NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Technical Report October 1997

National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study, 1995-96 (NPSAS:96)

Methodology Report

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 98-073
U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Ricky T. Takai

Acting Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Pascal D. Forgione, Jr. 

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing

and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfils a congressional

mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in

the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of

such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review

and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable,

complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, usefully, and high quality

data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the state, other education policymaker,

practitioners, data users and the general public. 

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a

variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information

effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we

would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20208-5574

October 1997

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page address is: http://nces.ed.gov/

Suggested Citation

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. National Postsecondary Student Aid

Study, 1995-96 (NPSAS:96), Methodology Report, NCES 98-073, by John A. Riccobono, Roy W. Whitmore,

Timothy J. Gabel, Mark A. Traccarella, and Daniel J. Pratt, Research Triangle Institute; Lutz K. Berkner,

MPR Associates, Inc. Andrew G. Malizio, project officer. Washington, DC: 1997. 

Contact: 

Aurora D’Amico or Andrew G. Malizio

adamico@inet.ed.gov (202) 219-1365 amalizio@inet.ed.gov

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

Technical Report October 1997

National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study, 1995-96 (NPSAS:96)

Methodology Report

John A. Riccobono

Roy W. Whitmore

Timothy J. Gabel

Mark A. Traccarella

Daniel J. Pratt

Research Triangle Institute

Lutz K. Berkner

MPR Associates, Inc.

Andrew G. Malizio

Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Educational Research and Improvement NCES 98-073

Foreword

This report describes the methods and procedures used for the 1996 National Postsecondary

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96). NPSAS:96 included important changes from previous NPSAS

surveys (conducted in 1987, 1990, and 1993) in its sample design and collection of data. For

example, the current study is the first to employ a single-stage institutional sampling design and to

select a subsample of students for telephone interviews. It is also the first in the NPSAS series to

take full advantage of extant data maintained in government data files. Even so, sufficient

comparability in survey design and instrumentation was maintained to ensure that important

comparisons with past NPSAS studies could be made. 

We hope that the information provided in this report will be useful to a wide range of interested

readers. We also hope that the results reported in the forthcoming descriptive summary reports

will encourage use of the NPSAS:96 data. We welcome recommendations for improving the

format, content, and approach, so that future methodology reports will be more informative and

useful.

Mary Frase

Acting Associate Commissioner

Data Development and Longitudinal Studies Group
Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of staff members of the National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES) and the Office of Education Research and Improvement (OERI) for

their advice, guidance, and review in conducting the study and in preparing this document. We

are particularly grateful to C. Dennis Carroll , head of the Postsecondary Education and

Outcomes Longitudinal Studies Program, and Dr. Andrew Malizio, Project Officer for NPSAS. 

Particular thanks are also extended to the study technical review panel members, who provided

considerable insight and guidance in development of the design and instrumentation of this study

and an earlier major field test. Thanks are also extended to the project staff members of the three

involved contractors--Research Triangle Institute (RTI), MPR Associates, and the National

Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA). A cadre of staff from each of

these organizations, including statisticians, analysts, survey managers, programmers, data

collectors and interviewers--too numerous to list here worked long hours to produce the data files

and reports of the 1996 NPSAS. At RTI, we are especially indebted to Ms. Lil Clark, who

prepared the graphics, integrated the text, and produced the drafts and final version of this report. 

We also wish to thank all of those from OERI/NCES, who reviewed earlier drafts of this report

and offered many helpful suggestions, including: Robert Burton, Kathryn Chandler, Mary Frase,

and Laurence Ogle. Julie Anne Cronin and Ann Parcell from the Office of Tax Analysis, U.S.

Treasury Department also reviewed the report and provided helpful suggestions. 

Most of all, we are greatly indebted to the staff of over 830 postsecondary education institutions

who assisted in the institution records collection and to the over 34,000 students and parents who

generously participated in the telephone survey. Their willingness to take the time to share

information has made this study a success. 
i

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction, Background, and Objectives ............................. 1-1

1.1 Background and Objectives of NPSAS ................................ 1-1

1.2 Methodological Issues ............................................ 1-2

1.3 Special Features of NPSAS:96 ...................................... 1-3

1.4 Major NPSAS:96 Products ......................................... 1-4

Chapter 2 Design and Method of NPSAS:96 .................................... 2-1

2.1 NPSAS:96 Target Population and Sampling Overview .................... 2-1

2.1.1 Target Population ........................................... 2-2

2.1.2 Sample Design Overview ..................................... 2-2

2.2 NPSAS:96 Sample Implementation ................................... 2-6

2.2.1 Institutional Sample ......................................... 2-7

2.2.2 The Student Samples ........................................ 2-8

2.2.2.1 Basic Student Sample .............................. 2-10

2.2.2.2 Student Interview Subsample ......................... 2-11

2.2.2.3 Other Subsamples ................................. 2-14

2.3 Data Collection and Operational Design .............................. 2-16

2.3.1 Overview of Data Collection Instruments and Extant Data Sources ..... 2-18

2.3.2 Institutional Enlistment and Student List Acquisition and Sampling ..... 2-22

2.3.3 Student Record Abstraction .................................. 2-24

2.3.3.1 CPS Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) for SAR Data ..... 2-25

2.3.3.2 CADE Data Abstraction from Students' Institutional Records 2-25

2.3.3.3 Other Post Hoc Student Record Data Obtained ........... 2-26

2.3.4 Student and Parent Locating and Interviewing .................... 2-27

2.3.5 Training Data Collectors ..................................... 2-29

2.3.6 Evaluation and Quality Control Design .......................... 2-31

Chapter 3 Overall Institution, Student, and Parent Data Acquisition Rates and Related

Outcomes ...................................................... 3-1

3.1 Institutional Participation .......................................... 3-1

3.2 Obtaining Student Records ......................................... 3-3

3.2.1 CPS SAR Data ............................................. 3-4

3.2.2 Abstracting Students’ Institutional Records ........................ 3-6

3.2.3 Other Post Hoc Records Abstracted ............................. 3-9

3.3 Student and Parent Locating and Collecting Interview/Questionnaire Data .... 3-14

3.3.1 Students ................................................. 3-14

3.3.2 Parent Subsample .......................................... 3-21

3.4 Overall Study Participation ........................................ 3-22

3.5 Reinterviews ................................................... 3-24
ii

Table of Contents (continued)

Chapter 4 Evaluation of Operations and Data .................................... 4-1

4.1 Enrollment List Acquisition and Processing ............................. 4-1

4.2 CPS Matching ................................................... 4-7

4.3 Institutional Record Abstracting ..................................... 4-11

4.3.1 Ease of CADE Software Use .............................. 4-11

4.3.2 Preloading Record Data into CADE ......................... 4-13

4.3.3 CADE Data Completeness ................................ 4-14

4.3.4 CADE Abstraction Modes ................................ 4-14

4.3.5 Timeliness of Record Abstraction ........................... 4-18

4.4 Individual Tracing and Interviewing .................................. 4-21

4.4.1 CATI External Tracing and Locating Operations ................ 4-21

4.4.2 CATI Tracing/Interviewing ................................ 4-22

4.4.3 Length of Interview ..................................... 4-24

4.4.4 Number and Result of Calls Made to Sample Members ........... 4-27

4.5 Identifying First Time Beginning Students (FTBs) ....................... 4-27

4.5.1 Sequential Procedures for Screening FTBs .................... 4-29

4.5.2 Basic Results for Establishing the BPS:96 Cohort ............... 4-30

4.5.3 Types of First Time Beginners .............................. 4-33

4.6 Quality and Completeness of NPSAS:96 Data .......................... 4-34

4.6.1 CATI Quality Control Monitoring ........................... 4-34

4.6.2 CATI On-line Coding .................................... 4-37

4.6.3 CATI Data Indeterminancies ............................... 4-39

4.6.4 Reliability of Interview Responses ........................... 4-41

4.6.3.1 Analytic Method ............................ 4-42

4.6.3.2 Reliability Results ........................... 4-44

Chapter 5 Variable Construction and File Development ............................ 5-1

5.1 Overview of the NPSAS Files ........................................ 5-1

5.2 Data Coding and Editing ........................................... 5-4

5.2.1 Coding ................................................ 5-4

5.2.2 Editing ................................................ 5-5

5.3 Composite and Derived Variable Construction ........................... 5-6

5.4 Statistical Imputations ............................................. 5-6

5.4.1 Hot Deck Imputation ..................................... 5-6

5.4.2 Imputation for EFC ....................................... 5-9
iii

Table of Contents (continued)

Chapter 6 Weighting and Variance Estimation ................................... 6-1

6.1 Study and CATI Weight Components .................................. 6-2

6.2 FTB Weights ................................................... 6-19

6.3 CADE Weights ................................................. 6-21

6.4 Variance Estimation .............................................. 6-21

6.4.1 Taylor Series ............................................. 6-22

6.4.2 Jackknife Replication ....................................... 6-23

6.4.3 Design Effects ............................................ 6-24

Appendix A NPSAS Sampling Details ..................................... A-1

Appendix B Notification Letters to Sample Members .......................... B-1

Appendix C CADE Facsimile ............................................ C-1

Appendix D Student and Parent Interviews .................................. D-1

Appendix E Training Material ........................................... E-1

Appendix F Design Effect Tables ......................................... F-1

Appendix G Supplemental Tables ......................................... G-1

Appendix H NPSAS:96 Analysis Variables .................................. H-1

Appendix I Imputations ............................................... I-1

Appendix J Comparison of CATI Respondents and Nonrespondents .............. J-1
iv

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Target numbers of sample students by institutional stratum and type of student . 2-6

Table 2.2 Institutional sampling rates and number of certainty and non-certainty 

institutions sampled, by institutional stratum ........................... 2-9

Table 2.3 Distribution of NPSAS:96 institutional sample by OBE region .............. 2-9

Table 2.4 Realized student sample, by institutional and student strata ............... 2-12

Table 2.5 Phase 1 student interview subsampling .............................. 2-13

Table 2.6 Phase 2 student interview subsampling .............................. 2-14

Table 2.7 Numbers of students selected for parent interviewing .................... 2-15

Table 2.8 Start and end dates for major NPSAS:96 activities ..................... 2-18

Table 2.9 Summary of NPSAS:96 evaluation approaches ........................ 2-32

Table 2.10 Integrated management system processes and purposes .................. 2-35

Table 3.1 Overall institutional eligibility and enrollment list participation rates .......... 3-2

Table 3.2 Matching rates for CPS SAR data of 1995-96 (SAR 95-96) and of 

1996-97 (SAR 96-97), by selected domains ............................ 3-5

Table 3.3 Institution-level rates for obtaining institutional record data (CADE),

by selected classifications ......................................... 3-8

Table 3.4 Student-level rates for obtaining institutional record data (CADE), by selected

classifications ................................................. 3-10

Table 3.5 Results of NSLDS matching attempt, by selected institutional and student

classifications ................................................. 3-12

Table 3.6 Results of Pell grant file matching attempt, by selected 

institutional and student classifications ............................... 3-13

Table 3.7 Student interview response rates, by selected classifications ............... 3-18

Table 3.8 Phase-2 student locating rates and interview response 

rates conditional on locating, by selected classifications .................. 3-20

Table 3.9 Overall parent supplement interview rates, by selected classifications ........ 3-23

Table 3.10 Overall study student yield rates ................................... 3-25

Table 3.11 Reliability reinterview results, by student and institution classifiers .......... 3-26
v

List of Tables (continued)

Table 4.1 Enrollment list receipt, by month and institutional calendar system ........... 4-2

Table 4.2 Institutional NPSAS:96 enrollment list participation, by prior NPSAS 

participation ................................................... 4-4

Table 4.3 Institutional participation in NPSAS by Carnegie classification category and year of

study ......................................................... 4-5

Table 4.4 NPSAS participation of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) ... 4-6

Table 4.5 Types of student lists provided by institutions, by highest level of offering ..... 4-6

Table 4.6 Types of discrepancies encountered with student lists, by highest level

 of offering .................................................... 4-8

Table 4.7 Extent of “missed” CPS matches by student type ....................... 4-10

Table 4.8 Extent and nature of CADE agreement with CPS EFC .................. 4-12

Table 4.9 Nature and source of data elements preloaded into CADE ................ 4-13

Table 4.10 CADE data elements with highest indeterminacy rate ................... 4-16

Table 4.11 Institutional original and final choices of record abstraction method ......... 4-17

Table 4.12 CADE duration statistics by institution type .......................... 4-20

Table 4.13 Percentage of students requiring intensive tracing procedures ............. 4-23

Table 4.14 Average minutes to complete NPSAS:96 student telephone interview by 

section and student type ......................................... 4-25

Table 4.15 Average minutes to complete the NPSAS:96 parent telephone interview, 

by section .................................................... 4-26

Table 4.16 Number and result of calls made to sample members by type of institution 

and type of students ............................................. 4-28

Table 4.17 FTB determination by student classification ........................... 4-31

Table 4.18 FTB determination for those identified by NPSAS institution as potential 

FTBS, by institution type ......................................... 4-32

Table 4.19 FTB determination for those not identified by NPSAS institution as potential

FTBs, by institution type ......................................... 4-33

Table 4.20 Known FTBs by type of FTB and whether NPSAS institution was first

institution attended ............................................. 4-34

Table 4.21 Success rates for CATI on-line coding procedures ...................... 4-38

Table 4.22 Student interview item non-response for items with more than 10 percent

 “don’t know” or “refused” ....................................... 4-40

Table 4.23 Reliability indices for education finance items ......................... 4-44

Table 4.24 Reliability indices for work experience items .......................... 4-45

Table 4.25 Reliability indices for income ...................................... 4-47

Table 4.26 Reliability indices for personal and family educational experience items ...... 4-48
vi

List of Tables (continued)

Table 5.1 Record counts from NPSAS: 96 data sources .......................... 5-2

Table 5.2 Description of missing data codes ................................... 5-5

Table 5.3 The statistically imputed variables and the amount of data imputed .......... 5-7

Table 6.1 Weight adjustment factors for institution nonresponse .................... 6-5

Table 6.2 Weight adjustment factors for unknown student eligibility status and for 

insufficient student CADE/CPS data ................................. 6-8

Table 6.3 Average sampling rates for selection into phase one and phase two of CATI . . 6-10

Table 6.4 Average weight adjustment factors from logistic model used to adjust CATI 

weights for student location nonresponse ............................. 6-13

Table 6.5 Average weight adjustment factors from logistic model used to adjust CATI 

weights for student interview nonresponse ............................ 6-15

Table 6.6 Average weight adjustment factors from exponential model for poststratifying 

to student enrollment control totals ................................. 6-19

Table 6.7 Average weight adjustment factors from exponential model for poststratifying 

to Pell grant and Stafford loan control total ........................... 6-20
vii

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Schematic of Sequential NPSAS:96 Sampling Operations ................. 2-4

Figure 2.2 Schematic of NPSAS:96 Major Data Collection Activities Flow ........... 2-17

Figure 2.3 Structure of the NPSAS:96 CADE Instrument ........................ 2-19

Figure 2.4 Structure and Flow of NPSAS:96 Field Test Student CATI ............... 2-21

Figure 2.5 Integrated Management System Utilities ............................. 2-36

Figure 3.1 Student Sample Case Flow Through CATI Selection, Locating, Interviewing, 

and Related Case Resolution ...................................... 3-15

Figure 4.1 Cumulative Percentages of Enrollment List Receipt by Month and Institutional 

Calendar System. ................................................ 4-3

Figure 4.2 Cumulative Institutional Flow of CADE ............................. 4-19

Figure 4.3 Cumulative Student Flow of CADE ................................. 4-19

Figure 4.4 Cumulative Cases Loaded and Completed by Week of NPSAS:96 CATI Data

Collection .................................................... 4-24

Figure 4.5 Monitoring Error Rates for CATI Question Delivery .................... 4-35

Figure 4.6 Monitoring Error Rates for CATI Data Entry ......................... 4-36
viii
Research Triangle Institute, National Postsecondary Student Aid Study: 1996--Field Test Methodology 1

Report, (Working Paper No. 96-17). National Center for Education Statistics: Washington, DC; Author; July

1996. 

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report 1-1

Chapter 1

Introduction, Background, and Objectives

This report describes methodological procedures and results for the 1995-96 National

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:96). This study, which was preceded by a substantial

field test, was conducted for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. 1

Department of Education, by Research Triangle Institute (RTI), assisted by MPR Associates, Inc.

and the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), as principal

subcontractors.

This introductory chapter describes briefly the background, objectives, methodological

issues, and products of NPSAS:96. In Chapter 2, study design and method are summarized. 

Descriptions and overall outcomes of the several stages of data collection are presented in

Chapter 3. Chapter 4 presents evaluations of procedures used to collect information from

institutions, students, and parents, and examines issues related to the quality of the data collected. 

Chapter 5 provides descriptions of data editing, coding, variable construction and other activities

associated with producing study data files. The final chapter describes the analysis weight

construction and identifies precision of study estimates. Materials used during the NPSAS:96

survey, as well as other related supporting material, are provided as appendixes to the report and

cited, where appropriate, in the text. 

1.1 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES OF NPSAS

NPSAS is a comprehensive nationwide study to determine how students and their families

pay for postsecondary education, and to describe some demographic and other characteristics of

those enrolled. The study is based on a nationally representative sample of all students enrolled

in postsecondary education institutions, including undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional

students. Students attending all types and levels of institutions are represented in the samples,

including public and private for-profit and not-for-profit institutions, and from less-than-2-year

institutions to 4-year colleges and universities. The study is designed to address the policy

questions resulting from the rapid growth of financial aid programs and the succession of changes

in financial aid program policies since 1986. The first study (NPSAS:87) was conducted during

the 1986-87 school year; subsequently, NPSAS has been conducted triennially as NPSAS:90,

NPSAS:93, and the current NPSAS:96. Each study is designed to cover the July 1 through June

30 financial aid award year.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND OBJECTIVES

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report 1-2

A main objective of the study is to produce reliable national estimates of characteristics

related to financial aid for postsecondary students. The data are part of the NCES comprehensive

information on student financial aid and other characteristics of those enrolled in postsecondary

education. The data focus on three general questions with important policy implications for

financial aid programs: 

How do students and their families finance postsecondary education?

How does the process of financial aid work, in terms of both who applies and who

receives aid?

What are the effects of financial aid on students and their families? 

The first and third questions address the basic purpose of financial aid and provide one

measure of the success of financial aid programs, including the underlying strategies of students

and families in financing postsecondary education (e.g., Do students avoid socially desirable

career paths because of the need to repay higher levels of debt?) The Beginning Postsecondary

Students and Baccalaureate and Beyond longitudinal studies, for which NPSAS provides base

year information, also address the third question. The second question addresses the actual

implementation of student aid programs. The implementation of Federal financial aid programs is

greatly influenced by decisions and practices of school financial aid offices and banks which have

the primary responsibility for providing information to students and awarding the various types of

aid; consequently, information is needed regarding the types and amounts of aid awards being

made by institutions. 

1.2 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

As described subsequently in Chapter 2, the NPSAS survey design is both large and

complex. Data are collected from a very large and diverse set of respondents; over 950

postsecondary institutions, 50,000 students, and 8,800 parents were selected for participation in

NPSAS:96. A major methodological concern underlying NPSAS is designing a data collection

system that has the flexibility to gather comprehensive financial data from the most appropriate

source and concurrently provide some assurance of comparability in data collection for each

element. Of the potential sources for NPSAS data--government data files, institutions, students,

or parents--none alone can provide a complete and accurate summary of postsecondary education

financing. 

Financial aid offices maintain accurate records of certain types of financial aid at that

institution, but these records are not necessarily inclusive of all support and assistance. Such

records may not contain financial aid provided at other institutions attended by the student and

they cannot provide detailed information on sources of aid and educational financing other than

those recorded by that financial aid office. (Two notable exceptions that are not maintained in

many financial aid offices are employee benefits and graduate teaching or research assistantships.) 

Students and their parents are more likely than institutions to have a comprehensive picture of

education financing, but may not have accurate memory or records of exact amounts and sources,

which they may have earlier provided accurately to lending agencies or aid providers (or
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND OBJECTIVES

Research Triangle Institute, July 1996, Op. Cit. 2

As in prior NPSAS studies, financial data were also obtained for aid recipients through EDI with the ED 3

Pell Grant Files.

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report 1-3

clearinghouses), and which may exist in student financial aid records. Consequently, the NPSAS

data requirements call for a survey design that builds a comprehensive and accurate

understanding of postsecondary education financing from a number of different sources. To meet

this challenge, NPSAS:96 relied on an integrated system of computer-assisted data capture

instruments. 

Innovative methodological solutions that were applied to NPSAS:96 challenges were

tested and refined during a substantial field test conducted during the 1994-95 school year on a

separate independent sample of students and institutions. Results of the field test have been

reported separately.2

1.3 SPECIAL FEATURES OF NPSAS:96

Although the general purposes of the NPSAS studies have remained quite consistent, all

NPSAS implementations except the first also have served as the base year for a longitudinal study. 

For NPSAS:96 and NPSAS:90, the longitudinal cohort was comprised of students who began

their postsecondary education during the NPSAS year. As in the past, the NPSAS:96 longitudinal

cohort was over-sampled to support the subsequent longitudinal follow-up studies, the 1996

Beginning Postsecondary Students (BPS:96) survey series.

In implementing three prior rounds of NPSAS and their associated field tests, NCES and

its contractors have developed and refined a number of systems and methods to facilitate

subsequent rounds. Consequently, in NPSAS:96, methods that had both proved successful and

remained applicable to current study needs were generally maintained or refined. Like prior

NPSAS implementations, however, the current study also attempted to take advantage of new

technologies and to access newly available data sources toward improving study efficiency and/or

the quality of data collected. The major new features of the NPSAS:96 study were:

enriching study data by obtaining, through electronic data interchange (EDI) with a

Department of Education (ED) data system, financial data provided by federal aid

applicants on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and resulting

Student Aid Report (SAR) -- obtained for school years 1995-96 and 1996-97;

enriching study data by obtaining, through EDI with the ED National Student

Loan Data System (NSLDS) files, information available for loan recipients during

the 1995-96 school year ;

3

increasing precision of study estimates (at negligible cost) by eliminating the

previously used first stage of student sampling (i.e., geographic area);
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND OBJECTIVES

English/Spanish bilingual interviewers were used in NPSAS:96 as in previous NPSAS studies to 4

interview Spanish speaking sample members with limited English proficiency.

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report 1-4

introducing cost efficiencies through a dynamic two phase sampling of students for

telephone interview; and

improving the quality of collected institutional data of record through an enhanced

Computer Assisted Data Entry (CADE) procedure.

NPSAS:96 also introduced procedures to broaden the base of postsecondary student types

for whom telephone interview data could be collected. In past NPSAS implementations, no

mechanism existed for contacting and collecting information by telephone from students with

severe hearing impairments; however, NPSAS:96 included the use of Telephone Display for the

Deaf (TDD) technology to facilitate telephone communications with such students. Also, in

NPSAS:96, a separate Spanish translation interview was prepared for administration to students

with insufficient English language proficiency to complete the interview in English or with only

moderate translation of terms by a bilingual interviewer . This was particularly useful with the 4

students from sampled postsecondary institutions in Puerto Rico.

1.4 MAJOR NPSAS:96 PRODUCTS

By Spring 1998 the following products/reports will be available:

Profile of Undergraduates in the U.S. Postsecondary Education Institutions:

1995-96

Report describing the characteristics of undergraduates enrolled during 1995-96, including

age, race, gender, income, financial aid receipt, community service, veteran status, and more,

based on the 1996 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study. The report will include a special

section on student employment.

Student Financing of Graduate and First-professional Education 1995-96

Based on data from the 1996 NPSAS, this report will describe the characteristics of

graduate and first-professional students enrolled during 1995-96, including age, race, gender,

income, financial aid receipt, community service, veteran status, and more. Also, the report will

describe those graduate and first-professional students who received financial aid, including

grants, loans, and work-study from federal, state, institution, or other sources, by selected student

characteristics. The report will include a section on the timing of graduate education - the number

of years between finishing undergraduate work and beginning graduate study.
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND, AND OBJECTIVES

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report 1-5

Student Financing of Undergraduate Education, 1995-96

This report will focus on undergraduate students, and examines how undergraduate

students enrolled during 1995-96 financed their education. The report includes a section that

explores undergraduate borrowing, including information from the National Student Loan Data

System on cumulative borrowing. Other tables in the report will include information on total

costs of attendance, the distribution of financial aid among students by type of institution, and the

net cost of attendance.

NPSAS:96 Undergraduate and Graduate/First-professional Data Analysis

Systems

The Data Analysis System (DAS) is a Windows software application that provides public

access to NCES survey data. Two DAS's have been created from the NPSAS:96 data -- an

undergraduate DAS and a graduate/first-professional DAS. With the DAS, users can generate

tables of percentages, means, or correlation coefficients simply by choosing the DAS variables

(based on survey questionnaire items) that they would like to appear in a table and indicating what

function should be used. Contact Aurora D'Amico at 202-219-1365 to obtain a NPSAS:96 DAS

or one of the NPSAS:96 reports.

NPSAS:96 Restricted Use Data Files

The survey data files used in to create variables in the Data Analysis Systems, and the

associated electronic codebooks and file documentation, are available to researchers who have

obtained a restricted data license from NCES. Information on obtaining a restricted data license

may be found in the NCES Field Restricted Use Data Procedures Manual, available from Cynthia

Barton at 202-219-2199. Her e-mail address is Cynthia_Barton@ed.gov. 

Information on NPSAS:96 products is available from the NCES Website

http://www.ed.gov/NCES/.
Final 1995-96 enrollment lists were available from some institutions as early as February, 1996; however, 1

other institutions did not provide final lists until August, 1996. 

Research Triangle Institute, July 1996, op. cit. 2

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-1

Chapter 2

Design and Method of NPSAS:96

The implementation of NPSAS:96 posed a number of operational challenges in both

selecting samples and in subsequent phases of data collection. Perhaps the largest challenge

was the need to complete complex, sequentially dependent operations in an overlapping manner,

due to the time differential of when student sampling lists were made available from institutions.1

Considerable planning and development of operational controls were required. To meet

the challenge, NPSAS:96 relied on an integrated system of computer assisted data capture

approaches, including: (a) Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) with extant data bases,

(b) Computer Assisted Data Entry (CADE), and (c) Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing

(CATI). The NPSAS Integrated Management System (IMS) provided the framework for

articulating modules developed to record, abstract, or transfer data. Additional modules of the

IMS facilitated editing of these data, loading data from one module to another (e.g., from the

CADE record to the student CATI record), and preparing, daily reports of production and case

management. Communication modules of the IMS provided the capability for transfer of data

from the field to a central office and also for routine communication via electronic mail between

all members of the project team.

The several innovative methodological solutions that were applied to NPSAS:96

challenges were refined during a substantial field test conducted during the 1994-95 school year

on a separate independent sample of students and institutions.2

2.1 NPSAS:96 Target Population and Sampling Overview

The basic features of the NPSAS:96 Sampling Plan and the samples realized therefrom

are summarized in the following two sections. Greater detail is provided in Appendix A for the

interested reader.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

Excluding students who were enrolled solely in a GED program or who were concurrently enrolled in 3

high school. 

Nearly all members of the target population are also members of the survey population; however, the 4

adopted definition of the survey population allowed the student lists needed for sample selection to be obtained in

January or February for most institutions (e.g., those on a semester calendar system).

For NPSAS:90, the students sampled were those enrolled on August 1, 1989, October 15, 1989, February 5

15, 1990, or June 15, 1990 (however, the June 15 enrollees were not sampled for 4-year institutions because of

budgetary limitations); for NPSAS:87, only Fall 1986 enrollees were sampled. 

Stages were: (1) geographic areas constructed from 3-digit postal Zip code areas; (2) institutions within 6

sample areas; and (3) students within sample institutions. An area clustered design was necessary for NPSAS:87

because a complete institution frame was not available at that time, and the frame was supplemented with local

sources. An area clustered design was used for the 1990 and 1993 studies to reduce the costs associated with

sending field staff to sample institutions to abstract registration and financial aid data for sample students.

The field test sample of institutions was selected from those that were in neither of the institutional 7

samples selected for the full-scale study, to insure that no institution would be burdened by participation in both

surveys.

The relatively small cost differential between the two approaches results from greater use of two new 8

procedures for collecting student financial aid information and other information from institutional records. The

first of these procedures, introduced in the NPSAS:96 Field Test involved collecting, through EDI, SAR data from

the ED central processing system (CPS) prior to any data collection at the involved institution. The second

procedure, which was introduced in NPSAS:93, was the use of remote CADE, by institutional staff at most schools

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-2

2.1.1 Target Population

The ideal target population for NPSAS:96 consists of all students who were enrolled in

postsecondary institutions in the United States or Puerto Rico between July 1, 1995 and

June 30, 1996. Using this time period to define the survey population, however, would delay 3

final sampling for many institutions until after the first 1996 summer session began.

Consequently, the survey population was defined as those students who were enrolled in any

term beginning between May 1, 1995 and April 30, 1996. This definition of the survey 4

population is completely consistent with that used for NPSAS:93. It also provides substantial

comparability with the survey populations for NPSAS:90 and NPSAS:87. Further constraints 5

on this general population are provided subsequently.

2.1.2 Sample Design Overview

Geographic-area-clustered, three-stage sampling designs were used for all previous

NPSAS studies. However, as part of the NPSAS:96 field test activities, the feasibility of 6

increasing precision of study estimates by eliminating the geographic area stage of sampling was

examined. Both a clustered sample of institutions and an unclustered sample of institutions were

selected for NPSAS:96. A comparison of expected costs and precision for these two sampling 7

designs (i.e., three-stage vs. two-stage) indicated that: (1) the expected difference in cost

between the two designs was not substantial and (2) standard errors for important estimates 8
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

and by field staff only at the remainder, to obtain information from school records. 

Research Triangle Institute, July 1996, Op. Cit. 9

Institutions that award first-professional degrees are included in doctorate-granting institutions. 10

Quality control checks were performed on each listing received from a sample institution, by comparing 11

the numbers of undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional students listed to the unduplicated head counts

reported for the 1993-94 academic year in the 1994-95 IPEDS IC file.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-3

were expected to be 10 to 25 percent smaller with the two-stage design than those with the

three-stage design. Since a two-stage design can only improve precision and the cost penalty

did not appear to be substantial, the two-stage design was fielded for the full-scale NPSAS:96.

Comparisons of cost and precision estimates under the two sampling approaches are provided in

Appendix A (Tables A.1 and A.2); greater detail on procedures and conclusions is provided in

the NPSAS:96 field test report.9

An overview of the sequential statistical sampling process for NPSAS:96 is provided in

Figure 2.1. The institutional sampling frame for NPSAS:96 was constructed from the 1993-94

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Institutional Characteristics (IC) file.

This data base is considered to provide nearly complete coverage of the institutions in the target

population. Listings in the file that were not eligible institutions (e.g., institutions located

outside the U.S. and Puerto Rico; central offices) were not considered. The remaining

institutions were then partitioned into nine institutional strata based on institutional control and

highest level of offering:

(1) Public, less-than-2-year;

(2) Public, 2-year;

(3) Public, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting;

(4) Public, 4-year, doctorate-granting;10

(5) Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year;

(6) Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting;

(7) Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorate-granting;10

(8) Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year; and

(9) Private, for-profit, 2-year or more.

A stratified sample of 973 institutions was then selected with probabilities proportional to size

(pps); some of these institutions subsequently proved to be ineligible and others failed to

participate.

The sampling frames for selecting sample students were hard-copy and machine-readable

lists of students provided by the sample institutions for those students enrolled in terms or

courses of instruction beginning during the previously defined NPSAS year.11

Student listings were sampled on a flow basis as received, using stratified systematic sampling;

student sampling strata were:

(1) potential first-time, beginning students (FTBs).
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-4

(2) other undergraduate students.

(3) graduate students; and

(4) first-professional students.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-5

Figure 2.1—Schematic of sequential NPSAS:96 sampling operations
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

As suggested by the selection rules, the purpose of the parent data collection was primarily to complete 12

data gaps regarding the parents’ financial resources.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-6

The list for each student stratum was sampled at a rate designed to provide approximately equal

student-level probabilities under certain constraints (see below). Student sampling rates were

revised after enough lists had been received to more accurately estimate the overall sample

yield.

Due to budget limitations, CATI was attempted for only a subsample of the basic student

sample. A two-phase, nonrespondent follow-up subsampling design was used to maximize the

yield of completed student interviews obtained from the CATI subsample while achieving

acceptable response rates. Previously collected student record data were used to partition the

basic student sample into nine strata for the Phase 1 CATI subsampling:

(1) potential first-time, beginning students (FTBs).

(2) other undergraduate students who were financial aid applicants;

(3) other undergraduate students who were not financial aid applicants;

(4) graduate students who were financial aid applicants;

(5) graduate students who were not financial aid applicants;

(6) first-professional students who were financial aid applicants;

(7) first-professional students who were not financial aid applicants;

(8) students for whom no “records” data had been collected from any source; and

(9) students identified as ineligible based on the CADE data.

Students were subsampled for CATI at fixed positive rates within each of the first seven strata

(potential FTBs and federal aid applicants were selected with certainty, see Table 2.5); no

students were selected from the last two listed strata.

Within the Phase 1 CATI subsample, all students in the below-listed categories (based

on previously collected “records” data) were designated for parent interviewing.12

(1) Dependent undergraduate students not receiving federal aid.

(2) Dependent undergraduate students receiving federal aid, whose parents’ adjusted

gross income was not available.

(3) Independent undergraduate students who were 24- or 25- years old on

December 31, 1995.

These sampling procedures resulted in selection of 51,195 students for Phase 1 of the student

CATI. Among these students, 8,803 were also selected for parent interviewing. A sample of

nonrespondents to Phase 1 of CATI were selected for Phase 2 of CATI with specified rates

based on the outcome of the Phase 1 CATI efforts and the seven CATI sampling strata. If the

student did not respond in Phase 1 of CATI and was not selected for Phase 2, the parent

interview was not attempted; 25,766 students were selected for Phase 2 of CATI.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

Students who began their postsecondary education during the NPSAS year. 13

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-7

2.2 NPSAS:96 Sample Implementation

The goal of all sampling activities was to attain sufficient numbers of eligible sample

postsecondary students (within specified student and institution types). An important domain of

the student sample was the set of students identified as FTBs, who would comprise the 13

baseline cohort for the BPS longitudinal study. The desired number of sample students was

determined by accounting for expected (from prior NPSAS studies) rates of ineligibility among

sample students and rates of FTB misclassification, (as determined from NPSAS:90 and the

NPSAS:96 field test). Since the student samples were selected on a flow basis as sample

institutions provided their enrollment lists (in order to meet the data collection schedule), the

students were sampled at fixed rates. Under this approach, the actual numbers of students

sampled are random variables; however, the sampling rates were set to meet or exceed the

sample sizes shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1—Target numbers of sample students by institutional stratum and type of

student

Institutional stratum Total FTBs undergraduates students students

Potential Other Graduate professional

a

Firsta

Total 59,509 22,677 23,908 9,924 3,000

Public, less-than-2-year 1,674 1,575 99 † †

Public, 2-year 7,761 4,345 3,416 † †

Public, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting 9,656 2,896 4,860 1,900 †

Public, 4-year, doctorate-granting 13,043 2,471 5,685 3,803 1,084

Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year 2,301 1,485 816 † †

Private, not-for-profit, non-doctorate-granting 7,918 2,528 3,490 1,900 †

Private, not for profit, 4-year, doctorategranting 10,691 2,588 4,031 2,198 1,874

Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 3,455 3,318 137 -- --

a a

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 3,010 1,471 1,374 -- --

a a a

Entries do not sum to total because a small sample of graduate and first-professional students was expected from private, a

for-profit institutions.

†Not applicable.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

This was to allow NCES to send each participating institution a report using the results of the interviews 14

with their students without violating confidentiality requirements. 

The listed eligibility requirements are consistent with those used in previous NPSAS implementations. 15

These academies are not eligible for this financial aid study because of their unique funding/tuition base. 16

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-8

The NPSAS:96 sample was also designed to achieve at least 30 student CATI respondents

from each sample institution that had at least that many eligible students enrolled during the

NPSAS year. Consequently, institution sample sizes were determined to achieve an average of 14

approximately 50 or more sample students per institution within each institutional stratum.

Given these student sample size goals, it was determined that the survey should be based on

approximately 850 participating institutions. Based on institutional eligibility and participation rates

obtained in prior NPSAS implementations and the NPSAS:96 field test, an initial sample of 973

institutions was selected to yield at least the targeted 850 eligible and participating schools.

2.2.1 Institutional Sample

The target population for NPSAS:96 includes nearly all postsecondary institutions in the 50

states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Specifically, to be eligible for NPSAS:96 an

institution is required, during the 1995-96 academic year, to:15

offer an educational program designed for persons who have completed secondary

education; and

offer more than just correspondence courses; and

offer at least one academic, occupational, or vocational program off study lasting at

least 3 months or 300 clock hours; and

offer courses that are open to more than the employees or members of the company or

group (e.g., union) that administers the institution; and

be located in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico; and

be other than a U.S. Service Academy.16

Institutions providing only avocational, recreational, or remedial courses or only in-house courses

for their own employees are excluded.

The student sample was allocated to the separate applicable institutional and student sampling

strata, defined above. Student sampling rates (used to define institution measures of size) were

defined based on 1993-94 IPEDS IC file counts, a modeling procedure to partition FTBs and other

undergraduates, and the required sample sizes (see Appendix A for details).
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

Chromy, J.R. (1979). “Sequential Sample Selection Methods.” Proceedings of the American Statistical 17

Association Section on Survey Research Methods, 401-406. 

By precluding institutions with multiple selections at the first stage of sampling, it was unnecessary to 18

select multiple second-stage samples of students. 

c.f.,Williams, R.L. and Chromy, J.R. (1980). “SAS Sample Selection MACROs.” Proceedings of the 19

Fifth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference, 392-396. 

c.f., Chromy, J.R. (1981). “Variance Estimators for a Sequential Sample Selection Procedure.” In: D. 20

Krewski, R. Platek, and J.N.K. Rao (Eds.), Current Top IMS in Survey Sampling. New York: Academic Press,

329-347. 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-9

An independent sample of institutions was selected for each institutional stratum using

Chromy’s sequential, probability minimum replacement (pmr) sampling algorithm to select 17

institutions with probabilities proportional to their computed measures of size. However, rather

than allow multiple selections of sample institutions, those with expected frequencies of selection 18

greater than unity (1.00) were selected with certainty. The remainder of the institutional sample

was selected from the remaining institutions within each stratum. The sampling algorithm was

implemented with a random start for each institutional stratum to ensure the positive pairwise

probabilities of selection that are needed for proper variance estimation.19

The numbers of certainty and noncertainty schools selected, within each of the nine

institutional strata, are shown in Table 2.2. Within each institutional stratum, additional implicit

stratification was accomplished by sorting the stratum sampling frame in a serpentine manner by: 20

(a) institutional level of offering (where strata had been collapsed one level); (b) the IPEDS IClisted Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce Region (OBE Region);

and (c) the institution measure of size. The objectives of this additional, implicit stratification

were to approximate proportional representation of institutions on these measures. Table 2.3,

shows that the geographic distribution of the sample is consistent with that of the subset of

institutions from which the sample was selected.

2.2.2 The Student Samples

In addition to the initial (basic) student sampling, additional student subsampling was

implemented in NPSAS:96. Because of budgetary constraints, only a subsample of students

were selected for interviewing; moreover, interviewing was conducted in two phases, and only a

subsample of first phase nonrespondents were selected for the second interviewing phase.

Additionally, certain students were selected for whom an interview with their parents would be

required to obtain certain data elements. Finally, a small subsample of students was selected for

reliability interviews.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-10

Table 2.2—Institutional sampling rates and number of certainty and non-certainty

institutions sampled, by institutional stratum

Size of Sampling NonInstitutional stratum Universe Rate Total Certainty certainty b

Number of sample institutions

a

Total 9,468 0.10 973 131 842

1. Public, less-than-2-year 273 0.14 39 10 29

2. Public, 2-year 1,265 0.13 165 7 158

3. Public, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting 376 0.33 125 14 111

4. Public, 4-year, doctorate-granting 243 0.51 124 29 95

5. Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year 902 0.06 56 6 50

6. Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctorategranting 1,306 0.09 120 2 118

7. Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorate-granting 681 0.21 143 54 89

8. Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 3,516 0.03 120 2 118

9. Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 906 0.09 81 7 74

Stratum reflects institutional categorization as determined from the 1993-94 IPEDS IC file; some errors in this classification a

were uncovered when institutions were contacted.

Based on the 1993-94 IPEDS IC file. B

Table 2.3— Distribution of NPSAS:96 institutional sample by OBE region

Sample institutions IPEDS institutionsb

OBE region Number Percent Number Percent a

1. New England 62 6.4 542 5.7

2. Mid-East 181 18.6 1,557 16.4

3. Great Lakes 150 15.4 1,486 15.7

4. Plains 70 7.2 801 8.5

5. Southeast 194 19.9 2,105 22.2

6. Southwest 89 9.1 878 9.3

7. Rocky Mountains 34 3.5 322 3.4

8. Far West 170 17.5 1,622 17.1

9. Outlying Areas 23 2.4 155 1.6

1 includes CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT; 2 includes DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA; 3 includes IL, IN, MI, OH, WI; 4 includes a

IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, AND, SD; 5 includes AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV; 6 includes AZ,

NM, OK, TX; 7 includes CO, ID; 7 includes MT, UT, WY; 8 includes AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA; and 9 includes PR.

Counts obtained from the 1993-94 IPEDS IC file, subsetted to those from which the sample was selected. b
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

Machine-readable lists were unduplicated by sorting on the student ID number and deleting duplicates 21

prior to sample selection. 

The fall term was given precedence in this process for comparability with NPSAS:87. If the institution 22

did not have standard terms, other orderings of the student lists were used to achieve unduplication of the sample. 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-11

2.2.2.1 Basic Student Sample

The postsecondary students eligible for NPSAS:96 were those who attended a NPSASeligible institution during the previously defined NPSAS year and who were:

enrolled in either (a) an academic program; (b) at least one course for credit

that could be applied toward fulfilling the requirements for an academic degree;

or (c) an occupational or vocational program that required at least 3 months or

300 clock hours of instruction to receive a degree, certificate, or other formal

award;

• not concurrently enrolled in high school; and

• not enrolled solely in a GED or other high school completion program.

Construction of Initial Sampling Frames

Each sampled institution was that was verified as NPSAS-eligible was asked to

provide lists of all its students who satisfied all the NPSAS eligibility conditions, preferably

nonduplicated, machine-readable lists (diskette, magnetic tape, or electronic mail file), together

with identifying and classifying information (see section 2.3.2 below). Although machinereadable files were preferred, the preferences of sample institutions were accommodated, and

whatever type(s) of student list(s) they were able to provide were accepted. Separate,

unduplicated lists (in which each student’s name appears only once) were requested for firsttime beginning, other undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional students (the basic

strata) were requested of those providing hard copy lists. As expected, however, many

institutions sent separate lists for each term or course of instruction; in which cases an

individual student’s name could appear on more than one list. In such cases, selected samples

were “unduplicated” to ensure that each student received only one chance of selection.

As student lists were received from institutions, students were sampled. Stratified 21

systematic sampling was used to ensure comparable sampling procedures for both hard-copy

and machine-readable lists. In the case of duplicated hard-copy lists, a stratified systematic

sample was selected from each list provided (typically separate lists by term) and the samples

selected were “unduplicated” against master lists (see Appendix A). After the sample of 22

students had been selected for an institution, Social Security numbers of those sampled were

compared to those of students who had already been selected from other institutions to

eliminate cross-institution duplication. Multiplicity adjustments in the sample weighting (see

below, Chapter 6) accounted for the fact that any students who attended more than one

institution during the NPSAS year had more than one chance of selection.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

The reason for this constraint was to facilitate obtaining at least 30 responding students for most 23

participating institutions, enabling NCES to send a report to the institution regarding its sample students, as a

“Thank You” for participation without violating NCES confidentiality guidelines.

This was to facilitate continued participation by the institutions for CADE data abstraction.

24

For 35 four-year institutions, this rate was increased by selecting a supplemental sample. 25

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-12

Initial student sampling rates were calculated for each sample institution using refined

overall rates (see Appendix A) to approximate equal probabilities of selection within the

ultimate institution-by-student sampling strata. However, these rates were sometimes modified

for reasons listed below.

The student sampling rates were increased, as needed, so that the sample size

achieved at each sample institution would be at least 40 sample students, where

possible.23

The student sampling rates were decreased if the sample size was more than 50

greater than the institution had been told to expect.24

The sample yield was monitored throughout the several months during which

student lists were received, and the student sampling rates were adjusted

periodically to ensure that the desired student sample sizes were achieved.

These adjustments to the initial sampling rates (especially the first two types of adjustments)

resulted in some additional variability in the student sampling rates, and, hence, in some

increase in survey design effects (variance inflation--see Chapter 6).

The actual sample sizes achieved in total and within each institutional and student

stratum are shown in Table 2.4. In general, the 836 eligible and participating institutions

classified fewer students than expected as potential FTBs; consequently, sampling rates for

FTBs were increased to obtain the needed sample yield. By comparing Table 2.4 with 25

Table 2.1, it can be seen that the rate adjustment procedures were generally effective; the

overall sample yield was actually greater than expected (63,616 students as compared to the

target of 59,509).

2.2.2.2 Student Interview Subsample

The student interview sampling design for NPSAS:96 required subsampling of those

eligible students for whom CADE data had been obtained. In this subsampling , an attempt

was made to maximize sample yield (completed interviews) without sacrificing response rates

by using a two-phase, nonresponse subsampling design.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

For the few institutions that either provided no records data or provided them only after the interview 26

subsamples, this determination of eligibility was based on CPS data alone. 

Among the institutions that did not provide institutional record data (or provided them late), most 27

sample students with CPS matches were eligible for interviews. The weight adjustment for records data/CPS

nonresponse accounts for the fact that only students with CPS matches (aid applicants) were eligible for

interviewing in these institutions (see Chapter 6).

All potential FTBs were also retained for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 because of the need to obtain as 28

many interviews with FTBs as possible for the BPS longitudinal follow-up study.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-13

Table 2.4—Realized student sample, by institutional and student strata

Institutional stratum Total FTBs s students students

Student stratum

Potential undergraduate Graduate professional

Other FirstTotal 63,616 23,612 27,536 9,689 2,779a

1. Public, less-than-2-year 1,662 1,016 646 † †

2. Public, 2-year 8,476 4,434 4,042 † †

3. Public, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting 10,891 3,629 5,454 1,805 †

4. Public, 4-year, doctorate-granting 14,751 3,631 6,228 3,757 1,135

5. Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year 2,507 1,404 1,103 † †

6. Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, nondoctorate-granting 7,734 2,253 3,614 1,857 †

7. Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorategranting 10,668 2,639 4,353 2,049 1,627

8. Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 3,414 2,933 481 † †

9. Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 3,513 1,673 1,615 221 †

a

Note: The student sample was drawn from 836 schools determined to be eligible and providing lists.

Totals shown include a small number of first-professional students, not shown separately. a

Not applicable. †

When EDI from the ED Central Processing System (CPS) and CADE data collection

were completed for a sample institution, the students who had not been identified as ineligible

through previously collected data, and for whom such previously collected data were

sufficient, were considered eligible for CATI. Basically, all eligible sample students from 26

schools that provided institutional records data were eligible for Phase 1 interviewing.27

Interview-eligibles were partitioned into seven previously identified strata for the Phase 1

interviewing subsampling.

The student subsample for Phase 1 of interviewing is shown in Table 2.5. Potential

FTBs and federal aid applicants were selected for Phase 1 interviewing with certainty.

Excepting potential FTBs, the Phase 1 (and subsequent Phase 2) subsampling rates were set 28

to yield an appropriate compromise between high sample yield (high Phase 1 sampling rates

and low Phase 2 sampling rates) and low variance inflation (comparable Phase 1 and Phase 2

sampling rates).
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-14

Table 2.5—Phase 1 student interview subsampling

Student interview sampling stratum phase 1 rate selected a

Number

eligible for Sampling Number

b c

All students 59,593 0.859 51,195

Potential FTB 20,555 1.000 20,555

Other undergraduate, federal aid applicant 13,758 1.000 13,758

Other undergraduate, not federal aid applicant 13,554 0.703 9,532

Graduate student, federal aid applicant 2,065 1.000 2,065

Graduate student, not federal aid applicant 7,202 0.416 2,999

First-professional, federal aid applicant 1,893 1.000 1,893

First-professional, not federal aid applicant 566 0.694 393

Reflects student reclassification as a result of records data. a

Excludes 1,593 CADE nonrespondents and 2,403 sample members determined ineligible for NPSAS b

from records data.

Reflects average rate across all sequential samples implemented. c

Phase 1 of CATI was defined to end when six telephone calls had been attempted

without obtaining a completed interview, or the student:

or his/her parent had been interviewed;

was determined to be ineligible for NPSAS;

initially refused to participate;

required intensive tracing procedures, or

was determined to be in a special population (i.e., deaf or language barrier).

All students for whom the sixth call in Phase 1 resulted in a “hard” appointment or for whom a

partial interview had been completed (with either the sample student or the student’s

parent—see Chapter 3) were retained for Phase 2 with certainty, as were all students in the

potential FTB stratum. The remaining Phase 1 nonrespondents, who had not been determined

ineligibles or exclusions during Phase 1, were subsampled for Phase 2 using specified rates.

The numbers of eligible cases for Phase 2, numbers of certainty selections, sampling rates for

noncertainty selections, and total Phase 2 selections are shown in Table 2.6.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-15

Table 2.6—Phase 2 student interview subsampling

Student interview sampling stratum eligible selection a

Number Certainty

b

Sampling

rate selection c

Total

All students 37,814 23,402 0.262 27,178

Potential FTB 14,248 14,248 * 14,248

Other undergraduate, federal aid applicant 10,515 4,312 0.264 5,952

Other undergraduate, not federal aid

applicant 7,544 2,733 0.261 3,989

Graduate student, federal aid applicant 1,493 598 0.287 855

Graduate student, not federal aid applicant 2,220 864 0.255 1,210

First-professional, federal aid applicant 1,479 540 0.213 740

First-professional, not federal aid applicant 320 107 0.362 184

Reflects student reclassification as a result of records data. a

Excludes Phase 1 respondents and sample members determined to be NPSAS ineligible (N=521) or exclusions b

(N=57) during Phase 1.

Reflects average rate across all samples implemented, excluding certainty selections. c

*FTBs were not subsampled in Phase 2.

2.2.2.3 Other Subsamples

Some additional subsampling of students, described below, was accomplished during the

course of NPSAS:96 in order to: (a) complete important gaps in available data about the

student’s family financial information, or (b) provide the basis for methodological studies.

Reliability Reinterview Subsample

Among eligible sample members who completed the NPSAS:96 interview, a subsample

was selected to participate in a reliability reinterview. A random selection algorithm was

programmed directly into the CATI instrument so that selected respondents could be informed

of their selection and allowed an opportunity to agree to the reinterview or to refuse it at that

time.

The selection rate was set to yield a sample of approximately 300 students among the

expected respondents during the first three months of interviewing; the time factor was based

on the built-in delay in administering the reinterview and the need to complete reinterviews

within the same time frame as other interviews. Consequently, the sample was obviously most

heavily weighted with students: (a) from institutions at which prior sequential operations

(initial sampling, record abstraction) were completed earlier, and (b) who completed the first

interview relatively early during the data collection period. Since fewer completions than

anticipated were experienced during the first 3 months (see Chapter 3), the reinterview sample

yield during that period was 273 students.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-16
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

An important historical gap in NPSAS student data has been the income of parents of dependent 29

students who do not apply for financial aid; among those applying for (and/or receiving) aid, these data are usually

obtained from existing records.

Parent data for these students will reduce reliance on imputed parent incomes when analyzing the effect 30

that becoming classified as an independent student has on financing postsecondary education.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-17

Parent Interview Subsample

A subsample of the students selected for Phase 1 interviewing also were selected to have

their parents interviewed, in order to obtain valid data regarding parents’ financial resources

(typically not well known by the student). The main purpose of the parent interview was to

reduce the number of students, especially dependent students, for whom the parents’ income 29

would otherwise have to be imputed. Another purpose was to collect parent income data for

students who had recently become independent students (for the purposes of federal financial

aid applications) as a result of recently becoming 24 years old. 30

Consequently, all the students in the three previously-identified student sampling strata

were selected with certainty for parent interviews. The strata were developed at the

conclusion of institutional records collection, and the parent interview subsample was identified

among those students selected for Phase 1 interviewing. When the student had been selected

for parent interview and either a student interview had been completed in Phase 1 or the

student had been selected for Phase 2, the parent interview was attempted throughout the

remainder of the CATI interview period. The numbers of students selected for parent

interviewing in Phase 1 and in Phase 2, are shown in Table 2.7 for each of the three parent

sampling strata.

Table 2.7—Numbers of students selected for parent interviewing

Parent sampling stratum eligible selected rate eligible selected rate a

Phase 1 Phase 2

Number of Number of Effective Number of Number of Effective

students students sampling students students sampling b c d e f

Total 9,251 8,803 .952 7,687 6,197 0.806

Dependent undergraduate students not

receiving financial aid 4,195 4,117 .981 3,520 2,991 0.850

Dependent undergraduate students, receiving

financial aid, whose parents’ adjusted gross

income was missing from institutional records 1,731 1,710 .988 1,439 1,271 0.856

24- and 25-year-old (newly independent)

undergraduate students 3,325 2,976 .895 2,728 1,935 0.709

Reflects student reclassification as a result of records data. a

This represents all eligible students in defined strata prior to Phase 1 sampling. b

This rate reflects only the overall Phase 1 student sampling (average rate across all sequential sampling implemented); c

 all students within these defined strata, who were selected for Phase 1, were designated with certainty for parent

interview.

Excludes Phase 1 respondents and sample members determined to be NPSAS ineligible or exclusions during Phase 1. d

Includes certainty selections. e
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

The contractor for this service is National Computer Systems (NCS). Students complete a Free Application for 31

Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which is mailed to the CPS contractor; this information is entered into the computer file and

electronic versions of the SAR are created. The SAR information is made available to all institutions that the student indicates.

It was actually necessary to obtain some of these data prior to the time CATI activities were concluded. 32

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-18

Reflects average rate across all samples implemented (consequently, this rate includes Phase 2 certainty selections). f

2.3 Data Collection and Operational Design

NPSAS:96 involved a multistage effort in collecting information related to student aid.

For the first time in the NPSAS series, an initial NPSAS:96 data collection stage was planned,

which involved collecting electronic SAR (ESAR) information directly from the Department of

Education Central Processing System (CPS) for federal aid applications. A second stage 31

involved abstracting information from the student's records at the school from which he or she

was sampled; starting with NPSAS:93, these data have been collected through a Computer

Assisted Data Entry (CADE) system (to facilitate both collection and transfer of the

information to subsequent electronic systems). As in NPSAS:93, the CADE collection system

was implemented, at institutional choice, by either school staff or field interviewers employed

by the contractor.

A third stage involved interviews with students (and in some cases their parents); as in all

prior implementations of NPSAS, this data collection activity was conducted through a

Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) procedure. For the first time in NPSAS

implementations, only a subsample of the initial student sample was selected for the interview

stage (in order to reduce overall costs for the NPSAS study). Final stages (again, for all

eligible initial sample members) involved collecting additional ESAR data for the following

(1996-97) academic year, and collecting information from the Pell-Grant File and the NSLDS

file maintained by ED. Both the “following year” ESAR data and the NSLDS data represented

additions to the NPSAS data base that were first introduced during NPSAS:96.

A schematic of the operational flow of major data collection components of the

NPSAS:96 study is shown in Figure 2.2 and summarized in subsequent subsections. It should

be noted that to meet established dates for conclusion of all study activities, while

accommodating both differential dates at which student sampling could be initiated and

differential timeliness of institutional turnaround, not all stages were implemented at the same

time at all institutions. In fact the only fixed points in operations were: (a) selection of the

institutional sample and initial institutional mailings; (b) cut-off of interviewing; and (c) the

“Post CATI” collection of electronic data from existing ED data files. 32

Start and end dates for the several study activities are shown in Table 2.8. The extent of

activity overlap is clearly evident from this table. As examples: (a) the CADE record

abstraction procedures had been ongoing for five months before the last student sample was

selected; and (b) the cut-off date from preloading CADE data into the CATI records

(necessary for CATI operations to commence) occurred almost 6 months after the initiation of
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-19

CATI.
Sample Institutions

Verify Eligibility, Secure Participation, Obtain Student Lists

Lists Pass QC? Verify Lists or Obtain New Lists

Sample Students from Lists

Yes

Implement 1995-96 CPS Matching/Downloading

Preload CPS & IPEDS Data Into CADE and Perform Institutional Data Abstractions

Verify/Correct Data as

Needed Data Pass QC No

Yes

Subsample for First Stage CATI

Determine Parent Interviewing

Mail Student/Parent Prenotification Letters

Preload CADE and CPS Data Into CATI and Initiate First Phase CATI Locating and Interviewing

First Phase Results?

Subsample for, and Implementation of,

Second Phase CATI Locating/Interviewing

Located in CATI Implement CATI-External Locating Procedures

Not Interviewed

No

Attempt to Conduct Full

Interview Special Cases? Attempt to ConductAbbreviated Interview

Located?

Mail Abbreviated

"Interview" If Address

Available

No Yes

A

No Interview Data Collected Successful? Interview Data Collected (Full or Partial)

Implement 1995-96 Pell Grant and NSLDS File Matching/Downloading

Implement 1996-97 CPS Matching/Downloading

Mail

Response

?

To

A

No

No Yes

Yes

Yes No

Interviewed

Yes

Figure 2.2--Schematic of NPSAS:96 Major Data Collection Activities Flow

No

CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-20
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-21

Table 2.8 — Start and end dates for major NPSAS:96 activities

Activity Start date End date a b

Select institutional sample 12/10/94 12/10/94 c

Mail and phone contact with chief administrator 11/03/95 04/29/95

Mail and phone contact with institutional coordinator 01/11/96 08/22/96

Obtaining lists for student sampling 01/31/96 08/24/96

Select student samples 02/22/96 08/25/96

Request/obtain 1995-96 CPS data 03/05/96 09/05/96

Preload CPS data into CADE records 03/07/96 09/06/96

Implement CADE record abstraction 03/22/96 12/12/96 d

Preload CADE data into CATI records 05/06/96 10/25/96 d

Implement CATI interviewing (and related data collection) for 05/06/96 12/31/96

students and parents

Request/obtain 1996-97 CPS data 02/18/97 02/27/97

Request/obtain 1995-96 Pell Grant data 12/03/96 01/27/97

Request/obtain historical NSLDS data (through fall 1996) 11/27/96 12/16/96

Date on which the activity was initiated for the first applicable school and/or its associated students (and parents). a

Date on which the activity was completed for the last applicable school and/or its associated students (and parents). b

The institutional sample was drawn prior to selecting the field-test sample to ensure no overlap of the two. c

Eight institutions provided CADE data after the cut-off date for using those data in CATI. d

2.3.1 Overview of Data Collection Instruments and Extant Data Sources

As noted previously, some study data were obtained from extant data bases.

Information related to application for financial aid was obtained (for two academic years) from

a central data system, the CPS (which is operated for ED by a separate contractor). This

information is provided by students to the CPS contractor on a Free Application for Federal

Student Aid (FAFSA) form and then converted to electronic form, analyzed, and provided to

involved schools (and other approved parties) in ESAR or hard-copy SAR form. (To see the

type of information available from the SAR, see the SAR section in Appendix C).

Additionally, data on nature and amounts of received Pell Grant or NSLDS loans were

obtained from other extant data bases maintained by ED. The Pell Grant file that was accessed

was for the 1995-96 academic year. Data obtained from the NSLDS file were loan histories

for each applicable student.
CADE Sofware Main Menu

Registration and

Admissions

Enrollment and

Tuition

Locating

Characteristics

Admissions

Enrollment

Tuition

Financial Aid

Awards

Need Analysis

SAR

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-22

The record abstraction instrument was programmed for CADE implementation. Each

CADE student record was divided into three major sections (reflecting typically different

physical locations of the records on campus) and eight subsections; this structure is shown in

Figure 2.3. CADE was programmed so that this structure was not restrictive in access;

specifically, the record abstractor could access any subsection through a menu and enter (or

change) any data element in the section through scrolling. A summary of the major data

elements collected through CADE is summarized below, by subsection.

Locating. Collected up to four addresses and telephone numbers for student

and/or parent/guardian (if not the student, names and relationship to student

were collected).

Characteristics. Collected student demographics (e.g., race, ethnicity, marital

status, gender, date of birth, citizenship), type of high school diploma, and high

school graduation date.

Figure 2.3—Structure of the NPSAS:96 CADE instrument
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

While the logical flow within an interview is generally constrained to be linear (with forward branching as 33

applicable), this is even more important in CATI, where previously supplied responses control subsequent branching items. 

Nonetheless, standard features were available to allow interviewers to back-up in the interview to change prior responses based

on information provided subsequently.

Spanish speakers who were relatively comfortable with English were guided through the full interview by bilingual 34

interviewers; however, translation "on the fly" of the full interview to one with severe limitations in oral English was

considered inappropriate.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-23

Admissions. Collected standardized test scores.

Enrollment. Collected dates of terms of enrollment during the NPSAS year,

student level in first and last applicable term, degree program, and number of

credits transferred.

Tuition. Collected tuition accruing to student for each term enrolled.

Awards. Collected the type/nature of all financial aid awards and the amount of

aid associated with such awards.

Need Analysis. Collected aid budget data, EFC, dependency status, and

housing status.

SAR. Collected selected information from the SAR; any such information

collected through the CPS requests was preloaded (typically resulting in the

completion of this subsection during preload).

A facsimile of the CADE instrument, identifying all data elements collected and the exact

wording of the screens, is provided as Appendix C.

Several forms of student interview existed; however, the principal form was the full

interview, which was programmed for CATI administration. The full interview consisted of 10

sections. A depiction of the nature of, and the flow through the 10 student interview sections 33

is shown in Figure 2.4. Progression through the sections is ordered to collect the most

important data early in the interview. Of particular note is Section A; in this section final

checks of study eligibility and FTB status were determined. A facsimile student interview is

provided in Appendix D.

