Evaluation of the Crash Course March 2009 - De Montfort University

providers took part in this element of the research. 1717 valid questionnaires were
returned in total, divided fairly evenly but with slightly greater numbers from schools
that had received the course in the autumn term (998) as against those that had not
(719). It was possible to match some 290 young people for their ‘before’ and ‘after’
responses.
Attrition, as expected, was considerable. A number of questionnaires had to be
discarded because young people had not completed them properly, or because an
institution had not administered them correctly at the appropriate points. One young
person for example put his age and other details on the front sheet and did not
complete any further questions. Others misunderstood, did not answer or spoiled
particular questions (for instance by ticking all boxes instead of selecting chosen
options). The number of matched ‘before’ and ‘after’ responses was lower than
expected. This was caused either by spoiled responses in respect of the
demographic characteristics from which the unique identity codes were composed or
by the fact that schools completed the questionnaires in tutor groups as and when
the timetable allowed and not all tutor groups managed to send in both
questionnaires. The sample sizes however remain sufficient for statistically valid
conclusions to be drawn from them.
2.4 Questionnaire design
The questionnaire administered ‘after’ the course is attached at Appendix C. The
questions administered ‘before’ the course to these pupils were exactly the same,
with the exceptions that they omitted the comments on the course and were in a
different order. The same questions were also given to those who had not received
the course in the autumn term and were not going to do so (the ‘control group’). It is
therefore possible to examine the evidence on changes in knowledge, attitudes and
reported behaviour before and after pupils received the presentation. It is similarly
possible to examine the differences between those that did receive the course and
those that did not.
The questionnaires started with structured questions on some demographic details
on the participants. This enabled the creation of a unique identity code for each
respondent. Individuals could therefore be matched where they had completed both
before and after questionnaires. The remaining questions were designed to address:
• Knowledge about risky behaviour in relating to cars, whether as driver or as
passenger;
• Attitudes towards risky behaviours;
• Self-reported past behaviour;
• Future intended behaviour.
The terminology used particularly for the ‘attitude’ questions was extensively
discussed amongst the researchers and with the Crash Course team. The options
for the alternatives on the attitude dimensions were carefully chosen to seek a
reflection of young people’s feelings and perceptions (rather than factual
knowledge). The questions also sought to avoid use of complex words or the use of
cliché youth culture terms such as ‘cool’, which might appear patronising in a written
questionnaire. The terms were also discussed with some of the young people from
the pilot groups and judged by them as appropriate and easy to understand.
19