ovmuz nuns ARE 25¢ m DAY , In 1m Return to book drop to rchovc this checkout from your record. © Copyright by ERIC LYNN VAN FLEET 1979 AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ILLINOIS DEMONSTRATIONfSAIELLITE PERFORMANCE CURRICULUM As MEASURED BY STUDENT SELF-REPORTING ACCIDENT INVOLVEMENT By Eric Lynn Van Fleet A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1979 ABSTRACT AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ILLINOIS DEMONSTRATION-SATELLITE PERFORMANCE CURRICULUM AS MEASURED BY STUDENT SELF-REPORT ACCIDENT INVOLVEMENT BY Eric Lynn Van Fleet The central purpose of this study was to examine the relation- ship between a specific driver performance curriculum and motor vehicle accident involvement among students completing driver education. A secondary purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of using a self-reporting accident survey as a measure of driver performance. The Illinois Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum (DSPC) was developed as part of a four year curriculum development and evaluation project funded by the Illinois Department of Transpor— tation and sponsored by the Illinois Office of Education. The goal of the project was two-fold, to provide assistance to public schools in Illinois in the implementation of the new state curriculum guide (Driver Education for Illinois Youth, 1972) and to provide the Illinois Office of Education with methods and data for evaluating the effectiveness of driver education programs in producing competent and responsible users of the highway transportation system. Due to a time lag between development, implementation and revision of the curriculum, the project came to an end before any statistical analysis could be done on those demonstration-satellite schools which utilized all thirteen modules. Of special significance to this study was the fact that of the fifty-seven schools involved in the project during the four year time span (1972-1976), only twelve schools during the 1975-76 school year were provided with the finalized modules identified as key modules to the project. The sample population of this study consisted of 4024 seniors drawn from twenty-four high schools in Illinois who graduated in the Spring of 1978 and who had successfully completed driver education during the 1975-76 school year within the school from which they graduated. The twenty-four schools involved in the study consisted of twelve schools (experimental group) which had participated in the utilization of the DSPC during the 1975-76 school year and twelve schools (control group) which had not participated in the utilization of the DSPC during the 1975-76 school year. During the Spring of 1978 pre-graduation exercises, the students were asked to respond to the Driver Education Evaluation Survey. The data collected on the survey consisted of the subjects' responses to the best choice in three or more of the following five categories: (1) Suggestions for Improving Driver Education Courses, (2) Driving Experience, (3) Collision Experience, (4) Severity of Collision Experience and (5) Type of Crash. Statistical analysis of the data consisted of parametric t-tests on all questions dealing with accident involvement and non-parametric Chi-square Tests on all questions dealing with severity of accident involvement. Analysis of the data led to two major conclusions: (1) that the Illinois Demonstrationésatellite Performance Curriculum did significantly influence (in a reduction direction) an individual's probability of being involved in an accident and (2) that the Illinois Demonstration—Satellite Performance Curriculum had little influence on the severity of accident involvement for students exposed to it. Additional findings relative to influence of sex, type of program, type of city, and performance on module tests were also discussed. DEDICATION This study is dedicated to: Mary I. Van Fleet and Charles L. Van Fleet, Jr. without whose love, guidance and support this study would not have been possible, and Marie, Breelyn and Shawn wife, daughter and son, who, along with his parents, made it all worthwhile. Eric Van Fleet East Lansing, Michigan 1979 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to the following individuals and organizations for their assistance, guidance, encouragement and support: The doctoral guidance committee: Dr. Robert E. Gustafson, Chairman; Dr. Joseph Dzenowagis, Dr. Lou Anna Simon, and Dr. Donald L. Smith. The Illinois Office of Education for their assistance in the collection of pertinent data. The Illinois Secretary of State's Office for assistance in obtaining needed driver records. The high schools and their students who so willingly provided time and answers. Thanks is also due to the following families: The James' and the Lawry's for their assistance at various stages of this investigation. A special thanks to Mr. warren P. Quensel for his insight, direction and support in the conduct of this study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Chapter 1. THE PROBLEM Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Importance of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Questions to be Answered . . . . . . . . . . Methods of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basic Assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delimitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organization of the Study. . . . . . . . . . Hl—IHHHH oxounbemxooooobr-o 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Driver Education Program Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . 19 Accident Involvement: Driver License Record Studies. . 27 Accident Involvement: Self-Reporting Studies . . . . . 29 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 3. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum . . . . 36 Survey Instrument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 iv Chapter 3. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY General Questions to be Answered . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . Null Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Accident Involvement . Analysis of Severity of Accident Involvement . Analysis of Type of Accident . . Driving Experience . . . . . . . . sumry O O O I O O O O O O O O I O 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISCUSSION Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES A. NUMBER SYSTEM FOR MODULES. . . . . B. GUIDES FOR ADMINISTRATION OF SURVEY. C. DRIVER EDUCATION SURVEY. Page 44 46 48 51 54 56 6O 73 115 122 127 133 137 138 140 145 152 153 155 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. LIST OF TABLES Accident Involvement: Control Group vs. Experimental Group . . . . . . . . . . . Accident Involvement: Control Female vs. Experimental Female. . . . . . . . . . Accident Involvement: Control Male vs. Experimental Male. . . . . . . . . . . Accident Involvement: Males vs. Females. . Accident Involvement: 2-Phase vs. 3—Phase Range. Accident Involvement: 2-Phase vs. 3-Phase Simulation . . . . Accident Involvement: 2-Phase vs. 4-Phase. Accident Involvement: 3-Phase Range vs. 3"Phase Simulation 0 o o o o o o o o o 0 Accident Involvement: 3-Phase Range vs. 4‘Phase o o o o o 0 Accident Involvement: 3-Phase Simulation vs. 4-Ph886 o o o o o 0 Accident Accident Accident Accident Accident Accident Accident Involvement: Involvement: Involvement: Involvement: Involvement: Involvement: Involvement: Urban vs. Suburban . Urban vs. Rural. . . Suburban vs. Rural . Test Scores Module Test Scores Module Test Scores Module Test Scores Module vi Page 60 61 62 63 64 64 65 65 66 66 67 68 68 7O 70 71 71 Table 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. Accident Involvement: Test Scores Module 10. . Accident Involvement: Test Scores Module 11. . Accident Involvement: Test Scores Module 12. . Personal Injury: Control Group vs. Experimental Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . Active Restraints: Control Group vs. Experimental Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . Property Damage: Control Group vs. Experimental Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . Severity: Control Group vs. Experimental Group Personal Injury: Control Female vs. Experimental Female. . . . . . . . . . . . . Active Restraints: Control Female vs. Experimental Female. . . . . . . . . Property Damage: Control Female vs. Experimental Female. . . . . . . . . . . . . Severity: Control Female vs. Experimental Female. . . . . . . . . . . . Personal Injury: Control Male vs. Experimental Male. . . . . . . . . . . . . Active Restraints: Control Male vs. Experimental Male. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Property Damage: Control Male vs. Experimental Male. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Severity: Control Male vs. Experimental Male . Personal Injury: Males vs. Females . . . . . . Active Restraints: Males vs. Females . . . Property Damage: Males vs. Females . . . . . . Severity: Males vs. Females. vii Page 72 72 73 74 75 76 76 78 78 79 8O 81 82 82 83 84 85 86 86 Table 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. Personal Injury by Program Type. Active Restraints by Program.Type. . Property Damage by Program Type. . Severity by Program Type . . Personal Injury by City Type . . . . Active Restraints by City Type . . . Personal Injury by City Type . Severity by City Type. . . . . . . Personal Injury by Module 1. Personal Injury by Module 2. . . . Personal Injury by Module 4. . . . . Personal Injury by Module 8. . . . . Personal Injury by Module 10 . . . Personal Injury by Module 11 . . . . Personal Injury by Module 12 . . . . Active Restraints by Module 1. Active Restraints by Module 2. Active Restraints by Module 4. . . . Active Restraints by Module 8. . . . Active Restraints by Module 10 . . Active Restraints by Module 11 . . Active Restraints by Module 12 . Property Damage by Module 1. . . . Property Damage by Module 2. . Property Damage by Module 4. viii Page 88 89 9O 91 92 93 94 94 96 97 97 98 99 99 100 101 101 102 103 103 104 105 106 106 107 Table 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. Property Damage by Module 8. Property Damage by Module 10 Property Damage by Module 11 . Property Damage by Module 12 . Severity by Severity by Severity by Severity by Severity by Severity by Severity by Location of Module 1 . . . . Module 2 . . . . Module 4 . . . Module 8 . Module 10. . Module 11. . Module 12. Accident: Control Group vs. Experimental Group . . Type of Roadway: Control Group vs. Experimental Group . . . Condition of Road Surface: Control Group Experimental Group . . . Time of Day: Control Group vs. Experimental Group . . . Objects Involved: Control Group vs. Experimental Group . . . VS. Type of Road Conditions: Control Group vs. Experimental Group . . . . Avoidance Procedure: Control Group vs. Experimental Group . . . Driver Error: Control Group vs. Experimental Group . . . ix Page 108 108 109 110 111 111 112 113 113 114 115 116 117 118 118 119 120 120 121 Table 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. Page Time Between Completing Driver Education and Receiving a Driver's License: Control Group vs. Experimental Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Length of Time Licensed to Drive: Control Group vs. Experimental Group 0 O O O O O O O I O O O C O O O O O 1 23 Age at Time of Licensing: Control Group vs. Experimental Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Time Spent Driving During Average Week: Control Group vs. Experimental Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Miles Driven Per Month: Control Group vs. Experimental Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Number of Miles Driven Last 12 Months: Control Group vs. Experimental Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Papulation Data Breakdown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 2. Pictorial Analysis of Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 xi Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Death, injury and property damage, resulting from motor vehicle collisions, is considered to be one of the major health and social prob- lems of the last five decades. The motor vehicle accident rate has reached such epidemic proportions, as to be ranked as the number one cause of death between the ages of one and twenty-four years and fifth in all ages identified by the National Safety Council. (49:40-72) During 1977 alone, 49,500 individuals lost their lives in motor vehicle collisions with another 1,900,000 individuals sustaining in- juries. An estimated direct cost of over 30.5 billion dollars to those directly and indirectly involved resulted from these mishaps. In the last twenty years over 850,000 lives have been lost, with a majority of these motor vehicle collisions (862) being attributed to improper driving. (49:30-59) (49: 40-72) Of special significance is the fact that the youth of our nation have been involved in a disproportionate percent of these mishaps (38.2) and fatalities (38.2), yet they re- present only 21.92 of the driving population. (49:54) Because of the problems associated with motor vehicle utilization, a variety of countermeasures have been employed in three specific areas in an attempt to reduce the overall impact of collisions in this nation: the driving environment, the vehicle being driven and the driver and his passengers. A major difficulty arising from these countermeasure programs is: The probability of involvement in a crash at any one time is already relatively low and quite difficult to reduce. Signifi- cant reductions will probably require large-scale national approaches that have some significant impact on the Nation's drivers, in terms of either how they drive (e.g., using seatbelts, minding speed limits) or how much they drive (e.g., in the recent fuel shortage). (70:4) The Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act, passed in January of 1974, represented one such national effort to affect the way people drive. This act prohibited speed limits above fifty-five miles per hour on the nation's highways and was credited by the National Safety Council as playing a major role in the reduction of fatal motor vehicle collisions during 1974-76. (59:11-17) The overall effectiveness of that particular countermeasure in the years to come has not yet been established. Paul H. Blaisdell, in the article "The Relevance of Safety Education in Schools of Tomorrow," warned that when examining the history of traffic accidents in this country, therehave been several periods during which this nation experienced a crash reduction only to be followed by a relentless increase. If society were to expect long term effects ". . . . we have to so improve our capability in highway safety that we can hold the accident experience and its results on the downgrade despite the inevitable increase in drivers, vehicles and traffic." (1:6) It was with that long term effect, ". . . . hold the accident experience and its results on the downgrade...", that the birth of driver education in the high school as a countermeasure came about. It was felt that if society were to produce safe drivers in the future, it would need to provide some type of formalized educational program at an age when the youth of the nation were being introduced to the driving task. (46:1-60) Driver Education, in the high school setting, came about because of a recognized social problem. Since it was not part of the original curriculum, it became a mandated program in most states. In recent years it has come under significant attack from a variety of areas concerning its effectiveness and, in some quarters, concerning its role in the educational environment. (13:259-274) Of special concern to most traffic safety educators was the position taken by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ". . . . that the quality high school driver education (HSDE) program is capable of a 10-15 percent effect in terms of reducing the prob- ability of crash involvement among persons exposed to it." (70:3) There are not many who would argue the merit of a high school driver education program producing a decrease in accident involvement among those exposed to it. However, based on present day measures of effectiveness (namely driver license records) and current practices regarding instructor preparation, program structures, licensing pro- cedures, accident involvement records and course curriculum development, there is concern as to the present ability to evaluate driver education, much less to set a level of performance. (13) (56) (70) STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Since the inception of the first separate driver education course of study in the early 1920's, and the inclusion of behind-the- wheel instruction by Neyhart in 1933, the goal of driver education has been to provide novice drivers with skills and knowledge that would lead toward safe, efficient and economical operation of a motor vehicle within the highway transportation system (HTS). (46:32-36) Although the goal of safe, efficient, economical operation of a motor vehicle within the HTS has been considered a worthy one, progress toward the attainment of that goal has been hampered by many elements, a few of which were: the growth of the motorized vehicle (from 950,000 vehicles registered in 1912 to 149 million registered in 1977) versus knowledge of the driving task (first complete task analysis for driver education conducted by HumRRO in later part of the 1960's), lack of adequate research, lack of qualified instructors and availability of instructor preparation institutions and lack of adequate curriculum development. (8) (18) (31) (32) (36) (56) (58) (60) Concern over these problems, along with the increasing cost of driver education within the educational system, has been mounting for a number of years and has culminated in recent years in an all-out attack on the value of driver education in the educational system coupled with a challenge from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The attacks revolve around two central questions: (a) Can driver education, for persons exposed to it, reduce accident involvement? and (2) At what level of performance does driver education become cost effective? In dealing with the first question, opponents of driver education have cited study after study showing driver education in the high school setting to be non-effective, costly, and in a recent study published on the front page of the Chicago Tribune (12/7/77), the researchers Robertson and Zador went one step further by suggesting that driver education was directly responsible for at least 2,000 fatal teenage crashes a year. (9) Proponents, on the other hand, have justified the existence of driver education through citing studies that disclaim and/or refute the opponents' studies and through insurance company claims that policy holders' children, who have taken driver education, make fewer claims then those whose children have not taken driver education. (13) (40) (52) The value of the research used to support and Or refute driver education's effectiveness as an accident countermeasure has been chal- lenged from a number of camps. Little, in 1966, refuted the ability of the educational system to keep up with the needs and growth of driver education and verified his beliefs through a review of the literature which generally indicated a considerable difference in the quality of driver education in various schools. (35) David Klein, in describing the state of the art of research on the young driver in 1968, indicated that the research was "primitive.... poor data quality, methodological parochialism and low professionalism." (13:261) Challengers, other than Little and Klein, have dealt with a num- ber of methodological errors committed by various researchers and cited that much of the research to date haS' centered around type of instruction, number of phases, length of programs, cost of programs, etc. . . . rather than on what type of curriculum would be best suited toward reducing the probability of crash involvement. Finally, the Driver Education Evaluation Program (DEEP) Study presented to the U. 8. Congress in 1975 reviewed the research literature and stated: . . . . the history of HSDE suggests that much of the present lack of documented effectiveness results from premature attempts to promote High School Driver Education (HSDE), based on its face validity, and to expand it to all eligible students without equal emphasis on evaluating and subsequently improving such programs. (70:39) It would appear that much still needs to be done along the lines of program development and research before the value of driver education in an educational setting can be determined accurately. The second question (At what level of performance does driver education become cost effective?) has prematurely been answered. The NHTSA has indicated that for driver education to become cost effective it must produce a ". . . . 10-15 percent effect in terms of reducing the probability of crash involvement among persons exposed. . . ." to it. (70:3) The 10-15 percent effect represented a premature assessment because to effectively set a level of performance for any curriculum, answers to questions such as the following must be obtained: 1. What prerequisite capabilities must the target population, for whom the curriculum is intended, have? 2. At what level of preparedness must the instructors of the curriculum be? 3. What equipment will be necessary for implementation of the program? 4. What minimum levels of performance must the learners achieve to progress successfully through each segment of the curriculum? 5. Within what time frame must the curriculum function? 6. What tools will be best suited for measuring the effective- ness of the curriculum and how will it be evaluated? (1) (13) (38) (57) The problems that have confronted driver education have been increased due to the criterion that he been used in the past to eval- uate its effectiveness. Much of the research has relied heavily upon the use of state driver license records. The major problem associated with that approach has been that ". . . . driving records, as collections of crash and violation entries, are not complete, often involve in- accuracies, and are subject to the whims of reporting officers, prose- cuting attorneys and traffic court judges." (70:42) (76) Research to datehas not provided answers to what kind of curri- culum will produce a reduction in the probability of being involved in an accident. Nor has it provided the best means to measure prospective curriculums. (13) (70) (76) This lack of adequate research relative to identifying a viable curriculum and concern over present day measuring tools (i.e., driver license records) used to determine program effective- ness represent the central problem on which this study will focus. Without answers as to what type of curriculum.will contribute to accident and severity reduction and without a viable means to measure potential curriculums, the value of driver education will remain elusive and the setting of a given level of performance, folly. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The central purpose of this study was to examine the relation- ships between a specific driver performance curriculum and motor vehicle accident involvement among novice drivers. Specifically, the study attempted to determine if the Illinois Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum contributed to a re- duction in accident involvement and in severity of accident involvement among those novice drivers exposed to the curriculum. The study used a self-reporting accident involvement survey as the criterion variable when attempting to determine what influence the Illinois Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum had on novice drivers' accident involvement. IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY If one were to accept the challenge that driver education should reduce the probable accident involvement of those individuals exposed to it, one would first have to identify the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and competencies an individual must possess to avoid and/or reduce the severity of accident involvement and then structure that information into a viable curriculum. Much of the research to date has not concerned itself with curriculum evaluation but rather with program evaluation. (8) (15) (23) (53) (70) As has been stressed by Driessen and others, the intent of research in driver education, should have been to identify, measure and improve the accident avoidance training content of its curriculum. Only after this has been done would the field of traffic safety be in a position to determine whether or not driver education should exist in the school setting. (8) (56) (70) Through the conduct of this study it was possible to determine what part the Illinois Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum played in the goal of reducing the potential accident involvement of those exposed to it. This study also provided an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of Self-reporting accident involvement surveys as a measure of program evaluation. Without the conduct of studies such as this, the field of traffic safety would probably never be in a position to develop and/or identify a viable curriculum that was capable of reducing the accident involvement of those exposed to it. And without a viable curriculum, any efforts to set a level of performance based on cost-effectiveness would be highly questionable. GENERAL QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED This study attempted to answer the following questions: 1. Did seniors who successfully completed driver education courses using the Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum (DSPC) have fewer traffic collisions than seniors who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum? 2. Did seniors who successfully completed driver education 10 courses using the DSPC have less severe traffic collisions than those who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum? 3. Did senior girls who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC have fewer traffic collisions than senior girls who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum? 4. Did senior girls who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC have less severe traffic collisions than senior girls who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum? 5. Did senior boys who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC have fewer traffic collisions than senior boys who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum? 6. Did senior boys who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC have less severe traffic collisions than senior boys who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum? 7. Was there a difference in the number of traffic collisions experienced between all senior girls and boys who successfully completed driver education? 8. was there a difference in the severity of traffic collisions experienced between all senior boys and girls who successfully completed driver education? 9. Did type of driver education program (2 phase, 3 phase 11 range, 3 phase-simulation and 4 phase) influence the number of traffic collisions experienced by all seniors who successfully completed driver education? 10. Did the type of driver education program ( 2 phase, 3 phase- range, 3 phase-simulation and 4 phase) influence the severity of traffic collisions experienced by all seniors who successfully completed driver education? 11. Did the type of community (urban, suburban, rural) influence the number of traffic collisions experienced by all seniors who success- fully completed driver education? 12. Did the type of community (urban, suburban, rural) influence the severity of traffic collisions experienced by all seniors who success- fully completed driver education? 13. Did performance on the DSPC tests reflect a difference in accident involvement? 14. Did performance on DSPC tests reflect a difference in severity of accident involvement. 15. Did seniors exposed to the DSPC have a different type of accident involvement picture than seniors not exposed to the curriculum based on location of accident, type of roadway, condithnnof road surface, time of day, objects involved, type of collisions, avoidance procedures, and driver errors made? 12 METHODS OF PROCEDURE The Illinois Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum (DSPC) was developed as part of a four year curriculum development project funded by the Illinois Department of Transportation and sponsored by the Illinois Office of Education. The goal of the project was twofold, to provide assistance to public schools in Illinois in the implementation of the new state curriculum guide (Driver Education for Illinois Youth, 1972), and to provide the Illinois Office of Education with methods and data for eval- uating the effectiveness of driver education programs in producing com- petent and responsible users of the Highway Transportation System. (27) The demonstration-satellite schools that were selected to par- ticipate in the project were selected on the basis of their interest, staff qualifications and program organization. The role of the demonstration-satellite schools was to implement the instructional materials into their individual programs, identify strengths and weaknesses of the materials, make recommendations for revision and assist in the collection of data for curriculum evaluation. Due to a time lag between development, implementation and re- vision of the curriculum, the project came to an end before any statis- tical analysis could be donaon those demonstration-satellite schools which utilized all thirteen modules. Of special significance to this study was the fact that, of the fifty-seven schools involved in the project during the four year time span (1972-1976), only twelve schools during the 1975-76 school year were provided with the thirteen finalized modules identified as key modules to the project. 