The DE program evaluated in Oregon in this investigation is administered by the Transportation Safety Division of ODOT and this program is available through both public and private providers. Approximately 30% of teen drivers complete the ODOT-approved DE program.
As part of a larger investigation, two studies were conducted to examine the safety performance of Oregon DE and Non-DE teens in terms of collisions and convictions. In the first study, a sample of teen drivers were surveyed prior to any teen completing the ODOT-approved DE program and their collisions and convictions were compared once they were on a provisional license. A related study used historical records to examine the collisions and convictions of a much larger population of Oregon teens who had and had not completed the ODOT-approved DE program.
6.1. Safety Performance: Survey Participants
This part of the overall investigation examined the safety performance of the ODOT-approved DE program defined in terms of collisions and convictions. The results of logistic regression analysis controlling for other independent variables are consistent with most previous evaluations which consistently report that DE fails to reduce collisions and convictions.
Given these findings, it may be the case, as others have concluded that it is “unrealistic” to expect that DE as now constituted, by itself will improve safety performance measured in terms of fewer collisions and convictions. [
10,
12]. Such a conclusion, however, may not be warranted based on these finding because of study limitations. The sample of teen survey participants was small, less than 5000 teen drivers, and relatively few of them had collisions as determined by official driver records. In this regard Peck [
17], in a review of the literature on the effectiveness of DE, had shown that as many as 35,000 drivers would be required in a two group design to reliably detect a 10% reduction in crashes. The fact that the collision data of the teen survey participants did not fit a Poisson distribution, which is typically the case with count data of uncommon or rare events such as collisions, also suggests that this sample of teens may not have been representative with respect to crash involvement. This may be the case even though the sample was drawn from the population of all teens obtaining a provisional instruction permit over the study period and there was a reasonable response rate with over 40% of these teens participating in the survey. It is also possible that although the regression analysis controlled for key teen attributes, there were unknown biases because other pre-existing factors that differentiate DE from Non-DE teens and influence collision involvement were not included in the model. The study also used “proxy measures” of exposure (e.g., length of time on a provisional license) which may not have accurately captured driving exposure shown in other studies using different “proxy” measures (e.g., vehicle ownership) to be associated with collision involvement [
25,
26].
It is possible that if this study had used a larger sample of teen drivers, tracked their driver record over a longer period of time, and collected self-reported collisions rather than relying on less-frequently reported collisions from official records, the results might have been different. Although the original research design had proposed a longer tracking period as well as capturing self-reported data on collisions, both practical and cost constraints precluded doing so and these are now important limitations of this study, which should be the focus of follow-up research.
6.4. Implications
Previous reviews of the evaluation literature consistently report that DE fails to reduce collisions and convictions. The results of the current evaluation of the ODOT-approved DE program have been mixed. The first study, using a relatively small sample of Oregon teen drivers that controlled for the influences of various teen attributes and crash-related factors, suggests there are no beneficial effects of DE on collisions and convictions. These results, however, should be treated cautiously as they are based on a small sample size which may make them unreliable.
The second study, using a larger sample of Oregon teen drivers and controlling for fewer factors, suggests fewer collisions and convictions. This latter finding is encouraging for DE in Oregon, especially since it is generally consistent with earlier positive findings by Raymond et al. [
27] in a NHTSA-funded evaluation of the Oregon GDL program. It is also consistent with a recent population-based evaluation of DE in Nebraska which also reported positive safety benefits [
20]. However, the findings from this study and the earlier ones should be interpreted cautiously, and not overvalued, in light of study limitations, principal of which is self-selection bias.
On balance, the two studies suggest that at worst, the ODOT-approved DE program is not associated with increased collision involvement, and at best it is associated with a modestly but statistically significant lower incidence of collisions. This suggests that the overall findings on the safety effects of DE are either neutral, based on the results of the first Oregon study, or cautiously optimistic based on the results of the second study.
Traditional DE programs, like the one offered in Oregon, may have had less of an effect than expected for the reasons suggested by Williams et al. [
12]:
- >
The courses generally are of short duration, and most time has to be spent teaching basic vehicle handling skills. This leaves less time to try to teach safe driving skills;
- >
The audience for DE may also be relatively unmotivated regarding safety, the primary motivation being to learn enough to get a driver’s license;
- >
Probably the biggest impediment to DE effectiveness involves the inherent difficulties in affecting lifestyle and developmental factors: the attitudes, motivations, peer influences, and cognitive and decision-making skills that are so influential in shaping driving styles and crash involvement (p. 11).