Three sets of abbreviated interviews were conducted, in special cases. First, the

planned reliability reinterview study used an interview containing only a small subset of the

items in the full student interview. Second, an abbreviated interview was developed

(containing only selected items) for CATI administration to Spanish speakers with limited

English proficiency. The questions in this abbreviated interview were also reproduced, in 34

Spanish and English language hard-copy versions, and mailed, for completion, to the hearing

impaired (who completed only Section A--establishing study eligibility-- through TDD) and/or

(if address was available) to those who could not be reached by phone or who indicated that

they would complete a mailed copy but would not participate in a telephone interview.
Figure 2.4--Structure and flow of NPSAS:96 field test student CATI

Opening Screens

Explain study, advise of

respondent rights, determine if this

is the right person

Section A: School Enrollment

Completion dates, schools

attended, determination of

eligibility for NPSAS and FTB

status

Section B: Educational

Experiences and Expenses

School-related expenses, testing

results, choice of NPSAS school

Section C: Additional Sources

of Support

Marital status, personal and

parental contributions, other

soruces of funding

Section D: Financial Aid

Aid status, sources and amounts

of aid, total indebtedness

Section E: Employment

Status since 1996, occupation,

primary roles while enrolled,

participation in employment

programs, anticipated work status

Section F: Financial Status

Tax filing status, size of

household, income, assets

Section G: Student

Demographics and Citizenship

Student characteristics, political

activity, community service

Section H: Parental

Characteristics

Age, education, occupation,

income, household size, legal

residence

Section I: Educational

Experiences and Expectations

Participation in school activities,

satisfaction with school climate,

personal goals

FTB?

Section J: Locating Information

Contact information, address

verification

Closing Screens

Thank respondent, obtain parent

telephone number (if applicable),

advise of selection for, and set

time for, reinterview (if applicable)

Note: In addition to SKIP patterns shown, which involve entire sections, many subsections of the interview

were applicable only to specific student subgroups (e.g., FTBs, graduate students, aid recipients, married

students).

No

Yes

CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-24
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

It was recognized that this procedure would result in some wasted effort if the student was subsequently determined 35

to be ineligible for NPSAS; however, this was more than compensated for by the savings from not having to try to relocate the

parent.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-25

The abbreviated instruments contained 39 key questions, including some detailed multiple

response questions regarding amounts of aid and expenses.

Finally, a minimal interview was developed for CATI administration to sample

members who had refused to participate on at least two different occasions, but who agreed to

“answer just a few questions (five minutes or less).” In addition to the information needed to

establish NPSAS eligibility and FTB status, this interview collected only “broad stroke” data

on degree program, student level, completion of programs, schools attended and how long

(during NPSAS year), courseload, job load while enrolled, receipt of any aid, date of birth,

marital status, number of dependents, amount ever borrowed for education, and disability

status. A facsimile copy of the minimum interview as well as copies of other abbreviated

interviews/questionnaires are provided in Appendix D.

The parent supplement interview (where applicable) was maintained within the same

record as the student interview; this allowed the parent to be interviewed "on the spot" should

that parent be contacted in attempting to locate the student. The parent interview (a facsimile 35

copy of which is included in Appendix D), contained five sections: (a) parental support; (b)

total borrowing for education of all dependents; (c) employment and financial status; (d)

reasons for not seeking financial aid, and activities in school selection; and (e) parent

demographics.

2.3.2 Institutional Enlistment and Student List Acquisition and Sampling

Once institutions were sampled, attempts were made to contact the Chief

Administrator of selected institutions to (a) advise on sample selection, (b) advise on study

requirements and solicit participation, (c) request appointment of an Institutional Coordinator

(IC), through which subsequent communication with, and requests of, the institution would be

directed, and (d) verify institutional eligibility. The initial letter, on U.S. Deprtment of

Education letterhead, included a study fact sheet and endorsement letters, as appropriate, from

the National Association of Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), the American

Association of College Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO), the Career College

Association (CCA), and the National Accrediting Commission of Cosmetology Arts and

Sciences (NACCAS). Concurrently, NASFAA mailed directly a separate letter urging

participation to the Financial Aid Officers of all member institutions sampled for the field test.

(Copies of these letters and attachments, as well as all other correspondence mailed to sampled

institutions, students, or parents during the course of the field test, are included in Appendix

B). Follow-up telephone calls were made to the Chief Administrator one week after the

mailing; if the IC had not been named by that time, he/she was urged to do so (with varying

degrees of success) during the telephone conversation.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-26

Separate mailings to the ICs (containing all materials included in the initial mailing to

the Chief Administrator) were initiated on a flow basis, as the ICs were designated. Follow-up

telephone calls were, again, initiated one week following the mailing (the initial contact with

the ICs typically involved a series of calls, including refusal conversion calls). ICs were

advised of what would be expected from the school and asked to verify the IPEDS

classification (institutional control and highest level of offering) and the calendar system used

(including dates that terms started). ICs were also asked to (a) provide information on the

school's record keeping approaches (including identifying the physical on-campus location of

records needed for the subsequent record abstraction procedures), (b) identify their PC

capabilities for operating the CADE software, and (c) set a date by which the school would

provide student enrollment lists.

The list(s) requested (preferably a single unduplicated electronic list) were to contain all

eligible students enrolled in any term starting within the study-defined year. (Sampled schools

with additional NPSAS-year terms starting after the date of the request obviously could not

provide complete lists until after the last applicable term began.) The data items requested for

each listed student were:

full name;

student identification (ID) number;

Social Security number (possibly identical with student ID);

educational level -- undergraduate, graduate or first professional--during the

last term of enrollment during the study-defined year; and

an indication of FTB status: as an undergraduate student who first enrolled at

the school during a term in the study-defined year; who was classified as

freshman or first-year student at that time; and who had no transfer credits from

another postsecondary institution.

Definitions of types of lists and information preferred, as well as instructions for

preparing different forms of lists were included in the initial IC letter and further clarified, as

needed, in follow-up telephone conversations. In such subsequent telephone contacts,

contractor staff worked closely with the IC to determine the best reasonable alternative lists

and student information that could be provided by the institution.

Prompting telephone calls were made to institutions that had not provided lists by one

week following the most recent delivery date previously agreed upon by the IC. Throughout

the list acquisition process, attempts were made by the contractor to accommodate school

constraints and to reduce their burden, including contractor unduplication of lists. Where

requested, institutions were reimbursed for personnel and computer time in list preparation.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

The order of preference was the 1994-95 IPEDS file or the 1993-94 IPEDS file (from which the 36

institutional frame was constructed). If counts on both these files were imputed, no quality check was performed.

If provided lists were not unduplicated, the contractor estimated the unduplicated total by applying an empirically 37

determined multiplicity factor to the count over provided lists; in these cases, the critical difference was also relaxed to 30

percent. 

Revised procedures involved: (a) no checks for less-than-2-year institutions, since most (68 percent) were failing 38

the checks but few (9 percent) were providing replacement lists; and (b) lists passed the checks if the student count differed

from the IPEDS count for that type of student by 500 students or more and the IPEDS count was not zero. 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-27

Several checks on quality and completeness of provided student lists were implemented

prior to actual student sampling. Institutions providing lists that failed these checks were

called to rectify the detected problems. Completeness checks were failed if either of the

below-listed conditions existed:

potential FTBs were not identified (unless the institution explicitly indicated

that no such students existed in their school); or

student level--undergraduate, graduate, or first professional--was not clearly

identified.

Quality checks were performed by checking the unduplicated count from provided lists against

the non-imputed unduplicated counts from IPEDS IC files. Nonimputed counts were 36

available for quality checks for approximately 95 percent of the institutions. For applicable

schools, separate checks were made for undergraduate, graduate, and first professional

students; for schools serving only undergraduates, checks were made against total enrollment.

Initially, the institution failed the check if the count for any unduplicated list differed by 25

percent from the IPEDS non-imputed count. In early May, with NCES approval, the quality 37

checks were considerably relaxed. The revised checks remained in effect throughout the 38

remainder of student sampling.

2.3.3 Student Record Abstraction

All prior NPSAS implementations have relied on collecting data of record regarding

student financial need and aid as well as other features of his/her education, in order to: (a)

reduce responding burden on the sampled students, and (b) obtain much more valid data than

could be obtained through student interviews. In addition to collecting information from

institutional files and from ED Pell Grant files (both of which have been accessed in prior

NPSAS studies), NPSAS:96 also collected electronic SAR data of record from the ED CPS

and from the ED NSLDS files. Both of these data collection activities also expanded the time

horizon of data for the current NPSAS study. SAR data were obtained for both the NPSAS

year (1995-96) and through February of the subsequent academic year (1996-97); NSLDS

data were obtained historically over all years of postsecondary education through the 1995-96

academic year.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

Some institutions eventually photocopied relevant records and provided them to the FIs or contractor central staff 39

for direct entry into CADE.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-28

2.3.3.1 CPS Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) for SAR Data

To reduce institutional burden in the subsequent institutional record abstraction, the

NPSAS:96 contractor, with the assistance of NCES, arranged to obtain, through EDI,

information from the Central Processing System, the CPS (which is operated for the

Department of Education by a separate contractor, National Computer Systems - NCS).

The data accessed included information from the FAFSA (provided by all federal financial aid

applicants) and SAR. Generally, all such initial EDIs of SAR data were completed for an

institution before CADE record abstraction was attempted for that institution.

2.3.3.2 CADE Data Abstraction from Students' Institutional Records

Data from sampled students' records at the NPSAS institution were collected using

CADE technology, representing a refinement the procedures first used in NPSAS:93. CADE

was programmed in CASES 4.1, for compatibility with CATI (see Section 2.3.4) and the Data

Elements Dictionary used (see Section 2.3.6). Institutions were urged to have their own staff

accomplish these activities, using the software, since this provided both cost efficiencies and

better confidentiality protection for records of students not selected for the study. However,

institutions were given the option of having the abstraction done by field data collectors

(FDCs) employed by the contractor. Following the receipt of CPS information for students

from an eligible institution, CADE materials and related information were prepared and

packaged for delivery to either the IC or FDC, depending on stated institutional preference

(which subsequently changed in some cases).39

To reduce burden in the CADE record abstractions, a number of data elements were

preloaded into the CADE records for a particular institution. These preloaded elements

included (a) CPS data, including the full SAR (where obtained), (b) previously verified

institutional characteristics and identifiers from the contractor sampling files (e.g., level of

offering, control, calendar system, institution-specific dates for terms of enrollment, grading

system, stratum, whether clock or credit hours were awarded), (c) student names, ID numbers,

and sampling strata (from the contractor sampling files), and (d) customized additional

financial aid sources/programs unique to the specific institution and associated state.

The preloaded CADE packages were distributed on a flow basis to either the IC (on

floppy disks) or to the FDC (electronically). Packages also included a hard-copy Users' Guide,

an embedded programmed Tutorial, and a Fact Sheet (which summarized information

previously provided by the institution regarding the physical campus location of relevant data).

Associated refinements to the CADE software included:

installation checks, to determine if PC limitations would create problems in

operation CADE (if so, a message was displayed stating the problem and

providing a contractor "hot line" number to call for assistance);
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

Institutional failure of the edit check procedure led to follow-up contact with the involved IC toward resolving the 40

existing problems. 

Response to this request considerably exceeded expectations (see Chapter 3). 41

Since this submission was accomplished prior to final data cleaning, even those sample members 42

classified at that time as “ineligible” were submitted for matching. 

Additional delay of this activity until completion of CATI would have resulted in only a handful of 43

additional students for whom valid SSNs were available. 

Some students yielded multiple record matches, indicating Pell Grant activity at two institutions during 44

the NPSAS year.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-29

quality control checks to identify (and notify the user of) student records that were

incomplete (and the area of incompleteness) or had not yet been accessed (when

trying to close either an individual student record or the entire CADE package); and

a pop-up screen showing overall full and partial completion rates for record

abstraction at the institution.

Weekly telephone calls were initiated to ICs or FDCs (as applicable) to determine

completion status for each school that was still active at that time. While CADE receipt was on a

flow basis over institutions, the CADE package for a specific institution was not returned until it

was completed. On receipt of the CADE package, each record was subjected to edit checks for

completeness of critical items. Data from an institution failed the edit check if 50 percent or more

of the student records failed all edit checks or if any anomalous data patterns were observed.40

Study plans called for completion of the institutional record abstracting at a school before

students from that school were interviewed (to allow preloading of the CADE data into the student

CATI record). This was the case for all but 40 schools, which had agreed to provide CADE data

but had not done so prior to the last date that CATI could be initiated. CATI was initiated for

students from these schools prior to receipt of CADE data, but special requests were also made of

these schools to provide hard copy transcript and financial aid information in hard copy form.41

2.3.3.3 Other Post Hoc Student Record Data Obtained

Two additional EDI operations were performed shortly before the conclusion of CATI.

Consistent with prior NPSAS studies, data were obtained from the ED 1995-96 Pell Grant files

regarding applications for, and receipt of, Pell Grants. To facilitate the timely preparation of data

files, this operation was initiated about four weeks prior to the cut-off date for interviewing. All

initial sample members with “apparently” valid SSNs at time (62,717 sample members) were 42

submitted for potential matching to the ED files. Extracted data from matching Pell Grant 43

records were downloaded and added to the data base. 44
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-30

NPSAS:96 represented the first attempt to incorporate data from the ED NSLDS files.

This EDI activity was accomplished in roughly the same time frame as the Pell Grant matching and

again was attempted only for the 62,717 initial sample members with apparently valid SSNs at the

time of matching. Because the NSLDS file is cumulative, full histories (through the 1995-96

academic year) of NSLDS activity were obtained for matches.

2.3.4 Student and Parent Locating and Interviewing

NPSAS:96 student and parent interviews were principally conducted by telephone, using

CATI technology, as has been the case for all prior NPSAS interviews. Like CADE, CATI was

developed using CASES 4.1 software to facilitate preloading full-screen data entry and editing of

"matrix-type" questions. The CATI system presented interviewers with screens of questions to be

asked of the respondents, with the software guiding the interviewer and respondent through the

interview, automatically skipping inapplicable questions based on prior response patterns or

suggesting appropriate wording for probes should a respondent pause or seem uncertain in

answering a question. Unlike prior NPSAS studies, CATI was initiated for only a subsample of the

original student sample (see Section 2.2.2.2).

Prior to initiating CATI, notification letters, on Department of Education stationery and

with attachments, were mailed to students (and parents, where applicable). These letters (copies

provided in Appendix B) notified sample member of the upcoming survey, pointed out the

importance of the study, disclosed average time burden, and urged participation.

Associated with the interviewing (and partially imbedded in the CATI instrument) was the

necessity (due to incomplete or incorrect telephone numbers), in many cases, to locate the sample

members. A major locating challenge for sample members at many institutions was the fact that by

the time CATI was initiated, those individuals had moved from their "local" (school) address. To

facilitate the tracing component, each CATI record contained roster lines for up to 20 telephone

numbers (including numbers for individuals identified as tracing sources); each such roster line was

associated with a history of the dates and results of all calls made to that number and a numberspecific comment field. Locating calls, as well as interviews, were initiated according to a calling

plan using an automatic call scheduler imbedded within the CATI software. This system allowed

calls to be scheduled on the basis of established case priority, time of day, and history of success of

prior calls at different times and on different days. It also allowed “special queue” access of certain

special cases (e.g., limited English proficiency, prior refusals) only by appropriate special

interviewers (e.g., bilingual interviewers, special “refusal converters”).

If initial CATI tracing efforts (using information preloaded) failed, then CATI external

student/parent tracing activities were executed. Such activities generally involved searches, by

subcontractors, of various electronic databases. The specific CATI-external tracing activities are

listed below (the order of listing generally represents the order in which these activities were

sequentially implemented and increasing unit costs of the activities).
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

Effectively, this represented an outsourcing of directory assistance calls. 45

About halfway through the CATI operation, this step was dropped, since matches were waning (due to 46

the time lag from the date initial tracing information was obtained). 

The NPSAS:93 experience suggested a number of areas in which interview information should be collected even 47

though comparable data from student records had been collected.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-31

Referral to Fast Data. This is a service whereby telephone numbers are obtained

for known names and/or addresses through matching to an exiting national

telephone data base. Matched cases were returned within 24 hours of 45

submission.46

Referral to Equifax. Equifax maintains credit files on a large number of

individuals. Available databases include names, social security numbers, and

current and former addresses and telephone numbers of individuals for whom

credit histories have been assembled. Equifax also has arrangements with some

states to access their drivers license databases. First, Equifax attempted a match

with the electronic data; if this was unfruitful, an Equifax tracing expert reviewed

the hard copy printout for possible leads, and implemented a check of such leads,

if deemed appropriate. Turnaround was typically within two weeks.

Referral to Telematch. This step was only used if Equifax returned an updated

address without a telephone number. Tracing activity involved comparing the

name and address to a database containing every published telephone number in

the United States, with associated names and addresses. Turnaround was typically

within 2 days.

To reduce interview burden and to guide the interview through appropriate branchings

(e.g., questions appropriate only for graduate students), considerable information, in addition to

tracing data, was preloaded into the CATI records prior to interviewing. Such preloaded

information included (a) data previously collected through CPS and/or CADE; and (b) information

from the sampling file (e.g., name, Social Security number, school name, school and student

stratum). In a number of instances, specific questionnaire items were not asked (or only verified) if

that information had been collected previously.47

Preloading and implementing CATI occurred on a flow basis, as the CADE results were

received from the institutions. As indicated previously (section 2.3.3.2), this general approach did

not hold for sample members at 40 institutions that delayed CADE submission beyond the deadline

for CATI with initiation; CATI was attempted for such students without benefit of preloaded

CADE data, but other preload data (e.g., CPS data) were included, where available. NCESdeveloped, on-line coding programs (for industry/occupation, IPEDS, and field of study coding)

were imbedded in the overall interview administration system. These allow standard coding of

responses while the respondent is still available to assist.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

Such additional training was required for unplanned replacement interviewers (to replace those who 48

were dismissed or left the project), for planned supplemental interviewers (as students from additional schools were

added to the CATI data base, operational efficiency required increasing the complement of interviewers), and for

previously-trained interviewers found to need retraining.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-32

Results of CATI interviewing were monitored daily through the study Integrated

Management System (IMS--see Section 2.3.6). Daily reports of production, with revised

projections of future production to satisfy study requirements, were available to both NCES and

contractor staff. CATI interviewing was also monitored through a formal, work-sample-based

quality control procedure. Data to determine system level error rates and individual interviewer

departures from system rates were collected daily; and distributed no less frequently than on a

weekly basis.

2.3.5 Training Data Collectors

In any survey, comprehensive training of those who collect study information is critical to

the quality of the end-product data. In NPSAS:96, separate training was required for three

different types of data collectors:

contractor telephone interviewers who collected data through CATI, together

with their supervisors and monitors;

contractor field data collectors (FDCs) who collected records data through

CADE, together with their field supervisors (FSs); and

institutional staff who collected records data through CADE.

Training for the first two groups involved providing information regarding locating and dealing

with students/parents or institutional staff, the nature of the data to be collected, and the nature of

the computer program used for data collection; the latter group required only training regarding the

computer program operation.

Initial telephone staff training for the full student and parent interviews was conducted in

late April of 1996, immediately prior to the scheduled start date for CATI operations. All

supervisors were trained separately prior to training any of the interviewers, so that they could

assist during the interviewer and monitor training, conducted in early May. Additional training

sessions for interviewers were conducted, as needed, through November 1996 . In total, 14 48

separate training sessions were held; four for day-shift interviewers and the remainder for night and

weekend staff. In the initial training, 13 supervisors and 21 monitors were trained. Additionally, a

total of 306 perspective telephone interviewers began training during NPSAS:96; of these, 269

successfully completed the training program and began interviewing.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

Research Triangle Institute, Telephone Interviewer Manual and Supervisor Supplement: NPSAS:96 49

Main Study. Author, Research Triangle Park, NC: April 1996.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-33

Full interview training included 20 hours of instruction followed by 2 hours of observing

supervisors conducting actual interviews. Instruction included an introduction to the nature and

purpose of NPSAS:96, general interviewing techniques, general use of the CATI program,

procedures for contacting sample members, review of all questions in both the student and parent

interviews, practice with screens and subroutines requiring on-line coding or matrix entries, and

practice with separate sections and the full interviews -- including participation in “mock”

interviews and observations of both “mock” and actual interviews. As a training aid, each

interviewer was issued an Interviewer Manual . The Table of Contents of that manual as well as a

49

copy of the training agenda for the full interview is provided in Appendix E.

Additional training was provided for administration of the reliability reinterviews, the

abbreviated interviews, and the minimal interview. Reliability reinterview staff were chosen from

among those who had shown high proficiency with the full interview, and the half-day training was

restricted to familiarization with revised branching patterns and “fills” in the reinterview. Training

for administration of the various abbreviated interviews was restricted to bilingual (Spanish/

English) interviewers and “refusal converters,” as appropriate. Since these specialty interviewers

included only well-seasoned staff who had been trained for the full interview, the training was again

restricted to familiarization with special procedures to access the specialty interviews and with the

CATI screens for the abbreviated instruments themselves.

The initial training for contractor CADE staff was conducted during March, 1996; all

11 field supervisors (FSs) and 65 of the 79 field data collectors (FDCs) used in the study were

trained at that time. As a result of some loss of FDCs and an unexpected propensity of

institutions that requested a change from their initial choice of “self-CADE” to the use of

contractor FDCs, supplemental training of 14 additional FDCs was conducted during June,

1996. To reduce training travel costs for field staff, the initial training was conducted at two

sites: in Research Triangle Park, NC for the East Coast, and in San Francisco for the West

Coast. Since the supplemental training group was relatively small, only a single training session

was held, at the East Coast site.

The initial training sessions included a full day of training for the FSs prior to the FDC

training; FDCs were subsequently trained, with assistance from the FSs, over three additional

days (with after-class homework). Training consisted of an overview of NPSAS:96 objectives

and time frame (including a brief explanation of how the financial aid process works on

campuses), review of the architecture and nature of the CADE software, review of and practice

with each section of the CADE instrument, procedures for dealing with the IC and other staff at

the institutions, instruction in, and practice with, locating records (including, but not restricted

to, use of the “location of records” lists provided by the ICs), and procedures for contacting FSs

and electronic transmission of completed cases.

During this training, considerable use was made of location and abstraction of records

using mock student folders developed to represent diversity in record keeping at different types
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-34

of postsecondary institutions. Each trainee was also provided with: a laptop computer to be

used during their training and subsequent field work, a Field Data Collector Manual, and a

CADE Users’ Manual. The Table of Contents for both these manuals as well as the training

agenda are provided in Appendix E.

Training of Institutional Staff in use of CADE relied heavily on self-training, since the

major objective of that training was familiarity with the CADE program. The program was selfinstalling (including an initial check of the host PC for sufficient memory), and a self-teaching

tutorial was imbedded. Help screens were imbedded within the program and a “hot line”

number was established through which users could obtain answers to specific or general

questions from central contractor staff who developed the software. Additionally, institutional

staff were provided with a CADE Users’ Manual.

2.3.6 Evaluation and Quality Control Design

Evaluation of NPSAS:96 procedures have obvious implications for enhancements of

subsequent waves of NPSAS and for possible methodological experiments within future NPSAS

field tests. Each major component of the study was evaluated. Methodology consisted of both

formative and summative evaluations. Formative evaluations were of an ongoing nature,

designed to assess tasks at intermediate stages so that the effects of employing alternate

methodologies could be analyzed and modifications and revisions could be employed and

assessed prior to task completion. Such ongoing evaluations (many of which were imbedded

within the study IMS) were a major part of NPSAS quality control. Summative evaluations

assessed the results of the field test, including procedural changes instituted during the course of

the study. A summary of NPSAS:96 field test evaluations that were planned and implemented is

provided in Table 2.9.

A critical part of operational evaluation and quality control was regular quality circle

meetings with field interviewers, telephone interviewers, interview monitors, and interviewer

supervisors. These meetings provided an easily available forum for production staff and project

management to address the important topic of work quality, discuss issues of concern, identify

problems with the survey instruments, share ideas for improving the instruments, and suggest

various approaches for improving operations and/or results. To implement suggested

improvements arising from some such meetings, the operational features of the CATI instrument

was refined a number of times over the course of the data collection period. On completion of

data collection, final quality circle meetings were held, serving as debriefing sessions for the full

operational period.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-35

Table 2.9—Summary of NPSAS:96 evaluation approaches

Major area of evaluation Evaluation approaches

System operation Monitor (and correct) all anomalous systems operations.

Training Debrief institutional coordinators.

Debrief field interviewers/data abstractors.

Debrief CATI staff.

Sampling Analyze efficacy of CATI two phase subsampling

approach.

Monitor and adjust student sampling rates.

Analyze accurateness of two-stage sampling approach

assumptions.

List acquisition Analyze overall response rate, accuracy, costs, and time to

produce lists.

Monitor accuracy of lists (completeness and multiplicities);

resolve, where needed

Analyze accurateness of assumptions regarding FTB

identification under new rules.

Debrief institutional coordinators.

Record abstraction Monitor all electronic data interchange (EDI) approaches.

.Monitor completeness of all returned CADE data; resolve,

where needed.

Analyze overall response rates, costs, and time to complete

CADE.

Analyze data quality (missing data) under conditions of

self-CADE, field-CADE, and EDI approaches.

Debrief institutional coordinators.

Debrief field staff.

(Continued on next page)
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-36

Table 2.9—Summary of NPSAS:96 evaluation approaches (continued)

Major area of evaluation Evaluation approaches

Tracing activities Monitor (silent) CATI tracing staff performance. Correct

or retrain as needed.

Debrief and conduct Quality Circle Meetings with tracing

staff and supervisors

Analyze all levels of tracing results and costs.

Analyze costs and efficacy of CATI-external tracing

activities.

Interview administration/data Monitor (silent) CATI interviewer performance; correct or

quality retrain as needed.

Analyze silent monitoring quality control data.

Analyze CATI operational parameters (e.g., numbers of

calls per case, total interviewer hours per completed

interview).

Analyze effectiveness of refusal conversion approaches.

Analyze efficacy of special case abbreviated interviews.

Analyze effectiveness of mailings and leaving messages on

answering machines.

Debrief and conduct quality circle meetings with

interviewers, monitors, and supervisors.

Analyze rates and patterns of interview nonresponse.

Analyze validity of student responses.

Analyze response temporal stability (reliability) through

reinterviews of selected items.

Analyze times to complete interview sections.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

Generally, students were not asked about items of information collected from institutions; however, 50

some items were included in CATI to assess validity by having the student either (a) “verify” the institutional data,

or (b) provide an independent response. 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-37

As indicated in Table 2.9, the study design included a number of components for direct

evaluation of data quality. Among these, a reliability reinterview was conducted with students

about four weeks after the initial interview; this involved a random subsample of 250

respondents to the initial interview. The reliability reinterview contained only a small subset of

the initial interview items. Also, validity of information collected from CATI was evaluated by

comparison of certain CATI responses to information items available from institutional

records.50

Both evaluation and quality control were greatly facilitated by the use of an Integrated

Management System (IMS). All operational and management activities, (including sampling,

locating, collecting institutional records data, interviewing, and data processing) were under this

system, which consisted of a series of PC-based, fully linked modules. The various modules of

the IMS provided the means to conduct, control, and monitor the complex, interrelated activities

required in the NPSAS:96 study. Report production, data analyses, and document archiving

were also integrated into this system.

The IMS structure allowed for streamlining related tasks and served as a centralized,

easily accessible repository for project data and documents. The IMS provided authorized

project staff (and NCES staff as remote users) menu-driven access to all IMS modules quickly

and easily. Its use also enabled the application of extensive quality control measures throughout

the various project activities. Table 2.10 provides a listing of major IMS processes and their

purposes.

Figure 2.5 presents a schematic of various components and features of the IMS. The

central system resided on a DEC PATHWORKS PC network, accessible to remote users

through a dedicated network modem. Case-level status as well as routine summary reports were

available across all components of the system. Summary reports and other project information

were also accessible through the password-protected, restricted-use World-Wide Web page for

the NPSAS:96 IMS. Information was integrated through the implementation of a case-level

control system which monitored status in the various stages of production. Status from separate

stages was incorporated in the master IMS to allow control of the flow of events in the system

and monitoring of performance of study requirements.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN AND METHOD OF NPSAS:96

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 2-38

Table 2.10—Integrated management system processes and purposes

IMS process/system Purpose

Instrument module Run the current version of the CADE and

CATI instruments

Data elements dictionary Produce and query CATI/CADE instrument

code, specifications, screen wording, and

associated documentation

Electronic mail Routine communications among project

personnel

File transfer Transmit CADE data and programs to/from

field data collectors; transmit CPS and

NSLDS requests; transmit data to

subcontractors and client

Receipt control system (RCS) Institution-level and student/parent-level

tracking of all data collection activities;

canned and customized status reporting and

query capabilities

Web interface Internet access for project staff and client to

CATI and CADE daily production reports,

frequencies, timing information, etc.

Management reporting Budget/staffing reports; project schedule

Electronic problem tracking Document problems experienced in

administration of the CATI instrument

Quality control Run the QC monitoring software; produce QC

monitoring reports

Data library Maintain and provide access to all products

for the project
Figure 2.5--Integrated management system utilities

Budgeting

QC

Control System

Institutional Contract

CADE

CATI

Schedule

Monitoring and Coding Reports

CADE/CATI Edit Specs

Electronic Problem System

WordPerfect/Word

SPSS/SAS

Lotus 1-2-3/Excel

Timeline

Lotus Magelian

Query Dictionary Items

Logic Specifications

Help Screen Module

Categorical Listings

CADE - test mode

CATI - test mode

RCS - Test mode

On-Line Coding Applications

Special Screen Applications

Development Components (misc.)

Tracing/Locating

Institutional Contact

CADE/CATI Reports

Control System Reports

Query Control System Cases

Task Management

Overall Management

Scheduling

Budget Informaion

CADE/CATI Data

("Raw")

Locator Data

Restricted Data

Electronic Codebooks

Public Access Data

NOTE: Model is representative of IMS Modules but is not inclusive.

IMS Main Utilities

Data Elements Dictionary

File Transfer Utility

Electronic Mail

Test Environment

Instrument Module

Document Retrieval Module

Control System

Reports

Project Management

Quality Control

Codebooks

Commercial Software

CADE - test mode

Production CADE Instrument

Produciton CATI Instrument

CATI - reliability reinterview

Parent CATI - test mode

Student CATI - Test mode
In this and subsequent tables, institutional classification errors on the sampling frame have been 1

corrected; consequently, counts within corrected classification will differ somewhat from those in Chapter 2

based on uncorrected sampling strata.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-1

Chapter 3

Overall Institution, Student, and Parent

Data Acquisition Rates and Related Outcomes

Attaining the participation rates required for NPSAS:96, by NCES Statistical Standards,

demands high levels of cooperation at all stages of the survey process. This chapter provides the

overall participation outcomes; further examination of factors related to these outcomes,

together with results of other evaluations, are provided in subsequent chapters of this report.

3.1 Institutional Participation

A total of 73 (7.5 percent) of the 973 institutions initially selected for the full scale study

were found to be ineligible for NPSAS:96. Forty-six of these institutions failed to meet one or

more of the NPSAS institutional eligibility criteria specified previously in Chapter 2; another 23

institutions had closed between the time sampling frame information was collected and

institutions were first contacted about participation in the study; and four institutions were

“duplicated” with other selected institutions. The latter group reflected either improper

classifications on the sampling frame or a subsequent merger with another sampled institution.

Eligibility rates are shown in Table 3.1, by institutional level of offering, control, and sector.1

Institutional eligibility varies considerably with level of offering and control; it is

markedly lower for less than 2-year institutions and for the private for-profit institutions. These

differences were expected, and are directionally consistent with results from prior NPSAS

studies.

The 900 eligible sample institutions were asked to participate in NPSAS:96 by:

(1) providing comprehensive lists of students for sample selection and (2) assisting in abstracting

data from student records for sampled students. Hence, the potential for institutional

nonresponse existed at these two points in the survey process. Participation at the list provision

level is also shown in Table 3.1. From the table, it can be seen that nearly all (896 or 99.6

percent) of the 900 eligible institutions initially agreed to participate in the study.
Table 3.1—Overall institutional eligibility and enrollment list participation rates

Type of institution s sampled Number Percent Number Percent Number Weighted a

Institution

Eligible institutions participate Institutions providing lists b

Institutions agreeing to

c

d e

Percent e

Unweighted

All institutions 973 900 92.5 896 99.6 836 92.9 91.1

Institutional level

Less-than-2-year 172 118 68.6 117 99.2 100 84.7 92.1

2-year 264 251 95.1 249 99.2 238 94.8 94.2

4-year non-doctorate-granting 266 260 97.7 260 100.0 242 93.1 87.1

4-year doctorate-granting 271 271 100.0 270 99.6 256 94.5 83.6

Institutional control

Public 455 448 98.5 447 99.8 434 96.9 97.6

Private, not-for-profit 321 303 94.4 302 99.7 274 90.4 89.3

Private, for-profit 197 149 75.6 147 98.7 128 85.9 87.8

Institutional sector

Public, less-than-2-year 38 33 86.8 33 100.0 31 93.9 99.6

Public, 2-year 167 165 98.8 164 99.4 159 96.4 97.2

Public, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 123 123 100.0 123 100.0 119 96.7 96.0

Public, 4-year doctorate-granting 127 127 100.0 127 100.0 125 98.4 98.0

Private, not-for-profit, 2-year or less 57 45 78.9 45 100.0 42 93.3 99.3

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 121 115 95.0 115 100.0 102 88.7 83.5

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year doctorate-granting 143 143 100.0 142 99.3 130 90.9 76.3

Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 117 75 64.1 74 98.7 61 81.3 89.8

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 80 74 92.5 73 98.6 67 90.5 80.5

Institutional classifications used here were verified by the institutions to correct classification errors on the sampling frame. a

Among the 73 institutions considered ineligible: 23 had closed since the sampling frame time frame; 4 were duplicates with other selected institutions (some through merger since the b

time

frame of the sampling frame; and the remaining 46 failed to meet one or more of the criteria for institutional NPSAS eligibility.

Unreadable electronic files were obtained from eight additional institutions. c

Percent is based on the total number of institutions sampled within the row under consideration. d

Percents are based on only the eligible institutions within the row under consideration. e
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

The weighted response rates can be interpreted as the estimated percentages of institutions in the 2

population that would have provided a useable student sampling list, if asked.

The CADE operation was implemented by either staff at the NPSAS institution or contractor field data 3

collectors (FDCs).

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-3

However, this table also shows that not all of the institutions agreeing to participate actually

provided a useable enrollment list; in fact, 60 did not.

Thus, 836 (92.9 percent) of the 900 eligible sample institutions actually provided a

student enrollment list or data base that could be used for sample selection (another eight

institutions provided electronic files that could not be processed). List provision (among eligible

institutions) varied by type of institution considered; the percentage providing student sampling

lists ranged from 81.3 percent of the private, for-profit, less-than-2-year institutions to 98.4

percent for public institutions with a doctoral or first-professional degree as the highest level of

offering. As has been the case in prior NPSAS implementations, participation was highest

among the public institutions and lowest among the private, for-profit institutions.

Weighted response rates were calculated based on the institutional probabilities of

selection and are also shown in Table 3.1. The overall weighted response rate of 91 percent and 2

the weighted rates for all institution categorizations in Table 3.1 are similar to the unweighted

rates. However, NPSAS:96 was designed to produce efficient estimates only at the student

level. Institutions were selected with probabilities proportional to size; therefore, weighted

institution-level estimates are subject to a high level of sampling variation, and the unweighted

estimates may be more stable.

3.2 Obtaining Student Records

As indicated previously, obtaining information from student records was a sequential

three-stage process. The first stage, implemented for the first time in NPSAS:96, involved an

electronic data interchange (EDI) with the ED CPS database of electronic SARs). The second

stage involved collection of information from student records at the postsecondary institutions in

the NPSAS sample using a CADE software system ; and the third stage involved EDIs with the 3

ED Student Pell Summary records and ED’s NSLDS database. Outcomes for these three

activities are considered in separate subsections below.
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

For example, students who had changed their name (e.g., a female student who married) between 4

application and the time that student lists were prepared, could create a non-match.

Recall that both CADE and CATI data collections were conducted only after the initial SAR 96 5

matching attempt; consequently the CPS IDs for the additional 1,148 students (obtained from either CADE or

CATI data) were not available for the SAR 96 request.

For purposes of comparability, all percentages shown in Table 3.2 are based on the full set of 63,080 6

students with apparently valid CPS IDs; consequently the SAR-96 rates are depressed from the values obtained

using only the subset of 61,932 actually submitted. Original plans called for resubmitting these students for SAR

96 data following CATI; however, at that time CPS processing of the 1995-96 year had been discontinued.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-4

3.2.1 CPS SAR Data

Table 3.2 summarizes results of matching and downloading data for SAR 96 and SAR

97, in total and by selected student classifications. Obtaining a match was determined by

whether or not: (1) the student was listed on the CPS files (i.e., had applied for Federal financial

aid during the 1995-96 academic year and entered on the file by the time the request was made)

and (2) a valid CPS ID and name could be determined . While application for federal aid is one 4

of the factors (and probably the principal one) affecting the match rate, differences shown in

Table 3.2 should not be over-interpreted, since the percentages shown are unweighted.

From Table 3.2, it should be noted that the SAR 96 matching attempt involved only

61,932 of the total; specifically, those for whom a CPS ID had been determined from

information on the institution’s enrollment list . (A total of 23 institutions failed to provide 5

sufficient information to construct a CPS ID; other institutions provided no information or

inaccurate information for differing numbers of students. No matches were obtained for 16

additional institutions.) Matches were obtained, and some SAR data obtained, for 30,821 of

those submitted (about 50 percent).6

SAR 96 matching rates were lowest among students at public institutions offering less

than 4-year programs and among graduate students; they were greatest among students

attending private for-profit institutions and first-professional students. These results are not

particularly surprising. Federal aid applications at public community colleges and technical

institutions are expected to be proportionately less than other sectors, and federal aid

applications at private for-profit institutions proportionately greater. Moreover, firstprofessional students tend to rely more on federal aid (primarily loans) whereas graduate

students generally rely more on institutional aid (teaching and research assistantships).
Table 3.2—Matching rates for CPS SAR data of 1995-96 (SAR 95-96) and of 1996-97 (SAR 96-97), by selected domains

Type of student Eligible Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent a b

Matched to SAR 96 Matched to SAR 97 Matched on both Matched on either c

All students 63,080 30,821 48.9 22,924 36.3 19,884 31.5 33,858 53.7

Institutional level

Less than 2-year 5,251 2,856 55.4 1,104 21.4 912 17.7 3,048 59.1

2-year 12,947 5,823 45.0 4,101 31.7 3,348 25.9 6,576 50.8

4-year non-doctorate-granting 19,360 9,819 50.7 7,850 40.5 6,923 35.8 10,746 55.5

4-year doctorate-granting 25,614 12,323 48.1 9,869 38.5 8,701 34.0 13,491 52.7

Institutional control

Public 35,737 15,263 42.7 12,068 33.8 10,195 28.5 17,136 48.0

Private, not-for-profit 20,673 10,896 52.7 8,630 41.7 7,715 37.3 11,811 57.1

Private, for-profit 6,670 4,662 69.9 2,226 33.4 1,974 29.6 4,914 73.7

Institutional sector

Public, less than 2-year 1,519 446 29.4 207 13.6 148 9.7 505 33.2

Public, 2-year 8,512 2,750 32.3 2,172 25.5 1,668 19.6 3,254 38.2

Public, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 10,683 5,138 48.1 4,156 38.9 3,580 33.5 5,714 53.5

Public, 4-year doctorate-granting 15,023 6,929 46.1 5,533 36.8 4,799 31.9 7,663 51.0

Private, not-for-profit, 2-year or less 2,538 1,481 58.4 1,040 41.0 867 34.2 1,654 65.2

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 7,594 4,045 53.3 3,275 43.1 2,965 39.0 4,355 57.3

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year doctorate-granting 10,541 5,370 50.9 4,315 40.9 3,883 36.8 5,802 55.0

Private, for-profit, less than 2-year 3,166 2,221 70.2 803 25.4 689 21.8 2,335 73.8

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 3,504 2,441 69.7 1,423 40.6 1,285 36.7 2,579 73.6

Student leveld

Undergraduate 50,590 27,027 53.4 20,189 39.9 17,536 34.7 29,680 58.7

Graduate 9,771 1,955 20.0 1,337 13.7 1,049 10.7 2,243 23.0

First-professional 2,719 1,839 67.6 1,398 51.4 1,299 47.8 1,938 71.3

NOTE: All percentages are unweighted and based on the eligible count within the row under consideration.

Both institutional and student classifications used here have been verified to correct classification errors on the sampling frames. a

Only sampled students for whom an apparently legitimate social security number was available were submitted to CPS for matching. Of the 63,080 with valid CPS Ids, b

3,643 were determined to be ineligible for NPSAS:96.

These matching rates are somewhat depressed, since the 63,080 students include 1,148 students for whom CPS IDs were not determined until after CPS processing for c

the 1995-96 year had been discontinued; such students did not have the opportunity to match to SAR 96.

Student level is based on the student’s last term of enrollment at the NPSAS institution during the NPSAS year.

d
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

In an attempt to retrieve updated addresses and/or telephone numbers, 1,529 of these cases were

7

actually submitted during CATI data collection.

While the CADE system was self-directing and contained a number of checks to ensure proper

8

installation and use, training institutional staff on the proper use of the system was still needed. This was

accomplished through a CADE Users’ Manual and an electronic tutorial; also a hot-line number was established

by the contractor to address specific questions as they arose.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-6

Following the completion of interviewing, the full set of 63,080 students was submitted

for attempted matching to obtain SAR 97 data . Matches were obtained for 22,924 (about 32 7

percent of the total). It is expected that the lower matching rate for SAR 97 represents changes

in student status between the two academic years; e.g., leaving institution (through program

completion or other reason) or changing status within institution (from undergraduate to

graduate student). This hypothesis is supported by the fact that the match rate differential, while

directionally consistent among all student classifications, is generally greatest among students at

2-year and less than 2-year institutions.

Overall, SAR data from either 95-96 or 96-97 were obtained for 54 percent of the

students submitted, and SAR data for both years were collected for about 31 percent of them.

The high rate of matches for either year signals a high reliability of analytic data constructed

from SAR data (e.g., expected family contribution, family income); however, the lower rate of

matches for both years suggest that data are probably insufficient to analyze trends over years.

3.2.2 Abstracting Students’ Institutional Records

The record abstraction phase of the study was restricted to those students enrolled in the

836 sample institutions providing an enrollment list from which a student sample could be

selected (i.e., 63,616 students). As indicated previously, these data were to be entered into

magnetic form, on site at the institution, using a computer-assisted data entry (CADE) program.

To reduce the burden associated with record data abstraction, SAR96 data, where obtained

previously from CPS, were preloaded into that section of the CADE record into which such data

were, otherwise, to be abstracted.

At all participating institutions, the Institution Coordinator (IC) was given two principal

options as to how the student information was to be entered into CADE. One option (“selfCADE”) was direct abstraction by institutional staff (guided by the CADE program , with 8

reimbursement on request); the second option (“field-CADE”) was to provide contractor Field

Data Collectors (FDCs) with access to the records and have the abstractions performed by the

FDCs. Generally, self-CADE was the recommended option, since it was less expensive and

ensured no contractor staff access, during abstraction, to records of students who had not been
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

An exception to this generality was institutions with large samples (particularly those with samples of 9

graduate and first-professional samples--records for whom are frequently maintained in separate physical

locations from that for undergraduates). Past experience, in both NPSAS:93 and the NPSAS:96 field test,

suggested that a sizeable number of such institutions initially choosing self-CADE would subsequently discover

the task too demanding and then request field-CADE for the (remaining) abstractions; to avoid the delay so

introduced, field-CADE was highly recommended to such institutions from the outset.

The typical reason expressed was unwillingness to have contractor staff accessing their files or

10

unwillingness to perform self-CADE. Other institutions in this category resulted from those that initially

attempted self-CADE but who admitted that they would be unable to do it too late in the process to schedule

FDCs for field-CADE.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-7

sampled . A total of 28 institutions did not use either of these CADE options; for various 9

reasons they chose to provide electronic or hard copy of selected records to the contractor, and 10

contractor central staff then transferred (or keyed) relevant information from those records into

the CADE format (these institutions are classified as field-CADE).

Initially, 663 (79 percent) of the 836 participating institutions opted for self-CADE;

however, only 474 (57 percent) actually completed the procedure under self-CADE. Among the

836 institutions, 199 ICs (24 percent of the total) changed their minds about the method of

abstraction during the CADE operation; 194 of these changed from self-CADE to field-CADE,

and the remaining 5 changed in the opposite direction.

In addition to obtaining student financial aid data, enrollment data, and other factual

postsecondary data from institution records (the most reliable and valid source available), CADE

operations also were designed to obtain information necessary to contact the student. For these

and other purposes, all data in the CADE record were preloaded into the CATI record, after

final quality assurance checks and determination of student eligibility. During the CADE

operation, 2,430 students were determined to be NPSAS-ineligible (in the bulk of these cases,

some student record data had already been abstracted prior to that determination); an additional

1,326 sample members were determined to be NPSAS-ineligible during the subsequent

interviewing stage (complete or partial CADE data had also been obtained for over half of these

cases). Irrespective of the availability of CADE data, however, none of these 3,756 students are

considered in discussions of rates for obtaining record data .

Institutional response to the CADE data collection is shown in Table 3.3. Among

the 836 institutions providing student lists, 804 (96 percent) provided complete or partial

record data for at least one NPSAS-eligible student selected from that institution. It should

be noted that eight of the 804 institutions providing such data did so only after the interviewing

stage had been initiated for their students; consequently, even though all students from such

institutions with sufficient CADE data are represented in the CADE database, only those

students at the institution with sufficient SAR96 data were selected for (and are represented

through) student interviewing. For purposes of presentation completeness, both weighted and

unweighted institutional-level rates for obtaining record data are provided in Table 3.3.
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-8

Table 3.3 —Institution-level rates for obtaining institutional record data (CADE),

by selected classifications

Type of institution Eligible Number a b

Provided record data c

Percent d

Unweighted Weighted

All institutions 836 804 96.2 96.3

Institutional level

Less than 2-year 100 93 93.0 94.6

2-year 238 229 96.2 97.7

4-year non-doctorate-granting 242 237 97.9 97.8

4-year doctorate-granting 256 245 95.7 97.1

Institutional control

Public 434 424 97.7 98.7

Private, not-for-profit 274 261 95.3 97.6

Private, for-profit 128 119 93.0 93.5

Institutional sector

Public, less than 2-year 31 31 100.0 100.0

Public, 2-year 159 155 97.5 98.2

Public, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 119 117 98.3 99.4

Public, 4-year doctorate-granting 125 121 96.8 97.6

Private, not-for-profit, 2-year or less 42 38 90.5 98.4

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 102 100 98.0 97.1

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year doctorate-granting 130 123 94.6 96.8

Private, for-profit, less than 2-year 61 56 91.8 93.4

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 67 63 94.0 94.0

NOTE: All percentages are based on the eligible group for the row under consideration.

Institutional classifications were verified by participating institutions to correct classification errors in the sampling frame. a

The eligible group is comprised of the 836 NPSAS-eligible institutions that provided lists for student sampling. b

Includes institutions providing only partial data and those providing data for only a subset of sampled students; eight of c

 the institutions provided these data only after interviewing had been initiated for students selected from their institution.

NPSAS:96 was designed to produce efficient estimates only at the student level. Institutions were selected with probabilities d

proportional to size. Therefore, weighted institution-level estimates are subject to a high level of sampling variation, and

the

unweighted estimates may be more reliable.
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

A single exception involves the private, not-for-profit institutions offering less than a 4-year program;

11

within this domain (represented here by less than 50 institutions), the weighted and unweighted rates differ by

about 8 percentage points.

The specific applicable postsecondary student population is those enrolled in institutions that would 12

provide student sampling lists, if asked.

Of these, 3,617 were ultimately determined to be ineligible for NPSAS. 13

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-9

Even though the sample was not designed to optimize the precision of institution-level estimates,

the weighted and unweighted rates are quite comparable . Among the types of institutions 11

categorized in the table, some variation is evidenced; however, the range of variation is relatively

small (between 90 percent and 100 percent). As has been the case in prior NPSAS studies (with

notable exceptions among the public institutions), unweighted rates for obtaining record data

were lowest among the for-profit institutions and institutions offering programs of 2-years or

less.

Rates for obtaining institutional record data among the 59,860 NPSAS-eligible students

sampled from the 836 participating institutions are shown in Table 3.4. Again, both weighted

and unweighted results are shown; the weighted rates representing the CADE data coverage

within the defined population of NPSAS-eligible students . Overall, full or partial CADE data 12

were obtained for about 93 percent of the selected students. Within the categories selected for

presentation in the table, variations in rates is somewhat restricted, particularly among

unweighted rates (unweighted rates range from a low of 88 percent to a high of 96 percent,

while the weighted coverage rates range from a low of 81 percent to a high of 97 percent).

Consistent with the institutional-level results, rates are generally lowest among students from

institutions that offer less than a 4-year program or that are for-profit.

3.2.3 Other Post Hoc Records Abstracted

The EDIs with the NSLDS database (attempted for the first time in NPSAS:96) and with

the Pell Grant files were initiated towards the end of CATI operations. As with the previously

described procedures with CPS, matching of students to the files required CPS IDs.

At the time of both of these requests, apparently valid CPS IDs were available for only 62,717

sample members, the number subsequently submitted for both attempted matchings and

associated data downloads . The factors that determined a match for these attempts are 13

consistent with those discussed in section 3.2.2.1 for the CPS operation, as are associated

cautions regarding over interpretations of matching results.
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-10

Table 3.4 —Student-level rates for obtaining institutional record data (CADE),

by selected classifications

Type of student eligible Number Unweighted Weighted a

Total

b

Record data obtained c

Percent

All students 59,860 55,665 93.0 93.0

Institutional level

Less than 2-year 4,545 4,010 88.2 89.8

2-year 11,748 10,893 92.7 92.2

4-year non-doctorate-granting 18,709 17,543 93.8 94.0

4-year doctorate-granting 24,858 23,219 93.4 93.3

Institutional control

Public 33,493 31,281 93.4 92.8

Private, not-for-profit 20,143 18,691 92.8 92.9

Private, for-profit 6,224 5,693 91.5 95.8

Institutional sector

Public, less than 2-year 1,278 1,172 91.7 81.1e

Public, 2-year 7,485 6,909 92.3 92.1

Public, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 10,282 9,529 92.7 92.7

Public, 4-year doctorate-granting 14,448 13,671 94.6 94.1

Private, not-for-profit, 2-year or less 2,424 2,150 88.7 87.2

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 7,356 7,040 95.7 95.6

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year doctorate-granting 10,363 9,501 91.7 91.1

Private, for-profit, less than 2-year 2,824 2,507 88.8 93.2

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 3,400 3,186 93.7 97.2

Student level d

Undergraduate 47,849 44,468 92.9 93.1

Graduate 9,371 8,653 92.3 91.9

First-professional 2,640 2,544 96.4 96.4

NOTE: All percentages are based on the eligible total for the row under consideration.

Both institutional and student classifications have been verified against collected data to correct classification errors in the a

sampling frames.

The eligible group is comprised of all 63,616 sampled students minus the 3,756 students found to be NPSAS-ineligible at b

any stage of data collection.

Includes obtaining only partial data. c

Based on the student's last term of enrollment at the NPSAS institution during the NPSAS year.

d

The difference between weighted and unweighted response rates is explained by one institution with 102 nonrespondents e

with larger-than-average weights.
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-11

Results of the NSLDS attempted matchings are shown in Table 3.5. Since NSLDS

files are historical, information about receipt of such loans were available not only for the

NPSAS year but also for prior years of postsecondary education (where applicable); therefore

the table shows match rates for both the NPSAS year and historically. A total of 21,418

NPSAS sample members (34 percent of those submitted) were matched for the NPSAS year;

31,455 (50 percent) were matched over all years. NSLDS file records are maintained as

“transactions;” consequently, in addition to loan receipt records, the files contain records for

consolidations, cancellations, etc. Because of this and the historical nature of the files, several

records were expected (and realized) for some students; in fact, for the 31,455 students

matched, a total of 121,100 loan records were obtained (on average, almost four records per

sample member).

For NSLDS matches for the NPSAS year and within the student classifications

considered, the relative numbers of matches follow a pattern quite similar to that seen for the

CPS matching (e.g., low match rates for graduate students and for those in public institutions

with program offerings of two years or less, but high match rates for first-professional students

and those in for-profit institutions). The reasons for the NSLDS matching pattern is also

probably consistent with that advanced for the CPS matching pattern (see section 3.2.1,

above).

The pattern is typically less distinct (and in some cases absent) for the historical match

rates, certainly reflecting, at least in part, the fact that student status has changed over time

(e.g., the higher historical rate for graduate students also reflect their aid packages when they

were undergraduates).

Results of attempted matches to the Pell Grant file for the 1995-96 financial aid year

are shown in Table 3.6. Matches were obtained for 13,650 (22 percent) of the 62,717

submitted cases. A handful of the matches involved graduate and first-professional students

who are not eligible for this form of financial aid. However, the student level classification

used is based on the last term of enrollment at the NPSAS institution during the NPSAS year,

and the matched graduate and first-professional sample members were undergraduates at some

time during the year (and as such eligible for this type of aid during the year).

Considerable variation in Pell Grant matching rates is observed over the categories of

students shown in Table 3.6. Matching rates are lowest in the institutions offering programs at

the graduate and first-professional level; however, this reflects the fact that the bulk of the

graduate and first-professional students sampled from such institutions were not eligible for this

form of aid during the year. Other than the confounding of the graduate and first-professional

samples, the pattern of matches is fairly consistent with that observed for other EDI attempts;

specifically relatively high match rates among sample members enrolled in for-profit institutions

and relatively low match rates within public institutions with offerings of 2 years or less

(probably for reasons similar to those advanced previously).
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-12

Table 3.5—Results of NSLDS matching attempt, by selected institutional and

student classifications

Matched to NSLDSc

Type of student NPSAS year Loan historically a

Loan during

d

Number

eligible Number Percent Number Percent b

All students 62,717 21,418 34.2 31,455 50.2

Institutional level

Less than 2-year 5,045 1,697 33.6 2,369 47.0

2-year 12,892 3,105 24.1 5,168 40.1

4-year non-doctorate-granting 19,283 6,983 36.2 10,313 53.5

4-year doctorate-granting 25,497 9,633 37.8 13,605 53.4

Institutional control

Public 35,651 9,407 26.4 15,307 42.9

Private, not-for-profit 20,547 8,548 41.6 11,769 57.3

Private, for-profit 6,519 3,463 53.1 4,379 67.2

Institutional sector

Public, less than 2-year 1,511 108 7.1 331 21.9

Public, 2-year 8,509 760 8.9 2,158 25.0

Public, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 10,637 3,333 31.3 5,166 48.6

Public, 4-year doctorate-granting 14,994 5,206 34.7 7,652 51.0

Private, not-for-profit, 2-year or less 2,538 994 39.2 1,418 55.9

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 7,556 3,150 41.7 4,433 58.7

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year doctorate-granting 10,453 4,404 42.1 5,918 56.6

Private, for-profit, less than 2-year 3,060 1,555 50.8 1,898 62.0

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 3,459 1,908 55.2 2,481 71.7

Student levele

Undergraduate 50,266 17,964 35.7 24,671 49.1

Graduate 9,745 1,654 17.0 4,685 48.1

First-professional 2,706 1,800 66.5 2,099 77.6

Note: All percentages are unweighted and based on the eligible count within the row under consideration.

Both institutional and student classifications used here have been verified to correct classification errors on the sampling a

frame.

Only sampled students, for whom an apparently legitimate ID number was available at that time, were submitted for b

NSLDS

matching. Of the 62,717 submitted, 3,617 were determined to be ineligible for NPSAS:96.

The loan transaction matches for any year do not necessarily reflect a loan during the year . They may represent a

c

consolidation or cancellation transaction.

Over all years of postsecondary education reflected in the NSLDS files. d

Student level is based on the student’s last term of enrollment at the NPSAS institution during the NPSAS year. e
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-13

Table 3.6—Results of Pell grant file matching attempt, by selected institutional and

student classifications

Matched to Pell

Type of student eligible Number percent a

Number Unweighted b

All students 62,717 13,650 21.8

Institutional level

Less than 2-year 5,045 2,078 41.2

2-year 12,892 3,494 27.1

4-year non-doctorate-granting 19,283 4,441 23.0

4-year doctorate-granting 25,497 3,637 14.3

Institutional control

Public 35,651 6,515 18.3

Private, not-for-profit 20,547 4,061 19.8

Private, for-profit 6,519 3,074 47.2

 Institutional sector

Public, less than 2-year 1,511 290 19.2

Public, 2-year 8,509 1,625 19.1

Public, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 10,637 2,376 22.3

Public, 4-year doctorate-granting 14,994 2,224 14.8

Private, not-for-profit, 2-year or less 2,538 888 35.0

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 7,556 1,760 23.3

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year doctorate-granting 10,453 1,413 13.5

Private, for-profit, less than 2-year 3,060 1,637 53.5

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 3,459 1,437 41.5

Student levelc

Undergraduate 50,266 13,616 27.1

Graduate 9,745 15 0.2

First-professional 2,706 19 0.7

Note: All percentages are unweighted and based on the eligible count within the row under consideration.

Both institutional and student classifications used here have been verified to correct classification errors a

on sampling frame.

Only sampled students, for whom an apparently legitimate ID number was available at that time, were b

submitted for NSLDS matching. Of the 62,717 submitted, 3,617 were determined to be ineligible for

NPSAS:96.

Student level is based on the student’s last term of enrollment at the NPSAS institution during the NPSAS c

year.

The small number of graduate and first-professional students receiving Pell grants during the 1995-96

academic

year were undergraduates during earlier terms of enrollment that year, and were eligible for such aid at that
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-14

time.
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

While this procedure does represent real-time savings over a strictly sequential ordering of the two 14

types of interviews, some inefficiencies were realized (i.e., some parents were interviewed before it had been

determined that the student was NPSAS-ineligible).

Sequential activities associated with locating can involve: sequencing through the preloaded telephone 15

numbers until the operable one is found; calling new numbers uncovered during calls to preloaded numbers;

contacting directory assistance for a name at an available address (when no phone number is available or when a

number has been disconnected); calling college locator services and/or Alumni Offices; as well as more intensive

tracing activities (e.g., referred to external sources).

Sequential activities associated with interviewing can involve: reaching sample members when they 16

are available; convincing the sample member initially to participate; scheduling (and rescheduling if an

appointment is missed) a convenient time to conduct (or finish) the interview; referring respondents with English

language weaknesses to specialized interviewers; converting initial refusals (usually involving at least two

additional contacts); plus relocating sample members that move before completing the interview (e.g., between

institution years).

Among other features, optimal calling plans involve (a) calling individuals who have yet to be reached 17

during different time segments (early morning, mid-morning, mid-day, afternoon, early evening, late evening,

Saturday, and Sunday) than those at which they were not reached in previous attempts and (b) calling individuals

who have been reached (but for whom no call-back appointment exists) during similar time segment when they

were reached previously. Within such systems, the potential for calendar delay between calls is obvious.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-15

3.3 Student and Parent Locating and Collecting Interview/Questionnaire Data

For this presentation, student and parent interviews will be discussed separately, in that

order, even though the two types of interviewing proceeded simultaneously, as a single

operation using the same interviewer pool. Both interview programs were stored in a single

CATI record, so that if a sampled parent was contacted before interviewing the student (which

occurred frequently while trying to locate the student), that parent could be interviewed while

he/she was already on the phone.14

The two-stage telephone interviewing of the previously selected sample of students (and

parents of a subsample of those students) was sometimes as straightforward as placing a single

telephone call; however, the operation frequently involved a number of sequential operations.

The activities can be categorized into two major steps: locating (identifying an initial telephone

number at which the sample member can be reached) and interviewing (convincing the sample 15

member to cooperate and conducting the interview at a convenient time). For NPSAS:96, 16

an automatic call scheduler was used to facilitate operations; while this scheduler served to

optimize locating with as few calls as possible, it generated additional calendar time sequential

dependencies.17

3.3.1 Students

Figure 3.1 presents a schematic of the student interviewing process. As indicated

previously, not all students were selected for interviewing. Specifically excluded from the

interview sampling process were students for whom no institutional record data had been
*All Phase 1 Partial Interviews were abbreviated, Spanish-language interviews.

**Phase 2 partial interviews consisted of a mix of minimal or abbreviated interviews and partially completed main interview.

Initial Student Sample

(N = 63,616)

CADE Nonrespondent

(N = 1,593)

CATI Eligibles

(N = 59,593)

NPSAS Ineligibles

(Determined from CADE Data)

(N = 2,403 )

Not Sampled for Phase 1 CATI

(N = 8,398 )

Sampled for Phase 1 CATI

(N = 51,195)

P

R

E

C

A

T

I

NPSAS Ineligible (Determined in

Phase 1 CATI)

(N = 521 )

Phase 1 CATI Nonrespondents

[Eligible for Phase 2]

(N = 37,819 )

Phase 1 Exclusions

(N=57)

Unavailable During Study 10

Out of the Country 28

No Telephone 9

Incapacitated 7

Incarcerated/Institutionalized 3

P

H

A

S

E

1

C

A

T

I

Not Sampled for Phase 2

CATI

(N = 10,641)

Sampled for Phase 2 CATI

(N = 27,178 )

Phase 1 Interview Respondents

(N=12,790)

Complete Interview 12,620

Partial Interview 178

Phase 2 Exclusions

(N=636)

Unavailable During Study 242

Out of the Country 121

Incapacitated 6

Incarcerated/Institutionalized 35

No Telephone 232

Located

(N = 23,327)

Not Located

(N = 3,851)

All Leads Exhausted 2,627

Ran Out of Time 1,224

Phase 2 Interview Respondents

(N = 18,530)

Complete Interviews 14,871

Partial Interview 3,659

Phase 2 Nonrespondents

(N = 803)

Ran Out of Time 1,011

Final Refusal 2,347

NPSAS Ineligibles

(Determined in Phase 2 CATI)

(N = 803)

P

H

A

S

E

2

C

A

T

I

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-16

obtained and those found to be NPSAS-ineligible during record abstracting. The former group

Figure 3.1—Student sample case flow through CATI selection,

locating, interviewing, and related case resolution
As indicated earlier, no students from 8 institutions (which were particularly late in returning records 18

data) would have been included in the interview sample if this exception had not been in effect.

Additional efforts in Phase 2 included: referring cases to subcontractors for more intensive tracing, use

19

of specially-trained interviewers for refusal conversion, mailing abbreviated interviews (in hard copy form) to the

hearing-impaired and those identified as not having telephones, leaving call-back messages on answering

machines, and administering a minimal (5-minute) interview to those who would participate under no other

circumstances.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-17

as excluded because, in the absence of record abstract data: (1) the interview data would have

considerably reduced utility, and (2) no locating data would be available from which to even

start the tracing process. Exceptions were made to this rule, if sufficient SAR data had been

collected (through the CPS) related to both financial aid and locating .

18

Among the 59,593 NPSAS-eligible (as known at that time) students with sufficient

CADE (or CPS) data, only 51,195 were sampled into the Phase-1 locating and interviewing

stage (see Table 2.2.9 of Chapter 2 for strata and rates used in this sampling). Among those

selected, 12,798 were both located and interviewed during Phase 1. The bulk of these cases

(12,620) completed full interviews, but 178 completed only the Spanish-language abbreviated

interview. An additional 580 students were finalized during Phase 1; of these 523 were found to

be NPSAS-ineligibles (including deceased students) and 57 were determined to be exclusions

(e.g., those determined to be incapacitated, incarcerated, institutionalized, out of the country for

the duration of the data collection period). The designation “exclusions” indicates that the status

of the case was resolved without an interview; such cases are considered “out-of-scope” for

locating and interviewing by telephone.

The remaining 37,819 students selected for interviewing were either not located or

located but not interviewed during the established Phase-1 level of effort. From this group of

Phase-1 “nonrespondents,” 27,178 students were selected for the more intensive (and more

costly) Phase-2 locating and interviewing effort (see Table 2.2.10 of Chapter 2 for strata and 19

rates used in this sampling). The bulk of those selected (23,327) were ultimately located or

otherwise resolved. Other “resolutions” included 803 additional NPSAS-ineligibles (again

including deceased sample members) and 636 exclusions. As in Phase 1, exclusion cases

consisted of those whose status (generally obtained through some contacted third party) was

determined to be such that attempts at interviewing them during the CATI operational period

would be futile.

Not located cases are classified into two groups: (1) “ran out of time,” those for whom

tracing either external to CATI or within the CATI-imbedded locator module was still ongoing

(but still not fruitful) when data collection activities were ceased and (2) “all leads exhausted”

cases, those for whom all tracing attempts both CATI internal and external had been exhausted

with no success in locating. The first of these categories (which includes cases for whom

additional locating leads had been obtained through CATI-external locating services) obviously

represents an effect of the constricted time frame for those students sampled late in the process.

Among the 21,888 located Phase-2 sample members who were not resolved as NPSASineligible or study exclusions, 18,530 were interviewed. Of these, 14,871 completed the main

interview; the remaining 3,659 completed either parts of the main interview, an abbreviated

interview, a minimal interview, or some combination thereof (see Section 4.2 for greater detail
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

The effective response rate over both phases represents the interview coverage of NPSAS-eligible and 20

non-excludable postsecondary students from NPSAS-eligible institutions that would have allowed sampling, if

asked. An unweighted coverage rate would be relatively meaningless under the differential selection weights for

Phase-2.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-18

regarding partial completions). The 3,358 located sample members who were neither

interviewed nor otherwise satisfactorily resolved are also classified into two major groups: final

refusals and “ran out of time”.

The latter group contains some cases that were sampled late in the process and simply

could not be completed (due to scheduling conflicts for a time to conduct the interview or lack

of calendar time to implement full refusal conversion procedures) during the fixed data collection

period. It also contains a set of students sampled earlier, who were contacted during the 1995-

96 institution year, but who moved after the last term (and were subsequently untraceable) prior

to completing enough of the interview to be deemed a respondent. Also, the group likely

contains an unknown number of implicit refusal cases (those who, after first contact, use

answering machines or friends/relatives as gatekeepers, and those who continue to make -- and

then break -- appointments for an interview “in the future”).

Weighted and unweighted response rates for Phase-1 and Phase-2 interviewing as well as

a weighted overall effective response rate (coverage rate) are shown in Table 3.7, overall and 20

by selected domains. Those who were determined to be either NPSAS-ineligible or exclusions in

either interviewing phase are not included in the computations. In all cases, the phase-specific

weights used for rates reflect differential sampling into the applicable phase and have been

corrected to account for the fact that NPSAS-ineligibles and exclusions exist within the groups

of students that were not located or interviewed. The overall rate accounts for the fact that

those selected into phase 2 carry greater weight (since they represent those Phase-1

nonrespondents not sampled for Phase 2); for any domain, this rate is derived as the ratio of the

weight sum for all respondents in the domain of interest (using Phase-1 weights for Phase-1

respondents and adjusted Phase-2 weights for Phase-2 respondents) to the weight sum of all

cases in the domain of interest who were selected for Phase 1.
Table 3.7—Student interview response rates, by selected classifications

Phase 1 Phase 2

b c

Total

Type of Student interviewed

Weighted

effective

response rate a d Eligible Interviewed Unweighted Weighted Eligible Interviewed Unweighted Weighted

Response rates Response rates

All students 49,176 12,798 26.0 25.5 25,739 18,530 72.0 68.5 31,328 76.4

Institutional level

Less-than-2-year 3,838 1,019 26.6 26.8 2,391 1,402 58.6 58.6 2,421 70.1

2-year 10,249 2,785 27.2 27.2 5,672 3,674 64.8 64.4 6,459 74.0

4-year non-doctorate-granting 15,370 4,302 28.0 26.4 7,746 5,847 75.5 71.3 10,149 78.8

4-year doctorate-granting 19,719 4,692 23.8 22.8 9,930 7,607 76.6 71.4 12,299 77.8

Institutional control

Public 27,196 7,225 26.6 26.0 13,968 10,221 73.2 68.3 17,446 76.4

Private, not-for-profit 16,406 4,139 25.2 23.7 8,374 6,215 74.2 70.2 10,354 77.4

Private, for-profit 5,574 1,434 25.7 25.6 3,397 2,094 61.6 62.8 3,528 72.7

Institutional sector

Public, less-than-2-year 1,002 285 28.4 27.1 525 325 61.9 64.2 610 75.1

Public, 2-year 6,295 1,753 27.8 27.3 3,391 2,201 64.9 64.6 3,954 74.1

Public, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 8,452 2,382 28.2 26.4 4,282 3,225 75.3 70.5 5,607 78.1

Public, 4-year doctorate-granting 11,447 2,805 24.5 23.7 5,770 4,470 77.5 72.2 7,275 78.6

Private, not-for-profit, 2-year or less 2,142 536 25.0 25.0 1,238 799 64.5 61.7 1,335 71.0

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year non-doctorategranting 6,023 1,725 28.6 26.7 2,990 2,293 76.7 72.7 4,018 80.1

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year doctorategranting 8,241 1,878 22.8 20.7 4,146 3,123 75.5 69.0 5,001 75.6

Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 2,524 683 27.1 27.7 1,650 958 58.1 57.1 1,641 69.1

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 3,050 751 24.6 24.5 1,747 1,136 65.0 66.1 1,887 74.9

Student interview stratum

Potential FTB 19,236 5,860 30.5 32.0 13,376 9,076 67.8 67.1 14,936 77.6

Other undergraduate, federal aid applicant 13,545 3,200 23.6 24.1 5,783 4,605 79.6 74.6 7,805 80.7

Other undergraduate, federal aid nonapplicant 9,175 1,928 21.0 23.0 3,692 2,624 71.1 63.9 4,552 72.0

Graduate student, federal aid applicant 2,040 568 27.8 27.2 834 658 78.9 74.5 1,226 81.5

Graduate student, federal aid non-applicant 2,910 758 26.0 25.6 1,143 851 74.4 68.5 1,609 76.5

First-professional student, federal aid

applicant 1,883 411 21.8 21.5 733 584 79.7 76.4 995 81.6

First-professional student, federal aid

non-applicant 387 73 18.9 18.9 178 132 74.2 72.6 205 77.7

NOTE: Respondent counts include partial interviews; all weighted rates have been corrected to account for any estimated or actual NPSAS-ineligibles or exclusions among the nonrespondents.

Institutional categories used here were verified by the institutions to correct classification errors on the sampling frames. Student interview strata reflect only those corrections to the initial sampling strata that were

a

available from CADE data; the few additional frame errors, detected only during the interview process have not been incorporated.

The Phase-1 eligible group is comprised of the 51,195 students selected into Phase 1, minus 1,326 found to be NPSAS-ineligible and 693 found to be exclusions during interviewing. b

The Phase-2 eligible group is comprised of the 27,178 students selected for Phase 2, minus 803 found to be NPSAS-ineligible and 636 found to be exclusions during Phase-2 interviewing. c

This rate reflects the extent of respondent “coverage” of the full CATI sample and accounts for differential Phase-2 sampling rates; under such rate differentials, an unweighted coverage rate would not be meaningful. d
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

The higher Phase-1 interviewing rate among potential FTBs may also be a function of the 21

“supplemental” samples of FTBs who were selected (for whom local telephone numbers were “fresher” than for

other groups selected at the initial sampling stage.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-20

The Phase-1 response rate achieved for all students was about 26 percent, and the

weighted and unweighted rates within domain are quite similar (differing by no more than 2.1

percentage points). Phase-1 rates show some variation over the domains considered in the table,

but are, for the most part within 2 and a half percentage points of the rate for all students (ranges

are from 19 to 30 percent among unweighted rates and from 19 to 32 percent among weighted

rates). First-professional students were the most difficult group to resolve in Phase 1 (this is also

reflected in slightly lower rates for students at institutions from which these cases were sampled),

while the potential FTBs (effort directed toward whom was greatest in all phases) were most

easily resolved during the initial interviewing stage .

21

The unweighted Phase-2 interview rate for all students selected for that phase was 72

percent; the weighted rate was 68 percent. As reflected in that difference, the within-domain

weighted and unweighted Phase-2 rates generally differ more from each other than was the case

for Phase-1. Considerably greater variability of Phase-2 rates is also observed over the tabled

domains; unweighted rates range from 58 to 80 percent, while weighted rates range from 57 to

76. As with many of the rates presented in this report, phase-2 rates are lowest among students

from institutions that are for-profit or offer less than a 4-year program.

Overall effective response rates are a complex function of both Phase-1 and Phase-2

rates; however, they are more heavily weighted by the Phase-2 results (due to both the

considerably greater weights carried by those selected into Phase 2 and the relatively low Phase1 rates). Coverage for the defined overall student population is 76 percent, and these rates vary

from a low of 69 percent to a high of 82 percent across the domains presented in Table 3.7. As

with other rates examined, rates are generally lowest among institutions offering programs of 2-

years or less and among for-profit institutions.

Of some additional interest is the uniformly higher coverage rates for federal aid

applicants than for non-applicants within the three student groups wherein such a breakdown is

shown (i.e., non-FTB undergraduates, graduate students, and first-professional students). This

directionality is also reflected (but to a lesser degree) in both the Phase-1 and Phase-2 rates.

Federal aid applicants should be more easily located, since additional locating information is

available from the SAR-96 data; also, a study of student aid should also be more relevant to

recipients, which should lead to higher interviewing rates when they are located.

Table 3.8 provides results that allow an examination of the effect of each of the two

sequential operations (locating and interviewing, when located) in obtaining responses. For

these purposes, only unweighted rates are considered; the examination is also restricted to

Phase-2 cases (Phase-1 results are not particularly applicable, since all respondent cases

completed therein were both located and interviewed). Consequently these results are

based on the 27,178 sample members selected for Phase 2 minus the 1,439 found to be
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-21

Table 3.8—Phase-2 student locating rates and interview response rates conditional on

locating, by selected classifications

Type of studenta

Number

Eligible Number Percent Number Percent b

Located Interviewed if located c d

e f

All students 25,739 21,888 85.0 18,350 84.7

Institutional level

Less-than-2-year 2,391 1,685 70.5 1,402 83.2

2-year 5,672 4,446 78.4 3,674 82.6

4-year non-doctorate-granting 7,746 6,825 88.1 5,847 85.7

4-year doctorate-granting 9,930 8,932 90.0 7,607 85.2

Institutional control

Public 13,968 12,091 86.6 10,221 84.5

Private, not-for-profit 8,374 7,317 87.4 6,215 84.9

Private, for-profit 3,397 2,480 73.0 2,094 84.4

Institutional sector

Public, less-than-2-year 525 400 76.2 325 81.2

Public, 2-year 3,391 2,684 79.2 2,201 82.0

Public, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 4,282 3,787 88.4 3,225 85.2

Public, 4-year doctorate-granting 5,770 5,220 90.5 4,470 85.6

Private, not-for-profit, 2-year or less 1,238 957 77.3 799 83.5

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 2,990 2,662 89.0 2,293 86.1

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year doctorate-granting 4,166 3,698 89.2 3,123 84.5

Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 1,650 1,140 69.1 958 84.0

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 1,747 1,340 76.7 1,136 84.8

Student interview stratum

Potential FTB 13,376 10,674 79.8 9,076 85.0

Other undergraduate, federal aid applicant 5,783 5,303 91.7 4,605 86.8

Other undergraduate, federal aid non-applicant 3,692 3,258 88.2 2,624 80.5

Graduate student, federal aid applicant 834 759 91.6 658 86.7

Graduate student, federal aid non-applicant 1,143 1,047 93.7 851 81.3

First-professional student, federal aid applicant 733 687 93.7 584 85.0

First-professional student, federal aid non-applicant 178 160 89.9 132 82.5

NOTE: All response rates are unweighted and apply only to eligible cases sampled for Phase 2 interviewing.

Institutional categories used here were verified by the institutions to correct classification errors on the sampling frames. Student interview a

strata reflect only those corrections to the initial sampling strata that were available from CADE data; additional frame errors, detected only

during the interview process are not incorporated.

The eligible group is comprised of the 27,178 students selected for Phase 2 interviewing, minus 803 found to be NPSAS-ineligible and 636 b

found to be exclusions during Phase 2 interviewing.

Eligible students were considered located if they were personally reached by telephone or if a third party verified that the number reached c

by phone was the student’s residence.

Including 14,871 complete interviews and 3,659 partial, abbreviated, and/or minimal interviews. d

Rate is based on the number of eligible students within the row under consideration. e

Rate is based on the number of located students within the row under consideration. f
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-22

NPSAS-ineligible or exclusions during that phase. Rates for locating are based on

eligible totals, while the conditional interviewing rates are based on the number located. Sample

members were considered to be located if they were reached by telephone or if a third party

verified that the phone number reached was at the sample members residence; interviewed cases

include both complete interviews (14,871) and partial interviews (3,659).

The product of locating rates and the conditional interviewing rate yields the overall

unweighted Phase 2 response rate shown previously in Table 3.7. This relationship allows the

determination of the relative effect of the two operations on overall response rates. Over all

students, the locating rate is 85 percent, as is the conditional interviewing rate; however, over

the different types of institutions attended by sample members, the variation in conditional

interviewing rates are quite small (ranging only from 81 percent to 86 percent) when compared

to those for locating (ranging from 69 percent to 90 percent). Consequently, the ability to locate

plays a larger part in determining response rates when considering the types of institutions

shown; specifically, the previously noted relatively low response rates among students from

institutions that are for-profit and/or that offer programs of two years or less are principally a

function of the difficulty in locating them. This suggests that such students are more mobile and

independent and/or that the associated institutions are less punctilious in maintaining information

allowing the students to be located after graduation.

Since the bulk of the student samples from 2-year and less-than-2-year institutions were

potential FTBs, it should not be surprising, in light of previous findings, that location rates for

the potential FTB student sampling stratum was the lowest of all student strata considered.

Among the remaining student strata, both locating and conditional interviewing rates show

relatively small variation; however, (with a single exception) the directionality of rates for both

locating and interviewing (after location) favors federal aid applicants (supporting the previously

advanced rationale for the response rate differences).

3.3.2 Parent Subsample

As indicated previously, a subset of students was selected for administration of

interviews to their parent(s) to obtain supplemental interview data (e.g., parent demographics,

finances, and postsecondary decision making regarding their child) that could not be reliably

obtained from the student and that were not available from institutional or CPS records. This

supplemental information was needed (and sought) for students who were: (1) dependent

undergraduates who had not received federal aid; (2) dependent undergraduates who had

received federal aid but for whom not all applicable data were obtained from extant records; and

(3) “newly independent” undergraduate students (i.e., 24- and 25-year old students, who

recently passed the age at which they could still be defined as dependent under Federal

definitions).
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

As might be expected, parent interview data were, in fact, collected for some students who were found 22

NPSAS-ineligible or who were never interviewed; data from such interviews were not used.

One institution refused to participate unless no attempts were made to contact parents of any of their 23

selected students; continued institutional and student participation were deemed more important to study success

than pursuit of a parent interview in such cases.

Among NPSAS-eligible students who were interviewed, 5,531 had been selected for parent interview; 24

among those, 60 parents were determined ineligible, and 455 were determined exclusions.

Because of the nature of parent interviews and the fact that all CATI-eligible students who fell into one

25

of the three applicable student types were selected with certainty for such interviews, weighted analyses are not

particularly meaningful (and were not conducted). The lower rate of parent interviews, when compared to

student interviews, reflects the fact that the former were given lower priority than the latter.

A more stringent response definition was imposed for the subset used as the baseline cohort for the 26

beginning postsecondary student (BPS) longitudinal study. Response rates for first-time beginning students

(FTBs) are presented elsewhere in this report.

As noted previously, institutional record data (CADE) are available for 55,665 students in a separate 27

data file.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-23

Depending, in part, on the order in which they were contacted, the order in which

parents and associated students were interviewed varied; however, due to the supplementary

purpose of the parent interview, any data obtained therefrom were only applicable if the

associated student was determined to be NPSAS-eligible and also interviewed . During the 22

process of parent and student interviewing, parents of selected students were also found to be

either ineligible (e.g., deceased, student improperly defined and thus not eligible for parent

interview) or excludable from any further attempts at interviewing, even if the student

responded. In addition to the typical exclusions discussed previously regarding students (e.g.,

institutionalized, out of the country, infirm, having no telephone), parents were also excluded if

the student or associated institution emphatically insisted that the parents not be contacted .

23

The rates at which supplemental parent data were obtained among those NPSAS-eligible

students who completed some full or partial form of the student interview are shown in

Table 3.9. Among the 5,016 eligible parent interview cases, full or partial parent interviews 24

were obtained for 3,352, for an overall unweighted supplementation rate of 67 percent. For 25

the categories considered in the table, such rates range from a low of 51 percent among parents

of applicable students sampled from private, for-profit, less-than-2-year institutions to a high of

76 percent among dependent, undergraduate, federal aid non-recipients. Even though statistics

in Table 3.9 are contingent on response to the student interview, variations of the rates of

supplementation among types of involved institutions mirror, in many ways, the variations in

student interview rates; rates are lower among the for-profit institutions and among institutions

offering programs of less than 4 years.

3.4 Overall Study Participation

The students included in the final NPSAS:96 analysis data base were defined to be the

overall study respondents or, more accurately, “yielding cases”. Of the 63,616 sample students 26

selected from eligible sample institutions, only 51,195 selected for Phase 1 of the CATI sample

were considered eligible as yielding cases. As a result of the locating and 27
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-24

Table 3.9— Overall parent supplement interview rates, by selected classifications

Type of student of parent Eligible Number Percent a b

Interviewedc

All students’ parents 5,016 3,352 66.8

Institutional level

Less-than-2-year 302 155 51.3

2-year 1,027 659 64.2

4-year non-doctorate-granting 1,662 1,127 67.8

4-year doctorate-granting 2,025 1,411 69.7

Institutional control

Public 3,038 2,113 69.6

Private, not-for-profit 1,522 994 65.3

Private, for-profit 456 245 53.7

Institutional sector

Public, less-than-2-year 72 44 61.1

Public, 2-year 633 421 66.5

Public, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 1,003 704 70.2

Public, 4-year doctorate-granting 1,330 944 71.0

Private, not-for-profit, 2-year or less 223 141 58.7

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 604 396 65.6

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year doctorate-granting 695 467 67.2

Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 206 106 51.5

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 250 139 55.6

Student interview stratum for parent supplement

Dependent undergraduate, federal aid non-recipient 2,611 1,913 76.2

Dependent undergraduate, federal aid recipient lacking

CADE 1,078 696 66.8

“Newly independent” undergraduate 1,327 743 58.6

NOTE: Response rates are unweighted (weighted rates are considered relatively meaningless

for this group) and based on total eligible parents in the row under consideration.

Institutional categories used here were verified by the institutions to correct classification errors on the sampling frames. a

 Student interview strata for parent interviewing reflect only those corrections to the initial sampling strata available from

 CADE data; additional frame errors, detected only during the interview process are not incorporated.

The eligible group is comprised of the 5,531 parents of students who were both selected for parent interviewing and b

responded to some form of the student interview, minus 515 parents determined to be ineligible or exclusions during

interviewing.

Including 3,313 full interviews and 39 partial interviews. c
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

Unfortunately, because of delays in development of the CATI reinterview program, as well as in 28

relocating/recontacting some individuals selected for this substudy, the actual time interval between initial

interview and reinterview was as long as six months.

Due to the built-in delay in administering the reinterview and the plan to complete reinterviews during 29

the same time frame as other interviews, the reinterview population was more heavily weighted with those who

responded relatively early to the initial interview; consequently, reported agreement and response rates are

probably biased upwards. Reinterview respondents were also disproportionately represented by those most easily located

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-25

interviewing operations, an additional 1,326 sample members were found to be ineligible (some

of these were deceased, but most failed to meet one or more of the criteria for NPSAS

eligibility); consequently, the number of sample members eligible to be a yielding case was

reduced to 49,869.

To assure that the study analysis file would contain sufficient meaningful data, an eligible

student was defined to be a “yielding case” (included in the analysis data file), if either of the

following conditions were satisfied:

1. The items in Section A of the Student CATI were sufficiently completed to

identify first-time beginning students, or an abbreviated or minimal version of the

student interview was completed (mail, Spanish, or refusal conversion

instrument), or

2. CADE was effectively complete (i.e., Section 2, regarding enrollment and tuition

was complete; the characteristics and subsection of Section 1 was complete; and

either Section 3 was complete or comparable CPS, Pell, or NSLDS information

was obtained).

Using this definition of the overall study yield status, Table 3.10 shows that 48,389 of

the 49,869 eligible sample students were classified as “yielding cases” for an unweighted student

yield rate of 97.0 percent. This table also presents the study yield rates, weighted and

unweighted, by various institutional and student characteristics. The weighted yield rates are

based on the student sampling weights with adjustments for institutional nonresponse and for

student multiplicity (attendance at more than one NPSAS eligible institution during the NPSAS

year). The overall weighted student yield rate in Table 3.10 is 96.3 percent. Both the weighted

and unweighted yield rates shown in Table 3.10 are quite consistent and in all cases exceed 92

percent.

3.5 Reinterviews

Among eligible sample members who completed the NPSAS:96 interview, a sample was

selected to participate in a reliability reinterview (containing a small subset of the interview items

and to be conducted approximately one month after the initial interview).28

A total of 273 respondents were selected for the reliability reinterview. The reinterview

sample, together with rates of consent and subsequent participation in a reinterview, are shown

in Table 3.11.

29
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

and most easily convinced to participate in the initial interview.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-26

Table 3.10—Overall study student yield rates

Type of student students yield yield rate rate

a

Eligible Student Unweighted yield

b c d

Weighted

d

All students 49,869 48,389 97.0 96.3

Institutional level

Less-than-2-year 3,971 3,831 96.5 96.5

2-year 10,401 10,049 96.6 95.4

4-year non-doctorate-granting 15,526 15,042 96.9 96.6

4-year doctorate-granting 19,971 19,467 97.5 97.1

Institutional control

Public 27,513 26,724 97.1 96.0

Private, not-for-profit 16,665 16,158 97.0 96.8

Private, for-profit 5,691 5,507 96.8 97.7

Institutional sector

Public, less-than-2-year 1,022 1,020 99.8 99.4

Public, 2-year 6,388 6,167 96.5 95.3

Public, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 8,538 8,221 96.3 95.7

Public, 4-year doctorate-granting 11,565 11,316 97.8 97.4

Private, not-for-profit, 2-year or less 2,208 2,072 93.8 92.8

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year non-doctorategranting 6,082 5,966 98.1 97.8

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year doctorate-granting 8,375 8,120 97.0 96.4

Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 2,587 2,492 96.3 96.2

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 3,104 3,015 97.1 98.6

Student levele

Undergraduate student 42,637 41,359 97.0 96.2

Graduate student 4,871 4,721 96.9 96.7

First-professional student 2,361 2,309 97.8 97.6

NOTE: All yield rates are conditional on institutional participation through student sampling.

Both institutional and student classifications have been verified against collected data to correct classification errors on the a

 sampling frames.

The eligible group is comprised of the 51,195 students selected for Phase 1 CATI, less 1,326 students who were found to b

be NPSAS-ineligible during subsequent interviewing.

cA yielding student was defined as one who had completed the interview sufficiently to be accurately classified or for whom

 the CADE data were effectively complete.

These rates are not corrected for the estimated 2.6 percent of non-yielding cases who were expected to be NPSAS-ineligible. d

Student level is based on the student’s last term of enrollment at the NPSAS institution during the NPSAS year. e
CHAPTER 3: OVERALL INSTITUTION, STUDENT, AND PARENT DATA ACQUISITION AND RELATED OUTCOMES

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 3-27

Table 3.11--Reliability reinterview results, by student and institution classifiers

Type of student

Selected for Agreed to

reinterview participate Reinterviewed

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent a b c

Total 273 100.0 250 91.6 233 93.2

Student stratumd

Potential FTB 144 52.7 129 89.6 120 93.0

Other undergraduate 91 33.3 86 94.5 78 90.7

Graduate/first-professional 38 14.0 35 92.1 35 92.1

Institutional control

Public 151 55.3 140 90.3 132 94.3

Private, non-profit 94 34.4 84 89.4 80 95.2

Private, for-profit 28 10.3 26 92.9 21 80.8

Percentage based on column total. a

Percentage based on total selected for interview, within row under consideration. b

Percentage based on total agreeing to participate in interview, within row under consideration. c

Some minor frame error corrections are not reflected here; consequently, some classification errors exist. d

Among the 273 student respondents sampled for reinterview, 250 (approximately 92

percent) agreed to participate. Agreement rate differences among subgroups are not marked,

ranging from 89 to 95 percent, with the lowest rates for agreement to participate being among

non-FTB undergraduates and students from private, not-for-profit institutions. Among the 250

selected students agreeing to participate in the reinterview, 233 (approximately 93 percent)

completed the reinterview. Over half of those who agreed and were not interviewed represented

individuals who could not be relocated with the other half representing explicit or implicit

refusals at the time of recontact. It is interesting to note that those in the FTB student group

(who were subjected to the longest interview) were the least likely student group to be

reinterviewed. Also, students from private for-profit institutions were substantially less likely to

be reinterviewed, following the initial agreement, than were students in other types of

institutions. This group is generally more mobile than others, and thus more difficult to relocate.

Despite the nature of the selection process, the reinterview sample was quite representative

of the total respondent group in respect to institutional control. Specifically, the percentage

distribution of the reinterview sample over institutional control as shown in Table 3.11 (second

column) closely approximates that for all respondents (namely, public: 55 percent; private, nonprofit: 32 percent; and private, for-profit: 13 percent). The distribution of reinterview selections

over student types is also consistent with that for all respondents (potential FTBs: 50 percent;

other undergraduates: 38 percent; and graduate/first-professional: 12 percent).
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-1

Chapter 4

Evaluation of Operations and Data

Evaluation studies were planned for NPSAS:96 as part of the overall study design (see

Section 2.3.6). Many such evaluations were formative, to assist in day-to-day monitoring of the

study and to allow quick detection (for subsequent correction) of problematic operations; other

evaluations were summative. Evaluations were useful in identifying potential sources influencing

study outcomes, both overall and within the several categories of institutions and students

represented in the study. Such results, reported in this chapter, should prove useful in planning

for subsequent waves of NPSAS.

4.1 Enrollment List Acquisition and Processing

Consistent with NPSAS:93 and to facilitate control over student sample yield, student

sampling within an institution was deferred until enrollment lists were obtained for all applicable

terms. Given the sequential nature of the student data collection (i.e., CPS matching followed by

institutional records collection, and, in turn, telephone interviewing) and the timeframe allotted for

these activities, it was important to obtain enrollment lists from a majority of institutions early in

the 1996 calendar year and all lists before the summer of that year. However, under the adopted

approach, delays were necessitated at schools using certain calendar systems. 

The process of contacting institutions and obtaining student enrollment lists spanned a

seven-month period, from February through August 1996, during which time useable lists were

obtained from 836 of the eligible sample institutions. Table 4.1 presents the number of

enrollment lists returned by month and by type of institutional calendar system; cumulative receipt

is depicted graphically in Figure 4.1. As can be seen, about two-thirds of the lists were obtained

within the first three months of the process, and 96 percent of all institutions that ever provided

lists did so within five months. Because schools using semester/trimester systems represent about

two-thirds of the total participating schools, the “all institution” results most closely parallel those

with this type of calendar system. Even though reimbursement was offered for computer and staff

time needed to compile the lists, obtaining the lists at a 

number of schools involved a considerable number of prompting and follow-up telephone calls. 
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-2

Other delays were strictly attributable to the particular calendar system used. Institutions

using a semester or trimester system were considerably more likely than those on a quarter or

continuous enrollment system to provide lists early; 59 percent on the semester/trimester schedule

provided complete student lists within the first two months compared to only 4 percent of the

schools on the quarter system and 15 percent of the schools on a continuous or other enrollment

system. 

Table 4.1—Enrollment list receipt, by month and institutional calendar system

Timeframe

All institutions Semester/trimester Quarter Continuous/other

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

All months 836 100.0 556 100.0 152 100.0 128 100.0

February 148 17.7 143 25.7 0 0.0 5 3.9

March 205 24.5 184 33.1 6 3.9 15 11.7

April 179 21.4 111 20.0 49 32.2 19 14.8

May 80 21.5 58 10.4 67 44.1 55 43.0

June 90 10.8 43 7.7 22 14.5 25 19.5

July 24 2.9 13 2.3 5 3.3 6 4.7

August 10 1.2 4 0.7 3 2.0 3 2.3

Note: All statistics based on eligible institutions that provided lists. All percentages are based on the “All

Months” total in the column under consideration. 

Institutional NPSAS:96 participation (through list provision) was also examined for

potential effects of prior NPSAS participation. Arguments have been made on both sides of this

issue; prior participation would either reduce current participation propensity (due to past burden

experienced) or would lead to higher current participation rates reflecting an overall cooperative

propensity. Summary results of these analyses are shown in Table 4.2. Among eligible

institutions, the NPSAS:96 participation rate (defined as providing student lists) among the 504

institutions that had previously participated in NPSAS was 95 percent; significantly higher than

the 90 percent rate among the 396 that had not. Further (not shown in the table), NPSAS:96

participation was greatest (97 percent) among the 148 institutions that had participated in all 3

prior NPSAS studies.
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FebMarApr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Cumulative Percentage of Lists Received

All Types Semester/Trimester Quarter Continuous/Other

CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-3

Figure 4.1—Cumulative percentages of enrollment list receipt by month and institutional 

calendar system.
Table 4.2—Institutional NPSAS:96 enrollment list participation, by prior NPSAS participation

Type of institution institutions Number Number Percent Number Number Percent a

Eligible

Prior NPSAS participation

Never At least once

Providing lists Providing lists

b c

All institutions 900 396 357 90.2 504 479 95.0

Institutional level

Less-than-2-year 118 98 83 84.7 20 17 85.0

2-year 251 127 119 93.7 124 119 96.0

4-year non-doctorate-granting 260 116 107 92.2 144 135 93.8

4-year doctorate-granting 271 55 48 87.3 216 208 96.3

Institutional control

Public 448 154 148 96.1 294 286 97.3

Private, not-for-profit 303 122 106 86.9 181 168 92.8

Private, for-profit 149 120 103 85.8 29 25 86.2

Institutional sector

Public, less-than-2-year 33 25 24 96.0 8 7 87.5

Public, 2-year 165 66 64 97.0 99 95 96.0

Public, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 123 42 40 95.2 81 79 97.5

Public, 4-year doctorate-granting 127 21 20 95.2 106 105 99.1

Private, not-for-profit, 2-year or less 45 33 30 90.9 12 12 100.0

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 115 56 49 87.5 59 53 89.8

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year doctorate-granting 143 33 27 81.8 110 103 93.6

Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 75 65 53 86.9 10 8 80.0

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 74 55 50 74.6 19 17 89.5

Institutional classifications used here were verified by the institutions to correct classification errors on the sampling frame. a

Percentages are based on the count of eligible schools with no prior NPSAS participation within the row under consideration. b

Percentages are based on the count of eligible schools with prior NPSAS participation within the row under consideration. c
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-5

These results clearly support the participation propensity hypothesis. Moreover, the

differences were directionally consistent within public and private, not-for-profit institutions (most

pronounced among the latter). No consistent differences of any magnitude were observed among

the private, for-profit institutions; also the directional difference was reversed among public

institutions offering only programs less than 2 years.

Institutional participation across NPSAS studies was also examined in terms of the

Carnegie classification categories, as shown in Table 4.3. Table 4.4 shows the number of

historically black colleges and universities participating in the current and prior NPSAS studies. 

Table 4.3—Institutional participation in NPSAS by Carnegie classification category 

and year of study

Carnegie institutional

classification

NPSAS:87 NPSAS:90 NPSAS:93 NPSAS:96

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

All institutions 880 100.0 990 100.0 1,061 100.0 836 100.0

Research I 72 8.2 64 6.5 67 6.3 78 9.3

Research II 25 2.9 22 2.2 25 2.4 23 2.8

Doctoral I 30 3.4 27 2.7 31 2.9 36 4.3

Doctoral II 31 3.5 37 3.7 38 3.6 31 3.7

Masters I 127 14.5 154 15.6 227 21.4 167 19.8

Masters II 14 1.5 19 1.9 33 3.1 22 2.6

Baccalaureate I 25 2.9 27 2.7 46 4.3 18 2.2

Baccalaureate II 50 5.7 63 6.4 104 9.8 56 6.7

Associate 236 26.8 247 24.9 225 21.2 202 24.2

Religious 18 2.0 8 0.8 18 1.7 9 1.1

Medical 5 0.5 16 1.6 22 2.1 4 0.5

Other health 7 0.8 12 1.2 11 1.0 5 0.6

Engineering/technical 9 1.0 6 0.6 6 0.6 3 0.4

Business/management 13 1.5 12 1.2 10 1.0 13 1.5

Art/music/design 7 0.8 6 0.6 10 1.0 6 0.7

Law 2 0.2 6 0.6 8 0.7 4 0.5

Teacher 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0

Other special 2 0.2 2 0.2 4 0.4 0 0.0

Tribal 1 0.1 4 0.4 2 0.2 1 0.1

Not classified 206 23.5 258 26.1 173 16.3 158 18.9
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-6

Table 4.4—NPSAS participation of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs)

Participated in: participating

Number of HBCUs

NPSAS:87 17

NPSAS:90 15

NPSAS:93 28

NPSAS:96 16

Types of lists provided by participating schools are shown, by highest level of offering, in

Table 4.5. A single, unduplicated (i.e., with duplicate entries over terms of enrollment removed)

electronic list was preferred; however, any set of electronic lists was desirable since they could be

more easily unduplicated and used. Overall, two-thirds of the institutions provided some type of

electronic list(s); another 12 percent of participating institutions provided simple, unduplicated

hardcopy list(s) and the remainder (22 percent) provided hardcopy lists that required manual

unduplication. 

Table 4.5— Types of student lists provided by institutions, by highest level of offering

Highest level of offering Type of lists received Number Percenta

All institutions All lists 844 100.0

Electronic 556 65.9

Hard-copy, unduplicated 100 11.9

Hard-copy, duplicated 188 22.3

Less-than-2-year All lists 100 100.0

Electronic 17 17.0

Hard-copy, unduplicated 42 42.0

Hard-copy, duplicated 41 41.0

2-year All lists 239 100.0

Electronic 139 58.2

Hard-copy, unduplicated 32 13.4

Hard-copy, duplicated 68 28.5

4-year, non-doctorate-granting All lists 246 100.0

Electronic 184 74.8

Hard-copy, unduplicated 12 4.9

Hard-copy, duplicated 50 20.3

4-year, doctorate-granting All lists 259 100.0

Electronic 216 83.4

Hard-copy, unduplicated 14 5.4

Hard-copy, duplicated 29 11.2

Note: Institutional total includes institutions providing unusable lists (i.e., lists that were not considered of

acceptable completeness or accuracy for sample selection).

Percents are based on the “All lists” total within the type of institution under consideration. a
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

If only imputed data were available from both files, the check was not performed. 2

Separate checks were performed, where applicable, for undergraduates, graduate students, and first- 3

professional students.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-7

The propensity to provide electronic lists increases monotonically with the level of

offering of the institution, probably reflecting the ability to provide such lists; this is quite likely

related to the increasing average size of institutions (and associated increasing power and size of

the computing facility and staff) as level of offering increases. The modal list type (42 percent)

provided by less-than-two-year institutions was unduplicated hard-copy lists; only 17 percent of

such institutions provided electronic lists. The percentage of lists requiring manual unduplication

was also greatest among the less-than-2-year institutions, and decreased monotonically with

increasing level of offering.

Returned lists were also evaluated in terms of appropriateness of format and

documentation (relative to instructions provided to ICs for preparing lists), and accuracy of

student counts; where possible, more appropriate information was obtained from the institutions. 

Table 4.6 indicates the major types of discrepancies encountered with the lists received. Of

considerable note is the fact that: (a) almost half of the institutions provided lists with one or more

such problems and (b) among problems encountered, the principal one (involving well over a third

of the institutions) was “suspect count,” even though that check was considerably relaxed in early

May 1996 (actually suspended at that time for less-than-2-year institutions). This check involved

disagreement, by 25 percent or more, between the count obtained from lists (after correction for

duplication) and the nonimputed unduplicated counts from the 1994-95 or 1993-94 IPEDS IC 2

file . The check was suspended or relaxed because about 85 percent of the institutions that were 3

called about the discrepancy indicated that the sampling list counts were correct.

The next most frequent problem experienced with provided lists (involving about 11

percent of the institutions overall) was failure to identify FTBs. This problem decreased with

increasing institutional level of offering, reflecting the fact that this type of problem was more

prevalent on hard-copy lists (as shown above).

4.2 CPS Matching

Two aspects of the Central Processing System (CPS) matching process (described in

Chapter 2) were evaluated for this report. First, the percent of non-CPS match cases for which a

Student Aid Report (SAR) was found in the institution records was examined to estimate

“misses” in the CPS operation. Second, a comparison was made between the Expected Family

Contribution (EFC) value obtained from the CPS and the updated EFC value as collected from

institution records in CADE, to estimate corrections on the CPS data.
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-8

Table 4.6—Types of discrepancies encountered with student lists, by highest level 

of offering

Institutional level of offering Type of discrepancy encountered Number Percenta

All institutions (N = 844) None 435 51.5

Suspect count 299 35.4 b

FTBs not identified 92 10.9

Insufficient documentation 11 1.3

Unreadable electronic file 20 2.4

Unable to identify graduate/first-professional

students

12 1.4

Other 44 5.2

Less-than-2-year (N = 100) None 43 43.0

Suspect countb

33 33.0

FTBs not identified 22 22.0

Insufficient documentation 1 1.0

Unreadable electronic file 1 1.0

Other 11 11.0

2-year (N = 239) None 133 55.7

Suspect countb

71 29.7

FTBs not identified 35 14.6

Insufficient documentation 2 0.8

Unreadable electronic file 4 1.7

Other 16 6.7

4-year, non-doctorate-granting (N = None

246)

138 56.1

Suspect countb

86 35.0

FTBs not identified 20 8.1

Insufficient documentation 3 1.2

Unreadable electronic file 4 1.6

Unable to identify graduate/first-professional

students

7 2.9

Other 8 3.3

4-year, doctorate-granting (N = 259) None 121 46.7

Suspect countb

109 42.1

FTBs not identified 15 5.8

Insufficient documentation 5 1.9

Unreadable electronic file 11 4.3

Unable to identify graduate/first-professional

students

5 1.9

Other 9 3.5

Note: Institutional total includes institutions providing unusable lists (i.e., lists that were not considered of

acceptable completeness or accuracy for sample selection). 

Percentages are based on total institutions within institution type under consideration (shown n the first column of a

 the table). Totals do not sum to 100 percent because some lists had multiple problems.

These checks were considerably relaxed (and suspended for less-than-2-year institutions) on May 7, 1996. b
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

About 9 percent of students from private, for-profit institutions could not have matched to the CPS, as 4

compared to only 2 percent of those in public institutions.

Differences between CPS values and institutional record data were assumed to be the result of financial 5

aid administrators using their professional judgement or an institution EFC formula to modify a student’s EFC. 

Hence, the institution’s EFC value was considered to be more current that the CPS EFC.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-9

An indicator of the comprehensiveness of the CPS matching process is the percent of nonCPS matches for whom a SAR was located at the institution. Since a hardcopy SAR in the

institutional records implies that the student should have a record within the CPS database, this

statistic can be thought of as a miss rate for CPS matching. That is, this is the rate at which

students that should be in the CPS database were not successfully matched. Table 4.7 presents

two such rates at which SARs were found for CPS non-matches. SAR rates are presented using

both the initial and final counts of non-matches. 

The first rate is based on the initial CPS matching attempt, which was made prior to

initiation of CADE data collection within the institutions and as a result of which over 36,000

students did not match. Among these, a SAR was located during the CADE record abstraction

for about 12 percent. This rate is an upper bound estimate, which also reflects the realities of

operating within a tight timeframe with less than perfect data. Specifically, students for whom

SSNs were unavailable at the time of matching could not have been matched and students first

applying for aid in later terms of the 1995-96 financial aid year may have been entered into the 

system subsequent to the time of initial matching.

The second rate shown is based on a smaller subset of students who failed to match the

CPS. This subset reflects an additional 3,971 matches that were obtained after collecting CADE

records data, principally as a result of obtaining SSNs for additional students, and also for a

considerably smaller relative number, availability of later entries made into the system for the 95-

96 year. The reduction in the miss rate is dramatic over the first rate, demonstrating the

confounding of the rates by inaccurate SSNs. Because this second “nonmatch” group still

contains sample members for whom no SSN was obtained, these results too must be considered

upper-bound estimates. Overall, a SAR was located and entered at the institution for 5 percent of

this second group. Of particular note, however, the rate of 18 percent for students in private, forprofit schools and the 3 percent for students in the public institutions. The difference is most

likely attributable to the differential rate at which institutions in the two sectors provided sufficient

data on their enrollment list from which to construct a CPS ID number. Also, students may 4

enroll prior to applying for financial aid. 

Another evaluation of the CPS matching process was performed using data from the

25,599 students for whom a CPS match was obtained prior to CADE and for whom an EFC value

was obtained in CADE. Specifically, the CADE EFC value was compared to the CPS EFC value 5

to determine how often the CPS EFC value was updated based on the EFC value in the

institutions financial aid records. 
Table 4.7—Extent of “missed” CPS matches, by student types

Type of student CADE institution records 1995-96 CPS records

Number of cases Percent of cases Percent of cases for

which had not for which a SAR Number of cases which a SAR was

matched to a 1995-96 was located and which never located and entered

CPS record prior to entered from matched to from institution

Total students 36,230 11.9 32,259 4.8

Institutional level

Less-than-2-year 2,802 20.0 2,303 10.3

2-year 7,724 10.0 7,124 5.2

4-year non-doctorate-granting 10,679 10.9 9,541 4.7

4-year doctorate-granting 15,025 11.9 13,291 3.7

Institutional control

Public 22,478 8.5 20,474 2.8

Private, not for-profit 11,016 13.6 9,777 6.4

Private, for-profit 2,736 32.2 2,008 18.2

Institutional sector

Public, less-than-2-year 1,121 6.3 1,073 4.7

Public, 2-year 6,037 4.0 5,762 1.3

Public, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 6,305 9.1 5,545 3.2

Public, 4-year doctorate-granting 9,015 11.5 8,094 3.2

Private, not for-profit, 2-year or less 1,121 16.2 1,057 13.1

Private, not for-profit, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 3,911 14.2 3,549 7.1

Private, not for-profit, 4-year doctorate-granting 5,984 12.7 5,171 4.5

Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 1,396 34.4 945 18.8

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 1,340 29.9 1,063 17.6

Student typea

Undergraduate 27,235 14.4 23,563 5.8

Graduate 8,002 2.8 7,816 1.4

First-professional 993 14.5 880 9.4

Note: A total of 36,230 cases were released for CADE data abstraction without having successfully matched to a 1995-96 CPS record. However, 3,971 of these cases did

subsequently match to the CPS. Percentages are based on the row count of “no match” cases under consideration, counts associated with the numerator of the percent are

not shown. 

Based on the student's last term of enrollment at the NPSAS institution during the NPSAS year. a
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-11

As shown in Table 4.8, the CADE and CPS EFC values matched exactly for about 90

percent of the cases. When EFC updates did occur within CADE, they were typically from one

non-zero EFC to another (either upward or downward). 

4.3 Institutional Record Abstracting

The use of CADE procedures, by both contractor field data collectors and institutional

staff, to abstract information from institutional student records was first initiated in NPSAS:93. 

As a result of the NPSAS:93 experiences and informal feedback from NPSAS:93 institutional 

coordinators, a number of procedures were initiated for NPSAS:96 to enhance the effectiveness

and user friendliness of the approach, particularly for the institutional CADE user. 

Other CADE procedural refinements were introduced to facilitate the timeliness of CADE

completion, including: (a) prescheduling of schools for field staff, (b) maintaining a "hot line" for

operational or interpretational problem resolution, (c) scheduled biweekly calls to prompt selfCADE schools and to offer answers to questions that may have arisen: and (d) scheduled weekly

calls to field staff to assess their progress.

4.3.1. Ease of CADE Software Use

In general, the refinements to CADE resulted in more efficient operations and fewer

reported problems than were experienced in NPSAS:93; however, some challenges were not fully

met. Based on feedback from the institutional coordinators, the debriefing of field supervisors

and field data collectors was extremely positive, and the relative number of questions from the

field were considerably reduced over those experienced in NPSAS:93 or in the NPSAS:96 field

test. Contractor field staff, particularly those who had participated in NPSAS:93, reported

marked improvement in ease of CADE operation and found both the CADE User’s Manual and

the training quite helpful. Of particular note was the reported “excellent depth and breadth” of

the training, particularly the mock situations prepared by NASFAA. 

The "hot line" established was generally well received. During the NPSAS:96 field test

the most frequent “hot line” call requested information as to the specific meaning of one or more

data elements that were being collected in CADE. This issue was substantially reduced through

enhancements to the full scale version of the CADE User’s Guide. The greatly expanded on-line

help screens for the full-scale CADE instrument, including explanations as to the specific nature

of information being requested, also played a part in reducing these types of questions. 
Table 4.8—Extent and nature of CADE agreement with CPS EFC

Type of student institution value than zero zero not to zero) upward

Pre-CADE CPS matches value updated CPS EFC value CPS EFC value greater

for whom a CADE EFC No update to from zero to a updated from value modified than zero

value was obtained at the the CPS EFC value greater positive value to downward (but modified

CPS EFC CPS EFC

Number Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent

Total students 25,599 100.0 90.3 0.7 0.3 4.0 4.7

Institutional level

Less-than-2-year 2,210 100.0 95.8 0.5 0.5 2.4 0.9

2-year 4,919 100.0 97.0 0.3 0.2 1.3 1.2

4-year non-doctorate-granting 8,280 100.0 91.3 0.5 0.3 3.9 4.1

4-year doctorate-granting 10,190 100.0 85.2 1.0 0.4 5.7 7.7

Institutional control

Public 12,517 100.0 93.1 0.6 0.3 3.0 3.0

Private, not-for-profit 9,295 100.0 84.1 0.9 0.5 6.1 8.4

Private, for-profit 3,787 100.0 96.4 0.3 0.3 2.0 1.0

Institutional sector

Public, less-than-2-year 362 100.0 99.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3

Public, 2-year 2,309 100.0 97.6 0.2 0.4 0.9 0.9

Public, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 4,144 100.0 93.8 0.6 0.1 3.1 2.4

Public, 4-year doctorate-granting 5,702 100.0 90.5 0.7 0.3 4.0 4.5

Private, not-for-profit, 2-year or Less 1,305 100.0 95.4 0.6 0.2 2.2 1.6

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 3,525 100.0 87.2 0.5 0.4 5.3 6.6

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year doctorate-granting 4,465 100.0 78.5 1.3 0.6 7.8 11.8

Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 1,664 100.0 94.7 0.6 0.5 3.2 1.0

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 2,123 100.0 97.7 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.9

Student typea

Undergraduate 22,238 100.0 87.5 0.5 0.3 3.9 4.4

Graduate 1,669 100.0 86.3 1.6 0.9 5.9 5.3

First-professional 1,692 100.0 85.5 2.7 0.7 3.0 8.1

Note: Only students for whom a CPS Match was obtained prior to the CADE data abstraction are considered. Percentages are based on the total count (column 1) for the row

under consideration; counts associated with the numerator of the percent the are not shown. 

Based on the student's last term of enrollment at the NPSAS institution during the NPSAS year. a
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-13

During the full scale study, a frequent problem arising at self-CADE schools involved

specific situations of incompatible host systems or insufficient memory for installing CADE. A

memory check was included as a part of the self-CADE installation routine, since CADE required

approximately 300K of available conventional memory; however, this did not work particularly

well for two reasons. First, schools were confused between conventional memory and total

RAM. Second, the virus checking routine (a DOS batch program that called virus checking

software) behaved somewhat unpredictably under certain Windows 95 configurations, reporting a

virus detection when no virus actually existed. This was a relatively infrequent occurrence during

the field test, and was unexpected during the full-scale study.

Problems with packaging CADE data (i.e. preparing data files for shipment back to the

contractor), which were common during the NPSAS:93, were significantly reduced; this was

attributed to adding a confirmation prompt to the main CADE menu when the packaging option

was selected. The prompt reminded users that packaging was a final step, and additional data

entry would not be possible once packaging was complete. Additionally, material was added to

the User's Manual to fully describe the consequences of packaging.

4.3.2. Preloading Record Data into CADE

To reduce the CADE data entry effort, a large number of elements (summarized in

Table 4.9) were preloaded into CADE records prior to collection on-site at the institution. This

included customizing the financial aid award section of CADE to include non-federal aid that was

common to a particular institution. Such customization proved highly successful during the field

test, and was repeated for the full scale study. The most extensive set of preloaded data were

obtained from the CPS for federal financial aid applicants. In addition to the CADE SAR items,

student demographics such as date-of-birth, marital status, and veterans status were preloaded

into CADE. Preloading operations proceeded smoothly, using procedures developed and tested

during the NPSAS:96 field test. Delays in this operation that had been experienced during

NPSAS:93 were effectively eliminated which is partially attributed to the flexibility of CASES 4.1,

in which the CADE software was programmed. 

Table 4.9—Nature and source of data element sets preloaded into CADE

CADE data element set Data source

Institution name/ID IPEDS

Names of most common institution financial aid awards Institution coordinator

Names of most common state financial aid awards Sallie Mae state aid report

Institution clock/credit hour indicator IPEDS, institution coordinator

Institution term names and dates Institution coordinator

Student name, SSN, institution ID Enrollment list

Student type indicator (UG, Grad, FP, FTB) Enrollment list

Student date-of-birth, marital status, veteran status, and citizenship CPS record

Student address and phone number CPS record

Student dependency and expected family contribution CPS record

Application data from SAR CPS record
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

In order to be considered a CADE respondent, the student CADE record was required to contain an 6

indication of the student’s eligibility, enrollment data (full-time/part-time attendance status, number or

credit/clock hours attempted, and/or tuition charges incurred) for at least one term and an indication of the

student’s financial aid status (aid recipient/non-recipient and/or aid applicant/non-applicant).

The NPSAS:93 lesson was clear in indicating that waiting to perform quality control on CADE data until 7

after receiving them back in-house was too late. Therefore, when a user indicated a subsection was complete, the

NPSAS:96 CADE software looked for missing data in specific fields; if missing data was discovered, the user was

prompted to provide the missing information. 

While the CADE system was self-directing and contained a number of checks to ensure proper installation and use, 8

training institutional staff on the proper use of the system was still needed. This was accomplished through a CADE Users'

Manual and an embedded tutorial; also, a hot-line number was established by the contractor to address specific questions as

they arose.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-14

4.3.3. CADE Data Completeness

Under the relatively stringent definition of a “CADE respondent ” in NPSAS:96, the vast 6

majority of the eligible sample students (93 percent) were determined to be CADE respondents. 

Of the 804 institutions that provided any CADE data, 792 (over 98 percent) provided sufficient

data for one or more students to be considered CADE respondents. In large measure this was

due to the successful incorporation of data completion checks in the CADE software, which were

implemented in the field. The relatively low rate of indeterminacy among the CADE responses is

principally attributable to these checks. .

7

Each NPSAS institution is unique with regard to the type of data maintained for its

students, and it was anticipated that not all desired information would be available at every

institution. However, as a quality control measure the CADE software was designed to not allow

“skipping” non-available items by leaving them blank. Instead, the CADE software allowed entry

of a “Data Not Available” code. In general, the percent of indeterminate (data not available)

responses was low for most CADE items. Table 4.10 lists the data elements with an

indeterminacy rate of over 5 percent among the CADE respondents. Many of these items are

applicable only to certain students (e.g. “Year Student Took SAT” is only applicable to those

students for whom an SAT score was available at the institution). Consequently, the table is

further restricted to items applicable to 1,000 or more respondents.

4.3.4 CADE Abstraction Modes

At all sampled schools, the IC were given an option as to whether information about

sampled students would be abstracted (guided by the CADE program) by institutional staff or by 8

a contractor FDC. The first option was the recommended option. 
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

Because fixed rates are used, within institutional strata, in NPSAS student sampling, the sample size for a 9

institution is proportional to the size of its student body, relative to other schools in its stratum.

The increase in burden at larger schools is related to other factors than simply increased student sample size; among 10

other things, larger schools also are less likely to have all needed records for all sampled students in a central location.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-15

Initial and final institutional choices of student record abstracting method are shown in

Table 4.11 by institutional level, control, and sector, as well as by institution size and sample size. 

The large majority of coordinators (79 percent) from the 836 participating institutions initially

chose the first option (self-CADE); the remaining coordinators chose the contractor FDC

abstracting (field-CADE). In the final analysis, the proportion of self-CADE institutions fell to 57

percent. A total of 199 institutions changed methods during the CADE operations; only five of

these changed from an initial choice of field-CADE to a final choice of self-CADE. Typically, an

institution's abstraction method preference changed after determining that the abstracting job was

greater than originally imagined and/or that institutional staff did not have sufficient available time

to accomplish the task within the desired time frame.

The NPSAS:96 field test, as well as NPSAS:93 experience, suggested that institutions

with very large student enrollment were much more likely to ultimately choose the field-CADE

method. This is attributable, at least in part, (and verified by informal IC debriefings) to the size

of the sample at the large institutions. Because student sample size is positively related to

institution enrollment, the burden of record abstraction becomes greater with increased 9

enrollment. For NPSAS:96, a pattern in the percent of self-CADE institutions within 10

institutional size categories is not as pronounced. However, a clear trend appears when

examining the self-CADE percentage by sample size categories, demonstrating the "burden effect"

with regard to switches from self-CADE to field-CADE.

The relatively lower proportion of “initially self-CADE” institutions within the public 4-

year doctorate/first-professional institutions in part reflects an adjustment to the institution

contacting procedures based on the field test data collection experience. For the full-scale study,

4-year institutions on a semester calendar system were targeted as optimal for early field-CADE

assignments, and efforts were made to persuade such schools to accept an FDC. The rationale for

this adjustment was based on the shorter average duration of field-CADE and the need to

complete abstraction very early for a sufficient number of institutions in order to begin CATI data

collection. 
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-16

Table 4.10—CADE data elements with highest indeterminacy rate 

Data element applicable cases not available"

Number of explicitly "data

a

Percent 

responding

b

SAT reasoning score 11,750 97.0

Year student took SAT 11,746 31.0

Year Student took GRE 1,920 24.0

Type of high institution degree/diploma/certificate 55,616 23.0

Year student took ACT 9,205 22.0

Year student took other G1P admissions exam 2,256 22.0

Student marital status 55,622 22.0

Student hispanic status 55,616 17.0

Student veterans status 55,618 15.0

Student race 55,616 15.0

Year received high institution degree/certificate 41,852 14.0

GRE analytic score 1,927 11.0

Other G1P exam - score 1 1,522 9.7

Student cumulative GPA 54,202 9.2

Housing on/off campus 27,038 8.9

Other aid award 2 - source of award 2,559 7.6

Student citizenship status 55,618 6.9

Tuition - in/out of jurisdiction 34,881 6.1

Other aid award 1 - source of award 9,787 6.0

Indicator of transfer credits from other institution 32,280 5.3

Indicator of completed degree requirements 21,989 5.2

GRE math/quant score 1,938 5.1

Note: Results are limited to cases meeting the definition of a CADE respondent, and include only those items

which were applicable to and answered for at least 1000 students, and in which more than 5 percent of the

responses were “Data Not Available.”

This excludes cases for which the element was not applicable. a

Percentages are based on the number of applicable cases for the row under consideration; the numerator of the b

 percentages is not provided. 
Table 4.11—Institutional original and final choices of record abstraction method

Type of institutiona

Total

participating

institutions Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Original abstraction method Final Abstraction Method b c

Self-CADE Field-CADE Self-CADE Field-CADEd

Total 836 663 79.3 173 20.7 474 56.7 362 43.3

Institutional level

Less-than-2-year 100 73 73.0 27 27.0 51 51.0 49 49.0

2-year 238 206 86.6 32 13.4 143 60.1 95 39.9

4-year non-doctorate-granting 242 200 82.6 42 17.4 139 57.4 103 42.6

4-year doctorate-granting 256 184 71.9 72 28.1 141 55.1 115 44.9

Institutional control

Public 434 334 77.0 100 23.0 246 56.7 188 43.3

Private, not-for-profit 274 223 81.4 51 18.6 157 57.3 117 42.7

Private, for-profit 128 106 82.8 22 17.2 71 55.5 57 44.5

Institutional sector

Public, less-than-2-year 31 25 80.6 6 19.4 19 61.3 12 38.7

Public, 2-year 159 135 84.9 24 15.1 98 61.6 61 38.4

Public, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 122 89 73.0 33 27.0 65 53.3 57 46.7

Public, 4-year doctorate-granting 122 85 69.7 37 30.3 64 52.5 58 47.5

Private, not-for-profit, 2-year or Less 42 35 83.3 7 16.7 21 50.0 21 50.0

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 102 90 88.2 12 11.8 60 58.8 42 41.2

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year doctorate-granting 130 98 75.4 32 24.6 76 58.5 54 41.5

Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 62 43 69.4 19 30.6 30 48.4 32 51.6

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 66 63 95.5 3 4.5 41 62.1 25 37.9

Institutional size

1,500 or fewer students 188 153 81.4 35 18.6 100 53.2 88 46.8

1,501 to 14,999 students 406 337 83.0 69 17.0 241 59.4 165 40.6

15,000 or more students 242 173 71.5 69 28.5 133 55.0 109 45.0

Institutional sample size

55 or fewer students 287 236 82.2 51 17.8 176 61.3 111 38.7

56 to 85 students 290 236 81.4 54 18.6 172 59.3 118 40.7

86 or more students 259 191 73.7 68 26.3 126 48.6 133 51.4

Note: Statistics are presented for all participating institutions. Choices included: (1) “Self-CADE,” abstraction by the staff of the participating institution and (2) “field-CADE,” 

abstraction by contractor field interviewers. A total of 199 institutions changed choices during CADE operations, 194 changed to field-CADE and 5 changed to self-CADE. 

All percentages are based on the sample size for the row under consideration.

Institution classification for this table was verified by the participating institutions. a

This choice was made by the institutional coordinator or chief administrator prior to any attempts at record abstraction. b

Final method is the procedure through which record abstraction was completed at the institution; the initial method may have been used to collect some data. c

Included in this category are eight institutions that provided photocopies of applicable institutional records to the NPSAS:96 contractor; these records were than entered into d

 CADE by contractor central staff. 
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

Of the 792 institutions that ultimately provided data for at least one CADE respondent, 725 (91.5 11

percent) had returned the CADE system on or before August 31, 1996. Of the 55,665 cases ultimately determined

to be CADE respondents, 51,444 (92.4 percent) were received at RTI on or before August 31, 1996. 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-18

4.3.5 Timeliness of Record Abstraction

CADE systems were prepared on an institution-by-institution basis. The first

CADE systems were shipped to self-CADE institutions in early March of 1996 and CADE

systems continued to be sent to the field until early September, when the final sampling and CPSmatching were completed. Although the CADE data collection was more than 90 percent

complete by the end of August, the remaining CADE systems that were ultimately received 11

arrived between September 1 and December 12, 1996. All but eight of the outstanding CADE

systems were received before the end of October; the eight were returned in early December. 

Figures 4.2 and 4.3 summarize the overall flow of completed CADE abstractions at the

institutional and student levels, respectively. 

An indication of the duration of CADE activities, in days, by type of institution is

provided in Table 4.12. The proxy measure used for time of abstracting is the number of

calendar days between the date on which the CADE system for a institution was initialized at the

main campus of the contractor and the date on which the completed and returned CADE data file

was successfully read and loaded onto the master CADE data set at the contractor's main campus. 