13 The sample papulation of this study consisted of 4024 seniors drawn from.twenty-four high schools in Illinois who graduated in the spring of 1978 and who had successfully completed driver education during the 1975-76 school year within the school from which they graduated. The twenty-four schools involved in the study consisted of twelve schools (experimental group) which had participated in the utilization of the Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum.(DSPC) during the 1975-76 school year and twelve schools (control group) which had not participated in the utilization of the DSPC during the 1975-76 school year. The control group was matched to the experimental group based on the following criteria: (1) type of program, (2) educational makeup, (3) Insurance rating tables, (4) Enforcement Index and (5) city size and location. In addition, the control group schools had to have their course curriculum tied directly to the textbook used in that school, with no additional resources used to set program objectives and/or course content. During the Spring of 1978 pre-graduation exercises, the students were asked to respond to the Driver Education Evaluation Survey. The data collected on the survey consisted of the students' responses to the best choice in three or more of the following five categories: (1) Suggestions for Improving Driver Education Courses, (2) Driving Experience, (3) Collision Experience, (4) Severity of Collision Experience and (5) Type of Crash. Students not involved in collisions would not respond to items in category 4 or 5. 14 The data collected from responses to the survey and tabulated on IBM data cards was analyzed using parametric and non-parametric statistical procedures. Specifically, parametric t-tests were performed on all items dealing with accident involvement and non-parametric Chi- squares were done on all items dealing with severity of accident involve- ment . The analysis to be reported on was performed with the use of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. BASIC ASSUMPTIONS The investigation of the above questions was based on the following assumptions: 1. The validity and reliability of student self-reporting accident involvement procedures were sufficient for the purposes of this study. 2. Expressed opinions were help opinions. 3. An individual's responses to questionnaire items were based on true and real feelings. 4. Safe, efficient, economical driving behavior could be taught. DEFINITION OF TERMS For the purposes of this study, the following terms were defined: 1. Accident, mishap, collision: (terms used interchangeably) an unplanned interruption of a planned activity, resulting in personal injury, property damage or both, while driving a motor vehicle. (43) 15 2. Approved driver education course: any driver education course approved by the Superintendent of Public Instruction as meeting at least the minimum requirement of the "Driver Education Act", as now or hereafter amended. (52) 3. Illinois Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum: a performance based high school driver education curriculum consisting of twenty-one modules, thirteen of which were developed by Illinois State University and field tested within fifty-seven school in Illinois during the 1973-1976 school years. 4. Mandated programs: all programs not originally part of a school curriculum which, because of a recognized social need, are legislated by law to be incorporated into the school curriculum. 5. Novice driver: a person who has less than five years of experience as a motor vehicle operator within the highway transportation system. 6. Severity of accident: the degree to which personal injury and property damage are affected by any given motor vehicle accident. 7. Traditional driver education curriculum: a curriculum.which follows state guidelines in relation to subject content and is closely tied to the text used in the given school. LIMITATIONS OF STUDY The limitations of this study were as follows: 1. The schools used in this study were not randomly selected. 2. The respondents would not be able to recall accurately the events surrounding each collision. 3. The study was conducted after implementation of the curriculum 16 into selected schools. DELIMITATIONS OF STUDY The delimitations of this study were as follows: 1. The study was conducted only on seniors who had been involved in driver education at the selected schools during the 1975-76 school year. 2. The study was conducted in the State of Illinois outside of Cook County. 3. The instructors involved in the DSPC were provided with special training related to the use of the curriculum material. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY The general plan of this study is to present in Chapter 2 the review of the literature from the following areas: curriculum evaluation in driver education, the measurement of driving behavior using motor vehicle records, and the measurement of driving behavior using self-re- porting questionnaires. In Chapter 3 the design and methodology of the study will be presented. Chapter 4 will present the analysis of data for the study, and Chapter 5 will contain a summary of the findings, conclusions, recommendations and a discussion. Chapter 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Driver education has undergone an unprecedented growth in its first fifty years, but along with this growth a number of serious questions have developed as to its role in the educational system and its effectiveness as an accident countermeasure. (13) (35) (46) (49) (70) The Driver Education Evaluation Program (DEEP) Study (70) traced the history of driver education, since its inception in the school systems as an accident countermeasure, through four phases. Phase I covered the period of its inception (1930's) to post World War II (1949)} This period was indicative of disorganization coupled by uncontrolled growth, without efforts toward program develop- ment as it related to curriculum development, program quality and eval- uation. (64) (70) Phase II (1943 through mid-sixties) was marked by several initial attempts to improve the quality of high school programs through implementation of teacher preparation programs and course standardization. However, little evidence of objective curriculum development and evaluation was reported to be in progress during that time period. The two most significant events occurring during phase II were the insurance companys' adoption of a policy of reduced premiums for youths who successfully completed a driver education course, and a number of large (uncontrolled) studies conducted to evaluate driver 17 18 education. (16) (44) (50) (65) (70) In Phase III (early sixties through later part of the sixties), identified as the critical period, high school driver education came under severe attack with regard to its effectiveness as an accident countermeasure. The attack was a result of a re-examination of previous research and new research conducted by independents, which contradicted earlier claims that driver education was directly responsible for reduction of accident involvement for those exposed to it. It is impor- tant to note that despite the critical issues being raised, a number of efforts continued with regard to program expansion, curriculum change and innovative learning activities with little concern toward quality control and/or program evaluation. (63) (70) The final phase, Phase IV (late sixties to present), was ident- ified as the beginning of a new era for driver education. This period would note the implementation of a research and development program by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Although a number of new studies of a more sophisticated nature would attempt to evaluate driver education, more important studies would examine the driv- ing task (42), develOp performance based curriculum at the state and national level (Illinois Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum and Safe Performance Curriculum respectively) and identify the need for extensive research of one curriculum (Safe Performance Curriculum) to assertain its effectiveness as an accident countermeasure. This study concerns itself with the evaluation of another performance based curriculum in driver education (Illinois Demonstration- Satellite Performance Curriculum) as a potential accident countermeasure. 19 The review of the literature therefore will address the areas of: Driver Education Program Evaluation; Driver License Records, as a criterion for program evaluation; and Self-reporting Accident Surveys (referred to hereafter as self-reporting surveys), as a criterion for program evaluation. (13) (27) (40) (57) (70) DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION Research conducted in driver education began as early as 1945 and has progressed through a series of stages. Although most of the research concerned itself with evaluation and comparisons of various driver education programs all of the literature indicated that the various studies were plagued with varying degrees of inadequacies, ' leaving the definitive answer to the question "Is driver education an effective accident countermeasure?" elusive and at times seemingly out of reach. (13) (63) \ The following section dealing with evalution of driver education programs will be subdivided into three categories: (1) Early studies, (2) New era and (3) Related studies. Early Studies Most of the early studies (mid-forties through early sixties) conducted to evaluate driver education failed to control for variables known to bias the results of a study and none applied statistical tests of significance when analyzing their results. (13) (44) (46) The American Automobile Association (AAA) sponsored one of the first effectiveness studies in 1945. In this study two groups of 20 Cleveland, Ohio high school students' driving records were compared. The experimental group (those students who received formal driver education in the schools) had half as many accidents as the control group (those students who did not receive formal driver education in the schools). (45) A distinction should be made for the reader's benefit. Driessen stressed that there is no clear distinction between the trained driver and the untrained driver and suggests that the dis- tinction made is based on the irrelevant dimension along which subjects are divided for study. He stated that the real dimension of concern is in the amount and quality of the accident avoidance training received regardless of whether it's in a formal or informal setting. (13) Maryland, during 1949-52, compared the driving records of 298 trained students against 258 untrained students. They reported that although little difference existed between the males with regard to accident involvement, the trained males received nearly half as many violations and the trained females had half as many accidents and violations as the untrained females. (44) Similar results were reported in studies conducted in New Hampshire, Oregon and West Virginia with the exception that in those studies the trained male as well as the trained female had superior accident involvement records compared to the untrained male and female drivers. (45) It should be pointed out that in the above studies no attempt was made to control for variables such as exposure and socioeconomic status and no statistical tests of significance were performed on the treatment groups. 21 In studies conducted in Michigan and New York (45) conflicting data was obtained with regard to comparisons between trained and untrained females. The data indicated that untrained females actually had better driving records than trained females. The inconsistencies of the Maryland, Michigan and New York studies (44) were attributed to inadequate sample size as a basis for making reliable conclusions. The final three studies to be discussed in this section were considered an improvement over previous research studies because they included larger samples and evaluated driving performance over a period of years. The firazof these, the Minnesota study represented a five year study comparing driving records of 1,000 subjects in each of three driving groups: (1) those students that did not receive formal training in driver education, (2) those students who only received classroom instruction in driver education and (3) those students who received classroom and behind the wheel instruction in driver education. The overall findings indicated that the fully trained group had the least accidents and violations, the classroom only group had the second'best record and the untrained group had the worst accident and violation record. (44) Virginia's study followed the accident and violation record of 1386 students (655 untrained and 721 trained) during a four year period. In the first year's driving experience the trained group demonstrated superior performance on the driving records but during the following three years, produced mixed results. In the final year (1953) the total untrained group demonstrated involvement in fewer accidents 22 (based on official state records) than the total trained group. The investigator concluded that trained drivers have an initial advantage over untrained but that over time this advantage may be erased due to driving experience. (45) In the final study to be reviewed for this period, the New York Motor Vehicle Department (1964) released a study conducted over an 18 month time period in which 960 high school driver education trained students were compared against 960 untrained high school students. The study attempted to control for such variables as academic status, sex and school attended. The findings of the study indicated that the train- ed group had 22Z fewer accidents than the untrained group. (70) In summary, from the mid-forties to the early sixties a number of studies were conducted in an attempt to demonstrate the value of driver education as an accident countermeasure. None of the studies reported subjected the differences found between the trained and untrained groups to tests of statistical significance and few made any attempt to control for variables that are known to bias the results of a study (i.e., difference between sexes, exposure, evaluation criteria etc..). (20) (44) (45) (70) (76) New Era As a result of the research inadequacies of the early studies conducted on driver behavior, and the implementation of the Research and Development Program of the National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- istration, the field entered a new era. This era included the re-evalu- ation of previous research studies and developmental efforts to 23 identify and develop a curriculum that was performance based. Much of the research conducted during this time period was conducted by independent researchers and was controversial in nature. For example, Rainey, in a study on personality characteristics of individuals choosing to take or not take driver education, reported that in a comparison of 6,906 students there was a considerable differ- ence in the personality make-up of those self-selecting to take driver education as opposed to those students self-selecting not to take driver education. He concluded that these differences in personality factors alone could contribute to differences in the reported accident involve- ment between the two groups: (58) Similar results were reported by. Ferdum, Peck and Coppin in 1967. (70) Rodell in a different type of study compared the accident involve- ment records of public trained driver education Students against private trained driver education students. Of the 521 students under investigation (public vs. private ratio 4:1) Rodell concluded that students receiving private lessons had fewer accidents than those receiving public lessons. Rodell attempted to match the groups by age and sex but did not obtain equal group size and made no effort to control for exposure. (60) In the Younngriver Follow Up Study (Highway Safety Research Report #38, 1971) conducted by Harrington, driving records were used as the criterion variable to evaluate trained high school driver educa- tion students against untrained high school students. Based on his findings, Harrington reported that driver training seemed to reduce fatal, injury, partially at fault and single vehicle crashes for female 24 drivers but was less conclusive for male drivers. Finally in a review of a number of studies conducted in California and Mississippi, McGuire and Kersh (39) concluded that there was little or no difference that could be found between driver education trained and non-driver education trained groups with regard to accident and violation frequencies. They went on to indicate that as a result of failure in a number of studies to control for variables such as exposure, sex, age, socioeconomic status etc.... that much of the research concerning the value of driver education was not positive. Related Studies -The two studies covered in this section represented attempts to evaluate driver education programs using intermediate measures (Knowledge, Skill, Attitudes Test). Most of the previous studies cited concerned themselves with driver education vs. non-driver education. In the late sixties the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) stepped in and funded five independent projects in an attempt to identify and develop a comprehensive method for evaluating driver education. The two studies to follow represent an effort to follow-up on the recommendations eminating out of the five studies. (70) In 1972-1974, the Kansas City Project (69) represented the culminating effort of the five earlier studies. The purpose of the Kansas City Project was to implement the Safe Performance Curriculum (SPC) into three Kansas City, Missouri school systems. The study was designed so that three randomly assigned groups of students would be exposed to one of the three treatment conditions. The treatment condit- ions were: those students that would be exposed to SPC, those 25 students that would be exposed to a Pre-Driving Licensing Course (a short course that simply prepared students to take the driver license test) and those students that would receive no formal preparation of any kind (the control group). Although the project was intended to include the ultimate evaluation of accident involvement (via driver license record checks) the project experienced a number of difficulties in the implementation phase which resulted in the project coming to an end before its long term goals could be evaluated. The project did, however, provide insights into the value of some of its intermediate criteria (Knowledge, BaSic Skills and Perceptual Tests). (69) In a different type of driver education evaluation study conduct- ed in Michigan, intermediate criteria were again used as the primary source of program.effectiveness. Schmitt (62) progressing through a series of steps, established 60 paper and pencil performance objectives for the classroom phase of driver education that were to be administered to 140,000 students in Michigan driver education programs to evaluate how these programs were meeting the established objectives for the classroom phase of the program. The author concluded, based on the analysis of the findings, that programs were not meeting an acceptable number of the classroom objectives identified as important by the researcher. In a rebuttal to Schmitt's study, an article entitled "A Critique of the Michigan Driver Education Evaluation Study" by Dr. Donald Smith (Journal of Traffic Safety, 26, 2, 1979) the author pointed to a number of inconsistencies between what the researcher did and the 26 conclusions arrived at. Smith pointed out that Schmitt: (1) failed to control for differences which might exist between students enrolled in summer classes as opposed to those in the regular school program; (2) made no provisions to have a research staff administer the tests thereby allowing possible abuses to occur; (3) made no effort to control for the differences in the various programs; and (4) made no effort to study or to determine the reading level of the responders. In addition to the arguments presented by Smith it should be noted that the concept of performance objectives that are solely pencil and paper tests is highly questionable and the practice of establishing performance objectives to be met in some "non-existent curriculum" and then using them to compare existing curriculas violates basic principes of curriculum development. (38) Summary A number of researchers, recognizing the methodological errors in early research in driver education sought to reevaluate driver education as an accident countermeasure. Although much of their findings repudiated the earlier findings the researchers themselves com- mitted methodological errors. Driessen when addressing the state of the art of driver education, summed up the research by indicating that most of the studies were of poor quality, rampant with method- ological errors, and indicated that efforts are needed to identify those accident avoidance skills needed to reduce the accident involvement of individuals exposed to driver education. (13) 27 ACCIDENT INVOLVEMENT: DRIVER LICENSE RECORD STUDIES Much of the research that has attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of driver education as an accident countermeasure relied heavily upon the use of driver license records as the criterion variable in determining program success and/or failure. This section will review a number of representative studies in an attempt to shed light on the concerns over the use of such records to measure program success or failure. (39) (44) (45) (58) (69) (70) (76) Burg, in a study of the stability of driving records over time compared 7841 (4897 males and 2944 females) individual driving records over a period of six years. Based on his analysis of the data, Burg concluded that convictions and accident records stabilized over times. The author went on to point out, however, that in an earlier study in which insurance records were used in conjunction with official driver license records, the insurance records provided a higher percent- age of accidents than the official records. (2) Burg also indicated that for shorter periods of time, accident records were less reliable. Similarly, Campbell reported on the instability of accident records over short periods of time, based on a study conducted in which the population under investigation had dramatically different driving records over two consecutive two-year driving periods. (3) Forbes, when re-analyzing data from a study of over 29,500 drivers, concluded that conclusions drawn from comparing accident records over two succeeding three-year periods was markedly different from previous interpretations of accident records analyzed by the total time period. (19) 28 In addressing the problem of stability of accident records, Eslander states: "The standard of accident reporting varies very much between different countries even today. The more motorized a country is, the more developed, in general, is the accident reporting system. However, even in countries with as many cars per inhabitant as the U.S.A. and Sweden, the accident reporting systems are inadequate for their purposes." (17:126) Zylman, in a position paper dealing with driver records as a valid measure of driver behavior stated that: "Data gathered by any police agency can only be used to describe conditions in that jurisdiction. It cannot be assumed that data gathered from two or more agencies are either valid or representative unless it has first been determined that each agency is using the same rules of measurement, the same interpretations and the same terminology and that they are enforcing similar laws and ordinances with similar diligence." (75:348) Beyond inconsistencies in reporting procedures, Tarrants and others pointed out that several studies have demonstrated that accident and violation rates were influenced by exposure, age, sex, socio- economic status, education and intelligence. (31) (39) (53) McGuire conducted a study using 500 subjects, who had their driver license for a period of two years, to ascertain if there was any bias in official accident records. He concluded that bias did not exist with regard to age or race but that a definite bias existed on sex (women having had fewer accidents on official records than reported on a questionnaire) and occupation (semi-professionals and professionals having fewer reported on a questionnaire). McGuire stated that based on the comparisions of self-reported accident involvement surveys and official state driving records, not only did state records under-rep- resent actual frequencies, but probably contained definite bias with 29 regard to sex and occupation. (39) MCGuire's conclusion of official driver records under- representing the actual frequencies and accident involvement was further supported by Smith (66), Katz (31) and Sain (61). Katz placed particular blame on the inadequacies of official driving records because of the so-called "reporting level". "Accidents statistics will suffer a distinct bias due to their historical purpose Of placing the legal blame for the accident on the driver where possible." (31:16) In summary, although there is some support for the use of official accident records over long periods of time (6 years +) as a criterion for evaluation, most of the literature refuted the value of official accident records on the basis of: (1) differences in reporting practices, policies and procedures; (2) built-in bias with regard to sex, socioeconomic status, exposure and occupation; (3) built-in bias with regard to purposes of official records (assessing blame and (4) percentages of accidents that go unreported. It is of interest to note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration acknowledges the above limitations and then goes on to recommend that official driving records be the criterion variable used to evaluate the ultimate success of the Safe Performance Curriculum. (74) ACCIDENT INVOLVEMENT: SELF-REPORT STUDIES In the previous section, studies using driver license records as a viable criterion for program evaluation were presented and the consensus was that when used for purposes of research, Official driving 30 records may yield spurious results. (31) (39) (53) (74) (75) This section will examine research as it related to use of self-report accident surveys as a potential criterion for driver education program evaluation. Epperson and Peck conducted a study to evaluate whether the anonymity/non-anonymity conditions had any influence in the nature of survey responses. Their study consisted for 693 California drivers drawn from an original pool of 15,290 used in a study conducted by Marsh. The subjects were divided into two primary groups (anonymous and non-anonymous) and asked to respond to a series of forced choice questions. Based on an analysis of the data the researchers concluded that subjects in the anonymous condition were more likely to give positive comments on forced choice questions than subjects in the non-anonymous conditions. "These findings seem to indicate that anonymity is not an important factor in collecting the type of information represented in that study." (16:256) In a study conducted by McGuire (as discussed in the previous section) use of self-reporting accident data was compared to determine if any bias existed in official driver license records. Of importance to this section was the fact that respondents to the self-report accident survey indicated greater accident involvement than was indicated on official accident records. Out Of 110 reportable accidents only 42 appeared on state records. McGuire cited a similar study conducted by Michalski (65), in Illinois in which out an estimated 320,672 accidents only 33% could be accounted for on the official accident records. (39) 31 Smith (66) conducted a study to evaluate the value of using official driving records and self-reports as a source of accident and conviction data for research purposes. In a sample of 129 males, between the ages of 20 and 23 driving in Perth, Australia (922 of eligible population) each subject was requested to complete a written questionnaire which included the following: (1) Questions dealing with level of education reached and kilometers driven in a week; (2) Extraversion Inventory; (3) Lie Scale of Form A of the Eysenck Personality Inventory; (4) Driving Aggression Inventory and (5) details of any traffic accidents in the past three years. Accident and conviction records were pulled from the Road Traffic Authority records for the preceeding three years. Of the 106 accidents the subjects had indicated they had been involved in, only 59 were listed in official records. The subjects failed to report 10 accidents (17%) which were on the of- ficial records. Smith concluded that based on a comparison of the official accident records with the inventories, no relationship between accident involvement and various driver characteristics could be made. However, if official driving records were used in conjunction with self- reporting accident data, a significant relationship could be established between accident involvement and driver characteristics. (66) Smith's study also verified McGuire's (39) statement that most drivers will report more accidents and convictions than will appear on official driver record files. Researchers' willingness to accept an individual's response to questions on self-report surveys can be demonstrated in a study conducted by Counts. Counts investigated the driving experience of youths from 32 Ingham County high schools during a thirty-day period between receiving a driver education certificate and being able to apply for a Michigan driver's license. Of importance to this study was that Counts used a questionnaire which asked the students to respond to: (1) Information about parents, guardians, and families; (2) Information about the re- spondee; (3) Amount and type of driving experience received during the interview period, (4) Information concerning driving experience and type of experience received during driver education and (5) Information regarding the attitude of the respondent to the interim period. (7) Results of the study, although of interest, were not as impor- tant to this study as the fact that much of the information collected, which could provide insights into development of viable driver education and driver improvement programs, would not have been obtainable any other way. (57) Sain conducted a study to investigate selected factors which seemed to affect the quality of driver education programs in the high schools of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. As in previous studies, a number of criteria were used in the program evaluation. Of particular interest to this paper was the use of student responses to driving exposure and accident involvement. Of the 1264 students interviewed, the researcher compared a portion of the respondents' answers regard- ing accident violation involvement with state records. The comparison revealed that 26.1% had been involved in one or more accidents than official records indicated. On the surveys checked all were found to be in accord with state police records. In fact, Sain reported that "students were prone to report even minor accidents on their question- naire that would not have been reported to law enforcement Officials". 