[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10724-10726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04097]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Establish an Information
Collection
AGENCY: National Science Foundation.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the National Science Foundation
(NSF) is inviting the general public and other Federal agencies to
comment on this proposed information collection.
Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Foundation, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Foundation's estimate
of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to respond, including through the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
DATES: Written comments on this notice must be received by April 28,
2015, to be assured consideration. Comments received after that date
will be considered to the extent practicable. Send comments to address
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports
Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard,
Suite 1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230; telephone (703) 292-7556; or
send email to [email protected]. Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339, which is accessible
24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year (including federal
holidays).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title Of Collection: Generic Clearance of Survey Improvement
Projects From the National Science Foundation.
OMB Number: 3145--NEW.
Expiration Date of Approval: Not applicable.
Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to establish a generic
clearance for survey improvement projects for the National Science
Foundation.
Abstract: The National Science Foundation (NSF) requests that the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) grant a generic clearance that
will allow NSF to rigorously develop, test, and evaluate its survey
instruments and methodologies. NSF has a mandate to ``provide a central
clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation, and analysis of data
on scientific and engineering resources and to provide a source of
information for policy formulation by other agencies of the Federal
Government.'' This request is part of an ongoing initiative to improve
NSF surveys as recommended by both its own guidelines and those of
OMB.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NSF Information Quality Guidelines are available on http://www.nsf.gov/policies/infoqual.jsp. OMB Information Quality
Guidelines are available on http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/infopoltech.html. OMB standards and guidelines for statistical
surveys are available on http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/statpolicy/standards_stat_surveys.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the last decade, state-of-the art data collection and analysis
methods have been increasingly instituted by NSF and other federal
agencies, and are now routinely used to improve the quality and
timeliness of data and analyses. These new methods or techniques many
times help reduce respondents' cognitive workload and burden. The
purpose of this generic clearance is to allow NSF to continue to adopt
and use these methods or techniques to improve its current data
collections on science, engineering, and technology inputs, outputs and
outcomes. They will be used to improve the content of existing surveys,
to aid in the development of new data collections to capture changes in
the U.S. science and engineering (S&E) enterprise, and to fill gaps in
coverage of the S&E enterprise in the existing NSF portfolio.
Following standard OMB requirements, NSF will submit to OMB an
individual request for each survey improvement project it undertakes
under this generic clearance. NSF will request OMB approval in advance
and provide OMB with a copy of the questionnaire (if one is used) and
materials describing the project.
NSF envisions using a variety of survey improvement techniques, as
appropriate to the individual projects, such as focus groups, cognitive
and usability laboratory and field techniques, exploratory interviews,
behavior coding, respondent debriefing, pilot studies, pretests and
split-panel tests. NSF has used such techniques in previous activities
conducted under generic clearances granted to individual divisions.
a. Focus Groups. A qualitative methodology that brings together a
small number of relatively homogenous subjects to discuss pre-
identified topics. A protocol containing questions or topics focused on
a particular issue or issues is used to guide these sessions, and is
administered by a trained facilitator. Focus groups are useful for
exploring and identifying issues with either respondents or
stakeholders. Focus groups are a good choice during the development of
a survey or survey topic, when a pre-existing questionnaire or survey
questions on the topic do not yet exist. NSF has used focus groups for
several projects under the Science Resources Statistics generic
clearance (OMB Control Number 3145-0174) to assist with redesign of
surveys when it became evident that the content of a survey was
outdated and did not reflect current issues or the context that
respondents were facing.
b. Cognitive and Usability Laboratory and Field Techniques. A
qualitative methodology that refers to a set of tools employed to study
and identify errors that are introduced during the survey process.
These techniques are generally conducted by a researcher with an
individual respondent, though observers may sometimes be present.
Cognitive techniques are generally used to understand the question-
response process, whereas usability is generally used to understand
respondent reactions to the features of an electronic survey
instrument, for instance, its display and navigation. In concurrent
interviews, respondents are asked to think aloud as they actually
answer the survey. In retrospective interviews, respondents answer the
survey as they would normally, then `think aloud' afterwards. Other
techniques, which are described in the literature and which will be
employed as appropriate include: Follow-up probing, memory cue tasks,
paraphrasing, confidence rating, response latency measurements, free
and dimensional sort classification tasks, and vignette
classifications. The objective of all of these techniques is to aid in
the development of surveys that work with respondents' thought
processes, thus reducing response error and burden. These techniques
are generally very useful for studying and revising a pre-existing
questionnaire. NSF has used cognitive and usability testing in previous
generic clearance projects (OMB Control Numbers 3145-
[[Page 10725]]
0157 and 3145-0174) to improve existing survey items, to develop and
refine new content on existing surveys, and to explore content for new
surveys.
c. Exploratory Interviews. A technique where interviews are
conducted with individuals to gather information about a topical area.
These may be used in the very early stages of developing a new survey.