This measure is a relatively good index for self-CADE institutions, for which the CADE package

was typically sent to the institution within the week it was initialized. For field-CADE

institutions, however, the measure typically represents a major overestimation of time needed,

since most institutional CADE packages were sent to the field abstractors well in advance of their

visit to the involved institution. The table provides minimum days, maximum days, and median

days of CADE duration in total and for different institution characteristics. 

Considerable variation was experienced in CADE duration (from 5 days to 222 days, as is

shown in the table). The median number of days to complete CADE was about seven weeks (50

days). Considering both median and maximum statistics, duration was greatest at 4-year

institutions not offering doctorate and first-professional programs and least at private, for-profit

institutions offering only programs of less than two years. While size of institution is positively

related to duration of the CADE effort, the relationship with sample size is restricted to

differences of 5 percentage points or less. Major differences (over 20 percentage points) in

median CADE duration are associated with method of abstraction. Even though the duration

measurement overestimates field-CADE duration (see above), duration was still lowest among

institutions choosing this method initially and staying with that choice. Also, for institutions that

started with self-CADE and subsequently decided that field-CADE was preferable, the duration

statistics are comparable to those for institutions completing under self-CADE. 
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

March

AprilMay

June

July

August

September

October

NovemberDecember

MONTH

Number of Institutions

CADE Sent

Cade Back

Figure 4.2. Cumulative Institutional Flow of CADE

Figure 4.3. Cumulative Student Flow of CADE 

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

March

AprilMay

June

July

August

September

October

NovemberDecember

Month

Number of Students

CADE Sent

CADE Back

CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-19
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-20

Table 4.12—CADE duration statistics by institution type

Type of institution institutions Minimum Median Maximum

CADE duration in daysa

Total

participating

b

Total 804 5 50 222

Institutional level

Less-than-2-year 93 5 35 152

2-year 229 7 49 222

4-year non-doctorate-granting 237 8 56 217

4-year doctorate/first-professional 245 7 51 201

Institutional control

Public 424 7 51 222

Private, not for profit 261 8 50 202

Private, for profit 119 5 39 152

Institutional sector

Public, less than 2-year 31 11 48 143

Public, 2-year 155 8 50 222

Public, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 117 10 53 217

Public, 4-year doctorate/first-professional 121 7 53 201

Private, not-for-profit, 2-year or Less 38 13 40 183

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 100 8 57 202

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year doctorate-granting 123 11 50 154

Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 56 5 33 152

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 63 7 52 144

Abstraction method

Self-CADE 455 8 54 201

Always field-CADE 161 5 31 167 c

Eventually field-CADE 188 7 55 222 d

School size

1,500 or fewer students 117 5 40 202

1,501 to 14,999 students 394 10 51 217

15,000 or more students 233 7 53 222

Sample size

55 or fewer students 274 5 48 222

56 to 85 students 280 9 53 217

86 or more students 250 7 49 201

Note: Statistics are based on the 804 institutions returning CADE data. 

The duration of CADE data abstraction for a given institution is defined as the number of calendar days between the a

 date the CADE system was initialized at the contractor's main campus and the date the completed CADE data file

 was returned and

 successfully read and loaded into the master CADE data set at the contractor's main office.

The count of participating institutions includes twelve institutions that provided only a minimal amount of data, b

 thus resulting in no completed CADE cases from these institutions.

Because appointment dates were established for field-CADE institutions, the CADE system was sometimes c

 initialized well in advance of the CADE appointment data; consequently, the upper values of these duration

 statistics considerably overestimate the actual abstracting period.

The "Eventually field-CADE" category represents institutions initially indicating a willingness to perform the d
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-21

 data abstraction and subsequently requesting a field data collector. 
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

CATI locating efforts are typically categorized as either “routine” or “intensive”. Routine tracing efforts 12

generally include calling all known phone numbers for the respondent, and contacting directory assistance to

obtain additional phone numbers which may reach a subject. Intensive tracing efforts, such as performing data

base searches and employing field staff to contact friends and neighbors, are more expensive due to their laborintensive nature. An optimal tracing and locating strategy generally involves a sequential combination of routine

followed by intensive tracing efforts.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-22

4.4 Individual Tracing and Interviewing

4.4.1 CATI External Tracing and Locating Operations

The NPSAS:96 data collection included several tracing procedures as well as the use of a

modified “locating” module in the CATI system, which allowed greater flexibility in recording

(and subsequently reviewing) tracing history for a given case. In addition, a subcontractor

(FastData) was used to provide directory assistance database matches, and tracing procedures

were also established to use a subcontractor (EQUIFAX) to assist in intensive locating of cases

that could not be traced through more routine tracing approaches.12

Prior experience of the contractor demonstrated the potential cost effectiveness of

utilizing a “data base search” approach for obtaining directory assistance. This approach was

implemented for NPSAS. Rather than having telephone interviewers call directory assistance

when available telephone numbers for a case had been exhausted, the case was automatically

labeled as needing directory assistance lookup. These cases, stored in a standard format within a

computer file, were regularly shipped as a batch to FastData. For a minor cost per “hit”, FastData

returned the cases the following morning with up to six new phone numbers. 

Of the 51,195 students that were sampled for NPSAS CATI, 9,689 required FastData

services at least once. For 5,053 (over half) of these case, no additional information was found;

however, at least one new phone number was obtained for the remaining 4,636 cases (48

percent), and for 2,109 of these (22 percent of the total), two or more phone numbers were

returned from FastData.

A total of 6,884 cases received intensive tracing effort. While EQUIFAX was the primary

mechanism by which intensive tracing was implemented, a portion of the CATI cases were also

worked by a staff of specialized in-house tracers within the contractor telephone survey facility--

5,002 of the intensive tracing were submitted to EQUIFAX, 1,192 were turned over to in-house

tracers, and 690 cases were submitted to both EQUIFAX and the in-house tracing team.
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

This was partially due to the two-stage, sampling approach for locating/interviewing (see Chapter 2). 13

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-23

Table 4.13 shows the breakdown of intensive tracing cases by institution and student

characteristics. Because these tracing efforts were focused to a large extent on cases sampled as

potential FTBs , an artifactual difference in tracing requirements is shown between 13

undergraduate students and graduate and first-professional students. Consistent with results from

prior NPSAS implementations, a relatively higher proportion of students from private, for-profit

institutions required intensive tracing. This reflects the overwhelming percentage of

undergraduate students within these institutions, but also reflects the previously demonstrated

greater mobility among such students. 

Of the 5,692 cases referred to EQUIFAX, new phone and address information was

returned for 2,494 (44 percent) and address-only information for another 1,156 (20 percent).

Ultimately, 2,406 (42 percent) of the intensive trace cases were successfully located and

interviews were completed with 1,712 (71 percent) of those located.

Results were comparable for the 1,882 cases referred to the contractor’s in-house tracing

team (including the 690 cases that were also submitted to EQUIFAX); 880 (47 percent) were

successfully located and interviews were completed with 579 (66 percent) of the located cases.

4.4.2 CATI Tracing/Interviewing

A separate CATI input file for students selected for Phase 1 interviewing was prepared for

each institution, containing student-level and institution-level data values used to customize the

flow and appearance of the CATI interview. This file included preloaded data from completed

CADE records. The first CATI input files (for 1,320 students) were created and loaded on May

6, 1996; an additional 3,423 cases were loaded the following day. Loading of data into the CATI

system continued on a flow bases until the final set of CATI input files were loaded on October

26, 1996. A total of 51,195 cases were selected for student CATI and loaded into the system,

although a portion of these cases were not selected for Phase 2 interviewing. CATI data

collection continued for 35 weeks, ending on December 31, 1996, yielding 31,328 full or partial

interviews. The duration of the CATI survey was principally attributable to delays in receiving

institution enrollment lists, which in turn delayed the CPS matching and CADE data collection

and, thus the flow of cases from CADE to CATI.
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-24

Table 4.13—Percentage of students requiring intensive tracing procedures

Students sampled

for CATI Number Percent

Cases receiving intensive

tracing efforts

Total 51,195 6,884 13.4

Institutional level

Less-than-2-year 4,233 1,027 24.3

2-year 10,992 1,940 17.6

4-year non-doctorate-granting 15,783 1,829 11.6

4-year doctorate-granting 20,187 2,088 10.3

Institutional control 

Public 28,422 3,600 12.7

Private, not-for-profit 16,893 1,973 11.7

Private, for-profit 5,880 1,311 22.3

Institutional sector 

Public, less-than-2-year 1,131 205 18.1

Public, 2-year 6,872 1,148 16.7

Public, 4-year non-doctorate-granting 8,703 997 11.5

Public, 4-year doctorate-granting 11,716 1,250 10.7

Private, not-for-profit, 2-year or Less 2,295 444 19.3

Private, not for-profit, 4-year non-doctorategranting 6,158 692 11.2

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year doctorate-granting 8,440 837 9.9

Private, for-profit, less than 2-year 2,697 733 27.2

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 3,183 578 18.2

Student typea

Undergraduate 43,872 6,412 14.6

Potential FTBs 20,555 4,615 22.5 b

Graduate 4,956 345 7.0

First-professional 2,367 127 5.4

Student type definition is based on the student's last term of enrollment at the NPSAS institution during the a

NPSAS

 year.

“Potential FTBs” are those students who were classified as such following CADE and prior to CATI. This b

group is not mutually exclusive of other student type categories.
0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

13579

11131517192123252729313335

Week of Data Collection

Number of Cases

Cumulative Interview s (Complete & Partial) Cumulative Cases Loaded

CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-25

Figure 4.4 depicts the cumulative nature, over time, of loading cases into CATI and of

completing interviews. As is typical for most CATI surveys, the interview completion rate

decreases (i.e., the slope of the cumulative line flattens) during the later portions of the study. 

Figure 4.4 Cumulative cases loaded and completed by week of NPSAS:96 CATI

data collection

This phenomenon results from the inevitable accumulation of refusal and unable-to-locate cases

throughout the study. The approximately nine-week lag between the point at which the last cases

were loaded into CATI and the end of data collection is not atypical. 

4.4.3 Length of Interview

The time needed to conduct a student interview is shown, by interview section and student

type, in Table 4.14. The administrative timing statistics were computed from time stamps

imbedded in the CATI instrument. To use the most timing data available, results were computed

for all cases that completed each of the separate sections of the interview and the section times

were then aggregated to obtain total administrative time. Sections are listed in the table in the

order in which they were presented. The bulk of the differences in numbers of cases contributing

to the timing results over sections reflects "break-off" interviews (which may have occurred with

or without a scheduled call-back to complete the interview).
Table 4.14—Average minutes to complete NPSAS:96 student telephone interview by section and student type

Section All students FTB students only students students

Student typea

Other Graduate/firstundergraduate professional

Number Minutes Number Minutes Number Minutes Number Minutes

Total † 26.2 † 29.4 † 23.5 † 21.5 b

Section A: school enrollment 28,270 5.7 10,915 4.6 13,609 6.4 3,746 7.0

Section B: educational expenses 27,926 2.2 10,720 2.8 13,488 2.0 3,718 1.6

Section C: sources of support 27,724 2.3 10,626 2.7 13,399 2.2 3,699 2.0

Section D: financial aid 27,736 1.5 10,673 0.9 13,375 1.8 3,688 2.2

Section E: employment 27,144 3.6 10,465 3.6 13,094 3.8 3,585 3.3

Section F: financial status 27,278 2.3 10,458 2.1 13,170 2.4 3,650 2.4

Section G: student demographics 27,482 1.5 10,548 1.4 13,254 1.6 3,680 1.6

Section H: parental characteristics 27,270 2.1 10,426 2.7 13,176 2.0 3,688 1.1

Section I: educational experiences 18,823 3.3 10,332 5.0 8,334 1.0 † †

c

Section J: locating information 25,500 1.7 10,463 3.6 11,828 0.3 3,209 0.3

NOTE: Section times are based on the number of respondents completing each section, excluding those who completed an abbreviated interview. 

 Student classifications reflect status as verified in CADE and CATI. a

Total is computed as the sum of individual section times. b

This section was only administered to FTBs and first and second year undergraduates. c

†Not applicable.
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-27

Average administration time to complete the student interview was 26.2 minutes for all

students. Administration time varied by student type with the BPS cohort members (i.e., verified

FTBs) requiring 29.4 minutes on average, and other undergraduates and graduate/firstprofessional students requiring 23.5 minutes and 21.5 minutes, respectively. The additional time

required for the BPS cohort is principally attributable to Section I (which was only completely

administered to FTBs and partially to other first and second year undergraduate students) and the

time required to obtain the much more comprehensive Section J locating information for the

longitudinal study sample. Other differences in administration time among the student groups are

relatively small. 

Average administration times for the full scale interviews were considerably lower, across

all student types, than were those for the field test versions of the interviews. This reflects both a

shortening of the instrument and improvements in full-scale interviewer training procedures. 

Interview administration time, however, reflects only a small fraction of the time required to

obtain a completed interview. Additional time is spent by interviewers in locating sample

members, scheduling call-backs, attempting refusal conversion, and other related activities. This

time is spent not only on cases that are ultimately interviewed but also on cases for whom no

interviews are obtained. The average locator/interviewer time requirement for each completed

interview is estimated to be about 2.0 hours.

Administration time for the parent interview is shown in Table 4.15. On average, a

complete parent interview lasted about 12 minutes. 

Table 4.15—Average minutes to complete the NPSAS:96 parent telephone interview, 

by section

Section Number of Minutes

parents

Total † 12.2 a

Section L: financial support for education 3,351 5.0

Section M: household school enrollment 3,333 1.1

Section N: employment status and financial condition 3,312 4.1

Section Q: reasons for not seeking financial aid 3,297 1.2

Section P: parent demographics 2,384 0.8

NOTE: Section times are based on the number of respondents completing each section, excluding those with

contaminated time stamps.

Total is computed as the sum of individual section times. a

†Not applicable.
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-28

4.4.4 Number and Result of Calls Made to Sample Members

As indicated in the previous section, a large effort was devoted to locating, contacting, and

recontacting sample members. In fact, the large majority of interviewer time was spent in

activities other than actually administering the student or parent interview. A small portion of this

other time was required to bring up a case, review its history, and close the case (with appropriate

comment) when completed. The vast majority of the other time was devoted to contacting (or

attempting to contact) the sample members. Table 4.16 shows the total number of telephone

calls made to sample members and the outcome of these calls. Calls resulting in voice mail or

answering machines are broken out separately in this table, since this type of “non-contact” is by

far the most frequent and has both cost and procedural implications for future surveys with similar

populations. 

As shown in Table 4.16, the average number of calls made to all sample members was about

12 (although not shown in the table, this was also the average number of calls made to sample

members who completed the interview). Locating calls typically represent about two-thirds of the

total calls. About one-third of all calls resulted in reaching someone, one-third resulted in contact

with voice mail or answering machines, and one-third resulted in some other type of non-contact

(e.g., busy signal, no answer, non-working number). On average, graduate and first-professional

students required fewer calls than did undergraduate students. On the other hand, calls to

graduate and first-professional students were much more likely to have contacted voice mail or

answering machines than were calls placed to undergraduate students. This finding is consistent

with the relatively smaller percentages of answering machine calls among students from 2-year

and less than 2-year institutions than among students at 4-year institutions. 

4.5 Identifying First Time Beginning Students (FTBs)

The NPSAS:96 study serves as the base year of a longitudinal study of students beginning

their postsecondary education experience during one of the terms of the NPSAS sample year. 

Those determined to be such "First Time Beginners" (FTBs) will be followed at periodic intervals

as part of the Beginning Postsecondary Students follow-up surveys (BPS:96), with the data

collected during NPSAS:96 serving as the base year for the subsequent longitudinal studies.

NPSAS:96 is the second NPSAS to "spin off" a cohort of beginning students; NPSAS:90

was the first. Based on our experiences in the NPSAS:96 field test, RTI implemented sampling

and screening procedures which were targeted to yield an adequate number of students that are

accurately identified as FTBs for the BPS:96 longitudinal study. Procedures specific to this

purpose were implemented at almost every step of full-scale study operations (e.g., detailed

instructions for enrollment list requests; sample selection procedures; wording of CADE items

asked specifically about potential FTBs; comprehensive BPS-eligibility questions in the student

CATI instrument to make the final FTB determination; and extra locating/ interviewing efforts

applied to the sample from the student stratum of potential FTBs). Because FTB determination

rates were not available from the NPSAS:90/BPS:90 sampling process, FTB sampling rates were

based primarily on NPSAS:96 field test results combined with expected improvements based on

those results and BPS:92/94 experience. The two major challenges in achieving adequate FTB

yields are: (1) proper identification of a sufficient base from which to obtain FTBs and (2)

locating, identifying, and interviewing FTBs from that base in sufficient numbers. 
Table 4.16—Number and result of calls made to sample members by type of institution and type of student

Category cases sample cases case Number Percent Number Percent Number t

CATI sample Total calls to Calls per Percen

a a

Reached someone machine

Didn't reach anyone

Answering

Other non-contact

Total 51,195 623,336 12.2 223,249 35.8 197,872 31.7 202,215 32.4

Institutional level

Less than 2-year 4,233 57,469 13.6 20,682 36.0 15,332 26.7 21,455 37.3

2-year 10,992 139,845 12.7 51,453 36.8 42,427 30.3 45,965 32.9

4-year, non-doctorate-granting 15,783 180,854 11.5 65,656 36.3 55,893 30.9 59,305 32.8

4-year, doctorate-granting 20 245,168 12.1 85,458 34.9 84,220 34.4 75,490 30.8

Institutional control

Public 28,422 342,528 12.1 123,762 36.1 108,620 31.7 110,146 32.2

Private, not-for-profit 16,893 198,186 11.7 70,258 35.5 65,389 33.0 62,539 31.6

Private, for-profit 5,880 82,622 14.1 29,229 35.4 23,863 28.9 29,530 35.7

Institutional sector

Public, less than 2-year 1,131 12,728 11.3 4,715 37.0 3,493 27.4 4,520 35.5

Public, 2-year 6,872 84,242 12.3 31,449 37.3 25,961 30.8 26,832 31.9

Public, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting 8,703 101,933 11.7 37,496 36.8 31,002 30.4 33,435 32.8

Public, 4-year, doctorate-granting 11,716 143,625 12.3 50,102 34.9 48,164 33.5 45,359 31.6

Private, not-for-profit, 2-year or less 2,295 28,800 12.5 10,414 36.2 8,535 29.6 9,851 34.2

Private, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting 6,158 68,174 11.1 24,586 36.1 20,975 30.8 22,613 33.2

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorate-granting 8,440 101,212 12.0 35,258 34.8 35,879 35.4 30,075 29.7

Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 2,697 40,423 15.0 14,375 35.6 10,768 26.6 15,280 37.8

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 3,183 42,199 13.3 14,854 35.2 13,095 31.0 14,250 33.8

Student typeb

Undergraduate 43,872 556,235 12.7 201,271 36.2 170,412 30.6 184,552 33.2

Graduate 4,956 43,969 8.9 14,509 33.0 17,614 40.1 11,846 26.9

First-professional 2,367 23,132 9.8 7,469 32.3 9,846 42.6 5,817 25.1

Note: Statistics based on 51,195 cases loaded and worked in CATI, and restricted to calls made within the CATI facility. Percentages are based on total calls for row under

consideration. 

Total calls and calls per case are biased downward because of the two-phase CATI sampling design, which sampled out some cases after a maximum of a

 phase one calls. 

Student type is based on student's status during the last term of enrollment at the NPSAS institution. b
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

A number of questions were contained in the student interview to screen for FTB status, including: when 14

the student first attended a postsecondary institution; whether the student received any prior postsecondary degrees

or certificates; and whether and when the student completed the first class toward a postsecondary degree or

certificate after high school at a postsecondary institution.

Simply asking the institution to identify students who enrolled in the institution for the first time is 15

insufficient, since it can result in identification of undergraduate transfer students as well as first-time enrolling

graduate and first-professional students.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-30

The previously agreed upon definition of a pure FTB is: one who enrolled in

postsecondary education for the first time after high school during the NPSAS year. This

definition was refined for the NPSAS:96 full-scale study to include those who had previously

enrolled but who had not completed a postsecondary course for credit prior to July 1 1995

(effective FTBs). This expanded definition shifts the requirement from the act of enrollment to

successful completion of a postsecondary course.

4.5.1 Sequential Procedures for Screening FTBs

Locating and interviewing potential FTBs is particularly important, since final FTB

determination rests on student responses to specific questions. Student records maintained at 14

most postsecondary institutions do not contain all information necessary to make accurate FTB

determinations. Insufficiency of institution-level information is quite obvious when considering

students who move from one sector of postsecondary education to another (e.g., from a

certificate-granting technical institution to a degree-granting academic institution, or vice versa),

and who, consequently, bring no transfer credits (or other records of such prior education) with

them to the new postsecondary environment.

Nonetheless, institutions can identify FTBs stochastically; however, instructions to

institutions regarding preliminary identification of potential FTBs must also be sufficiently clear

and viable that the institution can implement them correctly. Sampling procedures implemented 15

during NPSAS:96 accounted for potential definitional difficulties in a number of ways. As a first

screening, institutions were asked to identify potential FTBs, using as criteria that such students

be:

undergraduate students,

having a first enrollment at the institution in a term starting during the NPSAS:96

year (between May 1, 1995 and April 30, 1996),

classified by the institution as freshman, or first-year student at the time of that

first enrollment, and

who had no transfer credits from another postsecondary institution.
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

This indicator was temporary, since final FTB determination was not made until the student CATI 16

interview.

FTB status was determined at the start of the student CATI interview, since many subsequent questions 17

were to be asked only of the actual BPS cohort.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-31

Based on prior experience, it was anticipated that two types of errors would still exist in

lists provided by the schools; specifically, (1) students listed as potential FTBs would not be

actual FTBs (a false positive group) and (2) students not identified as potential FTBs would, in

fact, prove to be FTBs (a false negative group). The actual BPS:96 cohort would thus consist of

those in the potential FTB group minus the identified false positives in that group plus any false

negatives identified in other student strata. Because experience with BPS:90 indicated that the

false positive rate would exceed (considerably) the false negative rate, the potential FTB stratum

was considerably oversampled (see Chapter 2).

A second stage of screening for FTB status occurred during record abstraction. Students

who were classified as undergraduates at the conclusion of CADE were identified as potential

FTBs for CATI subsampling if: the student graduated from high school in 1995 or 1996; the CPS

year-in-school variable indicated that the student was an FTB; or high school graduation year and

CPS year-in-school variables were missing, but the student was born in 1977 or later. Potential

FTBs whose CADE data did not contradict the sampling list requirements (first-year students

attending the NPSAS institution for the first time during the sample year, not transferring credits

in) continued to be treated as potential FTBs for CATI subsampling. Other students were

classified as "probable non-FTBs." Classification at this stage was particularly important since 16

potential FTBs were selected for CATI with certainty whereas subsampling occurred for other

student strata (see Chapter 2).

The final (CATI interview) FTB screening, was accomplished very early in the interview

(immediately following NPSAS study eligibility determination). The FTB screening questions 17

were asked of all interviewed students so that not only would false positives from the potential

FTB stratum be eliminated from the BPS cohort but also false negatives from the other student

strata would be identified and included in the BPS:96 cohort.

4.5.2 Basic Results for Establishing the BPS:96 Cohort

As mentioned above, FTB determination was a three-stage process, including information

gathered during: list acquisition; CADE data collection; and then CATI data collection. 

Table 4.17 provides results of CATI-based FTB determination based on student classification. 

Overall, 39 percent of the students interviewed (12,207 students) were determined to be FTBs. 

Among those initially sampled as potential FTBs based on the list acquisition process, 72.4

percent of those subsequently interviewed were determined to be FTBs, yielding a 27.6 percent

false positive rate. The false negative rate was 29.3 percent for the students for whom FTBlikelihood was not established by the institution, 9.1 percent for those identified as non-FTB

undergraduates and 0.2 percent or less for those sampled as graduates or first-professionals. 
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-32

The reasonably low false-negative rate results highlight the fact that, in general, schools

were fairly successful in identifying students who were not likely to be FTBs. On the other hand,

the high false positive rate revealed the difficulties that many schools experienced in accurately

identifying FTBs.

Table 4.17 also displays the confirmed FTB rates based on the student re-classifications

done subsequent to CADE and prior to CATI. The false positive rate reduced to 21.8 percent for

potential FTBs among those interviewed. The false negative rate for other students was much

lower as well: 4.3 percent for other undergraduate students, 0.1 percent for graduate students,

and 0.0 percent for first-professional students. This second sampling stage was quite effective in

reducing both the false negative rate and the false positive rate; however, the false positive rate

was higher than anticipated. Institutions, in many cases, did not have the necessary information to

be able to classify FTBs correctly.

Table 4.17—FTB determination by student classification

Student classification interviewed Number Percent

Students Known FTBs

Total 31,328 12,207 39.0

List sampling stratum

Potential FTBs 15,106 10,932 72.4

Undifferentiated undergraduates 785 230 29.3

Other undergraduates 11,436 1,039 9.1

Graduates 1,263 3 0.2

First-professionals 2,738 3 0.1

Post-CADE classification

Potential FTBs 14,936 11,677 78.2

Other undergraduates 12,357 526 4.3

Graduates 2,835 4 0.1

First-professionals 1,200 0 0.0

Tables 4.18 and 4.19 show that the difficulty in identification of FTBs was markedly

different for the various types of institutions. Table 4.18 reflects the results for those initially

sampled as potential FTBs during list-sampling (incorrect classifications may be considered false

positives) and Table 4.19 provides the results for students not sampled as potential FTBs

(incorrect classifications may be considered false negatives). The 4-year institutions did much

better than the less-than-4-year institutions in identifying potential FTBs. The FTB rate for

potential FTBs at 4-year schools was more than 80 percent whereas it was less than 55 percent at

other schools. Similarly, the false negative rate was much lower for 4-year schools. Private, forprofit schools had much higher false positive (only 55.3 percent confirmed FTBs among potential

FTBs) and false negative (18.9 percent) rates than other institutions.
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-33

In viewing the results by institutional sector, some dramatic disparities are evident. The

most successful sector in determining FTBs accurately was that of the public, 4-year, doctoralgranting institutions, where 90.9 percent of the potential FTBs were confirmed as such in CATI,

and only 5.3 percent of those in other student strata were determined in CATI to be FTBs. Each

of the 4-year sectors had false positive rates below 20 percent and false negative rates below 7

percent. All of the less-than-4-year sectors had false positive rates in excess of 43 percent and

false negative rates above 10 percent. In particular, private-for-profit less than two year schools

had a false positive rate of 43.8 percent and a false negative rate of 48.7 percent. Two other

sectors (public, less-than-2-year; private, not-for-profit, 2-year or less) had false positive rates in

excess of 50 percent. 

Table 4.18—FTB determination for those identified by NPSAS institution as potential

FTBs, by institution type

Type of institution interviewed Number Percent

Students Known FTBs

Institutional level

Less-than-2-year 2,020 1,056 52.3

2-year 3,935 2,140 54.4

4-year-non-doctorate-granting 4,519 3,666 81.1

4-year-doctorate-granting 4,632 4,070 87.9

Institutional control

Public 8,299 6,305 76.0

Private, not-for-profit 4,343 3,265 75.2

Private, for-profit 2,464 1,362 55.3

Institutional sector

Public, less-than-2-year 484 210 43.4

Public, 2-year 2,390 1,337 55.9

Public, 4-year, non-doctorate 2,599 2,190 84.3

Public, 4-year, doctorate 2,826 2,568 90.9

Private, not-for-profit, 2-year or less 822 376 45.7

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting 1,715 1,387 80.9

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorate-granting 1,806 1,502 83.2

Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 1,446 812 56.2

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 1,018 550 54.0

The inability of less-than-4-year institutions to identify FTBs, despite careful and

comprehensive instructions provided to them, reflects the fact that these schools often do not

have necessary information to make this determination. In many cases, students attend multiple

schools without transferring credits from one institution to the next one. So, institutions would

not know about such prior postsecondary experience. Four-year schools, on the other hand, have

more information about prior institution attendance and student level, in general. If future BPS

cohorts are planned, the NPSAS:96 experience will provide very good information for sampling

potential FTBs in future NPSAS base year samples. For instance, it serves little purpose to ask

less-than-2-year for-profit schools to attempt to identify separately their FTBs since both their

false positive and false negative rates are around 50 percent. List acquisition procedures and

sampling procedures may be refined to account for the disparate rates of actual FTBs across the

various institutional sectors.
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-34

Table 4.19—FTB determination for those not identified by NPSAS institution as

potential FTBs, by institution type

Type of institution interviewed Number Percent

Students Known FTBs

Institutional level

Less-than-2-year 401 129 32.2

2-year 2,524 344 13.6

4-year, non-doctorate-granting 5,630 345 6.1

4-year, doctorate-granting 7,667 457 6.0

Institutional control

Public 9,147 672 7.3

Private, not-for-profit 6,011 402 6.7

Private, for-profit 1,064 201 18.9

Institutional sector

Public, less-than-2-year 126 29 23.0

Public, 2-year 1,564 204 13.0

Public, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting 3,008 204 6.8

Public, 4-year, doctorate-for-profit 4,449 235 5.3

Private, not for-profit, less-than-2-year 513 55 10.7

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctorate granting 2,303 125 5.4

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorate-granting 3,195 222 6.9

Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 195 95 48.7

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 869 106 12.2

4.5.3 Types of First Time Beginners

As mentioned above, FTBs included those identified as pure (began postsecondary

education for the first time during the NPSAS sample year) or effective (had not completed a

postsecondary class prior to NPSAS sample year). In addition, a number of FTBs were identified

as being FTBs, but attending another institution during the NPSAS sample year prior to attending

the NPSAS institution. For instance, a student may have attended one institution during the

summer of 1995 and then another institution beginning with the fall of 1995. Such students that

were sampled at the second institution were appropriately treated during the NPSAS interview as

FTBs. Institutional records, though, were only collected for the NPSAS sample institution, and

not for the first institution.

Table 4.20 presents a distribution of FTBs by FTB type and whether or not the student

was a FTB at the NPSAS institution. More than 95 percent of the known FTBs were pure FTBs

who attended their NPSAS institution first. Nearly 99 percent of the students determined to be

FTBs were pure or effective FTBs at the NPSAS institution. About 97 percent of the known

FTBs were pure FTBs. For the BPS:96 cohort, all of the pure or effective FTBs who attended

the NPSAS institution first will be included in the sample as NPSAS respondents known to be

BPS-eligible (12,040 FTBs).
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-35

Table 4.20—Known FTBs by type of FTB and whether NPSAS institution 

was first institution attended

First institution attended

FTB Type

Total Pure FTB Effective FTB

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent a a a

Total 12,207 100.0 11,802 96.7 405 3.3

NPSAS institution attended first 12,040 98.6 11,639 95.3 401 3.3

Other institution attended first 167 1.4 163 1.3 4 0.0

Of total known FTBs. a

4.6 Quality and Completeness of NPSAS:96 Data

4.6.1 CATI Quality Control Monitoring

Monitoring CATI data collection in progress serves the dual purpose of (1) providing

information about the overall level of error in the facility to ensure that the interviewing process

remains in statistical control (and to keep overall error within acceptable limits), and (2)

improving interviewer performance by reinforcing good interviewer behavior and discouraging

poor behavior. The data reported in this section reflect the monitoring conducted during the

NPSAS:96 data collection using the RTI telephone monitoring system. The system provides for

sampling of interviewers and interview items during CATI operations. Monitors listen to sampled

interviews and observe the data collection using remote monitoring telephone and computer

equipment and software. They record their observations on laptop computers which contain

computerized monitoring forms. 

During the NPSAS:96 training sessions for interviewers and supervisors, selected staff

received training on the monitoring system. Interviewers were informed of what types of

interviewer behavior would be allowed and what types must be avoided. Supervisors, who served

as monitors, were instructed on how to identify proper and improper interviewer behavior and

how to record their observations on the laptop computers. In addition, all staff were told the

purpose of the monitoring data and how the data were to be reported. Monitors were instructed

to focus on two interviewer behaviors including:

delivery of questionnaire text--to identify proper reading of the questionnaire text

(verbatim) or appropriate modifications of the text based on prior statements made

by the respondent, or improperly skipping over questions; and

CATI entry--to identify correct recording of responses to interview questions. 
Figure 4.5. Monitoring error rates for CATI question 

delivery

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28

Week

Error Rate

Low er Control Limit Error Rate Upper Control Limit

CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-36

Twenty monitors were responsible for quality control monitoring. They recorded a total of

102,000 observations during the data collection period. Monitoring data were collected during

the first 28 weeks of data collection. Monitoring efforts were eliminated for the last seven weeks

of data collection, given the greater experience of the remaining interviewers and satisfaction by

project staff that the process was in appropriate control. 

The monitoring results are presented in Figures 4.5 and 4.6 for Question Delivery and

Data Entry, respectively. Seven four-week periods of data collection are designated for each

figure. On most studies, interviewers experience a learning curve, a short time at the beginning

of their study efforts during which they are still developing their skills with a particular survey

instrument and study procedures. This learning curve may not be clearly evidenced in these

figures because the underlying data reflect attrition of some interviewers as well as the subsequent

addition of new interviewers over time to accommodate that attrition. 

Note: Upper and lower limits were computed at 12 weeks and 28 weeks, with new cumulation of results

beginning at those points, since the monitored error rate exceeded existing control limits. 
Figure 4.6. Monitoring error rates for CATI data entry

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28

Week

Error Rate

Low er Control Limit Error Rate Upper Control Rate

CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

The upper and lower control limits were calculated as plus (for upper limit) and minus (for lower limit) 18

three times the standard error associated with the cumulative proportion of errors to the number of questions

observed for the given period. When operational changes were introduced into the system (e.g., major infusion of

new interviewers), cumulative computation of limits was restarted. 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-37

The facility-level data shown in the figures include the percentage of instances where a

behavior was observed. A deviation outside of the control limits is indicative of an unexpected 18

behavior pattern. These deviations can be explained either by a change in the interviewing

process, a change in the monitoring process, or a problem with interviewer performance. In the

discussion below, we summarize the monitoring data for the two behaviors that were observed. 

CATI Question Delivery. NPSAS telephone interviewers were trained to employ a

conversational style interviewing approach, which is intended to reduce respondent burden and

thereby enhance survey response rates. This approach requires “active listening” by the

interviewer and appropriate use of information received from the sample member as part of, or in

addition to, an answer to a question asked previously. For example: to the question “What is

your marital status?”, a person might say “I’m married and my wife and I have two daughters,

ages eight and six.” In this case the respondent has provided a lot of information, in addition to

the simple answer to the question posed, and this additional information can and should be used

appropriately in the rest of the interview. For example, it would be awkward and inappropriate to

then ask this person: “Do you have any children?” and, if so, “How many of your children under

age 21 live with you?” Rather, adapting a conversational interviewing approach, the interviewer

might say: “You said you had two young children living at home, right?” 
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-38

Note, however, that the interviewer attempts to obtain responses to the current question by

confirming information obtained in response to a prior question; however, this approach does not

justify “skipping” questions that are applicable to the particular respondent. 

Thus, given the conversational style interviewing approach used in NPSAS, the literal

reading of the screen wording for each item, while acceptable, is not required for a question to be

delivered correctly. However, any deviation from item wording that results in changing the intent

of the question or obscuring the question meaning would constitute incorrect question delivery, as

would skipping the question entirely. Figure 4.5 provides the monitored error rates, at four-week

intervals, for CATI question delivery. As can be seen, errors of this type were quite low

throughout the data collection period. The cumulative question delivery error rate, based on all

observations across the 28-week monitoring period, was less than 2 percent. 

CATI Entry. CATI entry error occurs when the response to a question is recorded

incorrectly. The error rates of CATI entry are somewhat higher than might be expected for this

study (Figure 4.6). This may be attributed to two factors. First, it is difficult for monitors to

observe the recorded entries before the screen switches to the next question, so the error rates

may be misreported. Second, CATI monitoring included all types of items and, therefore, some

of the error reported is attributable to simple misspelling of open-ended (literal) responses by the

interviewers. These behaviors were observed during the early stages of data collection and

addressed both with the monitors and the interviewers. The effect of such retraining is reflected

in Figure 4.6, which shows a consistent decline in data entry error rates over the data collection

period. The facility average data entry error rate for the full data entry monitoring period was less

than 2 percent. 

4.6.2 CATI On-line Coding

The NPSAS CATI system included tools which allowed computer-assisted on-line

assignment of codes to literal responses. On-line coding systems are designed to improve data

quality by capitalizing on the availability of the respondent at the time the coding is performed. 

Interviewers can request clarification or additional information if a particular open-ended value or

text string cannot be successfully coded on the first attempt, an advantage not afforded when

coding occurs after the interview is complete. Because the literal string as well as code selected

are both captured in the data file, subsequent quality control recoding by central office staff can be

easily incorporated into data collection procedures. The on-line coding occurred in three

substantive areas: postsecondary education institution, major field of study, and

industry/occupation.

Institutional coding was needed to assign a six-digit Integrated Postsecondary Education

Data System (IPEDS) identifier for institutions other than the sample institution that respondents

reported attending during the 1995-96 year. The system relied on a look-up table, or coding

dictionary, of institutions. The dictionary was constructed from the IPEDS institution database. 

Other information in the dictionary (institutional level of offering, institutional control, and annual

undergraduate tuition information) was retrieved into CATI for later use (e.g., for branching or as

prompts for certain questions), once the institution was identified and confirmed.

Major field of study coding and industry/occupation coding utilized a dictionary of

word/code associations. The on-line procedures for these coding operations were the following:
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-39

(1) the interviewer keyed the verbatim text provided by the respondent; (2) standard descriptors

associated with identified codes were displayed for the interviewer; and (3) the interviewer

selected a listed standard descriptor.

Each coding operation was subjected to quality control monitoring. Although monitoring

error rates were not maintained separately for the coding systems, they are reflected in the overall

CATI monitoring error rates discussed above. In addition to the quality control monitoring,

interviewers were routinely monitored specifically with regard to their performance in using the

on-line coding software. Supervisors debriefed (and retrained when necessary) the interviewers

based on this qualitative assessment. The coding systems also received prominent focus during

the telephone interviewer quality circle meetings, with expert coders providing guidance regarding

the appropriate coding of particularly difficult items. During these sessions, interviews were

reminded to provide comprehensive information in the verbatim text, to facilitate any subsequent

recoding.

Coding results were extracted and examined approximately every two weeks during data

collection. The verbatim strings were evaluated for completeness, as well as for the

appropriateness of the assigned codes. Approximately five to seven percent of the strings were

recoded, although very few resulted in a shift across broad categories. Following each

extraction/examination, the industry/occupation and major field of study coding dictionaries were

expanded to include codes for descriptions collected in CATI interviews that were not previously

represented in the dictionary. Table 4-21 shows the results of the NPSAS on-line coding

procedures.

Table 4.21—Success rates for CATI on-line coding procedures

Coding procedure Total coding attempts successfully successfully a

Total coded Percent coded

IPEDS 14,521 12,071 83.1

Major field of study 26,372 26,061 98.8

Industry 23,901 23,177 97.0

Occupation 66,029 63,420 96.0

The IPEDS, Industry, and Occupation coding could occur multiple times within any single interview. For a

example,

 occupation data was collected from students regarding their current jobs and career aspirations. Similarly,

students

 were asked about up to four institutions (other than the sample institution) they attended during the NPSAS year,

 and were also asked about institutions from which they may have received a bachelors degree earlier in their

 academic career. All these entries were subjected to the IPEDS coding system.

As the table shows, interviewers experienced the most difficulty attempting to code

institutions. The IPEDS coding system required the student to report the school name, as well as

the city and state in which the school was located. An incorrect school name or city/state

combination usually resulted in an unsuccessful coding of the institutions. Based on the relative

completeness of the verbatim text available, 1,143 of the 2,450 unsuccessfully-coded cases were

identified as candidates for post-data collection recoding and assigned to a team of expert coders. 

The team successfully coded 237 of the institutions, and another 737 institutions were in foreign
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-40

countries (i.e. “uncodable” was a correct entry). This activity raised the IPEDS coding success

rate to just under 90 percent.
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

The bulk of the initial interviews were conducted prior to the end of the financial aid year (June 30, 19

1996 or current institution year); however, a number of questions use such time points as the end of a stated

reference period, introducing the potential for real change during the time between the initial interview and the

referenced time point. Also, some reinterview respondents were contacted up to six months after completing the

main interview (in some cases after they had begun another year of school) and for questions with unspecified

reference periods, potential for change obviously exists.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-41

4.6.3 CATI Data Indeterminancies

A major goal of any survey is to minimize the amount of nonresponse to individual data

elements as well as to entire survey instruments. For NPSAS:96, allowances were made in the

CATI to accommodate responses of refusal and “don’t know” to every item, by special keyed

entry by the interviewers. Refusal responses to interview questions are most common for items

considered sensitive by the respondent, while “don’t know” responses may result from a number

of potential circumstances. The most obvious reason a respondent will offer a “don’t know”

response is that the answer is truly unknown or in some way inappropriate for the respondent. 

But, “don’t know” responses may also be evoked (1) when question wording is not understood by

the respondent, without explanation by the interviewer; (2) when there is hesitancy on the part of

the respondent to provide “best guess” responses, with insufficient prompting from the

interviewer; and (3) as an implicit refusal to answer a question. Refusal and don’t know

responses introduce Indeterminancies in the data set and must be resolved by imputation or

subsequently dealt with during analysis. 

Overall item nonresponse rates in the student CATI were fairly low, with only 54 of the

over 1,000 variables included in the final CATI data set containing over 10 percent missing data. 

These items are shown in Table 4.22, grouped by interview section. Item nonresponse rates are

calculated only for those sample members for whom each item was applicable and asked. 

Reliability, as examined here, involves the stability of responses over time (i.e., temporal

consistency); consequently, analyses generally focus on data items that are expected to be stable

for the time period between the initial interview and the reinterview (e.g., factual rather than

attitudinal data). The design of the reinterview study called for reinterviews to be conducted

within one month of the initial interview; allowing enough time for respondents to forget their

previous answers but not enough time so that actual changes in status would make truthful

answering produce different answers (which would be indistinguishable from unreliability). 

Unfortunately, time delays in conducting reinterviews may have contributed to the occurrence of

real change (between the initial interview and reinterview) in the status of the information

requested of respondents.19
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-42

Table 4.22— Student interview item non-response for items with more than 10 percent

“don’t know” or “refused”

Item Item asked know refused response

Number don’t Percent nonPercent combined

Percent

School enrollment

SASMPGPA Grade point average 3,925 15.0 0.3 15.0

SADROPMO Month dropped out-first term 289 11.0 0.0 11.0

SAEXDGMN Month degree is expected 18,987 11.0 0.0

Exams and expenses

SBSAT_R SAT reasoning score 1,311 98.0 0.5 98.0

SBSAT_V SAT verbal score 1,407 74.0 0.6 74.0

SBSAT_M SAT math score 1,403 74.0 0.5 74.0

SBGRE_A GRE analytic score 1,101 67.0 0.5 68.0

SBGRE_V GRE verbal score 1,106 65.0 0.6 66.0

SBGRE_M GRE math score 1,103 65.0 0.5 66.0

SBACT_S ACT score 435 30.0 0.5 30.0

SBAP1S Score of AP test 2,418 21.0 0.2 21.0

SBAP2S Score of AP test 1,299 11.0 0.2 11.0

SBTUIFEE Tuition/fees at all schools 4,254 9.9 0.3 10.0

Sources of support

SCSUPAMT Dollar value of other support 12,540 26.0 0.5 26.0

SCSUPEST Estimated dollar value of other support 3,298 14.0 0.4 14.0

SCPRETYP Type of prepayment plan used 1,320 13.0 0.2 13.0

SCALWAMT Amount of allowance 6,136 9.4 1.6 11.0

Financial aid

SDOAMT01 Amount of aid - other institution 651 12.0 0.6 13.0

SDREIMBR Check reimbursement amount 1,913 11.0 0.5 12.0

Employment

SECWSOFF College work-study on/off-campus 858 13.0 2.6 15.0

SECWSTYP College work-study type of employer 854 12.0 2.6 15.0

SECOMSRV College work-study 852 11.0 2.2 14.0

Financial status

SFBUSVAL Total worth of business 635 32.0 11.0 43.0

SFFMVAL Total worth of farm 134 25.0 6.7 31.0

SFBSVALE Estimated value of business 200 25.0 1.0 26.0

SFTOT94 Total income for 1994 15,992 20.0 5.1 25.0

SFBSOWE Amount owed on business 631 16.0 7.6 24.0

SFTOT95 Total income for 1995 28,450 18.0 4.2 23.0

SFCASH Total cash/savings/checking 27,636 13.0 8.6 21.0

SFHMVALE Estimated value of home 392 19.0 1.5 21.0

SFFMOWE Amount owed on farm 134 15.0 6.0 21.0

SFCASHE Cash/savings/checking over $1K 3,543 19.0 1.7 20.0

SFRLEVAL Total worth of real estate 491 13.0 7.1 20.0

SFHMOWE Amount owed on home 4,645 9.7 7.7 17.0

SFHMVAL Total worth of home 4,653 8.5 7.0 16.0

SFRLEOWE Amount owed on real estate 489 8.2 5.9 14.0
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-43

Table 4.22—Student interview item non-response for items with more than 10 percent 

“don’t know” or “refused (continued)

Item Item asked know refused response

Number don’t Percent nonPercent combined

Percent

Parental characteristics

SHIN94M $30K 513 50.0 1.4 52.0

Estimated income 1994-more than

SHINC94 Parent income - 1994 9,234 43.0 8.7 51.0

SHINC95 Income 1995 18,127 43.0 6.5 50.0

SHINC294 Income 1994 420 43.0 6.9 50.0

SHIN94L Estimated income 1994-less than $30K 231 32.0 0.4 32.0

SHRNG295 Income range 1995 302 31.0 0.3 31.0

SHINC95E Parent estimated income - 1995 7,911 28.0 1.2 29.0

SHRNG294 Income range 1994 252 25.0 0.0 25.0

SHINC95M $30K 4,002 22.0 1.9 24.0

Estimated income 1995-more than

SHINC94E Income range 1994 5,938 22.0 0.2 22.0

SHINC95L Estimated income 1995-less than $30K 1,585 17.0 0.5 17.0

SHDADAS Father earned associates degree 1,960 13.0 0.1 13.0

SHMOMAS Mother earned associates degree 2,649 11.0 0.0 11.0

Educational experiences

SIREADHR Remedial hours - reading 841 16.0 0.0 16.0

SIWRITHR Remedial hours - writing 955 15.0 0.1 16.0

SISTUDHR Remedial hours - study skills 596 14.0 0.0 14.0

SIMATHHR Remedial hours - math 1,427 13.0 0.0 13.0

SILANGHR Remedial course - Eng. lang. 611 13.0 0.0 13.0

Note: Statistics are based on student sample members for whom specific items were applicable and asked. Items applicable

to less than 100 sample members were excluded from consideration. 

Items with the largest amount of nonresponse were those pertaining to undergraduate and

graduate entrance examination scores, with two-thirds or more of the students interviewed and

reporting having taken the SAT or GRE unable to recall their scores on these exams. Questions

most likely to evoke explicit refusals we concerning student and parent income, assets, and debt,

which also provided high rates of “don’t know.” Many student respondents are reluctant to

provide information about family finances and, among those who are not, many simply don’t

know. 

4.6.4 Reliability of Interview Responses

The NPSAS:96 interview responses were also evaluated for reliability and validity, to

estimate the consistency of the measurements. Reliability was assessed through reinterviews (see

Section 3.5, above) using selected items of the full interview. Reinterviews were administered to

a randomly selected subsample of those who completed the full interview; analyses were based on

the 236 respondents to the reinterviews. The set of reinterview questions were chosen to broadly 
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

Additional restrictions existed for item 23: About how much did you earn from all jobs while you were 20

enrolled?; the response to this item was qualified by the response to item 24 which indicated the units

(simultaneously chosen by respondent) in which the item 23 was reported (amount per hour, per week, per month,

per term, or for the entire enrollment period during that year). Only about half of those responding to these items

used the same units in the initial interview and reinterview. Since conversion to a common metric would require

considerably more information than was available in the reinterview, reliability analyses for item 23 were further

restricted to those who also responded consistently to item 24. Moreover, analyses were conducted separately for

each reporting unit, since analyses across units would produce spuriously high reliability indices. 

This is equivalent to within one-half standard deviation of the average (best estimate of actual value) of 21

the two responses.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-44

represent the student interview; however they were most heavily weighted to cover financial aid,

financial support for educational expenses from family, educational status of family members, and

work experiences while enrolled in institution. Specific items selected were those that had not

been evaluated in previous NPSAS studies or had previously proven problematic (and had been

refined for the current study). A hard-copy facsimile of the reinterview is provided in

Appendix D.

Given the relatively small size of the reinterview sample, it is difficult to determine the

extent to which the length of time before reinterview affected the amount of true change;

however, the period between initial interview and reinterview was substantially longer that in

previous reinterview studies. Consequently, these analyses provide a more conservative test of

temporal consistency and derived reliability indices should be considered lower-bound estimates.

4.6.4.1 Analytic Method

Because not all items were applicable to all respondents (e.g., some questions were asked

only of graduate/first-professional students, some only of dependent students) and because

analyses were restricted to those cases with determinate responses in both interviews,20

considerable variation exists in the number of cases on which reliability indices are based for the

several items considered. Reliability indices computed for all paired responses were: (1) percent

agreement between the two responses and (2) one or more relational measures of reliability.

Percent Agreement. Most examined paired responses can be classified as categorical

variables; possessing either nominal or ordinal scale properties; however, some variables (such as

dollar amounts, hours worked per week, or untruncated counts) possessed interval or ratio scale

properties. For categorical variables, agreement was defined as an exact match between the two

responses. For the free response, qualitative variables, some additional latitude was allowed

(since failure to produce the exact same number would not be evidence of serious unreliability). 

For such items, the standard adopted for “agreement” (as used previously with NPSAS reliability

analyses) was within one standard deviation unit. 

21
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

c.f. Fleiss, J. 1986. The Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 22

Inc., and Winer, B. 1962. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, 2 edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. nd

c.f., U. S. Bureau of the Census. 1985. Evaluating Censuses of Population and Housing: Statistical 23

Training Document ISP-TR-5. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Fleiss, J. 1981. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 2 edition. New York: John Wiley & 24 nd

Sons, Inc.

For quantitative items, the index of inconsistency is the mean squared difference between original 25

interview and reinterview answers divided by an estimator of the item variance.

c.f. Kendall, M. (1945). The treatment of ties in rank problems. Biometrika, 33, 81-93 and Agresti, A. 26

(1984). Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-45

Index of Reliability. An index of reliability, comparable to the interclass correlation

coefficient used in assessing inter-rater reliability, was computed for all paired observations,

22

since it is defined for both categorical and quantitative items. For categorical items, the index can

be computed for an entire item as well as for each response alternative of the item, which provides

a mechanism whereby differential reliability of specific response alternatives can be evaluated. 

The reliability index is the additive inverse of the ratio of estimated error variance of an item to

the to total item variance, and the ratio estimate used here is I, the inconsistency index, which is

widely used by the Census Bureau for test/retest reliability studies . Consequently, the reliability 23

index used here is given as 1 - I. The index of reliability for categorical variables is algebraically

equal to kappa ( ); Fleiss recommends the use of for categorical data because it represents a 24

chance-corrected percent-agreement score (the number of actual consistent answers divided by

the number expected by chance based on the marginal probability of each answer -- with the

obvious implication that the raw percent agreement will always equal or exceed ) and it is the

analog of the intraclass correlation coefficient for quantitative variables .

25

Other Relational Indices. While the index of reliability can be applied to data with scale

properties greater than nominal, it does not completely reflect the nature of ordinal, interval, or

ratio scale properties. To accommodate such properties, more traditional relational measures

consistent with prior NPSAS reliability analyses have been used. For questions that are answered

using ordered categories (including truncated counts) the Kendall’s tau-b ( b

) statistic, which

takes into account the obviously-present condition of tied rankings, has been used. . For items 26

yielding interval or ratio scale responses (such as the amount earned), the Pearson productmoment correlation coefficient (r) is used. As would be expected, these relational statistics,

which take into consideration the additional metric properties of the data, uniformly yielded

estimates of reliability that were equal to, or greater than, that shown by the index of reliability.
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

The value of for this item was also 0.89; however, the variability of amounts reported is quite large; 27

this large variability also increases the value of the reliability index with all other things being equal.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-46

4.6.4.2 Reliability Results

Results of the overall reliability analyses for the NPSAS:96 reinterview study, for specified

content areas, are provided in Table 4.23 through Table 4.26; for the strictly nominal scale data

items, this presentation provides only the aggregate (item level) value of the index of reliability. A

copy of the reliability reinterview instrument and the variable names of the student CATI items

associated with each reinterview item appear in Appendix D, starting on page D–111. 

Reliability indices for the educational finance items, as shown in Table 4.23 are

generally acceptable, but are somewhat mixed. While all such items show agreement over the two

administrations exceeding 80 percent, the relational statistic only exceeds 0.80 for item 18,

regarding receipt of aid from an employer, and item 21, regarding total amount borrowed for

postsecondary education. This latter item, treated as a quantitative or continuous variable, shows

the highest relational statistic in the set (r = 0.89) but the lowest percent agreement (83 27

percent). The least reliable item in this set is item 20 (regarding acceptance of all aid awarded), 

yielding an 85 percent agreement rate and a relational statistic near zero ( = 0.16); the disparity

between the two reliability indices lies with the instability of “no” responses to this item. 

Table 4.23— Reliability indices for education finance items

Item number and wording cases agreement statistic 

Number of

analysis Percent Relational

a

Reliability indices

b c

2 Did you get any grants, scholarships, assistantships, loans,

or any other financial aid in 1994-95? 115 87.0 0.71

11 During 1995-96, did your [parent/guardians] pay for any or

your tuition or fees?

183 85.8 0.72

12 During 1995-96, did your [parent/guardians] pay for any or

your room and board? 57 86.0 0.62

13 During 1995-96, did your [parent/guardians] pay for any or

your books or equipment? 183 84.7 0.69

18 Did you receive tuition reimbursement from your employer? 182 96.7 0.82

20 Did you accept all of the aid you were awarded for the year? 146 85.2 0.16

21 Including [FILL AMT] from [parents/guardians], and all

other sources, how much have you borrowed for your 126 82.5 0.89 

education since you left high school?

d e 

NOTE: Analyses are based on 236 respondents to the reliability interview.

Analyses were conducted only for respondents with determinate responses on both the initial interview and the reinterview; a

 not all questions were applicable to all respondents.

Unless otherwise indicated, this percentage reflects an exact match of the paired responses. b

Unless otherwise indicated, this measure is the aggregate reliability index, .

c

Agreement was determined as response differences not exceeding 1 standard deviation unit. d

Relational statistic used here is the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient, r.

e
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

The basic instability of negative responses to this item suggests that its meaning is being misunderstood; 28

the wording should be reworked before the item is used again and interviewers should be better trained on

administration of the item.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-47

Such negative responses are rare (between five and 10 percent for initial administration and

reinterview), and reported quite inconsistently; of the 24 individuals who responded negatively in

either administration, only 3 responded consistently in both .

28

A similar (but less extreme) situation, i.e., lower frequency of “no” responses that are

relatively instable, applies to item 2 and item 12, and consequently depresses the consistency

statistic. Even for the most reliable of the categorical items in the educational finance set (for

which the percent agreement is 97 percent), the value of has been similarly depressed to 0.82; in

this case, due to the instability of the infrequent (only about 10 percent of respondents) “yes”

responses. Although time referents were explicitly or implicitly (through prior “set up” questions)

available for all items in this set, some inconsistencies still may have resulted from confusions on

the part of respondents (e.g., assuming, during reinterview, that the 1995-96 school year included

the spring term of 1996). Also, there is possibility for real change between the initial interview

and reinterview. Both such cases, however, would typically result in changes of responses from

“no” to “yes,” but no such trend was noted. In fact, for this set of items, response changes were

generally more heavily weighted in the opposite direction.

As presented in Table 4.24, two of the three items related to work experience, show only

marginally acceptable reliability; agreement of initial and reinterview responses for these two

items is less than 70 percent, and relational statistics ( b

) are less than 0.65 (in one case less than

0.50). However, the remaining item in this set, item 22, regarding average hours worked per

week, shows good reliability; 83 percent agreement and a Pearson correlation of 0.89.

Table 4.24— Reliability indices for work experience items

Item number and wording

Number of Percent Relational

analysis cases agreement statistic a

Reliability indices

b c

17 Between July 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996, how many

jobs did you have? 232 67.7 0.61

22 About how many hours did you work per week while

you were enrolled July 1, 1995 through June 30,

1996? 183 83.1 0.89 d e

25 Did you work for all or most of the weeks while you

were enrolled? 155 67.7 0.48

NOTE: Analyses are based on 236 respondents to the reliability interview.

Analyses were conducted only for respondents with determinate responses on both the initial interview and the reinterview; A

 not all questions were applicable to all respondents.

Unless otherwise indicated, this percentage reflects an exact match of the paired responses. b

Unless otherwise indicated, this measure is Kendall’s .

c

b

Agreement was determined as response differences not exceeding one standard deviation unit. d

Relational statistic used here is the Spearman product moment correlation coefficient, r.

e
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

Response alternatives to the question were: (1) Yes, every week while enrolled; (2) Yes, most of the time 29

while enrolled; (3) No, only about half the weeks while enrolled; and (4) No, less than half the weeks while

enrolled. 

The lack of consistency in this item (and particularly its nature) strongly suggests that the item be 30

reworked prior to additional use and/or that training of interviewers in administering this question be improved.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-48

For item 17, regarding number of jobs, and item 25, regarding frequency of work during

enrollment periods, percent agreement between the two responses was about 68 percent. The 

relational statistics ( b was used in both cases to accommodate the ordinal properties of the

response option sets) were 0.61 and 0.48, respectively. The reliability index ( ) was lower in both

cases, 0.51 and 0.42, respectively, suggesting that error accounts for about half (or more) of the

observed variation of individuals’ responses. For item 17, however, the value obtained is

considered to be depressed due to real change that took place between the initial interview and

January 30, 1997; namely, taking a summer job after the spring term of the 95-96 school year. 

The micro data are consistent with this hypothesis, since they show that the predominant (but not

all) change involved an increase in number of jobs reported during the reinterview.

The inconsistency of responses to item 25 (Did you work for all or most of the weeks you

were enrolled?) are probably traceable to respondent (or interviewer) confusion with the

compound nature of the question posed, particularly in interpreting the meaning of the available

response alternatives in relation to that question. The most inconsistent response alternative was 29

“about half” the weeks enrolled (among the eleven respondents who chose that response

alternative in either administration, only one consistently gave this response) and the next most

inconsistent response was “most of the time” while enrolled. The consistency index for these two

response options were 0.14 and 0.37, respectively, probably reflecting the difficulty of

determining the desired range for the two responses (e.g., is working 5 weeks out of 9 “most of

the time” or “about half”).30

The items related to income were somewhat mixed (Table 4.25). The single categorical

variable in this set yielded a percent agreement of slightly over 80 percent, but the reliability index

was only 0.60, indicating that an estimated 40 percent of total item variance is attributable to

error. The error is directional (a notable increase in “yes” responses during the reinterview),

which is consistent with a relaxation in parental requirements of repayment, but there is no

plausible reason to hypothesize such change from one school year to the next. Because the

question is so straightforward, it seems more likely that the inconsistency is related to either: (1)

misreporting (or misrecording) or (2) differential interpretation due to differences between the

two interviews in the interview context, as established by preceding items, within which the item

was embedded. 

The two items relating to personal (plus spouse’s, where applicable) income during

previous years (item 26 and item 27) seem acceptably reliable, particularly for reported income

values, which are notoriously unreliable. Agreement of the paired quantitative responses to these

items exceeds 87 percent, and the values of r are between 0.74 and 0.79. The discrepancy, for

item 23, between the overall agreement of 78 percent and the Pearson correlation of near unity

(0.99) is somewhat artifactual, resulting from a spuriously high correlation. Recall that this item
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

The computed values of r were: 0.97 for those reporting amount per hour, 0.77 for those reporting 31

amount per week, 0.92 for those reporting amounts per month, and 0.98 for those reporting total amounts for the

time they were enrolled.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-49

was analyzed separately within groups that reported the same referent unit (e.g., per hour, per

month) in both interviews (which also accounts for the relatively small analysis group). While the

correlations within the smaller analysis groups were also reasonably high (ranging from 0.77 to

0.98), the analysis of the combined groups (each with a different unit of measurement) creates a 31

natural clustering of the reporting unit groups to produce an artificially high relationship. 

Although based on a relatively small number of cases, this item is considered acceptably reliable. 

Table 4.25—Reliability indices for income

Item number and wording cases agreement statistic

Number of

analysis Percent Relational

a

Reliability indices

b c

14 Did your [parents/guardians] give you an allowance that

you don’t have to repay? 182 82.4 0.60 d e

23 About how much did you earn from all jobs while you were 

enrolled? 68 77.9 0.99f

26 What was your [and spouse’s] total income from all

sources, prior to taxes and deductions, excluding any 147 88.4 0.74

financial aid you have received for 1995?

27 What was your [and spouse’s] total income from all

sources, prior to taxes and deductions, excluding any 71 87.3 0.79

(student) financial aid you have received for 1994?

NOTE: Analyses are based on 236 respondents to the reliability interview.

Analyses were conducted only for respondents with determinate responses on both the initial interview and the reinterview; A

 not all questions were applicable to all respondents.

Unless otherwise indicated, agreement was determined as response differences not exceeding one standard deviation unit.. b

Unless otherwise indicated, this measure is the Pearson product moment correlation coefficient, r.

c

This percentage reflects an exact match of the paired responses d

Relational statistic used here is the aggregate reliability index, .

e

This value is artifactually inflated because of the clustering of the values provided by their unit of reference (i.e, from per hour f

 to for the total time of enrollment); within specific unit-of-reference groups, however, the correlations were still high, ranging

 from 0.77 for those reporting earnings per week to 0.98 for those reporting a grand total.