33 (61:49) It was Sain's belief that the criterion of self-report accident surveys was more reliable and informative for evaluating driver education programs than were official driving records. (61) Although Sain was not able to arrive at a sound evaluation of the driver education programs under investigation (because of bias related to place of residence) he did demonstrate that subjects can provide more accurate information than conventional reporting systems. Witherill, in a study designed to measure the feasibility of using selected student data for the assessment and evaluation of driver education programs in the state of Minnesota, also demonstrated that student responses to self-report surveys provided more accurate and viable information, relating to accident involvement and program improvement, than would be found on any agency records. (74) Two final studies which used self-reporting surveys dealt with the evaluation of a driver improvement program developed for the United States Coast Guard (USCG). Both studies were implemented in the early seventies. In the first study, mailed questionnaires were used to ascertain accident involvement of the potential respondents. The re- turned questionnaires were compared against official driving records and demonstrated substantial agreement. As in previous studies in this section, the questionnaire indicated more accident involvement than the official records. Based on the data analysis, the researchers concluded that there was a significant relationship between driver training and injury reduction in favor of those individuals exposed to the USCG training program. (73) 34 In the follow-up study efforts were made to determine whether or not the driver improvement programs at the USCG Training Center at Cape May, New Jersey, should be retained. As in the first study, respondents were asked to reply to a survey questionnaire, the "Coast Guard Driver Experience Form", which dealt with: (1) exposure; (2) traffic violations; (3) accident information; (4) critical driving experience and (5) suggestions for improving the driver training program. Of an original pool of 3,600 USCG enlisted men, 77% (2837) returned their questionnaires. Through the use of information collected and analyzed, the researchers concluded that no significant differences were found between trained and untrained (matched group) men with regard to driving exposure. There were fewer multiple accidents and single accidents experienced by the trained men but, the difference was not significant at the .05 level. There was also a reduction in severity of accident hvolvement in favor of the trained men, but again it was not significant at the .05 level. (73) The studies discussed in this section have dealt with the use of self-report surveys as an indicator of accident involvement, violation and driving experience. All of the studies indicated that self-reports yielded more accident data than was available on official driving records. Several of the studies indicated that surveys in conjunction with official accident records could provide information relative to driver behavior. A number of studies also indicated that information relative to driving experience were best Obtained via self-reporting surveys. 35 SUMMARY Driver education experienced an unprecedented growth.in the first fifty years of its existence. (8) (44) (64) (70) Its growth has exceeded its ability to make strides in program and curriculum development. (1) (13) (15) (27) (64) Although evaluation of driver education began as early as 1945, the quality of research left much to be desired. (13) (30) (31) (44) (64) (70) (75) The time has come when driver education must demonstrate its effectiveness as an accident countermeasure. (57) (64) (70) To date, the most common variable identified for purposes of evaluating driver education has been accident reduction and the criterion used to measure it has been official driving records. (44) (45) (46) (70) Official driving records have been clearly demonstrated in the research to be a poor criterion for use in program improvement and eval- uation, because of built-in bias, lack of consistent reporting and dif- ferences in reporting procedures. (2) (7) (13) (16) (17) (19) (21) (23) (26) (27) (31) (35) (39) (40) (41) (45) (53) (58) (61) (66) (70) (75) Self-reporting surveys represent one viable way of obtaining accurate information regarding accident involvement, driving exposure and other pertinent information, that is necessary for program (curriculum) evaluation and program improvement. (6) (7) (16) (17) (27) (29) (41) (57) (58) (61) (66) (73) (74) In chapter three the design and methodology of the study will be presented. Chapter 3 DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The evaluation of the Illinois Demonstration-Satellite Perfor- mance Curriculum was undertaken to examine the relationship between a specific driver performance curriculum and motor vehicle accident involve- ment among novice drivers exposed to that curriculum. Before the value of driver education in the school setting can be properly evaluated, efforts toward the identification of a viable curriculum which will produce a reduction in the probability of accident involvement among those exposed to it must take place. (13) (70) Without conducting such studies, the field of traffic safety would never be in a position to identify a curriculum and/or its components capable of reducing the accident involvement of those exposed to it. DEMONSTRATION-SATELLITE PERFORMANCE CURRICULUM The Illinois Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum (DSPC) was developed as part of a four year curriculum development project funded by the Illinois Department Of Transportation and sponsored by the Illinois Office of Education. The project was part of the Illinois Highway Safety program (1972-76) supported by state funds which were reimbursed from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration under 402 funding guidelines. The curriculum project coordinator and principal writer of the instructional materials was Warren P. Quensel, Assistant Professor Of 36 37 Traffic Safety Education at Illinois State University. Under Quensel's direction, the project grew from two demonstration schools and eight satellite schools during the 1972-73 school year to fifty-seven schools during the 1975-76 school year. The goal of the project was twofold: to provide assistance to public schools in Illinois in the implementation of the new state curriculum guide (Driver Education for Illinois Youth, 1972) and to provide the Illinois Office of Education with methods and data for evaluating the effectiveness of driver education programs in producing competent and responsible users of the highway transportation system. (27) This goal was to be met by the attainment of the following objectives: 1. Development, field testing and revision of instructional materials for use in units of the Driver Education for Illinois Youth curriculum guide. 2. Development and standardization of a group of materials for key units of the curriculum guide. 3. Assisting a significant number of public schools in implementing the units into their programs. 4. Development of intermediate and summative evaluation instruments. 5. Collection of data for analysis and lOngitudinal studies reflecting students' performance in both the Classroom and laboratory phases of driver education. (27:4) The demonstration-satellite schools that were selected to participate in the project were selected on the basis of willingness to participate, staff qualifications and program.organization. The role of the demonstration-satellite schools was to implement the instruc- tional materials into their individual programs, identify strengths and weaknesses of the material, make recommendations for revision and assist in the collection of data for curriculum evaluation. 38 The curriculum itself was drawn from.twelve units outlined in the curriculum guide, Driver Education for Illinois Youth (DEFIY), developed by the Illinois Office of Education and distributed to all secondary schools in Illinois in 1972. Four units of the DEFIY guide (Unit 3 - Vehicle Performance and Control Capabilities, Unit 5 - Perception of Systems Events, Unit 6 - Judgment of System Events and Unit 7 - Decision -Making for a Plan of Action) were identified as key units and represented the most innovative part of the DSPC. The DSPC consisted of twenty-one modules outlined, thirteen of which were to be developed by the project and eight to be developed by individual school districts as needed. (See Appendix A) The curriculum was developed so as to be adaptable to both the traditional group-paced and individualized instructional system. Each module included behavioral objectives based on a driver task analysis, student centered learning activities and criterion referenced tests. It was felt by the developers that this approach would provide a more valid driver education program that would be both relevant and measurable. The most innovative aspect of the DSPC revolved around module 8 (Identification Of HTS Elements and Clues), module 10 (Evaluation of HTS Situations and Hazards) and module 11 (Plan of Action for Driver Decisions). These three modules represented the information processing or IPDE (Identify, Predict, Decide, Execute) process approach to driver education. Also of significance in the curriculum were four basic concepts (adequate traction, adequate space, adequate visibility and adequate timing) that related to vehicle control. These concepts were introduced in the classroom phase of the driver education program, 39 then applied and reinforced during the laboratory experiences. The On-Road Situation Test, a final laboratory criterion test, was developed utilizing the above concepts as its main criteria for evaluation of student learning. Because of the unique structure of the DSPC and the emphasis it placed on key modules, use of conventional textbooks became impractical other than as reference tools. Due to a time lag between development, implementation and revision of the curriculum, the project came to an end before any statistical analysis could be done on those demonstration-satellite schools which utilized all thirteen mdoules. Of special significance to this study was the fact that of the fifty-seven schools involved in the project during the four year time span, only twelve school districts could be funded during the 1975-76 school year to field test the thirteen finalized modules identified as key modules to the project. SURVEY INSTRUMENT The present form of the Driver Education Evaluation Survey (See Appendix C) attempted to identify an individual's driving experi- ences and accident experiences. The survey consisted of sixty-five items divided into five major categories: (1) suggestions for improving driver education courses, (2) driving experience, (3) collision experience, (4) severity of collision experience, and (5) type of crash. 40 POPULATION The sample population of this study consisted of 4024 seniors drawn from twenty-four high schools in Illinois who graduated in the Spring of 1978 and who had successfully completed driver education during the 1975-76 school year within the school from.which they graduated. The twenty-four schools involved in the study consisted of twelve schools (experimental group) which had participated in the utili- zation of the Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum during the 1975-76 school year and twelve schools (control group) which had not participated in the utilization of the Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum during the 1975-76 school year. The control group was matched to the experimental group based on the following criteria: (1) the number of phases offered in the driver education program, the length of the program.over the school year, the length of the teaching hour, number of full or part-time instructors, educational background of instructors (number of credits in safety educa- tion), the type of laboratory phases offered, and the number of students involved in the program, (2) the educational makeup (percent of college oriented, etc.) of the student body (information on that and item 1 were obtained from the descriptive data available from the Illinois Office of Education), (3) the insurance rating tables (tables used to assess policy premiums for a given locale based on age, sex, size of city, accident frequency, etc.) supplied by Allstate Insurance Company and Country Companies, (4) the Enforcement Index (a tool used to identify areas where additional enforcement of specific laws will in turn hold down associated accidents) for their community supplied by the Illinois 41 State Police, and (5) by city size and its approximate location to major roads and urban centers (information obtained from Rand McNally 1976-78 Road Atlas). In addition to the above, the control schools had to have their course curriculum tied directly to the textbook used in that school, with no additional resources used to set program objectives and/or course content. The following demographic data could best describe the sample population. 1. Programs consisted of two four-phase programs, two three- phase (range) programs, eight three-phase (simulation) programs and twelve two-phase programs. 2. Students consisted of 1927 in the experimental group (965 males and 962 females) and 2097 in the control group (1051 males and 1046 females). DATA Five types of data were obtained from the Driver Education Evaluation Survey based on the students' response to each item. The data consisted of the students' response to the best choice in three or more of the following five categories: (1) Suggestions for Improving Driver Education Courses, (2) Driving Experience, (3) Collision Ex- perience, (4) Severity of Collision Experience, and (5) Type of Crash. Students not involved in collisions would not respond to items in category 4 or 5. The present form of the Driver Education Evaluation Survey instrument was modified from the form field tested by Illinois State 42 University and validated by the Illinois Department of Transportation. The current form was modified by the inclusion of section four, dealing with Severity of Collision Experience. Three items were selected to represent severity as follows: (1) Extent of injury, (2) Use of active restraint system, and (3) Extent of damage. (See Appendix C) The survey was administered to all seniors participating in pre-graduation exercises during the Spring of 1978. A portion of the surveys were administered by local school guidance personnel to those graduating seniors not present at the initial administration. During the administration of the survey, all students were given standardized instructions on filling out the survey and provided a definition for accident involvement. (See Appendix B) In addition to the administration of the survey, school personnel agreed to call in 10% of the students who had responded to the survey and conduct personal interviews with each regarding difficulties in filling out the survey. Guidelines for conducting such interviews and a set of questions were prepared for school personnel to follow. Following administration of the survey, the data were coded and subsequently tabulated on IBM data cards. For the purposes of this study the computer program chosen permitted additional analysis and interpre- tation of the data. The students responded to the survey by writing the number of the one best choice that described their experience in the blank provided for that item. A random sample of 200 students was drawn from the total pop- ulation of 4024 students used in this study to check the validity of the current Driver Education Evaluation Survey. A Rank Order 43 Correlation Coefficient was conducted to compare the number of accidents reported on the students' survey forms with the number of accidents reported on the Secretary of State's (SOS) recOrds. A correlation of .55 was found to exist between the surveys and the records. This finding corresponds to the findings in the pilot study conducted by Illinois State University in 1976. In that study, 34% of the students reported more collisions than were on state records, yet only 3% of the students in that study reported fewer accidents than state records indicated. (57) Of the 200 students used in the validation of the current survey instrument, 47% of the students reported more collisions than were on the SOS records and 0% reported fewer collisions than SOS records indicated. A low correlation between survey responses and state records was expected for two reasons: (1) the differences between reportable accidents by state statue (must involve a minimum of $250. in property damage or involve personal injury) and the accident definition provided to students (any motor vehicle accident in which property damage or personal injury occurred) for survey purposes, and (2) the fact that many accidents resulting in property damage only, go unreported even when required by law to be reported. (39) (61) (66) In the Driver Education Evaluation Program Study conducted by the 0.8. Department of Transportation, it was stated that... ...driving records, as collections of crash violation entries are not very complete, often involve inaccuracies, and are subject to the whims of reporting officers, prosecuting attorneys and traffic court judges. Thus, driving records probably have a high degree of "error variation" that makes then relatively insensitive measures of change. (70:42) Other significant problems involved in the use of driving records involve variation in enforcement, adjudication, or reporting procedures from one time or location to another. (70:43) 44 GENERAL QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED This study attempted to answer the following questions: 1. Did seniors who successfully completed driver education courses using the Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum (DSPC) have fewer traffic collisions than seniors who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum? 2. Did seniors who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC have less severe traffic collisions than those who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum? 3. Did senior girls who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC have fewer traffic collisions than senior girls who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum? 4. Did senior girls who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC have less severe traffic collisions than senior girls who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum? 5. Did senior boys who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC have fewer traffic collisions than senior boys who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum. 6. Did senior boys who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC have less severe traffic collisions than senior boys who successfully completed driver education courses using a trad- itional curriculum? 45 7. was there a difference in the number of traffic collisions experienced between the senior girls and boys who successfully completed driver education? 8. Was there a difference in the severity of traffic collisions experienced between the boys and girls who successfully completed driver education? 9. Did the type of driver education program (2-phase, 3-phase range, 3-phase simulation and 4=phase) influence the number of traffic collisions experienced by seniors who successfully completed driver education? 10. Did the type of driver education program.(2-phase, 3-phase range, 3-phase simulation and 4-phase) influence the severity of traffic collisions experienced by seniors who successfully completed driver education? 11. Did the type of community (urban, suburban, rural) influence the number of traffic collisions experienced by seniors who successfully completed driver education? 12. Did the type of community (urban, suburban, rural) influence the severity of traffic collisions experienced by seniors who success- fully completed driver education? 13. Did performance on the DSPC test reflect a difference in accident involvement? 14. Did performance on the DSPC test reflect a difference in severity of accident involvement? 15. Did seniors exposed to the DSPC have a different type of accident involvement picture than seniors not exposed to the curriculum based on location of accident, type of roadway, condition of road surface, 46 time of day, objects involved, type of collision, avoidance procedures and driver error made? THE HYPOTHESES The hypotheses tested in this study were: H1: There is a significant difference in accident involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between seniors who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC and seniors who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum. H2: There is a significant difference in the severity Of accident involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between seniors who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC and seniors who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum. H3: There is a significant difference in accident involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between senior girls who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC and senior girls who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum. H4: involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between There is a significant difference in severity of accident senior girls who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC and senior girls who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum. 47 H5: There is a significant difference in accident involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between senior boys who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC and senior boys who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum. H6: There is a significant difference in severity of accident involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between senior boys who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC and senior boys who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum. H ° There is a significant difference in accident inVolvement, 7. as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between all senior boys and all senior girls who successfully completed driver education. H8: There is a significant difference in severity of accident involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between all senior boys and all senior girls who successfully completed driver education. H9: asmeasured by a self-reporting accident survey, between all types of There is a significant difference in accident involvement, driver education programs (2-phase, 3-phase range, 3-phase simulation and 4-phase). H ' There is a significant difference in severity of accident 10' involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between all types of driver education programs (2-phase, 3-phase range, 3- phase simulation and 4-phase). 48 H11: There is a significant difference in accident involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between all types of communities (urban,suhurban and rural). H ° There is a significant difference in severity of accident 12' involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between all types of communities (urban, suburban and rural). H13: There is a significant difference in accident involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between seniors scoring 70% or better on the DSPC module tests and seniors scoring less than 70% on the DSPC module tests. H14: There is a significant difference in severity of accident involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between seniors scoring 70% or better on the DSPC module tests and seniors scoring less than 70% on the DSPC module tests. H15: There is a significant difference in the type of accident involvement based on location of accident, type of roadway, condition of road surface, time of day, objects involved, type of road conditions, avoidance procedures, and driver error made, as measured by a self- reporting accident survey, between seniors successfully completing driver education courses using the DSPC and seniors successfully com- pleting driver education courses using a traditional curriculum. NULL HYPOTHESES Following is a restatement of the research hypotheses in the null form: H01: as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between seniors who There is no significant difference in accident involvement, 49 successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC and seniors who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum. H02: There is no significant difference in the severity of accident involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between seniors who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC and seniors who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum. H03: There is no significant difference in accident involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between senior girls who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC and senior girls who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum, H04: There is no significant difference in severity of accident involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between senior girls who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC and senior girls who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum. HO ‘ There is no significant difference in accident involvement, 5. as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between senior boys who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC and senior boys who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum. H06: There is no significant difference in severity of accident involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between senior boys who successfully completed driver education courses using 50 the DSPC and senior boys who successfully completed driver education courses using a traditional curriculum. H07: There is no significant difference in accident involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between all senior boys and all senior girls who successfully completed driver education. H08: There is no significant difference in severity of accident involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between all senior boys and all senior girls who successfully completed driver education. H09: There is no significant difference in accident involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between all types of driver education programs (2-phase, 3-phase range, 3-phase simulation and 4-phase). H010: There is no significant difference in severity of accident involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between all types of driver education programs (2-phase, 3-phase range, 3-phase simulation and 4-phase). HO ' There is no significant difference in accident involvement, 11' as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between all types of communities (urban, suburban and rural). HO There is no significant difference in severity of accident 12‘ involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between all types of communities (urban, suburban and rural). HO There is no significant difference in accident involvement, 13: as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between seniors scoring 7(2 or better on the DSPC module tests and seniors scoring less than 51 70% on the DSPC module tests. HO ' There is no significant difference in severity of accident 14' involvement, as measured by a self-reporting accident survey, between seniors scoring 70% or better on the DSPC module tests and seniors scoring less than 70% on the DSPC module tests. H)15: There is no significant difference in type of accident involvement based on location of accident, type of roadway, condition of road surface, time of day, objects involved, type of road conditions, avoidance procedures, and driver error made, as measured by a self- reporting accident survey, between seniors successfully completing driver education courses using the DSPC and seniors successfully complet- ing driver education courses using a traditional curriculum. ANALYSIS OF DATA The data collected on the Driver Education Evaluation Survey represented continuous and categorical information. Categorical data provides the researcher information about the category in which the measurement falls. Scores can be obtained when the categories are limited to the degree of level of that given characteristic. Due to limitations inherent with categorical data, the use of parametric statistical procedures becomes highly suspect. Parametric statistical procedures require the acceptance of the following assumptions: (1) that the information collected dealt with continuous variables, (2) that the sample population was homogeneous, and (3) that the sample population was normally distributed. Since categorical data is discrete in nature, it cannot represent a continuous variable 52 which would be a violation of (1) above. Even though categorical data do not lend themselves to the use of parametric procedures, they do lend themselves to the use of non- parametric statistical procedures. The use of parametric and non-parametric statistical procedures was selected for analysis of the data. Parametric procedures were selected for analysis of data dealing with accident involvement (contin- uous data). Non-parametric procedures were selected for analysis of data dealing with severity of accident involvement (categorical data). "A nonparametric statistical test is a test whose model does not specify conditions about the parameters of the population from which the sample was drawn." (33:257) Although the availability of non- parametric or distribution-free statistics has been known for a number of decades, it has only recently gained in popularity. Three important advantages to non-parametric testing are: 1. Simplicity of derivation. The derivation of classical tests requires a level of competence in mathematics far above that attainedby the typical research worker, whereas most distribution-free statistics can be derived using simple combinationalformula. 