Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Establish an Information Collection, 10724-10726 [2015-04097]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
10724
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices
accommodate the scheduling priorities
of the key participants.
Harmony R. Myers,
Acting Advisory Committee Management
Officer, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015–04104 Filed 2–26–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510–13–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To
Establish an Information Collection
National Science Foundation.
Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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
splimpto@nsf.gov. 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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 26, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
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,
1 NSF Information Quality Guidelines are
available on https://www.nsf.gov/policies/
infoqual.jsp. OMB Information Quality Guidelines
are available on https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
inforeg/infopoltech.html. OMB standards and
guidelines for statistical surveys are available on
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/statpolicy/
standards_stat_surveys.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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–
E:\FR\FM\27FEN1.SGM
27FEN1
10725
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices
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.
TABLE 1—POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Number of
respondents 2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Improvement project type
Cognitive Testing .....................................................................................................................................................
Focus Groups ..........................................................................................................................................................
Card Sorting .............................................................................................................................................................
Interviews .................................................................................................................................................................
Panelist Survey ........................................................................................................................................................
Past Awardee Survey ..............................................................................................................................................
Usability Testing ......................................................................................................................................................
2 Number of respondents listed for any individual
survey may represent several methodological
improvement projects.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 26, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\27FEN1.SGM
27FEN1
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
7,000
9,000
5,000
Hours
15,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
12,000
14,000
10,000
10726
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 39 / Friday, February 27, 2015 / Notices
TABLE 1—POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS—Continued
Number of
respondents 2
Improvement project type
Hours
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.
ACTION:
Environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact;
issuance.
Estimates of Annualized Cost to
Respondents for the Hour Burdens
SUMMARY:
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.
https://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
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 72–16; NRC–2014–0154]
North Anna Power Station Independent
Spent Fuel Storage Installation
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Feb 26, 2015
Jkt 235001
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering a
license amendment request for the
Special Nuclear Materials (SNM)
License SNM–2507 for the North Anna
Power Station (NA) independent spent
fuel storage installation (ISFSI) located
in Louisa County, Virginia.
DATES: The environmental assessment
and finding of no significant impact
referenced in this document are
available on February 27, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2014–0154 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2014–0154. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this document
(if that document is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
a document is referenced.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean
Trefethen, Office of Nuclear Material
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–
5137, email: Jean.Trefethen@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The NRC is considering a license
amendment request for Special Nuclear
Materials License Number SNM–2507
for the NA ISFSI located in Louisa
County, Virginia (ADAMS Accession
No. ML14160A707). The applicant,
Virginia Electric and Power Company
(Dominion), is proposing to amend
Technical Specifications (TS) 4.2.3,
‘‘Storage Pad,’’ to define the minimum
center-to-center spacing for
Transnuclear-32 spent nuclear fuel
storage casks, with heat loads no greater
than 27.1 kilowatts (kW), from 16 feet
(feet) to 14 feet. The NRC staff has
prepared a final environmental
assessment (EA) as part of its review of
this proposed license amendment in
accordance with the requirements in
part 51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR). Based on the final
EA, the NRC has determined that a
Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) is appropriate. The NRC is also
conducting a safety evaluation of the
proposed license amendment pursuant
to 10 CFR part 72, and the results will
be documented in a separate Safety
Evaluation Report (SER). If Dominion’s
request is approved, the NRC will issue
the license amendment following
publication of this final EA and FONSI
and the SER.
II. Final Environmental Assessment
Summary
On August 23, 2011, during an
earthquake centered in Mineral,
Virginia, 25 of 27 of the Transnuclear32 casks on NA ISFSI Pad I shifted from
their original positions. The shifting
changed the center-to-center spacing of
the casks from 16 feet to a range of 15
feet 2.25 inches to 16 feet 11.25 inches.
Dominion is proposing to amend SNM–
2507 TS 4.2.3, which would change the
allowable distance between individual
casks (center-to-center) from a nominal
16 feet to a minimum of 14 feet for those
casks with heat loads no greater than
27.1 kW. Dominion is requesting this
license amendment in lieu of moving
E:\FR\FM\27FEN1.SGM
27FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 39 (Friday, February 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10724-10726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 splimpto@nsf.gov. 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 https://www.nsf.gov/policies/infoqual.jsp. OMB Information Quality
Guidelines are available on https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/infopoltech.html. OMB standards and guidelines for statistical
surveys are available on https://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. https://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
