Dynamic penetration test (DPT) is largely applied for field characterisation. The technique is often appreciated for being a simple, economical, and fast means of soil investigation and of soil resistance assessment. Cone resistance can be determined from DPT data using different analysis approaches. Two most common approaches are Newtonian analysis (from which driving formulas are derived) and wave analysis-based analysis. In the last decades, several studies have demonstrated the numerous benefits of applying wave equation analysis to DPT interpretation as it allows to better describe dynamic penetration phenomena and to assess newer soil parameters from DPT. Nevertheless, these wave equation approaches require specific instrumentation (e.g. accelerometers, strain gages, displacement sensors) and the application of more complex analysis. Thus, for practical and cultural reasons wave equation analysis remains not commonly applied in routine geotechnical applications. Despite representing a significant improvement that wave equation analysis represents in dynamic testing interpretation, it is important to verify if simple Newtonian derived method preconize by current standard ISO 22476-2 (i.e., Dutch Formula) can produce satisfactory resistance results. It is especially important to know if Dutch Formula is suitable for soil resistance assessment when that good practice (e.g. energy measurement, skin friction control) is considered. For that, a field campaign testing experimental sites with different type of soils were conducted. This campaign comprised various field tests including CPT and DPT. An instrumented DPT is applied enabling easy application of wave equation methods. In this study, CPT results are used as reference tool for soil cone resistance assessment. Results showed that Dutch Formula resistance values were comparable to CPT results and to wave equation methods. Importance of good practice rules application to improve DPT results is shown.