2. Scope of application. Because they are based on fewer and less elaborate assumptions than the classical tests, distribution-free statistical tests can be correctly applied to a much larger class of populations. 3. Susceptibility to violation of assumptions. Since the assumptions are fewer and less elaborate with nonparametric statistical tests, they are less susceptible to violations. These violations are easier to detect with nonparametric tests. The effects of the violation of assumptions is important with both types of statistics, but Bradley feels that the effects of violation of assumptions can be more readily and economically taken care of with distribution-free statistical tests. (12:264) The analytical techniques specifically used to test the fifteen null hypotheses were Chi-square Distribution and t-tests. 53 Cross-tabulations represent joint frequency distributions of cases according to two or more classificatory variables. These joint frequency distributions, which represent one of the most commonly used analytic methods in the social sciences, can be statistically analyzed by certain tests of significance. For the purpose of this study the Chi-square statistics were used to determine whether or not the variables were statistically independent. Chi-square, as a test of statistical significance, assists the user in determining whether a systematic relationship existed between two variables. This is accomplished by computing the cell frequencies which would be expected if no relationship were present between the variables given the existing row and column totals. In order to assess if a systematic relationship did exist, it became necessary to ascertain the probability of acquiring a value of chi-square as large or larger than the one calculated from the sample, when in fact the variables are independent. (5) (12) (33) Chi-Square analysis was performed on the following null-hypotheses: H02,HO4, H06’ H08, H010, H012, H014, and H015. T-tests provide the researcher with the capability of computing whether or not the difference between two sample means is significant. As with cross-tabulations, t-tests represent one of the most commonly used analytic procedures in the social sciences. The power of that test as as analytic predictor increases as the number of subjects in the population increases and the importance of its susceptibility to violation of its underlying assumptions decreases as the sample population increases. (5) (12) (33) 54 T-test analysis was performed on the following null-hypotheses: H01, H03, H05, H07, H09, H011, and H013. Due to the limits of the self-report method of data collection, the .05 level of significance was chosen as sufficiently stringent for accepting or rejecting the null-hypotheses. The analysis was performed with the use of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The SPSS is an intergrated system of computer programs designed for the analysis of social science data. The system provides a unified and comprehensive package that enables the user to perform many different types of data analysis in a simple and convenient manner. (51) SUMMARY The sample population was drawn from twenty-four schools through- out Illinois (excluding Cook County). Responses regarding driving exper- ience, accident involvement and severity of accident involvement were collected during the spring semester 1977-78 school year. The data obtained were analyzed using parametric and non-parametric testing procedures. A t-test was employed to determine the significance of the difference between the mean accident involvement of seniors successfully completing driver education courses using the DSPC and seniors successfully completing driver education courses using a tradit- ional curriculum. Chi-square analysis was also employed to determine the significance of the difference between the mean severity of accident involvement of seniors successfully completing driver education courses using the DSPC 55 and seniors successfully completing driver education courses using a traditional curriculum. In chapter 4, the analysis of the data will be presented. Chapter 4 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS The central purpose of this study was to examine the relation- ships between a specific driver performance curriculum and motor vehicle accident involvement among novice drivers. Specifically, the study attempted to determine if the Illinois Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum contributed to a reduction in accident involvement and in severity of accident involvement among those novice drivers exposed to the curriculum. The study used a self-reporting accident involvement survey as the criterion variable when attempting to determine what influence the Illinois Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum had on novice drivers' accident involvement. The sample population of this study consisted of 4024 seniors drawn from twenty-four high schools in Illinois who graduated in the Spring of 1978 and who had successfully completed driver education during the 1975-76 school year within the school from.which they graduated. The twenty-four schools involved in the study consisted of twelve schools (experimental group) which had participated in the util- ization of the Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum (DSPC) during the 1975-76 school year and twelve schools (control group) which had not participated in the utilization of the DSPC during the 1975-76 school year. 56 57 The control group was matched to the experimental group based on the following criteria: (1) Type of program, (2) Educational makeup, (3) Insurance rating tables, (4) Enforcement Index and (5) City size and location. In addition, the control group schools had to have their course curriculum tied directly to the textbook used in that school, with no additional resources used to set program.objectives and/or course content. During the Spring of 1978 pre-graduation exercises, the students were asked to respond to the Driver Education Evaluation Survey. The data collected on the survey consisted of the students' responses to the best choice in three or more of the following five categories: (1) Suggestions for Improving Driver Education Courses, (2) Driving Experience, (3) Collision Experience, (4) Severity of Collision Experience and (5) Type of Crash. Students not involved in collisions would not respond to items in category 4 or 5. x The data collected from responses to the survey and tabulated on IBM data cards vere analyzed using non-parametric statistical statis- tical procedures. Specifically, t-tests were done on all items dealing with accident involvement and Chi-squares were done on all items dealing with severity of accident involvement. The analysis to be reported on was performed with the use of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. The following results of the analysis of data are presented: (1) The analysis of accident involvement as measured by responses to a self-reporting accident survey between those students successfully completing driver education programs utilizing the Demonstration-Satellite 58 Performance Curriculum (DSPC) and those students successfully completing driver education programs using a Traditional Curriculum (TC). (2) The analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by responses to a self-reporting accident survey between students succes- sfully completing driver education courses utilizing the DSPC and those students successfully completing driver education courses utilizing the TC. (3) The analysis of accident involvement as measured by responses to a self-reporting accident survey between those students successfully completing driver education courses utilizing the DSPC who scored 70% or better on the curriculum module tests and those students scoring less than 70%. (4) The analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by responses to a self-reporting accident survey between those students successfully completing driver education courses utilizing the DSPC who scored 70% or better on the curriculum module tests and those students scoring less than 70%. (5) The analysis of type of accident as measured by responses to a self-reporting accident survey between students successfully completing driver education courses utilizing the DSPC and those students successfully completing driver education courses utilizing the TC. Of an original population of 4865 students, 319 refused to participate (student rejected), 401 had taken driver education outside the school from which they were graduating (researcher rejected), 51 had not yet obtained a driver license at the time of survey administra- tion (researcher rejected), and 70 had improperly filled out the survey 59 (researcher rejected). In terms of usable survey data, 522 students were deleted from the study by the researcher because they failed to meet the criteria to be eligible to participate (452) and/or had spoiled surveys (70). An additional 319 were deleted from the study by the students themselves by failing to respond to the survey. This equated to a 92% response to the survey based on the number of students eligible to participate (4476) based on stated criteria. A summary of population data breakdown and usable responses is presented in Figure 1. FIGURE 1 POPULATION DATA BREAKDOWN Original - Student I! Expert-enter a Sample I Null ' Statistical 9 Missing Observations Pool vagina-1: Re ected 1' Po ulation 0 H thesis ' 722‘ ' Expected :06: z 319 : 322 : aoza : nol : c z 0 «065 z :19 : 522 z 2013 I no, 2 x2 : 2397 4865 : 319 : 522 : 2013 : no3 : c : 0 «065 : 319 : 522 z 201: : “°: : x2 : 132A 4055 : 319 : 522 : 2011 : R0s : c : 0 :06: z 319 : :22 : :02: : uo6 : x2 I 1073 :065 z 319 : 522 : :02: I no7 : z z 0 :35: z 319 z 522 : «024 : H08 : x2 z 2397 4863 : 319 : 522 I :02: : no9 : c f 0 4365 : 319 z 522 z 402: : H010 : x2 : 2397 sees : 319 : 522 : 5024 : H011 : t I 0 :36: : 319 Z 522 : «02: : no12 : x2 : 2397 5:5 : 0 z 7: : «41 : “°x3 : t : O 515 : 0 : 7: z :41 : “01“ z x2 z 270 :sos : 319 : 522 z :02: : nou : x2 : 2397 Reference to "Missing Observation Expected" found in Figure 1 deals with the minimum number of responses the computer was directed to delete from the data by the researcher because of non-accident 60 involvement on the part of the student. Any difference between "Missing Observations Expected" as shown in Figure 1 and "Missing Observations" as shown in the summary of analysis for a given Chi-square table can be accounted for by the fact that the students, when filling out the survey did not always respond to items beyond item 40. (See Appendix C) ANALYSIS OF ACCIDENT INVOLVEMENT Item 36 on the Driver Education Evaluation Survey asked for a response to the number of traffic collisions the subject was involved in since the completion of driver education. The choices were from zero collisions to a total of seven collisions. A traffic collision was defined as an unplanned accident resulting in personal injury, property damage or both, while operating a motor vehicle, regardless of the illegal or unsafe acts of others. Accident Involvement: Control gpoup vs. Experimental group The summary of analysis of accident involvement obtained by DSPC students and TC students based on responses to item 36 is presented in Table 1. Table 1 Accident Involvement: Control Group vs. Esperiuentsl Group caoup 1 - Control ‘1 ' é- . Experiment ‘ . GROUP 2 SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE 330”, 2 1927 1.5262 .904 .021 UARIAELE 'NUMEER STANDARD STANEARD a F z-IAIL a I DECREEs 0F 2-TAIL or CAsEs MEAN DEVIATION ERROR - VALUE PROS. . VALUE FREEDOM Faoa. :TEM36 - - ~ . a: 1.045 .023 . . GROUP 1 2°97 1 6 3 . 1,3, .000 , 3.34 4007.32 .000 t h t t 61 A "t" value of greater than i 1.960 was needed for signifi- cance at the .05 level. A "t" value of 3.84 was obtained for accident involvement. On the basis of the obtained "t" value a statistically significant difference existed between the two groups with regard to accident involvement, in favor of the experimental group which had fewer accidents. Therefore, on the basis of information presented in Table 1, the null hypothesis (H01) of no significant difference in accident involvement between seniors successfully completing driver education courses using the DSPC and seniors successfully completing driver education courses using the TC must be rejected. Accident Involvement: Control Female vs. Experimental Female In Table 2 a summary of the analysis of accident involvement obtained by senior girls exposed to the DSPC and senior girls exposed to the TC is presented. Table 2 Accident Involve-ant: Control Female vs. Experimental Female GROUP 1 a Control - 1. 3 Experimental - 2. c on, 2 . SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE VARIABLE NUMBER STANDARD STANDARD . F Z-TAIL ‘ T DEGREES OF Z-TAIL OF CASES SEAN DEVIATION ERROR ‘ VALUE PROD. 9 VALUE FREEDOM 9803. 1mm 7 096 020 I I GROUP 1 10“ 1" 9, ' ° . 1 64 .000 . 2.33 1933.70 .020 caour 2 905 1.3969 .699 .023 . . . . A "t" value of greater than t 1.960 was needed for signifi- cance at the .05 level. A "t" value of 2.33 was obtained for accident involvement. On the basis of the Obtained "t" value a significant difference existed between the two groups with regard to accident 62 involvement in favor of the DSPC senior girls who had fewer accidents. The null hypothesis (H03) of no significant difference in accident involvement between senior girls successfully completing driver education courses using the DSPC and senior girls successfully completing driver education courses using the TC was rejected based on findings in Table 2. Accident Involvement: Control prs vs. Experimental Boys A summary of the analysis of accident involvement obtained by senior boys exposed to the DSPC and senior boys exposed to the TC, based on responses to item 36 is presented in Table 3. Table 3 Accident Involvement: Control Male vs. Experimental Male (MALES vs. MALES) GROUP 1 - Control - l. GROUP 2 - Experimental - 2. SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE VARIABLE NUMBER STANDARD STANDARD 9 F Z-TAIL 9 T DEGREES OF Z-TAIL OF CASES MEAN DEVIATION ERROR 9 VALUE PRO]. 9 VALUE FREEDOM PROD. 1TEM36 s e GROUP 1 1051 1.8070 1.152 .036 9 9 9 1 19 .006 9 3.09 2011.00 .002 GROUP 2 962 1.6559 1.055 .034 9 ' e e A "t" value of greater than i 1.960 was needed for significance at .05 level. A "t" value of 3.09 was obtained for accident involvement. On the basis of the obtained "t" value a significant difference at the .05 level existed between the two groups with regard to accident involve- ment, in favor of the DSPC senior boys who had fewer accidents. On the basis of this information the null hypothesis (H05) of no significant difference in accident involvement between senior boys successfully com- pleting driver education courses using the DSPC and senior boys 63 successfully completing driver education courses using the TC was rejected. Accident Involvement: Males vs. Females A summary of the analysis of accident involvement between senior boys successfully completing driver education and senior girls success- fully completing driver education is presented in Table 4. Table 6 Accident Involvement: Hales va. Females GROUP 2 2011 1.3113 .515 .011 GROUP 1 0 H810. O 1. GROUP 2 - Females I 2. SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIHATE VARIABLE NUMDER ' STARDARD STANDARD ' F 2*TA1L ' T DEGREES OE Z-TAIL OF CASES HEAR DEVIATION ERROR 0 VALUE PROD. ' VALUE FREEOOH PROD. ITEM36 ' ' GROUP 1 2 1 1.6681 .532 .012 ‘ ' O 3 ' 1.07 .300 ' 8.29 £017.96 .000 e e e e A "t" value of greater than t 1.960 was needed for significance at the .05 level. A "t" value of 8.29 was obtained for accident involve- ment in favor of the senior girls who had fewer accidents at the .05 level. Based on this information the null hypothesis (307) of no significant difference in accident involvement between senior boys who successfully completed driver education and senior girls who successfully completed driver education was rejected. Accident Involvement Between Program Types Tables 5 through 10 represent a summary of the analysis of acci- dent involvement between four types of driver education programs; (1) 2-Phase (Classroom and On-Street), (2)3-Phase (Classroom, Range, 64 and On-Street), (3) 3-Phase (Classroom, Simulation and On-Street) and (4) 4-Phase (Classroom, Range, Simulation and On-Street). In Table 5 a summary of the analysis of accident involvement between Z-phase programs and 3-phase range programs is presented. A "t" value of greater than i 1.960 was needed for significance at the .05 level. A "t" value of 1.41 was obtained for accident involvement which was not significant at the .05 level. Tab 1e 5 Accident Involvement: Z-Phase vs. J-Phase Range GROUP 1 - 2 Phase (Ran ) ' l0 cnoup 2 . 3 Phase 3e 0 . SEPARATE VARIASCE ESTIHATE VARIABLE “UNDER STANDARD STANDARD ‘ F Z-TAIL ' T DEGREES 07 ZeTAIL 0F CASES MEAN DEVIATION ERROR ' VALUE PROD. ‘ VALUE FREEDOM PROD. ITE336 72 1 068 023 : : GROUP 1 1‘58 1'68 ° ° . 1.27 .011 . 1.51 523.68 .159 cnoup 2 325 1.6031 .9:9 .053 . . Q . A summary of the analysis of accident involvement between 2-phase programs and 3-phase simulation programs based on responses to item 36 is presented in Table 6. A "t" value of greater than t 1.960 was needed for significance at the .05 level. A "t" value of 5.46 was obtained in favor of simulation which was significant at the .05 level. Table 6 Accident Involvement: Z-Phase vs. J-Pbaae Simulation GROUP 1 - 2 Phase - o GROUP 2 - 3 Phase (Simulation) - 2. SEPARATE vanxaxc: ESTIMATE VARIABLE NUMBER STANDARD STARDARD ' F Z-TAIL * T DEGREES OP z-TAIL OF CASES MEAN DEVIATZON ERROR - VALUE ?ROB. * VALUE FREEDOH PROS. IIEH36 6872 1 068 028 . . GROUP 1 1658 1. . . e . e 1.43 .000 . 5.46 2850.80 .000 cnoup 2 1704 1.4941 .896 .022 , e e e 65 In Table 7 a summary of the analysis of accident involvement between 2-phase programs and 4-phase programs is presented. A "t" value of greater than t 1.960 was needed for significance at the .05 level. A "t" value of 1.60 was obtained for accident involvement which was not significant at the .05 level. Table 7 Accident Involvement: Z-Phase vs. 4-Phase GROUP 1 - 2 Phase 0 0 GROUP 2 - 4 Phase - 3. SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE VARIABLE xvnstn STANDARD 52030130 9 r 2-1011 - r DEGREES or 2-1111 or CASES MEAN nsvarxou canon - v1102 9100. - VALUE FREEDOM 9903. {1:336 72 1 068 020 : I GROUP 1 1‘53 1'68 °' ' . 1.15 .055 . 1.60 1022.02 .109 02009 2 537 1.6052 .995 .005 . . O . A summary of the analysis of accident involvement between 3-phase range programs and 3-phase simulation programs based on responses to item 36 is presented in Table 8. A "t" value of greater than t 1.960 was needed for significance at the .05 level. A "t" value of 1.91 was obtained which was not significant at the .05 level. Table 8 Accident Involvement: 3-Phase Range ve. 3-Phase Simulation GROUP 1 - 3 Phase (Range) - é. - . e GROUP 2 3 P“... (Si-Ulltion) SEPARATE VARIAXCE ESTIMATE . F Z‘TAIL VARIABLE NUMBER STANDARD STAROARD 9 P 2-TAIL P T DEGREES 0 OF CASES MEAR DEVIATION ERROR 0 VALUE PROD. ' VALUE FREEDOM PROE: 1112136 9 9 053 z z . O 6031 O ‘ O GROUP 1 325 t * 1.13 .180 ‘ 1.91 000.64 .056 0100? 2 1700 1.0901 .390 .022 : : In Table 9 a summary of the analysis of accident involvement 66 between 3-phase range programs and 4-phase programs is presented. A "t" value of greater than t 1.960 was needed for significance at the .05 level. A "t" value of —.03 was obtained for accident involvement which was not significant at the .05 level. Table 9 Accident Involvement: 3-Phase Range vs. 4-Phase GROUP 1 - 3 Phase (Range) . l. GROUP 2 - 4 Phase - 3. SEPARATE VARIARCE ESTIMATE VARIABLE NUMEER STANDARD STAXDARD 9 P 2-TAIL 9 T DEGREES 0P 2-TAIL OP CASES MEAN DEVIATION ERROR 9 VALUE PROD. 9 VALUE FREEDOM PROI. 1T8136 e e GROUP 1 325 1.6031 .949 .053 9 9 9 1.09 .371 9 -.03 707.66 .975 GROUP 2 537 1.6052 .993 .043 9 9 ‘ e e A summary of the analysis of accident involvement between 3-phase simulation programs and 4-phase programs based on responses to item 36 is presented in Table 10. A "t" value of greater than t 1.960 was needed for significance at the .05 level. A "t" value of -2.31 was obtained in favor of simulation which was significant at the .05 level. Table 10 Accident Involvement: 3-Phase Simulation vs. 4-Phase GROUP 1 9 3 Phase (Simulation) - 2. GROUP 2 '9 A Pig... e 3. SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE VARIABLE NUMBER STASDARD STANDARD 9 E 2-TAIL 9 T DEGREES OF Z‘TAIL OF CASES MEAN DEVIATIOR ERROR 9 VALUE PROD. 9 VALUE FREEDOM PROD. 11:3 36 e e GROUP 1 .1706 1.4961 .894 .022 9 9 9 1.23 .005 9 -2.31 628.11 .021 5300? 2 537 1.6052 .993 .063 9 9 e e 0n the basis of information summarized in Tables 5, 7 and 8 there 67 was no significant difference between 2-phase - 3-phase range, 2-phase - 4-phase, or 3-phase range - 3-phase simulation programs. On the basis of information summarized in Tables 6 and 10, there was a significant difference between Z-phase - 3-phase simulation and 4-phase — 3-phase simulation both in favor of simulation. Therefore, based on information presented in Tables 6 and 10 the null hypothesis (H09) of no significant difference in accident involvement between types of driver education programs was rejected. Accident Involvement between Community Types Tables 11 through 13 represent a summary of the analysis of accident involvement between three types of communities: (1) Urban (50,000+ population), (2) Suburban (less than 50,000 population and within 25 miles of an Urban area)and (3) Rural (less than 25,000 popula- tion and more than 25 miles from an Urban area). A summary of the analysis of accident involvement between urban communities and suburban communities based on responses to item 36 is presented in Table 11. A "t" value of greater than i 1.960 was needed for significance at the .05 level. A "t" value of 2.87 was obtained in favor of suburban communities which was significant at the .05 level. Table 11 Accident Involvement: Urban vs. Suburban GROUP 1 - Urban 9 0 GROUP 2 9 Suburban 9 1. SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE VARIABLE NUHBER STAXDARD STASDARD 9 E Z-TAIL 9 T DEGREES OF Z-IAIL 0F CASES MEAN DEVIATION ERROR 9 VALUE PROD. 9 VALUE FREEDOM PROB- u'at 36 9 9 GROUP 1 1236 1.5906 1.002 .028 9 9 9 1.34 .000 9 2.87 2433.01 .004 cnoup 2 1656 1.4885 .866 .021 9 9 O t 68 In Table 12 a summary of the analysis of accident involvement between urban communities and rural communities is presented. A "t" 4. value of greater than - 1.960 was needed for significance at the .05 level. A "t" value of -3.22 was obtained in favor of the urban commun- ities which was significant at the .05 level. Table 12 Accident Involvement: Urban vs. Rural GROUP 1 - Urblfl ' 0 5305? 2 e Rurll 9 2. SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIMATE 91311312 909329 51130120 STANDARD . r 2-r111 - r DEGREES or 2-1111 or CASES seas oavrarxou annoa . VALUE 9201. . VALUE tattoos 9103. 112336 023 - - 12 5 1.5906 1.002 . . . GROUP 1 3 . 1.19 .005 . -3.22 2294.70 .001 GROUP 2 1132 1.7297 1.095 .033 . . I O A summary of the analysis of accident involvement between sub- urban communities and rural communities based on responses to item 36 is presented in Table 13. A "t" value of greater than t 1.960 was needed for significance at the .05 level. A "t" value of -6.20 was obtained in favor of the suburban communities which was significant at the .05 level. Table 13 Accident Involvement: Suburban vs. Rural GROUP 1 9 Suburban 9 I. c 1 - Rural 9 2. ROLF 2 - SEPARATE VARIANCE ESTIHATE VARIABLE NUMBER STANDARD STANDARD 9 F 29TAIL 9 T DEPREES OF 2-TAIL 0P CASES SEAN DEVIATION ERROR 9 VALUE PROS. 9 VALUE FREEDOM PROB. ITEN 36 9 9 caoup 1 1656 1.4885 .866 .021 9 9 9 1.60 .000 9 -6.20 2049.76 .000 GROUP 2 1132 1.7297 1.095 .033 9 t O I 69 Differences, statistically significant at the .05 level, were found between (1) Urban and suburban communities (in favor of suburban), (2) Urban and rural communities (in favor of urban) and (3) Suburban and rural communities (in favor of suburban). On the basis of infor- mation presented in Tables 11 through 13 the null hypothesis (H011) of no significant difference in accident involvement between types of com? munities was rejected. Accident Involvement: Mbdule Tests Tables 14 through 20 represent a summary of the analysis of accident involvement between students within the experimental group who scored 702 or more on the seven module tests and students within the experimental group who scored 692 or less on the seven module tests. The 70% level of performance was selected because it usually represents the bottom end of the satisfactory grading range, C. In Table 14, a summary of the analysis of accident involvement between students scoritg 702+ and students scoring 69%- on Module 1 (Controls Test) is presented. A "t" value of greater than i 1.960 was needed for significance at the .05 level. A "t" value of -0.06 was obtained for accident involvement which was not significant at the .05 level. 70 Table 14 Accident Involvement: Test Scores Module 1 TEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL GROUP (702+ VI. 692') GROUP 1 9 Item 12 (702+) 9 1. GROUP 2 - It“ 12 (691-) . 29 ,m VARIAXCE E51135“ - 1 ’ casts or 2-r111 VARIABLE NUMBER STANDARD 51130110 9 r 2-7111 - r. 0: or CASES 321x nrv11rxox canon a VALUE PROS. : V111: rnztooa PROD. ITEM36 93 0 027 z I 1. 98 0.4 . GROUP 1 328 35 9 1.04 0.806 * -o.06 439 0.954 03009 2 113 1.3628 0.483 0.045 : : A summary of the analysis of accident involvement between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 692- on Module 2 (HTS Test) based on responses to item 36 is presented in Table 15. A "t" value of greater than i 1.960 was needed for significance at the .05 level. A "t" value of 0.04 was obtained.for accident involvement which was not significant at the .05 level. Table 15 Accident Involvement: Test Scores Hodule 2 TEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL GROUP (702+ vs. 692-) GROUP 1 - Item 13 (702+) 9 1. GROUP 2 - Item 13 (692-) 9 2. POOLED VARIANCE ESTINATE VARIABLE sumac: 51110120 51110120 - r 2-1111 - r oscaaas or 2-7111 or CASES MEAN DEVIATION £1202 - VALUE PRO8. . V110: FREEOOH 9803. ITE336 - . 02009 1 374 1.3610 0.492 0.025 - - - 1.04 0.883 - 0.04 439 0.966 01009 2 67 1.3582 0.483 0.059 : : In Table 16 a summary of the analysis of accident involvement between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 692- on.Mbdule 4 (Ve- hicle Capabilities Test) is presented. A "t" value of greater than t 1.960 was needed for significance at the .05 level. A "t" value of 0.52 was obtained which was not significant at the .05 level. 71 Table 16 Accident Involvement: Test Scores Module 4 TEST SCORES EXPEEIHENTAL GROUP (702+ v8. 692-) GROUP 1 9 Item 14 (702+) 9 . GROUP 2 - Item 14 (692-) - 2. POOLID VARIANCE ESTIMATE VARIABLE NUMBER STANDARD STANDARD 9 E 29TAIL 9 T DEGREES 0P Z-TAIL 0E CASES MEAN DEVIATION ERROR 9 VALUE PROS. 9 VALUE FREEDOH PROS. ITEN36 e e caouy 1 349 1.3668 0.494 0.026 t 8 9 L38 OJ“! 9 032 an 0204 cgoup z 92 1.3370 0.475 0.050 9 9 t I A summary of the analysis of accident involvement between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 692- on Module 8 (Identifi- cation Test) based on responses to item 36 is presented in Table 17. A "t" value of greater than t 1.960 was needed for significance at the .05 level. A "t" value of 0.06 was obtained for accident involve- ment which was not significant at the .05 level. Table 17 Accident Involvement: Test Scores Module 8 TEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL GROUP (702+ VI. 692-) GROUP 1 9 Itel 15 (702+) 9 1. " ' - Ice. 15 (692-) 9 2. UROLP 2 POOLED VARIANCE ESTINATE VARIABLE NUNEER STANDARD STANDARD 9 P Z-TAIL 9 T DEGREES 0F Z-TAIL OP CASES NEAN DEVIATION ERROR 9 VALUE PROD. 9 VALUE FREEDON PROD. 175336 0 480 0 027 9 : ROUP 1 321 1.3614 . . c 9 1.05 0.749 9' 0.06 439 0.954 GROUP 2 120 1.3503 0.499 0.046 9 : e In Table 18 a summary of the analysis of accident involvement between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 692- on Module 10 (Evaluation Test) is presented. A "t" value of greater than t 1.960 was needed for significance at the .05 level. A "t" value of 0.06 was obtained which was not significant at the .05 level. 