Reliability indices for items related to personal and family educational experiences are

provided in Table 4.26. With one exception, item 4 (related to extent of completion of all

requirements for degree among graduate and first-professional students), these items are

acceptably reliable. While reliability estimates for this item are based on less than 30 cases, they

are nonetheless quite low (about 61 percent agreement among the paired responses and a of b

0.22). The reliability index for the item was also low ( = 0.21), indicating that about 80 percent

of total variance is attributable to error. The reinterview item was asked retrospective to a

specific date, which, for effectively all of these students, was toward the end of the final term of

the 95-96 regular school year (the initial interview couched the question in terms of “currently”). 
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

That is, responses generally changed from “not completed course work” to “completed course work but 32

not all requirements” and from this latter category to “completed all requirements.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-50

Table 4.26— Reliability indices for personal and family educational experience items

Item number and wording

Number of

analysis Percent Relational

cases agreement statistic a

Reliability indices

b c

3 As of [main interview date] had you completed your

program of study and received your

[Certificate/Degree]? 

148 91.9 0.72

4 As of [main interview date] had you completed your

course work and all other requirements for your

degree? (G1P only)

28 60.7 0.22

7 While enrolled during 95-96, where did you live? 233 86.3 0.79 d 

28 What was the highest grade or level of education your

father ever completed? 209 77.5 0.83

29 What was the highest grade or level of education your

mother ever completed? 218 83.9 0.83

30 How many of your other family members ever attended

a postsecondary institution? 230 77.4 0.72

NOTE: Analyses are based on 236 respondents to the reliability interview.

Analyses were conducted only for respondents with determinate responses on both the initial interview and the reinterview; a

 not all questions were applicable to all respondents.

All percentages are based on exact matches of the paired responses. b

Unless otherwise indicated, this measure is Kendall’s .

c

b

Relational statistic used here is the aggregate reliability index, d

It is quite conceivable that in the reinterview, the students interpreted the date as “at the close of

the term,” in which case the potential for real change exists. There is fairly strong indication that a

considerable part of the “error” may be in actuality attributable to such real change, since the

preponderance (but not all) of the response changes are in the direction that would be expected . 

32

Nonetheless, the item remains potentially problematic; since error may be introduced by confusion

on the part of either the respondent or interviewer, the item should be tested further.

A similar question (item 3) was asked of undergraduates. While similar arguments can be

made regarding confusion of time points, distributional properties of this item do not support an

hypothesis of real change, since net change was (slightly) in the direction of less completion

reported in the reinterview. Again, however, the bulk of the inconsistency is traceable to the

“intermediate” response option -- in this case “No, completed program but have not yet received

degree.” The reliability index for this resource option was 0.12, and of the 10 individuals

choosing this option in either the initial interview or the reinterview, only 1 chose it consistently;
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

For mother, the category of advanced professional degree was also very unstable, but only 2 respondents 33

ever chose that category; for the father, the same category was quite stable (index of reliability of 0.91).

The overall reliability of these two items could be improved dramatically by consolidating some of the 34

response options yielding low reliability indices and/or through better training of interviewers on how to elicit

consistent responses.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-51

suggesting that the intermediate options in both this item and item 4 could either be

misunderstood by the respondents or miscoded by the interviewers. Even with this problem,

however, item 3 yielded acceptable reliability (92 percent agreement, = 0.72, and = 0.68). b

The items 7, 28, and 29 also showed acceptable (but not high) reliability, and for all such

items, the principal inconsistencies could be traced to specific response alternative sets. (It is

considered unlikely that real change could have affected the reliability estimates of any of these

items.) The major inconsistency in item 7 (related to living arrangements while going to school)

lay in the “non-standard” living quarters response options (i.e., ‘off-campus in school-owned

housing,” “with relatives other than parents,” and “some place else”). Although these options

were combined into a single category for purposes of analysis, the index of reliability for the

combined response options was only 0.37 (of the 20 respondents who chose any of these three

options in either the initial interview or the reinterview, only 5 consistently chose one of the

three).

The reduction in reliability for item 28 and item 29, which are quite similar items related to

father and mothers highest level of education, generally stemmed from quite similar sources. 

Specifically, response options were unstable if they indicated that the parent had completed some

postsecondary education but had not completed at least a 4-year program. Such response 33

options (see Table G.3 in Appendix G) required differentiation of how many years of

postsecondary education the parent had completed as well as the type of postsecondary education

involved (i.e., college or technical/ business institution), and such distinctions seemed to be too

difficult for the respondents and interviewers to consistently determine. In all but one case

(mother completing 2 or more years of college; reliability index of .73), the reliability index for

these response options were less than 0.50, estimating that over half of the observed variance for

all such response options was attributable to response error.34

Item 30 (regarding the number of “other” family members yielded only moderately

acceptable reliability indices (77 percent agreement, = 0.67, and = 0.72). While real change b

over time is possible (i.e., more family members attending postsecondary education), the

crosstabular data do not fully support such a contention, since the changes in numbers reported

are mostly reductions from what was initially reported. It seems most likely that the

inconsistencies of responses to this item are due to differential interpretations on the part of

respondents as to what “other” family members to consider in the count. As posed, the question

does not necessarily exclude parents (although in the context of items 28 and 29 this may be 

assumed implicit) and provides nothing in the way of limiting the extent of family considered (e.g.,

Is this immediate family only?; Are grandparents, aunts, uncles included? For non-traditional

students, are children included?), even though the presumed focus of the question (for traditional

postsecondary students) is siblings.
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION OF OPERATIONS AND DATA

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 4-52
A student could be represented on the study analysis file if selected for Phase 1 of CATI, determined to be 1

eligible for NPSAS (or imputed to be so), and either of the following conditions was satisfied:

The items in Section A of the Student CATI that are needed to identify first-time, beginning students

(“pure” FTBs) were completed, or an abbreviated version of the questionnaire was completed (mail,

Spanish, or nonresponse conversion instrument), or

CADE was essentially complete (Sections CHAR, ENR, TUI, and FINAID completed).

The definitions of "complete" for the four CADE sections are::

CHAR - complete if we have a valid responses to gender, date-of-birth, marital status, and race in CADE. The

first three items have CPS equivalent variables, and these are considered as well. Some valid responses could be -

1's.

ENR - complete if we have a valid responses to Beginning Month/Year, Ending Month/Year, and Enrollment

Status for at least one term. Some valid responses could be -1's.

TUI - complete if we have a valid response to the total tuition item. Some valid responses could be 0 or -1.

FINAID - complete if we have a valid response (Y or N) to the Financial Aid gate question, or match to Pell or

NSLDS.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 5- 1

Chapter 5

Variable Construction and File Development

5.1 Overview of the NPSAS Files

The NPSAS:96 data files contain student-level and school-level data collected from

institutions records, government databases, and student and parent interviews. The primary

analysis file, from which the study Data Analysis Systems (DASs) were constructed, contains data

for a total of 48,389 students, including data for 31,328 students with whom a telephone

interview was conducted, and an additional 17,061 students who were selected for, but did not

complete, a telephone interview but whose CADE data record was essentially complete . 

1
CHAPTER 5: VARIABLE CONSTRUCTION AND FILE DEVELOPMENT

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 5- 2

The analysis file contains over 1,000 variables, most of which were derived from multiple

NPSAS:96 data sources. The NPSAS:96 data sources, along with the corresponding numbers of

sample students for which data were obtained, appear in Table 5.1. Most, but not all, of the

students for whom some data were obtained from one or more sources appear on the analysis

files.

Table 5.1—Record counts from NPSAS: 96 data sources

Data source Totals UG FTB GIP

Number of studentsa

b

CADE 55,665 44,468 11,765 11,197

Student CATI 31,328 27,311 12,207 4,017

Parent CATI 3,352 3,349 1,872 3

CPS 95-96 29,892 26,158 8,560 3,734

CPS 96-97 22,261 19,563 6,754 2,698

Pell file 13,268 13,237 3,973 31c

NSLDS file 29,049 22,811 5,981 6,238

Student Type is based on the student’s last term of enrollment at the NPSAS school. a

Counts of first-time beginning students include only those students determined conclusively to be FTB’s based on

b

CATI interview data. FTB counts are included in the counts of undergraduates.

Because the student type classification is based on the student’s last term of enrollment at the NPSAS school, a small c

number of graduate/first professional students who were undergraduates at a postsecondary institution sometime during

the NPSAS year were found on the ED Pell payment files.

A preliminary DAS was prepared, adjudicated by U.S. Department of Education staff and

released in October of 1996, prior to the end of CATI data collection. This DAS included variables

derived from data collected from institutional records, the CPS, the ED Pell Payment File, and the

NSLDS. No CATI data were included in this DAS, and only the NPSAS sample students determined

at that time to be recipients of federal financial aid were included.
CHAPTER 5: VARIABLE CONSTRUCTION AND FILE DEVELOPMENT

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 5- 3

Following completion of all study data collection, separate Data Analysis System files

were created for undergraduate and graduate/first professional students. In total, 41,359 of the

analysis file cases were undergraduate students during their last term of enrollment at the NPSAS

institution, and the remaining 7,030 cases were graduate or first professional students during their

last term of enrollment. Because a portion of the 7,030 graduate/first professional students were

undergraduates during their first term of enrollment (i.e. college senior in the Fall term but started

a graduate program in the Spring), these students appear on both the undergraduate and

graduate/first professional DASs. Of the 41,359 students on the undergraduate DAS, 12, 207 are

first time beginning students (FTBs).

Complete data obtained through the NPSAS:96 are contained on the Electronic Codebook

(ECB) files, which are available to researchers who have applied for and received authorization

from NCES to access restricted research files. The NPSAS:96 ECB contains the following files:

NPSAS Analysis File — Contains analytic variables derived from all NPSAS data

sources as well as selected direct CATI variables for 48,389 students. This file

also includes the 1995-96 financial aid application data and/or the 1996-97

application data for the students on this file who were successfully matched to the

CPS data base.

CADE Data File — Contains raw data collected from institutional records for

55,665 students with sufficient data to be considered CADE respondents. This file

excludes any “verbatim” CADE variables such as responses to “Other, specify”

items. These variables appear on the separate Verbatim Data File.

Student CATI Data File — Contains raw data collected from 31,328 students who

responded to the student interview. This file excludes any Student CATI items

which already appear on the analysis file. The file also excludes CATI verbatim

items, which are on the Verbatim Data File.

Parent CATI Data File — Contains raw data collected from 3,352 parents of

students who responded to the student interview. This file excludes any Parent

CATI items which already appear on the analysis file. The file also excludes CATI

verbatim items, which are on the Verbatim Data File.

NSLDS Data File — Contains raw loan-level data received from the National

Student Loan Data System for the 29,049 who appear on either the analysis file or

the CADE file.
CHAPTER 5: VARIABLE CONSTRUCTION AND FILE DEVELOPMENT

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 5- 4

CATI Coding Results File — Contains the verbatim text and resulting code for

student field-of-study, and (for employed students) industry and occupation.

These values exist for the 31,328 students on the student CATI data file.

Verbatim Data File — Contains item-level records (i.e. one record per variable) for

text variables collected in either CADE or CATI (student and parent interviews).

There are multiple records per student for most of the students who appear on

either the analysis file or the CADE file.

Jackknife Replicate Weights File — Contains all the Jackknife replicate weights

created for NPSAS:96

Institution Data File — Contains selected institution-level variables for sample

institutions from which one or more students, appear on any of the student-level

files mentioned above. This file may be linked to student-level files by the IPEDS

number, which appears on all ECB files.

5.2 Data Coding and Editing

5.2.1 Coding

Most of the NPSAS:96 coding activities were completed during telephone interviewing.

The NPSAS:96 CATI system included software components for use in coding student major

field-of-study, and industry/occupation data for both students and parents. An IPEDS coding

routine retrieved institution characteristics for postsecondary schools other than the NPSAS

institution the student reported attending during the NPSAS year. Interviewer proficiency at

using the online coding routines was monitored and retraining was conducted as necessary.

Selected variables containing text responses were up-coded into response categories

following data collection. These included both CADE and CATI items. Other, Specify responses

for student and parent Race, Asian Status, and Hispanic Status were up-coded wherever possible,

as were the names of admissions exams. A total of 420 “other student race” and 93 “other parent

race” responses were successfully up-coded for CATI respondents. Hispanic Status was upcoded for 58 student CATI cases and Asian Status was up-coded for 307 student CATI cases.

Approximately 400 CATI cases in which the IPEDS coding routine had flagged an other

postsecondary institution as “Not Found” were examined and recoded where possible.
CHAPTER 5: VARIABLE CONSTRUCTION AND FILE DEVELOPMENT

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 5- 5

Since the CADE software did not include an on-line coding routine for student field-ofstudy, responses to this CADE item were subsequently coded using the CATI coding system.

Results from this activity were used in the construction of the final field-of-study variables derived

for the DAS.

5.2.2 Editing

Following the completion of data collection, all CADE and CATI data were edited to

ensure adherence to range and consistency checks. Range checks are summarized in the variable

descriptions contained in the ECB and DAS data. Inconsistencies, either between or within data

sources, were resolved in the construction of the derived variables. Protocol for resolving these

discrepancies are described in the variable descriptions for the derived variables found in the ECB

and DAS.

There are a variety of explanations for missing data within individual data elements. For

example, an item may not be applicable to certain students, a respondent may refuse to answer a

particular item, or the respondent may not know the answer to the question. To assist analysts in

understanding the nature of missing data associated with NPSAS:96 data elements, a set of

missing data codes were developed. These codes were applied to blank responses in the analysis

file, as well as the CADE and CATI data files, Table 5.2 lists the missing data codes and their

meanings.

Table 5.2—Description of missing data codes

Missing data code Description

-1 Don’t know (CATI variables)

Data not available (CADE variables)

-2 Refused (CATI variables only)

-3 Legitimate skip (item was intentionally not collected because

variable is not applicable to this student -- CADE and CATI

variables only)

-8 Data source not available (the item is not applicable because

data were not collected from this source for this student)

-9 Other missing (partial interview did not get this far, or item was

simply left blank)
CHAPTER 5: VARIABLE CONSTRUCTION AND FILE DEVELOPMENT

Cox, B.G. (1980). “The Weighted Sequential Hot Deck Imputation Procedure.” Proceedings of the American 2

Statistical Association Section on Survey Research Methods, pp. 721-726.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 5- 6

5.3 Composite and Derived Variable Construction

Analytic variables were created by examining the data available for each student from the

various data sources, establishing relative priorities of the data sources, on an item-by-item basis

and reconciling discrepancies within and between sources. In some cases the derived or

composite variables were created by simply assigning a value from the available source of

information given the highest priority. In other cases, raw interview items were recoded or

otherwise summarized to create a derived variable. A listing of the set of analysis variables

derived for NPSAS:96 appears in Appendix H. Specific details regarding the creation of each

variable appear in the variable descriptions contained in the ECB and DAS.

5.4 Statistical Imputations

After the editing process (which included logical imputations), the remaining missing

values for 22 analysis variables were statistically imputed. The imputations were performed

primarily to reduce the bias of survey estimates caused by missing data. The imputed data also

makes the data complete and easier to analyze. The variables were imputed using a weighted hot

deck procedure, with the exception of estimated family contribution (EFC), which was imputed 2

through a multiple regression approach. Table 5.3 lists the variables by the percentage of missing

data imputed.

5.4.1 Hot Deck Imputation

It is easier to describe the weighted hot deck imputation procedure by first describing

unweighted hot deck imputation. The unweighted procedure partitions the sample into

imputation classes based on auxiliary data available for both nonrespondents and respondents.

Within these classes, it is assumed the nonrespondents would have answered in a similar manner

to the respondents. Also, the data records are often sorted within the classes to place individuals

that share additional characteristics closer to each other. The procedure is implemented by

sequentially processing the database and replacing missing responses with the response from the

previous respondent within each imputation class.

The unweighted hot deck procedure reduces nonresponse bias if the response distributions

differ across the imputation classes. However, by ignoring the sample weights, bias may remain

in the survey estimates due to the weighted distribution of the imputed data within the classes

being different from the weighted distribution of the respondent data.
CHAPTER 5: VARIABLE CONSTRUCTION AND FILE DEVELOPMENT

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 5- 7

Table 5.3—The statistically imputed variables and the amount of data imputed

Statistically imputed variable Study respondent data used in statistically statistically

imputation imputed imputed

Number Percent

Estimated family contribution (EFC3) All (48,389) 17,016 35.2%

Student income (Stuinc94) All (48,389) 12,928 26.7%

Parent income (Parinc94) Dependents (24,218) 5,889 24.2%

Number of dependents (Ndepend) Independents (24,171) 4,749 19.6%

Parent family size (Pfamnum) Dependents (24,218) 4,375 18.0%

Dependents indicator (Anydep) Independents (24,171) 4,306 17.8%

Parent marital status (Pmartial) Dependents (24,218) 3,775 15.5%

High school degree (Hsdeg) All (48,389) 2,561 5.3%

High school graduation year (Hsgradyy) Students with HS degree (47,508) 2,557 5.3%

Student marital status (Smarital) All (48,389) 2,211 4.6%

Citizenship (Citizen2) All (48,389) 2,084 4.3%

Student level, last term (Levlast) All (48,389) 2,073 4.3%

Student level, first term (Levfirst) All (48,389) 2,063 4.3%

Race (Race) All (48,389) 1,704 3.5%

Local residence (Localres) All (48,389) 1,259 2.6%

Age (Age) All (48,389) 456 0.9%

Attendance intensity in fall (Attend) Students enrolled in fall (40,058) 314 0.6%

Dependency status (Depend/Depend2) All (48,389) 283 0.6%

Fall enrollment (Fall) All (48,389) 164 0.3%

Gender (Gender) All (48,389) 96 0.2%

Degree program, last term (Deglast) All (48,389) 92 0.2%

Degree program, first term (Degfirst) All (48,389) 74 0.2%
CHAPTER 5: VARIABLE CONSTRUCTION AND FILE DEVELOPMENT

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 5- 8

The weighted hot deck procedure is an extension of the hot deck procedure which does

consider the weighted distribution. The procedure takes into account the unequal probabilities of

selection by using the student weights to specify the expected number of times that a particular

respondent’s answer will be used to replace missing data. By using these expected selection

frequencies, the weighted distribution of the imputed data will replicate the weighted distribution

of the respondent data. Hence, the weighted hot deck imputation is designed so that, within each

imputation class, the weighted survey estimates based on the imputed data will be equal in

expectation to the weighted survey estimates based on the respondent data.

To implement the weighted hot deck procedure, imputation classes and sorting variables

that were relevant for each item being imputed were defined. If more than one sorting variable

was chosen, a serpentine sort was performed where the direction of the sort (ascending or

descending) changes each time the value of a variable changes. The serpentine sort minimizes the

change in the student characteristics every time one of the variables changes its value.

The respondent data for six of the items being imputed was modeled using a CHAID (Chisquared Automatic Interaction Detector) analysis to determine the imputation classes. These

items were:

• Race/ethnicity,

• Parent income (imputed for dependent students only),

• Student income,

Student marital status,

Dependents indicator, and

Number of dependents.

A CHAID analysis was performed on these variables because of the their importance to the study

and the large number of candidate variables available to form imputation classes. Also, for the

income variables, trying to define the best possible imputation classes was important due to the

large amount of missing data.

The CHAID analysis divided the respondent data (of each of these six items) into

segments which differ with respect to the item being imputed. The segmentation process first

divided the data into groups based on categories of the most significant predictor of the item

being imputed. It then split each of these groups into smaller subgroups based on other predictor

variables. It also merged categories of a variable that were found insignificant. This splitting and

merging process continued until no more statistically significant predictors were found (or until

some other stopping rule was met). The imputation classes from the final CHAID segments were

then defined.
CHAPTER 5: VARIABLE CONSTRUCTION AND FILE DEVELOPMENT

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 5- 9

Appendix I presents the imputation classes and sorting variables used for all of the

variables imputed by the hot deck approach.

5.4.2 Imputation for EFC

The federal methodology Expected Family Contribution (EFC) was available for 65

percent of the students in the NPSAS:96 sample. In 90 percent of the cases where a recorded

EFC was available, the source for the EFC was the student financial aid record (ISIR) reported in

the federal central processing system (CPS) for the 1995-96 academic year. Other less frequently

used sources were the student aid report (SAR) at the institution, the 1996-97 central processing

record, or the EFC recorded on the 1995-96 Pell Grant payment file. For Pell Grant recipients,

the EFC in the Pell Grant file was always used if there was a discrepancy.

In the NPSAS:96 analysis file the variable for the recorded EFC is called EFC3. These

EFC's were imputed for 35 percent of the 48,389 students on the file. This included

approximately 31 percent of the dependent students, 41 percent of the independent students

without dependents, and 36 percent of the independent students with dependents. Imputation

regression equations were developed separately for dependent and independent students using the

data and EFC formula types (CPS160) available in the 1995-96 CPS student records. Details of

the various EFC imputations are provided in Appendix I.
CHAPTER 5: VARIABLE CONSTRUCTION AND FILE DEVELOPMENT

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 5- 10
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-1

Chapter 6

Weighting and Variance Estimation

The NPSAS:96 data base contains a total of eight analysis weights associated with the

CADE respondents, Study respondents, and CATI respondents. This includes weights for

separate analyzes on all students, undergraduate students, graduate students, and first-timebeginning (FTB) students. The weight names and associated data bases are as follows:

• CADEWT: for all CADE respondents (55,665)

• DASWT0: for all students on the restricted-use analysis file (48,389)

• DASWT1: for Study respondents who were undergraduates in first term

(41,482). These students are included in the undergraduate Data

Analysis System.

• DASWT2: for Study respondents who were graduate/first-professional

students in last term (7,030). These students are included in the

graduate Data Analysis System

• CATIWT0: for all CATI respondents on the restricted analysis files (31,328)

• CATIWT1: for CATI respondents who were undergraduates in first term

(27,414). These students were included in the undergraduate Data

Analysis System.

• CATIWT2: for CATI respondents who were graduate/first-professional

students in last term (4,017). These students were included in the

graduate Data Analysis System.

• BPSWT: for CATI respondents who were FTB students (12,040).

Students who went from an undergraduate student in the first term to a graduate or firstprofessional student in the last term have both positive undergraduate and graduate/firstprofessional weights.
CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-2
CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-3

The CADE and CATI weights apply to the respondents from the CADE and CATI data

collection procedures. The Study respondents apply to students who responded to specified

CADE or CATI data items. The definitions of these three types of respondents are summarized

below.

• CADE respondents: students whose CADE data indicated they were enrolled in

the institutions and their aid status was known either from their CADE data or

from their data obtained from the Pell payment file or the National Student Loan

Data System.

• Study respondents: students selected for CATI who either had complete CADE

data or had completed enough of Section A of the CATI interview to determine

their FTB status.

•

• CATI respondents: students who had completed enough of Section A of the

CATI interview to determine their FTB status.

6.1 Study and CATI Weight Components

The Study weights and CATI weights were calculated as the product of 14 weight

components, each representing either a probability of selection or a weight adjustment. The

weight adjustments included nonresponse and poststratification adjustments to compensate for

potential nonresponse bias and frame errors (differences between the survey population and the

ideal target population, as discussed in Section 2.1.1). Also, multiplicity and trimming

adjustments were performed.

Since the Study weights were restricted to students selected for CATI, the first nine

weight components (WT1-WT9) of the Study weights and CATI weights were identical, which

represent the sample selection and adjustment components through the first phase of CATI. The

remaining weight components (WT10-WT14) are the same steps, but are performed separately

because of the different response definitions.
r

(i)

nrSr(i)

Sr( )

for non certainty selections

1 for certainty selections.

CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-4

(1) Institution Sampling Weight (WT1)

The sampling weight for each sample institution is the reciprocal of the probability of

selection. As shown in Section 2.2.1, the probability of selection for institution-I is

Therefore, the institution sampling weight was assigned as follows:

WT1 = 1 / (I) r

(2) Adjustment for Institution Multiplicity (WT2) 

During institution recruitment, seven sample schools that had two records listed on the

IPEDs frame were found. In most cases, it was caused by two schools that had recently merged. 

If both records were sampled, then one record was retained for tracking survey results and the

other record was classified as ineligible. 

To account for the two chances that a school could be selected, a multiplicity adjustment

was performed by first calculating the probability that either record could be selected, or

P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A)P(B).

Then, the new sampling weight was calculated as the reciprocal of this probability, or

NEW_WT1 = 1 / P(A or B).

Finally, the multiplicity adjustment factor was derived by dividing the new sampling weight by the

old sampling weight, or

WT2 = NEW_WT1 / WT1.

Note that the product of WT1 and WT2 equals NEW_WT1.
Rc

i Resp(c)

Wi•Si

i Elig(c)

Wi•Si

CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-5

(3) Adjustment for Institution Nonresponse (WT3)

For weighting purposes, a school was considered a responding school if it provided an

enrollment list and then, after the student sample was selected, provided sufficient CADE data for

locating at least one sample student. If sufficient CADE data could not be obtained for any of the

sample students, the school was still considered a respondent if at least one sample student could

be matched to the Central Processing System (CPS) file. 

A weighting class adjustment was performed to compensate for nonresponding institutions

using institution type as the weighting class. The calculated response rates were enhanced by

multiplying the institution’s weight by its size measure, or

 

where

c = the weighting class,

 Wi = the cumulative institution weight (WT1•WT2), and

 S = the institution’s size measure. i

The weight adjustment factor was then the reciprocal of this response rate. This enhancement

forced the estimated total measure of size (roughly the population total of eligible students) to be

the same for the responding institutions as it was for the eligible institutions. 

Table 6.1 presents the response rates and the resulting adjustment factors by institution

type. Note that all the response rates are high except for the private, for-profit, less than 2-year

schools. The response rate for those schools was 78.7 which resulted in an adjustment factor of

1.27.
f

s|i

f

s

r

(i)

,

CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-6

Table 6.1 Weight adjustment factors for institution nonresponse

Weighting class Number of response adjustment

(institution level) respondents rate factor (WT3) 

Weighted Weight

Total 832 93.8 †

Public, less-than-2-year 31 94.0 1.06

Public, 2-year 158 95.8 1.04

Public, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting 122 96.9 1.03

Public, 4-year, doctorate-granting 122 98.5 1.02

Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4 year 41 91.6 1.09

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting 102 88.7 1.13

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorate-granting 130 91.9 1.09

Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 60 78.7 1.27

Private, for-profit, 2-year 44 87.7 1.14

Private, for-profit, 2-year-or-more 22 95.8 1.04

†Not applicable.

(4) Student Sampling Weight (WT4)

The overall student sampling strata were defined by crossing the institution sampling strata

with the student strata within institutions. The overall sampling rates for these sampling strata can

be found in Chapter 2. The sample students were systematically selected from the enrollment lists

at institution-specific rates which were inversely proportional to the institution’s probability of

selection. Specifically, the sampling rate for student stratum-s within institution-I was calculated

as the overall sampling rate divided by the institution’s probability of selection, or

where

 f

s

 = the overall student sampling rate, and

 (I) = the institution’s probability of selection. r

As discussed in Chapter 2, the institution-specific rates were designed to obtain the desired

sample sizes and achieve nearly equal weights within the overall student strata. 
CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NCES confidentiality guidelines require at least 30 respondents before NCES can send the school a 1

statistical report on their sample students.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-7

If the institution’s enrollment list was larger than expected based on the IPEDS data, the

preloaded student sampling rates would yield larger than expected sample sizes. Likewise, if the

enrollment list was smaller than expected, the sampling rates would yield smaller than expected

sample sizes. To maintain control on the sample sizes, the sampling rates were adjusted, if

necessary, so that the number of students selected did not exceed by more than 50 students the

estimate reported to the school based on the IPEDS data. A minimum sample size constraint of

40 students was also imposed so that at least 30 respondents from each participating institution

could be expected.1

The student sampling weight was then the reciprocal of the institution-specific student

sampling rates, or

WT4 = 1 / f . s|I

(5) Student Subsampling Weight (WT5)

When schools provided hard-copy lists for student sampling, they often did not provide

separate lists by strata (e.g., potential FTBs and other undergraduate students were on the same

list). When that happened, the combined list was sampled at the highest of the sampling rates for

the strata contained within the list. Strata with the lower sampling rates were then subsampled to

achieve the desired sampling rates. The student subsampling weight adjustment factor, WT5, is

the reciprocal of this subsampling rate. This weight factor is unity (1.00) for most students

because this subsampling was not necessary for most institutions.

(6) Adjustment for Student Multiplicity (WT6)

Students who attended more than one eligible institution during the NPSAS year had

multiple chances of being selected. That is, they could have been selected from any of the

institutions they attended. Therefore, these students had a higher probability of being selected

than was represented in their sampling weight. Adjustment for this multiplicity was made by

dividing their sampling weight by the number of eligible institutions attended. Specifically, the

student multiplicity weight adjustment factor was defined as

WT6 = 1 / M,
CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-8

where M is the multiplicity, or number of institutions attended. The multiplicity was determined

from the CATI interview, the Pell payment file, and the National Student Loan Data System. 

Unless there were evidence to the contrary, the student multiplicity was presumed to be unity

(1.00).

(7) Adjustment for Unknown Eligibility Status (WT7)

After abstracting the student record data using CADE, a weight of zero was assigned to

students determined ineligible. A sample of students was selected for CATI from the students

who were not classified as ineligible. The final eligibility status was then determined from the

CATI interviews. However, for the students whom RTI staff were unable to contact, the final

eligibility status could not be determined. These students were treated as eligible and their

weights were adjusted to compensate for the small portion of students that were actually

ineligible.

Weighting classes were defined by the cross of institution type and the students’ matching

status to financial aid files (CPS, Pell, and Stafford). The first two columns of Table 6.2 present

the weight adjustment factors applied to the students with unknown eligibility. These weight

adjustment factors were simply the eligibility rate estimated among students with known eligibility

status. For the eligible students, the weight adjustment factor was set equal to one.

(8) Adjustment for Insufficient CADE or CPS Data (WT8)

The students who had sufficient locating data from the CADE data or from the CPS file

were subsampled for CATI interviewing. To adjust for students without sufficient locating data, 

a weighting class adjustment was performed using the cross of institution type and the students’

matching status to financial aid files as weighting classes (the same classes used for WT7). The

last two columns of Table 6.2 present the weight adjustment factors.

Since the response rates were quite high, most of the weight adjustment factors are near

one. The only exception was for students from public, less than 2-year schools that had no

matches to the financial aid files. For these students, the weight adjustment factor was 1.30

(response rate was 76.8 percent).
CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-9

Table 6.2—Weight adjustment factors for unknown student eligibility status and for 

insufficient student CADE/CPS data

Weighting class adjusted for Weight sufficient adjustment

 (institution level by student type by unknown adjustment CADE/CPS factor 

matching status to financial aid files) eligibility factor (WT7) data (WT8)

Adjustment for unknown insufficient student

eligibility CADE/CPS data

Adjustment for

Number with Weight

Number

Total 28,339 † 58,267 †

Public, less-than-2-year

Matched Pell or Stafford file 98 0.90 312 1.02

Matched CPS file only 41 0.87 120 1.00

No matches 529 0.74 745 1.30

Public, 2-year

Matched Pell or Stafford file 623 0.98 1,910 1.00

Matched CPS file only 249 0.94 757 1.00

No matches 2,609 0.85 4,561 1.04

Public, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting

Undergraduates: Matched Pell or Stafford file 1,215 0.99 4,071 1.00

Matched CPS file only 315 0.95 996 1.00

No matches 1,939 0.95 3,598 1.03

Graduates: Matched Pell or Stafford file 92 1.00 216 1.00

Matched CPS file only 40 0.98 86 1.00

No matches 1,190 0.95 1,441 1.06

Public, 4-year, doctorate-granting

Undergraduates: Matched Pell or Stafford file 1,331 0.99 4,180 1.00

Matched CPS file only 312 0.98 1,106 1.00

No matches 2,414 0.96 4,101 1.05

Graduates: Matched Pell or Stafford file 640 1.00 1,410 1.00

Matched CPS file only 81 0.98 199 1.00

No matches 2,279 0.95 2,789 1.07

Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year

Matched Pell or Stafford file 511 0.98 1,364 1.00

Matched CPS file only 82 0.87 202 1.00

No matches 493 0.85 808 1.03

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting

Undergraduate: Matched Pell or Stafford file 951 0.99 3,264 1.00

Matched CPS file only 183 0.99 554 1.00

No matches 1,029 0.96 1,759 1.03

Graduates: Matched Pell or Stafford file 102 0.99 304 1.00

Matched CPS file only 23 1.00 62 1.00

No matches 1,050 0.96 1,358 1.00

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorate-granting

Undergraduates: Matched Pell or Stafford file 1,104 1.00 3,272 1.00

Matched CPS file only 190 0.99 633 1.00

No matches 1,693 0.97 2,548 1.08
CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-10

Table 6.2—Weight adjustment factors for unknown student eligibility status and for insufficient

student CADE/CPS Data (continued)

Weighting class adjusted for adjustment sufficient adjustment

 (institution level by student type by unknown factor CADE/CPS factor 

 matching status to financial aid files) eligibility (WT7) data (WT8)

Adjustment for unknown insufficient student

eligibility CADE/CPS data

Adjustment for

Number Weight with Weight

Number

Graduates: Matched Pell or Stafford file 688 1.00 1,466 1.00

Matched CPS file only 75 0.95 155 1.00

No matches 1,612 0.96 1,925 1.08

Private, for-profit, less than 2-year

Matched Pell or Stafford file 675 0.96 1,929 1.00

Matched CPS file only 61 0.87 153 1.00

No matches 334 0.92 662 1.02

Private, for-profit, 2-year

Matched Pell or Stafford file 558 0.97 1,596 1.00

Matched CPS file only 65 0.88 129 1.00

No matches 292 0.93 430 1.04

Private, for-profit, 4-year

Undergraduates: Matched Pell or Stafford file 224 0.99 535 1.00

Matched CPS file only 30 0.86 64 1.00

No matches 178 0.97 278 1.02

Graduates: Matched Pell or Stafford file 18 1.00 57 1.00

Matched CPS file only 4 0.90 10 1.00

No matches 117 0.97 152 1.00

†Not applicable.

(9) Phase One CATI Sampling Weight (WT9)

As CADE data were received from each institution, students were sampled for phase one of

CATI on a flow basis. The students were sampled at a fixed rate by generating a random number

for each student and then comparing it against the sampling rate. In the middle of this process,

some slight adjustments were made to the fixed sampling rates to stay on target for the desired

total sample sizes. The rates were adjusted after accounting for the sample yield from institutions

already processed and the expected yield from the remaining institutions. The first column of

Table 6.3 presents the average of the phase one sampling rates over all the institutions. The phase

one sampling weights were defined to be the reciprocals of these average sampling rates. 
CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-11

(10) Phase Two CATI Sampling Weight (WT10)

A subsample of the nonrespondents in phase one of CATI were selected for phase two of

CATI. These students were subjected to intensive tracing and numerous callbacks to maximize

the sample yield and increase the overall response rate. As in phase one, the students were

sampled at a fixed rate on a flow basis with midstream adjustments to the fixed rates as

institutions were processed. Students who had a firm appointment or had a completed parent

interview at the conclusion of the sixth call were selected with certainty.

Table 6.3—Average sampling rates for selection into Phase One and Phase Two of CATI

Student stratum Phase one weights weights

Phase two: Phase two:

CATI study

Potential FTBs 1.00 1.00 1.00

Other undergraduate, aid applicant 1.00 0.25 0.19

Other undergraduate, not aid applicant 0.70 0.25 0.24

Graduate, aid applicant 1.00 0.28 0.23

Graduate, not aid applicant 0.42 0.25 0.25

First-professional, aid applicant 1.00 0.21 0.19

First-professional, not aid applicant 0.69 0.35 0.43

It is at this point where the weight components for the Study weights and CATI weights

are calculated separately because of the different response definitions. For the CATI weights, the

average sampling rates were simply the number of students selected for phase two divided by the

total number of CATI nonrespondents in phase one. For the Study weights, however, students

who were selected for CATI and had complete CADE data were considered Study respondents

regardless of their CATI outcome. Thus, the average sampling rates associated with the Study

weights were calculated after excluding the students with complete CADE data.

The last two columns of Table 6.3 present the average phase two sampling rates

associated with the CATI weights and Study weights. The phase two sampling weights were then

defined as the reciprocals of these average sampling rates. The students selected with certainty

were assigned a sampling weight equal to one.
CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

Folsom, R.E. (1991). “Exponential and Logistic Weight Adjustments for Sampling and Nonresponse 2

Error Reduction.” Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association, pp. 197-

202.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-12

(11) Adjustment for Not Locating Student (WT11)

The first type of student nonresponse was not being able to locate (contact) the student. 

Adjustments for this type of nonresponse were made to compensate for the potential nonresponse

bias. Adjustment factors were used that were inverses of predicted response propensities derived

from a logistic regression model. The logistic procedure, developed by Folsom (1991), adjusts the

weights of respondents so that the adjusted weight sums of respondents reproduce the unadjusted

weight sums of respondents and nonrespondents for the predictor variables included in the

model. In addition, the procedure provides a formal setting for evaluating variables believed to 2

related to response. To avoid excessive weight variation, the procedure can also constrain the

adjustment factors by specifying lower and upper bounds if the bounds are not set too tightly.

Because a much larger number of students was to be used for the CATI weight

adjustment, a model for the CATI weights was first determined and then a similar model was used

for the Study weights. Candidate predictor variables were chosen that were thought to be

predictive of response and were nonmissing for most of the nonrespondents. The candidate

predictor variables included

• Number of phone numbers obtained for student,

• Institution type,

• Region,

• Student type,

• Age group,

• Attendance status, and

• Aid status.

Other variables that were considered but were dropped because of too many missing values for

the nonrespondents (at the time we were performing the weight adjustments) included

• Race/ethnicity,

• Dependency status,

• Grade point average, and

• Family income.

To detect important interactions for the logistic models, a CHAID (Chi-squared

Automatic Interaction Detector) analysis was performed on the predictor variables. The CHAID

analysis divided the data into segments which differ with respect to the response variable, ability

to locate. The segmentation process first divided the sample into groups based on categories of

the most significant predictor of response. It then split each of these groups into smaller
pˆ

Lj [1 exp( xj

)]

1

,

CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-13

subgroups based on other predictor variables. It also merged categories of a variable that were

found insignificant. This splitting and merging process continued until no more statistically

significant predictors were found (or until some other stopping rule was met). The interactions

from the final CHAID segments were then defined. 

The interaction segments and all the main effect variables were then subjected to variable

screening in the logistic procedure. Variables significant at the 10 percent level were retained,

with the exception of institution type and student type which were retained regardless of their

significance.

Table 6.4 presents the final predictor variables used in the logistic model to adjust the

CATI weights and the average weight adjustment factors resulting from these variables. For the

Study weights adjustment model, there were not enough students to include the segment

interactions. Therefore, the segment variable was replaced with the main effect variable for the

number of phone numbers. The predicted probability of locating student-j from the logistic

models is given by:

where

xj = the row vector of predictor variables, and

 = the column vector of regression coefficients.

The logistic adjustment factor is then simply the reciprocal of this predicted probability of locating

the student, or

 ^ WT11 = 1 / p . Lj

The weight adjustment factors from the logistic adjustment are summarized below, and were

constrained to not exceed the maximum shown.

Weight Set Minimum Median Maximum

Study weights 1.03 1.14 2.47

CATI weights 1.01 1.22 3.89
CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-14

Table 6.4— Average weight adjustment factors from logistic model used to adjust CATI weights for

student location nonresponse

Logistic model predictor variables two rate (WT11)

Number of Average

location weight

respondent Weighted adjustment

s in phase response factor

Total 27,385 84.8 1.18

Institutional sector

Public, less-than-2-year 598 81.6 1.23

Public, 2-year 3,707 84.1 1.19

Public, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting 4,877 84.5 1.18

Public, 4-year, doctorate-granting 5,927 87.5 1.14

Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4 year 1,271 78.2 1.28

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting 3,255 86.3 1.16

Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorate-granting 4,263 84.1 1.19

Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 1,779 77.2 1.30

Private, for-profit, 2-year 1,267 78.0 1.28

Private, for-profit, 4-year 441 83.6 1.20

Region

Plains 2,118 89.3 1.12

Far West 3,915 80.3 1.25

AK, HI, PR 584 75.2 1.33

Other 20,768 85.0 1.18

Student type

FTBs 13,940 83.8 1.19

Other undergraduates 10,875 85.3 1.17

Graduates 1,698 83.9 1.19

First-professionals 872 87.7 1.14

Age group

15-23 17,810 86.1 1.16

24-29 4,168 81.4 1.23

30 or older 5,407 85.1 1.18

CHAID segments

1 = Zero phone numbers 261 36.6 2.73

2 = One phone number, 2-year-or-less schools 199 52.2 1.92

3 = One phone number, 4-year-or-more schools 739 76.0 1.32

4 = Two or more phone numbers, less-than-2-year schools, FTBs 1,380 73.7 1.36

5 = Two or more phone numbers, less-than-2-year schools, not

FTBs 1,076 88. 0 1.14

6 = Two or more phone numbers, 4-year-non-postdoctoral schools 14,111 86.6 1.15

7 = Two or more phone numbers, 4-year, doctoral school 4,709 92.3 1.08

8 = Two or more phone numbers, doctoral schools, not FTBs 4,910 88.1 1.14
CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-15

(12) Adjustment for CATI Nonresponse (WT12)

The second type of student nonresponse was if the student refused to be interviewed given

that the student was located. The candidate predictor variables were the same candidate

variables used in the location nonresponse adjustment (WT11). As in the location adjustment a

CHAID analysis was performed on the predictor variables to detect important interactions. The

resulting segment interactions and all the main effect variables in the logistic modeling at the 10

percent significance level were then screened.

Table 6.5 presents the final predictor variables used in the logistic model to adjust the

CATI weights and the average weight adjustment factor resulting from these variables. The

Study weights adjustment used the same model except replaced the segment variable with the aid

status main effect variable. As in the location adjustment, the weight adjustment factor for

student-j was the reciprocal of the predicted response probability, or

 ^ WT12 = 1 / prj .

The resulting weight adjustment factors are summarized below.

Weight Set Minimum Median Maximum

Study weights 1.10 1.20 1.77

CATI weights 1.01 1.19 1.78

Demographic characteristics of CATI respondents and nonrespondents are compared in

the table in Appendix J. This table shows that the distributions of demographic characteristics,

such as age, race, income, and receipt of aid are significantly different for CATI respondents and

nonrespondents. Some of the statistically significant differences are not large differences, but aid

recipients are clearly more likely to be respondents. Therefore, the statistical weight adjustments

for CATI locating and nonresponse are definitely important for reducing the potential for

nonresponse bias due to these types of differences between the CATI respondents and CATI

nonrespondents.
CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-16

Table 6.5—Average weight adjustment factors from logistic model used to adjust CATI weights 

for student interview nonresponse

Logistic model predictor variables two e rate (WT11)

Number

of Average

interview Weight weight

responden ed adjustme

ts in phase respons nt factor

Total 23,386 82.1 1.22

Institutional sector

 Public, less-than-2-year 503 85.8 1.17

 Public, 2-year 3,704 78.8 1.27

 Public, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting 4,204 83.5 1.20

 Public, 4-year, doctorate-granting 5,077 82.9 1.21

 Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4 year 1,066 83.0 1.20

 Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting 2,841 85.4 1.17

 Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorate-granting 3,601 81.8 1.22

 Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 1,543 85.2 1.17

 Private, for-profit, 2-year 1,094 86.1 1.16

 Private, for-profit, 4-year 383 85.5 1.17

Region

 AK, HI, PR 572 97.7 1.02

 Other 22,814 82.0 1.22

Student type

 FTBs 11,918 85.5 1.17

 Other Undergraduates 9,366 80.4 1.24

 Graduates 1,382 81.5 1.23

 First-Professionals 720 84.7 1.18

CHAID segments

 1. Applied for aid, FTB, less than 24 years old 8,038 90.6 1.10

 2. Applied for aid, FTB, 24-29 years old 412 76.8 1.30

 3. Applied for aid, FTB, 30+ years old 527 83.9 1.19

 4. Applied for aid, not FTB 7,296 86.2 1.16

 5. Did not apply for aid, less-than-2 year school, less 141 66.2 1.51

than 24 years old

 6. Did not apply for aid, less-than-2 year school, 24+ 370 84.9 1.18

years old

 7. Did not apply for aid, 2-year school, FTB 808 78.7 1.27

 8. Did not apply for aid, 2-year school, not FTB 1,038 72.4 1.38

 9. Did not apply for aid, 4-year or higher school 4,756 79.8 1.25
Sc

i c

WO(i)

i c

WT(i)

ˆ

MSE(

ˆ) E(

ˆ)

2

.

MSE(

ˆ) E[

ˆ E( )]

2

[E(

ˆ) ]

2

,

CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-17

(13) Weight Trimming Adjustment (WT13)

All of the nonresponse weight adjustments were performed to reduce potential nonresponse

bias. Also, to a smaller extent, the multiplicity adjustments reduce potential bias by accounting

for the actual probabilities of selection. However, the cumulative effect of all the adjustment

factors can cause excessive weight variation causing inflated sampling variances which then

increases the mean square error. 

The mean square error of an estimate, , is defined as the expected value of the squared

total error, or

This can be rewritten as

where the first term is the sampling variance and the second term is the bias squared.

By truncating some of the largest weights and smoothing (distributing) the truncated portions

over all the weights, the mean square error can usually be reduced by substantially reducing the

variance and slightly increasing the bias.

To evaluate the weight variation, the unequal weighting effects on the variance by the cross

of institution type and student type were computed as

UWE = n w / ( w) .

2 2

When the cumulative effect of the weight adjustment factors caused the unequal weighting effects

to be unreasonably large, an upper limit was established for truncation of the largest weights. To

distribute the truncated portions, a smoothing adjustment ratio was calculated as the sum of the

original weights over the sum of the truncated weights for each class as follows:

where WO(I) = the original weight (WT1•WT2•...WT12), and
WT13

Wt(i)

Wo(i)

• Sc.

CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

Folsom, R.E. (1991). “Exponential and Logistic Weight Adjustments for Sampling and Nonresponse 3

Error Reduction.” Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association, pp. 197-

202.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-18

W (I) = the truncated weight (the minimum of the original weight and the upper limit). T 

The truncation and smoothing steps were then combined into one adjustment factor by

defining the weight component as

(14) Poststratification Adjustment (WT14)

To ensure population coverage, the sampling weights were adjusted to control totals with a

generalized raking procedure, that derives adjustment factors from an exponential regression

model (Folsom 1991). The algorithm for this procedure is similar to the algorithm used in the 3

logistic procedure for the nonresponse adjustments.

Control totals were established for annual student enrollment; number and amount of Pell

grants awarded; and number and amount of Stafford loans awarded. The annual student

enrollment was controlled by

• institution type, and

• student type.

The Pell grants were controlled by

• number of Pell grants awarded by institution type, 

• number of Pell grants awarded by dependency status, and

• total amount of Pell grant dollars awarded by institution type.

And finally, the Stafford loans were controlled by

• number of Stafford loans by institution type, and

• total amount of Stafford dollars by institution type.

The annual enrollment control totals were estimated by multiplying the “known” fall

enrollment totals from the 1995-96 Fall Enrollment Survey by the ratio estimate (based on

NPSAS:96 data) of annual enrollment over fall enrollment. Specifically, the annual enrollment
Acontrol

A

npsas

F

npsas

• Fknown ,

j

Wj jx

T

j

T

o

CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-19

control totals were computed as

where

A = annual enrollment control total, control

A = annual enrollment estimated from NPSAS:96, npsas

Fnpsas = fall enrollment estimated from NPSAS:96, and

F = fall enrollment from the 1995-96 Fall Enrollment Survey. known

The exponential adjustment was performed on both the Study weights and the CATI

weights. The exponential adjustment satisfies the following constraints:

where

W = the cumulative weight (WT1•WT2•....•WT13), j 

 = exp( + x ), j j

xj = the vector of regressors associated with the domains to be controlled, and

 = the set of control totals. o

The exponential adjustment factor for student-j is then simply

WT14 = . j 

Table 6.6 presents the variables associated with the student enrollment control totals and

the average weight adjustment factors by these variables. Similarly, Table 6.7 presents the

variables associated with the Pell grant and Stafford loan control totals and the average weight

adjustment factors. The weight adjustment factors from the exponential adjustment are

summarized below, and were constrained to not exceed the maxima shown.

Weight set Minimum Median Maximum

Study weights 0.48 1.10 2.75

CATI weights .25 1.08 3.25

After performing this last weight adjustment, the final Study weights and final CATI

weights were computed as the product of the 14 weight components and then rounded to the
CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-20

nearest integer.

Table 6.6— Average weight adjustment factors from exponential model for poststratifying to student

enrollment control totals

Exponential model variable survey enrollment weights study weights

Fall enrollment factor Average weight

from 1995-96 Control total (wt14): adjustment

fall enrollment for annual CATI factor (wt14): 

Average

weight

adjustment

Total 15,182,774 19,375,346 1.19 1.19

Student type

 Undergraduate 13,105,442 16,677,55 1.16 1.20

 Graduate 1,769,623 2,377,541 1.15 1.16

 First-professional 307,709 320,255 1.03 1.07

Institutional sector 

 Public, less-than-2-year 140,038 207,617 2.97 2.65

 Public, 2-year 5,357,811 7,631,925 1.26 1.30

 Public, 4-year, non-doctorate-granting 2,013,174 2,446,951 1.01 1.08

 Public, 4-year, doctorate-granting 3,839,249 4,332,172 1.05 1.11

 Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4 year 170,620 223,510 1.16 1.24

 Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctorate- 1,538,354 1,840,856 1.19 1.18

 Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorate- 1,501,877 1,720,128 1.08 1.07

 Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 275,677 477,817 1.87 1.85

 Private, for-profit, 2-year 223,702 346,011 1.33 1.26

 Private, for-profit, 4-year 122,272 148,359 0.88 0.84

6.2 FTB Weights

Since FTB status is known only for CATI respondents, the CATI weights are the analysis

weights for students who are known to be FTBs. However, FTBs whose first postsecondary

institution was not the NPSAS sample institution will not be followed longitudinally in the

BPS:96 study. Therefore, the FTB weights were computed by making a final weighting class

adjustment to the CATI weights by institution type to compensate for excluding FTBs whose first

school was not the sample institution. All the adjustment factors were close to one ranging from

1.00 to 1.02.
CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-21
CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-22

Table 6.7—Average weight adjustment factors from exponential model for poststratifying to 

Pell grant and Stafford loan control total

Exponential model variable awarded dollars awarded (number, dollars) (number, dollars)

Control total WT14: WT14:

for number Control total for CATI weights study weights

Average weight Average weight

adjustment factor, adjustment factor, 

Pell grants/institutional level

Total 3,609,752 5,450,732,592 † †

 Public, less-than-2-year 53,154 66,817,833 (2.86, 2.67) (2.38, 2.30)

 Public, 2-year 1,143,481 1,596,097,492 (1.00, 0.97) (0.96, 0.99) 

 Public, 4-year only 229,070 364,590,952 (0.77, 0.77) (0.84, 0.84)

 Public, 5-years or more 1,077,024 1,716,099,421 (1.15, 1.17) (1.12, 1.14)

 Private, not-for-profit, less than 4-year 85,969 130,830,185 (1.08, 1.01) (1.12, 1.10)

 Private, not-for-profit, 4-year only 310,817 501,865,411 (1.22, 1.25) (1.13, 1.14)

 Private, not-for-profit, 5-years or more 238,750 393,263,456 (0.73, 0.75) (0.78, 0.78)

 Private, for-profit, less than 2-year 282,493 416,342,096 (1.62, 1.52) (1.61, 1.54)

 Private, for-profit, 2- year 144,388 202,058,750 (1.39, 1.33) (1.26, 1.25)

 Private, for-profit, 4-years or more 44,606 62,766,996 (1.22, 1.17) (1.08, 1.08)

Pell grants/student dependency

Total 3,609,752 † † †

 Dependent 1,514,937 † (1.01, †) (1.03, †)

 Independent, no dependents 673,045 † (1.06,-†) (0.98, †)

 Independent, with dependents 1,421,770 † (1.15, --) (1.08, †)

Stafford loans/institutional level

 Total 6,335,963 24,738,435,300 † †

 Public, 2-year or less 607,137 1,451,663,706 (1.01, 1.03) (1.03, 1.06)

 Public, 4-year or more 2,926,964 11,374,603,646 (1.29, 1.52) (1.23, 1.32)

 Private, not-for-profit, 2-year or less 117,835 369,257,211 (1.01, 1.05) (1.01, 1.02)

 Private, not-for-profit, 4-year or more 1,888,104 9,219,303,534 (0.86,1.00) (0.91, 1.04)

 Private, for-profit 795,923 2,323,607,270 (1.20, 1.16) (1.21, 1.22)

†Not applicable. 
CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-23

6.3 CADE Weights

The development of all the CADE weight components was similar to their counterparts in

the Study weights and CATI weights. The only differences were that they applied to a different

set of respondent data and did not include the CATI weight components. As mentioned earlier,

students were considered CADE respondents if their CADE data indicated they were enrolled at

the sample institution and their aid status was known either from their CADE data or from their

data obtained from the Pell payment file or the National Student Loan Data System. The weight

components were as follows:

1. Institution Sampling Weight (WT1),

2. Adjustment for Institution Multiplicity (WT2),

3. Adjustment for Institution Nonresponse (WT3),

4. Student Sampling Weight (WT4),

5. Student Subsampling Weight (WT5),

6. Adjustment for Student Multiplicity (WT6),

7. Adjustment for Student CADE nonresponse (WT7),

8. Weight Trimming Adjustment (WT8), and

9. Poststratification Adjustment (WT9).

6.4 Variance Estimation

For probability-based sample surveys, most estimates are nonlinear statistics. Hence, the

variances of the estimates cannot be expressed in closed form. For example, a mean or

proportion, which is expressed as wy/ w, is nonlinear because the denominator is a survey

estimate of the (unknown) population total. Two common procedures for estimating variances

of survey statistics are the Taylor series linearization procedure and the Jackknife replicate

procedure, which are both available for NPSAS:96. Section 6.4.1 discuss the analysis strata and

replicates created for the Taylor series procedure and Section 6.4.2 discusses the replicate weights

created for the Jackknife procedure. 

Also, to measure the effects the complex sample design features had on the variances of

survey estimates, Section 6.4.2 presents design effect estimates for several analysis domains.
CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

Woodruff, R.S. (1971). “A Simple Method for Approximating the Variance of a Complicated 4

Estimate.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 66, pp. 411-414.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-24

6.4.1 Taylor Series

The Taylor series variance estimation procedure is a well-known technique to estimate the

variances of nonlinear statistics. The procedure takes the first-order Taylor series approximation

of the nonlinear statistic and then substitutes the linear representation into the appropriate

variance formula based on the sample design. Woodruff (1971) presents the mathematical

formulation of this procedure and presents an example of the technique to sample surveys.4

For stratified multistage surveys, the Taylor series procedure requires analysis strata and

analysis replicates defined from the sampling strata and PSUs used in the first-stage of sampling. 

For NPSAS:96, analysis strata and replicates for three separate data bases were defined: all

students, all undergraduate students, and all graduate/first-professional students. 

The first step was identify the sampling PSUs. As discussed in Section 2.2.1, the PSUs

included the 842 noncertainty institutions. For the 131 certainty institutions, however, the

students represent the first-stage of sampling. To resemble the noncertainty institution PSUs,

two pseudo-PSUs were created within each certainty institution by randomly assigning sample

students into two equal-sized groups.

The next step was to sort the PSUs and pseudo-PSUs by the nine institutional strata and

then by the implicit stratification variables used to select the noncertainty institutions. These

variables were institution sector, region, and the institution’s size measure. From this sorted list,

an analysis stratum was then defined each time the value of region (the last discrete sorting

variable) changed. Regions were collapsed or split to create approximately the same size analysis

strata. This process resulted in 51 analysis strata for all students, 51 analysis strata for

undergraduate students, and 42 analysis strata for graduate/first-professional students.

The analysis replicates were then defined within the analysis strata by collapsing the PSUs

and pseudo-PSUs as required so each replicate did not contain less than four CADE, Study, or

CATI respondents. This sample size requirement will ensure stable variance estimates.

The names of the analysis strata and replicates and the associated data bases are as follows:

• ANALSTR, ANALREP: Analysis strata and replicates for all students,

• UANALSTR, UANALREP: Analysis strata and replicates for undergraduates,

and

• GANALSTR, GANALREP: Analysis strata and replicates for graduate/firstprofessional students.
CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

Rust, K. (1986). “Efficient Replicated Variance Estimation.” Proceedings of the American Statistical 5

Association Section of Survey Research Methods, pp. 81-87.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-25

6.4.2 Jackknife Replication

The Jackknife procedure is another available variance estimation procedure that computes

the variance based on a set of “sample” replicates. A sample replicate is created by randomly

removing an analysis PSU within an analysis stratum (as if that PSU had not been selected) and

adjusting the weights of the remaining PSUs to preserve the stratum weight total. Typically, the

Jackknife procedure assumes two analysis PSUs for each analysis stratum so that the number of

replicate weights equals the number of analysis strata. 

For Jackknife variance estimation, thirty to sixty replicate weights are usually recommended

(Rust, 1986). Adhering to this general recommendation, the Jackknife analysis strata were 5

defined to be the same as the analysis strata defined for the Taylor series procedure. This

included

• 51 Jackknife strata for all students,

• 51 Jackknife strata for undergraduate students, and

• 42 Jackknife strata for graduate students.

Then, two Jackknife PSUs were created within each stratum by collapsing the Taylor series

analysis replicates.

Based on the Jackknife strata and replicate definitions, we created replicate weights

associated with the Study weights, CATI weights, and CADE weights. For the Study and CATI

weights, this included separate replicate weights for all students, undergraduates only, and

graduates only. Thus, a total of seven replicate weight sets were created:

• JDWT1-JDWT51: Study replicate weights for all students,

• JDUWT1-JDUWT51: Study replicate weights for undergraduates,

• JDGWT1-JDGW42: Study replicate weights for graduate/firstprofessional students,

• JCWT1-JCWT51: CATI replicate weights for all students,

• JCUWT1-JCGWT51: CATI replicate weights for undergraduates,

• JCGWT1-JCGWT42: CATI replicate weights for graduate/firstprofessional students, and
Deff (

ˆ)

Vardesign(

ˆ)

Var

srs

(

ˆ)

.

Deft (

ˆ)

SEdesign(

ˆ)

SEsrs(

ˆ)

.

ˆ

CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-26

• JCADEW1-JCADEW51: CADE replicate weights for all students.

To create the replicate weights, institution-level replicate weights were defined. For each

replicate set, institution weights of one PSU within an analysis stratum were set to zero and the

institution weights of the other PSU were ratio-adjusted to preserve the analysis stratum weight

total. The institution weights in the other strata remained unchanged. Therefore, the number of

replicates is identical to the number of analysis strata.

Then for each set of institution-level replicate weights, all the sampling weight components

and weight adjustments were computed as described in the previous sections. Therefore, the

Jackknife replicate weights produce variance estimates which incorporate the variance

components associated with the nonresponse weight adjustments.

6.4.3 Design Effects

The survey design effect for a statistic is defined as the ratio of the design-based variance

estimate over the variance estimate that would have been obtained from a simple random sample

of the same size (if that were practical). It is often used to measure the effects that sample design

features have on the precision of survey estimates. For example, stratification tends to decrease

the variance, but multistage sampling and unequal probabilities of selection usually increase the

variance. Also, weight adjustments for nonresponse, which are performed to reduce nonresponse

bias, increase the variance by increasing the weight variation. Because of these effects, most

complex multi-stage sampling designs, like NPSAS:96, result in a design effects greater than one. 

That is, the design-based variance is larger than the simple random sample variance.

Specifically, the survey design effect for a given estimate, , is defined as

Also, the square root of the design effect is another useful measure, which can also be

expressed as the ratio of the standard errors, or
CHAPTER 6: WEIGHTING AND VARIANCE ESTIMATION

Shah, B.V., Barnwell, B.G., and Bieler, G.S. (1995). SUDAAN User’s Manual. Research Triangle 6

Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT 6-27

In Appendix F, design effect estimates are presented to summarize the effects of stratification,

multistage sampling, unequal probabilities of selection, and the nonresponse weight adjustments. 

These design effects were estimated using SUDAAN, which uses the Taylor series variance

estimation procedure. Appendix F presents 50 tables of design effect estimates for important 6

survey estimates among undergraduate students, graduate students, and first-professional

students. The tables include design effects based on the Study weights and on the CATI weights. 

The Tables are presented as follows:

• Tables F.1-F.19: Design effects for undergraduates based on Study weights,

• Tables F.20-F.38: Design effects for undergraduates based on CATI weights,

• Tables F.39-F.41: Design effects for graduates (excluding FPs) based on Study weights,

• Tables F.42-F.44: Design effects for graduates (excluding FPs) based on CATI weights,

• Tables F.45-F.47: Design effects for first-professionals based on Study weights, and

• Tables F.48-F.50: Design effects for first-professionals based on CATI weights.
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-1

Appendix A

NPSAS Sampling Details
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-2
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-3

Appendix A

NPSAS Sampling Details

I. Target Population

The ideal target population for NPSAS:96 consists of all students who were enrolled for

in postsecondary institutions in the United States or Puerto Rico at any time during the 1995-96

federal financial aid award year, excluding students who were enrolled solely in a GED program

or who were concurrently enrolled in high school. As such, the terms of instruction involved

would be those beginning between July 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996; however, using this time

period to define the survey population would mean that final sampling could not be attempted for

many institutions until after the first 1996 summer session began. Consequently, the survey

population was defined as those students who were enrolled in any term beginning between

May 1, 1995 and April 30, 1996.

