This research evaluated the effectiveness of courses run under the National Driver Improvement Scheme (NDIS), which is offered in a number of regions by the police as an alternative to court prosecution for the offence of driving without due care and attention. NDIS courses provide retraining to drivers and consist of taught classroom sessions on driving theory and on-road practical driving under the supervision of an instructor. Courses may be offered to offenders with full driving licenses who satisfy particular criteria and who are prepared to pay the course fee. Failure to complete the NDIS course satisfactorily can result in the driver being prosecuted for the original driving offence. The current evaluation of the effectiveness of NDIS courses involved two studies: 1. a nationwide questionnaire survey of course attendees and a comparison sample at several time points over the course of a year to examine impacts on selfreported driving attitudes and behaviours; and 2. a study of on-road driving behaviour in a sample of course attendees and a comparison sample at several time points over the course of a year to principally examine impacts on non-self-report driving behaviours. In the first study, questionnaires were completed prior to attending a course, immediately after (NDIS group only), and then 6 and 12 months later. The principal dependent variables were scores on the Driver Attitude Questionnaire (DAQ) and the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ). The data offer support for a positive but modest impact of the NDIS intervention compared with controls at six months, which is maintained at 12 months on some attitude measures. In particular, for the DAQ and DBQ error scores, a modest but significant effect of NDIS course attendance on data collected at six months was apparent, although this effect had disappeared by 12 months. For DBQ lapses and DBQ violations, there was a significant effect at both 6 and 12 months. There were few variables which appeared to moderate these effects. The NDIS group self-reported fewer accidents than controls in the first six months following course attendance, although this difference disappeared over the six months afterwards. For self-reported near misses, there was no difference between the NDIS and control groups in the first six months after the course, but NDIS attenders selfreported fewer near misses in the subsequent six months. There were no significant differences in self-reported violations. These effects were not, in general, significantly moderated by demographic, driving or psychological variables. In the second study, questionnaires and an on-road driving safety assessment by a qualified advanced driving instructor were completed prior to attending a course, immediately after the course (NDIS group only), and then 6 and 12 months later. The principal dependent variables were instructor-rated driving safety and selfreported scores on the DAQ and the DBQ. The data from the second study indicated that there were few, if any, effects that could be confidently attributed to attending the course. If the NDIS group data alone were examined, there was evidence that there was an improvement over time in each of the driving instructor rated safety, DAQ, DBQ lapses, DBQ errors, DBQ violations, on-road driving assessment, response latencies, and Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) measures from before to after the intervention. However, when there data were compared with that from the control group, it failed to reveal significantly safer driving in the NDIS group, and this could denote a practice effect rather than an improved driving performance attributable to attendance of the NDIS course. The study failed to observe any significant difference between control and NDIS groups in relation to scores on the DAQ, the DBQ, self-reported accident, self-reported near misses, self-reported violations, attitude response latencies, and TPB measures. As in the first study, none of the relationships examined appeared to be significantly moderated by the demographic and psychological characteristics of the participants. Thus the intervention appears to be equally unsuccessful for all demographic and psychologically-based sub-groups of drivers attending this course. The modest size of the control group in the second study, and the methodological weakness of examining the NDIS group alone, should be noted as important for the interpretation of the findings. The current evidence is broadly consistent with work that has looked at the impact of NDIS courses on subsequent accident involvement and traffic offences (Buckle et al., Pearce, 2005) which found no significant effects on careless driving convictions. Although in the current research we found evidence of a modest improvement in attitudes towards safe driving for those who attend the course compared with a similar control group, we did not find reliable evidence that this translates into improved driving performance on the road. The lack of impact on subsequent accidents and careless driving offences reported by Buckle et al. lends further support to our conclusion that attending NDIS courses has only a modest impact on attitudes, and this is not strong enough to translate into safety gains. Based on the data from our and the Buckle et al. study, modification of NDIS courses in order to improve their effectiveness may be warranted. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting