and Design. Chapel Hill, N.C.: North Carolina Symposium, Vol. 8, Spring, 1973. Greenshields, B. "Driving Behavior and Related Problems." Highway_Research Board, No. 25, Washington, D.C., 1963. 84 and Platt, F. "Development of a Method of Predicting High Accident and High Violation Drivers." Journal of Applied Psychology, No. 51 (1967). Gustafson, Robert E. "A Study to Compare the Effectiveness of Instruction in the All-State Good Driver Trainer with the Multiple Car Off-Street Driving Range." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility. "The Driver Simulator Method." Library of Congress, Card No. 75-120738, April 1970. Jones, Margaret Hubbard. "California Driver Training Evalua- a” tion Study." Summary of Final Report to the Cali- fornia Legislature, Los Angeles, California, December 1973. 1‘ . "The California Driver Training Evaluation Study-- A Reply to W. G. Patterson." Journal of Traffic Safety Education (July 1975). Kenel, Francis C. "Effectiveness of the Mann Inventory in Classifying Young Drivers into Behavioral Categories and Its Relationship to Subsequent Driving Perfor- mance." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1967. Loft, Bernard I. "The Effects of Driver Education on Driver Knowledge and Attitudes in Selected Public Schools." Traffic Safety Research (June 1960), pp. 13-14. National Commission on Safety Education. A Critical Analysis of Driver Education Research. National Education Association, 1957. . Summary of Results of Studies Evaluating Driver Education. National Education Association, 1961. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Report to Congress. The Driver Education Evaluation Program (DEEP) Study. July 1975. National Safety Council. Driver Education Status Report. Chicago, 1974. Nolan, Robert O. ”A Comparative Study of the Teaching Effectiveness of the Multiple Car Off-Street Driving Range and the Aetna Drivo-trainer." Ph.D. disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1964. 85 Ray, Horace W. Statistical Analysis of Preliminary Data for the Safe Performance Curriculum DrivinglKnowledge Test. Interim Report. Springfield, Vir.: National Technical Information Service, Contract No. DOT HS 6-01462, 1979. Rhum, Gordon J. and Woodcock, Bertran. The Effectiveness of the Aetna Drivo-trainer in Driver Education. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Teachers College, July 1956. Robertson, Leon S. and Zador, Paul. Driver Education and Fatal Crash Involvement of Teenégged Drivers. Washington, D.C.: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, October 1977. Schmitt, Kara L. Michigan's Driver Education Evaluation Project: Classroom Testing and In-Car Development Transpprtation Research Record 672. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 1978. Smith, Donald L. Summary of the Critiques. American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association. Stack, Herbert J. History of Driver Education in the United States. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, National Commission on Safety Education. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Office of Education. Immediate Standardized Learning Re- inforcement to a Complex Mental-Motor Skill (Driver Training) Using Electronically-coordinated Motion Pictures. Title VII, Project No. 1090. National Defense Education Act of 1958. U.S. Department of Transportation. NHTSAy Guide for Teacher Preparation in Driver Education. Washington, D.C., July 1974. Vanosdall, Frederick. Interview, August 1980. Vanosdall, F. E.; Allen, T. M.; Pawlowski, J. J.; Rohrer, J. M.; Nolan, R. 0.; Smith, D. L.; Rudisill, M.; Specht, P.; Hochmuth, M.; Spook, M.; and Diffley, G. Michigan Road Test Evaluation Study, Final Report Phase III--Evaluation Study. Michigan Department of State Bureau of Field Service, November 1977). Waller, Patricia E.; Livia, U. Li.; Hall, Robert G.; and Stutts, Jane C. Driver Performance Tests and Their Role and Potential. Highway Research Center. Uni- versity of North Carolina, March 1978. 