Problem driver remediation: a meta-analysis of the driver improvement literature.

Abstract Problem : Given the public safety risk posed by violation and crash repeaters and the substantial costs for state driver improvement programs, it is important that their effectiveness be scientifically demonstrated and that intervention programs are based on sound research findings. Method : Crash and traffic violation standardized effect sizes ( d ) representing 106 individual interventions were coded from 35 methodologically sound studies and analyzed using meta-analysis. Results : Driver improvement intervention in general was associated with small but significant reductions in both crashes ( d w = 0.03) and violations ( d w = 0.06). Significant effects were found on both measures for warning letters, group meetings, individual hearings, and license suspense/revocation. Of the driver improvement interventions studied, license suspension/revocation was by far the most effective treatment for both crashes and violations ( d w = 0.11 and 0.19). Since one of the objectives of license suspension/revocation is to eliminate driving for the period of suspension, it is possible that much or all of the effect is due to reduced exposure and/or more careful driving during the suspension interval. Results were mixed for other types of interventions, although distributing educational or informational material was not associated with any reductions. Interventions associated with violation reduction tended to also be associated with crash reduction, although the relationship was not very strong ( r = .30). Discussion : Although interpretation of the effect size estimates was complicated by almost ubiquitous heterogeneity, the results do suggest an overall positive impact of driver improvement interventions in general. Impact on Industry : The results support the continued use of driver improvement interventions, chiefly warning letters, group meetings, individual hearings, and especially license suspension/revocation. The results also suggest that court-triggered traffic violator programs are less effective than interventions triggered by drivers license agencies.

[1]  R C Peck,et al.  CALIFORNIA'S NEGLIGENT OPERATOR TREATMENT PROGRAM EVALUATION SYSTEM, 1976-1995. AN OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS AND PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS , 1995 .

[2]  D Kadell,et al.  POST LICENSING CONTROL REPORTING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM: NEGLIGENT OPERATOR PROGRAM COSTS AND EFFECTIVENESS , 1977 .

[3]  R. M. Harano,et al.  An evaluation of some additional factors influencing the effectiveness of warning letters , 1975 .

[4]  Daniel Kadell,et al.  Traffic safety impacts of the Home Instruction/ Point Reduction Incentive (HI/PRI) program , 1987 .

[5]  N Kaestner,et al.  Accident and violation reduction through brief driver improvement interviews , 1967 .

[6]  M. Aldenderfer,et al.  Cluster Analysis. Sage University Paper Series On Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 07-044 , 1984 .

[7]  P M Salzberg,et al.  EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GOAL SETTING PROGRAM: AN INTERVENTION FOR HIGH RISK DRIVERS , 1985 .

[8]  Raymond C Peck,et al.  Using traffic conviction correlates to identify high accident-risk drivers. , 2003, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[9]  R C Peck,et al.  A re-evaluation of group driver improvement meetings , 1965 .

[10]  A K Lund,et al.  A review of the literature evaluating the Defensive Driving Course. , 1985, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[11]  L. Hedges,et al.  Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis , 1987 .

[12]  Barnie Jones,et al.  Age differences in response to high and low-threat driver improvement warning letters , 1997 .

[13]  Richard F. Beltramini,et al.  Meta-Analysis: Quantitative Methods for Research Synthesis , 1987 .

[14]  R C Peck,et al.  CALIFORNIA'S POST-LICENSING CONTROL REPORTING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM--A SUMMARY OF THE FIRST THREE YEARS OF RESULTS , 1983 .

[15]  A. Mcknight,et al.  THE EFFECT OF LICENSE SUSPENSION UPON DWI RECIDIVISM , 1991 .

[16]  Raymond C. Peck,et al.  THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ACCREDITED TRAFFIC VIOLATOR SCHOOLS IN REDUCING ACCIDENTS AND VIOLATIONS , 1980 .

[17]  W C Marsh,et al.  NEGLIGENT-OPERATOR TREATMENT EVALUATION SYSTEM: PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS REPORT NUMBER 1 , 1985 .

[18]  A K Lund,et al.  Comparative effects of driver improvement programs on crashes and violations. , 1989, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[19]  Raymond C. Peck.  THE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC DETERRENT EFFECTS OF DUI SANCTIONS: A REVIEW OF CALIFORNIA'S EXPERIENCE , 1991 .

