MPU Questions: These are the questions the evaluator asks in an expert report / assessment report

“Please provide your personal information.” That is the first question on our core questionnaire for the psychological interview. It sounds like a formality. The second question follows immediately, and it is no longer a formality: “Why are you here for the assessment today? Do you understand the authorities’ concerns regarding your Fitness to drive?”

This already puts the core of the conversation on the table. One answer takes care of itself: “Because I want my driver’s license back.” That is a goal, not a reason. The assessment criteria explicitly list limiting the focus to external factors—such as the desire to regain a driving licence—as a contraindicator (Criterion PUG 2, Indicator 13).

This page lists the questions, organized according to six phases of the interview, the purpose behind each phase, and the questioning techniques the psychologist uses to probe further. The questions come from our internal collection of 147 documented expert questions—that is, from MPU Guru’s counseling practice—not from an official catalog.

In this sequence, the “Substance Use” section is omitted from the section on “Points and Offenses”; five items remain there. The psychologist determines the order based on the findings. Based on our counseling experience, the interview lasts 45 minutes to an hour and a half and usually takes place at the end of the examination day. Regarding the daily schedule: The MPU Process.

The medical questionnaire before the interview

A medical questionnaire must be completed before the psychological interview. Some assessment centers send it in advance; others provide it on the day of the examination. It is completed before the interview begins, and that is precisely what makes it so important for the interview that follows.

The topics covered there are the same as those later discussed with the psychologist: age of first use, progression of use, average amount consumed per week, occasions for drinking, days without alcohol, loss of control, blackouts, conflicts at home and at work, duration of abstinence, and how to handle offers of alcohol at parties. For drugs, additional questions include age of first use, substances, dosage, mixed use, and turning point.

Whatever you check off is the first data point recorded that day. The assessment criteria explicitly require the evaluator to address any discrepancies between the questionnaire, the medical history, and the content of the interview, and to clarify the cause. If you check “two beers on the weekend” on the questionnaire but describe a different drinking history during the interview, the contradiction will be on record in writing before anyone even asks about it. So take your time with the questionnaire.

It’s no coincidence that the same issue was raised in two different places by two different people. The fact that they agree is, in itself, a finding.

The Pyramid Technique: How the Evaluator Asks Questions

The questioning technique used in the assessment interview has a name. It’s called the pyramid technique and was developed by Barthelmess and colleagues (1993). It consists of four levels, becoming progressively more focused from top to bottom:

1. Open-ended question. “Tell me how the evening went.” The assessment criteria recommend the following instruction: “Please describe the sequence of events to me in such a way that I can visualize it as if I were watching it in a movie.” In doing so, the evaluator establishes a broad foundation of information.
2. Comprehension question. “What do you mean by ‘pre-heated’?” He breaks down technical terms and collective terms into specific behaviors.
3. Request. “Who else was there, and what happened next?” He fills in the gaps in the story.
4. Clarification question. “Exactly how many drinks, and between what times?” In the end, it all comes down to the number.

From level to level, the amount of text decreases while the precision of the response increases. Hence the image of the pyramid. The four levels correspond to the assessment criteria; the sample questions are taken from our preparation materials. Our conclusion: A prepared response addresses only the top level. The three levels below it are left unaddressed.

The assessment criteria for Fitness to drive sum up in a single sentence what the psychological interview is actually about. Chapter C.1, according to Wagner and Kranich (2011):

Four key concepts help us categorize every single question: documented relevant facts—that is, the case file as the starting point. Background and causes. Subjective experience. And the development since the misconduct. Anyone familiar with these four concepts can contextualize any question that comes up in a conversation—even one they’ve never heard before.

147 documented expert questions, eleven concerns

Based on our many years of consulting experience, we have analyzed 147 documented questions from examiners. These questions can be summarized into eleven main concerns.

This is not a contradiction, but the finding itself. 22 of the 147 phrases are exact duplicates.

