Research Studies & Reports
DMV’s Research & Development Branch has been conducting research and producing studies and reports since the 1950s. Research & Development reports help DMV to measure the impact of new laws on making drivers safer. We also identify areas where we can improve our processes, explore new approaches to solving existing problems, and branch out into new opportunities to serve you better.
Studies & Reports Sections
Studies and reports are assigned to a Section that best describes the type of report. Click on a section title below to see a short description.
I. Driver Education & Training Studies
II. Driver Licensing Screening Studies
III. Studies on Improvement and Control of Deviant Drivers
IV. Basic Research & Methodological Studies: Driver Performance, Accident Etiology, Prediction Models, and Actuarial Applications
V. Driver Licensing / Control Systems & Safety Management Studies
VI. Studies on Special Driver Populations
VII. Miscellaneous Studies & Reports
Request printed copies of studies and reports by mail at:
Departamento de Vehículos Motorizados
Research and Development Branch
2415 1st Ave. Mail Station: F-126
Sacramento, CA 95818
(916) 914-8125
Note Please include the report number, the number of copies requested, and your name, address, and phone number.
| Report ID | Date Published | Title | Section | Links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 215 | 2005/ 09 |
Clearing A Road To Driving Fitness By Better Assessing Driving Wellness:California’s Three-Tier Driving-Centered Assessment System – SummaryReportThis report describes the final development and validation of an integrated three-tier system for assessing drivers’ degrees of driving wellness (degree of freedom from driving-relevant functional limitations) and driving fitness (degree to which a driver compensates for any such limitations while actually driving). Both driving wellness and driving fitness are assessed in a driving-centered manner. Assessment tools recommended for use in each tier are described, as is the selection of two decision points (cutpoints) which separate drivers into three categories: pass ("driving-well"), "somewhat functionally limited", and "extremely functionally limited." Compared to elder renewal license applicants who were assessed as somewhat functionally limited, elder renewals assessed as extremely functionally limited were more likely to fail a structured road test, but less likely to have been crash involved in the last three years. Reasons for this apparent paradox, in which more functionally limited drivers have fewer crashes, are addressed in the report. The report describes in detail the flow of renewal license applicants through the three-tier assessment system and makes numerous recommendations, including that the three-tier assessment system be adopted on a pilot basis for further evaluation. |
II | |
| 234 | 2011/ 12 |
California’s Three-Tier Driving-Centered Assessment System – Outcome AnalysisThis Outcome Analysis constitutes the second of two reports on the 3-Tier Assessment System, as piloted by California DMV in 2006-2007. It contains (a) a projection of the costs associated with the Area Driving Performance Evaluation, (b) a determination of the willingness of a participant to pay a fee for the Area Driving Performance Evaluation, (c) a determination of the percentage of drivers who were assessed to have a limitation, but who, upon completion of the assessment, were able to retain their driving privileges, (d) the utilization of certified driving rehabilitation specialists, and (e) the results regarding crash rates and retention of driving privileges. Together, these analyses examine the effectiveness of the 3-Tier Assessment System in identifying functional impairments, reducing crashes, and extending safe driving years for California drivers of all ages. These analyses are based upon 2 years of elapsed driving history for the 12,279 customers who participated in the Pilot, along with two control groups: 14,907 customers in the Baseline II cohort, and 10,551 customers in the Nearby cohort. Based on limited data, an estimation is provided of the costs of the anticipated increase in the use of the ADPE, as associated with the 3-Tier Assessment System. Very few customers were willing to pay a fee for the ADPE. The overwhelming majority of customers, even those with functional limitations, were able to retain their driving privilege. No customers reported using certified driving rehabilitation specialists. The analyses found no evidence for a reduction in crash risk subsequent to participation in the Pilot; however, the analyses found some evidence that the Pilot is associated with an increased amount of time to complete the renewal process, with an increase in the odds of failing to renew the driving privilege, and with an increase in the odds of receiving a restricted license. Recommendations regarding implementation and future research are included. |
II | |
| 52.1 | 1976/ 04 |
An Abstract of An Evaluation of the California Driver Knowledge Test and the University of Michigan Item PoolTo evaluate both the written DMV driver licensing test and a large sample of driver knowledge test items selected from the University of Michigan's Highway Safety Research Institute (HSRI) item pool. |
II | |
| 60.1 | 1978/ 03 |
An Abstract of The Effectiveness of an At-Home Drivers’ Licensing Law TestTo explore new approaches to testing which would cost less, be more convenient to the public, and reduce accidents and convictions. |