86 GENERAL REFERENCES Aetna Casualty and Surety Company. "Toward a Generation of Safer Drivers." Reprint from the Atlantic and Harpers Magazine (February 1956). American Automobile Association. "Driver Education Saves Gas." Pamphlet from the American Automobile Associa- tion, Falls Church, Virginia, 1974. Barrett, G. V. and Thornton, D. L. "Relationship Between Perceptual Style and Driver Reaction to an Emergency Situation." Journal of Applied Psychology, 52(2) (1968). Boersma, J. J.; Muier, W.; Wilson, W.; and Barnham, R. "Eye Movements During Embedded Figure Tasks." Perceptual and Motor Skills, No. 28 (1969). California Committee for Traffic Safety Education. "The California Driver Training Evaluation Study: A Comparative Analysis." Journal of Traffic Safety Education (March 1975). Council, Forest M.; Roper, Rita, B.; Sadof, Michael G.; and Desper, Linda P. Effect of Rapge Training: Compari- son of Road Test Scores for Driver Education Students. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina, Highway Research Center, September, 1975. Forbes, T. W.; Vanosdall, F. E.; Schmidt, F. L.; Frankmann, R. W.; Nolan, R. O.; Smith, D. L.; Burtnett, G. S.; and Lounsbury, J. W. Research on Driver Performance Measurement. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Report FH-11-7627-2, revised September 1972. Kahl, William G. Extended Driver Education Laboratory Enrich- ment Project. Wisconsin Department of Public In- struction, Applied Research Report, Bulletin 9-169. Logan, George L. Driver Education Laboratornyhecklist for Behind-the-Wheel Evaluation. Nebraska Department of Education, 1977. McDaniel, Charles E. "A Study of the Relative Effectiveness of Selected Laboratory and Classroom Programs in Driver and Traffic Safety Education Project." Ph.D. dissertation, August 1969. 87 McDowell, James. "A Cooperative Simulation Program in Driver Education." Perception, Vol. 5, No. 1 (January/February 1971). Mills, Marvin D. California Driver Education Evaluation Study. West Virginia: Safety Forum, February 1975. Nolan, Robert 0.; Vanosdall, F. E.; Smith, D. L.; Counts, J. W.; Greenwood, H. W.; Gruber, F. J.; Johnson, R. H.; Schlick, J. E.; and Reuter, F. W. Driver Performance Measurement Research Guide for Training Observer/Raters in the Driver Performance Measure- ment Procedure. NHTSA, Contract No. FH-11-7627, February 1973. Ohio Department of Education. The Development and Valida- tion of Attitude, Knowledge, and Performance Tests for Evaluatinngriver Education Curricula, 1974. Ratz, Michael. An Evaluation of the Original_Applicant's Drive Test Component of the California Selective Testing_Program. State of California. Department of Motor Vehicles. Research Report 62, December 1978. Seals, Thomas A. An Evaluation of Selected Driver and Traffic Safety Education Courses, August 1966. APPENDICES APPENDIX A SIMULATION AND ON-STREET SCHEDULES coauflmom 0cm coomm mcwumnnom o» poumaon mewsflu mo mflmonushm usuamo~o>oo amoumoouom xmamsoo coauwmom osm pmmmm mcflumanpd chHuwocoo acumw> mouflsfla o» mswumsno¢ mooomm Honmwn on mcflumsmom oaumouu nonuo on coauwmom cam comma mswuwsnod comma mswumsnod measae >m3mmoumxo mcw>moa was mswuopsm cowuoouoo cannon oflmwoomm cbwumoouom ou coauosoonucH mHHfixm oammn mo mflmonucmm mlolm ocm .msfleflu .mswuooum so mammsmsm messy unsau can puma mcfluum»m was msammoum maafixm owmmn pom :oflumasswm on cowuosoouuCH mammnmsm xmma Honvsoo moaoaououos nuw3_msfixwz msofluwocoo nonumos mswmcccu mosvaanoou mca>aup psmaz mumssuas on» new cannon» saws msfiuoouousH «Ea» cam oommw mcammcmz mxmwu mcwmwsoumsoo was mcwucucmom usouommwo mum mhm3mmoumxm moumnmn mswmmeusooH QOH mum>sosms oceans» Housmsmocsh news» @000 spasms» mo aha mxmmu Honusoo oflmmm sowuosoouucH asap coapaasaam mmbomw m x NH 024 N x 