U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

TRAFFIC TECH

Technology Transfer Series

Number 399 November 2010

Driver license tests are designed to ensure that people using

public roadways have a minimum level of driving skill and

an awareness of safe driving practices and road laws. License

applicants proceed through the administrative processes of

their respective licensing agencies, and must take and pass

the actual examinations. In addition to successfully navigating the testing process, young novice drivers also must

adhere to graduated driver licensing (GDL) policies, which

govern driving practice both before and after licensure.

Popular belief holds that license tests of increased difficulty

require more preparation, and that more study and practice

increase knowledge and driving competence, leading to safer

driving.While a logical assumption,the relationship between

testing rigor and safe driving is unclear. This relationship

was explored via contract work, supported by the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The researchers

documented the methods of driving licensure in the United

States, classified the tests by quality and difficulty, and compared States with more rigorous testing to States with less

rigorous testing in terms of teens’ self-reported risky driving

behaviors, teen crashes, suspensions, and convictions. The

researchers also completed a review of licensing exams in

other countries. During this project, Connecticut upgraded

its driver licensing exam, providing an opportunity to conduct a case study to evaluate the impact of the new testing

requirements on teens’ behavior and perceptions.

Driver Licensing Exam Inventory and Analysis

Information about licensing procedures and test requirements was sought from each State (e.g., State-employed executives, administrators, managers, or staff members in each

State’s driver licensing agency) through telephone, e-mail,

or postal mail. Table 1 shows the criteria used to distinguish

States with relatively more or less rigorous licensing exams.

The States selected for analyses were Connecticut, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Tennessee (more difficult); and

Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, and West Virginia (less difficult).

A cross-sectional analysis of Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data determined differences in crash rates among

teens, controlling for the crash experience of older drivers in

each State and State graduated driver licensing (GDL) laws.

The analysis of fatal crash rates found no evidence that the

driver license test by itself had any effect.

Connecticut’s Licensing Exam Upgrade

The Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)

lengthened its knowledge test from 16 to 25 questions and

increased the passing threshold from 75 percent to 80 percent.

The Connecticut DMV conducted surveys with teen drivers

in their licensing offices in fall 2008 before the changes were

enacted, and then again in February 2009, after the changes

had been enacted. There were no strong trends from pre- to

post-changes in Connecticut. The test failure rate was very

low, and it appeared unlikely that merely lengthening the test

had any measurable impact on preparedness for licensure.

Connecticut also changed the number of practice driving

hours for teen drivers from 20 to 40. This change did not

significantly increase the number of self-reported hours of

supervised driving practice. Learners in the 20-hour group

(priorto the law change) spent an average of 32.7 hours pracTable 1. Licensing Requirements and Testing Information

Knowledge Test Components

Whether the test is optional

Number of content areas

Length of test

Scoring criteria

Method of delivery

Number of languages available

Average amount of time to complete

Length of time required before retest

In-Vehicle Test Components

Whether the test is optional

Scoring criteria

Testing environment

Use of personal versus testing vehicle

Availability of interpreters

Average amount of time to complete

Length of time required before retest

Vision Test Components

Whether the test is optional

Level of visual acuity

Visual field perception

Test Failure Rates Not available for all States

Driver License Testing of Young Novice Drivers
TRAFFIC TECH is a publication to disseminate information about

traffic safety programs, including evaluations, innovative programs, and new publications. Feel free to copy it as you wish. If you

would like to receive a copy, contact Angela H. Eichelberger, Ph.D.,

Editor, fax 202-366-7394, e-mail: angela.eichelberger@dot.gov.

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., NTI-132

Washington, DC 20590

tests are generally more difficult than in the United States

and include additional tests to move to the next GDL level.

In 1999, an exit test was introduced in New Zealand to assess

whether drivers should be allowed to graduate from the

restricted phase to full licensing. This exit test is a three-phase

on-road test: Phase 1, basic driving skills; Phase 2, hazard recognition and identification skills in urban areas; and Phase 3,

hazard recognition and identification skills on higher speed

roads, such as highways.

Other countries and jurisdictions have integrated hazard

perception testing within their GDL systems, including New

South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland, South

Australia, Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta.

New tests are a logical accompaniment to GDL systems,

but they have not been a part of the GDL movement in the

United States. International testing regimens may be models for the United States to consider, although they have not

been evaluated to determine the extent to which they alter

the young driver problem through improved driver performance or license delay.

Conclusion

Even though GDL system requirements have changed dramatically, there have been few upgrades in U.S. driving tests,

and overall the tests are poorly correlated with driving performance and safety. Improvements made to the California

test occurred in the early 1990s prior to the GDL movement.

The only test update subsequent to the GDL movement was

a longer knowledge test in Connecticut, which appears to

have had minimal impact. There may be future changes in

testing protocols in the United States, inspired by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators’ recent

recommended uniform testing requirements. More difficult

licensing exams and additional testing between GDL stages

in other countries may serve as models, pending evaluation,

for improved testing in the United States.

How to Order

Download a copy of Driver License Testing of Young Novice 

Drivers (48 pages), prepared by Preusser Research Group

from www.nhtsa.gov, or write to the Office of Behavioral

Safety Research, NHTSA, NTI-130, and 1200 New Jersey

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, fax 202-366-7394. Patty

Ellison-Potter, Ph.D. was the project manager for this study.

ticing; learners in the 40-hour group (after the law change)

spent an average of 33.1 hours.

Connecticut strengthened the penalties associated with GDL

violations. Self-report surveys of license applicants indicated

that most teens affected by the policies were aware of the

changes with two exceptions: (1) teens were least aware of

special penalties for passengers in the vehicles of teen drivers

who are under the GDL law; and (2) many were not aware

that police have the authority to confiscate their license and

vehicle for certain violations. Table 2 indicates the extent

to which surveyed teens thought the police would enforce

these new policies.

An International Review

The testing regimens of the other graduated licensing

countries (New Zealand, Australia, and Canada) were also

reviewed. These countries updated license tests in recent

years as GDL systems were introduced. The revised license

Table 2. Perceived Enforcement of GDL Provisions

Perceived Likelihood of Being Stopped and 

Cited by Police for Cell Phone Violations

Likelihood of Stop 2008 Sample (N=259) 2009 Sample (N=280)

Very Likely 17% 21%

Likely 27% 30%

Somewhat Likely 33% 31%

Unlikely 18% 13%

Very Unlikely 5% 5%

Perceived Likelihood of Being Stopped by Police if 

Violating Night or Passenger Restriction

Likelihood of Stop 2008 Sample (N=259) 2009 Sample (N=279)

Very Likely 17% 12%

Likely 28% 26%

Somewhat Likely 38% 39%

Unlikely 14% 20%

Very Unlikely 4% 3%

If Stopped for Night or Passenger Violation, Perceived Likelihood 

Police Would Take Your License/Seize Your Vehicle

Likelihood of Stop 2008 Sample (N=258) 2009 Sample (279)

Very Likely 31% 22%

Likely 30% 33%

Somewhat Likely 26% 28%

Unlikely 10% 15%

Very Unlikely 2% 3%