72 Table 18 Accident Involvement: Teet Score Module 10 TEST SCORES EXPERIMERTAL GROUP (702+ vs. 692-) GROUP 1 9 Item 16 (702+) 9 1. GROUP 2 9 Item 16 (692-) 9 2. POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE VARIABLE NUMBER STAMDARD srwom 9 r Z-TAIL . r DEGREES or 24111. 0F CASES nus nevurtox ERROR - VALUE PAGE. 9 VALUE FREEDOM PROB- 11131 36 9 9 GROUP 1 385 1.3610 0.692 0.025 9 9 9 1.03 0.911 9 0.06 439 0.956 GROUP 2 56 1.3571 0.683 0.065 9 9 e t A.summary of the analysis of accident involvement between stu- dents scoring 7OZ+ and students scoring 69%— on Module 11 (Plan of Action Test) based on responses to item 36 is presented in Table 19. A "t" value of greater than t 1.960 was needed for significance at the .05 level. A "t" value of 1.15 was obtained for accident involvement which was not significant at the .05 level. Table 19 Accident Involvement: Teet Scores Module 11 GROUP 1 _ 1“. 17 (702+) .TEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL GROUP (702+ vm. 691-) GROUP 2 9 Item 17 (692-) 9 2. POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE VARIABLE NUMBER STANDARD STASDARD 9 F Z-TAIL 9 T DEGREES 0F Z-TAIL 0F CASES MEAN DEVIATION ERROR 9 VALUE PROD. 9 VALUE FREEDOH PROD. 111336 e e GROUP 1 321 1.3769 0.590 0.020 9 9 9 1.16 0.916 9 1.13 639 0.251 5300? Z 120 1.3167 0.667 0.063 9 9 e e In Table 20 a summary of the analysis of accident involvement between students scoring 70Z+ and students scoring 69%- on the On-Road Situation Test is presented. A "t" value of greater than i 1.960 was needed for significance at the .05 level. A "t" value of 2.42 which was significant at the .05 level was obtained in favor of students scoring 70Z+. 73 Table 20 Accident Involvement: Teet Scoree Module 12 TEST SCORES EXPERIMENTAL GROUP (702+ vs. 692-) GROUP I 9 Item 18 (702+) 9 1. , GROUP 2 9 Item 18 (691-) 9 2. POOLED VARIANCE ESTIMATE VARIABLE muss smxmao suntan 9 F Z-TAIL 9 r DEGREES 01' 2-TA11. or CASES MEAN DEVIATION ERROR 9 VALUE nos. 9 VALUE FREEDOH P808. 1712136 9 9 GROUP 1 395 1.3797 0.696 0.025 9 9 9 1.53 0.081 9 2.42 .39 0.016 GROUP 2 (.6 1.1957 0.401 0.059 9 9 e i No differences were found between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%— on Mbdules 1, 2, 4, 8, 10 or 11. A significant difference was found on Medule 12 in favor of the students scoring 702+. On the basis of information presented in Table 20 the null hypothesis (H013) of no significant difference in accident involvement between students scoring 70% or better on the DSPC module tests and students scoring less than 702 on the DSPC module tests was rejected. ANALYSIS OF SEVERITY 0F ACCIDENT INVOLVEMENT Three items on the Driver Education Evaluation Survey asked the respondent, who was involved in one or more accidents, to identify the severity of each accident. Item 40 dealt with injury and death. The choices ranged from no injury to major injury and death. Item 43 consisted of choices concerning the use or nonuse of active restraint systems. The final item, number 56, asked the respondents to estimate the amount of damage to property and/or cars. The choices ranged from under $500 to over $3500. In addition to check on severity for each of the three items independently, a check for any interaction of the items was also crosstabulated. 74 Tables 21 through 24 represent a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement between DSPC students and TC students based on responses to items 40, 43, 56 and a combination of the three items. Severity of Accident: Control vs. Experimental In Table 21 the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by responses to item 40 (personal injury) between DSPC students and TC students is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A 1:2 value of 0.00063 was obtained which was not significant at the .05 level. Table 21 Personal Injury: Control Group vs. Experimental Group (CROSSTAIULATION 0P SCROOI. RY ITB! 40) ITEI40 COURT 1 In! PCT I Add (:01. PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I 1 I 685 I 37 I 922 I 96.0 I 4.0 I 56.7 I 56.7 I 56.1 1 I 54.4 I 2.3 t -1 I I 2 1 676 1 29 x 705 x 95.9 x 4.1 1 43.3 1 43.3 1 43.9 1 1 41.5 I 1.6 z -1 I I COLUMN 1561 66 1627 TOTAL 95.9 4.1 100.0 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE 9 0.00063 'dITlI 1 DEGREE 01" Pm. SIGIIPICAICE 9 0.9800 NIGER 0P MISSING OBSERVATIONS 9 2397 In Table 22 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by responses to item 42 (use of active restraints) between DSPC students and TC students is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. Ax2 value of 7.67822 was obtained which was significant at the .05 level in favor 75 of the experimental group. Table 22 Active Restraints: Control Group vs. Experimental Group 3 ON 0 C 4 113143 COUNT I RN PCT I R09 001. PCT I TOTAL NT PCT I 1 I 2 I 1 1 214 1 665 1 099 I 23.8 I 76.2 I 56.4 I 50.6 I 58.5 I I 13.4 I 43.0 I 9I I I 2 I 209 I 485 I 694 I 30.1 I 69.9 I 43.6 I 49.4 I 41.5 I I 13.1 I 30.4 I ob—————d—————-I (mm 423 1170 1593 TOTAL 26.6 73.4 100,0 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE 9 7.67822 WITH 1 DEGREE OF MEN". SIGNIFICANCE 9 0.0056 MEIER 0P MISSING OBSERVATIONS 9 2431 In Table 23 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by responses to item 56 (property damage) between DSPC students and TC students is presented. A x2 value of 2 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x value of 0.20438 was obtained which was not significant at the .05 level. 76 Table 23 Property Damage: Control Group vs. Experimental Group (CROSSTAEUIATION 01" SCHOOL 8‘! ITEM 56) ITEH56 COUNT I 30“ PCT I R09 COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I SCROOL I I I 1 I 666 1 150 z 616 I 61.6 I 18.4 x 55.5 I 55.9 I 54.2 1 I 45.3 I 10.2 x -I I I 2 I 526 I 127 1 653 x 60.6 1 19.4 1 44.5 1 44.1 1 45.6 x 1 35.8 1 6.6 1 -I I I COLUMN 1192 277 1469 TOTAL 81.1 16.9 100.0 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE 9 0.20438 "IT! 1 DEGREE OP PREEDGI. SIGNIFICANCE 9 0.6512 NUMBER or MISSING onsznvarzoas - 2555 In Table 24 the summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by a combination of responses to items 40, 43 and 56 between DSPC students and TC students is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.06278 was obtained which was not significant at the .05 level. Table 24 Severity: Control Group vs. Experimental Group W (CROSSTADULATION 0P SEVERITY BY SCROOL) SCHOOL COUNT I 600 PCT I 100 COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I SEVEIITT I x 1 1 I 240 I 191 I 431 I 55.7 1 44.3 t 32.5 x 32.1 x 32.9 1 1 18.1 1 14.4 ; -I----—I-—-—-—I z 1 507 1 389 z 896 1 56.6 x 43.4 1 67.5 1 67.9 1 67.1 1 1 38.2 1 29.3 1 -I————-—-I I COLUMN 747 580 1327 TOTAL 56.3 43.7 100.0 CORRECTED C111 SQUARE 9 0.06278 UITH 1 DEGREE OP PREEDW. SIGNIFICANCE 9 0. 8022 NUMBER 0P MISSING OBSERVATIONS 9 2697 77 On the basis of information presented in Tables 21 through 24 there was no significant difference between DSPC students and TC students with regard to amount of personal injury, property damage and/ or a combination of personal injury, use of active restraints and property damage. There was a significant difference with regard to use of active restraints in favor of the experimental students. Based on this infor- mation the null hypothesis (H02) of no significant difference in severity of accident involvement between seniors who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC and seniors who successfully completed driver education courses using the TC was rejected. Severity of Accident: Control Girls vs. Experimental Girls Tables 25 through 28 present a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement between DSPC senior girls and TC senior girls based on responses to items 40, 43, 56 and a combination of the three items. In Table 25 the summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by responses to item.40 (personal injury) between DSPC senior girls and TC senior girls is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.00622 was obtained which was not significant at the .05 level. 78 Table 25 Personal Injury: Control Female vs. Experimental Female (CROSS ABULAII N O r ITEMAO COUNT I 30" PCT I RON COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I FENALE I----—I----—-I 1 I 370 I 12 I 382 I 96.9 I 3.1 I 55.6 I 55.6 I 57.1 I I 53.9 I 1.7 I -I I I 2 I 296 I 9 I 305 I 97.0 I 3.0 I 46.4 I 66.6 I 62.9 I I 53.1 I 1.3 I OI—nn—v-u-xmt COLUMN 666 21 637 TOTAL 96.9 3.1 [00.0 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE I 0-00622 WITH 1 DEGREE O? EREEDOH. SIGNIFICANCE - 0.9371 NUMBER or uxsstuc OBSERVATIONS - 132‘ A summary of the analysis of severity of accident'involvement as measured by responses to item 43 (use of active restraints) between DSPC senior girls and TC senior girls is presented in Table 26. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 1.09493 was obtained which was not significant. Table 26 Active Restraints: Control Female vs. Experimental Female (CROSSTABULATION OP FEHALE I! ITEH 43) ITEH43 COUNT I 30" PCT I IOU COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 ' I 2 I FINALE I I-—----I 1 I 86 I 265 I 373 I 23.6 1 76.4 I 55.5 I 51.8 1 56.6 x 1 13.1 1 42.4 x -I I I 2 1 62 1 217 z 299 1 27.4 1 72.6 1 44.5 I 48.2 I 43.2 I 1 12.2 1 32.3 1 -I I I COLCNN 170 502 672 TOTAL 25.3 74.7 100.0 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE - 1.09493 "IT“ 1 DEGREE OF FREEDON. SIGNIFICANCE - 0.2954 NUMBER OF KISSING OBSERVATIONS ' 1339 79 In Table 27 the summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by responses to item 56 (property damage) between DSPC senior girls and TC senior girls is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.10990 was obtained which was not significant. Table 27 Property Damage: Control Female vs. Experimental Penale (CROSSTABUUTION OE EEIALE DI 15E 56) ITEN56 COUNT I 601! PCT I now 60:. PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I FEMALE I I I 1 1 261 1 52 I 333 1 84.4 1 15.6 1 53.6 x 53.4 x 55.9 1 I 45.4 1 6.4 I 2 1 245 1 41 1 286 x 05.7 I 14.3 I 46.2 I 46.6 1 44.1 1 1 39.6 1 6.6 1 -I I I com 526 93 619 TOTAL 85.0 15.0 100.0 QRRECTED CHI SQUARE II 0.10990 "IT! 1 DEGREE 0E FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE I 0.7403 mo. 0? NISSING OISERVATIONS - 1392 A summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by a combination of responses to items 40, 43 and 56 between DSPC senior girls and TC senior girls is presented in Table 28. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.06278 was obtained which was not significant. 80 Table 26 Severity: Control Female vs. Experimental Female (CROSSTADULATION OP SEVERITY DY PM) m COUNT I R09 PCT I R09 cm. PCT I TOTAL 161' PCT I 1 I 2 I SEVERITY I I I 1 I 240 I 191 I 431 I 55.7 I 44.3 I 32.5 I 32.1 I 32.9 I I 18.1 I 14.4 I -I I I 2 I 507 I 369 I 896 I 56.6 I 43.4 I 67.5 I 67.9 I 67.1 I I 30.2 I 29.3 I -I I I some: 747 580 1327 TOTAL 56.3 43.7 100.0 comer. OII SQUARE - 0.06270 HITS 1 DEGREE OE FREEDOH. SIGNIFICANCE - 0. 8022 NUMBER 01" MISSING OBSERVATIONS " 2697 On the basis of information presented in Tables 25 through 28 there was no significant difference between DSPC senior girls and TC senior girls with regard to personal injury, use of active restraints, property damage and/or a combination of the three. Based on this information the null hypothesis (H04) of no significant difference in severity of accident involvement between senior girls who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC and senior girls who successfully completed driver education courses using the TC was not rejected. Severity of Accident: Control Boys vs. Experimental Boys In Tables 29 through 32 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement between DSPC senior boys and TC senior boys based on responses to items 40, 43, 56 and a combination of the three items is presented. In Table 29 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by responses to item 40 (personal injury) 81 between DSPC senior boys and TC senior boys is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.01177 was obtained which was not significant. Table 29 Personal Injury: Control 11ale vs. taperimental Hale (ESTADUUTION OE MALE DY ITEN 40) ”£440 COUNT I IN PCT I RG7 m1. PCT I ‘ TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I NALE I I I 1 I 515 I 25 I 540 I 95.4 1 4.6 I 57.4 1 57.5 I 55.6 1 I 54.6 1 2.7 1 -1 1 I z 1 360 1 20 I 400 1 95.0 1 5.0 1 42.6 1 4L5 ‘14m4 1 1 40.4 1 2.1 1 -1 I I mm 895 45 960 roman 95-2 4-9 100.0 CORRECTED QII SQUARE I 0.01177 UITII 1 DEGREE 0f FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE I 0.9136 more 0! MISSING OBSERVATIONS I 1073 In Table 30 a summary of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 43 (use of active restraints) between DSPC senior boys and TC senior boys is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 7.20283 was obtained in favor of the experimental boys which was significant at the .05 level. 82 Table 30 Active Restraints: Control Hale vs. Experimental Hale (CROSSTABULATION OE NALE 6T ITEN 43) ITEN43 COUNT I R09 PCT I RON COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I I MALE I---—-I---—--I 1 I 126 I 400 I 526 I 24.0 I 76.0 I 57.1 I 49.6 I 59.9 I I 13.7 I 43.4 I II I I 2 I 127 I 266 I 395 I 32.2 I 67.6 I 42.9 I 50.2 I 40.1 I I 13.6 I 29.1 I II I I COLON! 253 666 921 TOTAL 27.5 72.5 100.0 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE I 7.20263 "IT" 1 DEGREE OE FREEDOH. SIGNIFICANCE I 0.0073 NUHDER 0P MISSING ODSERVATIONS I 1092 A summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 56 (property damage) between DSPC senior boys and TC senior boys is presented in Table 31. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 1.03662 was obtained which was not significant. Table 31 Property Damage: Control Hale vs. Experimental Hale CROSSTABULATION OF HALE BY 56) ITENS6 COUNT I 300 PCT I [OH COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I HALE I I I 1 1 365 I 96 I 463 1 79.7 I 20.3 I 56.6 I 57.6 I 53.3 I 1 45.3 1 11.5 1 atoa—u—n—Io—II—oo-t 2 1 281 1 66 1 367 1 76.6 1 23.4 1 43.2 1 33.1 1 10.1 1 -I-—-—-—-I---—--I annnu 666 184 650 10151 76.4 21.6 100.0 CORRECTED CNI SQUARE I 1-03662 WITH 1 DEGREE OP FREEDOH. SIGNIFICANCE I 0.3066 sunset at ntssxxc OOSERVATIONS - 1163 83 In Table 32 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by a combination of responses to items 40, 43 and 56 between DSPC senior boys and TC senior boys is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.06278 was obtained which was not significant. Table 32 Severity: Control Hale vs. Experimental Hale (CROSSTABUIATION 0E SEVERITY BY HALE) SALE COUNT I 6011 PCT I IOU 03L PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I SEvnITT 1—_—.—..1_.__._.1 1 I 240 I 191 I 431 I 55.7 1 44.3 1 32.5 1 32.1 1 32.9 I 1 16.1 1 14.4 1 -I I I z 1 507 1 369 I 696 1 56.6 1 43.4 1 67.5 1 67.9 1 67.1 1 1 36.2 1 29.3 1 -I I I 001.0101 747 560 1327 TOTAL 56. 3 43. 7 100. 0 CORRECTED GI SQUARE I 0.06276 VIII 1 DEGREE OP mason. SIGNIFICANCE I 0.N22 mu 0" MISSING OBSERVATIONS I 2697 Based on the summary information presented in Tables 29 through 32 there was no significant difference between DSPC senior boys and TC senior boys with regard to personal injury, property damage and/or a combination of personal injury, use of active restraints and property damage. There was a significant difference with regard to use of active restraints in favor of the experimental senior boys. 0n the basis of information summarized in Table 30 the null hypothesis (806) of no significant difference in severity of accident involvement between senior boys who successfully completed driver education courses using the DSPC and senior boys who successfully completed driver education 84 courses using the TC was rejected. Severity of Accident: Males vs. Females In Tables 33 through 36 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement between all senior boys and all senior girls based on responses to items 40, 43, 56 and a combination of the three items is presented. A summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by responses to item 40 (personal injury) between all senior boys and all senior girls is presented in Table 33. A1:2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 2.62543 was obtained which was not significant. Table 33 Personal Injury: Hales vs. Pemales (CROSSTABULATION 0? SEE BY ITEH 40) ITEH40 COUNT I IOU PCT I 600 COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I 5:: I-—---I I 1 I 695 I 45 I 940 I 95.2 I 4.6 1 57.6 I 57.3 I 66.2 I I 55.0 I 2.6 1 -I I I z 1 666 1 21 1 667 1 96.9 1 3.1 1 42.2 1 42.7 1 31.6 1 1 40.9 1 1.3 1 -I I-—--——-I COLUMN 1561 66 1627 TOTAL 95.9 4.1 100.0 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE I 2.62543 WITH 1 DEGREE 0P FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE I 0.1052 NUMBER 0? HISSING OBSERVATIONS I 2397 In Table 34 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by responses to item 43 (use of active restraints) between all senior boys and all senior girls is presented. A x2 value of 85 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x value of 0.83216 was obtained which was not significant. Table 34 Active Restraints: Hales vs. Females (CROSSTABUIATIN Ol’ SEE BY IT!!! 43) um“: cant I now vet I 60" cut net I . rorat TOT rcr I 1 I 2 I sex I I----—-I 1 I 253 I 666 I 921 I 27.5 I 72.5 I 57.3 I 39.3 I 57.1 I I 13.9 I 41.9 I -I I I 2 I 170 I 302 I 672 1 23.3 I 74.7 1 42.2 1 40.2 1 42.9 1 1 10.7 1 31.3 I -I I I COLUMN 423 1170 1593 TOTAL 26.6 73.4 100.0 mm CHI SQUARE I 0.63216 "III! 1 DEGREE OP FREEDGI. SIGNIPICANCE I 0.3616 NUMBER OF KISSING OBSERVATIONS I 2431 In Table 35 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by responses to item 56 (property damage) between all senior boys and all senior girls is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 9.83915 was obtained which was significant at the .05 level in favor of the senior girls. 86 Table 35 Property Damage: Hales vs. Females (CROSSTABULATION OF SEX BY ITEN 56) ITEN56 COUNT I 609 PCT I now COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I SEX I-----I-----I 1 I 666 I 164 I 650 1 76.4 1 21.6 1 57.9 I 55.9 I 66.4 1 1 45.3 I 12.5 1 -I I I 2 I 526 1 93 1 619 1 65.0 1 15.0 1 42.1 1 44.1 1 33.6 1 1 35.6 1 6.3 1 -I I I COLUHR 1192 277 1469 TOTAL 61.1 16.9 100.0 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE I 9.63915 VITR 1 DEGREE OI FREEDOH. SIGNIFICANCE I 0.0017 NUMBER OF NISSING OBSERVATIONS I 2555 A summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by a combination of responses to items 40, 43 and 56 between all senior boys and all senior girls is presented in Table 36. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.00111 was obtained which was not significant. Table 36 Severity: Hales vs. Females (CROSSTABULATION 0F SEVERITY BY SEX) SEE COUNT I RON PCT I RON COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I SEVERITZ—I» I I I 1 I 246 I 165 I 431 I 57.1 I 42.9 I 32.5 I 32.6 I 32.3 I I 16.5 I 13.9 I -I I I z I 509 1 367 1 696 1 56.6 1 43.2 I 67.5 I 67.4 1 67.7 1 I 36.4 1 29.2 I ‘d——————b—————d COLDNN 755 572 1327 mm 56- 9 I.3-1 100. o CORRECTED CNI SQUARE I 0.00111 HIT! 1 DEGREE 0F FREEDON. SIGNIFICANCE I 0.9734 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS I 2697 87 On the basis of information summarized in Tables 33 through 36 there was no significant difference between senior boys and senior girls with regard to personal injury, use of active restraints and/or a combination of personal injury, use of active restraints and property damage. There was a significant difference with regard to property damage in favor of the senior girls. Based on information summarized in Table 35 the null hypothesis (H08) of no significant difference in severity of accident involvement between all senior boys and all senior girls who successfully completed driver education was rejected. Severity of Accident: Program.Type In Tables 37 through 40 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement between all types of driver education programs (2-phase, 3-phase range, 3-phase simulation and 4-phase) based on responses to items 40, 43, 56 and a combination of the three items is presented. In Table 37 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by responses to item 40 (personal injury) between all types of driver education programs is presented. A312 value of 7.815 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 1.74919 was obtained which was not significant. 88 Table 37 Personal Injury by Program Type (caossnwurxou or paocfipt 3! ITEM 10) ITEH4O COUNT I 1109 PCT I ROU COL PCT 1 TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I PROGTYPE I I I 0 I 621 1 25 1 646 I 96.1 I 3.9 I 39.7 1 39.6 1 37.9 1 I 36.2 1 1.5 I -I I I 1 1 134 1 3 I 137 I 97.6 I 2.2 I 6.4 I 6.6 I 4.5 I 1 6.2 1 0.2 1 -1 I 1 2 I 605 1 29 I 634 I 95.4 I 4.6 I 39.0 I 36.6 1 43.9 I I 37.2 I 1.6 I -1 1 I 3 I 201 I 9 I 210 I 95.7 I 4.3 I 12.9 I 12.9 1 13.6 I I 12.4 I 0.6 I -I I I ' COLUMN 1561 66 1627 TOTAL 95.9 4.1 100.0 RAH CHI SQUARE I 1.74919 UITN 3 DEGREES 0F FREEDON. SIGNIFICANCE I 0.6261 NUNBER OP HISSING OBSERVATIONS I 2397 In Table 38 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by responses to item 43 (use of active restraints) between all types of driver education programs is presented. A x2 value of 7.815 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 5.39912 was obtained which was not significant. 89 Table 36 Active Restraints by Program Type (CROSSTABULATION 0F PROGTYPE BY 1:91 43) 1m343 couur I aou PCT 1 Row COL per 1 10111 unpcrt 1 I 2 I 9200an I I I o I 152 1 493 I 635 I 23.9 I 76.1 *I 39.9 I 35.9 I 41.3 I I 9.5 I 30.3 I -I 1 I 1 I 31 I 100 I 131 1 23.7 I 76.3 I 6.2 1 7.3 I 8.5 I 1 1.9 I 6.3 I -1 I I 2' 1 179 I 441 I 620 1 25.9 I 71.1 I 36.9 1 42.3 I 37.7 I 1 11.2 I 27.7 1 -1 1 I J t 61 I 146 1 207 1 29.5 1 70.5 I 13.0 1 14.4 1 12.5 I I 3.6 I 9.2 I -1 I I COLUMN 423 1170 1593 10111 26.6 73.4 100.0 RAH C111 SQUARE I 5.39912 HITN 3 DEGREES 0F FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE I 0.1446 NUNBER 0F NISSING OBSERVATIONS I 2431 A summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by responses to item 56 (property damage) between all types of driver education programs is presented in Table 39. A x2 value of 7.815 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x value of 4.34871 was obtained which was not significant. 90 Tab 1:: 39 Property Damage by Program Type (CROSSTADUU‘I'ION 0F PROG‘I'YPE 8‘! ITE‘I 56) 179156 COUNT I R011 PC! I 110" COL PC? I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I PROG‘I'YPE I I I 0 I 482 I 99 I 581 I 83.0 I 17.0 I 39.6 I 40.4 I 33.7 I I 32.8 I 6.7 I -I I I 1 I 100 I 23 I 123 I 81.3 I 18.7 I 8.4 I 8.4 I 8.3 I I 6.8 I 1.6 I .1 I I 2 I 459 I 125 I 584 I 78.6 I 21.4 I 39.8 I 38.5 I 46.1 I I 31.2 I 8.5 I -I I I 3 I 151 I 30 I 181 I 83.4 I 16.6 I 12.3 I 12.7 I 10.8 I I 10.3 I 2.0 I -I I I COM 1192 277 1469 TOTAL 81.1 18.9 100.0 RAH C111 SQUARE 0 4.34871 RITE! 3 owners 01’ FREEDOM. SIGSIEICANCE I 0.2262 NUMBER 0' HISSISG OBSERVATIONS I 2555 In Table 40 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by a combination of responses to items 40, 43 and 56 between all types of driver education programs is presented. A x2 value of 7.815 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 5.50435 was obtained which was not significant. 91 Tab 1e 40 Severity by Program Type W P800119! CWIIT I IOU PCT I 8W COL PCT I . TOTAL to: PC! I 0 I 1 I 2 I ’3 i I I—-—-—--I---—-l---- smurt I 163 I 33 I 167 I 68 I 431 1 37.8 1 7.7 1 38.7 1 15.8 1 32.5 I 30.4 1 30.3 1 32.7 I 39.8 I I 12.3 t 2.5 I 12.6 1 5.1 t -I-—---I--—--I----—-I-----I 2 1 374 1 76 1 343 1 103 1 896 1 61.7 1 8.5 1 38.3 1 11.3 1 67.5 1 69.6 1 69.7 1 67.3 1 60.2 1 1 28.2 1 3.7 1 25.8 1 7.6 1 001.0101 537 109 510 171 1327 TOTAL 40.5 8.2 38.4 12.9 100.0 IA" 0111 SQUARE I 5.30435 "1T1! 3 DECEEES OE IREEDOII. SICHIFICASCE I 0.1384 SUEDE! 0' KISSING ODSERVATIONS I 2697 On the basis of information summarized in Tables 37 through 40 there was no significant difference between program.types with regard to personal injury, use of active restraints, property damage and/or a combination of the three. Based on this information the null hypothesis (H010) of no significant difference in the severity of accident involve- ment between all types of driver education programs was not rejected. Severity of Accident: Community Type In Tables 41 through 44 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement between all types of communities (urban, suburban and rural) based on responses to items 40, 43 56 and a combination of the three items is presented. In Table 41 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by responses to item 40 (personal injury) between all types of communities is presented. A x2 value of 5.991 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.24010 was obtained which was not significant. 92 Table 41 Personal Injury by City Type (cnossranutarxou or cxfi‘av ITEbAO) ITEH40 COUNT I now PCT I ROU COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I l I 2 I CITY I I I 0 I 487 I 19 I 506 I 96.2 I 3.8 I 31.1 1 31.2 I 28.8 I I 29.9 I 1.2 I -I I I 1 I 569 I 26 1 593 I 96.0 I 6.0 I 36.6 I 36.5 I 36.6 1 I 35.0 I 1.5 I -I I I 2 I 505 I 23 I 528 I 95.6 I 6.6 I 32.5 I 32.6 I 36.8 I I 31.0 I 1.6 I -I I I COLUMN 1361 66 1627 TOTAL 95.9 4.1 100.0 RAH CHI SQUARE I 0.24010 HIT“ 2 DEGREES OI FREEDOH. SIGNIFICANCE I 0.8869 suxstn or MISSING 08$ERVATION§ - 2297 In Table 42 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by responses to item 43 (use of active restraints) between all types of communities is presented. A x2 value of 5.991 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 8.49806 was obtained which was significant at the .05 level in favor of urban and suburban communities. 93 Table 62 Active Restraints by City Type (CROSSTABULATION OF CITY 8? ITEN 53) ITEH 43 COUNT I ROH PCT I RON COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I CITY I I I 0 l 139 I 355 I 494 I 28.1 I 71.9 I 31.0 I 32.9 I 30.3 I I 8.7 I 22.3 I -I I I 1 I 170 I 410 I 580 I 29.3 I 70.7 I 36.4 I 40.2 I 35.0 I I 10.7 I 25.7 I -I I I 2 I 114 I 405 I 519 I 22.0 I 78.0 I 32.6 I 27.0 I 34.6 I I 7.2 I 25.4 I -I I I COLUMN 423 1170 1593 TOTAL 26.6 73.4 100.0 RAH CHI SQUARE I 8.49806 UITH 2 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE I 0.0143 NUMBER OF KISSING OBSERVATIONS I 2431 A summary of the analysis of accident involvement as measured by responses to item 56 (property damage) between all types of communities is presented in Table 43. A x2 value of 5.991 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 1.1499 was obtained which was not significant. 94 Table 43 Personal Injury by City Type (CROSSTASULATION or CITY—8? ITEHS6) 1113156 COUNT I RON PCT I RON COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 1 CITY I I I 0 I 358 I 90 I 448 I 79.9 I 20.1 I 30.5 I 30.0 I 32.5 I I 24.4 I 6.1 I -I I I 1 I 644 I 105 I 549 I 80.9 I 19.1 I 37.6 I 37.2 I 37.9 I I 30.2 I 7.1 1 -I I I 2 1 390 I 82 I 672 I 82.6 I 17.4 I 32.1 I 32.7 I 29.6 1 I 26.5 I 5.6 I -I I I COLUMN 1192 277 1669 TOTAL 81.1 18.9 100.0 RAH CHI SQUARE I 1.14999 "IT“ 2 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE I 0.5627 NUMBER OF MISSING 085ERVATIONS I 2555 In Table 44 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by a combination of responses to items 40, 43 and 56 between all types of communities is presented. A 32 value of 5.991 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 3.95356 was obtained which was not significant. Table 44 Severity by City Type (CROSSTAEULATION 0! SEVERITY DY CITY) CITT COUNT I IOU PCT I 300 COL PCT 1 TOTAL TOT PCT I 0 I 1 I 2 I SIVIIITT I I I I 1 I 140 I 164 I 127 I 431 I 32.5 I 38.1 I 29.5 I 32.5 I 34.6 I 34.0 I 28.9 I I 10.6 I 12.4 I 9.6 I -I I I I z I 265 I 318 I 313 1 896 I 29.6 I 35.5 1 34.9 1 67.5 I 65.6 I 66.0 1 71.1 1 I 20.0 1 24.0 1 23.6 1 I I I I COLUMN 605 682 660 1327 10111 30.5 36.3 ‘ 33.2 100.0 RAH CNI SQUARE I 3.95356 UITN 2 DEGREES OP FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE I 0.1385 NUMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS I 2697 95 On the basis of information summarized in Tables 41 through 44 there was no significant difference between community types with regard to personal injury, property damage and/or a combination of personal injury, use of active restraints and property damage. A significant difference between community types in favor of urban and suburban communities was obtained for use of active restraints. Based on the information summarized in Table 42 the null hypothesis (H012) of no significant difference in severity of accident involvement between all types of communities was rejected. Severity of Accident: Module Test Performance In Tables 45 through 72 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement between students within the experimental group who scored 702 or better on the seven module tests and students within the experimental group who scored 692 or less on the seven module tests is presented. Specifically, Tables 45 through 51 will summarize severity of accident involvement as measured by item 40 (personal injury) for modules 1, 2, 4, 8, 10-12; Tables 52 through 58 will summarize severity of accident involvement as measured by item 43 (use of active restraints) for modules 1, 2, 4, 8, 10-12; Tables 59 through 65 will summarize severity of accident involvement as measured by item 56 (property damage) for modules 1, 2, 4, 8, 10-12; and Tables 66 through 72 will summarize severity of accident involvement as measured by the combination of items 40, 43 and 56 for modules 1, 2, 4, 8, 10-12. 96 Personal Injury bnyodule In Table 45 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 40 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%— on module 1 (Controls test) is presented. A x value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 of 0.02014 was obtained which was not significant. Table 45 Personal Injury by Module 1 .