Model Driver Screening and Evaluation Program
Volume I: Project Summary and Model Program Recommendations


Appendix B:
AAMVA/NHTSA Survey of 
States/Provinces on 
"Model Driver Screening/
Evaluation Program" Booklet

  1. Is it your sense that new/expanded driver screening procedures, if implemented in your jurisdiction, should be applied to (a) all drivers over a specified age who apply for license renewal, (b) only a "high risk" subgroup of drivers, likely to include a disproportionate share of older persons, who are brought to the DMV's attention through various referral mechanisms, or (c) both of these sets of drivers? 
    Check one only: (1a), (b), or (c)
  2. Please base your responses to the following items on your answer to Question (1) above. Postponing considerations of the cost (of testing equipment and/or test administrators) and time required to conduct test procedures for drivers referred into a Model Screening/Evaluation Program, is it your sense that current policies and priorities in your Department would be make it feasible to: 
    1. Extend the practice of "graduated licensing," which many states have applied to "phase in" full privileges for the novice driver, to the older driver as well, by implementing progressively more restrictive licensing actions as an individual's capabilities suffer progressive decline? Yes? No? 
      Would this require a change in legislation? Yes? No? 
    2. Implement a community outreach/public education activity for drivers that would provide information on aging and safe driving practices, techniques for self testing (which could also encourage individuals to refer themselves into a screening/evaluation program), and, when needed, provide advice on transportation alternatives in the individual's home area? Yes? No?
    3. Implement screening/evaluation program activities wholly within the DMV, or privatize some or all license qualification assessments for passenger vehicles (assuming that standard, certified procedures are implemented uniformly throughout your jurisdiction)? 
    4.  Modify existing vision test procedures for drivers who have been referred to the DMV for functional impairment screening, such that acuity is measured using new techniques, provided that they are more accurate and/or reliable? Yes? No? 
    5. Modify existing vision test criteria such that lower levels of performance (e.g., 20/80, 20/100, or worse) do not necessarily result in the loss of all driving privileges, but instead may result in restrictions (such as daylight only driving)? Yes? No? 
    6. Expand vision test procedures to include abilities which are not presently tested (dynamic visual acuity; contrast sensitivity; low luminance acuity) but which have been shown in research to be more strongly related to crash risk than the present (static) visual acuity measure? Yes? No?
    7. Adopt criteria for functional capabilities other than vision as the basis for licensing action (restriction or revocation), which would include--though not necessarily be limited to--measures of attention, perception (of speed and distance relationships), memory and cognition, decision making, navigational problem solving, or "situational awareness"? Yes? No? 
    8. Conduct tests to assess functional capabilities for individuals referred into a screening/evaluation program, regardless of when this occurs in the driver's renewal cycle, i.e., without waiting until the end of the current cycle for removal or restriction of driving privileges if warranted by test results? Yes? No? 
    9. Conform to uniform (national/ North American) standards--to be developed-- for referral of drivers into a screening/evaluation program based on the diagnosis of medical conditions including, though not necessarily limited to, dementia (Alzheimer's and other dementias); stroke; Parkinson's disease; seizure disorders; diabetes; heart disease, arrhythmias, and related cardiovascular conditions. Yes? No? 
    10. Tailor retesting requirements (nature and frequency) for license renewal or retention of driving privileges to specific medical conditions (e.g., Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes), for physician referrals or self reports of medical conditions to the DMV ? Yes? No?
    11. Refer drivers who are undiagnosed by a physician, but who are believed by family, friends, and/or others in the health care/social services fields to suffer functional impairment, into a screening/evaluation program, which would mandate subsequent functional tests with the potential for licensing action? Yes? No?
    12. Implement a referral mechanism for functional screening/evaluation in which DMV counter personnel use a checklist to record a brief, structured set of observations, and/or question-and-answer responses, for members of the driving public who appear before them? Yes? No?
    13. Tailor on-road examination procedures for drivers who have been screened for functional impairment, to the specific area of functional decline which places that individual at greater crash risk--i.e., administer road tests with varying content or areas of emphasis for varying impairments? Yes? No?
  3. With specific regard to the cost of new test procedures, to what extent would such costs have to be offset by savings in other Department activities within the short term (present or next fiscal year) to permit implementation? (Check one response): 
    1. Substantially or completely (100 percent, or close to it) regardless of expected payoffs in improved safety. 
    2. To a significant extent (50 percent or greater) but not completely, given a solid expectation of measurable safety benefits.
    3. Only minimally, or not at all (less than 50 percent, down to zero) if significant safety benefits have been demonstrated in another state or a pilot program.
  4. With specific regard to the administration of functional testing requirements as addressed in this survey, what is the practical upper limit on the time of testing within your jurisdiction? (Check one response): 
    1. under 15 minutes 
    2. 15 to 30 minutes 
    3. 30 to 45 minutes 
    4. 45 minutes to 1 hour (or no limit)