Regardless of this collection, we use a core questionnaire with eleven items for each issue. For alcohol and drugs, the items are: Person, Circumstances and the authorities’ concerns, Course of events, Development of consumption, Negative effects, Self-assessment, Causes, Turning point, Risk of relapse, Strategies, Benefits of preparation. The scoring rubric also has eleven items; the first three are identical, but the remaining items differ starting with the fourth.

This leads to an uncomfortable realization: Those who memorize the 147 phrases end up learning the same eleven topics over and over again without truly understanding any of them. On the other hand, those who have specific material for each of the eleven topics will also be able to answer the 148th question—the one that isn’t included in any collection.

We do not publish the catalog ourselves. Not out of a desire to be secretive, but because a list of questions without the work behind it gives the false impression of certainty that crumbles when the second question is asked during the interview.

Phase 1: Introduction and Analysis of the Offense

The offense analysis examines each documented offense individually. Typical questions from our collection: What exactly happened? What offenses are you being charged with? Are there any other documented violations? When did you consume alcohol or drugs before driving? How did you feel the effects when you started driving? Why did you drive? Did you feel capable of driving? Have you driven under the influence frequently? What could have happened?

Virtually every evaluator asks for specific details because the assessment criteria consider their unjustified omission to be a deficiency in the expert report / assessment report (Criterion PUG 2, Indicator 8): Amount consumed, time of consumption, perceived effects, and the time interval between the last consumption and the start of the drive, as well as the circumstances of the offense, such as the route traveled, involvement in an accident, and the influence of passengers.

We identify three areas of assessment that occur simultaneously: whether your account matches the case file, whether you focus on behavior rather than labels, and whether you can articulate your motivation on the day of the offense. The individual components are listed in Criterion O 3 N and in Criterion PUG 2, Indicator 18; grouping them into three categories serves as our guide for interpretation. “A fight broke out” is cited there verbatim as an example of a general, detached account. The Expert report / assessment report is criticized at this point if the sequence of events and the parties’ roles were not probed. For you, this means: You will be asked about these details.

The following example is not taken from a real case, but from the criteria for assessing Fitness to drive, where it serves as a model for neutral, value-free feedback:

Phase 2: Consumption

The section on substance use focuses on the overall pattern, not just the day of the offense: How did your substance use evolve before the incidents? When did it start, and how often? How did it escalate to this point? What effects did you find pleasant? Did you experience blackouts? How did your behavior affect others? How did you separate your substance use from driving? Did you set limits for yourself, and why those in particular?

The level of detail is mandated by professional standards. The assessment criteria require specific quantities and frequencies, as well as clarification of exactly what the individual means by a “unit of consumption.” General statements are considered a shortcoming in the interview, which the evaluator must address by asking follow-up questions. So saying “a beer every now and then” doesn’t wrap things up—it prolongs the process.

This information is captured using a simple grid that we work with during preparation: time period, frequency, quantity, and context. An example entry: ages 17 to 19, every weekend, six beers, getting together with friends. In our core questionnaire on points and traffic offenses, the driving history replaces the alcohol consumption history: when you got your driver’s license, estimated total mileage, and self-assessment of your driving then versus now.

Phase 3: Reasons and Causes

Based on our counseling experience, this section is the most challenging. What reasons do you see for your alcohol use? To what extent were you personally responsible for the situation at that time? From today’s perspective, what were your motives for drinking? In the “Points Track,” the following question is added: How are these causes related to road traffic?

A lot is at stake here. The assessment criteria state it clearly: Anyone who attributes the causes of their issues to situational, uncontrollable circumstances or simply to chance perceives them as beyond their control. In that case, there is no favorable motivation for change. Statements like “I was unlucky” and “that was a stupid situation” therefore do not come across as humble, but rather as indicating a poor prognosis.

We use five categories to help you get organized during the preparation process: life circumstances, physical and medical factors, personal beliefs, social environment, and psychological stress. There’s one key difference here: An explanation identifies why you reacted that way. An excuse explains why someone else was to blame. What’s needed is the former.

