EU DRUID project: Results of a Questionnaire Survey ... · Participant Questionnaire Survey Simone Klipp, Ph.D. RSA International Conference •Receipt of the certificate may have

Federal Highway Research Institute

RSA International Conference

“Recidivist Behaviour and Driver Rehabilitation Programmes”

April 16th 2012 in Dublin

Simone Klipp, Ph.D.

EU DRUID project:

Results of a Questionnaire Survey amongst Participants of Driver

Rehabilitation Programmes in Europe

November 2006

2

Participant Questionnaire Survey

Simone Klipp, Ph.D.RSA International Conference

EU DRUID Project

WP 5 Rehabilitation

Task 5.1 Task 5.1 „„State of the ArtState of the Art“

• Literature reviews

• Provider survey

Task 5.2 Task 5.2 „„Good PracticeGood Practice““

• Empirical in-depth-analyses

• Participant questionnaire

survey

• Internet search & provider

interviews

November 2006

3



Initial considerations

?

?Changes?-cognitive,-affective,-behavioural

Target behavior

DUI/DUID offense

Risky/ unhealthy behavior

Rehabilitation

Treatment

November 2006

4



MaintenanceWork to prevent relapse, increasing confidence of continuing change

ActionSpecific overt modification in life-style, observable steps of action

PreparationIntention to take action in immediate future, first initiatives

ContemplationAwareness of Pros & Cons of changing => Ambivalence, Intention

PrecontemplationNo problem awareness => no intention to change

?Which stage did the offender reach?

Theoretical frameworkThe stages of the Transtheoretical Model of Change (TTM)

November 2006

5



Theoretical framework

Figure adopted from Prochaska et al., 1994a, S. 67

Cognitive-affective

Behavioural

The processes of the Transtheoretical Model of Change (TTM)

November 2006

6



Theoretical framework

I = Individual

PTR = Participant –trainer relations

C = Contents

M = Methods

PPR = Participant –participant relations

The Diamond of Change – the “contributing factors”

November 2006

7



Methods

Construction of the Questionnaire

Example-item:

Contributing Factor:Method

Process:Conciousness Raising (Cognition)

„The way the course was conducted raised my interest on the topic.”

November 2006

8



Legally regulated

Imposing Instance Criteria for participationMode of

participationConsequences of

participation

Austria yes Licensing authority BAC > 1.2‰ mandatory License reinstatement

Belgium yes Public prosecutor, court

No license withdrawal (~BAC

< 1.6‰) & offender < 26

years

voluntary

Reduction of suspension

period & other sanctions, avoidance of further

prosecution

France yes Public prosecutor, court BAC > 0.8‰voluntary &

mandatory


period, avoidance of further

prosecution or other sanctions

Germany

Typ I § 36

yes Licensing authorityNovice drivers with DUI

offensemandatory

Ongoing validity of the

license or license

reinstatement

Typ II§ 70

yes Licensing authority Prior driver assessment voluntary License reinstatement

Typ III no --- --- voluntary


period possible, increased

chances to pass subsequent

assessment

Great Britain yes CourtSuspension period ≥ 12

months & offender ≥ 17 yearsvoluntary


period

Hungary yes Court Prior driver assessment mandatory License reinstatement

Italy no Assessment centre Prior driver assessment mandatory License reinstatement

Netherlands yes Licensing authorityBAC > 1.3%, BAC > 0.8‰ for

novices drivers & recidivistsmandatory

Ongoing validity of the

licence

Poland no Prison BAC > 0.5‰ voluntaryReduction of the prison term

possible

November 2006

9



Sample

Age (Mean in years ±

SD)

Male N (%)

BAC value

at offense

(Mean in ‰ ± SD)

Accident at

DUI offense

N (%)

Recidivists

N (%)

Europe total (N = 7339) 34.1 ± 12.6 6356 (86.6%) 1.43 ± 0.58 1751 (23.9%) 1706 (23.2%)

Austria (n = 1646) 36.1 ± 13.0 1420 (86.3%) 1.47 ± 0.49 380 (23.1 %) 515 (31.3%)

Belgium (n = 103) 37.6 ± 12.8 93 (90.3%) 1.55 ± 0.63 36 (35.0%) 32 (31.1%)

France (n = 686) 37.5 ± 12.4 601 (87.6%) 1.36 ± 0.65 69 (10.1%) 85 (12.4%)

Germany (n = 2351) 29.8 ± 11.5 2031 (86.4%) 1.38 ± 0.58 687 (29.2%) 438 (18.6%)

Great Britain (n = 1022) 34.7 ± 13.2 817 (79.9%) 1.36 ± 0.46 211 (20.6%) 130 (12.7%)

Hungary (n = 657) 37.7 ± 10.8 622 (94.7%) 1.76 ± 0.71 228 (34.7%) 151 (23.0%)

Italy (n = 140) 29.8 ± 9.6 130 (92.9%) 1.30 ± 0.48 22 (15.7%) 31 (22.1%)

Netherlands (n = 501) 36.3 ± 12.6 415 (82.8%) 1.29 ± 0.42 70 (14.0%) 185 (36.9%)

Poland (n = 233) 37.2 ± 10.7 227 (97.4%) 1.41 ± 0.86 48 (20.6%) 139 (59.7%)

November 2006

10



Results

Overall evaluation on country level (N=7339)

November 2006

11



TTM-Process - Total sample; overall means (N=7339)

Results

***p<.001

November 2006

12



Individual

Methods

Contents

Participant-Participant-Relation

Participant-Trainer-Relation

1

2

1.5

3

2.5

3.5

4

1=agree completely2=agree mostly

3=disagree mostly4=disagree completely

Diamond of Change (N=7339)

Results

November 2006

13



• Findings are promising in terms of acceptance

• No conclusions regarding any long-term behavioural changes or effects on recidivism rates possible

• Methodological limitations may reduce the explanatory power of the study

Discussion

November 2006

14



• Receipt of the certificate may have functioned as a ‘steepening incentive’, increasing the tendency to give positive answers

• Best results in countries (programs) with voluntary participation

• Self selection bias or reduction of cognitive dissonance possible

Discussion

November 2006

15



• Positive overall feedback is noteworthy

• Results should motivate decision-makers in those countries which did not yet establish rehabilitation programs to launch these measures

• Rehabilitation as essential part of a comprehensive countermeasure system for secondary prevention

Conclusion

Federal Highway Research Institute

Simone Klipp, Ph.D.

Thank you for your attention!

Documents

EU DRUID project: Results of a Questionnaire Survey ... · Participant Questionnaire Survey Simone Klipp, Ph.D. RSA International Conference •Receipt of the certificate may have