Both the survey and target populations cover a full 12 months of student enrollment, and

most members of the target population are also members of the survey population; however, the

adopted definition of the survey population allowed the student lists needed for sample selection

to be obtained in January or February for most institutions (e.g., those on a semester calendar

system). This definition of the survey population is also completely consistent with that used for

NPSAS:93. It also provides substantial comparability with the survey populations for NPSAS:90

and NPSAS:87. (For NPSAS:90, the students sampled were those enrolled on August 1, 1989,

October 15, 1989, February 15, 1990, or June 15, 1990 (however, the June 15 enrollees were not

sampled for 4-year institutions because of budgetary limitations); for NPSAS:87, only Fall 1986

enrollees were sampled.) Additional sampling constraints were applied, as discussed

subsequently in this Appendix.
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-4

II. Sample Design Overview

Area-clustered, three-stage sampling designs were used for all previous NPSAS studies,

including as stages: (1) geographic areas constructed from 3-digit postal Zip code areas; (2)

institutions within sample areas; and (3) students within sample institutions. An area clustered

design was necessary for NPSAS:87 because a complete instruction frame was not available at

that time, and the frame was supplemented with local sources. An area clustered design was used

for the 1990 and 1993 studies to reduce the costs associated with sending field staff to sample

institutions to abstract registration and financial aid data for sample students.

As part of the NPSAS:96 field test activities, the feasibility of increasing precision of study

estimates by eliminating the geographic area stage of sampling was examined. Both a clustered

sample of institutions and an unclustered sample of institutions were selected for NPSAS:96. (The

field test sample of institutions was selected from the institutions that were in neither of the

institutional samples selected for the full-scale study, to insure that no institution would be

burdened by participation in both the field test and full scale surveys). A comparison of expected

costs and precision for these two sampling designs (i.e., three-stage vs. two-stage) indicated that:

(1) the expected difference in cost between the two designs was not substantial and (2) standard

errors for important estimates were expected to be 10 to 25 percent smaller with the two-stage

design than those with the three-stage design.

The relatively small cost differential between the two approaches results from greater use

of two new procedures for collecting student financial aid information and other information from

institutional records. The first of these procedures, introduced in the NPSAS:96 Field Test,

involved collecting, through Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), student aid data from the ED

central processing system (CPS) prior to any data collection at the involved institution. The

second procedure, which was introduced in NPSAS:93, was the use of remote CADE, by

institutional staff at most schools and by field staff only at the remainder, to obtain information

from school records. Since a two-stage design can only improve precision and the cost penalty
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

Research Triangle Institute, National Postsecondary Student Aid Stude: 1996--Field Test Methodology 1

Report, (Working Paper No. 96-17). National Center for Education Statistics: Washington, DC; Author; July

1996.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-5

did not appear to be substantial, the two-stage design was fielded for the full-scale NPSAS:96.

Comparisons of cost and precision estimates under the two sampling approaches are provided in

Tables A.1 and A.2; greater detail on comparisons of cost and precision estimates under the two

sampling approach procedures are provided in the NPSAS:96 Field Test Methodology Report.

1

A schematic overview of the sequential statistical sampling process for NPSAS:96 is

provided in Figure A.1. The goal of all sampling activities was to attain NCES-required

numbers of eligible sample postsecondary students (within specified student and institution types).

An important domain of the required student sample was the set of students identified as firsttime, beginning students (FTBs), that is, students who began their postsecondary education

during the NPSAS year. These students would comprise the baseline cohort for the BPS

longitudinal study. Accounting for expected (from prior NPSAS studies) rates of ineligibility

among sample students and rates of FTB misclassification, the desired number of sample students

were initially determined as shown, by type of institution and type of student classification, in

Table A.3. Since it was necessary to select the student samples on a flow basis as sample

institutions provided their enrollment lists (in order to meet the data collection schedule), the

students were sampled at fixed rates. Under this approach, the actual numbers of students

sampled are random variables; however, the sampling rates were set to meet or exceed, in

expectation, the sample sizes shown in Table A.3.

The NPSAS:96 sample was also designed to achieve at least 30 student CATI respondents

from each sample institution that had at least that many eligible students enrolled during the

NPSAS year. This was to allow NCES to send each participating institution a report using the

results of the interviews with their students without violating confidentiality requirements.

Consequently, institution sample sizes were determined to achieve an average of approximately 50

or more sample students per institution within each institutional stratum.
Table A.1—Estimated costs for implementing CADE student record abstractions for the full-scale NPSAS:96 under two sampling

designs and two levels of field-CADE schools

School CADE cost category

Assuming 35 percent field-CADE Assuming 55 percent field-CADE

2-stage design 3-stage design 2-stage design 3-stage design

Number of Cost Number of Cost Number Cost Number of

schools estimate schools estimate of schools estimate schools Cost estimate

Total 850 780,757 850 760,986 850 1,123,659 850 1,103,796

Self-CADE (subtotal) 553 161,895 553 161,895 383 112,174 383 112,174 a

Low maintenance 442 94,799 442 94,799 306 65,630 306 65,630

High maintenance 111 67,096 111 67,096 77 46,544 77 46,544

Field-CADE (subtotal) 297 618,862 297 599,091 467 1,011,485 467 991,622 b 

Hard copy 42 42,043 42 42,043 65 65,067 65 65,067

Local (<50 miles) 161 285,987 174 309,080 234 415,659 252 447,632

Auto (50-200 miles) 59 166,385 45 126,904 63 177,655 47 132,544

Air (>200 miles) 37 124,447 36 121,064 105 353,104 103 346,379

NOTE: Number of schools was derived as follows: initial school sample size=973; total eligible schools=895 (92 percent); and estimated number responding schools=850 (95 percent).

Costs were estimated directly for the self-CADE schools from past experience, but were modeled for the field-CADE schools in 300 simulations. For each simulation, field-CADE

schools were randomly allocated from the simulated sample, a fixed percentage (based on past experience) of these were then allocated to the hard-copy category. Among the

remainder, distances were computed from FI home bases and cases assigned to other field-CADE categories as appropriately and differential costs applied. Results shown here

reflect averages of the simulation. Estimated costs exclude fixed costs associated with project and task management/oversight, production reporting, secretarial/clerical support,

etc.

Schools agreeing to have their own staff perform the CADE record abstraction (with reimbursement where requested). a

Schools requiring that CADE abstraction be performed by contractor field interviewer staff. b

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statitics. National Postsecondary Student Aid Study:1996--Field Test Methodology Report (Working Paper Series). Washington, D.C: Author, July

1996.
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-7

Table A.2— Estimated standard errors for selected NPSAS:93 estimates under two

NPSAS:96 sampling designs

Data element Student type estimate 3-stage 2-stage reduced

NPSAS:93 Under Under Percent

a

Estimated NPSAS:96 standard

error b

c

Any aid receipt (percent) Undergraduate 41.4 1.1 0.9 21.8

Graduate 38.8 1.4 1.1 16.2

Amount of all aid received (average) Undergraduate 4,171 121 101 17.1

Graduate 8,497 335 295 11.8

Federal aid receipt (percent) Undergraduate 32.1 1.1 0.9 23.3

Graduate 19.4 1.2 1.1 13.7

Amount of federal aid received Undergraduate 3,556 63 62 0.9

(average)

Graduate 8,548 286 261 8.9

Loan receipt (percent) Undergraduate 19.8 1.0 0.8 16.0

Graduate 18.9 1.2 1.0 14.6

Loan amount (average) Undergraduate 3,266 51 46 8.9

Graduate 9,231 329 291 11.8

Receipt of federal grant aid (percent) Undergraduate 22.6 1.0 0.8 15.6

Amount of federal grants (average) Undergraduate 1,679 22 19 16.5

NOTE: NPSAS:93 estimates and estimated NPSAS:96 errors, reported in this table, were computed for eligible CADE

respondents under two assumed sampling designs: the 3-stage sample design used in all prior NPSAS waves and a 2-

stage sample design with institutions sampled as the first stage. Reported aid receipt percentages (and associated

standard errors were computed from all cases with determinate data on receipt or non-receipt of aid. Averages,

however, were computed using only those cases who received the specific type of aid and had a determinate aid

amount.

Actual computation from NPSAS:93 CADE data. a

Computed using values obtained from NPSAS:93 data, but imposing NPSAS:96 institutional and student sample sizes. b

Percentage reflects ratio (before rounding) of the difference (between 3- and 2-stage estimates) to the 3-stage estimate. c

SOURCE: National Center for Education Statitics. National Postsecondary Student Aid Study:1996--Field Test Methodology Report

(Working Paper Series). Washington, D.C: Author, July 1996.
Construct Sampling Frame from 1993-1994 IPEDS IC File

Stratify Institutions by Control and Highest Level of Offering

Select PPS Sample of 973 Institutions

Use Fixed Rates to Sample 63,616 Students Within Institution From Up to

Four Strata Per Participating Eligible School

Restratify Students Based on Data Collected From Institutional Records

Subsample 51,195 Students for Phase 1 of CATI, Restratify at Fixed

Rates Within Redefined Student Strata, Including 8,803 to Also Have

Parent Interviews

Subsample 25,766 Phase 1 Nonresponding Students for Phase 2 of CATI

at Specified Rates Based on Redefined Strata and Phase 1 CATI

Outcomes

Figure A.1--Schematic of sequential NPSAS:96 sampling operations

APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-8
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-9

Given these student sample size goals, it was determined that the survey should be based on

approximately 850 participating institutions. Based on on projected institutional eligibility and

participation rates obtained in prior NPSAS implementations and the NPSAS:96 field test, an initial

sample of 973 institutions was selected to yield at least the targeted 850 eligible and participating

schools.

Table A.3—Desired total numbers of sample students by institutional stratum and type

of student

Institutional stratum Total FTBs undergraduates students students

Student stratum

Potential Other Graduate Professional

a

Firsta

Total 59,509 22,677 23,908 9,924 3,000

Public, less-than-2-year 1,674 1,575 99 † †

Public, 2-year 7,761 4,345 3,416 † †

Public, 4-year, non-doctorate 9,656 2,896 4,860 1,900 †

Public, 4-year, doctorate 13,043 2,471 5,685 3,803 1,084

Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year 2,301 1,485 816 † †

Private, not for profit, non-doctorate 7,918 2,528 3,490 1,900 †

Private, not for profit, 4-year, doctorate 10,691 2,588 4,031 2,198 1,874

Private, not-for-profit, less-than-2-year 3,455 3,318 137 † †

Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 3,010 1,471 1,374 †

a

†

Entries do not sum to total because a small sample of graduate and first-professional students was expected from private, for-profit a

institutions.

†Not applicable.
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-10

III. The Institutional Sample

The target population for NPSAS:96 includes nearly all postsecondary institutions in the 50

states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Specifically, to be eligible for NPSAS:96 an

institution is required, during the 1995-96 academic year, to:

offer an educational program designed for persons who have completed secondary

education; and

offer more than just correspondence courses; and

offer at least one academic, occupational, or vocational program off study lasting at

least 3 months or 300 clock hours; and

offer courses that are open to more than the employees or members of the company

or group (e.g., union) that administers the institution; and

be located in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico; and

be other than a U.S. Service Academy (which are not eligible for this financial aid

study because of their unique funding/tuition base).

Institutions providing only avocational, recreational, or remedial courses or only in-house courses for

their own employees are excluded. The listed eligibility requirements are consistent with those used

in previous NPSAS implementations.

A. Sample Frame Construction

The institution-level sampling frame for NPSAS:96 was constructed from the 1993-94

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Institutional Characteristics (IC) file.

This data base is considered to provide nearly complete coverage of the institutions in the target

population. Listings include: (a) all institutions whose primary purpose is the provision of

postsecondary education; (b) all branches of colleges, universities, and other institutions, as long as

the branch offers a full program of study (not just courses); (c) free-standing medical schools, as well

as schools of nursing, schools of radiology, etc., within hospitals; and (d) schools offering

occupational and vocational training with the intent of preparing students for work (e.g., a modeling

school training for professional modeling--not just a charm school). The IPEDS files do not include:

(a) schools not open to the general public (i.e, training sites a prisons, military installations,

corporations); (b) hospitals offering internships or residency programs only; or hospitals that only
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-11

offer training as part of a medical school program at an institution of higher education; (c)

organizational entities providing only noncredit continuing education (CEUs); (d) schools whose

only purpose is to prepare students to take a particular test, (e.g., CPA examination or Bar exams);

or (e) branch campuses of U.S. institutions in foreign countries.

The IPEDS IC file exclusions, themselves, eliminate some categories of ineligible institutions;

however, additional deletion from this file was required. Starting with the 10,651 “institutions” on

this database, records were deleted to yield a sampling frame containing 9,468 institutions appearing

to be eligible for NPSAS:96 based on their 1993-94 IPEDS IC data. Deletions included: (1)

administrative units; (2) U.S. Service academies; (3) schools outside of U.S. and Puerto Rico;

(4) institutions offering no programs of at least 300 content hours, six semesters/trimesters, or 12

quarter hours and for which the highest level of offering was a certificate or diploma of less than one

academic year; (5) Institutions offering only correspondence courses; and 12 institutions with

reported, non-imputed zero enrollment for the 1992-93 academic year.

Because enrollment data were needed to compute measures of size for sample selection,

IPEDS “unduplicated count” enrollment data were edited and/or imputed to eliminate missing data.

Missing graduate and first-professional enrollments were set to zero for institutions that did not offer

that level of instruction. For institutions that provided only undergraduate instruction, missing

undergraduate enrollment was obtained from the fall enrollment variables, if those were nonmissing.

If summer session enrollment was reported and flagged as not included in the unduplicated head

counts, it was added to the unduplicated head counts. Finally, sets of records were identified for

which the enrollment data either: (a) were reported with another institution’s , or (b) contained

combined data. In such cases, the combined enrollment data were allocated equally to all institutions

in the set. For the remaining 108 records with missing enrollment data, imputation classes (defined

by institutional sector (level and control) and first-professional offering (yes or no), were created and

missing enrollment data were imputed for such cases as the imputation class mean. This approach

avoids imputing unusually large or unusually small enrollments.
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-12

The remaining institutions were then partitioned into nine institutional strata based on

institutional control and highest level of offering:

(1) Public, less-than-2-year;

(2) Public, 2-year;

(3) Public, 4-year, non-doctorate;

(4) Public, 4-year, doctorate;

(5) Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year;

(6) Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctorate;

(7) Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorate;

(8) Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year; and

(9) Private, for-profit, 2-year or more.

A stratified sample of 973 institutions was then selected with probabilities proportional to size (pps);

some of these institutions subsequently proved to be ineligible and others failed to participate.

B. Selecting Sample Institutions

It was necessary to allocate the student sample to the separate applicable institutional

(defined above) and student sampling strata. The student sampling strata used were:

(1) potential first-time, beginning students (FTBs)

(2) other undergraduate students.

(3) graduate students; and

(4) first-professional students.

In determining the allocation, the below listed notation is used:

(1) r = 1, 2, , 9 indexes the previously defined institutional strata;.

(2) s = 1, 2, 3, 4 indexes the previously defined initial student strata;

(3) j = 1, 2, , J(r) indexes the institutions within stratum “r;”
f

rs mrs

/ Mrs( ) ,

Mrs( )

J(r)

j 1

Mrs(j).

APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-13

(4) M (j) = number of students enrolled during the NPSAS year who belong to student rs

stratum “s” at the j-th institution in institutional stratum “r;”

(5) mrs = number of students to be selected from student stratum “s” within the r-th

institutional stratum (referred to henceforth as student stratum “rs”); and

(6) r

(j) = probability of selecting the j-th institution in institutional stratum “r.”

The overall population sampling rate (ƒrs) for student stratum “rs” is given by

where

The initially computed stratum-level student sampling rates, ƒrs (used to define institution

measures of size) are shown in Tables A.4 and A.5. Table A.4 presents the sampling rates for the

three student domains consisting of undergraduate, graduate, and first-professional students based on

the 1993-94 IPEDS IC file counts and the required sample sizes previously presented in Table A.3.

The IPEDS files do not provide separate counts for “potential FTB” students; consequently, the

partitioning of total undergraduate enrollment into potential FTBs and other undergraduate students

was modeled to arrive at the sampling rates for these strata that are shown in Table A.5. The

assumptions used to divide the undergraduate student totals into the two sampling strata was

conditional on institutional level.

For less than-2-year institutions, 75 percent of the undergraduate students were

assumed to be first-year students, and 90 percent of these first-year students were

expected to be classified by the institutions (for sample selection) as potential FTBs.

For 2-year institutions, 50 percent of the undergraduate students were modeled as

first-year students, and 85 percent of those as being classified as potential FTBs.

For 4-year institutions, the model assumed 30 percent of the undergraduate students

would be first-year students and that 75 percent of those would be classified as

potential FTBs.
Table A.4—Student sampling rates used in determining measures of size by institutional stratum and type of student

Undergraduate students Graduate students First-professional students

Institutional stratum universe size rate universe size rate universe size rate

Size of Sample Sampling Size of Sample Sampling Size of Sample Sampling

a b a b a c

Total 20,295,890 46,585 0.0023 2,523,029 9,924 0.0039 334,838 3,000 0.0090

1. Public, less-than-2-year 420,218 1,674 0.0040 † † † † † †

2. Public, 2-year 9,732,504 7,761 0.0008 † † † † † †

3. Public, 4-year, non-doctorate 2,365,866 7,756 0.0033 455,236 1,900 0.0042 † † †

4. Public, 4-year, doctorate 3,484,229 8,156 0.0023 1,099,384 3,803 0.0035 120,981 1,084 0.0090

5. Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year 269,512 2,301 0.0085 † † † † † †

6. Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctorate 1,646,320 6,018 0.0037 297,523 1,900 0.0064 † † †

7. Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorate 1,105,601 6,619 0.0060 635,349 2,198 0.0035 209,155 1,874 0.0090

8. Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 697,373 3,455 0.0050 † † † † † †

9. Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 574,267 2,845 0.0050 35,537 † 0.0035 4,702 † 0.0089 c

Based on 1993-94 IPEDS IC file. a

Inflated to account for ineligible students. b

Entries do not sum to total because a small sample of graduate and first-professional students was expected from private, for -profit institutions. c

†Not applicable.
Table A.5—Sampling rates used in determining measures of size for potential FTB and other undergraduates by institutional

stratum

Institutional stratum universe size rate universe size rate

Potential FTB’s Other Undergraduates

Size of e Sampling Size of Sample Sampling

a

Sampl

b a b

Total 7,167,463 20,561 0.0029 13,128,427 25,982 0.0020

1. Public, less-than-2-year 283,647 1,278 0.0045 136,571 452 0.0033

2. Public, 2-year 4,136,314 3,666 0.0009 5,596,190 4,053 0.0007

3. Public, 4-year, non-doctorate 532,320 2,849 0.0054 1,833,546 4,865 0.0027

4. Public, 4-year, doctorate 783,952 2,996 0.0038 2,700,277 5,116 0.0019

5. Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year 134,585 1,306 0.0097 134,927 1,094 0.0081

6. Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctorate 370,422 2,210 0.0060 1,275,898 3,775 0.0030

7. Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorate 248,760 2,431 0.0098 856,841 4,152 0.0048

8. Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 470,727 2,474 0.0053 226,646 981 0.0043

9. Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 206,736 1,351 0.0065 367,531 1,494 0.0041

Based on 1993-94 IPEDS IC file, assuming: a

(1) Less-than-2-year: 75 percent of undergraduates are first-year and 90 percent of those are potential FTBs;

(2) 2-year: 50 percent of undergraduates are first-year and 85 percent of those are potential FTBs;

(3) 4-year: 30 percent of undergraduates are first-year and 75 percent of those are potential FTBs.

Inflated to account for ineligible students. b
Sr

(j)

4

s 1

f

rs Mrs

(j),

r

(j)

nr

Sr(j)

Sr( )

for non certainty selections,

1 for certainty selections ,

Sr( )

J(r)

j 1

Sr(j) ,

APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

Chromy, J.R. (1979). “Sequential Sample Selection Methods.” Proceedings of the American Statistical 2

Association Section on Survey Research Methods, 401-406.

c.f.,Williams, R.L. and Chromy, J.R. (1980). “SAS Sample Selection MACROs.” Proceedings of the 3

fifth Annual SAS Users Group International Conference, 392-396.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-16

The composite measure of size for the j-th institution in stratum “r” was then defined to be

which is the number of students that would be selected from the j-th institution if all institutions on

the frame were to be sampled.

An independent sample of institutions was selected for each institutional stratum using

Chromy’s sequential, pmr sampling algorithm to select institutions with probabilities proportional to 2

their measures of size. However, rather than allow multiple selections of sample institutions, those

with expected frequencies of selection greater than unity (1.00) were selected with certainty. (By

precluding institutions with multiple selections at the first stage of sampling, it was unnecessary to

select multiple second-stage samples of students.) The remainder of the institutional sample was

selected from the remaining institutions within each stratum. Therefore, the probability of selection

for the j-th institution in institutional stratum “r” is given by

where

and n is the number of non-certainty selections from stratum "r." The sampling algorithm was r

*

implemented with a random start for each institutional stratum to ensure the positive pairwise

probabilities of selection that are needed for proper variance estimation. The numbers of certainty 3

and uncertainty schools selected, within each of the nine institutional strata, are shown in Table A.6.
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

c.f., Chromy, J.R. (1981). “Variance Estimators for a Sequential Sample Selection Procedure.” In: D. 4

Krewski, R. Platek, and J.N.K. Rao (Eds.), Current TopIMS in Survey Sampling. New York: Academic Press, 329-

347.

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-17

Table A.6 —Number of certainty and non-certainty institutions sampled, by institutional

stratum

Sample institutions

Institutional stratum Total Certainty certainty a

NonTotal 973 131 842

1. Public, less-than-2-year 39 10 29

2. Public, 2-year 165 7 158

3. Public, 4-year, non-doctorate 125 14 111

4. Public, 4-year, doctorate 124 29 95

5. Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year 56 6 50

6. Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctorate 120 2 118

7. Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorate 143 54 89

8. Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 120 2 118

9. Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 81 7 74

Stratum reflects institutional categorization as determined from the 1993-94 IPEDS IC file; some errors in this classification a

were uncovered when institutions were contacted.

Within each of the "r" institutional strata, additional implicit stratification was accomplished

by sorting the stratum "r" sampling frame in a serpentine manner by: (a) institutional level of 4

offering (where strata had been collapsed one level); (b) the IPEPS IC-listed OBE Region (with

Alaska and Hawaii moved to Region 9) with Puerto Rico; and (c) the institution measure of size.

The objectives of this additional, implicit stratification were to approximate proportional

representation of institutions on these measures. Table A.7, shows that the geographic distribution

of the sample is consistent with that of the subset of institutions from which the sample was selected.
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-18

Table A.7— Distribution of NPSAS:96 institutional sample by OBE region

Sample institutions IPEDS institutionsb

OBE region Number Percent Number Percent a

1. New England 62 6.4 542 5.7

2. Mid-East 181 18.6 1,557 16.4

3. Great Lakes 150 15.4 1,486 15.7

4. Plains 70 7.2 801 8.5

5. Southeast 194 19.9 2,105 22.2

6. Southwest 89 9.1 878 9.3

7. Rocky Mountains 34 3.5 322 3.4

8. Far West 170 17.5 1,622 17.1

9. Outlying areas 23 2.4 155 1.6

1 includes CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT; 2 includes DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA; 3 includes IL, IN, MI, OH, WI; 4 includes IA, KS, a

MN, MO, NE, AND, SD; 5 includes AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV; 6 includes AZ, NM, OK, TX;

7 includes CO, ID; 7 includes MT, UT, WY; 8 includes AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA; and 9 includes PR.

Counts obtained from the 1993-94 IPEDS IC file, subsetted to those from which the sample was selected. b

IV. The Student Samples

The initial student sample was selected from lists provided by 836 of the 900 institutions

(from the original sample) that proved to be eligible. In addition to this initial (basic) student

sampling, additional student subsampling was implemented in NPSAS:96. Because of budgetary

constraints, only a subsample of students were selected for interviewing; moreover, interviewing was

conducted in two phases, and only a subsample of first phase nonrespondents were selected for the

second interviewing phase. Additionally, certain students were selected for whom an interview with

their parents would be required to obtain certain data elements. Finally, a small subsample of

students was selected for reliability interviews.
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-19

A. Basic Student Sample

The postsecondary students eligible for NPSAS:96 were those who attended a NPSASeligible institution during the previously defined NPSAS year and who were:

enrolled in either (a) an academic program; (b) at least one course for credit that

could be applied toward fulfilling the requirements for an academic degree; or

(c)occupational or vocational program that required at least 3 months or 300 clock

hours of instruction to receive a degree, certificate, or other formal award;

• not concurrently enrolled in high school; and

• not enrolled solely in a GED or other high school completion program.

1. Construction of Initial Sampling Frames

Each of the 900 sampled institutions that were verified to be eligible for NPSAS:96

was asked to provide lists of all its students who satisfied all the NPSAS eligibility conditions,

preferably nonduplicated, machine-readable lists (diskette, magnetic tape, or electronic mail file),

together with identifying and classifying information (see section 2.3.2 below). Although machinereadable files were preferred, the preferences of sample institutions were accommodated, and

whatever type(s) of student list(s) they were able to provide were accepted. (Final 1995-96

enrollment lists were available from some institutions as early as February, 1996; however, other

institutions could not provide final lists until August, 1996.) Separate, unduplicated lists (in which

each student’s name appears only once) were requested for first-time beginning other undergraduate,

graduate, and first-professional students (the basic student strata) were requested of those providing

hard copy lists. As expected, however, many institutions sent separate lists for each term or course

of instruction; in which cases an individual student’s name could appear on more than one list. In

such cases, sampling procedures were used to “unduplicate” the sample, to ensure that each student

received only one chance of selection.

2. Student Sample Selection

Students were sampled on a flow basis as student lists were received. Stratified

systematic sampling was used to ensure comparable sampling procedures for both hard-copy and

machine-readable lists. For each institution, the student sampling rates, rather than the student

sample sizes, were set to fixed values:
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-20

• to facilitate sampling students on a flow basis as student lists were received;

• to facilitate the procedures used to “unduplicate” the samples selected from

(duplicated) hard-copy lists; and

• because sampling at a fixed rate based on the overall stratum sampling rates and the

institutional probabilities of selection results in approximately equal overall

probabilities of selection within the ultimate institution-by-student strata.

Machine-readable lists were unduplicated by sorting on the student ID number and deleting

duplicates prior to sample selection. In the case of duplicated hard-copy lists, a stratified systematic

sample was selected from each list provided (typically separate lists by term). For unduplication, all

students in the sample selected from the fall list were retained for the sample, and the samples

selected from all other lists were “unduplicated” against the fall list. (The fall term was given

precedence in this process for comparability with NPSAS:87, in which only fall enrollees were

sampled.) If the institution did not have standard terms, other orderings of the student lists were

used to achieve unduplication of the sample. Any students sampled from the next list who were on

the full fall list were deleted since they already had a chance of selection from the fall list. In the

same manner, samples from subsequent lists were compared to the full lists of all lists from which

previous samples had been drawn.

After the sample of students had been selected for an institution, the social security numbers

of the sample students were compared to those of students who had already been selected from other

institutions. When duplicates were detected, the duplicate was eliminated from the sample from the

current institution. Multiplicity adjustments in the sample weighting (see below, Chapter 6)

accounted for the fact that any students who attended more than one institution in the NPSAS

population had more than one chance of selection.

The development of student sampling rates within student stratum rs (i.e., the rth institutional

stratum and the s student stratum within institutional stratum) were previously discussed in section th

III.B, and the notation used in that development will be used here. For graduate and firstprofessional students, these overall student sampling rates were shown in Table A.4. However, for

potential FTB students and other undergraduate students, the data from the NPSAS:96 field test (as
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-21

adjusted to accommodate the more refined full-scale study rules for institutional identification of

potential FTBs, which information was unavailable when the institutional sample was selected) were

used to update previous assumptions regarding the proportion of undergraduate students who would

be classified by the institutions as potential FTBs and the proportion of potential FTBs who would

ultimately be determined to be actual FTBs. Revised estimated percentages of undergraduate

students who would be classified as potential FTBs by the sample institutions and percentages of

those who would ultimately be classified as true FTBs are shown in Table A.8. These estimates

were used to revise student sampling rates for the two undergraduate sampling strata, shown in

Table A.9.

Table A.8—Revised sampling design assumptions for undergraduate students strata,

based on NPSAS:96 field test

Institutional stratum eligible potential FTBs FTBs

Percent who are actually are

a

Percent of potential

undergraduates FTBs who

b

Percent of

b

1. Public, less-than-2-year 91 90 60

2. Public, 2-year 93 40 60

3. Public, 4-year, non-doctorate 98 18 90

4. Public, 4-year, doctorate 98 13 85

5. Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year 94 45 65

6. Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctorate 97 22 80

7. Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorate 97 18 80

8. Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 94 95 65

9. Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 94 45 65

Based primarily on NPSAS:93 experience. a 

Based on NPSAS:96 Field Test Results, modified to account for more precise full-scale study rules for institutional b

identification of FTBs.
mrs

(j)

Mrs(j)

r

(j) f

rs

,

mrs(j) f

rs

Mrs(j)

r

(j)

.

APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-22

Table A.9—Revised potential FTB and other undergraduate sampling rates by

institutional stratum

Potential FTBs Other undergraduates

Institutional stratum universe size rate universe size rate

Estimated Estimated

size of Sample Sampling size of Sample Sampling

a b a b

Total 6,757,074 22,667 0.0034 13,538,816 23,908 0.0018

1. Public, less-than-2-year 378,196 1,575 0.0042 42,022 99 0.0024

2. Public, 2-year 3,893,002 4,345 0.0011 5,893,502 3,416 0.0006

3. Public, 4-year, non-doctorate 425,856 2,896 0.0068 1,940,010 4,860 0.0025

4. Public, 4-year, doctorate 452,950 2,471 0.0055 3,031,279 5,685 0.0019

5. Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year 124,948 1,485 0.0119 144,564 816 0.0056

6. Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctorate 362,190 2,528 0.0070 1,284,130 3,490 0.0027

7. Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorate 199,008 2,588 0.0130 906,593 4,031 0.0044

8. Private, for-profit, less-than-2- year 662,504 3,318 0.0050 34,869 137 0.0039

9. Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 258,420 1,471 0.0057 315,847 1,374 0.0044

Based on 1993-94 IPEDS student counts and NPSAS:96 field test experience , as modified to account for the a

more precise full-scale study rules for institutional identification of FTBs.

Inflated to account for ineligible students. b

For the unconditional probability of selection to be a constant for all eligible

students in stratum “rs,” the overall probability of selection should be the overall student

sampling fraction, f ; i.e., we must require that rs

or equivalently,
f

rs j

f

rs

/

r

(j).

j R

mrs(j) mrs,

ˆf

rs j

ˆf

rs

/

r

(j) ,

i R

ˆf

rs

Mrs(j)

r

(j)

mrs,

ˆf

rs mrs

/ Mˆ

rs

,

APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-23

Thus, the conditional sampling rate for stratum "rs," given selection of the j-th institution,

becomes

 It should be noted that, in this case, the desired overall student sample size, m , is s

achieved only in expectation over all possible samples.

Achieving the desired sample sizes with equal probabilities within strata in the

particular sample that has been selected and simultaneously adjusting for institutional

nonresponse and ineligibility requires that

where “R” denotes the set of eligible, responding institutions. Letting the conditional

student sampling rate for stratum “rs” in the j-th institution be

then requires

or equivalently,

where
Mˆ

rs

j R

Mrs(j)

r

(j)

.

Mˆ

rs

j S

Mrs(j)

r

(j)

ErRrErs,

Mˆ

rs

APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-24

Since it was necessary to set student sampling rates before complete information on

institutional eligibility and response status was available, was calculated as follows:

where “S” denotes the set of all sample institutions,

Er = the institutional eligibility factor for institutional stratum “r,”

Rr = the institutional response factor for institutional stratum “r,”

Ers = the student eligibility factor for student stratum “rs.”

These factors were the proportions of institution or students, respectively, expected to be

eligible or responding within the defined strata. Since this determination was made after

eligibility status had already been determined for some institutions, values of 0 (known not

eligible) or 1 (known eligible) were used, if known at that time.

Initial student sampling rates were calculated in this manner for each sample

institution; these rates were designed to achieve equal probabilities of selection within the

ultimate institution-by-student sampling strata. However, these rates were sometimes

modified for reasons listed below.
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-25

• The student sampling rates were increased, as needed, so that the sample

size achieved at each sample institution would be at least 40 sample

students, where possible (The reason for this constraint was to facilitate

obtaining at least 30 responding students for most participating institutions,

enabling NCES to send a report to the institution regarding its sample

students, as a “Thank You” for participation without violating NCES

confidentiality guidelines).

The student sampling rates were decreased if the sample size was more

than 50 greater than the institution had been told to expect (This was to

facilitate continued participation by the institutions for CADE data

abstraction).

The sample yield was monitored throughout the several months during

which student lists were received, and the student sampling rates were

adjusted periodically to ensure that the desired student sample sizes were

achieved.

These adjustments to the initial sampling rates (especially the first two types of

adjustments) resulted in some additional variability in the student sampling rates, and,

hence, in some increase in survey design effects.

The actual sample sizes achieved in total and within each institutional and student

stratum, are shown in Table A.10. In general, institutions classified fewer students than

expected as potential FTBs; consequently, sampling rates for FTBs were increased to

obtain the needed sample yield (For 35 four-year institutions, this rate was increased by

selecting a supplemental sample). By comparing Table A.10 with Table A.1, it can be seen

that the rate adjustment procedures were generally effective; the overall sample yield was

actually greater than expected (63,616 students as compared to the target of 59,509).
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-26

Table A.10—Realized student sample, by institutional and student strata

Institutional stratum Total FTBs undergraduates students students

Student stratum

Potential Other e professional

Graduat FirstTotal 63,616 23,612 27,536 9,689 2,779

1. Public, less-than-2-year 1,662 1,016 646 † †

2. Public, 2-year 8,476 4,434 4,042 † †

3. Public, 4-year, non-doctorate 10,891 3,629 5,454 1,805 †

4. Public, 4-year, doctorate 14,751 3,631 6,228 3,757 1,135

5. Private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year 2,507 1,404 1,103 † †

6. Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctorate 7,734 2,253 3,614 1,857 †

7. Private, not-for-profit, 4-year, doctorate 10,668 2,639 4,353 2,049 1,627

8. Private, for-profit, less-than-2-year 3,414 2,933 481 † †

9. Private, for-profit, 2-year or more 3,513 1,673 1,615 221 4

Note: The student sample was drawn from 836 schools determined to be eligible and providing lists.

Totals shown include a small number of first-professional students, not shown separately. a

†Not applicable

B. Student Interview Subsample

To accommodate budget constraints, the student interview sampling design for NPSAS:96

required subsampling of those eligible students for whom CADE data had been obtained.

Because subsampling was necessary, an attempt was made to maximize sample yield (completed

interviews) without sacrificing response rates by using a two-phase, nonresponse subsampling

design. Previously collected student record data (CADE and CPS) were used to partition the

basic student sample into nine strata for the Phase 1 CATI subsampling:

(1) potential FTBs.

(2) other undergraduate students who were financial aid applicants;

(3) other undergraduate students who were not financial aid applicants;

(4) graduate students who were financial aid applicants;

(5) graduate students who were not not financial aid applicants;

(6) first-professional students who were financial aid applicants;

(7) first-professional students who were not financial aid applicants;

(8) CADE/CPS nonrespondents; and

(9) students identified as NPSAS-ineligible based on CADE data.
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-27

No students were selected from the last two listed strata; however, students were subsampled for

CATI at fixed positive rates within each of the remaining (first seven) strata (potential FTBs and

federal aid applicants were selected with certainty).

When CPS matching and CADE data collection were completed for a sample

institution, the students who had not been identified as ineligible through previously collected

data, and for whom such previously collected data were sufficient, were considered eligible for

CATI. For the few institutions that either provided no records data or provided them only after

the interview subsamples, this determination of eligibility was based on CPS data alone. Basically,

all eligible sample students from schools that provided institutional records data were eligible for

Phase 1 interviewing. Among the institutions that did not provide institutional record data (or

provided them late), most sample students with CPS matches were eligible for interviews. The

weight adjustment for records data/CPS nonresponse accounts for the fact that only students with

CPS matches (aid applicants) were eligible for interviewing in these institutions (see Chapter 6).

In defining the seven sampling strata from which students were eligible, students were

classified as federal aid applicants if either: (a) a match was obtained for the student in the CPS

search of 1995-96 federal aid applications, or (b) a Student Aid Report (SAR) was found at the

school during record abstraction Students were classified as undergraduate, graduate, or firstprofessional students based on their sampling strata with any appropriate revisions based on the

institutional records data for their last term of enrollment during the NPSAS year (The last term

was used for consistency with the sampling strata used for the basic student sample).

Students who were classified as undergraduate students at the conclusion of CADE were

further classified (modeled) as potential FTBs for this subsampling if: (a) either the records data

or the SAR indicated that the student graduated from high school in 1995 or 1996; (b) the CPS

year-in-school variable indicated that the student was an FTB; or (c) the student’s high school

graduation year and CPS year-in-school variables were both missing or had undetermined levels,

but the student was 18 years of age or younger on December 31, 1995 (i.e., the student’s year of
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-28

birth was 1977 or later). All other students who were classified as undergraduate students at the

conclusion of record abstraction were classified for student interview subsampling as indicated

below.

• If they were not sampled as potential FTBs, they were classified as other

undergraduate students for CATI sampling.

• If they were sampled as potential FTBs, they also were classified as potential

FTBs for student CATI sampling unless:

the records data indicated that the student was not a first-year student

during the first term of enrollment during the NPSAS year,

the records data indicated that the student attended the sample institution

prior to the NPSAS year, or

the records data indicated that the student had transfer credits from

another postsecondary institution;

• Otherwise, they were reclassified as other undergraduate students.

The students, within a particular institution, were then subsampled for Phase 1 of

interviewing as shown in Table A.11. Potential FTBs and federal aid applicants were selected for

Phase 1 interviewing with certainty. All potential FTBs were also retained for both Phase 1 and

Phase 2 because of the need to obtain as many interviews with FTBs as possible for the BPS

longitudinal follow-up study. For Phase 1 (and subsequent Phase 2), subsampling rates in other

student sampling strata were set to yield an appropriate compromise between high sample yield

(high Phase 1 sampling rates and low Phase 2 sampling rates) and low variance inflation

(comparable Phase 1 and Phase 2 sampling rates).
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-29

Table A.11—Phase 1 student interview subsampling

Student interview sampling stratum phase 1 rate selected a

Number

eligible for Sampling Number

b c

All Students 59,593 0.859 51,195

Potential FTB 20,555 1.000 20,555

Other undergraduate, federal aid applicant 13,758 1.000 13,758

Other undergraduate, not federal aid applicant 13,554 0.703 9,532

Graduate student, federal aid applicant 2,065 1.000 2,065

Graduate student, not federal aid applicant 7,202 0.416 2,999

First-professional, federal aid applicant 1,893 1.000 1,893

First-professional, not federal aid applicant 566 0.694 393

Reflects student rrclassification as a result of records data. a

Excludes 1,593 CADE nonrespondents and 2,403 sample members determined ineligible for NPSAS, from records data. b 

Reflects average rate across all sequential samples implemented. c

Phase 1 of CATI was defined to end when six telephone calls had been attempted without

obtaining a completed interview, or the student:

or his/her parent had been interviewed;

was determined to be ineligible for NPSAS;

initially refused to participate;

required intensive tracing procedures, or

was determined to be in a special population (i.e., deaf or language barrier).

All students for whom the sixth call in Phase 1 resulted in a “hard” appointment or for whom a

partial interview had been completed (with either the sample student or the student’s parent—see

Chapter 3) were retained for Phase 2 with certainty, as were all students in the potential FTB

stratum. The remaining Phase 1 nonrespondents, who had not been determined ineligibles or

exclusions during Phase 1, were subsampled for Phase 2, using specified rates. The numbers of

eligible cases for Phase 2 numbers of certainty selections, sampling rates for noncertainty

selections, and total Phase 2 selections are shown in Table A.12.
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-30

Table A.12—Phase 2 student interview subsampling

Student interview sampling stratum eligible selection selection a

Number Certainty Total

b

Sampling

ratec

All Students 37,814 23,402 0.262 27,178

Potential FTB 14,248 14,248 † 14,248

Other undergraduate, federal aid applicant 10,515 4,312 0.264 5,952

Other undergraduate, not federal aid applicant 7,544 2,733 0.261 3,989

Graduate student, federal aid applicant 1,493 598 0.287 855

Graduate student, not federal aid applicant 2,220 864 0.255 1,210

First-professional, federal aid applicant 1,479 540 0.213 740

First-professional, not federal aid applicant 320 107 0.362 184

a Reflects student reclassification as a result of records data. 

b Excludes Phase 1 respondents and sample members determined to be NPSAS ineligible (N=521) or exclusions (N=57)

during Phase 1.

Reflects average rate across all samples implemented, excluding certainty selections. c

†Not applicable.
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-31

C. Other Student Subsamples

Some additional subsampling of students, was accomplished during the course of

NPSAS:96 in order to: (a) complete important gaps in available data about the student’s family

financial information, or (b) provide the basis for methodological studies.

1. Reliability Reinterview Subsample

Among eligible sample members who completed the NPSAS:96 interview, a subsample

was selected to participate in a reliability reinterview (containing a small subset of the interview

items and to be conducted 3 to 4 weeks after the initial interview—see Chapter 3). The random

selection algorithm was programmed directly into the CATI instrument so that selected

respondents could be informed of their selection and allowed an opportunity to agree to (and

schedule) the reinterview or to refuse it at that time.

The selection rate was set to yield a sample of approximately 300 students among the

expected respondents during the first 3 months of interviewing; the time factor was based on the

built-in delay in administering the reinterview and the need to complete reinterviews within the

same time frame as other interviews. Consequently, the sample was obviously most heavily

weighted with students: (a) from institutions at which prior sequential operations (initial sampling,

record abstraction) were completed earlier, and (b) who completed the first interview relatively

early during the data collection period. Since fewer completion than anticipated were experienced

during the first 3 months (see Chapter 3), the sample yield during that period was 256 students.

2. Parent Interview Subsample

A subsample of the students selected for Phase 1 of student interviewing also were

selected to have their parents interviewed, in order to obtain valid data regarding parents’

financial resources (typically not well known by the student). The main purpose of the parent

interview was to reduce the number of students, especially dependent students, for whom the

parents’ income would otherwise have to be imputed. An important historical gap in NPSAS

student data has been the income of parents of dependent students who do not apply for financial
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-32

aid; among those applying for (and/or receiving) aid, these data are usually obtained from existing

records.

Another purpose was to collect parent income data for students who had recently become

independent students (for the purposes of federal financial aid applications) as a result of recently

becoming 24 years old. Parent data for these students will reduce reliance on imputed parent

incomes when analyzing the effect that becoming classified as an independent student has on

financing postsecondary education.

Consequently, all the students in the three below-listed student sampling strata were

selected with certainty for parent interviews.

Dependent undergraduate students, not receiving federal aid.

Dependent undergraduate students, receiving federal aid, whose parents’ adjusted

gross income was missing in CADE.

Twenty-four and 25-year-old (newly independent) undergraduate students.

The strata were developed at the conclusion of institutional records collection, and the parent

interview subsample was identified among those students selected for Phase 1 interviewing.

When the student had been selected for parent interview and either a student interview had been

completed in Phase 1 or the student had been selected for Phase 2, the parent interview was

attempted throughout the remainder of CATI the interview period. The numbers of students

selected for parent interviewing in Phase 1 and in Phase 2, are shown in Table A.13 for each of

the three parent sampling strata.
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-33

Table A.13—Numbers of students selected for parent interviewing

Parent sampling stratum eligible selected rate eligible selected rate a

Phase 1 Phase 2

Number of Number of Effective of of Effective

students students sampling students students sampling b c

Number Number

d e f

Total 9,251 8,803 .952 7,687 6,197 0.806

Dependent undergraduate students not

receiving financial aid 4,195 4,117 .981 3,520 2,991 0.850

Dependent undergraduate students, receiving

financial aid, whose parents’ adjusted gross

income was missing from institutional

records 1,731 1,710 .988 1,439 1,271 0.856

24- and 25-year-old (newly independent)

undergraduate students 3,325 2,976 .895 2,728 1,935 0.709

Reflects student reclassification as a result of records data. a

This represents all eligible students in defined strata prior to Phase 1 sampling. b

This rate reflects only the overall Phase 1 student sampling (average rate across all sequential sampling implemented); all c

students within these defined strata, who were selected for Phase 1, were designated with certainty for parent interview.

Excludes Phase 1 respondents and sample members determined to be NPSAS ineligible or exclusions during Phase 1. d

Includes certainty selections. e

Reflects average rate across all samples implemented (consequently, this rate includes Phase 2 certainty f

selections).
APPENDIX A: NPSAS SAMPLING DETAILS

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX A A-34
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX B B-1

Appendix B

Notification Letters to Sample Members

Letter to Previous NPSAS Participants ....................................... B-3

Letter to “New” NPSAS Institutions ......................................... B-4

Letter to NPSAS Institutional Coordinator .................................... B-5

Letter to Students from Commissioner ........................................ B-6

Letter to Students from Commissioner (Spanish version) .......................... B-8

Letter to Parents from Commissioner ......................................... B-10

Letter to Parents from Commissioner (Spanish version) ........................... B-12
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX B B-2
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX B B-3
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX B B-4
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX B B-5
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX B B-6
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX B B-7
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX B B-8
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX B B-9
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX B B-10
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX B B-11
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX B B-12
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX B B-13
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX B B-14
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-1

Appendix C

CADE Facsimile

1996 NATIONAL POSTSECONDARY STUDENT AID STUDY

Computer-Assisted-Data-Entry Instrument
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-2
NPSAS:96 CADE FACSIMILIE

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-3

For each eligible student, please provide the following data.

I. REGISTRATION/ADMISSIONS

A. Locating Information Subsection

Question

Number Description Variable

Question 1. Student’s PERMANENT phone number [area code+prefix AADRPMAC, AADRPMTE,

+number] AADEPMTN

Student’s PERMANENT address AADPMAD1 & ANDPMAD2

Student’s PERMANENT city AADRPMCY

Student’s PERMANENT state AADRPMST

Student’s PERMANENT zip code AAPRPMZP, AADPMZPE

Student’s PERMANENT country (if not USA) AADPMCTY

Question 2. Is the student’s LOCAL address same as the PERMANENT AAPMISLC

address? [y/n]

Question 3. Student’s LOCAL phone number [area code +prefix + number] AAPRLCAC, AADRLCTE, AADRLCTN

Student’s LOCAL address AADLCAD1, AADLCAD2

Student’s LOCAL city AADRLCCY

Student’s LOCAL state AADRLCST

Student’s LOCAL zip code AADRLCZP, AADLCZPE

Question 4. Is address/phone information available for parents of the student? AADPALOC

[y/n]

Question 5. LAST NAME, FIRST NAME and MIDDLE initial of parent for AAPALAST, APAFIRST, AAPAMIDD

whom locating information is available.

Question 6. For parent named in Question 5.

PARENT’S phone number [ area code + number] AADRPAAC, AADRPATE,

AADRPATN

PARENT’S address AADPAAD1, AADPAAD2

PARENT’S city AADRPACY

PARENT’S state AADRPAST

PARENT’S zip code AADRPAZP, AADPAZPE

PARENT’S country (if not USA) AADPACTY

Question 7. Is other phone/address information available for a DIFFERENT AADRPTPA

parent at a DIFFERENT address? [y/n]

Question 8. Is other phone/address information available for a relative or AADROTRF

friend of the student? [y/n]

Question 9. LAST NAME, FIRST NAME and MIDDLE Initial of Question 7 AAOTLAST, AOTFIRST, AOTMIDD

parent OR Question 8 relative/friend for whom locating

information is available.
NPSAS:96 CADE FACSIMILIE

Question

Number Description Variable

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-4

Question 10. Relationship of Question 7 parent or Question 8 relative/friend to AADOTREL

STUDENT.

1. FATHER 7. AUNT

2. MOTHER 8. GRANDFATHER

3. SPOUSE 9. GRANDMOTHER

4. BROTHER 10. FRIEND

5. SISTER 11. CO-WORKER

6. UNCLE 12. OTHER (SPECIFY) AAOTRELT

Question 11. For parent named in Question 7 or relative/friend in Question 8,

please provide:

Last Name, First Name, Middle Initial AAOTLAST, AOTFIRST, AAOTMIDD

Phone number [area code + number] AADROTAC, AADROTTE,

Address AADROTTN

City AADOTAD1, AADOTAD2

State AADROTCY

Zip Code AADROTST

Country AADROTZP, AADOTZPE

AADOCTY

B. Student Characteristics Subsection

Question 1. Student’s LAST Name ASSTLAST

Student’s FIRST Name ASTFIRST

Student’s MIDDLE Initial ASSTMIDD

Student’s Suffix (e.g., Jr., III) ASSTSUFX

Question 2. Student’s Social Security Number ASTCHSSN

Question 3. Student’s Date of Birth ASTHDOBM, ASTHDOBD,

Place of Birth ASTHDOBY

ASTHPLOB

Question 4. Student’s Gender (M/F) ASGENDER

Question 5. Student’s Marital Status (Use key below) AMARITAL

1. Not Married (Single, Widowed, Divorced)

2. Married

3. Separated

If married, please also provide:

Student’s Maiden Name ASMAIDEN

Spouse’s Name (Last, First, Middle) ASSPOUNM

Question 7. Student’s High School Degree (Use key below) AHIGHSCH

1. High School Diploma

2. GED or Other Equivalency

3. Certificate of High School Completion

4. No High School Degree or Certificate

Question 7a. Year Student Received High School Diploma/GED/Certificate ASHIGHYR

Question 8. Is the student of Hispanic Origin? [y/n] ASHISPAN
NPSAS:96 CADE FACSIMILIE

Question

Number Description Variable

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-5

Question 9. Student’s Race/Ethnicity (Use key below) ASTHRACE

1. White

2. Black

3. American Indian/Alaska Native

4. Asian or Pacific Islander

5. Other (Specify) ASRACESP

Question 10. Is the student a U.S. Citizen or U.S. National? [y/n] ACITIZEN

Question 11. Is the student a Veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces? [y/n] AVETERAN

C. Admissions Information Subsection

For Undergraduates:

Question 1. Is an SAT score available? [y/n] ASTSATAV

If yes: Student’s SAT Verbal Score ASTUSATV

Student’s SAT Math Score ASTUSATM

Student’s SAT Reasoning Score ASTUSATR

Year SAT taken ASTUSATY

Question 2. Is an ACT score available? [y/n] ASTACTAV

If yes: Student’s Composite ACT Score ASTUACTS

Year ACT taken ASTUACTY

Question 3. Is other admissions test scores available? [y/n] AOTHADMU

Question 4. Select the test from the list below; provide the SCORE(s) and ADADMTU

YEAR TAKEN:

1. ASSET 2. CPAT 3. CPP

4. CPT 5. PAR 6. PSAT AOTHADMU

7. TABE 8. TALS (Form A or B

9. WONDERLIC (Scholastic Level)

10. WONDERLIC (Personnel Level)

11. TOEFL

12. Other Test (Specify) AOTADTXU

For Graduate, Doctoral, and First Professional Students:

Question 1. Are scores from the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) available for

this student? [y/n] ASTGREAV

If yes: Student’s GRE Verbal Score ASTGRESV

Student’s GRE Quantitative Score ASTGRESM

Student’s GRE Analytic Score ASTGRESA

Year GRE taken ASTGGREY

Question 2. Is other admissions test scores available? [y/n] AOTHADMG
NPSAS:96 CADE FACSIMILIE

Question

Number Description Variable

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-6

Question 3. Select the test from the list below; provide the SCORE(s) and AOTADMTG

YEAR TAKEN.

1. DAT 2. GMAT

3. LSAT 4. MCAT

5. Miller’s Analogies 6. Other Test (Specify) AOTADTXG
NPSAS:96 CADE FACSIMILIE

Question

Number Description Variable

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-7

II. ENROLLMENT/TUITION SECTION

A. Enrollment Term Sub-Section [MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE TUITION SUB-SECTION]

If student was enrolled in a course for credit during the study

period (all terms that began between May 1, 1995, and April 30,

1996, should be included), list all terms for which the student

was enrolled and provide the following information for each

term:

Name of Term or Payment Period [EX: Fall, 1994] BTBMN_1-12/BTBYR_1-12

Start date of that Term/Period [mm/yr] BTEMN_1-12/BTEYR_1-12

End date of that Term/Period [mm/yr] BTATN_1-BTATN_12

Attendance Status (use key below):

1 = Full-time

2 = Half-time or more, but less than Full-time

3 = Less than Half-time BTMHR_1-BTMHR_12

Credit or Clock Hours [number]

BTMNM_1-BTMNM_12

For Undergraduates Only:

Question 1. During [FIRST TERM ENROLLED], in what type of degree

program was the student enrolled (Use key below): BENFRDEG

1 = Associate’s Degree Program

2 = Bachelor’s Degree Program

3 = Undergraduate Certificate or Other Formal Award

4 = Undergraduate, Non-degree Program

5 = Graduate/Post-Baccalaureate Certification Program

(including Teacher Certification)

6 = Master’s Degree Program

7 = Doctoral or First Professional Degree Program

8 = Graduate, Other (including non-degree programs)

Question 3. During [FIRST TERM ENROLLED], what was this student’s BENFRLVL

level? (Use key below)

1 = 1 Year/Freshman st

2 = 2 Year/Sophomore nd

3 = 3 Year/Junior rd

4 = 4 Year/Senior th

5 = 5 Year or Higher Undergraduate th

6 = Undergraduate (unclassified)

7 = Student with advanced degree taking undergraduate

courses
NPSAS:96 CADE FACSIMILIE

Question

Number Description Variable

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-8

Question 6. During [LAST TERM ENROLLED], in what type of degree BENLADEG

program was the student enrolled (Use key below).

1 = Associate’s Degree Program

2 = Bachelor’s Degree Program

3 = Undergraduate Certificate or Other Formal Award

4 = Undergraduate, Non-degree Program

5 = Graduate/Post-Baccalaureate Certification Program

(including Teacher Certification)

6 = Master’s Degree Program

7 = Doctoral or First Professional Degree Program

8 = Graduate, Other (including non-degree programs)

Question 6b Cumulative GPA BENNFGPA

Question 6c. What is the student’s current or most recent major or field of BECREMJR

study?

Question 7. When did this student FIRST enroll at [YOUR INSTITUTION]? BEEVERMM/BEEVERYY

(mm/yr)

Question 7b Was this student enrolled at [YOUR INSTITUTION] at anytime BENRLAYR

during the 1994-1995 year? [y/n]

Question 7c Was this student ever enrolled at [YOUR INSTITUTION] prior BEENREVR

to May 1, 1995? [y/n]

Question 8. Did this student transfer any credits from another postsecondary BCRETRAN

institution? [y/n]

Question 9. Has this student completed the requirements for the [DEGREE]? BDEGCOMP

[y/n]

Question 10. If the requirements have been completed, will the [DEGREE] be BEDEGAWD

awarded on or before August 31, 1996? [y/n]

For Graduate Students Only

Question 1. During [FIRST TERM ENROLLED], in what type of degree BENFRDEG

program was the student enrolled? (Use key below)

1 = Associate’s Degree Program

2 = Bachelor’s Degree Program

3 = Undergraduate Certificate or Other Formal Award

4 = Undergraduate, Non-degree Program

5 = Graduate/Post-Baccalaureate Certification Program

(including Teacher Certification)

6 = Master’s Degree Program

7 = Doctoral or First Professional Degree Program

8 = Graduate, Other (including non-degree programs)
NPSAS:96 CADE FACSIMILIE

Question

Number Description Variable

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-9

Question 2. Which of the following Masters degrees was the student working BENFRWMA

toward during [FIRST TERM ENROLLED]? (Use key below)

1. Masters of Business Administration (MBA)

2. Masters of Science (MS)

3. Masters of Arts (MA)

4. Masters of Education (M.Ed)

5. Masters of Public Administration (MPA)

6. Masters of Arts in Library Sciences (MALS)

7. Masters of Public Health (MPH)

8. Maters of Fine Arts (MFA)

9. Masters of Applied Arts (MAA)

10. Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT)

11. Masters of Divinity (M.Div)

12. Masters of Social Work (MSW)

13. Masters of Landscape Architecture (MLA)

14. Masters of Professional Management MPM)

15. Other Masters Degree; not listed above

Question 3. During [FIRST TERM ENROLLED], what was this student’s

level? (Use key below) BENFRLVL

8 = 1 Year Graduate/professional st

9 = 2 year Graduate/professional nd

10 = 3 year Graduate/professional rd

11 = Beyond 3 year Graduate/professional rd

Question 4. During [LAST TERM ENROLLED], in what type of degree BENLADEG

program was the student enrolled (Use key below):

1 = Associate’s Degree Program

2 = Bachelor’s Degree Program

3 = Undergraduate Certificate or Other Formal Award

4 = Undergraduate, Non-degree Program

5 = Graduate/Post-Baccalaureate Certification Program

(including Teacher Certification)

6 = Master’s Degree Program

7 = Doctoral or First Professional Degree Program

8 = Graduate, Other (including non-degree programs)
NPSAS:96 CADE FACSIMILIE

Question

Number Description Variable

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-10

Question 5. Which of the following Masters degrees was the student working BENLAWMA

toward during [LAST TERM ENROLLED]? (Use key below)

16. Masters of Business Administration (MBA)

17. Masters of Science (MS)

18. Masters of Arts (MA)

19. Masters of Education (M.Ed)

20. Masters of Public Administration (MPA)

21. Masters of Arts in Library Sciences (MALS)

22. Masters of Public Health (MPH)

23. Maters of Fine Arts (MFA)

24. Masters of Applied Arts (MAA)

25. Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT)

26. Masters of Divinity (M.Div)

27. Masters of Social Work (MSW)

28. Masters of Landscape Architecture (MLA)

29. Masters of Professional Management MPM)

30. Other Masters Degree; not listed above

Question 5b. Master’s Degree Field of Study. BENMAFOS

Question 6. During [LAST TERM ENROLLED], what was this student’s BENLALVL

level? (Use key below)

8 = 1 year Graduate/professional st

9 = 2 year Graduate/professional nd

10 = 3 year Graduate/professional rd

11 = Beyond 3 year Graduate/professional rd

Question 6b. Cumulative GPA BENNFGPA

Question 7. When did this student FIRST enroll at [YOUR INSTITUTION]? BEEVERMM/BEEVERYY

[mm/yr]

Question 7b. Was this student enrolled at [YOUR INSTITUTION] at anytime BENRLAYR

during the 1994-1995 year? [y/n]

Question 7c. Was this student ever enrolled at [YOUR INSTITUTION] prior BEENREVR

to May 1, 1995? [y/n]

Question 8. Did this student transfer any credits from another postsecondary BCRETRAN

institution? [y/n]

Question 9. Has this student completed the requirements for the [DEGREE]? BDEGCOMP

[y/n]

Question 10. If the requirements have been completed, will the [DEGREE] be BEDEGAWD

awarded on or before August 31, 1996? [y/mm]
NPSAS:96 CADE FACSIMILIE

Question

Number Description Variable

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-11

For Doctoral First-Professional Students Only.

Question 1. During [FIRST TERM ENROLLED], in what type of degree

program was the student enrolled? (Use key below) BENFRDEG

1 = Associate’s Degree Program

2 = Bachelor’s Degree Program

3 = Undergraduate Certificate or Other Formal Award

4 = Undergraduate, Non-degree Program

5 = Graduate/Post-Baccalaureate Certification Program

(including Teacher Certification)

6 = Master’s Degree Program

7 = Doctoral or First Professional Degree Program

8 = Graduate, Other (including non-degree programs)

Question 2. Which of the following Doctoral or First Professional degrees

was the student working toward during [FIRST TERM

ENROLLED]? (Use key below) BENFRWDF

DOCTORAL DEGREES

1. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

2. Doctor of Education (Ed.D)

3. Doctor of Theology (ThD)

4. Doctor of Business Administration (DBA)

5. Doctor of engineering (D.Eng)

6. Doctor of Fine Arts (DFA)

7. Doctor of Public Administration (DPA)

8. Doctor of Science (Dsc/ScD)

9. Other Doctoral Degree BEFRWDFS

SPECIFY: _________________________________

FIRST PROFESSIONAL DEGREES

10. Chiropractic (DC or DCM)

11. Dentistry (DDS or DMD)

12. Medicine (MD)

13. Optometry (OD)

14. Osteopathic Medicine (DO)

15. Pharmacy (Pharm. D)

16. Podiatry (DPM or Pod. D)

17. Veterinary medicine (DUM)

18. Law (LLB or JD)

19. Theology (M.Div., MHL, BD)

Question 3. During [FIRST TERM ENROLLED], what was this student’s BENFRLVL

level? (Use key below):

8 = 1 year Graduate/professional st

9 = 2 year Graduate/professional nd

10 = 3 year Graduate/professional rd

11 = Beyond 3 year Graduate/professional rd
NPSAS:96 CADE FACSIMILIE

Question

Number Description Variable

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-12

Question 4. LAST TERM ENROLLED], in what type of degree program was BENLADEG

the student enrolled (Use key below);

1 = Associate’s Degree Program

2 = Bachelor’s Degree Program

3 = Undergraduate Certificate or Other Formal Award

4 = Undergraduate, Non-degree Program

5 = Graduate/Post-Baccalaureate Certification Program

(including

 Teacher Certification)

6 = Master’s Degree Program

7 = Doctoral or First Professional Degree Program

8 = Graduate, Other (including non-degree programs)

Which of the following doctoral or First Professional degrees was BENLAWDF

the student working toward during [LAST TERM ENROLLED]? 

