The history and philosophy are reviewed of the driver education movement. A critique of past studies outlines a number of shortcomings in experimental design. Methodological considerations concerning exposure, official records, personality factors, and criteria are discussed. The authors present two original studies, one of which compares trained and non-trained subjects. This study indicates a lack of relationship between accidents, violation frequency, personal injury, or vehicle damage with formal driver training. The second study compared driver trained subjects who had only classroom instructions with subjects who had received classroom instructions, behind-the -wheel training, and simulator training. No difference was found between the two groups on accident frequency or accident severity. The authors maintain that further expansion of high school driver education is contra-indicated pending final evaluation and, more importantly, these studies have demonstrated the authors' conviction that it is in the national interest to critically evaluate all social and educational programs against carefully defined goals. Driver education is considered only one of many programs which require such evaluation. (Author)
Abstract