--TCROSSTIIUIITTON'OE'TTEH:U‘SY'TTEHT2T"" ITEMIZ court I now PCT I now can 901 I TOTAL 101 901 I 1 I 2 I ITEM40 """""‘ t 1 I 115 I 39 I 154 I 74.7 I 25.3 I 94.5 I 95.0 I 92.9 I I 70.6 I 23.9 I 2 I 6 I 3 I 9 I 66.7 I 33.3 I 5.5 1 5.0 I 7.1 I I 3.7 I 1.8 I -I-----I--—--I mm 121 42 163 10111 74.2 25.0 100.0 comcrtn CHI SQUARE I 0.02014 NIT! 1 DEGREE OE FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE I 0.8872 unusza or 3153130 035229111085 - 278 A summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 40 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%— on module 2 (HTS test) is presented in Table 46. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.02863 was obtained which was not significant. 97 Table 46 Personal Injury by Module 2 (CROSSTAEULATION OI‘ ITEM 408T ITEM 13) ITEM 13 COUNT I 600 PCT I new COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I ITEII40 I I-----I 1 I 132 I 22 I 154 I 85.7 I 14.3 I 94.5 I 95.0 I 91.7 I I 81.0 I 13.5 I -l—.—.I‘_~I 2 I 7 I 2 I 9 I 77.8 I 22.2 I 5.5 I 5.0 I 8.3 I I 6.3 I 1.2 1 0t I”! COLD!“ 139 24 163 10111 85.3 14.7 - 100,0 CORRECTED car $0012: - 0.02863 0113 1 0203:: 01 FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE - 0-8656 mm or 111551110 OBSERVATIONS - 278 In Table 47 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 40 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%— on module 4 (Vehicle Capabilities test) is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.05309 was obtained which was not significant. Table 47 Personal Injury Module 4 (CROSSTAEULATION OF ITE.‘140 8T ITE1‘114) IT'.‘114 COUNT I 8018 PCT I R014 COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I ITEM 40 I I——---I 1 I 123 I 31 I 154 I 79.9 I 20.1 I 94.5 I 93.9 I 96.9 I I 75.5 I 19.0 1 -I I-----I 2 I 3 I 1 I 9 1 88.9 1 11.1 1 5.5 1 6.1 1 3.1 1 1 4.9 1 0.6 1 -I I I 001mm 131 32 163 TOTAL 80.4 19.6 100.0 CORRECTED CIII SQUARE I 0-05309 131111 1 OEGRRE or 1112:0011. SchII-Icmcr - 041" mo. 01 111531110 osstnvanoxs - 273 98 In Table 48 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 40 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%— on module 8 (Identification test) is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.00297 was obtained which was not significant. Table 48 Personal Injury by Hoduls 8 (CROSSTAEULATION OE ITEM40 8T ITEM 15) 1110115 COUNT I IOU PCT I ROB COL PCT 1 TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I. 2 I IT13140 I---—-I-—--—-I 1 I 112 I 42 I 154 I 72.7 I 27.3 I 94.5 I 94.1 I 95.5 I I 68.7 I 25.8 I -I-----I-----I 2 I 7 I 2 I 9 I 77.8 I 22.2 I 5.5 I 5.9 1 4.5 1 1 4.3 1 1.2 1 mum 119 46 163 TOTAL 73.0 27.0 100.0 CORRECTED GI SQUARE I 0.00297 WITH 1 DEGREE Ol‘ I‘REEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE I 0-95‘5 mu 0' MISSING OBSERVATIONS I 278 A summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 40 between students scoring 702+ and students scor- ing 69%— on module 10 (Evaluation test) is presented in Table 49. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.17107 was obtained which was not significant. 99 Table 49 Personal Injury by 9108qu 10 (CROSSTMUIAIION 0F IIEH 40" IIL‘116) ITEM 16 COL'KT I 9.0"! PCT I new COL PCT 1 TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I 1713140 I I----—-1 1 I 136 I 18 I 154 I 88.3 I 11.7 1 94.5 I 95.1 I 90.0 I I 83.4 I 11.0 I -I—-—--—-1-—--—1 2 I 7 I 2 I 9 1 77.8 I 22.2 1 5.5 I 4.9 1 10.0 1 1 4.3 I 1.2 ; oI——-——-I-—---I mm 143 20 163 mm. 87.7 12.3 100.0 cnanzcrtn cuI socAn: - 0.17107 utra 1 DEC!!! or rnzznon. SIGSIFICARC! - 0.6792 man 0? HISSISG OBSERVATIONS - 278 In Table 50 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 40 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%- on module 11 (Plan of Action test) is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 3.55796 was obtained which was not significant. Table 50 Personal. Injury by 3194qu 11 (MSSTMULA‘I’ION OF ITS}! 60 BY 1732117) IT!!!” COUNT I 9.09 PCT I 1109 COL PCT 1 TOTAL TOT PCT 1 1 I 2 I It!!! 40 I-—----I I 1 I 120 I 34 I 154 I 77.9 I 22.1 I 94.5 I 96.8 I 87.2 I I 73.6 I 20.9 I -I I----I 2 I 4 I 5 I 9 1 44.4 x 55.6 g 5.5 1 3.2 1 12.8 I I 2.5 I 3.1 1 -1-———-—I-——-—-—I COLD!!! 124 39 163 TOTAL 76.1 23.9 100.0 comm GI SQUARE I 3.55796 mm 1 DEC“! 0? “320011. SIWIIICMIC! O 0.0593 mu 0' HISSISG OISIIVA‘I'IONS " 278 100 A summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 40 between students scoring 70Z+ and students scoring 69%- on the 0n-Road Situation test is presented in Table 51. A 2:2 value 2 of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x value of 0.00555 was obtained which was not significant. 18810 51 Personal Injury by 1100qu 12 (CROSS‘IAIUIJ‘IIOU 0? ITEH ‘0 BY I113 18) Imam cmmr I ImauxI Ia: tmIanI: 'muu Inrnnr. 1 I 2 1 Hana t--—-I I 1 I 144 I 10 I 151 I 93.5 I 6.5 I 94.5 I9MJ Immo I I 8&3 I an I -I I I 2 I 9 I 0 I 9 Im0.0 I om 1 L5 1 5.9 I 0.0 1 I 5.5 I 0.0 I mung 153 10 163 TOTAL 93-9 §~1 100.0 connzcrrn cuI SQCAII - 0.00555 0110 I secure or Iarrnon. SIcaItIcAacz - 0-9606 mu 0! Insane onsnu'noxs - 278 0n the basis of information summarized in Tables 45 through 51 performance on the module tests had no significant effect on extent of personal injury as measured by item 40. Use of Active Restraints bnyodules In Table 52 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 43 between students scoring 70Z+ and students scoring 69%- on the Controls test is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.01922 was obtained which was not significant. 101 TabIe 52 Active RestreInts by Module 1 (CROSSTABULATION 0F ITE.‘143 8! ITEM”) 1T2312 COUNT 802 PCT 1 ECU COL PCT 1 TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 1 2 I ITEH‘53 I 1---—--1 1 I 38 1 13 1 51 I 74.5 I 25.5 I 31.3 I 31.4 I 31.0 I I 23.3 I 8.0 I 2 I 83 I 29 I 112 1 74.1 I 25.9 I 68.7 I 68.6 I 69.0 I I 50.9 I 17.8 I -1 I-----I 00mm 121 42 163 TOTAL 74.2 25.8 100.0 COIIICTZD CBI SQUAII ' 0.01922 HIT! I DEC!!! 0? £33500“. SIGSIFICANCZ - 0.8897 303323 0! xISSING OBSEIVATIONS ' 278 A summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 43 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%- on the HTS test is presented in Table 53. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x value of 0.00002 was obtained which was not significant. Table 53 ActIve Restraints by nodule 2 (CIOSSTAIU'LATIOIG Of IT!!! 438‘! 1TB“! 13) Inmla «mm I nmannr an: InInnI nmu 'mrmnx 1 I 2 I ITEH an I I 1 1 I 44 I 1 I n I8L3 I 1L7 I 3L3 I3LJ I 2%: I :2L0 I u: I -1 I I z I 95 I 17 I 112 Iona I III I 6L7 Ian: I 703 I Isms I 101 I -b——-——d-—-———1 onInnx 139 21 155 TOTAL 35.3 11.7 100.0 CORRECTED CHI SQUAI! - 0.00002 3173 1 DEGRIZ 0P FISEDOH. SICNIFICANC! 9 0-9965 NUHIEI 0F HISSI36.08$EIYATIONS - 278 102 In Table 54 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 43 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%- on the Vehicle Capabilities test is presented. x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.14934 was obtained which was not significant. Table 54 Active Restraints by Module 4 (CROSSTABUIATION OF ITL‘143 IT ITL“! 14) IT!!! 14 COUNT I 3014 PCT I 11017 00!. PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I ITEH43 I I—-—---I 1 I 43 I 8 I 51 I 84.3 I 15.7 I 31.3 I 32.3 I 26.7 I I 26.4 I 4.9 I -I I-----I 2 I 90 I 22 I 112 I ”.4 I 19.6 I 68:7 I 67.7 I 73.3 I I 33.2 I 13.3 I -I I I com 133 30 163 TOTAL 81.6 18.4 100.0 camera on scum - 0.14931 um I ntcatt or 1122003. sIcaItICANCI . 0.6992 mu 0? HISSINC OISRVATIONS '- 278 A summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 43 between students scoring 70Z+ and students scoring 69%- on the Identification test is presented in Table 55. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.27549 was obtained which was not significant. 103 Table 55 Active Restraints by Module 8 (CIOSSTMULATION OI" ITL‘143 8! ITEIIIS) IT!!! 15 COUNT I 80? PCT I 809 C01. PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I ITEH‘J I I-----I 1 I 36 I 15 I 51 I 70.6 I 29.4 I 31.3 I 29.8 I 35.7 I I 22.1 I 9.2 I 2 I 85 I 27 I 112 I 75.9 I 24.1 I 68.7 I702 16L3 I I 52.1 I 16.6 I thlml com 121 42 163 I015; 74.2 25.8 100.0 cornzcrtn cnI 5001:: - 0-275‘9 HIIH 1 areas: or sixteen. SIGNIFICAuC! -» 0.5997 ma. 0? 511352146 OEEIVATIONS ' 278 A summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 43 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%— on the Evaluation test is presented in Table 56. A I:2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.05482 was obtained which was not significant. Table 56 Active Restraints by Module 10 (COOSSTAIULATION OF IT!!! 43 8! 111316) IT!!! 16 COUNT I 80" PCT I 7.0" COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I 1TB! 43 I I-—--I 1 I 45 I 6 I 51 I 88.2 I 11.8 I 31.3 I 31.3 I 31.6 I I 27.6 I 3.7 I -I I---—-—I 2 I 99 I 13 I 112 I 88.4 I 11.6 I 68.7 I 68.8 I 68.4 I I 60.7 I 8.0 I -I---—-I--—---I mums 144 19 163 TOTAL 88.3 11.7 100.0 GREECTED GI SQUARE ' 0.05482 WITH [ OEGEE OP mm. SIGNIFICANCE 0 0.8149 mu 0? IIISSIXO OBSERVATIONS ‘ 278 104 In Table 57 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 43 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 692- on the Plan of Action test is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 1.08769 was obtained which was not significant. Table 57 Active Restraints by nodule 11 (CIOSSTHULATION OF ITDI43 8T ITEIIU) 1 111.817 RO'J PCT I 8011 COL PCT 1 TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I ITEH‘43 1 I I 1 I 36 I 15 I 51 I 70.6 1 29.4 I 31.3 I 28.8 I 39.5 I I 22.1 I 9.2 I -1 I 1 2 I 89 I 23 I 112 I 79.5 I 20.5 I 68.7 I 71.2 I 60.5 1 I 54.6 I 14.1 1 -I I I mum 125 38 163 TOTAL 76.7 23.3 100.0 00mm ax 5mm: - 1.08769 um! 1 0:01;: or rtstnou. SICSIPICAOCT - 0-2970 more OP HISSIXC OISEEVATIOIS ' 37' In Table 58 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 43 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%- on the On-Road Situation test is presented. A 2 x2 value of 3.841 was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x value of 0.19595 was obtained which was not significant. 105 Table 58 Active Restraints by nodule 12 (CEOSSTABULATION' OP ITEH43 8T ITZHIB) ITEfllO C I 80? PCT I 809 COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I ITEH443 I I I 1 I 49 I 2 I 51 I 96.1 I 3.9 I 31.3 I 32.0 I 20.0 I I 30.1 I 1.2 I -I I I 2 I 104 I 8 I 112 I 92.9 I 7.1 I 68.7 I 68.0 I 80.0 I I 63.8 I 4.9 I -I I I COLON! 153 10 163 TOTAL 93 9 6 1 100.0 COIRECTEO CHI SQUAIE - 0.19595 WITH 1 OECIEE 0P TOLEDO“. SIC8IFICANCE 0 0.6580 NUHIEE 0P KISSING 08SERVATIOIS ' 278 Based on the information summarized in Tables 52 through 58 performance on module tests had no significant affect on use of active restraint systems as measured by item 43. Property Damage by Modules In Table 59 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 56 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%— on the Controls test is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.37842 was obtained which was not significant. 106 Table 59 Property Damage by Hoduie 1 (CIOSSTAIULAIION 0P ITEMS6 BY ITEXIZ) ITEHIZ COUNT I 80? PCT I RON COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I [Tin 56 I---—-I--—--I 1 I 88 I 29 I 117 I 75.2 t 26.8 t 80.1 I 78.6 I 85.3 I I 60.3 I 19.9 t -I I-----I 2 z 25 x 5 I E t 82.8 1 17.2 1 19.9 I 21.6 1 16.7 I 1 16.6 x '3.6 1 COLON! 112 36 146 TOTAL 76.7 23.3 100.0 concern: on scum - 0-378‘1 um: 1 means: or rusznou. SIGNIFICANC! - c.5335 NOHIEI OI MISSISG 085!RVATIOI8 ' 295 In Table 60 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 56 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%— on the HTS test is presented. Ax2 value of 2 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x value of 0.08130 was obtained which was not significant. Table 60 Property Deeege by Module 2 (CIOSSTAIULATION 0P ITEHS6 8T IT2313) ITESIJ COUNT I IOU PCT I IOU COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I ITE!156 I I""""’I I 100 I 17 I 117 I 85.5 I 16.5 I 80.1 I 79.6 I 85.0 I I 68.5 I 11.6 I -I I-----I 2 I 26 I I 29 I 89.7 I 10.3 I 19.9 I 20.6 I 15.0 I I 17.8 I 2.1 I -I I-----I COLON! 126 20 166 TOTAL 86.3 13.7 100.0 connzcrtn ca: squanz - 0.08130 9123 1 areas: or FREEDOH. SICSITICARCZ - 0.7755 NUHIEI 0P MISSIXG 083889811088 ' 295 107 In Table 61 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 56 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%— on the Vehicle Capabilities test is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.99082 was obtained which was not significant. Table 61 Property Damage by Hodule 6 (CESSTAIULATION OF IT!!! 56 8T ITIHN) 1nm14 cant I MHECTI am: cm.n:1 'mnm unicrt 1 I z r 1nm56 I-————-I 1 1 1 93 z 21 1 117 1 71¢: 1 2m: 1 8m1 I 7&2 1I8&9 1 1 6L7 11m‘ 1 ~b—————-I I z 1 26 1 3 r 29 1 at? :104 1 1&9 ; 2L8 IIJJ : 1 17.8 t 2.1 : ‘d-—-———k—————I consul 119 27 166 1011; 01.5 13.5 100.0 COW GI SQULII - 0. 99082 WITH 1 DIG!!! OP P12213011. SIQIPICASC! - 0.3195 may OP 11158186 OBSERVATIONS '- 295 A summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 56 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%— on the Identification test is presented in Table 62. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.02826 was obtained which was not significant. 108 Table 62 Property Damage by Module 8 (CROSSTALULATION 01" IT'i.“156 8T 1112115) ITBUS COUNT I 3071 PCT I 9.0" COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I {1'33 56 I I—-—--I 1 I 88 I 29 I 117 I 75.2 I 26.8 I 80.1 I 80.0 I 80.6 I 1 60.3 x 19.9 1 -I I--—-—-I 2 1 22 r 7 1 29 x 75.9 1 26.1 1 19.9 g 20.0 x 19.‘ I 1 15.1 I 6.8 I -I I I com 110 36 166 TOTAL 75-3 “-7 100.0 COW CHI SQUARE - 0.02826 'JI‘I‘H 1 086832 0! P81213011. SIGIPICANCZ II 0-3665 mu 0! TIISSISG OISEOVATIOOS ' 295 In Table 63 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 56 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%- on the Evaluation test is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x value of 0.03914 was obtained which was not significant. Table 63 Property Damage by nodule 10 (CROSSTAIULATION OP ITTH56 8T ITZfl16) ITEM COUST I 8011 PCT I 80" COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I 321456 I I———-1 I 106 I 11 I 117 I 90.6 I 9.6 I 80.1 I 80.3 I 78.6 I I 72.6 I 7.5 I -I-----I----—-I 2 I 26 I 3 I 29 I 89.7 I 10.3 I 19.9 I 19.7 I 21.6 I I 17.8 I 2.1 I -I I I scum 132 16 166 TOTAL 90.6 9.6 100.0 COW CHI SQUARE I 0.03916 UITH 1 58682! 01' FREEDOM. SICXIFICATIC! - 0.8632 mat-:1 0P XISSING OOSERVATIONS ' 295. 2 109 In Table 64 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 56 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%— on the Plan of Action test is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 1.81702 was obtained which was not significant. Table 66 Property Damage by Module 11 (CROSSTABUIATION 0P ITL‘156 8! 1111117) ITE.‘ 17 COUNT I BO'J PCT I 3017 COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I ITEM 56 I-—---I I 1 I 93 I 26 I 117 I 79.5 I 20.5 I 80.1 I 83.0 I 70.6 I I 63.7 I 16.6 I -I-———--I I 2 I 19 I 10 I 29 I 65.5 I 36.5 I 19.9 I 17.0 I 29.6 I I 13.0 I 6.8 I oI—-——-I I ' com 112 36 166 TOTAL 76.7 23.3 100.0 COW CHI SQUARE - 1.81702 141111 1 08088! 02' FREEDOM. SIQIIFICANC! 0 0.1777 18124818 0! HISSIXG OISEIVATIOXS " 295 A summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by item 56 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%— on the On-Road Situation test is presented in Table 65. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.74738 was obtained which was not significant. 110 Table 65 Property Damage by Module 12 (cacssruuunou or 1111-136 31 1111118) 11:11 18 ammrz am1ux1 as: «mtmnxz mmu mn1c11 1 1 2 1 Inmse 1-————-1 1 1 1 no 1 7 1 u7 1 9&0 1 6m 1 «L1 1 7m1 IIMLO 1 1 7L3 1 64 1 -1 1 1 2 1 n 1 o 1 29 z1mLo 1 mo 1 199 x 20.9 x 0.0 x 1 1L9 1 om 1 CI [mt com 139 7 1‘6 10111 95 2 6 8 100.0 com on scum - 0.71739 1:11-11 1 08082! or 1122903. s1cx:11caacr - 0-1873 nausea or uxssxxc 013:19111oas - 293 Based on the information summarized in Tables 59 through 65 performance on module tests had no significant effect on extent of property damage as measured by item 56. Severity by Mbdules A summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by a combination of items 40, 43 and 56 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 692- on the Controls test is presented in Table 66. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.03377 was obtained which was not significant. 111 Table 66 Severity by Module 1 (CROSSTABULATIOR or savaaifi 11 112312) ITEH 12 COUNT I RON PCT I ROW COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I SEVERITY I I I 1 I 32 I 16 I 66 I 69.6 I 30.6 1 36.3 I 33.3 I 36.8 x I 23.9 I 10.6 I -I I I 2 I 66 I 26 1 88 I 72.7 t 27.3 1 65.7 I 66.7 I 63.2 I I 67.8 I 17.9 1 -I I I COLUMN 96 38 136 TOTAL 71.6 28.6 100.0 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE - 0.03377 HIT" 1 DEGREE 0P FREEDON. SIGNIFICANCE O 0.8562 uuuata n! 8155180 OBSERVATIONS - 307 In Table 67 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by a combination of items 40, 43 and 56 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%- on the HTS test is pre~ 2 sented. A x value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.00066 was obtained which was not significant. Table 67 Severity by nodule 2 (C8055TADULATION 0P SEVERITY DY ITEHlj) ITEH|13 count 1 RON PCT I ROW COL PCT 1 TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I SEVERITT I I I 1 I 38 I 8 I 66 I 82.6 1 17.6 I 36.3 I 33.9 t 36.6 I I 28.6 1 6.0 I -I I 1 2 I 76 1 16 I 88 I 86.1 x 15.9 I 65.7 1 66.1 t 63.6 1 I 55.2 1 10.6 I -I I I COLUIN 112 22 136 TOTAL 83.6 16.6 100.0 coaazcrzo CHI squanc . 0.00066 u1ru 1 orange or rastnon. SICNIPICAflCE - 0-9795 NUMBER or s1551nc onseavartous - 307 112 In Table 68 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by a combination of items 40, 43 and 56 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%— on the Vehicle Capabilities test is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for signi- ficance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.04045 was obtained which was not significant. Table 68 Severity by Module 6 (ClongADULATION or srvaazrr 11 traniz) ITEH116 COUNT I R09 PCT I ROH C01. PCT I TOTAL . TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I ’ SEVERITT I I I 1 I 37 I 9 I 66 I 80.6 I 19.6 I 36.3 I 35.2 I 31.0 I I 27.6 I 6.7 I -1 I I 2 I 68 I 20 I 88 I 77.3 I 22.7 I 65.7 I 66.8 I 69.0 I I 50.7 I 16.9 1 -: I I COLOR! 105 29 136 TOTAL 78.6 21.6 100.0 CORRECTED C31 SQUARE ' 0.06065 HIT“ 1 DEGREE 0E FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE - 0.8606 NUMBER 0? MISSING OBSERVATIONS ' 307 In Table 69 a summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by a combination of items 40, 43 and 56 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%- on the Identification test is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 1.39850 was obtained which was not significant. 113 Table 69 Severity by ”adult 8 (CROSSTABULATION 0F SEVERITY BY ITEHIS) ITETIIS COUNT I RON PCT I 30" COL PCT 1 TOTAL TOT PCT 1 1 I 2 I SEVERITY I I I 1 I 31 I 15 I 66 I 67.6 I 32.6 I 36.3 I 31.0 I 66.1 I 1 23.1 I 11.2 I -1 1 1 2 I 69 I 19 I 88 1 78.6 I 21.6 I 65.7 I 69.0 I 55.9 I I 51.5 I 16.2 I -I I I COLUNN 100 36 136 TOTAL 76.6 25.6 100.0 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE C 1.39850 “IT“ 1 DEGREE OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE C 0.2370 NUHIER OF HISSING OBSERVATIONS C 307 A summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by a combination of items 40, 43 and 56 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 692- on the Evaluation test is presented in Table 70. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 1.53340 was obtained which was not significant. Tab 1e 70 Severity by “Dd“l‘ 1° (CROSSTAEULATION 0F SEVERITY BY ITEN16) [TEN 16 COUNT 1 R0" PCT 1 R0" COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I SEVERITT I I I 1 I 37 I 9 I 66 I 80.6 I 19.6 I 36.3 I 31.9 I 50.0 I I 27.6 I 6.7 I -I I I 2 I 79 I 9 I 88 I 89.8 1 10.2 I 65.7 I 68.1 I 50.0 1 1 59.0 I 6.7 I -1 I I COLUHN 116 18 136 TOTAL 86.6 13.6 100.0 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE C 1.53360 UITH l DEGREE 0F FREEDON. SIGNIFICANCE I 0.2156 ”UMBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS C 307 114 In Table 71 a summary of severity of accident involvement as measured by a combination of items 40, 43 and 56 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%— on the Plan of Action test is presented. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.00374 was obtained which was not significant. Table 71 Severity by nodule 11 (cnossraau1111ox or ssvra111 91 1T2817) ITEN 17 COURT 1 R0" PCT 1 R00 COL PCT 1 TOTAL TOT PCT 1 1 I 2 I SEVERITT I I I 1 I 36 I 10 I 66 I 78.3 I 21.7 I 36.3 I 35.0 I 32.3 I I 26.9 I 7.5 I -1 I I 2 I 67 I 21 I 88' 1 76.1 I 23.9 I 65.7 I 65.0 I 67.7 1 I 50.0 I 15.7 1 -I I I COLD!“ 103 31 136 TOTAL 76.9 23.1 100.0 CORRECTED CHI SQUARE C 0.00376 171T}! 1 DEGREE OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICMCE C 0.9512 NUHBER 0F NISSINC OBSERVATIONS C 307 A summary of the analysis of severity of accident involvement as measured by a combination of items 40, 43 and 56 between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%— on the On-Road Situation test is presented in Table 72. A x2 value of 3.841 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 0.54590 was obtained which was not significant. 115 Table 72 Severity by Module 12 (CROSSTABULATION or savenifffsv 1123131 ITEN18 COUNT 1 R014 PCT I ROW COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 1 SEVERITY I I I 1 I 61 I 5 I 66 I 89.1 I 10.9 I 36.3 I 33.1 I 50.0 I I 30.6 I 3.7 1 -I 1 I 2 I 83 I 5 I 88 I 96.3 I 5.7 I 65.7 1 66.9 I 50.0 I I 61.9 I 3.7 1 -1 I 1 COLUHN 126 10 136 TOTAL 92.5 7.5 100.0 CORRECTED C111 SQUARE C 0.56590 HIT“ 1 DEGREE OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE C 0.6600 NUNBER OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS C 307 Based on the information summarized in Tables 66 through 72 performance on the module tests had no significant effect on the interaction of severity items 40, 43 and 56. On the basis of information summarized in Tables 45 through 72 the null hypothesis (8014) of no significant difference in severity of accident involvement between seniors scoring 70% or better on the DSPC module tests and seniors scoring less than 70% on the DSPC module tests was not rejected. No significant differences were found between personal injury, use of active restraints, property damage or a combination of these elements. ANALYSIS OF TYPE OF ACCIDENT Items45 (location of accident), 46 (type of roadway), 47 (condition of road surface), 48 (time of day), 49 (objects involved), 50 (type of road conditions), 53 (avoidance procedures), and 55 (driver error) were selected to determine if the DSPC respondents experienced a different type of traffic collisions than TC respondents. 116 Tables 73 through 80 summarize the analysis of type of accident involvement by item between students successfully completing courses using the DSPC and students successfully completing courses using the TC. Location of Accident In Table 73 a summary of the analysis of type of accident involve- ment as measured by item 45 (location of accident) between DSPC students and TC students is presented. A x2 value of 14.067 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 9.62975 was obtained which was not significant. Table 73 Location of Accident: Control Group vs. Expsriuntsl Group m at 1m 43) 112343 COURT I ROUPC'II now can PCT I TOTAL IOI PCT I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 3 I 6 I 7 I 8 I SCfiOOL I I I I I I I I I 1 I 333 I 143 I 73 I 176 1 11 1 3 1 7 1 120 1 870 I 38.3 I 16.7 I 8.6 I 20.2 I 1.3 x 0.3 1 0.8 1 13.8 1 56.0 I 59.7 I 58.2 I 32.8 I 54.3 1 52.4 x 42.9 1 63.6 I 49.4 1 I 21.4 I 9.3 I 4.8 I 11.3 1 0.7 1 0.2 x 0.5 1 7.7 I -I I I I I I I I I 2 I 223 I 104 1 67 1 147 1 10 1 4 I 4 1 123 I 684 I 32.9 I 15.2 I 9.8 x 21.3 1 1.3 I 0.6 1 0.6 I 18.0 1 44.0 1 40.3 1 41.8 1 47.2 1 43.3 1 47.6 1 57.1 I 36.4 I 30.6 I x 14.5 1 6.7 1 4.3 1 9.3 x 0.6 1 0.3 I 0.3 I 7.9 I - I I I I COLUHN I 338 I 249 I 142 I 323 I 21 7 11 243 1554 TOTAL 33.9 16.0 9.1 20.8 1.4 0.3 0.7 13.6 100.0 RAH car 5001:: - 9.62973 WITH 7 DEGREES or rnzznon. sxcutrzcaxcz - 0.2105 ms: or mssmc onsmmons - 2470 Type of Roadway A summary of the analysis of type of accident involvement as measured by item 46 (type of roadway) between DSPC students and TC students is presented in Table 74. A x2 value of 14.067 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 3.19320 was 117 obtained which was not significant. Tab 16 74 Typo of Roadway: Control Group vs. Imrinantal Group (CROSSTABUIATION OI" 501651. [T ITD‘146) ITDI46 COUNT I 1109 PCT I 1101! CDT. PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I I I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I 50100!- I I I I I I I I I 1 x 587 z 50 1 80 1 21 1 84 x 19 x 26 1 9 1 876 1 67.0 x 5.7 1 9.1 x 2.4 1 9.6 1 2.2 1 3.0 x 1.0 1 56.2 x 55.6 1 59.5 1 58.4 1 58.3 I 56.0 1 50.0 I 56.5 1 75.0 I 1 37.7 I 3.2 I 5.1 I 1.3 1 5.4 I 1.2 1 1.7 1 0.6 I -I I I I I I I I I 2 I 469 I 3‘ z 57 I 15 1 66 I I9 I 20 I 3 I 653 1 68.7 1 5.0 x 8.3 1 2.2 1 9.7 1 2.8 1 2.9 x 0.4 1 43.: 1 44.4 x 40.5 x 41.6 1 41.7 x 44.0 1 50.0 1 43.5 1 25.0 1 1 30.1 1 2.2 1 3.7 1 1.0 x 4.2 1 1.2 1 1.3 1 0.2 1 -I I I I I I I I-—---~I com 1056 84 137 36 150 38 46 12 1559 m“, 67.7 5.4 8.8 2.3 9.6 2.4 3.0 0.8 100.0 RAH CHI 501m 0 3.19320 VIII 7 0m 0! manna. SICIIFICARC! O 0°36“ mu 0? KISSING OBSERVATIONS I 2465 Condition of Road Surface In Table 75 a summary of the analysis of type of accident involve- ment as measured by item 47 (condition of road surface) between DSPC students and TC students is presented. A x2 value of 11.070 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 2.77294 was obtained which was not significant. 118 T3010 75 Condit1on of Road Surface: Control Group vs. Exorrimcnta1 Group (CROSSTABULATION OF SCHOOL 8T ITEH47) ITEH47 COUNT I ROW PCT I ROU COL PCT 1 TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I SCHOOL I I I I I I I 1 I 491 I 160 I 63 I 101 I 2 I 68 I 885 I 55.5 I 18.1 I 7.1 I 11.4 I 0.2 I 7.7 I 56.0 I 55.6 I 56.5 I 61.8 I 52.6 I 66.7 I 58.7 I I 31.1 I 10.1 I 6.0 I 6.6 I 0.1 I 3.4 I 'I I I I I I I 2 I 392 I 123 I 39 I 91 I 1 I 69 I 695 I 56.6 I 17.7 I 5.6 I 13.1 I 0.1 I 7.1 I 44.0 I 64.6 I 63.5 I 38.2 I 67.6 I 33.3 I 61.3 I I 24.8 I 7.8 I 2.5 I 5.8 I 0.1 I 2.4 I -I I I I I I I COLUMN 883 283 102 192 3 117 1580 TOTAL 55.9 17.9 6.5 12.2 0.2 7.4 100.0 RAH CHI SQUARE ' 2.77294 UITB 5 DEGREES OF FREEDOH. SIGNIFICANCE - 0.8368 8888!! OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS ' 2444 Time of Day In Table 76 a summary of the analysis of type of accident involve- ment as measured by item 48 (time of day) between DSPC students and TC students is presented. A x2 value of 14.067 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 12.03876 was obtained which was not significant. Tabla 76 Tina of Day: Control Group vs. Exparinantal Group M (CROSSTABULATION OF SCHOOL 8T ITEH 48) ITIH68 COUNT I [OH PCT I ’ gay COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I 3 I 6 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I SCHOOL I I I I I I I I ‘—‘I 1 I 119 1 139 I 255 I 135 I 136 I 80 I 21 x 1 I 884 1116 11L7 12m: 1 1L3 1 1L2 x 9m 1 24 1 01 11580 -I I I I I I I I I 2 I 83 I 97 I 170 I 127 I 117 I 83 I 16 I 3 1 694 1 120 1140 1 was 1 1m 1 16$ 1120 1 L0 1 04 x44& 1 41.1 1 41.1 1 40.0 1 48.5 x 46.6 1 50.9 1 40.0 1 75.0 I 1 L: 1 6d 1 HL8 ; m0 1 IA 1 L3 1 m9 1 02 1 . ‘1 I I I I I I I I COLUMN 202 236 425 262 251 163 35 6 1573 ‘ TOTAL 12.0 15.0 26.9 16.6 15.9 10.3 2.2 0.3 100,0 RAH CHI SQUAIE I 12.03876 “IT! 7 DEGREES OF FREEDOH. SIGNIFICANCE ' 0-0993 NURSE! O! MISSING OBSEXVATIOKS - 2446 119 Objects Involved In Table 77 a summary of the analysis of type of accident involve- ment by item 49 (objects involved) between DSPC students and TC students is presented. A x2 value of 14.067 or greater was.needed for signifi- cance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 4.36410 was obtained which was not significant. Table 77 Objects Involved: Control Group vs. Export-onto). Group (cadflfifiu 1"on 6? 'Eéuoot'b'? 1121149) 1132469 comer I 1100 PC! I 1109 001. PC: I mu. m PC: I 1 I 2 I 3 I 6 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 6 I SCHOOL I I I I I I I I I 1 I 509 I 55 I 127 I 6 I 7 I 1 I 116 I 61 I 676 I 56.0 I 6.3 I 14.5 I 0.5 I 0.6 I 0.1 I 13.0 I 6.9 I 55.9 I 56.8 I 59.0 I 51.6 I 66.7 I 53.6 I 50.0 I 57.9 I 51.7 I I 32.4 I 3.5 I 0.1 I 0.3 I 0.6 I 0.1 I 7.3 I 3.9 I -I I I I I I I I I 2 I 367 I 37 I 120 I 2 I 6 I 1 I 63 I 57 I 693 I 55.0 I 5.3 I 17.3 I 0.3 I 0.9 I 0.1 I 12.0 I 0.2 I “-1 1 43.2 1 40.2 I 60.6 1 33.3 I 66.2 I 50.0 I 62.1 I 66.3 I x 26.6 1 2.6 x 7.6 1 0.1 x 0.6 x 0.1 1 5.3 1 3.6 1 -I I I I I I I I I 00m 096 92 267 6 13 2 197 110 1571 ram. 57.0 5.9 15.7 0.6 0.0 0.1 12.5 7 5 100.0 Mi! CHI SQUARE I 4.36410 HIT]! 70mm 0? ram. SIGIITICAICE I 0.7370 mu 0? 11188116 OISEIVATIOIS I 2453 Type of Road Conditions In Table 78 a summary of the analysis of type of accident involve- ment as measured by item 50 (type of road conditions) between DSPC students and TC students is presented. A x2 value of 14.067 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 6.69516 was obtained which was not significant. 120 Table 78 Type of Road Conditions: Control Group vs. Experimental Group (CROSSTAEULATION OF SCHOOL BI ITEHSO) ITEH5O COUNT I IOU PCT I no“ COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 8 I SCHOOL I I I I I I I I I 1 1 284 1 155 1 136 1 56 x 59 1 56 1 64 1 6o 1 B70 1 32.6 1 17.8 1 15.6 1 6.4 1 6.8 1 6.4 1 7.4 1 6.9 1 55.9 I 58.7 I 57.2 I 55.5 I 55.4 I 56.2 1 46.3 I 54.7 I 53.1 I 1 13.2 x 10.0 1 8.7 1 3.6 1 3.8 1 3.6 1 4.1 1 3.9 1 -I I I I I I I I I z z 200 1 116 1 109 1 45 1 46 1 65 1 53 1 53 1 687 1 29.1 1 16.9 1 15.9 1 6.6 I 6.7 1 9.5 1 7.7 1 7.7 1 44.1 I 41.3 I 42.