(Use key below);

DOCTORAL DEGREES

1. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD0

2. Doctor of Education (Ed.D)

3. Doctor of Theology (ThD0

4. Doctor of Business Administration (DBA)

5. Doctor of engineering (D.Eng)

6. Doctor of Fine Arts (DFA)

7. Doctor of Public Administration (DPA)

8. Doctor of Science (Dsc/ScD)

9. Other Doctoral Degree

SPECIFY: _________________________________ BELAWDFS

FIRST PROFESSIONAL DEGREES

10. Chiropractic (DC or DCM)

11. Dentistry (DDS or DMD)

12. Medicine (MD)

13. Optometry (OD)

14. Osteopathic Medicine (DO)

15. Pharmacy (Pharm. D)

16. Podiatry (DPM or Pod. D)

17. Veterinary medicine (DUM)

18. Law (LLB or JD)

19. Theology (M.Div., MHL, BD)

Question 5b. Field of Study. BEG1PFOS
NPSAS:96 CADE FACSIMILIE

Question

Number Description Variable

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-13

Question 6. During [LAST TERM ENROLLED], what was this student’s BENLALVL

level? (Use key below)

8 = 1 year Graduate/professional st

9 = 2 year Graduate/professional nd

10 = 3 year Graduate/professional rd

11 = Beyond 3 year Graduate/professional rd

Question 6b. Cumulative GPA. BENNFGPA

Question 7 When did this student FIRST enroll at [YOUR INSTITUTION]? BEEVERMM/BEEVERYY

[mm/yr]

Question 7b. Was this student enrolled at [YOUR INSTITUTION] at anytime BENRLAYR

during the 1994-1995 year? [y/n]

Question 7c. Was this student ever enrolled at [YOUR INSTITUTION] prior BEENREVR

to May 1, 1995? [y/n]

Question 8. Did this student transfer any credits from another postsecondary BCRETRAN

institution? [y/n]

Question 9. Has this student completed the requirements for the [DEGREE]? BDEGCOMP

[y/n]

Question 10 If the requirements have been completed, will the [DEGREE] be BEDGAWD

awarded on or before August 31, 1996? [y/mm]

For CLOCK HOUR Institutions ONLY.

Question 11. What is the name of the current or most recent program in which BECLKPRG

this student is enrolled?

Question 12. What is the total length of the program in clock/contact hours? BECLKHRS

[Specify hours]

Question 13. How many hours (lab and classroom) are required per week? BENCLKWK

(Specify hours)

B. Tuition Charges

Question 1. For each term attended by the student (those terms identified in BTUAMT01-BTUAMT12

the Enrollment/Term Sub-section above), specify amounts of

tuition and fees charged. Please provide separate amounts for

each term, if available.

Question 2. Total tuition and fees charged for all terms. BTURNTTL (IF BY TERM)

BTTUITOT (IF NOT BY TERM)

Question 3. For tuition purposes, this student was classified as: (Use key BTUNJURI

below)

1. In jurisdiction (e.g., in-state, in-district, etc.)

2. Out-of-jurisdiction (e.g., out-of-state, out-of-district, etc.)
NPSAS:96 CADE FACSIMILIE

Question

Number Description Variable

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-14

III. FINANCIAL AID INFORMATION

A. Financial Aid Awards

Question 1. Did the student receive any financial aid, such as:

assistantships CFACVANS

grants

scholarships

loans

fellowships

tuition waivers

tuition discounts

veterans benefits

employer aid

other financial aid

for terms or courses that BEGAN between May 1, 1995, and

April 30, 1996? [y/n]

IF NO, YOU HAVE COMPLETED THIS SUBSECTION

Question 2. Please enter the amounts of financial aid received by the student

within each program?

Federal Aid Programs

B. Pell Grant Program CFADPELL

C. FFEL Stafford Loan - Subsidized CFASTAFS

D. FFEL Stafford Loan - Unsubsidized CFASTAFU

E. Direct Loan - Subsidized CFADIRES

F. Direct Loan - Unsubsidized CFADIREU

G. FFEL PLUS Loan CFADPLUS

H. Direct PLUS Loan CDIRPLUS

I. FSEOG CFAFSEOG

J. Federal Perkins Loan CPERKINS

K. FWS (Federal Work Study) CFATDFWS

NOTE: Pell Grant Program (item A above) will be asked only

for undergraduate students; this item is not applicable for

Graduate, Doctoral and First-Professional Students.

State Aid Programs (List up to 4 awards)

A. Customized for each state

B. Customized for each state

C. Customized for each state

D. Customized for each state

CFSTATE1

CFSTATE2

CFSTATE3

CFSTATE4

NOTE: State Aid Programs vary by state. Please refer to CADE

for the specific items which should be included here for your

institution.
NPSAS:96 CADE FACSIMILIE

Question

Number Description Variable

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-15

Institutional Grants and Scholarships

A. Customized for each institution CFAINSTA

B. Customized for each institution CFAINSTB

C. Customized for each institution CFAINSTC

D. Athletic Scholarship CFATHSCH

E. Tuition Waivers (employees/dependents) CFEMPWAI

F. Tuition and Fee Waivers/Discounts CFWAIDIS

G. Teaching Assistantships/Stipends CFTEAASS

H. Research Assistantships/Stipends CFRESASS

I. Graduate Assistantships/Stipends CFGRDASS

J. Graduate Fellowships CFGRDFEL

NOTE: Institutional Grants and Scholarships - Items A, B, and

C, vary by institution. Please refer to CADE for the specific

items which should be included here for your institution

ALSO NOTE: Items A, B, C, D, and E are requested for

Undergraduates. All items are requested for Graduates,

Doctoral, and First-Professional Students.

Other Awards

Please also report any other financial aid awarded to the

student, provide:

1. the name of the award CFNAME1-CFNAME5

2. the type of award (Use key below) CFATYPE1-CFATYPE5

1. Grant or scholarship

2. Loans

3. Work Study

4. Assistantship

5. Veteran Benefits

6. Vocational Rehabilitation

7. Tuition Reimbursement

8. Other

3. whether the award is need based, merit based, or both

need/merit based (Use key below)

N Need based CFANMB1-CFANMB5

M Merit based

B Both need and merit based

U Unknown

4. the source of the award (Use key below)

1. Federal CFAHSRC1-CFAHSRC5

2. State

3. Institution

4. Employer

5. Other

5. the amount of the award CFAHAMT1-CFAHAMT5
NPSAS:96 CADE FACSIMILIE

Question

Number Description Variable

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-16

B. Needs Analysis

Question 1. Is there financial aid budget information or an Expected Family CBUNFANS

Contribution (EFC) value available for the student? [y/n]

IF NO, YOU HAVE COMPLETED THIS SUB-SECTION

Question 2. What was the student’s dependency status during the study year CNDEPEND

for federal financial aid purposes? (Use key below)

1. Dependent

2. Independent

3. Independent, WITH dependents

Question 3. For purposes of determining the student’s financial aid budget, CNLCLRES

was the student’s local residence ... ? (Use key below)

1. On-campus or School-Owned Housing

2. Off-Campus or on-School-Owned (without parents)

3. Off-Campus or Non-School-Owned (with parents)

Question 4. Please provide the Expected Family Contribution (EFC) amount CCADEEFC

for the student.

Question 5. Is there a Cost of Attendance or Student Expense Budget CNEAVAIL

available for this student? [y/n]

Question 6. Please provide line-item budget amounts (if only a total budget

amount is available, please provide the total amount; line-item

amounts are preferred over a total amount).

1. Tuition and Fees CTUITION

2. Books and Supplies CNEBOOKS

3. Room and Board CNESROOM

4. Transportation CNETRANS

5. All Other Expenses CNEOTHER

OR

Total Cost of Attendance CTOTLCOA

C. Student Aid Report

1. Is there a Student Aid Report (SAR) or computerized SAR data

available for this student (y/n)? CSAVLANS

2. Student's State of Legal Residence: CSARLGST

3. First Bachelor's Degree by 7/1/95: CSFSTDEG

1. Yes

2. No
NPSAS:96 CADE FACSIMILIE

Question

Number Description Variable

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-17

4. College Grade Level in 1995-96: CSARYEAR

1. 1st Yr, Never Attended

2. 1st Yr, Attended Before

3. 2nd Yr/Sophomore

4. 3rd Yr/Junior

5. 4th Yr/Senior

6. 5th Yr/Other Undergraduate

7. 1st Yr Graduate/professional

8. 2nd Yr Graduate/professional

9. 3rd Yr Graduate/professional

10 Beyond 3rd Yr Graduate/professional

5. Child Care Paid for How Many Children: CNUMCHCR

6. Born Before 1-1-72? CSABEF72

 1. Yes

2. No

7. Orphan or Ward of Court? CSORPHAN

1. Yes

2. No

8. Have Dependents Other than Spouse? COTHDPND

1. Yes

2. No

9. Number of Family Members in 1995-96: CSSTNFAM

Allowable Range: 0 thru 99

10. Number in College in 1995-96: CSTNCOLL

Allowable Range: 0 thru 9

11. Number of Members in Parents family in 1995-96: CSPANFAM

Allowable Range: 0 thru 99

12. Number in Parents' family in College in 1995-96: CPANCOLL

Allowable Range: 0 thru 9

13 Type of 1994 Tax Form used: CSSTFORM

1. Completed 1040A/1040 EZ

2. Completed 1040

3. Estimated 1040A/1040 EZ

4. Estimated 1040

5. Will Not File

14. Exemptions Claimed: CSTNEXEM

Allowable Range: 0 thru 99

15. Adjusted Gross Income from IRS form: CSASTAGI

Allowable Range: -999999 thru 999999
NPSAS:96 CADE FACSIMILIE

Question

Number Description Variable

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-18

16. U.S. Income Tax Paid: CSASTTAX

Allowable Range: -99999 thru 99999

17. Student's Income Earned from Work: CSSTWORK

Allowable Range: -999999 thru 999999

18. Spouse's Income Earned from Work: CSSPWORK

Allowable Range: -999999 thru 999999

19. Annual Social Security Benefits: CSASTSOC

Allowable Range: -99999 thru 99999

20. Annual AFDC/ADC: CSSTAFDC

Allowable Range: -99999 thru 99999

21 Annual Child Support Received: CSTCHILD

Allowable Range: -99999 thru 99999

22. Other Untaxed Income: CSTOTHER

Allowable Range: -99999 thru 99999

23. Type of 1994 Tax Form used by parents: CSPAFORM

1. Completed 1040A/1040 EZ

2. Completed 1040

3. Estimated 1040A/1040 EZ

4. Estimated 1040

5. Will Not File

24. Exemptions Claimed by parents: CPANEXEM

Allowable Range: 0 thru 99

25 Adjusted Gross Income from parents' IRS form: CSAPAAGI

Allowable Range: -999999 thru 999999

26. U.S. Income Tax Paid by parents: CSAPATAX

Allowable Range: -99999 thru 99999

27. Father's Income Earned from Work: CSFAWORK

Allowable Range: -999999 thru 999999

28. Mother's Income Earned from Work: CSMOWORK

Allowable Range: -999999 thru 999999

29. Parents' Annual Social Security Benefits: CSAPASOC

Allowable Range: -99999 thru 99999

30. Parents' Annual AFDC/ADC: CSPAAFDC

Allowable Range: -99999 thru 99999

31. Parents' Annual Child Support Received: CPACHILD

Allowable Range: -99999 thru 99999

32. Parents' Other Untaxed Income: CPAOTHER

Allowable Range: -99999 thru 99999

33. Students' Cash, Savings, and Checking: CSSTCASH

Allowable Range: -999999 thru 999999
NPSAS:96 CADE FACSIMILIE

Question

Number Description Variable

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-19

34. Student's Other Investments Value: CSTINVVL

Allowable Range: -999999 thru 999999

35. Student's Other Investments Debt: CSTINVDB

Allowable Range: -999999 thru 999999

36. Student's Business Value: CSTBUSVL

Allowable Range: -9999999 thru 9999999

37. Student's Business Debt: CSTBUSDB

Allowable Range: -9999999 thru 9999999

38. Student's Farm Value: CSTFRMVL

Allowable Range: -9999999 thru 9999999

39. Student's Farm Debt: CSTFRMDB

Allowable Range: -9999999 thru 9999999

40. Parents' Cash, Savings, and Checking: CSPACASH

Allowable Range: -999999 thru 999999

41. Parents' Other Investments Value: CPAINVVL

Allowable Range: -999999 thru 999999

42. Parents' Other Investments Debt: CPAINVDB

Allowable Range: -999999 thru 999999

43. Parents' Business Value: CPABUSVL

Allowable Range: -9999999 thru 9999999

44. Parents' Business Debt: CPABUSDB

Allowable Range: -9999999 thru 9999999

45. Parents' Farm Value: CPAFRMVL

Allowable Range: -9999999 thru 9999999

46. Parents' Farm Debt: CPAFRMDB

Allowable Range: -9999999 thru 9999999
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix C C-20
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix D D-1

Appendix D

Student and Parent Interviews

Student CATI .......................................................... D-3

Student CATI Section A ............................................ D-3

Student CATI Section B ........................................... D-13

Student CATI Section C ........................................... D-21

Student CATI Section D ........................................... D-27

Student CATI Section E ........................................... D-33

Student CATI Section F ............................................ D-41

Student CATI Section G ........................................... D-49

Student CATI Section H ........................................... D-55

Student CATI Section I ............................................ D-63

Student CATI Section J ............................................ D-69

Parent CATI .......................................................... D-75

Parent CATI Section L ............................................ D-75

Parent CATI Section M ............................................ D-81

Parent CATI Section N ............................................ D-85

Parent CATI Section P ............................................. D-93

Parent CATI Section Q ............................................ D-97

Abbreviated Hardcopy (English/Spanish) .................................... D-101

Reinterview .......................................................... D-111
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix D D-2
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix D D-3

Student CATI

Section A
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix D D-4
NPSAS:96 Student CATI: Section A A-1 A-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-5

SAENROL1 SACERTIF

According to our information, you were enrolled, If level is 2-year or higher, goto SADEGREE.

and completed at least one term at [NPSAS school]

between July 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996. Is that While you were enrolled at [NPSAS school], were

correct? (1=YES 2=NO 3=DROPPED OUT) you enrolled in a program or taking courses leading

IF THE RESPONDENT REFUSES USE ESC

KEY FOR A BREAKOFF

ENTER 3 IF R DROPPED OUT BEFORE 2 = NO

COMPLETING A TERM

If SAENROL1=1, goto SACERTIF; if SAENROL1=2 or -

1, goto SAENROL2. If SAENROL1=3 then goto

SADROPMO. If SACERTIF=1 goto SACLKHRS; if SACERTIF=2, goto

SAENROL2

Were you enrolled at [NPSAS school]in a term that

began between May 1, 1995 and June 30, 1995? Did your program of study require at least 300 clock

(1=YES 2=NO 3=DROPPED OUT) hours of instruction in order for a certificate to be

 NOTE: THAT IS, ENROLLED ANYTIME

BETWEEN MAY 1, 1995 AND JUNE 30, 1995 1 = YES

INTERVIEWER: IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS 2 = NO

NO, PROBE IF THEY DROPPED OUT

ENTER 3 IF R DROPPED OUT BEFORE IF THE RESPONDENT REFUSES USE ESC 

COMPLETING A TERM

If SAENROL2=1, goto SACERTIF If SACLKHRS=1, goto SADOBMO; if SACLKHRS=2,

If SAENROL2=2 or -1, goto SAAIDTUI goto SATRNSCR

If SAENROL2=3, goto SADROPMO

SADROPMO/SADROPYR

While you were enrolled at [NPSAS school], were

 When did you leave [NPSAS school]? you enrolled in a program or taking courses leading

to a degree, (such as an associate's, bachelor's, or an

 MONTH (1-12) \ advanced degree) or a certificate?

 

 YEAR (95-96) \ 1 = YES

 2 = NO

SADROPRE IF THE RESPONDENT REFUSES USE ESC 

 Did you receive a full refund of your tuition when

you left? If SADEGREE=1, goto SADOBMO; if SADEGREE=2,

goto SATRNSCR

 1= YES

 2= NO

If SADROPRE=1, go to A_END

If SADROPRE=2 or -1, goto SACERTIF

to a certificate?

 1 = YES

IF THE RESPONDENT REFUSES USE ESC

KEY FOR A BREAKOFF 

SATRNSCR

SACLKHRS

awarded?

KEY FOR BREAKOFF

SADEGREE

KEY FOR A BREAKOFF
NPSAS:96 Student CATI: Section A A-2 A-2

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-6

SATRNSCR

At anytime between [May 1, 1995 and June 30,

1996,/July 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996] were you Do you know of any reason why my information

enrolled in a course bearing credits that could be shows that you were enrolled at [NPSAS school] at

transferred to another school? some time during the period on or after May 1,

1995?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO Goto A_END

IF THE RESPONDENT REFUSES USE ESC 

KEY FOR A BREAKOFF SADOBMO/SADOBDA/SADOBYR

If SATRNSCR=1, goto SADOBMO; if SATRNSCR=2, If preloaded and SZSTDOB(YY) lt 1950 or gt 1979 goto

goto SAAIDTUI SADOBVER; else store SZSTDOB in

SAAIDTUI

If SZFEDAID gt 0 -1=DK -2=RE

According to our records you received financial aid

to attend [NPSAS school]. Did you pay tuition to Goto SAHSDIPL

[NPSAS school] for the 95-96 school year?

1 = YES

2 = NO

IF THE RESPONDENT REFUSES USE ESC SADOBMO/DA/YR

KEY FOR A BREAKOFF

If SAAIDTUI =1, goto SADOBMO

If SAAIDTUI=2, goto SAEVRENR

SAEVRENR BIRTHDATE.

Have you ever attended or were you ever enrolled at

[NPSAS school]?

 

1 = YES

 2 = NO

IF THE RESPONDENT REFUSES USE ESC KEY -2 = RE

FOR A BREAKOFF AND CODE AS A REFUSAL

If SAEVRENR=1, goto SALSTENM

If SAEVRENR=2, goto SAWHYSMP

SALSTENM/SALSTENY

When were you last enrolled at [NPSAS school]?

 MONTH: 1 - 12 , -1=DK -2=RE

 YEAR: 20-96 -1=DK -2=RE

SAWHYSMP

SADOBMO/DA/YR and goto SAHSDIPL.

What is your birth date?

 MONTH/ DAY /YEAR

SAAGE

Computed for all respondents based on

SADOBVER

 INTERVIEWER: THE RESPONDENT IS OLDER 

THAN EXPECTED. PLEASE VERIFY THE 

 I have your date of birth as [fill DOB]. Is that

correct?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK
NPSAS:96 Student CATI: Section A A-3 A-3

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-7

SAHSDIPL SAHSTYPE

If SZHIGHYR gt 0 and lt 95 and SZHIGHSC eq 1, 2, or Was your high school a public or private school?

3, store value of SZHIGHSC in SAHSDIPL and

SZHIGHYR in SAHSDATE and goto SAHSTYPE. If INTERVIEWER: PROBE IF PRIVATE,

SZGEDYR gt 0 and lt 95, store <2> in SAHSDIPL and

value of SZGEDYR in SAHSDATE and goto Was it a catholic, other religious, or some other

SAHSTYPE. Else ask SAHSDIPL. private high school?

Did you ... 1 = PUBLIC

 2 = PRIVATE, CATHOLIC

 1 = receive a high school diploma, 3 = PRIVATE, OTHER RELIGIOUS

 2 = pass a General Educational Development (GED) 4 = PRIVATE, OTHER NON-RELIGIOUS

test, or 5 = ATTENDED FOREIGN HIGH SCHOOL

 3 = receive a high school completion certificate? -1 = DK

 4 = DID NOT COMPLETE HIGH SCHOOL OR -2 = RE

HIGH SCHOOL EQUIVALENCY PROGRAM

 5 = ATTENDED FOREIGN HIGH SCHOOL

 -1 = DK -2 = RE

If SAHSDIPL eq 1, 2, 3, or 5, goto SAHSDATE. If What was the first school you ever enrolled in after

SAHSDIPL=4, -1, or -2, goto SAENRLHS. high school?

SAHSDATE

THE USEREXIT

When did you receive your [high school

diploma/certificate]? 8= THE FIRST SCHOOL IS [NPSAS school]

 YEAR: (30-96) -1=DK -2=RE \ 2=SKIP OVER USEREXIT

SAENRLHS SAFSTMO/SAFSTYR

If SAHSDIPL=1, 2, 3, or 5 and SAHSDATE ne 96, goto When did you first attend [name of first

SAHSTYPE. Else ask SAENRLHS. postsecondary school attended] after high school?

Were you still completing high school requirements INTERVIEWER: IF RESP. SAYS "FALL TERM

for the entire time you were enrolled in [NPSAS AFTER HIGH SCHOOL", THEN ENTER THE H.S.

school] between May 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996? GRADUATION YEAR NOTED HERE AND

AUGUST FOR MONTH -- CONFIRMING WITH

 1 = YES RESPONDENT.

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK H.S. DIPLOMA OR CERTIFICATE WAS

 -2 = RE RECEIVED IN: [fill SAHSDATE]

If SAENRLHS=1, then SANPELIG=4; goto A_END. ENTER MONTH \ YEAR (20-96) -1=DK -2=RE

SAFSTSCH

 ENTER 8 IF THE FIRST SCHOOL WAS [NPSAS

school] OTHERWISE, DO THE IPEDS CODING IN

1=ENTER/RE-ENTER USEREXIT

 
NPSAS:96 Student CATI: Section A A-4 A-4

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-8

SABASCH SAPRIAID

Skip if STTYPE =1; goto SANPSMO Did you get any grants, loans, scholarships,

 Where did you earn your bachelor's degree? in 1994-95 (1=YES 2=NO)? \

 INTERVIEWER: ENTER[ 8 [N]IF THE

BACHELOR'S DEGREE WAS EARNED AT

[NPSAS school]. ENTER 9 IF THE BACHELOR'S

DEGREE WAS EARNED AT [first PS school Next, I'll need to ask you about the dates of your

attended] OTHERWISE, DO THE IPEDS CODING enrollment during the 95-96 school year.

IN THE USEREXIT BACHELOR'S DEGREE WAS

EARNED AT... INTERVIEWER: PLEASE ENTER THE

8= ...[NPSAS school] RESPONSES IN THE USER EXIT.

9= ...[FILL name of first PS school attended]

OTHERWISE, CODE THE SCHOOL IN THE 

USEREXIT.

1=RE-ENTER USEREXIT

2=SKIP OVER USEREXIT

 5=RESPONDENT DOES NOT HAVE A 

BACHELOR'S DEGREE 6=DK 7=RE

SABA_YR What type of degree or certificate program were you

 What year did you earn your bachelor's degree?

 50-96

SANPSMO/SANPSYR

If SABASCH=8, goto SAENRLYR

When did you first attend [NPSAS school] after high

school?

MONTH / YEAR (20-96) -1=DK -2=RE

SAENRLYR

 Were you enrolled at [NPSAS school] for the 94-95

school year (1=YES 2=NO)? \

If SAENRLYR=1 goto SAPRIAID; else goto

SAANYLYR.

SAANYLYR

 Were you enrolled at any postsecondary school for

94-95 (1=YES 2=NO)? \

If SAANYLYR=1 goto SAPRIAID. Else goto

SAENUX_1.

assistantships, work-study, or any other financial aid

SAENUX_1

 REMEMBER TO ASK ABOUT THE OTHER

SCHOOLS THEY

ATTENDED IN THE 95-96 SCHOOL YEAR 

 1 = ENTER/RE-ENTER THE USEREXIT

 2 = SKIP OVER THE USEREXIT

SADEGRE1

enrolled in during the first term at [NPSAS school]

that began in [fill dates of first enrollment in NPSAS

year]?

 1 = CERTIFICATE OR OTHER

UNDERGRADUATE FORMAL AWARD

 2 = ASSOCIATES DEGREE PROGRAM (AA,

AAS, AS, ETC)

 3 = BACHELOR'S DEGREE PROGRAM (BA, BS,

ETC)

 4 = UNDERGRADUATE SPECIAL STUDENT

(NON-DEGREE OR NON-MATRICULATED)

5 = POST-BACCALAUREATE CERTIFICATE

PROGRAM

 6 = MASTER'S DEGREE PROGRAM (MA, MS,

MBA, ETC)

 7 DOCTORAL OR FIRST PROFESSIONAL

DEGREE PROGRAM (PhD, EdD, JD, MD,

DDS, DPA, ETC)

 8 = GRADUATE SPECIAL STUDENT

(NON-DEGREE OR NON-MATRICULATED)

 -1 = DK -2 = RE 
NPSAS:96 Student CATI: Section A A-5 A-5

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-9

SADGTYP1 SALEVUG1

If SADEGRE1 ne 7, goto SAMAJOR1 During the first term you were enrolled at [NPSAS

Which doctoral or first professional degree were you program?

working toward in your first term at [NPSAS school] UNDERGRADUATE:

in the 1995-96 school year?

DOCTORAL/FIRST PROFESSIONAL DEGREES 1 = FIRST YEAR/FRESHMAN

1= DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (PHD) 3 = THIRD YEAR/JUNIOR

2= DOCTOR OF EDUCATION (EDD) 4 = FOURTH YEAR/SENIOR

3= DOCTOR OF THEOLOGY (THD) 5 = FIFTH YEAR OR HIGHER 

4= DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMIN UNDERGRADUATE

5= DOCTOR OF ENGINEERING -1 = DK

6= DOCTOR OF FINE ARTS (DFA) -2 = RE

7= DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADM. (DPA) 

8= DOCTOR OF SCIENCE (DSC/SCD) Goto SACHGPR1

9= OTHER DOCTORAL DEGREE 

10= CHIROPRACTIC (DC OR DCM)

11= DENTISTRY (DDS OR DMD)

12= MEDICINE (MD)

13= OPTOMETRY (OD) What year did you begin your graduate program?

14= OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE (DO)

15= PHARMACY (PHARM. D) NOTE: COLLECT THE DATE THE GRADUATE

16= PODIATRY (DPM OR POD. D) PROGRAM WAS BEGUN,

17= VETERINARY MEDICINE (DVM) REGARDLESS OF THE SCHOOL

18= LAW (LLB OR JD) ATTENDED AT THE TIME. SOME

19= THEOLOGY (M.DIV., MHL, BD) STUDENTS MAY HAVE STARTED

-1= DK -2= RE THEIR PROGRAMS AT ONE SCHOOL

SADGTYSP

Specify degree type when SADGTYP1=9

SAMAJOR1

If SADEGRE1=7 and SADEGRE1 gt 1, goto SALEVUG1 school] in 95-96, what was your level in the

What was your major, or program of study, at

[NPSAS school] during the first term in the 95-96 GRADUATE:

school year?

INTERVIEWER: PLEASE ENTER THE INFO IN 7 = SECOND YEAR

THE FOLLOWING SCREENS OF THE USEREXIT 8 = THIRD YEAR

 9 = FOURTH YEAR OR BEYOND

 1 = ENTER/RE-ENTER THE USEREXIT -1 = DK -2 = RE

 2 = SKIP OVER THE USEREXIT

 3 = UNDECLARED

school] in 95-96, what was your level in the

 0 = UNCLASSIFIED UNDERGRADUATE

 2 = SECOND YEAR/SOPHOMORE

SAYRENRG

THEN TRANSFERRED TO THE NPSAS

SCHOOL.

(50-96)

SALEVGR1

During the first term you were enrolled at [NPSAS

program?

 6 = FIRST YEAR
NPSAS:96 Student CATI: Section A A-6 A-6

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-10

SACHGPR1/SACHGPR2/SACHGPR3

Did your degree program, major, or level change

during the 95-96 school year while attending[NPSAS

school]? If so, what changed?

 1 = YES - DEGREE PROGRAM CHANGED

 2 = YES - MAJOR OR PROGRAM OF STUDY 

CHANGED

 3 = YES - LEVEL (I.E. FIRST YEAR, SECOND 

YEAR) CHANGED

 4 = NO CHANGE

 -1 = DK -2 = RE

INTERVIEWER: ENTER 0 TO EXIT OUT OF THE

LAST TWO FIELDS

SADEGRE2

If SACHGPR1/2/3 ne 1, goto SAMAJOR2

During the last term which ended in [fill dates of

last term] at [NPSAS school]), what was your degree

or certificate program?

 1 = CERTIFICATE OR OTHER

UNDERGRADUATE FORMAL AWARD

 2 = ASSOCIATES DEGREE PROGRAM (AA,

AAS, AS, ETC)

 3 = BACHELOR'S DEGREE PROGRAM (BA, BS,

ETC)

 4 = UNDERGRADUATE SPECIAL STUDENT

(NON-DEGREE OR NON-MATRICULATED)

5 POST-BACCALAUREATE CERTIFICATE

PROGRAM

 6 = MASTER'S DEGREE PROGRAM (MA, MS,

MBA, ETC)

 7 = DOCTORAL OR FIRST PROFESSIONAL

DEGREE PROGRAM (PhD, EdD, JD, MD,

DDS, DPA, ETC)

 8 = GRADUATE SPECIAL STUDENT

(NON-DEGREE OR NON-MATRICULATED)

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE
NPSAS:96 Student CATI: Section A A-7 A-7

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-11

SADGTYP2

If SADEGRE2 ne 7, goto SAMAJOR2

Which doctoral or first professional degree were you school] in 95-96, what was your level in the

working toward in your last term at [NPSAS school] program?

in the 1995-96 school year?

DOCTORAL/FIRST PROFESSIONAL DEGREES GRADUATE:

1= DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (PHD) 6 = FIRST YEAR

2= DOCTOR OF EDUCATION (EDD) 7 = SECOND YEAR

3= DOCTOR OF THEOLOGY (THD) 8 = THIRD YEAR

4= DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMIN 9 = FOURTH YEAR OR BEYOND

5= DOCTOR OF ENGINEERING -1 = DK

6= DOCTOR OF FINE ARTS (DFA) -2 = RE

7= DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADM. (DPA) 

8= DOCTOR OF SCIENCE (DSC/SCD) 

9= OTHER DOCTORAL DEGREE 

10= CHIROPRACTIC (DC OR DCM) Have you completed the course work for [fill

11= DENTISTRY (DDS OR DMD) SADEGRE2] program (1=YES 2=NO)?

12= MEDICINE (MD)

13= OPTOMETRY (OD)

14= OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE (DO)

15= PHARMACY (PHARM. D) Have you completed your program of study and

16= PODIATRY (DPM OR POD. D) received your [certificate/degree]?

17= VETERINARY MEDICINE (DVM)

18= LAW (LLB OR JD) 1 = YES, ALREADY COMPLETED PROGRAM

19= THEOLOGY (M.DIV., MHL, BD) AND RECEIVED DEGREE

-1= DK -2= RE 2 = NO, COMPLETED PROGRAM BUT NOT YET

SAMAJOR2

What was your major (at [NPSAS school]) during -2 = RE

your last term in the 95-96 school year?

If SCMPLPR=1 goto SADEGMO; else goto

INTERVIEWER: PLEASE ENTER THE INFO IN SAEXDGMN

THE FOLLOWING SCREENS OF THE USEREXIT

 1 =ENTER/ RE-ENTER THE USEREXIT

 2 = SKIP OVER THE USEREXIT If SALEVGR1=6, SACMPCOR=0; goto SAEXDGMN

 3 = UNDECLARED

SALEVUG2

During the last term you were enrolled at [NPSAS 1= COMPLETED COURSEWORK, BUT NOT

school] in 95-96, what was your level in the ALL REQUIREMENTS

program? 2= COMPLETED ALL REQUIREMENTS.

UNDERGRADUATE: If SACMPCOR ne 2 goto SAEXDGMN; else goto

 0 = UNCLASSIFIED UNDERGRADUATE SADEGMO

 1 = FIRST YEAR/FRESHMAN

 2 = SECOND YEAR/SOPHOMORE

 3 = THIRD YEAR/JUNIOR

 4 = FOURTH YEAR/SENIOR When did you receive your [certificate/degree]?

 5 = FIFTH YEAR OR HIGHER 

UNDERGRADUATE MONTH: YEAR:

 -1 = DK -2 = RE (1-12) (95-96)

SALEVGR2

During the last term you were enrolled at [NPSAS

SALEVGDN

SACMPLPR

RECEIVED DEGREE

 3 = NO, NOT COMPLETED PROGRAM YET.

 -1 = DK

SACMPCOR

 Have you completed your coursework and all other

requirements for your degree?

 0= NOT COMPLETED COURSEWORK.

SADEGMO/SADEGYR

Goto SAYRG1P
NPSAS:96 Student CATI: Section A A-8 A-8

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-12

SAEXDGMN/SAEXDGYR

When do you expect to receive your

[certificate/degree]?

ENTER 13 IN THE MONTH FIELD IF STUDENT

DOES NOT PLAN TO COMPLETE DEGREE

 

MONTH: YEAR:

 (1-12) (96-99)(00-05)

SAYRG1P

In what year did you begin your [fill SADEGRE1/2]

program?

20-96 =

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SATRNSFR

If SADEGRE1 ge 5 or SADEGRE2 ge 5, goto

SASMPGPA. If SAFSTSCH = 8, goto SASMPGPA

Did you transfer to [NPSAS school] from another

school for, or at any point during, 95-96 (1=YES

2=NO)?

If SATRNSFR=1, goto SAAMTRNS; else goto

SASMPGPA 

SAAMTRNS

Did [NPSAS school] accept all, some, or none of the

credits you wanted to transfer?

 0= DID NOT TRY TO TRANSFER CREDITS.

 1= NONE

 2= SOME

 3= ALL
NPSAS:96 Student CATI: Section A A-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-13

SASMPGPA

What is your cumulative GPA at [NPSAS school]?

PROBE AS NEEDED : WOULD YOU SAY YOUR

GRADES AT

[NPSAS school] WERE:

 1 = MOSTLY A'S (3.75 AND ABOVE)

 2 = A'S AND B'S (3.25-3.74)

 3 = MOSTLY B'S (2.75-3.24)

 4 = B'S AND C'S (2.25-2.74)

 5 = MOSTLY C'S (1.75-2.24)

 6 = C'S AND D'S (1.25-1.74)

 7 = MOSTLY D'S OR BELOW (BELOW 1.24)

 8 = NO GRADES OR PASS/FAIL

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

 

SANUMDEG

 [In addition to the [list known degrees] you just

mentioned,] H/how many degrees or certificates

have you earned from a postsecondary school?

DO NOT INCLUDE THE DEGREE/CERTIFICATE

EARNED OR BEING EARNED AT THE NPSAS

SCHOOL.

 (0-10)

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SAOTHDG1/SAOTHDG2/SAOTHDG3/SAOTHDG4

What degree(s) and certificate(s) have you earned?

ENTER UP TO 4 DEGREES/CERTIFICATES. AT

LEAST ONE MUST BE ENTERED ENTER 0 TO

EXIT

 1 = CERTIFICATE OR OTHER

UNDERGRADUATE FORMAL AWARD

 2 = ASSOCIATES DEGREE PROGRAM (AA,

AAS, AS, ETC)

 3 = BACHELOR'S DEGREE PROGRAM (BA, BS,

ETC)

5 = POST-BACCALAUREATE CERTIFICATE

PROGRAM

 6 = MASTER'S DEGREE PROGRAM (MA, MS,

MBA, ETC)

 7 = DOCTORAL OR FIRST PROFESSIONAL

DEGREE PROGRAM (PhD, EdD, JD, MD,

DDS, DPA, ETC)
A-2

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-14

SAATT2YR

 Have you ever attended a two-year school, such as a

community college or junior college?

 1= YES

 2= NO

SACMPCLS

If BPS eligible

Have you completed at least one class (or course

offering) toward a degree, diploma, or formal award

after high school at a postsecondary school (1=YES

2=NO)? \

SACMPCLM/SACMPCLY

When did you finish your first class or course

offering at a postsecondary school after high school?

 

MONTH (1-12):\

 YEAR (20-96):\

A_END

STUDENT CATI

Section B
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-15
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION B B-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-16

SBHOURS

If CLOCK=2, goto SBTUIFEE

About how many hours of instruction were you 

scheduled to attend each week during the 95-96 

school year?

 NOTE: THIS INCLUDES CLASSROOM PLUS 

ANY LAB HOURS

 0 - 80 HOURS

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SBTUIFEE

If SASCHNUM=1 and SZTUITON gt 0, goto SBBOOKS

 How much were your tuition and fees at all other 

schools you attended in 95-96?

 0-60000 =

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SBOUTST

At [NPSAS school], did you pay out-of-state or 

out-of-district tuition or fees?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SBBOOKS

For the 95-96 school year, how much did you spend 

for... ANNUAL COSTS

INTERVIEWER: IF THE ITEM WAS PAID FOR 

BY A SCHOLARSHIP ETC. ASK FOR AN 

ESTIMATE.

...books and supplies? (0-3000)

SBEQUIP

...equipment, such as computers? 

(MICROSCOPES, TOOLS, INSTRUMENTS, 

OR SAFETY EQUIPMENT) (0-8000)
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION B B-2

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-17

SBSCHRES SBNPSED

While enrolled during 95-96, where did you live? If SADEGRE1=7 or SADEGRE2=7 then goto

SBENRPUR

 1 = on-campus in school-owned housing,

 2 = off-campus in school-owned housing,

 3 = in an apartment or house other than with your 

parents or guardians (including houses owned

by fraternities and sororities),

 4 = with your parents or guardians,

 5 = with other relatives, or

 6 = some place else?

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

NOTE: IF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENCE, GIVE 

THE PLACE YOU LIVED THE LONGEST

SBOTHRES 7 = MASTER'S DEGREE

If SBSCHRES lt 1 or SBSCHRES gt 3 or SAAGE ge 25,

goto SBNPSED

Who do you live with when you are not in school?

 1 = PARENT(S) / GUARDIAN(S)

 2 = IN AN APARTMENT OR HOUSE OTHER 

THAN WITH YOUR PARENTS OR 

GUARDIANS (INCLUDING HOUSES 

OWNED BY FRATERNITIES AND 

SORORITIES),

 3 = WITH OTHER RELATIVES

 4 = OTHER

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

NOTE: IF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENCE, GIVE 

THE PLACE YOU LIVED THE LONGEST

If SBOTHRES=1, goto SBPDBRD; else goto SBNPSED

SBPDBRD

 Did you pay room and board while you lived there 

(1=YES 2=NO)?

What is the highest level of education you expect to 

complete at [NPSAS school]?

 0 = NO DEGREE OR CERTIFICATE EXPECTED

AND NO TRANSFER

 1 = TRANSFERRING TO A 2-YEAR SCHOOL - 

NO DEGREE OR CERTIFICATE EXPECTED

 2 = TRANSFERRING TO A 4-YEAR SCHOOL - 

NO DEGREE OR CERTIFICATE EXPECTED

 3 = CERTIFICATE

 4 = ASSOCIATE'S DEGREE

 5 = BACHELOR'S DEGREE

 6 = COMPLETION OF POST-BACCALAUREATE

PROGRAM

 8 = ADVANCED DEGREE -- DOCTORAL OR 

FIRST-PROFESSIONAL DEGREE 

 (PH.D.,ED.D.,MD,JD,DDS,ETC.)

 -1 = DK 

-2 = RE

SBENRPUR

If LEVEL=1, got SBHIGHED

[Are you enrolled for a job-related reason or some 

other reason?/ What is your primary reason for 

enrolling in this school?]

 1 = JOB SKILLS

 2 = DEGREE OR CERTIFICATE

 3 = TRANSFER TO A 2-YEAR SCHOOL

 4 = TRANSFER TO A 4-YEAR SCHOOL

 5 = TRANSFER, BUT NOT SURE WHERE

 6 = PERSONAL ENRICHMENT

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION B B-3

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-18

SBHIGHED

If SBNPSED= 8, store 7 in SBHIGHED and goto

SBDEGTYP

If SADEGRE1= 7 or SADEGRE2=7, goto SBSAT

What is the highest level of education you ever

expect to complete?

 [1 = LESS THAN 4-YEARS -- NO DEGREE OR 

CERTIFICATE EXPECTED

 2 = CERTIFICATE

 3 = ASSOCIATE'S DEGREE]

4 = BACHELOR'S DEGREE

 5 = COMPLETION OF POST-BACCALAUREATE

PROGRAM

 6 = MASTER'S DEGREE

 7 = ADVANCED DEGREE -- DOCTORAL OR 

FIRST-PROFESSIONAL DEGREE

 (PH.D.,ED.D.,MD,JD,DDS,ETC.)

 -1 = DK 

-2 = RE

 

If SBHIGHED=7, goto SBDEGTYP; else goto SBSAT

SBDEGTYP

What type of advanced degree do you expect to 

complete?

Doctoral Degrees 

1= Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) 

2= Doctor of Education (EdD)

3= Doctor of Theology (ThD)

4= Doctor of Business Administration 

5= Doctor of Engineering 

6= Doctor of Fine Arts (DFA) 

7= Doctor of Public Adm. (DPA) 

8= Doctor of Science (DSC/ScD) 

9= Other Doctoral Degree 

First Professional Degrees 

10= Chiropractic (DC or DCM)

11= Dentistry (DDS or DMD)

12= Medicine (MD)

13= Optometry (OD)

14= Osteopathic Medicine (DO)

15= Pharmacy (Pharm. D) 

16= Podiatry (DPM or Pod. D)

17= Veterinary Medicine (DVM)

 18= Law (LLB or JD)

 19= Theology (M.Div., MHL, BD)

 -1= DK 

-2= RE
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION B B-4

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-19

SBSAT SBGRE

If BPSELIG ne 1, goto SBGRE If SADEGRE1 le 2, goto SBAPTST

If SBHIGHED=1 or 2, goto SBTEST1 If SZGREAV = <y> and SZGRESV gt 0 or SZGRESM gt

If LEVEL ge 3, goto SBTEST1 0 or SZGRESA gt 0 then goto SBAPTST

If SZSATAV = <y> or SZACTAV = <y>, goto SBAPTST

Did you take the GRE (1=YES 2=NO)?

Did you take the SAT (1=YES 2=NO)?

If SBSAT=1, goto SBSAT_V; else goto SBACT

SBSAT_V

 SAT Verbal Score: 

SBSAT_M

 SAT Math Score: 

SBSAT_R

 SAT Reasoning Score: 

SBSAT_YR

 Year Taken 

If SBSAT=1, goto SBTEST1; else goto SBACT Any (other) [undergraduate/graduate] admissions 

SBACT

Did you take the ACT (1=YES 2=NO)?

If SBACT=1, goto SBACT_S; else goto SBTEST1

SBTEST1

 Composite ACT score: 

SBACT_YR

 Year Taken: 

Goto SBTEST1

If SBGRE=1 goto SBGRE_V; else goto SBAPTST 

SBGRE_V

 GRE Verbal: 

SBGRE_M

 GRE Math: 

SBGRE_A

 GRE Analytic: 

SBGRE_YR

 Year GRE taken: 

SBTEST1--SBTEST4

tests?

 ENTER ALL THAT APPLY UP TO 4 

ADDITIONAL TESTS

[Undergraduate Tests

1. ASSET (Forms A,B or C)

2. CPAT 

3. CPP

4. CPT 

5. P.A.R. 

6. PSAT

 7. TABE

8. TALS (Forms A or B)

 9. WONDERLIC (Scholastic Level)

10. WONDERLIC (Personnel test)

11. TOEFL/

Graduate Tests

21. DAT

22. GMAT

23. LSAT

24. MCAT

25. Miller's Analogies]

31. Other Test, Specify 0= NONE/NO MORE

If SBTEST*=0 or SBTEST4 gt 0, goto SBAPTST
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION B B-5

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-20

SBAPTST

If SBHIGHED=1 or 2, goto SBGRADRT

If BBSELIG ne 1, goto SBGRADRT

If LEVEL ge 3, goto SBGRADRT

Did you take any AP tests (advance placement tests)

(1=YES 2=NO)?

If SBAPTST=1 goto SBAP1; else goto SBGRADRT

SBAP1/SBAP1S -- SBAP6/SBAP6S

Which ones did you take and what was your score?

ENTER UP TO 6 TESTS. ENTER NA FOR NAME

TO EXIT THIS SCREEN

1= Art-History of Art 

2= Art-Studio (Drawing/General Portfolio)

3= Biology 

4= Chemistry 

5= Computer Science-A 

6= Computer Science-AB 

7= Economics-Microeconomics 

8= Economics-Macroeconomics 

9= Eng -Language Composition

10= Eng -Lit and Composition

11= French-Language

12= French-Literature

13= German-Language

14= Govern and Politics-Comparative

15= Govern and Politics-US

16= History-European

17= History-United States

18= Latin-Virgil

19= Latin-Literature

20= Calculus-AB

21= Calculus-BC

22= Music Theory

 23= Physics-B

 24= Physics-C (Mechanics)

25= Physics-C(Electricity&Magnetism)

 26= Psychology

27= Spanish-Language

 28= Spanish-Literature

 NAME OF TEST SCORE (1-5)
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION B B-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-21

SBGRADRT

If SADEGRE1=4 or SADEGRE2=4 goto SBRSN1

If CTSTTYPE gt 1, goto SBRSN1

 In deciding to attend [NPSAS school], did you 

consider the ...

 INTERVIEWER: 1 = YES 2 = NO -1 = DK -2 =

RE

 ...graduation rate? 

If LEVEL=1 or 2 and control=1 or 2, goto SBCRIMRT;

else goto SBPLACRT

SBCRIMRT

 ...crime rate? 

Goto SBRSN1

SBPLACRT

 ...job placement rate? 
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION B B-2

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-22

SBRSN1 -- SBRSN4

If BPSELIG ne 1, goto B_END

Which of the reasons you mentioned was most 

Why did you decide to attend [NPSAS school]? important to your selection of [NPSAS school]?

 INTERVIEWER: CODE ALL THAT APPLY 

(ENTER 0 IF NONE, OR NO MORE) 1= SHORTER TIME TO FINISH

 2= COSTS WERE LESS

COSTS 

1= SHORTER TIME TO FINISH

2= COSTS WERE LESS 

3= GOT MORE FINANCIAL AID 

4= TUITION WAS LOW 

5= OTHER COST REASON

INFLUENCE 

6= PARENTS WENT THERE 

7= FRIENDS/SPOUSE WENT THERE 

8= PARENTS WANTED STUDENT TO GO

THERE 

9= TEACHER/GUIDANCE COUNSELOR 

RECOMMENDED

10= OTHER INFLUENCE FACTORS 

LOCATION 

11= CLOSE TO JOB

12= COULD LIVE AT HOME

13= CLOSE TO HOME 

14= OTHER LOCATION REASON 

 

REPUTATION / SCHOOL RELATED

15= LIKED THE CAMPUS

16= SCHOOL HAS GOOD REPUTATION

17= JOB PLACEMENT

18= FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT

19= FACULTY REPUTATION

20= OTHER REASON 

-1= DK 

-2= RE

If SBRSN1=-1, -2, or 0, goto B_END

If SBRSN2=-1, -2, or 0, goto B_END

Else goto SBRSNMST

SBRSNMST

 3= GOT MORE FINANCIAL AID

 4= TUITION WAS LOW

 5= OTHER COST REASON

 6= PARENTS WENT THERE

 7= FRIENDS/SPOUSE WENT THERE

 8= PARENTS WANTED STUDENT TO GO

THERE

9= TEACHER/GUIDANCE COUNSELOR 

RECOMMENDED

 10= OTHER INFLUENCE FACTORS

 11= CLOSE TO JOB

 12= COULD LIVE AT HOME

 13= CLOSE TO HOME

 14= OTHER LOCATION REASON

 15= LIKED THE CAMPUS

 16= SCHOOL HAS GOOD REPUTATION

 17= JOB PLACEMENT

 18= FACILITIES/EQUIPMENT

 19= FACULTY REPUTATION

 20= OTHER REASON

B_END
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-23
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-24

STUDENT CATI

Section C
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-25
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION C C-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-26

SCCURMAR SCCNTRY

I have some questions about how you paid for your 

95-96 educational expenses, but first I need to

know... What's your marital status?

 1 = SINGLE, NEVER MARRIED

 2 = MARRIED

 3 = SEPARATED

 4 = DIVORCED

 5 = WIDOWED

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SCCURMAR=1 or 2, goto SCCNTRY; else goto

SCMARR95 

SCMARR95 12 = ISRAEL 24 = VENEZUELA

What was your marital status on July 1, 1995?

 1 = SINGLE, NEVER MARRIED

 2 = MARRIED

 3 = SEPARATED

 4 = DIVORCED

 5 = WIDOWED

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If BPSELIG=1 then goto SCMOMARR; else goto

SCCNTRY

SCMOMARR/SCYRMARR 3 = NO, IN THE COUNTRY ON F1 OR F2 

What month and year did you get 

[married/separated/ divorced/widowed]?

 MONTH: (1-12)

 YEAR: (00-96) 

In what country were you born?

 1 = UNITED STATES, INCLUDING PUERTO 

RICO AND ITS TERRITORIES

 2 = CANADA 14 = JORDAN

 3 = CHINA 15 = KOREA (REPUBLIC 

OF KOREA)

 4 = CUBA 16 = MALAYSIA

 5 = EGYPT 17 = MEXICO

 6 = FRANCE 18 = PAKISTAN

 7 = GERMANY 19 = PHILIPPINES

 8 = HONG KONG 20 = SAUDI ARABIA

 9 = INDIA 21 = TAIWAN

 10 = INDONESIA 22 = THAILAND

 11 = IRAN 23 = UNITED KINGDOM 

(ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, WALES)

 13 = JAPAN 25 = VIETNAM

 26 = OTHER COUNTRY (DO NOT SPECIFY)

SCUS_CIT

If SZUSCIT=1, store 1in SCUS_CIT and goto CFILL1 

If SCCNTRY=1, store 1 in SCUS_CIT and goto CFILL1

Are you a U.S. citizen?

 1 = YES, CITIZEN OR US NATIONAL.

 2 = NO, BUT IS A PERMANENT RESIDENT OR 

OTHER ELIGIBLE NON-CITIZEN WITH 

TEMPORARY RESIDENT'S CARD.

STUDENT VISA OR ON A J1 OR J2 

EXCHANGE VISITOR VISA.

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

CFILL1
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION C C-2

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-27

SCPARMAR

If SAAGE ge 31, CWHPAR=4, CPARGRD=4,

CFILL2=blank; goto SCUSBOND

Are your parents...

 INTERVIEWER: ADOPTIVE PARENTS ARE 

CONSIDERED PARENTS.

 1 = married to each other,

 2 = divorced,

 3 = separated,

 4 = never married to each other, or

 5 = is either one (or both) of your parents deceased?

 6 = NEVER KNEW PARENTS AND NO 

GUARDIANS.

 7 = NEVER KNEW PARENTS AND HAS LEGAL 

GUARDIAN(S).

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SCPARMAR=5, goto SCPARDCS; else goto CFILL2

SCPARDCS

Which of your parents is deceased?

 INTERVIEWER: IF THE RESPONDENT DOES 

NOT WANT TO ANSWER FURTHER

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DECEASED PARENT,

USE OPTIONS 4, 5 OR 6

 1 = MOTHER

 2 = FATHER

 3 = BOTH

 4 = SENSITIVE, MOTHER'S DEATH

 5 = SENSITIVE, FATHER'S DEATH

 6 = SENSITIVE, BOTH PARENTS' DEATH

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SCGUARD

If DPNDSTAT=2 goto CFILL2

Do you have any legal guardians (other than your 

parents)?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SCGUARD=1 goto SCGRDTYP; else set SCGRTYP=

blank and goto CFILL2
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION C C-3

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-28

SCGRDTYP SCPARBK

TYPE OF GUARDIAN. ...Books or equipment (1=YES 2=NO)? 

 THIS SCREEN IS AN INTERVIEWER 

INSTRUCTION AND SHOULD NOT BE READ

TO THE RESPONDENT.

 1 = GUARDIANS

 2 = FEMALE GUARDIAN ONLY Did your [fill CFILL2] give you an allowance that 

 3 = MALE GUARDIAN ONLY. you don't have to repay (1=YES 2=NO)?

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE If SCPARALW=1 goto SCALWAMT; else goto

CFILL2 -- indicates fill text for questions about

parents/guardians.

SCALWAMT

SCPARLON

To help meet your 95-96 school expenses, how much

money did you borrow from your [fill CFILL2]?

SCALWFRQ

 NOTE: THIS IS MONEY THE STUDENT 

EXPECTS TO REPAY

 0-80,000 DOLLARS

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SCOTHLON

 How much have you borrowed from friends and

other family members? and board, /books/equipment, /allowance,] did your [fill 

 NOTE: DOES NOT INCLUDE SPOUSE, IF 

MARRIED

 0-80,000 DOLLARS

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If CFILL2 eq <>, goto SCUSBOND; else goto

SCPARTUI

SCPARTUI

 During 1995-96, did your [fill CFILL2] pay for any

of your...

 How much would you say it was worth for the year 

 ...Tuition or fees (1=YES 2=NO)? (SINCE JULY 1, 1995) (1-80,000)?

YEAR. 

SCPARRM

If SBSCHRES eq <1> or <2> If SCSUPAMT ge 1000, goto SCSUPHS; else goto

 ...Room and board (1=YES 2=NO)? 

SCPARALW

SCOTSUP 

 How much allowance did your [fill CFILL2]give you

(1-80,000)? 

 How often?

 1= PER WEEK

 2= PER MONTH

 3= PER TERM/SEMESTER

 4= PER YEAR

SCOTSUP

 During 95-96,[in addition to] [tuition/fees, /room

CFILL2] provide you with [housing, meals, ] 

clothing, the use of charge cards, insurance, help

with car payments, repairs, or any other support?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SCOTSUP=1, goto SCSUPAMT; else goto SCSUPHS 

SCSUPAMT

 NOTE: PROMPT IF LESS THAN $300 FOR THE 

If SCSUPAMT=-1, goto SCSUPEST 

SCUSBOND 
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION C C-4

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-29

SCSUPEST

 Would you say that it was more than $1000 (1=YES

2=NO)?

If SCSUPEST=1 goto SCSUPHS; else goto SCUSBOND

SCSUPHS

Did your [fill CFILL2] provide you with (1=YES 

2=NO)...

 [...Housing?] 

SCSUPMLS

 [...Meals?] 

 

SCSUPCLS

...Clothing? 

SCSUPCHG

 ...Charge cards? 

SCSUPCAR

 ...Help on car loan payments? 

 

SCSUPREP

 ...Help on car repair bills? 

SCSUPINS

 ...Help on any type of insurance, (CAR, HEALTH, 

OR LIFE INSURANCE)?

SCSUPOTH

 ...Any other type of assistance (SUCH AS AIR LINE

TICKETS)? 

SCUSBOND

 To meet your 95-96 educational expenses, [did you

or your [fill CFILL2]/did you]...

 ...use U.S. savings bonds (1=YES 2=NO)? 
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION C C-5

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-30

SCHOMEQ

 ...take out a home equity loan, a second mortgage, or

refinance any real estate (1=YES 2=NO)? 

SCPREPAY

 ...use a college tuition prepayment or guarantee 

program, or a tuition savings plan (1=YES 2=NO)? 

If SCPREPAY=1 goto SCPRETYP; else goto

SCOTPRLN

SCPRETYP

 What type of prepayment plan was it?

 1 = STATE-SPONSORED

 2 = SCHOOL-SPONSORED

 3 = A PRIVATE PLAN

 4 = OTHER TYPE

 -1 = DK -2 = RE

SCOTPRLN

Ask if SAAGE le <23> and CFILL2 ne <>; else goto

SCASST

Did your [fill CFILL2] take out any loans, other than a 

home equity loan, to help pay for your 95-96 school 

expenses (1=YES 2=NO)? 

SCASST

Ask if CTSTTYPE gt 1 and SZASSIST le 0; else goto

SCWAIV

If CTSTTYPE =1 goto SCNUMJBS

Between July 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996, did you 

have a graduate, research or teaching assistantship 

(1=YES 2=NO)? 

SCWAIV

Did you receive any tuition waiver, discount, or 

reimbursement from your school in addition to the 

assistantship (1=YES 2=NO)? 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-31

SCNUMJBS

Between July 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996, how many 

jobs did you have (0-15)? 

 [NOTE: THE RESPONDENT HAD AN 

ASSISTANTSHIP OR A WORK-STUDY]

SCREIMB

Did you receive tuition reimbursement from your 

employer (1=YES 2=NO)? 

If SCCURMAR=2, goto SCSPSEMP; else goto C_END

SCSPSEMP

Was your spouse employed for pay (1=YES 2=NO)? 

 

Goto C_END

SCEMPJBP

INTERVIEWER:

 PLEASE VERIFY THAT THE RESPONDENT

HAD [fill SCNUMJBS] JOBS BETWEEN JULY 1,

1995 AND JUNE 30, 1996.

 1 = YES, THAT'S CORRECT

 2 = NO, CHANGE THE NUMBER OF JOBS

C_END

STUDENT CATI

Section D
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-32
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-33
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION D D-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-34

SDRECVD1

If SZTOTAID gt 0, goto SDRIGHT

Did you receive any grants, scholarships, tuition 

waivers, discounts,fellowships, loans or any 

other financial aid for 95-96?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SDRECVD1 =1 goto SDAMT01

If SDRECVD1 ne 1, goto SDAPPLD 1 = YES

SDRIGHT

 

According to your school, you received: [ Pell 

Grant $[fill SZPELL]/Supplemental Education 

Opportunity Grant $[fill SZPELL]/some federal 

loans $[fill SZLOANAM]/assistantships $[fill 

SZASSIST]/tuition waivers $[fill SZTUIWAV]/ 

Federal Work Study $[fill SZFWS]/Veteran's 

Benefits $[fill SZVETAID]/Some Aid from the 

Federal govt. $[fill SZOFEDAM]/Some Aid from 

the Institution $[fill SZOTINAM]/Aid from the

State $[fill SZSTAID]/Aid from

some source $[fill SZOTHAID]] for

a total of about $[fill DTOTAID].

 Does that sound about right (1=YES 2=NO)? 

SDAMT01--10/SDTYP01--10/SDSRC01--

10/SDNAM01--10

Excluding gifts or loans from family and friends, 

[what financial aid did you receive/did you receive 

any other financial aid] while you were at [NPSAS 

school] during the 95-96 school year?

 

Type of Award:

 1=Grant or scholarship 2=Loans 

3=Work Study 4=Assistantships

5=Veteran Benefits 6=Voc. Rehab.

7=Tuition Waiver 8=Other

Source of Award:

 1=Federal 2=State 3=Institution 

 4=Employer 5=Other

SDAPPLD

Did you apply for any financial aid for the time you 

attended [NPSAS school] during the 95-96 school 

year?

INCLUDE ANY FINANCIAL AID AWARDED 

FROM FEDERAL, STATE, OR INSTITUTIONAL 

SOURCES BUT EXCLUDE FINANCIAL 

ASSISTANCE FROM FAMILY OR FRIENDS, 

REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT ANY AID

WAS AWARDED.

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SDAPPLD=1, goto SDAWARD

If SDAPPLD=2, goto SDNVAP01

If SDAPPLD=-1 or -2, goto SDOAMT01

SDAWARD

[According to your school records, you applied for 

financial aid for 95-96.] Were you awarded any aid 

for the year?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SDAWARD=1, goto SDREFUS1; else goto

SDOAMT01 

SDACCEPT

Did you accept all of the aid you were awarded for the

year?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SDACCEPT=2, goto SDREFUS1; else goto

SDOAMT01.
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION D D-2

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-35

SDREFUS1 SDASTAMT

 What did you refuse? For the 95-96 school year, how much aid did you 

receive in assistantships or fellowships (INCLUDE 

ENTER ALL THE CODES IN THE ORDER TEACHING AND RESEARCH ASSISTANTSHIPS)

MENTIONED BY THE RESPONDENT. ENTER 0 (0-999,999)? 

TO EXIT

If SDASTAMT gt 0 goto SDTCHAMT;

 1= GRANTS/SCHOLARSHIPS else goto SDREIMBR

 2= LOANS

 3= COLLEGE WORK STUDY

 [4= ASSISTANTSHIP (GRADUATE/FIRST PROF 

 STUDENTS ONLY)]

 5= OTHER Of the $[fill SDASTAMT], how much of it was 

 through...

SDNVAP01 -- SDNVAP10

 ...A teaching assistantship? (0-999,999) 

What were the reasons you and your family did not 

apply for financial aid? If SDTCHAMT = SDASTAMT, goto SDREIMBR; else

ENTER ALL THE CODES IN THE ORDER goto SDRESAMT

MENTIONED BY THE RESPONDENT. ENTER 0 

TO EXIT

 1. FAMILY AND STUDENT COULD PAY

 2. NOT WILLING TO GO INTO DEBT ...A research assistantship or fellowship?

 3. FAMILY INCOME TOO HIGH TO QUALIFY (0-999,999) 

 4. GRADES/TEST SCORES TOO LOW TO 

 QUALIFY If SDTCHAMT+SDRESAMT=SDASTAMT, goto

 5. AID APPLICATION PROCESS TOO SDREIMBR; else goto SDOTHAMT 

 DIFFICULT

 6. DID NOT WANT TO DISCLOSE FINANCIAL 

 SITUATION

 7. PART-TIME STUDENT -- INELIGIBLE FOR 

 AID ...Other kind of assistantship or fellowship? 

8. NO MONEY WAS AVAILABLE (0-999,999)

 9. MISSED APPLICATION DEADLINE

 10. OTHER REASON

SDOAMT01--05/SDOTYP01--05/SDOSRC01--

05/SDONAM01--05

If SASCHNUM=1, goto SDASSIST

Did you get any financial aid while attending schools

other than [NPSAS school]in 1995-96; What 

financial aid did you receive?

Options for Type of Award (Press F3 if not

known)

 1=Grant or scholarship 2=Loans 

3=Work Study 4=Assistantships

 5=Veteran Benefits 6=Voc. Rehab. 

7=Tuition Waiver 8=Other

Options for source of Award (Press F3 if not 

known)

 1=Federal 2=State 3=Institution 

4=Employer 5=Other

SDTCHAMT

SDRESAMT

SDOTHAMT

SDREIMBR

For the 95-96 school year, how much did you receive

as employer provided tuition reimbursement 

(0-999,999)? 

SDEVRBOR

If BPSELIG=1 goto SDFGNAID

INTERVIEWER: ENTER 1 TO INDICATE "ALL OF 

IT"

[Including the $[fill SDTMPBOR] from[your [fill 

parents] and all other sources/all sources],] How much 

have you borrowed for your education since you left 

high school 

(0-200,000)?...

If SDBOREVR gt 0, goto SDBORFED; else goto

SDFGNAID
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION D D-3

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-36

SDBORFED

Ask if SDEVRBOR gt <0> and SCUS_CIT ne <3>; else

goto SDBORPER

 How much of the $[fill SDEVRBOR:,] was in

Federal loans (0-200,000)?..................

If gt 0, goto SDOWEFED; else goto SDBORPER

SDOWEFED

 Of the $[fill SDBORFED] in federal loans, how

much do you still owe?..................