0H mmb mom ZOHBODmBmZH m0 MQDQmmow ZOHB¢ADZHm ho ZOMHM4AZOO mmADmeOm Bmmmfimlzo 02¢ ZOHB¢ADZHm d xHDzmmmd Amav AHHV Aoav Amy any Amy Amy Amv Aqv Amy Amy Adv mocosmom m M NH ma ma as ma NH AH F: o: r) u: w) u) h- a) as 88 oosomMom N x ma 89 uow>mnon ocw>fino ommm mo mfimonuswm wooeumsufim ammuo on msfluooou can mcwofio>¢ mcuouuom u0w>mnon uo>fluo mo mwmosusmm oncommou cowumowuflusoow mo mammnacxm coaumowmwusoofi hocomuoso ou noncommom soaumofimwucmpw Nosomnosm mammcmEm ance mcowumsufim Hmofluwuo cosmofio>m nacho Hm>H>H5m oamumuu How odssuou d mcowmwooo osooom ufiamm moflosomuoso mcwaosmm moflosomumeo mswaocmm ESE coflflsfim Away “way “may Away ANHV monommom m x NH NN HN ON ma ma ha mosommom N x 0H 90 nuilniunnnkhs ooaomufia usopsum m HaHucopHmom s suHo s>mom m monumuopaH m monumuoucH m monumuoucH m soHo esHpoz a suHo s>amm a suHo uanH m suHo pamHH m sasanm m smzan: spousasm a HaHucmpHmmm H sazsmHm Hausa H mcoflumsufiw xmma Housoscouw>cm mmmmmmmm msoflumsufim xmma Hmucoesouw>sm mmmmmmmm mouscHz on m x «H nausea: mH m x 6H mmbomw m 8 NH 024 N 3 ma mmh mom ZOHBUDKBMZH m0 mADQmmUm Bummfimlzo m0 ZOmHm ouo£3 macaw .umoH no unmww o» .oHow£o> mCONuHmom muoo> .umo mo usowm .mo>Hso osoaon mocowmom cw maoo monowmom m lllll D m lllll D mIIIID m II I ID Hoflccoucoo co ummm H.H Homszou Homazoo mumdmm H ooconwom Home ZOHBUNMHQ Dmmmm amoumm moz¢2m0mmmw mm>HmQ Illcoauooufla Homhomm onemuoom mm>HmQ um>uomno comma momma est moH>mmm choHecooom osHe Sowmom once we HmHue He HmHue "meosmmm emme oaom *oH opossum .umm BmflB Odom mm& m xHazmmmd 104 105 m IIIII a m IIIII a m IIIII o m IIIII o m IIIII a m IIIII o oomezoo Homezoo oneommHo ommam mIIIIo mIIIIo mIIIIs romcmm voodoo «a mmoum .ooma shop puma ow muoucoo .ocoH Chou mnemon ooumwoaoooo .mcofiuoowflo Ham monoumom hauoounoosw mmoum .msmH shop ca woman no puma on muoo> .ouoH Ho fiasco oou mousse IHoooo .ooono so .unmww Ho puma common nos moon m mCONuHoooo How ooomm mumonom .moHozxosno poncho muomum .omou c300 monouoom II D ocNh so omIH mcwsooowmmd mooo .soumom uoc mooo mtl" names on mcoHuHmom umouoaafis I woman moofipow mcowuoouwo Han monouoom mIII III? II [VIIIII D ocNh so nuuoz prom Ho>mww unoHu op ooHuHmoo Nahum common uoc moon .ooomm weapon no: mooo I I D H.m m ooooswom pmoe moaon ocsoum woman no: N.N no: moon .nmsoso H.N oo~s a. moHHo amouo N ooconwmm umoa 106 mIIIIIo mIIIIIo m IIIII a m IIIII o m IIIII a m IIIII o Homezoo Homezoo oneommHo ommom mIIIIo mIIIIo mIIIIo =0moa mocmomoo .oomH moaoomuum m I D mama ouco hozmmowmxm umflxm H.v v ooomswom Umoe hanuoofim Boanoum sofluMHHm> nomads .oamwmnu apogee mama .oamwmwu mooomaw no: moon .mflnuooam .nuoosm woo cowuoonooom moumuoaooom .wooasonm .uooasonm puma Ho>o pom puma uo>o mcflnowmom omens common on mHHmm mil D mmammonxm ouco menu scum moose: m.m owmmowu nuwz monomwoucd .oumuo venues» cues ouowuoucw no: mooo Iaooom ou mawom .cwsu med» moumHoHoooo .cudu mead» cu maedm .meauoowwo once mcowuoowwo Ham monowmom no moo ca common muooamoc m D menu mocmwuom >o3mmowmxm ouco suns N.m o.usoo m mocomwom Home 107 onm onmmuu auHs oHooouo suHs monomuouoH ouomuoucfl poo mooo .Hoomwm .momcmso unmea mm ououo sooum nufi3 masuoosm mousse IHooom poo mooo .3on IHoooo .masuoosm mosoomoo so some oou moooomoo .osma swap umoa case mHnuoosu .ocmH puma House no: mo>OE .hamzoaoflusoo monowoom mooo .nowmom uos mooo m IIIII D m IIIII D mIIIID m D H poo spam no Hooon onoose mosooouooa H.m m oooonwom umoa oooH uoowuoo once umoH mcwsu coma shop oucfl puma mews» .haucofiowmmo moumwoaooom .3on Ho worm oou mousse .msowuowwwo Ham monoummm :Hooom .nouoom ou maflmm mIIIIID m IIIII D mIIIID mII D umouum nuvm ouso cuss puma m.v hummmooo: we amouw .NHnuoosm mocoomoo ouoa oou mocoomoo .Nw no Ht wood ouca mo>OE mocoomoo .oCMH moaoomuum m IIIII D m IIIII D mIIIID mu D uroHH onoaus uoouum spam on menu ume ~.a Homezoo Homezoo museum o.uooo v oocoomom umoe onBOmmHD Dummm 108 m IIIII o m IIIII a mIIIIo m IIIII