Number 367 April 2009

Traffic Safety Facts

Traffic Tech – Technology Transfer Series

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

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Driver education has long been in the forefront of ways to deal 

with the young-driver problem. It enjoys wide popular support and it is generally assumed that driver education graduates are superior drivers. In many States, driver education 

graduates can be licensed at 16, whereas without driver education, 18 is the minimum age. Despite widespread appeal of 

driver education, scientific evaluations indicate that it does 

not produce safer drivers; that is, drivers less likely to be in 

crashes than comparable drivers without formal training.

Given the history of driver education and attempts to conduct valid assessments over the years, the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration reviewed driver education in 

America, and in other countries, critically analyzed numerous evaluations, and conducted a feasibility study of research 

design approaches to evaluate a popular driver education 

curriculum.

Driver Education History

The first known driver education programs were developed 

between 1910 and 1920, but it was not until the 1930s that 

formal courses were actually offered. In 1949, the standard 

formula of 30 hours of classroom instruction and 6 hours 

of behind-the-wheel education was put forward. The early 

growth and popularity of driver education were fueled by 

studies reporting it to be effective in reducing crashes. Many 

of these studies failed to control for differences between students who received the training and those who did not. Later 

studies that took these differences into account did not yield 

positive findings. This led to a period of uncertainty about 

driver education efforts.

The DeKalb Study

In an attempt to reduce this uncertainty, NHTSA embarked 

on a major long-term program to develop and evaluate a 

state-of-the-art driver education program in the late 1970s 

and early 1980s. This resulted in the “Safe Performance Curriculum” (SPC), which involved over 70 hours of instruction allocated between classroom, simulator, closed course 

behind-the-wheel training, and on-road training (some at 

night). The total hours and behind-the-wheel experience far 

exceeded the typical driver education course. A second driver 

education program was also developed and evaluated, the 

“pre-driver licensing curriculum” (PDL) which provided 

minimal training in skills required to pass the licensing test 

(20 hours of classroom and 1 hour of on-road instruction).

The study design was based on random assignment of 

students in DeKalb County, Georgia, to the SPC and PDL 

groups, and a control group receiving no formal education. 

This was an expensive project, costing more than $4 million 

with a large sample size. The assignment procedure resulted 

in 5,464 students in the SPC group, 5,430 in the PDL group, 

and 5,444 controls, for a total of 16,338 students.

The DeKalb data have been analyzed by several sets of 

researchers. Studies based on those assigned to the groups 

report no effects or negative effects. When crashes and violations were analyzed per licensed driver, the results did 

favor driver education in the first months after the courses 

were taken, but not after that. At six months, the mean crash 

rate for both the SPC and the PDL groups was virtually the 

same, and both were lower than the controls. However, these 

comparisons do not provide a valid test of driver education, 

because students were self-selected into the analysis by their 

decisions about when to obtain licenses, a serious research 

design flaw.

Post-DeKalb Studies 

Many studies have been undertaken since the seminal 

DeKalb experiment, using a variety of research designs that 

can be considered for evaluating the new curriculum. These 

include three additional random assignment studies; studies 

in which one type of driver education program is compared 

with another; studies involving statistical matching of nonrandom groups; studies of laws changing driver education 

requirements; and studies of newly introduced driver education programs. With rare exceptions, these studies have 

not found positive effects. Some ways that previous studies 

have evaluated driver education programs are shown in the 

following table.

Driver Education Issues

Although it may be “common sense” to think that driver 

education is the preferred way to learn how to drive, the 

notion that a traditional driver education course by itself can 

produce safer drivers is optimistic. Generally, the courses are 

taught over short periods of time, and most of that time has 

to be spent teaching basic vehicle handling skills. Safety mesEvaluating Driver Education in America
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 Dr. Angela Eichelberger, Editor, fax 

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

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., NTI-130

Washington, DC 20590

sages can be overwhelmed by attitudes, motivations, peer 

influences, and cognitive decision making skills that shape 

driving styles and crash involvement.

Studies have failed to show that driver education courses 

produce safer drivers. If driver education fosters earlier 

licensing, it could lead to additional crashes and injuries 

through greater exposure.

Trends in Driver Education

The 30+6 formula fit the high school curriculum format, and 

for many years, driver education was primarily taken in high 

schools, but that is not the case today. Commercial programs 

are more varied, and developments in computer technology 

have led to changes in the way driver education is delivered. 

These changes feature simulator technology and computerassisted learning, and often involve interactive programs. 

Other countries such as Sweden, Finland, and Australia are 

also trying out new forms of driver education.

Experimental Design Alternatives

The latest version of the American Driver and Traffic Safety 

Education Association (ADTSEA) driver education program, 

one of the more popular programs widely available today, 

expands the formula to 45 hours of classroom and 8 hours 

of driving. The driving segment is still quite limited. It is 

being introduced, somewhat, in States that have graduated 

licensing systems that provide motivation to apply safe driving practices and has a parent component to encourage their 

involvement in supervised driving and in enforcing graduated licensing rules.

Factors to consider when designing an evaluation of the new 

ADTSEA program should gather information on passing 

the driving test, knowledge about driving rules and safety 

issues, safe driving attitudes, on-road skills performance, 

and learner and parent satisfaction with the education, as 

well as crashes and violations. Time to licensure should be 

measured. Ideally, the new program would be introduced in 

a setting in which driver education does not encourage early 

licensure.

There are basically two design alternatives: a random assignment study, as in DeKalb, which is preferable, and some 

variation of a quasi-experimental design. The most likely 

quasi-experimental design candidates involve comparing 

non-random groups across ADTSEA and non-ADTSEA 

schools or communities; a before and after study of ADTSEA schools or communities; or a combination of the two: 

a before-after study involving both ADTSEA and non-ADTSEA programs. 

Presently the ADTSEA program cannot be evaluated because 

it has been utilized in piecemeal fashion. Thus it would be 

necessary to introduce the program systematically in schools 

or communities in a way that facilitates scientific evaluation, 

a difficult task. Large sample sizes would be required that 

increase costs and administrative burdens.

Conclusions

An evaluation of the ADTSEA program is contingent on it 

being introduced in schools and communities so it can be 

evaluated properly. This is not presently the case. Convincing schools or communities to introduce the ADTSEA program in such a way that facilitates a proper research design 

will be a challenge. Evaluating the program will be a highcost venture requiring large sample sizes. Since prior driver 

education program evaluations have found zero effects, or 

even negative effects due to early licensure, the possibility 

of repeating these types of outcomes need to be considered. 

Steps to reduce the earlier licensing effect would need to be 

stringently enforced.

How to Order

To order Feasibility Study on Evaluating Driver Education Curriculum, prepared by Preusser Research Group, write to 

NHTSA, NTI-111, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, fax 202-366-7394 or download from www.nhtsa.

dot.gov. Patty Ellison-Potter, Ph.D., was the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative for this project.

Random 

Assignment

Program 

Comparison

Comparison 

of Non-Random Groups

Introduction 

of New Law

Introduction 

of a New 

Driver Ed. 

Program

Randomly 

assigning 

students to 

treatment 

versus 

control 

groups

Comparing 

students 

who 

completed 

high school 

driver 

education 

with students who 

completed 

commercial 

courses

Comparing 

different 

types of 

driver 

education 

while controlling for 

extraneous 

variables

Pre- and 

post-comparisons 

after a new 

law pertaining to driver 

education 

was 

introduced

Comparisons of teen 

crash rates 

before 

and after 

implementation of a 

new driver 

education 

program