Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request, 38236-38238 [2015-16369]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
38236
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 127 / Thursday, July 2, 2015 / Notices
meant to be generalizable to the
population of study.
Affected Public: Individuals and
Households, Businesses and
Organizations, State, Local or Tribal
Governments.
Below we provide projected average
estimates for the next three years. The
formula used to calculate the total
burden hours is ‘‘estimated average time
per responses’’ times ‘‘annual
responses.’’
Estimated Number of Respondents:
10,000.
Estimated Annual Number of
Responses per Respondent: Once per
request.
Estimated Total Annual Responses:
10,000.
Estimated Average Time per
Response: 15 minutes (0.25 hours).
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 2,500 hours.
Request for Comments: NEH will
make comments submitted in response
to this notice, including names and
addresses where provided, a matter of
public record. NEH will summarize the
comments and include them in the
request for OMB approval. We are
requesting comments on all aspects of
this generic clearance request,
including:
(a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the 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
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal
agency. This includes the time needed
to review instructions; to develop,
acquire, install and utilize technology
and systems for the purpose of
collecting, validating and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; to train
personnel and to be able to respond to
a collection of information, to search
data sources, to complete and review
the collection of information; and to
transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:16 Jul 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
NEH is requesting OMB approval for
three years. There are no costs to
respondents other than their time.
Dated: June 23, 2015.
Margaret F. Plympton,
Deputy Chairman.
[FR Doc. 2015–15905 Filed 7–1–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7536–01–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
President’s Committee on the National
Medal of Science; Notice of Meeting
In accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92–
463, as amended), the National Science
Foundation announces the following
meeting:
NAME: President’s Committee on the
National Medal of Science (1182).
DATE AND TIME: Monday, August 24,
2015, 8:30 a.m.–2:00 p.m.
PLACE: National Science Foundation,
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA,
22230.
TYPE OF MEETING: Closed.
CONTACT PERSON: Ms. Sherrie Green,
Program Manager, Room 935, National
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd.,
Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 703–
292–4757.
PURPOSE OF MEETING: To provide advice
and recommendations to the President
in the selection of the 2015 National
Medal of Science recipients.
AGENDA: To review and evaluate
nominations as part of the selection
process for awards.
REASON FOR CLOSING: The nominations
being reviewed include information of a
personal nature where disclosure would
constitute unwarranted invasions of
personal privacy. These matters are
exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) of the
Government in the Sunshine Act.
Dated: June 29, 2015.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015–16378 Filed 7–1–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Comment Request
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review;
comment request.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The National Science
Foundation (NSF) has submitted the
following information collection
requirement to OMB for review and
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
clearance under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104–
13 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is the
second notice for public comment; the
first was published in the Federal
Register at 80 FR 10724 on February 27,
2015, and no comments were received.
Comments regarding (a) whether the
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the NSF, including whether
the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the NSF’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,
including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated or other forms of
information technology should be
addressed to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention:
Desk Officer for National Science
Foundation, 725 7th Street NW., Room
10235, Washington, DC 20503, and to
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance
Officer, National Science Foundation,
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1265,
Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email
to splimpto@nsf.gov. Comments
regarding these information collections
are best assured of having their full
effect if received within 30 days of this
notification. Copies of the submission
may be obtained by calling 703–292–
7556. 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).
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless the
collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB control number
and the agency informs potential
persons who are to respond to the
collection of information that such
persons are not required to respond to
the collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title of Collection: Generic Clearance
of Survey Improvement Projects from
the National Science Foundation.
OMB Number: 3145—NEW.
Type of Request: Intent to seek
approval to establish a generic clearance
for survey improvement projects for the
National Science Foundation.
Abstract:
E:\FR\FM\02JYN1.SGM
02JYN1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 127 / Thursday, July 2, 2015 / Notices
Proposed Project
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.
As part of the execution of its strategic
plan, NSF has proposed several core
strategies of which the following are
related to eliciting information from
entities outside of NSF ‘‘Maintain
extensive documentation, tracking, and
public dissemination of performance
indicators.’’ and ‘‘Develop, where
appropriate, quantitative or evidencebased evaluation of outcomes.’’ This
request is part of an ongoing initiative
to improve NSF surveys as a mechanism
to develop appropriate high quality
instruments to collect quantitative
information for evidence-based
decision-making and evaluation 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 the
impact of NSF funding on the U.S.
science and engineering (S&E)
enterprise, and inform 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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:16 Jul 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
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
Clearance 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.
2. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38237
testing in previous generic clearance
projects (OMB Control Numbers 3145–
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.
3. 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
Clearance 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 semistructured protocols with Higher
Education R&D Survey respondents).
4. 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
E:\FR\FM\02JYN1.SGM
02JYN1
38238
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 127 / Thursday, July 2, 2015 / Notices
information is most needed.
Alternatively, small samples can be
selected to statistically represent at least
some aspect of the survey population.
5. 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.
6. 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, STEM 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
Improvement project type
Hours
Cognitive Testing .....................................................................................................................................................
Focus Groups ..........................................................................................................................................................
Card Sorting .............................................................................................................................................................
Interviews .................................................................................................................................................................
Panelist Survey ........................................................................................................................................................
Past Awardee Survey ..............................................................................................................................................
Usability Testing ......................................................................................................................................................
Additional surveys not specified ..............................................................................................................................
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
7,000
9,000
5,000
35,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
12,000
14,000
10,000
100,000
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
76,000
171,000
Respondents
The respondents are PIs, program
coordinators, or participants in NSFfunded activities.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 $7,212,780 over the three years of
the clearance. No one year’s cost would
exceed $7,212,780. In other words, if all
work were done in one year, costs in
that one year would be $7,212,780 and
the costs in each of the other 2 years
would be zero. As in previous requests
2 Number
of respondents listed for any individual
survey may represent several methodological
improvement projects.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:16 Jul 01, 2015
Jkt 235001
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 (171,000) wage
amount is the May 2011 national crossindustry 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: June 29, 2015.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2015–16369 Filed 7–1–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2012–0220]
Standard Review Plan for Fuel Cycle
Facilities License Applications
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: NUREG; issuance.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\02JYN1.SGM
02JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38236-38238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16369]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request
AGENCY: National Science Foundation.
ACTION: Submission for OMB review; comment request.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the
following information collection requirement to OMB for review and
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is the second notice for public comment;
the first was published in the Federal Register at 80 FR 10724 on
February 27, 2015, and no comments were received. Comments regarding
(a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the NSF, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the NSF'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, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology; (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated or other
forms of information technology should be addressed to: Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for
National Science Foundation, 725 7th Street NW., Room 10235,
Washington, DC 20503, and to Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance
Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite
1265, Arlington, Virginia 22230 or send email to splimpto@nsf.gov.
Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of
having their full effect if received within 30 days of this
notification. Copies of the submission may be obtained by calling 703-
292-7556. 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).
NSF may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless
the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control
number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to
the collection of information that such persons are not required to
respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title of Collection: Generic Clearance of Survey Improvement
Projects from the National Science Foundation.
OMB Number: 3145--NEW.
Type of Request: Intent to seek approval to establish a generic
clearance for survey improvement projects for the National Science
Foundation.
Abstract:
[[Page 38237]]
Proposed Project
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. As part of the execution of its strategic plan, NSF
has proposed several core strategies of which the following are related
to eliciting information from entities outside of NSF ``Maintain
extensive documentation, tracking, and public dissemination of
performance indicators.'' and ``Develop, where appropriate,
quantitative or evidence-based evaluation of outcomes.'' This request
is part of an ongoing initiative to improve NSF surveys as a mechanism
to develop appropriate high quality instruments to collect quantitative
information for evidence-based decision-making and evaluation 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 the impact
of NSF funding on the U.S. science and engineering (S&E) enterprise,
and inform 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 Clearance 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.
2. 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 3145-0157 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.
3. 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 Clearance 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).
4. 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
[[Page 38238]]
information is most needed. Alternatively, small samples can be
selected to statistically represent at least some aspect of the survey
population.
5. 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.
6. 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, STEM 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
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
Additional surveys not specified........ 35,000 100,000
-------------------------------
Total............................... 76,000 171,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respondents
The respondents are PIs, program coordinators, or participants in
NSF-funded activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Number of respondents listed for any individual survey may
represent several methodological improvement projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $7,212,780 over the three years of the clearance. No
one year's cost would exceed $7,212,780. In other words, if all work
were done in one year, costs in that one year would be $7,212,780 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 (171,000) 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: June 29, 2015.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2015-16369 Filed 7-1-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