More recently, Thomas et al. [
10], in a study taking a fresh look at DE in America, have concluded that “the expectation that DE by itself will lead to a decreased teen crash rate is unrealistic.” Although this may hold some merit, the fact is that DE programs have been developed and are marketed not just to teach teens how to drive and pass the road test but also to produce safer drivers, which typically translates to drivers that have lower collision rates. It is possible, however, that the potential safety effects of DE can be more realistically expected if DE is better coordinated with other teen driving safety measures. At least two related-investigations in Denmark point to positive crash effects of coordinating DE and driver license testing criteria [
28,
29]. As well, better integrating DE with GDL, which have proven safety effects may provide a means to achieve greater safety benefits. In this regard, Mayhew et al. [
30,
31] have recommended a comprehensive GDL Framework that involves identification of basic GDL features that have the greatest safety benefits, and reinforcing policies for basic GDL features, including DE, licensing and testing requirements, and in-vehicle monitoring technology.
Other developments that may enhance DE include the Novice Teen Driver Education and Training Administrative Standards which were developed by representatives from the DE professional community with assistance from the NHTSA and published during the period that the present investigation was underway. The Standards document states that: “The goal of DE and training is to transfer knowledge, develop skills, and enhance the disposition of the teen, so he/she can perform as a safe and competent driver, thereby contributing to the reduction of crashes, fatalities, and injuries.” These National Administrative standards also have been updated and expanded to provide guidance as to how traditional DE programs should be substantially restructured to potentially better achieve their safety goals [
32].
Also, the ODOT-approved DE program has recently been assessed by a panel of experts against the initial standards. The brief review of the Oregon program against the national standards provides some basis for understanding how the program could be modified to improve its impact beyond that seen in the current studies. Priority recommendations identified for the Oregon program were, for example: increasing classroom hours from 30 to 45 h; increasing behind-the-wheel instruction from six hours to ten hours; increasing in-car observation from six hours to 10 h; and, requiring second stage education of at least ten hours. As well, the expert panel recommended that the ODOT-Transportation Safety Division (ODOT-TSD) should establish a procedure for providing an end-of-course evaluation or progress report to parents. This end-of-course “debriefing” could be a written student progress report which includes areas of successful completion of safe driving practices and any necessary recommendations for continued practice prior to licensing.
Only a few other jurisdictions have undergone this NHTSA review, including Maryland, Vermont, Delaware, Idaho, and Michigan. Other jurisdictions may benefit from participating in this review process. Jurisdictions in Canada and elsewhere can also use these administrative standards to provide guidance for an internal review of their own DE and training programs to identify workable improvements. While these standards have not yet been proven to result in measurable changes in safety performance, the present investigation makes it clear that major improvements in DE are needed, and the standards provide a direction to start a systematic program of development and evaluation that may lead eventually to substantial safety benefits. Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect that traditional DE will lead to fewer teen crashes, but there is no reason this should not be a goal of improved programs and the focus of future evaluation to determine whether enhancements lead to better outcomes.
Existing DE programs in the United States and Canada may also benefit from developments in other countries. This is especially the case because traditional programs in North America may be too narrowly focused and fail to adequately address wider lifestyle issues which determine how drivers actually behave on the road and not how skilled they are at driving (i.e., what drivers actually do versus what drivers are capable of doing). In this context, the Goals for Driver Education (GDE) principles were originally developed by the European Union in the Guarding Automobile Drivers through Guidance, Education and Technology (GADGET) project [
33,
34]. The GDE Matrix provides a hierarchical schema of the driver’s task, outlining the personal situation within which all drivers undertake driving, including preconditions, attitudes, abilities, demands, decisions and behavior, categorized into four levels: (1) Vehicle maneuvering; (2) Mastery of traffic situations; (3) Goals and context of driving; (4) Goals for life and skills for living. Traditional DE programs in the U.S. and Canada typically focus on levels one and two, and to some extent level three, without any or much focus on the fourth level, despite the fact that these higher levels are likely the major influences on teen driving behavior giving rise to their elevated crash risk. Although applying GDE principles to improve DE makes sense on logical grounds, the safety effects have not yet been evaluated.
Existing DE programs can certainly be improved, while new ones need to adopt practices that are evidence-based. Non-traditional approaches that have been researched and may hold promise to enhance DE include: resilience training to address lifestyle factors; insight training to address optimism bias; TeenSMART, a crash reduction program; RAPT, a risk awareness and perception training program; and the Probationary or “P” Drivers program, which aims to effect behavior change among young newly licensed drivers, currently being evaluated in Australia [
35,
36,
37,
38,
39,
40]. It is equally important that program enhancements are evaluated and new programs piloted to determine the extent to which they meet their stated objectives.