The driving task and driving environment have become increasingly more complex with each passing year. Methods used to evaluate driver education programs have grown proportionally. The four objectives for this investigation were as follows: 1. To determine if students who were taught in a "30 and 6" or a simulator program had better driving records than students without driver education. 2. To ascertain relative cost per student for providing these programs in various size schools under different instructional conditions. 3. To establish which type program produced students with better driving records, i.e., fewer convictions and accidents and less severe accidents. 4. To find which type program developed better results in a driving record for the amount of revenue expended. Five null hypotheses were tested in the study. The findings were as follows: 1. Using conviction criterion, students of "30 and 6" programs had no better driving records than students without driver education. But using accident criterion, students of "30 and 6" had significantly greater accident involvement than their matched members. In a subset analysis in which chronological age was controlled, the findings echoed those of the null hypothesis. However in a subset analysis in which driving experience was controlled, the findings contradicted those of the null hypothesis. 2. Using conviction criterion, students of simulator training were significantly better drivers than those without driver education. But using accident criterion, students of simulator training had no better driving records than their matched members. 3. Using conviction, accident, and severity of accident criteria, simulator training produced significantly better drivers than "30 and 6" driver education. ...