‘ I 4465 I 4446 I ‘30. I 53.7 I 4563 I 4669 I 1 I248 I 7.5 I 7.0 x 2.9 I 3.0 I 4.2 I 3.4 I 3.4 I -1 1 I 1 1 1 COLUMN 484 I 271 245 I 101 I 105 121 117 113 1557 TOTAL 31.1 17.4 15.7 6.5 6.7 7.8 7.5 7.3 100.0 249 ca: 50041: - 6-69516 9113 7 0501225 or rnrznou. sxcxrrrcancr - °~‘613 3033:: or xzsszxc OBSERVATIONS - 2‘67 Avoidance Procedures In Table 79 a summary of the analysis of type of accident involve- ment as measured by item 53 (avoidance procedures) between DSPC students and TC students is presented. A :2 value of 11.070 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 1.66595 was obtained which was not significant. Table 79 Avoidance Procedure: Control Group vs. Experimental Group (CROSSTAEULATION OF SCHOOL DY ITEH53) ITEH53 COUNT I ROH rcr 1 Row COL PCT 1 TOTAL TOT PCT 1 1 1 2 I 3 I 4 I s I 6 1 SCHOOL 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 226 I 60 I 105 I 225 I 56 I 177 I 849 1 26.6 I 7.1 1 12.4 I 26.5 1 6.6 1 20.8 I 55.9 I 55.0 I 53.1 I 58.0 I 56.4 I 54.9 I 57.0 I 1 14.9 I 4.0 I 6.9 I 14.8 1 3.7 1 11.6 I -1 I I I I 1 I 2 1 185 I 53 1 76 1 174 1 46 I 135 1 669 x 27.7 1 7.9 1 11.4 1 26.0 I 6.9 I 20.2 1 44.1 x 45.0 I 46.9 1 42.0 I 43.6 I 45.1 I 43.0 I I 12.2 1 3.5 I 5.0 I 11.5 I 3.0 1 8.8 1 . -1 I I I I I I COLUMN 411 113 181 399 102 312 1518 TOTAL 27.1 7.4 11.9 26.3 6.7 20.6 100.0 RAH CBI SQUARE I 1.66595 WITH 5 DEGREES OF FREEDOM. SIGNIFICANCE - 0.9477 NUHEEE 0P MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 2506 121 Driver Error In Table 80 a summary of the analysis of type of accident involvement as measured by item 53 (driver error) between DSPC students and TC students is presented. A x2 value of 14.067 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 15.13489 was obtained which was significant at the .05 level. Table 60 Driver Error: Control Group ve. Experimental Group (m III-3133) 1113155 COUNT I 11014 PCT I 1109 C01. PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 6 I 5‘31“"- I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I 307 I 147 I 62 I 40 I 20 I 6 I 123 I 132 I 637 I 36.7 1 17.6 1 7.4 1 4.6 1 2.4 1 0.7 1 14.7 x 15.6 x 55.6 1 53.6 x 63.9 1 56.9 x 63.5 1 55. 6 1 37. 5 1 49.6 1 56.1 1 1 20.5 1 9.6 1 4.1 1 2.7 1 1.3 1 0.4 x 6.2 1 6.6 I -I I I 1 I I I I I z 1 266 x 63 I 47 x 23 1 ' 16 1 10 1 224 I 95 1 664 I 40.1 1 12.5 I 7.1 I 3.5 1 2.4 I 1.5 1 16.7 I 14.3 1 44.2 I 46.4 1 36.1 I 43.1 I 36.5 x 44.4 I 62.5 1 50.2 I 41.9 1 I 17.7 I 5.5 I 3.1 1 1.5 I 1.1 I 0.7 1 6.3 I 6.3 1 - I I I I cmmm 1 n3 1 no I 1091 63 I 36 16 uJ u7 um. mu 36.2 15.3 7.3 4.2 2.4 1.1 16.5 15.1 100.0 MB C31 SQUARE .- 15.13469 "IT! 7 0m 0! ram. SIGNING“! - 0-0393 nunnrr or 5165130 cassavarrous - 2523 Q 0n the basis of information summarized in Tables 73 through 79 there was no significant difference between the DSPC students and TC students in type of accident involvement as measured by location of accident, type of roadway, condition of road surface, time of day, objects involved, type of road conditions and avoidance procedures. 0n the basis of information summarized in Table 80 there was a signifi- cant difference between the DSPC students and the TC students with re- gard to driver error. Based on information summarized in Table 80 the null hypothesis (H015) of no significant difference in type of 122 accident involvement based on location of accident, type of roadway, condition of road surface, time of day, objects involved, type of road conditions, avoidance procedures and driver errors made between seniors successfully completing driver education courses using the DSPC and seniors successfully completing driver education courses using the TC was rejected. DRIVING EXPERIENCE Tables 81 through 86 summarize the analysis of driving experience between students successfully completing driver education courses using the DSPC and students successfully completing driver education courses using the TC. In Table 81 a summary of the analysis of driving experience as measured by item 23 (time between completing driver education and receiving a driver's license) between students successfully completing courses using the DSPC and students successfully completing courses using the TC is presented. A x2 value of 14.067 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 7.66214 was obtained which was not significant. Based on the information summarized in Table 81 there was no significant difference between groups based on time between completing driver education and receiving a driver's license. 123 Table 61 Time Between Completing Driver Education and Receiving a Driver's License: Control Group vs. Experimental Group (CROSSTABUIATION OF SCHOOL BY ITEH23) COUNT I ITBTZ3 sow PCT I 809 C01. PCT I TOTAL 113T PCT I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 6 I SCI-1001. I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1656 l 250 1 67 1 23 1 12 1 12 x 7 1 7 1 2054 I 80.6 1 12.2 1 4.2 t 1.1 1 0.6 1 0.6 1 0.3 1 0.3 1 52.0 I 51.5 I 56.3 I 50.3 I 53.5 1 66.7 x 57.1 1 41.2 1 36.9 x I 41.9 1 6.3 1 2.2 x 0.6 x 0.3 1 0.3 1 0.2 x 0.2 1 -I I I I I I I I I 2 1 1559 1 194 1 86 x 20 x 6 x 9 1 10 I 11 x 1695 1 62.3 I 10.2 I 4.5 I 1.1 1 0.3 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.6 x 48.0 I 46.5 I 43.7 I 49.7 I 46.5 1 33.3 I 42.9 I 56.6 I 61.1 x 1 39.5 I 4.9 1 2.2 1 0.5 1 0.2 I 0.2 I 0.3 1 0.3 I -I I I I I I I I I COLUMN 3215 444 173 43 18 21 17 16 3949 TOTAL 61.4 11.2 4.4 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 100.0 RAH CHI $064166 - 7.66214 HITS 7 0666166 0? mm SIGNIFICMCC: I 0.3633 N11316:! OF HISSIM OBSZIVATIORS - 75 In Table 82 a summary of the analysis of driving experience as measured by item 24 (length of time licensed to drive) between students successfully completing courses using the DSPC and students success- fully completing courses using the TC is presented. A x2 value of 14.067 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 2.31238 was obtained which was not significant. 0n the basis of the information summarized in Table 82 then was no significant dif- ference between groups based on length of time licensed to drive. Table 62 Length of Time Licensed to Drive: Control Group vs. Experimental Group (CROSSTABUUTION OF SCHOOL BY ITDI24) ITD124 COUNT I 60" PCT I m COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 6 I SCHOOL I I I I I I I I I 1 I 76 I 161 I 439 I .790 I 464 I 62 1 21 1 6 x 2063 I 3.8 I 6.6 I 21.3 I 36.3 I 22.5 I 4.0 1 1.0 x 0.4 I 52.0 I 52.0 I 52.6 I 50.7 I 53.1 1 51.6 1 46.6 I 53.8 1 57.1 I I 2.0 I 4.6 I 11.1 1 19.9 1 11.7 1 2.1 I 0.5 I 0.2 I -I I I I I I I I I 2 I 72 I 163 1 427 1 696 I 436 I 66 I 16 I 6 I 1906 I 3.6 I 8.6 I 22.4 I 36.6 1 22.9 I 4.5 I 0.9 I 0.3 I 48.0 1 46.0 1 47.4 I 49.3 I 46.9 1 46.4 I 51.2 I 46.2 I 42.9 I 1 1.6 I 4.1 1 10.8 I 17.6 I 11.0 I 2.2 I 0.5 I 0.2 I -I I I I I I I I I COLLIER 150 344 866 1466 900 166 39 14 3969 TOTAL 3.8 6.7 21.8 37.5 22.7 4.2 1.0 0.4 100.0 3411 CHI SQUAII ' 2.31236 VIII! 7 DEGREES 0? mm. SIGNIFICARC! ' 0-9406 sums 01' XISSINC OBSERVATIONS II 55 124 In Table 83 a summary of the analysis of driving experience as measured by item 28 (age at time of licensing) between students success- fully completing courses using the DSPC and students successfully completing courses using the TC is presented. A xz‘value of 11.070 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 7.49622 was obtained which was not significant. Based on the above findings there was no significant difference between groups based on age at time of licensing. Table 63 Age at Time of Licensing: Control Group vs. Experimental Group (CROSSTABULATIOU or SCHOOL 6! 152326) xrtnza ‘ counr 1 now per 1 now con PCT 1 TOTAL tor rt: 1 1 I 2 1 3 1 1 1 s 1 6 1 SCHOOL 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1499 1 390 z 118 1 30 1 27 1 6 1 2072 x 72.3 r 16.6 1 3.7 1 1.6 1 1.3 1 0.3 1 32.1 1 53.4 1 46.6 1 50.0 1 30.0 1 45.0 1 30.0 1 1 37.7 1 9.6 1 3.0 1 0.6 x 0.7 1 0.2 1 -1 1 1 1 I 1 1 z 1 1309 1 409 1 116 1 30 1 33 x 9 1 1908 1 66.6 1 21.4 1 6.2 1 1.6 1 1.7 1 0.3 1 47.9 1 46.6 1 31.2 1 50.0 x 30.0 1 53.0 1 30.0 1 1 32.9 x 10.3 1 3.0 1 0.6 1 0.6 1 0.2 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 cotcnn 2806 799 236 60 6o 17 3960 r0121 70.6 20.1 5.9 1.3 1.3 0.1 100.0 RAH CHI SQUARE - 7.49622 UITH 5 0663623 0' 6122008. SIGflIFICAICZ O 0.2774 NUHBEK OF MISSING OBSERVATIONS - 44 In Table 84 a summary of the analysis of driving experience as measured by item 33 (amount of time spent driving during an average week) between students successfully completing courses using the DSPC and students successfully completing courses using the TC is presented. A x2 value of 14.067 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 4.06384 was obtained which.was not significant. 0n the basis of information summarized in Table 84 there was no 125 significant difference between groups based on amount of time spent driving during an average week. Table 84 Time Spent Driving During Average Heels: Control Group vs. Experimental Group (CROSSTAIUIATION OF SCHOOL BY ITDI33) ITEHJ3 COUNT I IOU PCT I 60" COL PCT 1 mun. TOT PCT I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 1 6 1 SCROOL I 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I 356 I 546 I 407 I 297 I 203 x 116 I 76 1 63 1 2066 I 17.2 I 26.5 I 19.7 I 14.4 I, 9.6 I 5.7 l 3.7 I 3.0 1 52.0 I 51.0 I 51.4 I 50.9 I 54.7 I 53.3 I 49.6 I 54.7 1 55.3 x I 6.9 I 13.6 I 10 2 I 7.5 I 5.1 I 3.0 1 1.9 l 1.6 I -1 I I I I I 1 I I 2 I 342 I 516 1 392 I 246 I 176 I 120 I 63 I 51 I 1910 I 17.9 I 27.1 I 20.5 I 12.9 I 9.3 I 6.3 I 3.3 I 2.7 I 46.0 1 49.0 I 46.6 I 49.1 I 45.3 I. 46.7 I 50.4 I 45.3 1 44.7 I I 6.6 I 13.0 I 9.9 I 6.2 I, 4.5 I 3.0 I 1.6 I 1.3 I —1 I I I I I I 1 1 COLUHI 696 1066 799 543 361 236 139 114 3976 ' TOTAL 17.5 26.6 20.1 13.7 9.6 6.0 .5 2.9 100.0 IAN CHI SQUAII - 4.06364 "TIE 7 0608623 0? P656003. SIGNIFICANCE - 0.7724 uuustn 0P MISSING OBSEIVATIOUS I 46 In Table 85 a summary of the analysis of driving experience as measured by item 34 (average miles driver per month) between students successfully completing courses using the DSPC and students successfully completing courses using the TC is presented. A x2 value of 14.067 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 7.21395 was obtained which was not significant. Based on the findings summarized in Table 85 there was no significant difference between groups based on average miles driver per month. 126 Table 65 Hilee Driven Per Month: Control Group ve. Experimental Group WWII-3134) 173134 COUNT I now PC! I R0" C01. PCT I NIH- ‘1'0‘1’ PC? I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 6 I 50100!- I I I I I I I z I 1 I 263 I 362 I 256 I 271 I 213 I 190 I 257 I 232 I 2046 I 12.9 I 17.7 I 12.6 I 13.2 I 10.4 I 9.3 I 12.6 I 11.3 I 51.6 I 52.6 I 52.2 I 51.6 I 51.4 I 54.3 I 46.5 I 55.2 I 46.4 I I 6.7 I 9.2 I 6.5 I 6.9 I 5.4 I 4.6 I 6.5 I 5.9 I -I I I I I I I I I 2 I 237 I 332 I 240 I 256 I 179 I 202 I 209 I 247 I 1902 I 12.5 I 17.5 I 12.6 I 13.5 I 9.4 I 10.6 I 11.0 I 13.0 I 46.2 I 47.4 I 47.6 I 46.2 I 46.6 I 45.7 I 51.5 I 44.6 I 51.6 I I 6.0 I 6.4 I 6.1 I 6.5 I 4.5 I 5.1 I 5.3 I 6.3 I -I I I I I I I I I COLUMN 500 694 496 527 392 392 466 479 3946 TOTAL 12.7 17.6 12.6 13.3 9.9 9.9 11.6 12.1 100.0 BAH CHI SQUARE - 7.21395 VIII! 7 DEGREES 0? mm. SIGIIPICAICI - 0. 6070 mu 0? nzssmc OISIIVA‘IIONS I 76 In Table 86 a summary of the analysis of driving experience as measured by item 35 (number of miles driven in last 12 months) between subjects successfully completing courses using the DSPC and students successfully completing courses using the TC is presented. A.x2 value of 14.067 or greater was needed for significance at the .05 level. A x2 value of 8.69939 was obtained which was not significant. On the basis of information summarized in Table 86 there was no significant difference between groups based on number of miles driven during the last twelve months. 127 Table 66 Number of Hilea Driven Laet 12 Honthe: Control Group ve. Experi-ental Group (CROSSIABULAIION OF SCHOOL 6? 11151135) IIEHJS .I 1 60" PCT I 60" COL PCT I TOTAL IOI PCT I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I 6 I I I I I I I SCHOOL 1 I 413 I 336 I 265 I 226 I 160 I 177 I 120 I 303 I 2020 I 20.4 I 16.6 I 13.1 I 11.2 I 6.9 I 6.6 I 5.9 I 15.0 I 51.6 1 51.6 1 49.1 I 46.4 1 33.1 1 54.7 1 53.5 1 91.9 1 99.1 1 I 10.6 I 6.6 I 6.6 I 5.6 I 4.6 I 4.5 I 3.1 I 7.6 I -I I I I I I I I I 2 I 366 I 349 I 262 I 200 I 149 ‘I 154 I 111 I 247 I 1660 I 20.6 I 16.6 I 13.0 1 10.6 1 7.9 ‘1 3.2 1 9.9 1 19.1 1 43.2 I 46.4 I 50.9 I 51.6 I 46.9 I 45.3 I 46.5 I 46.1 I 44.9 I I 9e, I .e’ I 7.2 I Sal I 3e. x 3e, 1 24. 1 ‘e3 1 ‘I I I I I I I I I COLUHN 601 665 547 426 329 331 231 550 3900 r0111 20.: 17.6 14.0 10.9 .4 9.9 9.9 14.1 100.0 nu c111 scum - 6.69939 um 7 atoms or rm sxcurxcmcz - 0-2750 HUN!!! 0? MISSING OISZIVATIOIS - 12‘ Based on information summarized in Tables 81 through 86 there was no significant difference between the DSPC students and the TC students with regard to driving experience as measured by: 1. time between completing driver education and receiving a driver's license, 2. length of time licensed to drive, 3. age at time of licensing, 4. amount of time spent driving during an average week, - 5. average miles driven per month, and 6. number of miles driven during the last twelve months. SUMMARY Statistical analysis of the data revealed: 1. There was a significant difference in accident involvement between students in the experimental group (DSPC) and students in the control group (TC) at the .05 level of significance (t - 3.84). Students in the experimental group had significantly fewer accidents than students in the control group. 128 2. There was a significant difference in severity of accident involve- ment between students in the experimental group and students in the control group with regard to use of active restraints at the .05 level of significance (2:2 - 7.67822). Students in the experimental group involved in accidents wore restraint systems significantly more often than students in the control group. There was no significant difference between groups with regard to extent of personal injury, amount of prop- erty damage and/or a combination of personal injury, use of restraints and property damage. 3. There was a significant difference in accident involvement between female students in the experimental group and female students in the control group at the .05 level of significance (t - 2.33). Students in the experimental group had significantly fewer accidents than students in the control group. 4. There was no significant difference in severity of accident involve- ment between female students in the experimental group and female students in the control group with regard to extent of personal injury sustained, use of active restraint systems, amount of property damage and/or a combination of these factors. 5. There was a significant difference in accident involvement between male students in the experimental group and male students in the control group at the .05 level of significance (t - 3.09). Male students in the experimental group had significantly fewer accidents than male students in the control group. 6. There was a significant difference in severity of accident involve- ment between male students in the experimental group and male students 129 in the control group with regard to use of active restraints at the .05 level of significance (x2 I 7.20283). Male students in the experimental group involved in accidents wore restraint systems significantly more often than male students in the control group. There was no significant difference between groups with regard to extent of personal injury, amount of property damage and/or a combination of personal injury, use of restraints and property damage. 7. There was a significant difference in accident involvement between male students (experimental and control groups) and female students (experimental and control groups) at the .05 level of significance (t - 8.29). Female students had significantly fewer accidents than male students. 8. There was a significant difference in severity of accident involve- ment between male students (experimental and control groups) and female students (experimental and control groups) with regard to property damage at the .05 level of significance (x2 - 9.83915). Female students involved in accidents had significantly less property damage done than male students involved in accidents. There was no significant difference between male and female students with regard to extent of personal injury, use of restraints and/or a combination of personal injury, use of restraints and property damage. 9. There was a significant difference in accident involvement between the various types of driver education programs (Z-phase, 3-phase range, 3-phase simulation and 4-phase), experimental and control groups combined. Specifically: a) students involved in 3-phase simulation programs had significantly fewer accidents at the .05 level of signifi- cance (t - 5.46) than students involved in 2-phase programs and b) 130 students involved in 3-phase simulation programs had significantly fewer accidents at the .05 level of significance (t - -2.31) than students involved in 4-phase programs. There was no significant difference between students involved in 2-phase programs compared with students in 3-phase range programs, students involved in 2-phase programs compared with students in 4-phase programs or students in 3-phase range programs compared with students involved in 3-phase simulation or 4-phase programs. 10. There was no significant difference between the various types of driver education programs with regard to severity of accident involve- ment as measured by extent of personal injury, use of active restraint systems, amount of property damage and/or a combination of the three. 11. There was a significant difference in accident involvement between students (experimental and control) based on the types of community. Specifically: a) students living in urban communities had significantly more. accidents at the .05 level of significance (t - 2.87) than students living in suburban communities; b) students living in urban communities had significantly fewer accidents at the .05 level of sig- nificance (t - -3.22) than students living in rural communities; and c) students living in suburban communities had significantly fewer accidents at the .05 level of significance (t - -6.20) than students living in rural communities. 12. There was a significant difference in severity of accident involve- ment with regard to use of active restraint systems between the various types of communities at the .05 level of significance (x2 - 8.49806). Students living in urban and suburban communities involved in accidents wore restraint systems more often than students living in rural commun- ities. There was no significant difference between students living in 131 various types of communities with regard to extent of personal injury, property damage and/or a combination of personal injury, use of restraint systems and property damage. 13. There was a significant difference in accident involvement between students scoring 702+ (experimental group) and students scoring 69%- (experimental group) on the On-Road Situation test at the .05 level of significance (t - 2.41). There was no significant difference in accident involvement between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%- on module tests 1 - Controls, 2 - HTS, 4 - Vehicle Capabilities, 8 - Identification, 10 - Evaluation and 11 - Plan of Action. 14. There was no significant difference in severity of accident involve- ment between students scoring 702+ and students scoring 69%— on any of the module tests with regard to extent of personal injury, use of active restraint systems, amount of property damage and/or a combination of the three. 15. There was a significant difference in type of accident involvement between students in the experimental group and students in the control group with regard to "driver error made" at the .05 level of significance 2 a 15.13489). There was no significant difference in type of accident (x involvement between students in the experimental group and students in the control group with regard to a) location of accident, b) type of roadway, c) conditions of roadway, d) time of day, e) type of road conditions and f) avoidance procedures made. 16. There was no significant difference in driving experience between students in the experimental group and students in the control group with regard to a) time between completing driver education and receiving a driver's license, b) length of time licensed to drive, c) age at time 132 of licensing, d) amount of time spent driving during an average week, e) average miles driven per month or f) number of miles driven during the last twelve months. A summary of the findings of this study is presented in Figure FIGURE 2 PICTORIAL ANALYSIS of RESULTS I I Calculated I Critical Value' I Null I Statistical I Value of I of I Hypothesis I Test I Signiticance I Test Statistic I Decision HO 1 t I “.960 I 3.86 I Reject l I 2 I I I no, I I I 3.861 I 7.678" I Reject ' I I I I no I t x $1.960 I 2.33 I Reject 3 I e I I I H0, I X' 1 3.841 I I.09S‘** I Fall to Reject '0 I I I I HO 1 t 1 $1.960 I 3.09 I Reject 5 I 2 I I I H06 I X I 3.8hl I 7.203" I Reject _ I I I I H0 I t : tI.960 I 8.29 I Reject 7 I I I I no I :2 I 3.861 I 9.839" I Reject 8 I I I I no. 1 t z $1.960 I 5.66-O I Reject , I I I I HO I 12 I 7.815 I 5.506... I Fail to Reject IO I I I I no I t I 21.960 I -6.20“ I Reject 11 I I I I HO I 32 I 5.199 I 8.498" I Reject I2 . I I I I H0 I t I 21.960 I 2.h2*' I Reject ‘3 I I I I 30“ I X2 I 3.861 I 0.566... I Fail to Reject I I I I no15 z xz : 16.067 I 15.135~- x Reject *ALPHA LEVEL - .05 Has used to determine the critical value of each hypothesis. nSeveral checks were conducted of which one or more were significant at the .05 level. '*'Several checks were conducted of which none were significant at the .05 level. In Chapter 5, the summary, conclusions, discussion will be presented. recommendations and Chapter 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISCUSSION SUMMARY The central purpose of this study was to examine the relation- ship between a specific driver performance curriculum and motor vehicle accident involvement among novice drivers. A secondary purpose of the study was to examine the feasibility of using a self-reporting accident survey as a measure of driver performance. A review of the literature indicated that: (1) there were numerous studies conducted in an attempt to evaluate driver education as an effective accident countermeasure; (2) the quality of research in most of the studies was inadequate; (3) the most common variable for program evaluation was accident involvement; (4) the most common criterion used to evaluate accident involvement was official driving records; (5) official driving records were a poor criterion for program improvement and evaluation and (6) self-reporting accident surveys represented a viable alternative to use of official accident records. The Illinois Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum (DSPC) was developed as part of a four year curriculum development project funded by the Illinois Department of Transportation and sponsored by the Illinois Office of Education. 133 134 The goal of the project was twofold: to provide assistance to public schools in Illinois in the implementation of the new state curriculum guide (Driver Education for Illinois Youth, 1972) and to provide the Illinois Office of Education with methods and data for eval- uating the effectiveness of driver education programs in producing competent and responsible users of the highway transportation system. (27) The demonstration—satellite schools selected to participate in the project were selected on the basis of their interest, staff qualifications and program organization. The role of the demonstration-satellite schools was to implement the instructional materials into their individual programs, identify strengths and weaknesses of the materials, make recommendations for revision and assist in the collection of data for curriculum evaluation. Due to a time lag between development, implementation and revision of the curriculum, the project came to an end before any statistical analysis could be done on those demonstration-satellite schools which utilized all thirteen modules. Of special significance to this study was the fact that of the fifty-seven schools involved in the project during the four year time span (1972-1976) only twelve schools during the 1975-76 school year were provided with the thirteen finalized modules identified as key modules to the project. The sample population consisted of 4024 seniors drawn from twenty-four high schools in Illinois who graduated in the Spring of 1978 and who had successfully completed driver education during the 1975-76 school year within the school from which they graduated. 135 The twenty-four schools involved in the study consisted of twelve schools (experimental group) which was participated in the utilization of the Demonstration-Satellite Performance Curriculum (DSPC) during the 1975-76 school year and twelve schools (control group) which had not participated in the utilization of the DSPC during the 1975-76 school year. The control group was matched to the experimental group based on the following criteria: (1) Type of program, (2) Educational make-up, (3) Insurance rating tables, (4) Enforcement Index and (5) City size and location. In addition, the control group schools had to have their course curriculum tied directly to the textbook used in that school, with no additional resources used to set program objectives and/or course objectives. During the Spring of 1978 pre-graduation exercises, the students were asked to respond to the Driver Education Evaluation Survey. The data collected on the survey consisted of the students' responses to the best choice in three or more of the following five categories: (1) Suggestions for Improving Driver Education Courses, (2) Driving Experience, (3) Collision Experience, (4) Severity of Collision Experience and (5) Type of Crash. Students not involved in collisions would not respond to items in category 4 or 5. The data collected from responses to the survey and tabulated on IBM data cards were analyzed using parametric and non-parametric statistical procedures. Specifically, a parametric t-test was per- formed on all items dealing with accident involvement and a non-parametric Chi-square test was used for all items dealing with severity of accident 136 involvement. The analysis to be reported on was performed with the use of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. The major findings of the study were: 1. Students exposed to the DSPC had significantly fewer accidents than students exposed to the TC. This difference was significant for both males and females. 2. There was no significant relationship between students exposed to the DSPC and students exposed to the TC with regard to severity of accident involvement, however, male students exposed to the DSPC were active restrains more often than male students exposed to the TC. 3. Female students (experimental and control combined) had significantly fewer accidents than male students (experimental and control combined) and experienced significantly less property damage than male students. 4. Students exposed to 3—phase simulation had significantly fewer accidents than students exposed to Z—phase or 4-phase programs. No significant differences were found between 2-phase and 3-phase range, 2-phase and 4-phase, 3-phase range and 3-phase simulation, or 3-phase range and 4-phase programs. There was no relationship between severity of accident involvement and type of program. 5. Students living in suburban communities had significantly fewer accidents than students living in either urban or rural communities and students living in urban communities had significantly fewer accidents than students living in rural communities. There was no relationship between type of community and severity of accident involvement, however, students living in urban and suburban communities wore active restraints 137 more than students in rural communities. 6. There was no relationship between high (702+) and low (69%-) scores on the knowledge tests and accident frequency or severity. Students scoring 7OZ+ on the On-Road Test, however, had significantly fewer accidents than students scoring 692-. 7. There was a significant difference in type of accident involvement between students in the experimental group and students in the control group with regard to "driver error". There was no difference in type of accident involvement between groups with regard to a) location of accident, b) type of roadway, c) condition of roadway, d) time of day, e) type of road condition, or f) avoidance procedures made. CONCLUSIONS Conclusions based upon the stated purpose of the study, the conditions under which it was conducted and the results of the analysis of the data are as follows: 1. A curriculum can have a favorable influence on the prob- ability of an individual being involved in an accident. 2. The type of community in which a person lives can influence his/her probability of being involved in an accident. 3. The type of program (2-phase, 3-phase range, 3-phase simu- lation, and 4-phase) can influence an individual's prob— ability of being involved in an accident. 4. The DSPC had little influence on the severity of accident involvement for students exposed to it. 5. There is no relationship between high.and low scores on a knowledge test and accident frequency or severity. 6. 138 A self-reporting accident survey can provide reliable information for purposes of curriculum evaluation. RECOMMENDATIONS The following are recommendations based on the findings and onclusions of the study: 1. That the DSPC be implemented into those driver education programs not currently utilizing a performance based curriculum. Costs associated with the implementation of the DSPC would entail a teacher inservice workshop and duplication of curriculum.materials provided by Illinois. These costs would only be slightly higher than those incurred when changing a course text book. That a minimum level of performance be identified for each of the key modules of instruction. That a modified form of the Driver Education Survey be adopted for use in curriculum improvement and program evaluation. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH On the basis of the data from this study, the following are recommendations for further research: 1. A study should be done comparing students exposed to a performance based driver education curriculum with students exposed to a non-performance based curriculum and students not exposed to driver education. 2. 10. 139 A replication of this study using an evenly distributed sample size of Z-phase, 3-phase range, 3-phase simulation and é-phase programs. A replication of this study in a large school district where students could be randomly assigned to treatment groups within the same school. A study should be done to identify and evaluate the severity of accident involvement measures. A followbup study to determine if students exposed to the DSPC continue to experience a reduction in accident involvement over time. A study to be done to evaluate factors influencing active restraint usage. A study to be done to evaluate the feasibility of incor- porating factors influencing active restraint usage into a viable curricular format. A replication of this study using a modified survey tool designed to better evaluate severity of accident involve- ment. Modification of the survey tool should be such that more continuous type data could be obtained. Additional research should be conducted to determine how the concept of "reducing the severity of an accident" can be incorporated into a performance based curriculum. Additional research should be conducted to identify those components of the laboratory phase (behind-the-wheel, range, and simulation) that contribute to reduction in accident involvement and reduction in the severity of accident 140 involvement. 11. Additional research.should be conducted to itdentify minimum levels of performance for each of the key units of the DSPC. DISCUSSION Driving takes place in the Highway Transportation System (HTS) which represents a highly complex system that can be broken down into three highly complex components: (1) Operators (users of the system), (2) Machines (vehicles operated within the system) and (3) Environment (the surroundings within which operators utilize machines). The fact that each of these components is complex and acts and interacts within each of the other components exemplifies the complexity of the HTS. The goal of the HTS is the safe, efficient, economical movement of people and goods from one place to another within the HTS. (27) (35) (42) (56) It is reasonable to expect that as a system, such as the HTS, becomes more complex the chances of system.breakdown (ultimate break- down represented by accidents in the HTS) increase. Over the years a number of countermeasure programs have been instituted in each of the components in an effort to hold down the frequency of accidents. (19) (56) (59) (70) Of special concern, to this study, was oneaccident countermeasure designed to reduce the impact of accidents on America's youth, that of driver education. (44) (70) Driver education was instituted as a countermeasure in the early thirties. It was not until the late sixties however, that research was 141 conducted to evaluate the driving task, so that curriculums could be designed that would provide the youth of America with viable accident avoidance skills. (42) (52) (69) (70) This study represented one of many studies conducted in an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of one component of driver educa- tion, that of curriculum. (44) (70) Specifically, this study attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of one curricular format to determine its potential in reducing the probability of accident involvement. (26) For without answers to questions concerning what type of curriculum is most productive, the field of traffic safety would never be in a position to evaluate the full potential of driver education in the educational setting. (8) (57) (64) For clarity sake, it should be stressed that this study, as with two similar studies, Kansas City (69) and DeKalb County(72), was designed to evaluate curriculum effectiveness not the value of driver education which would involve a far more complex analysis of inter- related factors. (15) (72) The findings of this study pointed to two conclusions of impor; tance. The first dealt with the use of self-reporting surveys as a viable tool in program evaluation. Although there were some problems associated with the evaluation survey used, it provided the researcher with accurate and functional information which would not have been available from any other source. The accuracy of the accident involvement information was important for it not only provided a picture of the motor vehicle accident problem, but also provided information 142 which could be incorporated into curriculum evaluation and change. The second major conc1usion dealt with the question, Can safe driving be taught? Through the conduct of this study, even though no individuals were used for comparison who had not received driver educa- tion,there was strong evidence supporting the conclusion that the type of accident avoidance curriculum an individual is exposed to can affect that individual's probability of being involved in an accident. A number of problems confronted this study. One problem dealt with the survey's check for severity of accident involvement. The study evaluated three measured of severity of involvement, two of which represented post—crash measures and one represented a pre-crash measure. The two posterash measures were: 1) extent of personal injury and 2) amount of property damage. The fact that neither of these measures demonstrated a significant difference between the two types of curriculum raises concern over whether or not the topic is being properly addressed. The pre-crash measure of severity was the use of active restraints. Even though a significant relationship was found between the two curriculums in favor of the performance based curriculum, with regard to this measure, due to an inappropriate placement of the measure in the survey, its true effectiveness or lack of will remain unanswered. This resulted because the item appeared in the section dealing with ac- cident involvement and over half of the students not having had an accident were directed not to respond to this section. Had the item been placed prior to accident involvement a better picture of who was and who was not using active restraints would have been obtained and in turn that information could have been used to make any needed 143 curriculum modifications. Although one of driver educations' prime directives is that of providing individuals with skills that will reduce their probability of being involved in an accident, it is also known that the human component of the HTS is most prone to malfunctions and therefore driver education should also prepare the individual in the art of reducing the consequences of accidents when involvement occurs. Another problem concerning the study dealt with its design. Ideally, it would have been best if the curriculum had been implemented into a random selection of schools and/or in several representative schools in which students would have been randomly assigned to the performance based curriculum or the traditional curriculum. Assignment to no driver education would not have been possible under Illinois' 16-18 year old law. Even though assignment to randomized groups was not possible efforts were made through matching techniques to control for a number of variables considered vital to curriculum evaluation. Both groups received approximately the same number of hours of instruc- tion. Both groups were instructed by similarly prepared instructors. Both groups demonstrated similar driving expereinces (see Tables 81-86). Both groups drove in similar environments. And, both groups were exposed to similar types of program structure. As a result of the matching techniques and sample size employed, the findings of the analysis of data are statistically sound as they relate to schools similar to those found in the study. A final problem dealing with the study was the comparison of Module Test performance and its relationship to accident involvement. Although there were 1927 students involved in the Demonstration- 144 Satellite project, data regarding test performance were only available on 515 students and out of that 515 only 441 were still involved in the schools at the time of the evaluation. With.test information on over 1400 students unavailable, much information was lost which would have aided in the identification of minimum levels of performance and identification of the effectiveness of key units of instruction. In summary, despite the limitations of the study much was learned about: 1) the value of using self-reporting accident surveys as a criteria for program improvement and evaluation, 2) the potential of one curricular format over another in reducing the probability of individuals being involved in an accident and 3) the need for more research to be done to identify under what conditions and at what level of performance a curriculum, like the Illinois Demonstration-Satellite Curriculum, would be most cost effective. BIBLIOGRAPHY 10. 11. 12. BIBLIOGRAPHY Blaisdell, Paul H. "The Relevance of Safety Education in Schools of Tomorrow," National Safety Congress Transactions: School and College Safety, XXIII (1971), (National Safety Congress). Burg, Albert. "The Stability of Driving Records Over Time," Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 2. 1970, pp. 57-65. Campbell, B. J. "Who Really Causes the Accidents?" Traffic Safety Vol. 71, No. 12, December, 1971, pp. 22-24. Campbell, W. G. Form and Style in Thesis Writing. Third Edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969. Conover, W. J. Practical Nonparametric Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971. Coppin, R. S”, et al. The Teenage Driver Report No. 21. Sacramento: State of California, Department of Motor Vehicles, 1965. Counts, J. W. "A Study to Determine the Driving Experience of Youth from Ingham County High Schools During a Thirty-Day Period Between Receiving a Driver Education Certificate and Being Able to Apply for a Michigan Driver's License," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Cushman, W. D. and Meyerhoff, R. A. "Driver Education Update" Today's Education. Vol. 78, No. 1, 1979, pp. 74+. . "Driver Education Attack Backfires on Insurance Group," Journal of Traffic Safety Education. Vol. 25, No. 3. 1978, pp. 7-8. . "A Cheap Shot," Journal of Traffic Safety Education, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1978, pp. 19+. Department of Scientific Research. Research.on Road Safety. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1963, pp. 602. Downie, N. M. and Heath, R. W. Basic Statistical Methods. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1970. 145 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22 23. 24. 25. 146 Driessen, Gerald. "Logical Fallacies in Researcb.on Driver Education," Pre-crash-Factors in Traffic Safety, Salem New Jersey: American Association for Automotive Medicine, 1968, pp. 259-274. Dunlap and Associates, Inc. Driver and Education and Training. Contract Number FH-11-6595 for the National Highway Safety Bureau, United States Department of Transportation, 1969. Dunn, L. W. "Driver Education Evaluation," Journal of Traffic Safety Education. Vol. 24, No. 2, 1977, pp. 13—16. Epperson, W. V. and Peck, R. C. "Questionnaire Response Bias as a Function of Respondent Anonymity," Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol 6, No. 2, 1974, pp. 125-137. Eslander, Sven. "Suggestions for an Improved System for Statistical Data About Road Accidents and Road Traffic," Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol 6, No. 2, 1974 pp. 125-137. Forbes, T. W. "Driver Performance Measurement," Presented at the Committee on Road User Characteristics of the Highway Research Board, washington D.C., January 21, 1974. . Human Factors in Highway Safety Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1972. Goldstein, Leon. "Human Variables in Traffic Accidents: A Digest of Research," Traffic Safety Research Review. March, 1964. pp e 26-29 e Griffith, L. I., et a1. Impediments to the Evaluation of Highway Safety Programs. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina, 1975. Harano, R. M. and Peck, R. C. "The Effectiveness of a Uniform Traffic School Curriculum for Negligent Drivers," Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol 4, 1972, pp. 13-45. Harman, H. H. Evaluation of Driver Education and Training Programs. Washington, D. C.: Highway Research Board, March 1969. Hays, W. L. Statistics for the Social Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973. Hatterick, G. R. and Pain, R. F. "Skill Training for Collision Avoidance," Transportation Research Record # 629. 1977, pp. 68-77. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 147 House, E. G. and Waller, P. F. Driver Improvement Measures: An Evaluation Based on Convictions and Crash Records. Chapel Hill, N. C.: University of North Carolina, 1976. Illinois Office of Education. Driver Education Materials for Illinois Demonstration Center and Satellite Schools, Vol 1. Springfield, Illinois: Office of Education, 1976. International Association of Chiefs of Police. Selective Law Enforcement Vol. 3, Washington: Police Management and Operation Division, 1976. Jones, Margaret. "Measuring the Outcomes of Driver Training: Universityof Southern California Driver Performance Test." Transportation Research Record #629. 1977, pp. 63-67. Kaistuer, N. "Research in Driver Improvement," Traffic Quarterly. Vol. 22, 1968, pp. 497-520. Katz, Allan. "Towards a Methodology of Traffic Safety Measurement and Program Evaluation," Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol 3, 1971, pp. 15-43. Kenel, F. C. "The Effectiveness of the Mann Inventory in Classifying Young Drivers into Behavioral Categories and Its Relationship to Subsequent Driver Performance." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967; Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of Behavioral Records, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964. Kotulak, Ronald. "Driver Training Too Early May Hike Accidents." Chicago, Illinois: Tribune, Midwest ed., December 7, 1977, p. 1. Little, Aurthur D. The State of the Art of Traffic Safety. Cambridge; Little, 1966. Lorenzen, E. F. A Study of Driving Records of California Public School Driver Instruction Teachers. Washington: Automotive Safety Foundation, 1968. Lybrand, W. A. and others. A Study in Evaluation of Driver Education. Washington, D. C.: The American University, July, 1968. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 148 Mager, Robert F. Goal Analysis. New York: Fearon Publishers, 1973. McGuire, F. L. "An Experimental Evaluation of Driver Education in the United States," Unpublished manuscript, University of California, California College of Medicine, 1968. . "The Effects of Qualitatively Different Driver Education Programs on Frequency of Accidents and Violations," Pre-crash Factors in Traffic Safety - 12th Annual Symposium. Salem, New Jersey: American Association for Automotive Medicine, 1968, pp. 246-258. "The Nature of Bias in Official Accident and Violation Records," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57, No. 46. 1973, pp. 300-305. McKnight, A. J. and Hundt, A. G. Driver Education Task Analysis: Instructional Objectives. Alexandria: Human Resources Research Organization, 1971. Merrian-Webster. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merrian, 1972. National Commission on Safety Education. Education Research. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1957. . Summary of Results of Studies Evaluatigg Driver Education. Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1961. 46. National Education Association. History of Driver Education in 47. 48. 49. 50. the United States. Washington: National Education Association, 1966. National Highway Safety Bureau. Highway Safety Program Manual, Driver Education. Washington, D. C.: Department of Transportation, 1969. National Safety Council. Accident Facts 1970 Edition. Chicago, Illinois; National Safety Council, 1970. . Accident Facts 1978 Edition. Chicago, Illinois: National Safety Council, 1978. Neal, J. G. Comparison of Drivinijecords of High School Students in Minnesota with Varying;Degrees of Training over a Five Year Period. St. Paul: Minnesota Department of Education, 1955. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 149 Nie, N. H. and others. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd Edition. New York: McGrawbHill Book Company, 1975. Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Driver Education for Illinois Youth. Springfield, Illinois: Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 1972. Organization for Economic Co—operation and Development (OECD). "Driver Behavior," Road Research. Paris, 1970. Padgett, S. S. and wallet, P. F. The Evaluation of the North Carolina K-9 Traffic Safety Curriculum. Chapel Hills, NC: University of North Carolina, 1975. Peck, R. C., et al. "The Distribution and Predictions of Driver Accident Frequencies," Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 2, 1971, pp. 243-299. President's Task Force on Highway Safety. Mobility Without Mayhem. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1970. Quensel, W. P. "How to Measure Program Effectiveness." Journal of Traffic Safety Education, (April, 1976) 6-7. Rainey, R. V. "Personality Characteristics as a Selective Factor in Driver Education." [Highway Research Board Bulletin 285. National Academy of Science, National Research Council, 1961. Rankin, W. W. "SSMPH. What Happened to Speed, Travel, Accidents and Fuel When the Nation's Motorists Slowed Down?" Highway Users Quarterly, (Fall, 1974) 11-17. Rodell, Michael J. A Comparison of Two Driver Traininngourses 023. Olympia; Department of Motor Vehicles, 1969. Sain, L. W. "A Study of Selected Factors Associated with High School Driver Education Programs in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Schmitt, K. L. "Michigan Driver Education Evaluation Project," Journal of Traffic Safetnyducation.. Vol. 26, No. 2., 1979. pp. 10+. Schuman and Pelz. "Mapping Young Drivers in Behavioral Space." Pre-crash Factors in Traffic Safety. Salem, New Jersey: American Association for Automotive Medicine, 1968. pp. 141—154. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 150 Seals, T. A. "Driver Education - Thirty Years of Progress with Problems," Journal of Traffic Safetnyducation. Vol. 25, No. 4 1978, pp. 7-9. Secretary of State of Illinois. An Appraisal of the High School Driver Education Program. Springfield, Illinois: University of Illinois, 1963. Smith, D. I. "Official Driving Records and Self-Reports as Sources of Accident and Conviction Data for Research Purposes, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 8, 1976, pp. 207-211. State of Wisconsin. Driver Record Study of Buraboo, Reedsburg and Tomach Driver Education Programs. Madison, Wisconsin: Department of Transportation, 1970. Stuart, Thomas W., et al. "An Evaluation of the National Safety Council's Defensive Driving Course in Various States," Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol 6, 1974, pp. 271-297. U.S. Department of Transportation. Safe Performance Curriculum for Secondary School Driver Education. Washington: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1975. U.S. Department of Transportation. The Driver Education Evaluation Program (D.E.E.P.) Study. Washington: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1975. U.S. Department of Transportation. An Evaluation of the Highway Safety Program (DOT HS-802-481). Washington: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1977. Weaver, J. K. "Safe Performance Curriculum Demonstration Project, Journal of Traffic Safety Education. Vol. 25, No. 1., 1977. pp. 29-34. Whittenburg, J. A., et al. Driver Improvement Trainipgfand Evaluation. Final Report (PB 234 078). Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service, June 1974. Witherill, Jerome W. "The Feasibility of Using Selected Student Data Bases for the Assessment and Evaluation of Driver Education Programs in the State of Minnesota," Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. H 151 75. Zylman, Richard. "Drivers' Records: Are They a Valid Measure of Driving Behavior?" Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 4, 1972, pp. 333-349. 76. . "Evaluating Driver and Traffic Safety Education Programs: It May be Tougher Than You Think," JOurnal of Traffic Safety Education, Vol. 21, No. 1, 1973, pp. 7-9. APPENDICES APPENDIX A SUGGESTED SEQUENCE AND NUMBERING SYSTEM FOR.MODULES 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 152 SUGGESTED SEQUENCE AND NUMBERING SYSTEM FOR MODULES TRAFFIC CONTROLS (Episodes 2.1-2) OUR HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (Episode 1.1) BASIC HABITS AND SKILLS FOR CAR CONTROL (Episodes 4.1-2) AUTOMOTIVE CONTROL AND PERFORMANCE CAPABILITIES (Episode 3.1) BASIC MANEUVERS (Episode 4.3) DRIVER ROLE IN HTS (Episode 1.2) TRACTION (Episodes 3.2 and 3.3) THE IDENTIFICATION OF HTS ELEMENTS AND CLUES (Episodes 5.2-3) PERFORMANCE CAPABILITIES OF VARIOUS VEHICLES (Episode 3.4) THE EVALUATION OF HTS SITUATIONS AND HAZARDS (Episodes 6.2-6.3) A PLAN OF ACTION FOR DRIVER DECISIONS (Episodes 7.1-2) PASSING AND MERGING (Episodes 2.3 and 4.3) PARKING (Episodes 2.3 and 4.3) TRIP PLANNING (Episode 7.3) DRIVER CONDITION (Episodes 8.1-8.3) DRINKING AND DRIVING (Episodes 9.1-9.3) DRUGS AND DRIVING (Episodes 9.3 and 9.4) TRAFFIC LAW OBSERVANCE AND ENFORCEMENT (Episodes 10.1-10.3) COLLISIONS AND INSURANCE (Episodes 11.1 and 11.2) TIRE SELECTION AND CARE (Episodes 12.127 and 12.224) VEHICLE MAINTENANCE (Episodes 12.2 and 12.3) ( ) Refers to State Guide, DRIVER EDUCATION FOR ILLINOIS YOUTH. * Modules suggested for local school development. APPENDIX B GUIDES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF WIU/ISU DRIVER EDUCATION SURVEY 153 GUIDES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF HID/ISO DRIVER EDUCATION SURVEY P r High Sghool Seniors School Name I ) - Statements in parentheses are instructions to follow for person administering the survey questionnaire. ' ' - Statements within quotation marks are those to be read aloud to students. Introduction (Hake general announcement) - “Today. you are being asked to fill out a questionnaire on your driving experience. The purpose and need for this information is explained on the first page. . . You may use a pencil or pen . . . Do not begin writing until after the instructions are given. . .' (Pass out survey forms and ask student to read the need and purpose with you) - 'Plesse read to yourself the need and importance to the survey as I read it aloud.’ Instructions 'Now print the date. your name and address. . . ' “Place a v’in the box that identifies your sex.‘ 'Plece a v’in the box that indicates whether you took driver education at this school or another school.‘ 'If any of you did not complete a regular driver education course. leave both boxes for driver education blank.‘ 'Leave the School Code number line blenk.’ 'Leave the Survey Code number line blank." 'Row turn to page two." (Over Please) 154 -2- “Please note that you may check one or more of the items numbered 16-22. All other questions from number 23 on call for the 293 besthhoice. Peel tree to write an explanation of your choice if necessary.‘ (Make a statement as to how the completed forms are to be collected. You may wish to have then collected all at once or have them turned in as they are completed.) 'Begin the questionnaire.” (Collect and Return to Principal) Thank you for your assistance!!! Eric; L. Van Fleet Western Illinois University APPENDIX C DRIVER EDUCATION SURVEY CURRICULUM PROJECT - ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY 155 DRIVER EDUCA‘HON EVALUATION SURVEY Cur-lemma Please! - M Stale 0m Montana-tanned“ hemdtflsmbbmmwflaaehbmhmmmhhmud Illinois.WMMmWMmmmmmhM-m.mmwmeum manna. mmwmndmmmumwmmmmmmmmmuuamsoup mmmmemmmcmmmmmwmmmmdmmuw )ecdvejodothm.weuedbnwmembc.hekhd.esdmfcdmmmcodlhhumsndmeh-nshbnhd sour. ltbmmtaummMMcmmmmwmmuuMAh.theta- tumshonavaflabhauflshmebnuvcybeutflchmhmmmmumyeesrelhsemlyoe- mmmummmmmwmmsqmmmummuumm nahemindrivcmum. mummmmwmuwmwmuymmuamm.bunny.me hemputdyconfidenusisimoemulaabeceueeudteysu anew. mmm-mumumwmmumummmuvmumuw. mmumuwmwwmmuwammmwum Wmhemade. ‘ mammm’ummwwmyummmmmswmmu www.mmmmummmmmmmdmmmmmummm mines-moan. mmmbdp! museum museum-um sumo-mug 1-3 “WWI“. +15 sis? Glecktbeawistebes: Sea: Isle: ruin»: mmmm: autumn: Atamberscbool: 156 ummmm-mnauumdmmmmnumm m , MMWMawa-m. _ltJeMuspsoensedsd _17.Seeh¢hesardsmhne _nOlh-‘(esphmerflue W-mmmmwmmmwmmu—wdmmmu Bush. became-mmxmmummmmmm _nmmmwmwmumummmM? !.up!e4nendm tMDMM treaty-lubwm zlubmm lslsseeatetwentymemdm emmmmm Imam“ twat-anglers)“ _uwmmummmmwmm? Lemme-meal. tonessdhyesrstetweyesn Immenseaadhy-n astound-nan imamasdley-n 4.!lreeamdhyeentetsury-rs loosen-medley” theeedhmtedlseynn __nmaeum¢mdflvinuhpbee? twitch-db.- 4.“.de tends-luminous twin-hanks!” imam-3mm maul-Immanue- twiulsamfl-dbene ems-manhun- _lwwhstunddmncmdeyudemdmw Lemma-smash monument-oval!“ ram-mum!“ imalmleeebumveys 3.ch __.! mwdeyudeMdyu-w !. alone when: ted-n “swoon-hes 1m trends. _Ifiewefluemwbunmygghahfl 2.1444 4.1114 use _m lmwhaeoerbyhmnydflve? !. yore-n irehdv. seam 2.“ cm tech. “nae-mammhdaenwedeuh?(Mymsmldsnandmmdsys! “mama's-ems anneal 5.0mm 3.8-Cm «Mp-rum: _nmmmamamdmw 1. m imam-um Lam immune-n immune _uMMU‘M‘sfieemh-byh wh-dsmdsmdmw hm 4. mum team-meme mall-madman immune _mammmuama—mmm-mmz (Malay-Sud"! 1.4-4m 3.1044me: imbue tubule 1.5-ems twlshmss tan-album 3.3-Chum _umwmmumawdemm-ehM? 1.0-senil- 3. 101-150 miles 5. ant-mo m!!- 7. men miles 2. sum mil- 4. 181-” all. 8. 151-300 mu!- I. ovu- we no. _mmmmmunmmmmudnmee? 1.0-mum!!- inn-mum!!- 5. meta-am!!- [Ml-Mini). 2. l“!-" m 4. ”I“ C. 5“!“ an]. 3. 7M!“ In“. 157 Connie-Experience wnummmtmmmwummmmmm. heave hhnkthoeequuuolmthatdenotapflonyw. _uflwmmoolhfimbnmbfimmdmmuon? tale 4. three I.!'!ve I.seven __37.Hyouhedacollisiomhownenymmmmmmmudymheeomhduelhefw collisionheppened? 1.0-“non!!- 4.!I-!Ilnont!m 124-mm 2.4-smooth 5. 15mm Lumen!!! 3.53m Influence __II ummamm.mmuymmmmmmmenmmmmmv 1.0-Smooth 4.I-!2moodm 7. ”almonds 2.3-smooths sue-um tat-unend- I.I-Imondm I.!s-!I!nont!m __II. uywmdammmmmmmmmmmmmammmmw Loom indium 2.3-emu. ens-mumm- I.I-Ilnonum 7.!I-Iilnontlm 4.9-12m eat-um WyeICelllelenBspefleeee- wemummmmmmmmmnqumm wnulhemmhertlmthotdeeaihoymn- Whhflafihflmfiembonmbc.“ mum mustymauweronropairm. Leeveblankthoeemnmdenoispuyteyou. __..4o.llyouhsdacoflision.hownmoh!ohrywasmued by ya! and anotherindividuslshlvolvedhlmeflrstoolhsion? ”ohm emandmajorinm zation-injury ‘ I.dee!h!noneormae (humanmmmsesmehes! Ininorinfiu-ysnddeethloooeorlmwe Imsjorinjuy 7. nejorinjn-yanddathtoooecmae «mmmmmmwmuw tmmmpmmmugammcm _4!.UyoulmdaeeealdoolMon.howuaaeh!nju-ywas Whyyouandauomerwmintheeeoond 9 “-me ' emandmsjormjury 2.!ninormju'y I.d-thtooneorlnore Mush-injury 7.!najorinmanddeethtoonem'm (mmansneedhesmoh-Juwahssuon) Immandmsjorlnjurysnddeethmonecme _41; Hymhdahbdedhdnhownnehhmwes Whyywadsnotherindimhlnvolvedin hm ' Lnoinm 4.n:inorandmsjorinju-y lanthanum s.des!h!ooneormoee «mum-.mnMumy I.n!norinfimyanddeathboneorm Infirmary 7.!najorinjuysndd-mloaneoflnere (www.mmmm hospitahsahtm tumor-admiormudd-flmmwm _cflywhedaeoflisiaLmywweeflnqyu-ssletylapmmwu? Loosaietyhensavaflahle Immune.” zealotyhehsavanablehetnotworn I.sestandshm|!derheltwun I.eeetbe!tmnly __44. HymhadmaemaaueMmyoumyou-eamy “enamel-shudder! belts? Lwornnrstcolhsion Imornanoollisumm Immanuel! I.wornnoneo(!heoolflsioem I.worn!hirdcoll!sion [dental-Whom 158 TypedCraeh- -Phauwnu!hemmh¢dtheonebatchdcebythequauonmbcinthepropercdunmUsequauonnum- hers4I-ssonh forthcfirstcrash.ueqwshonmmheufl-Ouflyhrdaesecmdauhandunothermmrmem crash. Auquesuoemapplyiohothurhanandruranoads. Leavehlankthosequasuoemthatdonotapplytoyui Firs! Second Crash _57. Third Wheredidthecrashhappen‘.’ !. alum-section I. driveway s. 7. zinhetwealintersecuons 4.parkin¢!o! I.underpase I.noneoflhesa!exp!aim Whuypeotroadway? !. Insight-level 4. straight-hilltop 7. mu 2. straight-uphill I. curve-level I. one-hilltop I. su-aightdownhin I. curve-uphill Condition at road eta-face? !. dry 4. ncy 7. buomaurulonroadway 2. we! 5. oily I. snow-packed I grave! When did crash !. 7 moi-lo an. 4. 4 p.m.-7 pun. 7. llJfl." an. I. no a.m.-! p.111. 5. 7 p.!n.~!o p.111. I. 4 mad am. I. ! p.m.-4 p.111. I. 10 p.!n.-! a.!n. Win! other object was involved? Lanolherxnoviqcar 4 Warm 7.!hedobjecuputuee.etc.) loud or his Imomcycle I. none at these (explain) I. parted vehicle I. an train Boom “and the crash the place? 4. mauleh'anleflside 7. headon zsflchtanueh-olnnchtsue I. Manhunt-fight“ loamoflhaeeteaphin) 3. Mtanfleflolnleflside cud-wipe thmyoumam’ Ltd's which! Ihnecham [merging turning I. [mains moan-hing 3.0mm Ihackina Vlbtmsnauvcwastheothcdnunaflngflhuvebhuunemm-iven 13¢!!!“me I. passing 2. turning smacking 1qu 1m 4.!anechanung Inertia Howdidyouhytoavoidthecrash? 1 MW 4. steerandhrake I. mph-shes 5 !ncroasedspeed Iqmcksteering I.noneoflh.ecerp!a!n! Whimbtakedidtheothardfivermakediany? Leone 5.didnoueesimlsorsi¢m I.spaedtooiastlco~luelm Ididnotuveproparsinal IJailedtoyieH 7. misjudgedd'ntamewspoenaeded tulle-hunches ldldnotseeothercarorpeduu'lan Q Whimiankedidyoumake. “any. s.didnotseesismlsa'si¢m tspeedtoafufluoadim Ididnotgiveplopersigna! I. tailedloyield 7. mbmdgoddistanceorspaoemeded 4Jolloavinnoocloae I.didno!seeomercarorpedastrian Howmmhdamagetomyand-orcanwasdme? LuptoIsoo 4.s!sonosaooo 7. momma» 2. momsnooo amuosmoo taverns“) 3.81m! £08151!) 6.8250110“!!!