No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
sex composition, it is assumed that exposure was comparable. The authors speculate as to whether the differences found may be attributed to a Hawthorne effect or to more conscientious reporting of crashes by the non-range students, but neither possibility is confirmed by the evidence.
The authors addressed the question of cost, pointing out that aside from initial construction cost, the range offers less expensive training. However, initial construction cost can scarcely be ignored and must be amortized over the anticipated Iife expectancy of a range. Although the authors report that range training was associated with a saving of almost $4.00 per student, it is not clear whether this saving takes into account the cost of busing students from one school to another or the cost of administering a more complex program. Of course, if each school had its own range, these issues would not be relevant.
Previous studies have not generally shown range-trained students to be superior on measures of driving skill following training, nor was such superiority found in this study. Nevertheless, the significantly lower subsequent crash rate cannot be dismissed. The authors speculate as to what may be accounting for this difference if it is not driving skill but do not arrive at any firm conclusion.
The Dreyer and Janke study, much more comprehensive and carefully executed than previous work in this area, does not clarify what it is about range training that may be significant. However, it presents new insights into the potential effectiveness of this approach to driver training.
๐ SIMILAR VOLUMES