o m IIIII o mIIIIo m IIIII a m IIIII o mIIIIo AOmBZOU AOmBZOU m0m¢Mm ZOHBUHmHQ Qmwmm pmmupm p0 oon proHp pH oHoHpop mumpcmo .Napomaam mmpmwm Iamomo .pmma Naamaommmm .msoauomuao aam mmsowmmm mammmup spas mummwmusa .mm>mm3 .mumum Iamomo .noummm o» maamm mll ppoHp amsmam .mc0apaoooo Dom amcmam mammmwp wow ommmm mpmonom .mGOapomwap aam mmnohmmm m I D unfionnuaom supp a.m m mocmqmmm umma cusp pnoHp moooH .opropp pop QOpm poo mmoo .amcmam poo mmoo .nowmmm uo: mmoo I I D pooppm apes opco pooppm H some cups ppon m.m mmomso mama umuwm msma ca maoanm> mumpomo .usmau ow Naguooem mummpm .oamumuu ou ommmm mumsmom .oaummwp ca mmm mpomamm .xomno ommn woman .m:0auomuao aam mmnoummm mill! oamwmuu 0p ommmm umsflom p0: mmoo .oaummuu Hmnpo you sumocoo psonpa3 pnmau mm>oE .nowmmm no: mmoo III I o pooppm A no ooooro moon ~.m o.pcoo m mocmnwmm pmma 109 m IIIII o m IIIII a m IIIII o m IIIII o oomezoo Homezoo oneommHo ommom mama wmmoum mumpcm .amsmam cusp pnmau mpm>apom .oawwmuu How macaw no szoo macaw .puma pom unmau Naamaommmm .mCOauomHav aam mmzoummm cusp amcmam poo mmoo .opropp psz mpoppopoH .30am .cowmmm on maamm mIIIIo mIIII pmmwpn p0 oon proHp :H oHoHao> mcamucamfi .Napsmaam mmpmum Iamomo .unmaw haamaommmm .msoauomwao aam mmnoummm mIIIIo m IIIIIIII momdmm I D osmazmam ouco shoe puma m.m ummwum no man Ioae ca mommoonm .mumwm Iamomo .nowmmm p0: mmoo IIIII I a ooooonpsom apes ~.o o.soo w mocmnwmm poms APPENDIX E ILLUSTRATION OF ROAD TEST SEQUENCE APPENDIX E ILLUSTRATION OF ROAD TEST SEQUENCE 8 UCATION sauce: UNIT 3 IVERR EDUCATION P ROUECT III-:oADT 6T T80 OUTE f\ 4— III I- OM56 110 :- — _ # I .IIIII I I "#5335; RufiAL ROAD I I I I I III FISH) CORN I x TALL I W‘b ”NIKE? TEST SEQuENCEi L?— TEST SEQUENCE 2. NT RoueH omva Rd. 2.2. 72"".S’r. :j;)_l510:P GILES ROAD W @QTHEES \ of \5 ”39%? CREST HIL IIIIIII 113 are mozéezm. ><38m¢oxp m 8530mm .5... 02300 Bust/Ion IH 114 dram Faxm ><3wmmqu T “107$:ch Sm... 3.58.5.9") 8a.. . :_: a SAW : S. : _._ 433:8”... .1 “ 1. flab/Ho zfimopsw _ I n uvZujamw mek. III I_ SHARP DECLINE “I IIImm 4E:- PARI‘IIN #I (.2 _, + .5 HIGHLAND I‘ TE HESIDEIQIIAEQU 8%IT APPENDIX F STUDENT INFORMATION SHEET APPENDIX F STUDENT INFORMATION SHEET This study is being conducted to determine how drivers operate their cars under different conditions. we hope that it will lead to the improvement of driver education. We have selected a driving route that includes a variety of typical driving situations. we would like to have you drive through this route two times. This may take about one hour. An observer will be taking notes from time to time to record what is happening. This information will be used to improve the curriculum for driver education. During each run through the route, the observer will give you directional instructions. These instructions will be given in plenty of time for you to follow them. If you have any questions about the directions, ask for them to be repeated. You can contribute best to the success of the study by driving safely, but as you normally would when you are in your own car. Thank you for your help. I have read the above explanation of the purpose of the study and I agree to assist in this project. Signature Date 117 APPENDIX G ROAD TEST DIRECTIONS APPENDIX G ROAD TEST DIRECTIONS SEQUENCE 1. At warning curve sign: "Continue to the end of the road and turn left." 2. None required. Proceed straight ahead until I ask you to turn. 3. When the bridge near F Street is clearly visible: "Just beyond the bridge we will turn left and go west onto Interstate 80." 4. As soon as merging into lane #3 is completed: "Take the next exit to the right, turn left, and proceed south on 84th Street." 5. As you pass the traffic light at 84th and F: "At the next traffic light turn left then proceed to the following traffic light and turn right." 6. At the top of the hill on 77th Street: "Proceed to the end of the roadway and turn left." 118