Phase 4: Changes

The “Changes” phase asks what has been different since then. What has changed since your period of abstinence? How have others reacted to this? How do you deal with the problems from back then today, and how do you handle new ones? What resolutions have you made, and why do you think you’ll succeed this time? What makes you confident that you won’t reoffend?

The assessment criteria explicitly identify three types of responses as unfavorable: justifications based on external factors such as the desire to obtain a driving licence; blanket statements without personal reflection (“This must not happen again”); and justifications based solely on participation in an abstinence program.

The third point surprises many. A clean Proof of abstinence This is evidence of the change, not an explanation of it. You must provide the explanation yourself. To this end, we work with ten areas of life—this is our framework, not a catalog of assessment criteria: social environment, relationships, family, career, finances, leisure, physical health, mental health, personal development, and problem-solving.

Phase 5: Relapse Prevention

The relapse prevention section asks what you have planned in case of an emergency. How do you assess the likelihood of a relapse? What strategies have you developed? Are there any risk factors in your current life situation? What moments could be critical? How do you assess the stability of your change?

The first of these questions goes against intuition. What is sought is a realistic self-assessment, not a guarantee: The assessment criteria require that the client realistically assess their ability to handle risky situations. Those who acknowledge the lifelong residual risk and have a plan for it will receive a better assessment result.

The plan consists of two types of strategies, and both are necessary. Avoidance strategies keep you out of risky situations. Coping strategies come into play when a situation cannot be avoided. If you only avoid situations, you won’t have a plan for the day when avoidance isn’t an option.

There are two questions we ask ourselves during preparation because, based on experience, the conversation tends to go in this direction: How would you cope with a major setback without relapsing? And: Suppose a relapse does occur—how would you handle it? These questions are not included in the collection of examiner questions.

Phase 6: The knowledge question at the end

A knowledge-based question may be asked at the end of the interview. For alcohol and drugs, it is the Widmark formula; for traffic points and offenses, it is the stopping distance formula. Whether this question is asked is up to the individual evaluator, which aligns with our counseling experience. The assessment criteria recognize knowledge-based questions as a form of assessment: Criterion PUG 3, Indicator 6 requires that the questions asked be reproduced in a comprehensible manner in the expert report / assessment report. They do not specify which formula will be asked.

There is a widely used rule of thumb for stopping distance. It is not found in any legal code or in any of our technical sources; it is a rough estimate. Stopping distance consists of reaction distance and braking distance. Reaction distance: Speed divided by ten, then multiply the result by three. Braking distance: Speed divided by ten, then multiply the result by itself. At 100 km/h, that’s 30 meters plus 100 meters, totaling 130 meters. In an emergency stop, the braking distance is halved, while the reaction distance remains the same: 30 plus 50, totaling 80 meters. Anyone who mentions only the braking distance has done only half the calculation and is making an avoidable blunder in conversation.

Whether the formula is tested depends on the examiner. Those who know it have another key advantage: they can tell for themselves if the amount of alcohol they reported doesn’t match the measured value.

There are no trick questions, but there are consistency checks

There are no trick questions in the MPU. What there are, however, are consistency checks. We distinguish between five levels here; the assessment criteria are not listed as a separate list: against the case file, against the test results, against the questionnaire from that morning, against your own statement from twenty minutes ago, and against general experiential knowledge.

The last level is often underestimated. Here’s an example from the assessment criteria: Someone who claims to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings but doesn’t know any of the Twelve Steps. A second example: Someone who claims to have used drugs only “in situations where they were tempted,” but who actively sought out the scene and deliberately obtained the drugs. No one is setting a trap here. The statements simply do not add up.

What happens next is crucial. The evaluator is obligated to resolve any contradictions through feedback and follow-up questions before making a judgment. A single unclear statement does not derail the conversation. A contradiction only becomes irreconcilable if there is no substance behind it. Nervousness at the beginning is also expected; the criteria explicitly mention “initial, situational anxiety.”

