A Primer for Evaluating Underage Drinking and Driving Programs
archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified
Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)
Summary
This document, titled *A Primer for Evaluating Underage Drinking and Driving Programs*, serves as a practical guide for practitioners and researchers aiming to assess the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce underage drinking and driving. The work was motivated by a significant gap in empirical evidence regarding these programs. A preceding literature review sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) examined 3,650 peer-reviewed publications but identified only 21 studies that met strict inclusion criteria for evaluating interventions targeting 16- to 20-year-olds. Furthermore, even these limited studies suffered from methodological shortcomings, including a lack of rigorous scientific methods, improper reporting, and insufficient objective data. Given that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among teens and that alcohol significantly increases crash risk, the authors argue that high-quality, systematic evaluations are essential to improve program effectiveness and allocate resources efficiently. The primer outlines a comprehensive, step-by-step framework for planning, implementing, and evaluating programs, structured around twelve key steps. It emphasizes the importance of assembling a team, engaging stakeholders, and conducting a needs assessment to establish baseline data. The guide details how to identify evidence-based interventions, tailor them to specific community contexts, and develop a logic model that links inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes. Crucially, it instructs users on designing the evaluation strategy, including defining the purpose, formulating evaluation questions, selecting appropriate study designs (such as experimental or quasi-experimental), and choosing valid indicators. The text also addresses logistical considerations, such as determining the program’s stage of development, deciding between internal and external evaluators, and ensuring compliance with CDC evaluation standards (utility, propriety, feasibility, and accuracy). Implementation guidance covers data collection methods, data analysis techniques, and the process for obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, noting specific challenges related to working with minor participants who may not respond honestly. The primer provides tools for interpreting findings and justifying conclusions, stressing that planning for interpretation is often overlooked but vital for validating results. It concludes with advice on disseminating findings through clear reporting and utilizing results to inform future program improvements. Appendices offer additional support, including an overview of relevant public health and psychology models (such as the Socio-Ecological Model and Theory of Planned Behavior) and resources for calculating sample sizes. The significance of this primer lies in its effort to standardize and elevate the quality of program evaluation in a field historically reliant on anecdotal evidence or simple attendance metrics. By providing a structured, evidence-based approach, the document aims to help practitioners overcome common barriers to evaluation, such as perceived complexity or resource constraints. It underscores that rigorous evaluation is necessary to determine whether interventions actually reduce risky behaviors and crash-related injuries, thereby supporting the broader goal of achieving zero underage drinking and driving fatalities. The guide bridges the gap between theoretical evaluation research and practical application, offering a roadmap for creating accountable, effective public health interventions.
Key finding
The document provides a comprehensive framework and step-by-step instructions for conducting rigorous evaluations of underage drinking and driving programs, highlighting that most existing evaluations are limited by anecdotal evidence and methodological shortcomings.
Methodology
review
Provenance
The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).
| Stage | Outcome | Tool | Model | Prompt | Attempts | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| discover | success | rosap | — | — | 2 | 2026-05-23 |
| archive | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| extract | success | cached | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
| clean | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-01 |
| chunk | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-01 |
| embed | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-02 |
| enrich | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| promote | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| summarize | success | llm | qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant | summ-v5 | 3 | 2026-06-10 |
| tag | success | vector_similarity | — | — | 19 | 2026-06-11 |
| verify | partial | — | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified_with_issues.
Topics
Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.
Information type
What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).
- Applied Guidance: countermeasure evaluation
- Methodological Resource: validation psychometrics