II | |
| 60 | 1978/ 03 |
The Effectiveness of an At-Home Drivers’ Licensing Law TestTo explore new approaches to testing which would cost less, be more convenient to the public, and reduce accidents and convictions. |
II | |
| 106 | 1986/ 05 |
Licensing Novice Motorcyclists: A Comparison of the Traffic Safety Impact of California’s Standard Test and the MOST II (Motorcycle Operator Skill Test) Administered at Centralized Testing OfficesTo clarify issues raised in the Anderson et al. study, "Improved Motorcyclist Licensing and Testing Project," to answer the following two questions: 1) Would the MOST II reduce accidents and convictions when compared to California's standard skill test? 2) Would there be an accident reduction which was independent of the reduction in instruction permit and license issuance rates resulting from the inconvenience of being required to travel to another location to be tested? |
II | |
| 149 | 1995/ 05 |
An Evaluation of California’s Commercial Driver License Drive TestThe federal government requires states which permit third-party testing of commercial drivers to determine whether these tests are equivalent to those given by the state driver licensing authority. To meet this requirement, the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) plans to sample commercial driver license (CDL) applicants tested by their employer, retest them at DMV, and compare the fail rates for the employer and DMV tests to determine if they are equivalent in difficulty and reliability. In order to make this determination, it is necessary to estimate the reliability and other psychometric properties of the California DMV CDL test. Without this information, it is not possible to determine whether differences between the DMV and employer test exceed what would be expected from repeat administration of the CDL test by DMV. |
II | |
| 152 | 1995/ 06 |
Vision Testing of Renewal Applicants: Crashes Predicted when Compensation for Impairment is InadequateThis study addresses the enhanced vision test system component of a departmental plan to increase the competency level of the California driving population. Five experimental vision tests were administered to 3,669 randomly selected Class C renewal applicants in three field offices. The objective was to identify the vision tests showing the most promise for further validation in a large-scale statewide study. Hierarchical multiple regression analyses indicated that the relationship between vision test scores and crash involvement varies depending on applicant's age, general visual ability, and reported level of self-restriction. It was recommended that (1) management consider referring all DMV Snellen test fails to a vision specialist through the DL 62 process, (2) cross-validate the most promising tests (Pelli-Robson low-contrast acuity and perceptual reaction time assessment) in a large-scale demonstration project, and (3) continue research on developing improved assessment tests and protocols for drivers with age-related impairments. |
II | |
| 154 | 1995/ 08 |
An Evaluation of the Validity of California’s Driving PerformanceEvaluation Road TestThis report presents findings of an evaluation of the validity of the Driving Performance Evaluation(DPE) road test that was piloted in 30 California Department of Motor Vehicles field offices. Thestudy represents the fourth stage in a four-stage project to develop an improved competency-baseddrive test for possible statewide implementation. The DPE was found to have construct validity asdemonstrated by experienced good drivers having had significantly lower fail rates and mean pointscores than did inexperienced drivers and drivers with physical or mental disabilities that affected theirdriving. The evaluation also found the DPE to be more difficult than the current drive test, with failrates of 45.6% and 26.2% for the two tests, respectively. The DPE was also found to take 11 minuteslonger to administer than did the current drive test. The impact on test validity of severalmodifications to shorten the DPE test time was also evaluated. |
II | |
| 177 | 1998/ 05 |
Evaluation of the Referral Driving Performance EvaluationProgram—Follow-Up ReportThis study evaluated the safety impact of the new Referral Driving Performance Evaluation (RDPE) drivetest program. The 3-year prior accident and citation rates for drivers taking the RDPE drive tests werecompared to the general driving population and to drivers who passed the Special Drive Test (SDT) in anearlier DMV study. The results indicated that in every age and gender category except one, drivers in theRDPE program had much higher prior accident and citation rates than did drivers in general. This findingsupported the department’s policy of testing drivers referred for medical and other reasons. The prioraccident rates for drivers who passed the RDPE tests were not significantly different from those for driverswho failed the tests. Hence, the validity of using RDPE test results as indicators of accident risk was notconclusively supported by the data. Contrary to expectation, drivers who passed the RDPE tests also hadaccident rates similar to those for drivers who passed the SDT, which indicated that the RDPE tests wereno better than the SDT at distinguishing between higher- and lower-risk drivers. However, because theRDPE tests fail a much higher percentage of referral drivers than does the SDT, the tests do result inaccident savings. |
II |