They may cover discussions related to administrative records, subject
matter, definitions, etc. Exploratory interviews may also be used to
investigate whether there are sufficient issues related to an existing
data collection to consider a redesign. NSF has used such interviews
extensively in recordkeeping studies with respondents to several of its
establishment surveys to determine both what types of records
institutions keep (and therefore what types of information they can
supply), as well as where and in what format such records are kept.
d. Respondent Debriefing. A technique in which individuals are
queried about how they have responded to a particular survey, question,
or series of questions. The purpose of the debriefing is to determine
if the original survey questions are understood as intended, to learn
about respondents' form filling behavior and recordkeeping systems, or
to elicit respondents' satisfaction with the survey. This information
can then be used (especially if it is triangulated with other
information) to improve the survey. This technique can be used as a
qualitative or quantitative measurement, depending on how it is
administered. This technique has been employed in NSF generic clearance
projects (OMB Control Number 3145-0174) to identify potential problems
with existing survey items both quantitatively (response behavior
study, or RBS, using web survey questions with respondents to the
Survey of Graduate Students and Post-doctorates in Science and
Engineering, or GSS) and qualitatively (interviews using semi-
structured protocols with Higher Education R&D Survey respondents).
e. Pilot Studies/Pretests. These methodologies are used to test a
preliminary version of the data collection instrument, as was done with
the Early Career Doctorate Project. Pretests are used to gather data to
refine questionnaire items and scales and assess reliability, validity,
or other survey measurement issues. Pilot studies are also used to test
aspects of implementation procedures. The sample may be purposive in
nature, or limited to particular groups for whom the information is
most needed. Alternatively, small samples can be selected to
statistically represent at least some aspect of the survey population.
f. Split Panel Tests. A technique for controlled experimental
testing of alternatives. Thus, they allow one to choose from among
competing questions, questionnaires, definitions, error messages,
surveys, or survey improvement methodologies with greater confidence
than other methods alone. Split panel tests conducted during the actual
fielding of the survey are superior in that they support both internal
validity (controlled comparisons of variables under investigation) and
external validity (represent the population under study). Nearly any of
the previously mentioned survey improvement methods can be strengthened
when teamed with this method.
g. Behavior Coding. A quantitative technique in which a standard
set of codes is systematically applied to respondent/interviewer
interactions in interviewer-administered surveys or respondent/
questionnaire interactions in self-administered surveys. Though this
technique can quantifiably identify problems with the wording of
questions, it does not necessarily illuminate the underlying causes.
Use of the Information: The information obtained from these efforts
will be used to develop new NSF surveys and improve current ones. These
surveys will generally be used to monitor outputs and outcomes of NSF
funding over time (particularly data that is not being collected in
annual and final reports), and manage and improve programs. Data
collected through survey questionnaires can be used in program
evaluation studies and can be matched to administrative data to
understand NSF's portfolio of investments. Specifically, the
information from the survey questionnaire improvement projects will be
used to reduce respondent burden and to improve the quality of the data
collected in these surveys. These objectives are met when respondents
are presented with plain, coherent, and unambiguous questionnaires
asking for data compatible with respondents' memory and/or current
reporting and recordkeeping practices. The purpose of the survey
improvement projects will be to ensure that NSF surveys are
continuously attempting to meet these standards of excellence. Improved
NSF surveys will help policy makers make decisions on R&D funding,
graduate education, scientific and technical workforce, innovation, as
well as contribute to increased agency efficiency and reduced survey
costs. In addition, methodological findings have broader implications
for survey research and may be presented in technical papers at
conferences or published in the proceedings of conferences or in
journals.
Estimate of Burden: NSF estimates that a total reporting burden of
171,000 hours over the three years of the requested generic clearance
is possible from working to evaluate/improve existing surveys and to
develop new ones. This includes both the burden placed on respondents
participating in each activity as well as burden imposed on potential
respondents during screening activities. Table 1 provides a list of
potential improvement projects for which generic clearance activities
might be conducted, along with estimates of the number of respondents
and burden hours that might be involved in each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Number of respondents listed for any individual survey may
represent several methodological improvement projects.
Table 1--Potential Improvement Projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Improvement project type respondents Hours
\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive Testing....................... 5,000 15,000
Focus Groups............................ 5,000 10,000
Card Sorting............................ 5,000 5,000
Interviews.............................. 5,000 5,000
Panelist Survey......................... 7,000 12,000
Past Awardee Survey..................... 9,000 14,000
Usability Testing....................... 5,000 10,000
[[Page 10726]]
Additional surveys not specified........ 35,000 100,000
-------------------------------
Total............................... 76,000 171,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondents: The respondents are PIs, program coordinators, or
participants in NSF activities.
Estimates of Annualized Cost to Respondents for the Hour Burdens
The cost to respondents generated by the list of potential projects
is estimated to be $3,205,680 over the three years of the clearance. No
one year's cost would exceed $3,205,680. In other words, if all work
were done in one year, costs in that one year would be $3,205,680 and
the costs in each of the other 2 years would be zero. As in previous
requests for generic clearance authority, the total cost was estimated
by summing all the hours that might be used on all projects over the
three years (76,000) and multiplying that figure by the hourly wage
($42.18) of the level of employee who typically answers NSF
questionnaires or attends NSF workshops. This wage amount is the May
2011 national cross-industry estimate of the mean hourly wage for a
financial analyst, or Job Category 13-2051, by the Bureau of
Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/oes/#data. The total hours are based on
similar NSF projects over the past few years.
There are no capital, startup, operation or maintenance costs to
the respondents. The costs generated by future data collections will be
described in the clearance request for each specific data collection.
NSF does not anticipate any capital, startup, operation, or maintenance
costs for future surveys.
Dated: February 23, 2015.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2015-04097 Filed 2-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P