[20]  S. Green,et al.  Design of randomized trials. , 2002, Epidemiologic reviews.

[21]  Cheryl Lynn,et al.  AN EVALUATION OF THE IMPACT OF THE VIRGINIA DRIVER IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ON NEGLIGENT DRIVING: 12 MONTH REPORT , 1982 .

[22]  Raymond C. Peck,et al.  THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A UNIFORM TRAFFIC SCHOOL CURRICULUM FOR NEGLIGENT DRIVERS WITH DISCUSSION , 1971 .

[23]  L. Hedges,et al.  Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. , 1998 .

[24]  C Fuchs,et al.  Wisconsin Driver Improvement Program: A treatment-control evaluation , 1980 .

[25]  P A O'Neall,et al.  AN EVALUATION OF TWO GROUP INTERVIEW AND TWO LETTER-CONTACT DRIVER IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS , 1975 .

[26]  R. Bangert-Drowns,et al.  Final results from a meta-analysis of remedial interventions with drink/drive offenders. , 1995, Addiction.

[27]  Clifford J. Helander,et al.  INTERVENTION STRATEGIES FOR ACCIDENT-INVOLVED DRIVERS: AN EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF CURRENT CALIFORNIA POLICY AND ALTERNATIVES , 1984 .

[28]  B Jones,et al.  Age, gender and the effectiveness of high-threat letters: an analysis of Oregon's driver improvement advisory letters. , 1997, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[29]  R E Hagen,et al.  EFFECTIVENESS OF LICENSE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION FOR DRIVERS CONVICTED OF MULTIPLE DRIVING-UNDER-THE-INFLUENCE OFFENSES , 1977 .

[30]  L K Li,et al.  EVALUATION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA HABITUAL OFFENDER LAW , 1976 .

[31]  S A Schupack,et al.  AN EVALUATION OF THE NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL'S DEFENSIVE DRIVING COURSE AS AN ADJUNCT TO HIGH SCHOOL DRIVER EDUCATION PROGRAMS, PART II , 1975 .

[32]  W C Marsh,et al.  EDUCATIONAL APPROACHES TO DRIVER IMPROVEMENT: AN EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION WITH NEGLIGENT DRIVERS , 1978 .

[33]  Barnie Jones,et al.  Oregon's habitual traffic offender program: An evaluation of the effectiveness of license revocation , 1987 .

[34]  R. M. Harano,et al.  AN EVALUATION OF CALIFORNIA'S "GOOD DRIVER" INCENTIVE PROGRAM , 1974 .

[35]  L. Hedges,et al.  The Handbook of Research Synthesis , 1995 .

[36]  N Kaestner.  RESEARCH IN DRIVER IMPROVEMENT - THE STATE OF THE ART , 1968 .

[37]  W C Marsh,et al.  MODIFYING NEGLIGENT DRIVING BEHAVIOR: EVALUATION OF SELECTED DRIVER IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES , 1971 .

[38]  W C Marsh.  NEGLIGENT-OPERATOR TREATMENT EVALUATION SYSTEM: PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS REPORT NUMBER 4 (DETAILED FINDINGS) , 1990 .

[39]  W C Marsh,et al.  NEGLIGENT-OPERATOR TREATMENT EVALUATION SYSTEM. PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS REPORT #7 (SUMMARY OF FINDINGS) , 1989 .

[40]  Raymond C. Peck,et al.  MODIFYING NEGLIGENT DRIVING BEHAVIOR THROUGH WARNING LETTERS , 1970 .

[41]  A R Hricko.  DRIVER LICENSE SUSPENSION ... A PAPER TIGER , 1970 .

[42]  M Ratz,et al.  THE EFFECTS OF A TRAFFIC SAFETY FILM OR A DRIVE TEST WITH COUNSELING SESSION FOR RENEWAL DRIVERS LICENSE APPLICANTS WITH POOR PRIOR RECORDS , 1989 .

[43]  Raymond C. Peck,et al.  Toward a Dynamic System of Driver Improvement Program Evaluation , 1976 .

[44]  T. Planek,et al.  An evaluation of the national safety council's defensive driving course in various states , 1974 .