More on why openness isn’t the same as passing: Be Honest During the MPU and Why the MPU Is Not an “Idiot Test”.

How the conversation ends

The psychological interview does not end without a conclusion. The evaluation criteria require a preliminary status report at the end of the interview: The evaluator states where things stand, and if lab results, therapy reports, or a driving behavior observation are still missing, he explains what the issue is. In clear-cut cases, the examiner often provides an assessment right away. Only the written expert report / assessment report—which arrives in two to six weeks, on average after three to four—is binding.

If the feedback is negative, there’s a clear rule in the cases we handle: Don’t try to come up with additional arguments. It won’t help and could do more harm than good.

Instead: Ask objectively what specifically went wrong. And take notes—right after the test, either in the car or in the waiting area. This feedback is the most valuable resource for your second attempt. What to do next: Failed the MPU.

Who’s actually sitting across from you

The evaluator is a psychologist. He has heard from people who’ve had just one incident of driving under the influence and from people with twenty years of substance use. Whatever you tell him, he’s already heard it in some form or another.

There are rules governing what happens to the information you provide: it is incorporated into the written expert report / assessment report. How this report is delivered is determined in advance—either solely to you or additionally directly to the driver’s license authority. We always recommend that the report be sent only to your home address. Please note: Some driver’s license authorities include a waiver of confidentiality and ask you to sign it. Therefore, on the day of the examination, explicitly state once again that the expert report / assessment report should be sent only to your home.

If you chose to have the expert report delivered only to your home, you decide whether to submit the expert report / assessment report to the driver’s license authority. If you do not submit the required expert report / assessment report by the deadline, the authority may conclude that you are unfit to drive pursuant to § 11(8), sentence 1 of the FeV. According to sentence 2, they must inform you of this consequence in the order itself. Anything you say during the interview about people in your social circle has no place in the Expert report / assessment report, as long as it has nothing to do with your Fitness to drive.

And one more thing: Even if the situation didn’t escalate for you—if it happened twice and never again after that—it’s still about the background and causes. The expert report / assessment report wants to know why it happened in the first place and why it hasn’t happened again since then. The assessment criteria require that developmental trajectories be thoroughly examined (Criterion PUG 2, Indicator 12).

Why Memorized Answers Fail

Answers memorized by heart fail not because of memory lapses, but because of the questions asked. The assessment criteria explicitly recommend that the evaluator ask clients who have prepared for the MPU: “Can you give me an example to illustrate what you mean?” The more professional your language sounds, the more likely this prompt is to come up. Someone who says “relapse prevention” but then can’t cite a specific situation from their own past six months comes across worse than someone who explains it in their own words.

We therefore advise against taking notes. We make one exception: an overview of offenses with dates, figures, and time periods. Exact numbers are hard to recall under stress, and a numerical error in the transcript looks like a contradiction. Anything beyond that works against you, because relying primarily on prepared materials creates exactly the impression you wanted to avoid.

We do not recommend making an audio recording. At a reputable assessment center, you usually won’t need one.

What really helps in the last few days leading up to it: Shortly before the MPU.

For points and traffic offenses, the consumption phase is omitted in this system. That leaves five.

Legal Status and Sources

This guide reflects the information as of August 29, 2026, and is not a substitute for legal advice in individual cases.

Technical basis: Assessment Criteria, Forming a Judgment in the Driver Fitness Assessment, 5th edition, DGVP and DGVM. In addition, the internal question database from MPU Guru, containing 147 documented examiner questions, and MPU Guru’s practical data, as of August 29, 2026. Information that we explicitly attribute to our own practice is based on experience gained through counseling; it is not derived from collected statistics.

Cited regulation: Section 11(8) of the Driving Licence Regulation (FeV), quoted from the official full text on gesetze-im-internet.de. Legal status: August 29, 2026.