SDBORPER

 How much of the $[fill SDEVRBOR] was from 

friends and family including parents (0-200,000)

(ENTER 3 FOR DIFF)?.......

If SDBORPER gt 0 goto SDOWEPER; else

gotoSDBORGRD 

SDOWEPER

 Of the $[fill SDBORPER] from friends and family, 

how much do you still owe?.................

SDDBORGRD

Ask if SDEVRBOR gt 0 and CTSTTYPE gt 1; else goto

SDOTHOWE

 How much of the $[fill SDEVRBOR] you've 

borrowed was for graduate school (0-200,000)?........

SDOTHOWE

 You borrowed about $[fill DIFF_INT] from sources 

other than the federal government and your family

and friends. How much of that would you

say you owe?

 THE DOLLAR AMOUNT SHOWN IS THE 

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TOTAL BORROWED 

AND THE SUM OF FEDERAL AND FAMILY/ 

FRIEND LOANS JUST ENTERED. BACK UP TO 

CORRECT IF R DISAGREES WITH AMOUNT 

SPECIFIED.

 0-200,000 DOLLARS

 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-37

SDFGNAID

If SCUS_CIT=1, goto SDREPAY

 During the 95-96 school year, did you receive any 

financial aid such as loans, scholarships or grants

 from your own country's government?

 1= YES

 2= NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SDREPAY

If SDBORFED le <0> or SDBORFED=SDOWEFED,

goto D_END

 Are you currently making payments on your 

education loans (1= YES 2= NO)? 

If SDREPAY=1, goto SDREPAMT; else goto D_END

SDREPAMT

 About how much are your monthly payments 

(0-1000)? 

D_END
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-38

STUDENT CATI

Section E
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-39
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION E E-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-40

SESCHJOB -- indicator that student held work study SESCHEMP

job or assistantship

If SZFWS gt 0 or SZASST gt 0 then SESCHJOB=1; else?

If SDAMT01-- SDAMT10 (any one of the variables in

the set) ge 1 and 1 = SCHOOL

the corresponding SDTYP01--SDTYP10 = 3 or 4, then 2 = SOMEONE ELSE

SESCHJOB=1;

If SDOAMT01 -- SDOAMT05 (any one of the variables If SESCHEMP=1; goto SESTMO.

in the set) ge 1 and Else goto SEORGTYP.

the corresponding SDOTYP01 -- SDOTYP05 = 3 or 4, 

then SESCHJOB=1.

SEPRNOIN -- indicates entry into jobs UX

Ask if SCNUMJBS GT 0; if SCNUMJBS=0, goto

SEENRPLN.

 [You told me earlier that you had [fill SCNUMJBS] 

jobs during 95-96. I'd like you to tell me about your 

principal job./You told me earlier that you held a job

during 95-96.] What did you do and what type of 

company did you work for?

 NOTE: PRINCIPAL JOB IS THE JOB HELD 

WHILE ENROLLED. IF NONE OR IF MORE 

THAN ONE, CHOOSE THE JOB WORKED THE 

LONGEST NUMBER OF HOURS, PAYING THE 

MOST, OR MOST LOSELY RELATED TO 

COURSE OF STUDY.

 INTERVIEWER: PLEASE ENTER THE INFO IN 

THE FOLLOWING SCREENS OF THE USEREXIT

 1 = RE-ENTER THE USEREXIT

 [2 = SKIP OVER THE USEREXIT]

SEONOFF

 JOB IN QUESTION: [fill SEPRNOCT] SEST_MO

SEST_YR

Was your principal job primarily on or off-campus?

 1 = ON-CAMPUS

 2 = OFF-CAMPUS

 3 = BOTH ON AND OFF CAMPUS

Were you working for your school or for someone 

SEORGTYP

 Is this a private, for-profit company?

INTERVIEWER: DO NOT READ 

ALTERNATIVES. IF STUDENT SAYS "NO", 

PROBE. IF STUDENT JUST TOLD YOU THAT 

THEY WORK FOR THE COUNTY OR STATE OR

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT---DON'T ASK IF IT'S 

PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT...JUST CONFIRM WHAT

THEY SAID AND ENTER THE APPROPRIATE 

CODE.

 1= PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT

 2= PRIVATE, NOT-FOR-PROFIT OR

NONPROFIT

 3= LOCAL GOVERNMENT

 4= STATE GOVERNMENT

 5= FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

 6= SELF-EMPLOYED IN YOUR OWN

BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE,

OR FARM THAT IS NOTINCORPORATED

 7= SELF-EMPLOYED IN YOUR OWN

BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE,

OR FARM THAT IS INCORPORATED

 8= OTHER 

-1= DK 

-2= RE

When did [your principal job/this job] start?

GET STARTING MONTH AND YEAR 

IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NPSAS YEAR.

MONTH: YEAR:

(1-12) (20-96)

SESTLEMP

Are you still working at this job (1=YES 2=NO)? 

If SESTLEMP=1 then goto SERELMAJ

If SESTLEMP=2 then goto SEEND_MO 
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION E E-2

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-41

SEEND_MO

SEEND_YR

When did the job end?

MONTH: YEAR:

(1-12) (94-96)

SERELMAJ

 How closely was your principal job related to your 

[planned/current] major or field of study?

 1 = CLOSELY RELATED

 2 = SOMEWHAT RELATED

 3 = NOT RELATED

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SZFWS le <0> or if SZASSIST le <0> and SCASST

ne <1>, goto SEHOURS.

If SDREFUS1 or SDREFUS2 or SDREFUS3 or

SDREFUS4 or SDREFUS5 eq 3, then goto SEHOURS.

Else goto SEPRNCWS

SEPRNCWS

 Was the principal job you just told me about your 

[College Work Study job/assistantship] for 95-96?

 1= YES

 2= NO

If SEPRNCWS eq <2> and SZFWS gt 0 then goto

SECWSOFF; else goto SEHOURS.

 

SECWSOFF

 Was your College Work Study job primarily on or 

off-campus?

 1=ON-CAMPUS

 2=OFF-CAMPUS

 3=BOTH ON AND OFF-CAMPUS

SECWSTYP

 Were you working for your school or someone else?

 1=SCHOOL

 2=SOMEONE ELSE
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION E E-3

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-42

SECOMSRV

 Was your work study job part of a community

service project (1=YES 2=NO)? 

SEHOURS

 About how many hours did you work per week while

you were enrolled (July 1, 1995 through June 30, 

1996)?

 0-99

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SEENRAMT

 About how much did you earn from all jobs while

 you were enrolled?

 AMOUNT: (0-100,000)

SEENRFRQ

 FREQUENCY:

1= PER HOUR

2= PER WEEK

3= PER MONTH

4= PER TERM

5= FOR THE YEAR 95-96

SEENRWKS

 Did you work for all or most of the weeks while you

 were enrolled?

 1= YES, EVERY WEEK WHILE ENROLLED

 2= YES, MOST OF THE WEEKS WHILE 

 ENROLLED

 3= NO, ONLY ABOUT HALF OF THE WEEKS 

 WHILE ENROLLED

 4= NO, LESS THAN HALF OF THE WEEKS 

 WHILE ENROLLED

 -1= DK

 -2= RE

If SEST_MO and SEST_YR ge 08/95 (later than Jul 95)

then goto SESMRWRK;

or if SESTLEMP ne 1 and SEEND_MO and SEEND_YR

le 6/95 (earlier than Jul 95) then goto SESMRWRK. 

Otherwise goto SELICENS. 
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION E E-4

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-43

SESMRWRK

1 = AIR CONDITIONING/HEATING SYSTEMS

 Did you work during the summer of 1995? 2 = ANIMAL CARE/VETERINARIAN ASSISTANT

3 = APPLIANCE REPAIR (WASHER, STOVE)

 1 = YES 4 = ARCHITECTURE/DRAFTING

 2 = NO 5 = AUTOMOTIVE MECHANIC/REPAIR

 -1 = DK 6 = BOOKKEEPING/ACCOUNTING (NOT CPA)

 -2 = RE 7 = BUSINESS/FINANCIAL (BROKER)

If SESMRWRK ne 1 then goto SELICENS; else goto 9 = CHILDCARE/DAYCARE

SESMRHRS. 10 = COMMUNICATIONS LICENSE (HAM RADIO, FCC)

SESMRHRS

 About how many hours did you work per week at the 14 = ELECTRICIAN 

job held last summer? 15 = ENGINEERING (P.E.)

16 = FIRST AID/CPR/LIFESAVING 

 1-99 17 = FOOD SERVICE

 -1 = DK 18 = INTERIOR DECORATING

 -2 = RE 19 = LAW ENFORCEMENT/PROTECTIVE SERVICE

21 = MACHINIST

SELICENS

23 = MEDICAL/DENTAL (DENTIST/PHARMACIST)

 For some jobs, licensing or certification is 24 = NURSING AIDE/HOME HEALTH AIDE

recommended or required. 25 = NURSING (RN, LPN)

 How many licenses or certifications do you have? 26 = PERSONAL SERVICES (MASSAGE THERAPY)

27 = PLUMBING/WELDING

(INCLUDE TEACHER'S CERTIFICATION, 28 = REAL ESTATE

DAYCARE LICENSE, REAL-ESTATE LICENSE, 29 = SECRETARIAL

PILOT'S LICENSE, ETC..) 30 = TEACHER'S AIDE

 31 = TEACHER CERTIFICATION

0-8 = 32 = TRANSPORTATION/PILOT LICENSE

 -1 = DK 33 = VEHICLE LICENSE (TAXI,TRUCK)

-2 = RE 34 = TRAVEL AGENT

 INTERVIEWER: ENTER THE THREE MOST If SEHOURS eq 0, goto SEPROGRM

RECENT CERTIFICATES OR LICENSES Else goto SEROLE

OBTAINED IN THE NEXT SCREEN.

If SELICENS ne 1-8, goto SEROLE.

SELIC1/SELIC2/SELIC3

8 = CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT

11 = COMPUTER PROGRAMMER/SYSTEMS

TECHNICIAN

12 = COMPUTER REPAIR/ELECTRONICS/TV/VCR 

13 = COSMETOLOGY/BEAUTICIAN/BARBER

20 = LEGAL ASSISTANT (PARA-LEGAL)

22 = MEDICAL/DENTAL TECHNICIAN

 40 = OTHER -1 = DK -2 = RE

SEROLE

While you were enrolled and working, would you say 

you were primarily...

1 = ...a student working to meet expenses or

2 = ...an employee who's decided to enroll in school?

-1 = DK

-2 = RE

If SEROLE eq 2 goto SEPERS; else goto SEMONEY 
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION E E-5

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-44

SEMONEY/SEEXPENS/SEJOBEXP/SETIME/ SEPROGRM

SECHOICE/SESCHED/SECONTNT/SECAREER/

SELIBRY

apprenticeship, or cooperative education program 

Were any of the following important considerations in (1=YES 2=NO)?

your decision to work while in school (1=YES 

2=NO)... If SEPROGRM eq 1, goto SEPROG1; 

else goto SEENRPLN.

 ...Providing spending money.

 ...Paying for tuition and living expenses.

 ...Gaining experience for future employment.

Did having a job... (1=YES 2=NO) Specify type of programs:

 ...Restrict your choice of classes. 1 = INTERNSHIP

 ...Limit number of classes you could take. 2 = APPRENTICESHIP

 ...Limit class schedules. 3 = COOPERATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM

 ...Assist with school subjects. If FTB, goto SEENRPLN; else goto SEVET

 ...Help prepare for a career or occupation.

 ...Limit your access to the library.

Goto SEPROGRM

SEPERS/SERECR/SEJOBREQ/SEJOBADV/

SENEWSKL/SEDEGREE

If G/1P, goto SEPROGRM.

If SEPRNCWS ne 2, goto SEPROGRM.

Were each of the following important considerations in your

decision to go to school while working SEEMPPLN

(1=YES 2=NO)...

 ...Personal enrichment or interest in the subject 

 ...Recreation. 

 ...Required for employment in your current job. 

 ...To gain skills for advancement in your current 

 job.

 ...To gain skills needed for a new job or career. SEVET

 ...To complete a degree or certification program. 

During 95-96, did you participate in an internship, 

SEPROG1/SEPROG2/SEPROG3

SEENRPLN

What are your plans for school in 96-97?

Do you expect to be...

 0 = Not enrolled

 1 = Enrolled full-time

 2 = Enrolled part-time.

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

What are your plans for work next year? Do you 

expect to be...

 0 = Not working.

 1 = Working full-time.

 2 = Working part-time.

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SCUS_CIT NE 1 and SCUS_CIT ne 2 or SAAGE lt 18, then

goto E_END.

If SAAGE ge 20 and SZVETRAN not blank, then SEVET eq

SZVETRAN; goto SEBRNCH.

Otherwise, ask SEVET.

If SAAGE eq 18 or 19, skip SEVET and goto SEACTDUT.

 INTERVIEWER: 1=YES 2=NO

Are you a veteran of the U.S. military?

If SEVET eq 1 goto SEBRNCH; else goto SEACTDUT. 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-45

SEACTDUT

Are you currently in the reserves or on active duty in 

the US Military?

If SEACTDUT eq 1, goto SEBRNCH; else goto E_END

SEBRNCH

In which branch of the service[do/did] you serve?

 1 = ARMY 4 = MARINES

 2 = NAVY 5 = COAST GUARD 

3 = AIR FORCE 6 = NATIONAL GUARD

 -1 = DK -2 = RE

If SEACTDUT eq 1, goto SEMILTYP; else goto E_END

SEMILTYP

Is that...

 1 = Active duty or -1 = DK

 2 = Reserves? -2 = RE

E_END.
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION E E-7

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-46
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-47

STUDENT CATI

Section F
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-48
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION F F-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-49

SFTAX95

If DPNDSTAT=2, goto SFSPSENR

Did anyone claim you as a dependent on their 1995

taxes?

 0 = NO

 1 = YES, PARENT(S)/GUARDIAN(S)

 3 = YES, SPOUSE

 4 = YES, ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL

 -1 = DK -2 = RE

SFTAX94

If DPNDSTAT=2, goto SFSPSENR

Did anyone claim you as a dependent on their 1994

taxes?

 0 = NO

 1 = YES, PARENT(S)/GUARDIAN(S)

 3 = YES, SPOUSE

 4 = YES, ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL

 -1 = DK -2 = RE

SFSPSENR

If SCCURMAR ne 2, goto SFDEPEND

During the 1995-96 school year, was your spouse 

enrolled at a postsecondary school? (ENROLLED AT 

LEAST HALF-TIME)

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SFSPSENR = 1, goto SFSPSAID; else goto SFDEPEND

SFSPSAID

Did [she/he] receive any financial aid for [her/his] 

education that year?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION F F-2

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-50

SFDEPEND

Since July 1, 1995, have you provided at least half of 

the financial support for any children or other individuals

[other than your spouse]?

PLEASE INCLUDE CHILDREN AND ANY OTHER

PEOPLE, [INCLUDING YOUR PARENTS,/ INCLUDING

YOUR GUARDIANS,/INCLUDING YOUR PARENT,]

WHO WERE RECEIVING MORE THAN HALF OF

THEIR SUPPORT FROM YOU. PLEASE DO NOT

INCLUDE YOURSELF [OR YOUR SPOUSE].

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

 If SFDEPEND=1 goto SFAGE1; else goto SFTOT95

SFAGE1

 How many of your dependents were (SINCE JULY 1, 

1995)...

 ...under the age of 5

SFAGE2

 ...between 5 and 13

SFAGE3

 ...older than 13

If SFAGE3 gt 0, goto SFDEPPAR; else goto SFDAYCAR

SFDEPPAR

 Were you supporting your [parents/guardians/parent/ 

parents or guardians] at that time?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION F F-3

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-51

SFDAYCAR/SFELSEC/SFPOSTSC/SFDEPCAR SFTOT95

If SFAGE1 le 0 and SFAGE2 le 0 and SFAGE3 le 0, goto

SFPRVTUI

 How many of these dependents were in...

INTERVIEWER THE PROGRAM WILL NOT 

ACCEPT ENTRIES LARGER THAN THE NUMBER

OF CHILDREN REPORTED EARLIER

 ...daycare or pre-school?

 NUMBER OF CHILDREN = [fill SFAGE1]

 ...a private elementary or secondary school?

 NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS = [fill SFAGE2] + 

[fill SFAGE3]

 ...postsecondary school?

 NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS = [fill SFAGE3] 

 ...dependent care facility?

 (INCLUDE PARENTS OR GUARDIANS)?

NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS = [fill SFAGE3] 

SFPRVTUI

If SFELSEC lt 1, goto SFAMTCAR

SFWAG95

How much did you pay in tuition between July 1, 

1995 and June 30, 1996 for the private elementry and 

secondary education of your dependent children?

 0-99999 =

 -1 = DK SFWAG94

 -2 = RE

SFAMTCAR

If SFDAYCAR lt 1 and SFDEPCAR lt 1, goto SFTOT95

Between July 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996, how much SFSPWG95

were your average monthly expenses for daycare, 

babysitting, or elder care for parents?

 (EXCLUDE COSTS RELATED TO SCHOOL 

ATTENDANCE)

 0-5000 =

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

My next few questions have to do with your income

 from various sources for 1995 and 1994.

 

 INTERVIEWER:

ENTER 1 FOR THE 1994 AMOUNT, IF 1994 

AMOUNT IS SAME AS 1995.

ENTER 2 FOR THE AMOUNT FROM JOBS, IF IT 

IS THE SAME AS THE TOTAL INCOME.

ENTER 3 FOR THE SPOUSE'S INCOME, IF IT IS 

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TOTAL 

INCOME AND RESPONDENT'S INCOME.

What was your [and your spouse’s] total income from

all sources, prior to taxes and deductions, excluding

any (student) financial aid you may have received... 

(EXCLUDE WORK STUDY & ASSISTANTSHIPS)

 ...for 1995? 

If SFTOT95 = -1 goto SF95EST

SFTOT94

If SZSTAGI le 0

 ...for 1994? 

If SFTOT94 =SFTOT95, SFTOT94E=1

If SFTOT94 = -1 goto SF94EST

How much of that was from your job...

 ...in 1995? 

If SZSTAGI le 0

 ...in 1994?

If SFWAG94=SFWAG95, SFRW94E=1

If SCCURMAR=2

How much of that was from your spouse's job...

 ...in 1995?

If SFSPWG95 = -1 goto SF95ESTS
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION F F-4

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-52

SFSPWG94

If SCMARR95 eq 2 and SZSTAGI le 0

 ...in 1994?

If SFSOWG94=SFSPWG95, SFSW94E=1

If SFSPWG94 =-1 goto SF94ESTS

SF95EST

Would you estimate that your 1995 employment 

income was more or less than $30,000?

 1 = LESS THAN $30,000

 2 = MORE THAN $30,000

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SF95EST=1, goto SF95LT; 

if SF95EST=2, goto SF95GT

SF95LT

I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell 

me the range that best estimates your employment 

income for 1995...

 1 = Less than 5,000

 2 = 5 to 9 thousand (LESS THAN $10,000)

 3 = 10 to 19 thousand (LESS THAN $20,000)

 4 = 20 to 29 thousand (LESS THAN $30,000)

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SF95GT

I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell 

me the range that best estimates your employment 

income for 1995...

 1 = 30 to 39 thousand (LESS THAN $ 40,000)

 2 = 40 to 49 thousand (LESS THAN $ 50,000)

 3 = 50 to 59 thousand (LESS THAN $ 60,000)

 4 = 60 to 69 thousand (LESS THAN $ 70,000)

 5 = 70 to 79 thousand (LESS THAN $ 80,000)

 6 = 80 to 89 thousand (LESS THAN $ 90,000)

 7 = 90 to 99 thousand (LESS THAN $100,000)

 8 = $100,000 or more

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION F F-5

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-53

SF94EST

Would you estimate that your 1994 employment 

income was more or less than $30,000?

 1 = LESS THAN $30,000

 2 = MORE THAN $30,000

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SF94EST = 1 goto SF94LT;

if SF94EST=2, goto SF94GT

SF94LT

I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell 

me the range that best estimates your employment 

income for 1994...

 1 = Less than 5,000

 2 = 5 to 9 thousand (LESS THAN $10,000)

 3 = 10 to 19 thousand (LESS THAN $20,000)

 4 = 20 to 29 thousand (LESS THAN $30,000)

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SF94GT

I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell 

me the range that best estimates your employment 

income for 1994...

 1 = 30 to 39 thousand (LESS THAN $ 40,000)

 2 = 40 to 49 thousand (LESS THAN $ 50,000)

 3 = 50 to 59 thousand (LESS THAN $ 60,000)

 4 = 60 to 69 thousand (LESS THAN $ 70,000)

 5 = 70 to 79 thousand (LESS THAN $ 80,000)

 6 = 80 to 89 thousand (LESS THAN $ 90,000)

 7 = 90 to 99 thousand (LESS THAN $100,000)

 8 = $100,000 or more

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SF95ESTS

Would you estimate that your spouse's 1995 

employment income was more or less than $30,000?

 1 = LESS THAN $30,000

 2 = MORE THAN $30,000

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SF95ESTS = 1 goto SF95LTS;

if SF95ESTS=2, goto SF95GTS
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION F F-6

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-54

SF95LTS

I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell 

me the range that best estimates your spouse's 

employment income for 1995...

 1 = Less than 5,000

 2 = 5 to 9 thousand (LESS THAN $10,000)

 3 = 10 to 19 thousand (LESS THAN $20,000)

 4 = 20 to 29 thousand (LESS THAN $30,000)

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SF95GTS

I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell 

me the range that best estimates your spouse's 

employment income for 1995...

 1 = 30 to 39 thousand (LESS THAN $ 40,000)

 2 = 40 to 49 thousand (LESS THAN $ 50,000)

 3 = 50 to 59 thousand (LESS THAN $ 60,000)

 4 = 60 to 69 thousand (LESS THAN $ 70,000)

 5 = 70 to 79 thousand (LESS THAN $ 80,000)

 6 = 80 to 89 thousand (LESS THAN $ 90,000)

 7 = 90 to 99 thousand (LESS THAN $100,000)

 8 = $100,000 or more

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SF94ESTS

Would you estimate that your spouse's 1994 

employment income was more or less than $30,000?

 1 = LESS THAN $30,000

 2 = MORE THAN $30,000

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SF94ESTS=1 goto SF94LTS

If SF94ESTS=2 goto SF94GTS

SF94LTS

I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell 

me the range that best estimates your spouse's 

employment income for 1994...

 1 = Less than 5,000

 2 = 5 to 9 thousand (LESS THAN $10,000)

 3 = 10 to 19 thousand (LESS THAN $20,000)

 4 = 20 to 29 thousand (LESS THAN $30,000)

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-55

SF94GTS

I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell 

me the range that best estimates your spouse's 

employment income for 1994...

 1 = 30 to 39 thousand (LESS THAN $ 40,000)

 2 = 40 to 49 thousand (LESS THAN $ 50,000)

 3 = 50 to 59 thousand (LESS THAN $ 60,000)

 4 = 60 to 69 thousand (LESS THAN $ 70,000)

 5 = 70 to 79 thousand (LESS THAN $ 80,000)

 6 = 80 to 89 thousand (LESS THAN $ 90,000)

 7 = 90 to 99 thousand (LESS THAN $100,000)

 8 = $100,000 or more

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SFUNTBEN

Did you [and your spouse] receive any untaxed 

income or benefits in 1995 such as Social Security,

[AFDC, child support,] Worker's comp, welfare or 

disability] (1=YES 2=NO)? 

If SFUNTBEN=1, goto SFSS95; else goto SFFOOD 

SFSS95

Which ones did you receive (1=YES 2=NO):

 SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS? 

SFAFDC95

If SFDEPEND eq 1

AID TO FAMILIES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN?

SFCHSP95

If SFDEPEND eq 1

 CHILD SUPPORT 

SFCOMP95

 WORKER'S COMPENSATION? 

SFDIS95

 DISABILITY PAYMENTS? 

SFWELF95 SFFOOD

 WELFARE PAYMENTS? At any time since January 1994, have you [or your 
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION F F-8

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-56

parents] received food stamps?

 NOTE: STUDENTS AND/OR PARENTS MAY ... a farm? 

HAVE BEEN UNEMPLOYED FOR SOME TIME 

SINCE JANUARY, 1994 EVEN THOUGH THEY 

MAY HAVE HAD HIGH INCOME.

 0= NO ... any other real estate? 

 1= YES, RESPONDENT ONLY

[2= YES, PARENTS/GUARDIANS ONLY Goto F_END

 3= YES, BOTH RESPONDENT AND PARENTS]

SFCASH

Do you [or your spouse] either own your home or pay

Next I would like to ask you about your assets [and a mortgage on your home (1=YES 2=NO)? 

those of your parents].

If SFHOME=1, goto SFHMVAL; else goto SFBSFMRE

Currently, what is the total worth of your [and your 

spouse’s] cash, savings, and checking accounts?

 0-950000

 -1 = DK Currently, what is the total worth of your [and your 

 -2 = RE spouse's] home (0-950,000)? 

If SfCASH=-1, goto SFCASHE If SFHMVAL = -1, goto SFHMVALE

Else goto SFPARHM Else goto SFHMOWE

SFCASHE

Is it over $1,000 (1=YES 2=NO)? 

SFPARHM

If DPNDSTAT eq 2, goto SFHOME

If CWHPAR eq 4, goto SFHOME If SFHMOWE=-1, goto SFHMOWEE

Else gotoSFBSFMRE

Does/Do your [parents/parent/guardian] own ...

INTERVIEWER: 1=YES 2=NO -1=DK -2=RE

 Is it over $50,000 (1=YES 2=NO)? 

... a home or pay a mortgage on a home?

SFPARBS

... a business? Do you [or your spouse] own a business, farm, or any

SFPARFM

SFPARRE

SFHOME

SFHMVAL

SFHMVALE

Is it over $100,000 (1=YES 2=NO)? 

SFHMOWE

How much do you owe on your house (0-950,000)?

SFHMOWEE

SFBSFMRE

If DPNDSTAT=1 goto F_END

other real estate?

1 = YES

2 = NO

-1 = DK

-2 = RE

If SFBSFMRE=1 goto SFBUSINS; else goto F_END
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION F F-9

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-57

SFBUSINS

Do you [or your spouse] own a business (1=YES 

2=NO)?

If SFBUSINS=1 goto SFBUSVAL; else goto SFFARM

SFBUSVAL

Currently, what is the total worth of your [and your 

spouse's] business (0-950,000)? 

If SFBUSVAL lt 0, goto SFBSVALE; else goto SFBSOWE

SFBUSVALE

Is it over $10,000 (1=YES 2=NO)? 

SFBSOWE

How much do you currently owe on your business 

(0-950,000)?

If SFBSOWE eq -1, goto SFBSOWEE; if eq -2, goto

SFFARM; 

SFBSOWEE

Is it over $10,000 (1=YES 2=NO)? 

SFFARM

Do you [or your spouse] own a farm (1=YES 2=NO)?

If SFFARM=1 goto SFFMVAL; else goto SFOWNRLE

SFFMVAL

Currently, what is the total worth of your [and your 

spouse’s] farm (0-950,000)? 

If SFFMVAL=-1, goto SFFMVALE

Else goto SFFMOWE

SFFMVALE

 Is it over $10,000 (1=YES 2=NO)? 
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION F F-10

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-58

SFFMOWE

How much do you currently owe on your farm 

(0-950,000)?

If SFFMOWE=-1 goto SFREOWEE

If SFFMOWE=-2, goto SFOWNRLE

SFREOWEE

 Is it over $10,000 (1=YES 2=NO)? 

Goto SFOWNRLE

SFOWNRLE

Do you [or your spouse] own any other real estate 

(1=YES 2=NO)?

If SFOWNRLE=1 goto SFRLEVAL;

else goto F_END

SFRLEVAL

Currently, what is the total worth of your [and your 

spouse’s] other real estate (0-950,000)? 

If SFRLEVAL=-1, goto SFRLEEST

Else goto SFRLEOWE

SFRLEEST

Is it over $10,000 (1=YES 2=NO)? 

SFRLEOWE

How much do you currently owe on this real estate 

(0-950,000)? 

If SFRLEOWE=-1, goto SFRLEEOW

If SFRLEOWE=-2 goto F_END

SFRLEEOW

Is it over $10,000 (1=YES 2=NO)? 

F_END
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION F F-11

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-59

STUDENT CATI

Section G
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-60
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION G G-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-61

Next, I'd like to ask you a few questions about your

background.

SGSEX Are you enrolled in a state- or federally-recognized 

INTERVIEWER: ASK ONLY IF RESPONDENT'S 

GENDER IS NOT OBVIOUS OR HAS NOT BEEN 

REVEALED DURING THE INTERVIEW.

Are you...

 1 = Male or

 2 = Female?

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SGHISP Are you...

If SZHISP=2, store 0 in SGHISP and goto SGRACE 1 = Chinese

 2 = Korean

Are you of Hispanic origin (if yes, of which descent)? 3 = Filipino

 4 = Japanese

 0 = NO 5 = Vietnamese

 1 = Mexican, Mexican-American, or Chicano 6 = Asian Indian

descent? 7 = Thai

 2 = Cuban descent? 8 = Hawaiian

 3 = Puerto Rican descent? 9 = Samoan

 4 = some other Hispanic origin? 10 = Guamanian

 -1 = DK 11 = Other Asian or Pacific Islander?

 -2 = RE

SGRACE

If SZRACE ge 1 and le 2, store SZRACE in SGRACE and

goto SGLANG

What is your race?

READ LIST AS A PROMPT

 1 = WHITE

 2 = AFRICAN AMERICAN OR BLACK

 3 = AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKAN NATIVE

 4 = ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER

 5 = OTHER

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SGRACE=3 goto SGTRIBE

If SGRACE=4 goto SGASIAN

If SGRACE=5 goto SGRACESP

Else goto SGLANG

SGRACESP

SPECIFY OTHER RACE.

SGTRIBE

tribe?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

Goto SGLANG

SGASIAN

SGLANG

What language was spoken most often in your home 

as you were growing up?

 1 = ENGLISH

 2 = SPANISH

 3 = ARABIC

 4 = BAHASA 

 5 = CHINESE (MANDARIN) 

 6 = FARCEY (PHARSI)

 7 = FRENCH AND CANADIAN FRENCH 

 8 = GAELIC 

 9 = GERMAN

 10 = HEBREW 

 11 = HINDI

12 = JAPANESE

13 = KOREAN

14 = MALAYSIAN (BAHASA MALAY)

15 = PAKISTANI (PUNJABI)

16 = TGALOG

17 = THAI

18 = VIETNAMESE

19 = WELSH

 20 = AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE OR

OTHER SIGN LANGUAGE

 21 = OTHER
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION G G-2

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-62

 SGSTATE SGCANADA

If SZLGST ne <>, store SZLGST in SGSTATE and goto SPECIFY CANADIAN PROVINCE

SGDISAB1 AB= Alberta

What is your state of legal residence? MB= Manitoba

NB= New Brunswick

AL=Alabama NM=New Mexico NF= Newfoundland

AK=Alaska NY=New York NS= Nova Scotia

AS=American Samoa NC=North Carolina ON= Ontario

AZ=Arizona ND=North Dakota PE= Prince Edward Island

AR=Arkansas OH=Ohio PQ= Quebec

CA=California OK=Oklahoma SK= Saskatchewan

CO=Colorado OR=Oregon NT= Northwst Territories

CT=Connecticut PA=Pennsylvania YT= Yukon Territory

DE=Delaware PR=Puerto Rico -1= Don't Know

DC=District of Columbia RI=Rhode Island -2= Refused 

FL=Florida SC=South Carolina

GA=Georgia SD=South Dakota

GU=Guam TN=Tennessee 

HI=Hawaii TX=Texas Do you have any disabilities, such as a hearing, speech, or

ID=Idaho UT=Utah mobility impairment, a learning disability, or vision

IL=Illinois VT=Vermont problems that can't be corrected with glasses?

IN=Indiana VI=Virgin Islands 

 IA=Iowa VA=Virginia

KS=Kansas WA=Washington

KY=Kentucky WV=West Virginia 

LA=Louisiana WI=Wisconsin 

ME=Maine WY=Wyoming 1 = A HEARING IMPAIRMENT

MD=Maryland AA,AE,AP=Military 2 = A SPEECH DISABILITY OR LIMITATION

MA=Massachusetts CN=Canada 3 = AN ORTHOPEDIC OR MOBILITY

 MI=Michigan FM=Fed States of LIMITATION

MN=Minnesota Micronesia 4 = A SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY?

 MS=Mississippi MH=Marshall Islands 5 = LEGALLY BLIND OR HAVE A VISION 

MO=Missouri MX=Mexico IMPAIRMENT THAT CANNOT BE 

MT=Montana MP=Northern CORRECTED WITH EYEGLASSES

NE=Nebraska Mariana Islands 6 = OTHER DISABILITY OR LIMITATION

 NV=Nevada PW=Palau Island

 NH=New Hampshire FC=Foreign Country

 NJ=New Jersey -1=DK -2= RE

NA=Not Available If SGDISAB1 lt 1, SGDISABL=2; goto SGVOTE;

If SGSTATE ne CN goto SGDISAB1

BC= British Columbia

SGDISAB1/2/3/4/5/6

IF YES PROBE FOR ALL THAT APPLY 

READ LIST AS NEEDED

ENTER 0 FOR NONE/NO MORE

SGDISABL

else SGDISABL=1 and goto SGHEAR

SGHEAR

If SGDISAB1--6=1; else goto SGSPEECH

Are you able to hear what is said in a normal conversation

with another person, when using a hearing aid if you usually

use one?

 1= YES, USING A HEARING AID

 2= YES, WITHOUT A HEARING AID

 3= NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION G G-3

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-63

SGSPEECH

If SGDISABL1--6 =2; else goto SGORTHO1

When having a conversation with another person, 

does the other person usually understand your speech?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SGORTHO1

If SGDISAB1--6=3; else goto SGVISION

Are you able to walk for a quarter mile or so without 

an assistive device or help of another person?

 INTERVIEWER: PROBE FOR THE KIND OF 

DEVICE IF THE ANSWER IS NO.

 1= YES

 2= NO, USE A WHEELCHAIR

 3= NO, USE A WALKER

 4= NO, USE SOME OTHER DEVICE

SGORTHO2

If SGORTHO1 gt <> and le 1

Are you able to walk up a flight of stairs without 

resting (1=YES 2=NO)? 

SGORTHO3

If SGORTHO1 gt <> and le 1

Are you able to lift and carry something as heavy as 

10 pounds, such as a full bag of groceries (1=YES 

2=NO)? 

SGORTHO4

If SGORTHO1 gt <> 

At [fill school], how difficult has it been for you to get 

in and out of buildings?

 1=VERY DIFFICULT 

2=SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT 

3=NOT AT ALL DIFFICULT 
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION G G-4

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-64

SGVISION

Are you able to see words and letters in ordinary 

newspaper print when wearing glasses or contact 

lenses, if you usually wear them?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SGVOTE

If SCUS_CIT ne 1, goto SGCOMSRV

Now I'd like to ask you about voting in recent 

elections...

 INTERVIEWER: 1=YES 2=NO

Are you registered to vote in US elections? 

SGVOTEVR

Have you ever voted in any national, state, or local 

election? 

If SAAGE le 20, goto SGVOTE96

SGVOTE92

Did you vote in the 1992 presidential election? 

SGVOTE96

[Are you planning to/Did you] vote in the 1996 

presidential election? 

SGPOLMTG

INTERVIEWER: ENTER 1=YES 2=NO

In the last two years, did you...

...Go to any political meetings, rallies, or dinners, (or 

things like that)? DON'T COUNT CAMPUS

ELECTIONS 

SGPOLLTR

...Write letters to any public official to express your 

opinion? 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-65

SGCOMSRV SGCOMHRS

Did you do any community service or volunteer work 

during the past year, OTHER THAN COURTORDERED SERVICE?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SGCOMSRVne1, goto G_END

SGCOM1/2/3/4/5/6

What did you do? (What was the community service/ 

work?) CODE ALL THAT APPLY

SGCOMFR2

1 = WORKED WITH KIDS--PRIMARILY AS 

COACH OR ASSISTANT COACH/ 

SCOUTING, ( E.G., TEAM OR INDIVIDUAL 

SPORTS/BIG BROTHERS/BIG SISTERS)

2 = WORKED WITH KIDS--AS TUTOR/MENTOR, SGCOMRQ

HOMEWORK HOTLINE (E.G., PTA, 

TUTORING, VOLUNTEER IN CLASSROOM)

3 = HELPED RAISE MONEY FOR A SPECIFIC 

PURPOSE (OTHER THAN POLITICAL)

 (E.G., GROUPS LIKE UNITED WAY, 

CANCER SOCIETY, SADD, MADD)

4 = HELPED RAISE MONEY OR VOLUNTEERED 

FOR A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN

 (E.G., LOCAL STATE OR NATIONAL 

ELECTIONS/ CAMPUS ELECTIONS) G_END

5 = WORKED AT SHELTER FOR HOMELESS/ 

SOUP KITCHEN

6 = TELEPHONE CRISIS CENTER (SUCH AS 

RAPE/DRUG ABUSE)

7 = NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT/ 

CLEANUP PROJECT(S)

8 = VOLUNTEERED AT HOSPITAL, NURSING 

HOME, GROUP HOME

9 = LITERACY PROJECT--PRIMARILY WITH 

ADULTS (E.G. HELPING ADULTS LEARN 

TO OR IMPROVE READING)

10= OTHER 

 0 = EXIT THIS SCREEN

How much time did you volunteer?

NOTE: WE'D LIKE TO GET SOME IDEA ABOUT 

HOW MUCH TIME IS SPENT VOLUNTEERING 

AND WHETHER IT'S ON A REGULAR BASIS OR 

ONLY ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR. 

IF STUDENT INDICATES THEY VOLUNTEER 

ONLY ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR, ASK STUDENT TO

PROVIDE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS PER YEAR

SGCOMFR1

 SPECIFY FREQUENCY OF HOURS:

 1= DAY 2= WEEK 

3= MONTH 4= YEAR

How many [days/weeks/months] during the year?

If CTSTTYPE gt 1, goto G_END

Was this volunteer work required for graduation 

(1=YES 2=NO)?

(COMMUNITY SERVICE OR VOLUNTEER WORK) 

 
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION G G-6

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-66

STUDENT CATI

Section H
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-67
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION H H-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-68

SHAGEDAD/SHAGEMOM

My next few questions are about your [father/male 

guardian] [and mother/female guardian].

[THIS IS A NON-BPS CASE. WE ARE ALMOST 

AT THE END OF THE INTERVIEW.]

If SAAGE gt 25 goto SHDADED

How old is your [father/male guardian]?

 30-110 =

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SHAGEMOM

How old is your [mother/female guardian]?

 30-110 =

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SHDADED

What was the highest grade or level of education your 

father ever completed?

 1= DID NOT COMPLETE HIGH SCHOOL

 2= COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL OR 

EQUIVALENT

POSTSECONDARY VOCATIONAL:

 3= LESS THAN 1 YR OF OCCUPATIONAL/ 

TRADE/TECHNICAL OR BUSINESS 

SCHOOL

 4= ONE BUT LESS THAN 2 YEARS OF 

OCCUPATIONAL/TRADE/TECHNICAL/ 

BUSINESS SCHOOL

 5= 2 YEARS OR MORE OF OCCUPATIONAL/ 

TRADE/BUSINESS SCHOOL

POSTSECONDARY ACADEMIC:

 6= LESS THAN 2 YEARS OF COLLEGE

 7= 2 OR MORE YEARS OF COLLEGE, 

INCLUDING 2-YR DEGREE

 8= BACHELOR'S DEGREE - 4 OR 5 YEAR 

DEGREE

 9= MASTER'S DEGREE OR EQUIVALENT

 10= MD/DDS/LLB/OTHER ADVANCED 

PROFESSIONAL DEGREE

 11= DOCTORATE DEGREE - PHD, EDD, DBA

 -1 DK -2 RE 
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION H H-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-69

SHDADAS

If SHDADED eq 7

Did he earn an associate's degree? attended a postsecondary school?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO INTERVIEWER: WE'RE INTERESTED IN 

 -1 = DK BROTHERS AND SISTERS, NOT EXTENDED 

 -2 = RE FAMILY.

SHMOMED

What was the highest grade or level of education your 

mother ever completed?

 1= DID NOT COMPLETE HIGH SCHOOL

 2= COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL OR 

EQUIVALENT

POSTSECONDARY VOCATIONAL:

 3= LESS THAN 1 YR OF OCCUPATIONAL/ 

TRADE/TECHNICAL OR BUSINESS 

SCHOOL

 4= ONE BUT LESS THAN 2 YEARS OF 

OCCUPATIONAL/TRADE/TECHNICAL/ 

BUSINESS SCHOOL

 5= 2 YEARS OR MORE OF OCCUPATIONAL/ 

TRADE/BUSINESS SCHOOL

POSTSECONDARY ACADEMIC:

 6= LESS THAN 2 YEARS OF COLLEGE

 7= 2 OR MORE YEARS OF COLLEGE, 

INCLUDING 2-YR DEGREE

 8= BACHELOR'S DEGREE - 4 OR 5 YEAR 

DEGREE

 9= MASTER'S DEGREE OR EQUIVALENT

 10=MD/DDS/LLB/OTHER ADVANCED 

PROFESSIONAL DEGREE

 11= DOCTORATE DEGREE - PHD, EDD, DBA

 -1 DK -2 RE 

SHMOMAS

If SHMOMED=7

Did she earn an associate's degree?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SHOTPSE

 How many of your other family members ever 

 0-20= MEMBERS

SHSTRES

If DPNDSTAT eq 2 goto SHDADOCC

What is your [parents’/guardians’/father’s/male 

guardian’s] state of legal residence?

AL=Alabama NM=New Mexico 

AK=Alaska NY=New York 

AS=American Samoa NC=North Carolina

AZ=Arizona ND=North Dakota 

AR=Arkansas OH=Ohio 

CA=California OK=Oklahoma 

CO=Colorado OR=Oregon 

CT=Connecticut PA=Pennsylvania

DE=Delaware PR=Puerto Rico 

DC=District of Columbia RI=Rhode Island 

FL=Florida SC=South Carolina

GA=Georgia SD=South Dakota

GU=Guam TN=Tennessee 

HI=Hawaii TX=Texas 

ID=Idaho UT=Utah 

IL=Illinois VT=Vermont

IN=Indiana VI=Virgin Islands 

 IA=Iowa VA=Virginia

KS=Kansas WA=Washington

KY=Kentucky WV=West Virginia 

LA=Louisiana WI=Wisconsin 

ME=Maine WY=Wyoming 

MD=Maryland AA,AE,AP=Military

MA=Massachusetts CN=Canada

 MI=Michigan FM=Fed States of

MN=Minnesota Micronesia

 MS=Mississippi MH=Marshall Islands

MO=Missouri MX=Mexico

MT=Montana MP=Northern 

NE=Nebraska Mariana Islands

 NV=Nevada PW=Palau Island

 NH=New Hampshire FC=Foreign Country

 NJ=New Jersey -1=DK -2= RE

NA=Not Available

If SHSTRESne CN, goto SHPARST2
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION H H-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-70

SHPARPR1

SPECIFY CANADIAN PROVINCE

AB= Alberta

BC= British Columbia

MB= Manitoba

NB= New Brunswick

NF= Newfoundland

NS= Nova Scotia

ON= Ontario

PE= Prince Edward Island

PQ= Quebec

SK= Saskatchewan

NT= Northwst Territories

YT= Yukon Territory

-1= Don't Know

-2= Refused 

SHPARST2

What is your [mother’s/female guardian’s] state of 

legal residence?

AL=Alabama NM=New Mexico 

AK=Alaska NY=New York 

AS=American Samoa NC=North Carolina

AZ=Arizona ND=North Dakota 

AR=Arkansas OH=Ohio 

CA=California OK=Oklahoma 

CO=Colorado OR=Oregon 

CT=Connecticut PA=Pennsylvania

DE=Delaware PR=Puerto Rico 

DC=District of Columbia RI=Rhode Island 

FL=Florida SC=South Carolina

GA=Georgia SD=South Dakota

GU=Guam TN=Tennessee 

HI=Hawaii TX=Texas 

ID=Idaho UT=Utah 

IL=Illinois VT=Vermont

IN=Indiana VI=Virgin Islands 

 IA=Iowa VA=Virginia

KS=Kansas WA=Washington

KY=Kentucky WV=West Virginia 

LA=Louisiana WI=Wisconsin 

ME=Maine WY=Wyoming 

MD=Maryland AA,AE,AP=Military

MA=Massachusetts CN=Canada

 MI=Michigan FM=Fed States of

MN=Minnesota Micronesia

 MS=Mississippi MH=Marshall Islands

MO=Missouri MX=Mexico

MT=Montana MP=Northern 

NE=Nebraska Mariana Islands

 NV=Nevada PW=Palau Island

 NH=New Hampshire FC=Foreign Country

 NJ=New Jersey -1=DK -2= RE

NA=Not Available

If SHPARST2 ne CN, then goto SHDADOCC.
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION H H-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-71

SHPARPR2

SPECIFY CANADIAN PROVINCE

AB= Alberta

BC= British Columbia

MB= Manitoba

NB= New Brunswick

NF= Newfoundland

NS= Nova Scotia

ON= Ontario

PE= Prince Edward Island

PQ= Quebec

SK= Saskatchewan

NT= Northwst Territories

YT= Yukon Territory

-1= Don't Know

-2= Refused 

SHDADOCC

What is your [father’s/male guardian’s] job?

 ENTER OCCUPATION FOR PRINCIPAL JOB.

 1 = ENTER OCCUPATION IN THE USEREXIT

 2 = SKIP OVER THE USEREXIT

 3 = RETIRED

 4 = NOT EMPLOYED (INCLUDING DISABLED 

OR HOMEMAKER)

 -1 = DK -2 = RE

SHMOMOCC

What is your [mother’s/female guardian’s] job?

 ENTER OCCUPATION FOR PRINCIPAL JOB.

 1 = ENTER OCCUPATION IN THE USEREXIT

 2 = SKIP OVER THE USEREXIT

 3 = RETIRED

 4 = NOT EMPLOYED (INCLUDING DISABLED 

OR HOMEMAKER)

 -1 = DK -2 = RE

SHINC95

If SAAGE gt 25 goto SHSIZE

What is your estimate of your [parents’/guardians’/ 

father’s/male guardian’s] total yearly income, for 

1995?

 0-3,000,000

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SHINC95 ne -1, goto SHINC94
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION H H-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-72

SHINC95E SHINC94E

Would you estimate that [their/his]1995 total income Would you estimate that [their/his]1994 total income 

was more or less than $30,000? was more or less than $30,000?

 1 = LESS THAN $30,000 1 = LESS THAN $30,000

 2 = MORE THAN $30,000 2 = MORE THAN $30,000

 -1 = DK -1 = DK

 -2 = RE -2 = RE

If SHINC95E=1, goto SHINC95L If SHINC94E=2 goto SHIN94M

If SHINC95E=2, goto SHINC95M

Else goto SHINC94

SHINC95L

I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell 

me the range that best estimates your [parents’/

guardians’/father’s/male guardian’s] income for 1995...

 1 = Less than 5,000

 2 = 5 to 9 thousand (LESS THAN $10,000)

 3 = 10 to 19 thousand (LESS THAN $20,000)

 4 = 20 to 29 thousand (LESS THAN $30,000)

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SHINC95M

 1 = 30 to 39 thousand (LESS THAN $40,000)

 2 = 40 to 49 thousand (LESS THAN $50,000)

 3 = 50 to 59 thousand (LESS THAN $60,000)

 4 = 60 to 69 thousand (LESS THAN $70,000)

 5 = 70 to 79 thousand (LESS THAN $ 80,000)

 6 = 80 to 89 thousand (LESS THAN $ 90,000)

 7 = 90 to 99 thousand (LESS THAN $100,000)

 8 = $100,000 or more

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SHINC94

If SAAGE gt 25, goto SHSIZE

If SZPAAGI gt 0, goto SHINC295

What would you estimate it was for 1994?

ENTER 1 IF SAME AS 1995

 0-3,000,000 =

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SHINC94 ne -1, goto SHINC295

SHIN94L

I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell 

me the range that best estimates your [parents’/ 

guardians’/father’s/male guardian’s] income for 1994...

 1 = Less than 5,000

 2 = 5 to 9 thousand (LESS THAN $10,000)

 3 = 10 to 19 thousand (LESS THAN $20,000)

 4 = 20 to 29 thousand (LESS THAN $30,000)

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SHIN94M

 1 = 30 to 39 thousand (LESS THAN $ 40,000)

 2 = 40 to 49 thousand (LESS THAN $ 50,000)

 3 = 50 to 59 thousand (LESS THAN $ 60,000)

 4 = 60 to 69 thousand (LESS THAN $ 70,000)

 5 = 70 to 79 thousand (LESS THAN $ 80,000)

 6 = 80 to 89 thousand (LESS THAN $ 90,000)

 7 = 90 to 99 thousand (LESS THAN $100,000)

 8 = $100,000 or more

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

SHINC295

If SAAGE gt 25, goto SHSIZE

What is your estimate of your [mother’s/female 

guardian’s] total yearly income, for 1995?

 0-3,000,000 =

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SHINC295 ne -1, goto SHINC294
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION H H-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-73

SHRNG295 SHRNG294

Would you estimate that her 1995 total income was Would you estimate that her 1994 total income was 

more or less than $30,000? more or less than $30,000?

 1 = LESS THAN $30,000 1 = LESS THAN $30,000

 2 = MORE THAN $30,000 2 = MORE THAN $30,000

 -1 = DK -1 = DK

 -2 = RE -2 = RE

If SHRNG295=1, goto SHIN2L95 If SHRNG294 =1 goto SHIN2L94

If SHRNG295=2, goto SHIN2M95 If SHRNG294=2 goto SHIN2M94

Else goto SHINC294 Else goto SHSIZE

SHIN2L95 SHIN2L94

I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell 

me the range that best estimates your [mother’s/female me the range that best estimates your [mother’s/female 

guardian’s] income for 1995... guardian’s] income for 1994...

 1 = Less than 5,000 1 = Less than 5,000

 2 = 5 to 9 thousand (LESS THAN $10,000) 2 = 5 to 9 thousand (LESS THAN $10,000)

 3 = 10 to 19 thousand (LESS THAN $20,000) 3 = 10 to 19 thousand (LESS THAN $20,000)

 4 = 20 to 29 thousand (LESS THAN $30,000) 4 = 20 to 29 thousand (LESS THAN $30,000)

 -1 = DK -1 = DK

 -2 = RE -2 = RE

SHIN2M95 SHIN2M94

 1 = 30 to 39 thousand (LESS THAN $ 40,000) 1 = 30 to 39 thousand (LESS THAN $ 40,000)

 2 = 40 to 49 thousand (LESS THAN $ 50,000) 2 = 40 to 49 thousand (LESS THAN $ 50,000)

 3 = 50 to 59 thousand (LESS THAN $ 60,000) 3 = 50 to 59 thousand (LESS THAN $ 60,000)

 4 = 60 to 69 thousand (LESS THAN $ 70,000) 4 = 60 to 69 thousand (LESS THAN $ 70,000)

 5 = 70 to 79 thousand (LESS THAN $ 80,000) 5 = 70 to 79 thousand (LESS THAN $ 80,000)

 6 = 80 to 89 thousand (LESS THAN $ 90,000) 6 = 80 to 89 thousand (LESS THAN $ 90,000)

 7 = 90 to 99 thousand (LESS THAN $100,000) 7 = 90 to 99 thousand (LESS THAN $100,000)

 8 = $100,000 or more 8 = $100,000 or more

 -1 = DK -1 = DK

 -2 = RE -2 = RE

SHINC294

If SAAGE gt 25, goto SHSIZE

If SZPAAGI gt 0 goto SHSIZE

What would you estimate it was for 1994?

ENTER 1 IF THE SAME AS 1995

 0-999999 =

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SHINC294 ne -1, goto SHSIZE
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION H H-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-74

SHSIZE

If SAAGE gt 25, goto SHWRKEXP

How many people did your [parents’/guardians’/ 

father’s/ male guardian’s] household support

between July 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996?

Please include anyone who received at least half of

their support from your [parents/guardians/father/male

guardian].

[(Include yourself, your [father/male guardian], and 

your [mother/female guardian], if applicable.) / (Include

yourself and your [father/male guardian].)]

(0-20) 

If SHSIZE gt 0, goto SHPSENPS

Else goto SHHHSIZ2

SHPSENPS

Of the [fill SHSIZE] people your [[parents/guardians] were /

[father/male guardian] was] supporting during that time,

how many were in a postsecondary school at least half-time

(0-20)?

SHHHSIZ2

How many people did your [mother’s/female guardian’s]

household support between July 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996?

Please include anyone who received at least half of 

their support from your [mother/female guardian], and 

include yourself, [your [mother/female guardian], and 

your [father/male guardian], if applicable. / and your 

[mother/female guardian], if applicable.]

0-20

 -1 = DK -2 = RE

If SHHHSIZ2 le 0, goto SHWRKEXP

SHHHPSE2

Of the [fill SHHHSIZ2] people your [mother/female 

guardian] was supporting during that time, how many 

were in a postsecondary school at least half-time?

 0-20

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION H H-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-75

SHWRKEXP

If DPNDSTAT eq 2 goto SHEFFECT

Did your [[father/male guardian] and [mother/female 

guardian] / [father/male guardian] / [mother/female 

guardian]] expect you to have a job for pay during the 

1995-96 school year?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SHWRKEXP ne 1 goto SHEFFECT

SHHRSEXP

How many hours did [they/he/she] expect you to work 

in an average week?

 1-100

 -1 = DK -2 = RE

SHEFFECT

If DPNDSTAT eq 2 goto H_END

If SHHRSEXP lt 1 goto H_END

You told me earlier that, on average, you worked 

about [fill SHHRSEXP] hours per week while you 

were also attending classes. Do you think the amount 

of time you were working had a positive effect, a 

negative effect, or no effect on your grades?

 1 = POSITIVE EFFECT

 2 = NEGATIVE EFFECT

 3 = NO EFFECT

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

H_END

 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-76

STUDENT CATI

Section I
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-77
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION I I-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-78

If BPSELIG ne 1 and

if CTSTTYPE eq 1 and 

if a_fstlvl le 2, goto SIREMED Meet with advisor concerning academic plans 

Else if BPSELIG ne 1 goto I_END. 

SINUMAPP

Next I have a few questions about your experiences at

 [NPSAS school].

Thinking back to when you applied to [NPSAS SISTUDGP

school]...

Attend study groups outside of the classroom? 

How many schools did you apply to (0-99).

(INCLUDING [NPSAS school])?

SINUMACC Go places with friends from school?

 How many of those schools accepted you (0-99)? SPORTING EVENTS) 

SIFIRST

Was [NPSAS school] your first choice for 

postsecondary school (1=YES 2=NO)? 

SIMILES

How far (in miles) is [NPSAS school] from your 

permanent home (1-12450 MILES)? 

...attend academic or career-related lectures, 

SITALK conventions, or field trips?

Random number start=SIRAND2

I am now going to read you a list of school-related 

activities that you may have participated in during the 

1995-96 school year, while you attended [fill name of 

NPSAS school].

Please tell me how often you participated in the activity.

INTERVIEWER: ENTER 0=NEVER, 

1=SOMETIMES, AND 2=OFTEN

Talk with faculty about academic matters outside of

class time? 

SIMEET

SISOCIAL

Have informal or social contacts with advisor or other

faculty members outside of classrooms and offices 

SIFRIEND

(EG CONCERTS, MOVIES, RESTAURANTS, 

SICLUBS

Participate in school clubs?

(EG STUDENT GOVERNMENT, RELIGIOUS 

CLUBS, SERVICE ACTIVITIES) 

SILECTUR

During 95-96, how often did you...

SIARTS

If LEVEL lt 3

...attend music, choir, drama, or other fine arts 

activities? 

SIINTRAM

If LEVEL lt 3

...participate in intramural or nonvarsity sports? 

 
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION I I-2

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-79

SIVARSTY

If LEVEL lt 3

...participate in varsity or intercollegiate sports?

SITEACH 

Please tell me if you were satisfied with the

following at [fill name of NPSAS school].

The teaching ability of most of the instructors? 

SISOCLIF

Your social life?

SIINTELL

Your intellectual growth? 

SICOST

The financial cost of attending? 

SIPRSTG

The prestige of the school? 

SICLIMT

Overall campus climate regarding students of different

racial or ethnic backgrounds?

SICLSIZE

Class sizes?

SICOURS

The availability of courses?
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION I I-3

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-80

SIREMED SICULT

If SAFSTLEV gt 2, goto SICNSL If LEVEL lt 3

0= DID NOT USE; 1= ONCE; ...participate in cultural activities including music, art, 

2=SOMETIMES; 3=OFTEN/A LOT; and drama?......

4=SERVICE UNAVAILABLE

During 95-96, did you take remedial or developmental 

courses (0=NO 1=YES)?..

(Note: format of the response options accommodates values Were you satisfied with the activities (1=YES 2=NO)? 

of 1--3, all indicating “Yes.”)

If SIREMED ne 1--3 goto SICNSL SISPRT

SIREMEDS

Were you satisfied with the services (1=YES 2=NO)? 

SICNSL

During 95-96, how often did you... SISPRTS

...use counseling services, FOR ACADEMIC/ Were you satisfied with the facilities (1=YES 2=NO)? 

FINANCIAL AID, OR PERSONAL ISSUES?

If SICNSL ne 1--3 goto SIJOB

SICNSLS

 Were you satisfied with the services (1=YES 2=NO)? 

 You indicated that you had remedial instruction or 

SIJOB

...use the job placement services?................................ ...reading 

If SIJOB ne 1--3 goto SICULT

SIJOBS SIREADHR

 Were you satisfied with the services (1=YES 2=NO)? How many hours of instruction did you have (1-500)? 

If SICULT ne 1--3 goto SISPRT

SICULTS

If LEVEL lt 3

...use the sports or recreational facilities?....................

If SISPRT ne 1--3, goto SIREAD

SIREAD

If SIREMED lt 1 or gt 3 goto SICAREER

If SIFSTLEV gt 2, goto SICAREER

 INTERVIEWER: ENTER 1= YES 2 = NO

developmental courses. Was this to improve your 

skills in...

If ne 1 goto SIWRIT

SIWRIT

 ...writing 

If ne 1, goto SIMATH

SIWRITHR

 How many hours of instruction did you have (1-500)? 
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION I I-4

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-81

SIMATH

 ...math 

If ne 1, goto SISTUD

SIMATHHR

 How many hours of instruction did you have

(1-500)? 

SISTUD

 ...study skills 

If ne 1, goto SILANG

SISTUDHR

 How many hours of instruction did you have

(1-500)? 

SILANG

 ...English language skills 

If ne 1, goto SICAREER

SILANGHR

 How many hours of instruction did you have

(1-500)? 

SICAREER

If BPSELIG ne <1> goto I_END

 

What job, if any, do you expect to have when you 

finish your program?

INTERVIEWER: PLEASE ENTER THE 

OCCUPATION INFO ONLY IN THE

FOLLOWING SCREENS OF THE USEREXIT

 1 = ENTER/RE-ENTER THE USEREXIT

 2 = SKIP OVER THE USEREXIT

 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-82

SIAUTH Being able to give your children better

opportunities than you had. 

Are the following personal goals very important to 

you?

I_END

 INTERVIEWER: 1= YES 2= NO

 Becoming an authority in a field. 

SIINFL

 Influencing the political structure. 

SIFINC 

 Being very well off financially. 

SIBUSIN

 Becoming successful in your own business. 

SISUCCAR

 Being successful in a particular career. 

SILEAD

 Being a leader in the community. 

SILIVCLS 

 Living close to your parents and relatives. 

SIAWAY

 Getting away from the area where you were raised. 

SILEISR

 Having leisure time to enjoy personal interests. 

SIFAMILY

 Raising a family. 

SIBTROPP 
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION I I-6

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-83

STUDENT CATI

Section J
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-84
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION J J-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-85

SJINTRO SJSPOUSE

If bps_elig ne 1 goto SJSOCSEC If not married goto SJVERPRM

else if married and SJBPSCON =4 goto SJVERPRM

You've been selected for a U.S. Department of Education

study to determine what happens to students as they pursue What is your spouse's full name (including maiden 

their education. We would like to talk to you again in a name)?

couple years to see what you are doing and what has ENTER FIRST NAME 

changed in your life. To find you, we need some ENTER MIDDLE INITIAL 

locating information; which will be kept in strict ENTER LAST NAME 

confidence. ENTER MAIDEN NAME 

SJBPSCON SJVERPRM

Would you please tell me the name, address, and 

phone number of a person -- preferably a relative 

other than your parents -- who lives at an address

different from yours and who will always know where 

to get in touch with you?

 

1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK -2 = RE

ENTER FIRST NAME.

ENTER MIDDLE INITIAL.

ENTER LAST NAME.

ENTER LINE 1 OF ADDRESS.

ENTER LINE 2 OF ADDRESS.

ENTER CITY OF RESIDENCE.

ENTER ALPHABETICAL CODE FOR STATE.

ZIP CODE:

ENTER PHONE NUMBER:

If SJBPSCON = 2 then goto SJSPOUSE 3. CITY: 

SJRELATN 0. RETURN TO MAIN MENU

What is this person's relationship to you?

 1 = MOTHER/FEMALE GUARDIAN

 2 = FATHER/MALE GUARDIAN

 3 = SISTER/BROTHER

 4 = SPOUSE

 5 = OTHER RELATIVE

 6 = FRIEND

 7 = OTHER SPECIFY

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SJRELATN ne 7 goto SJSPOUSE 1 = YES

SJOTHSPF If SJVERPRM = 2 goto SJVERLOC

SPECIFY RELATIONSHIP OF CONTACT.

We'd also like to verify your permanent address. Is it 

same or similar to:

1.PERMANENT ADDRESS

1.PHONE: 

1. ADDR: 

1. 

1. CITY: 

1.STATE: 

 

2.PARENT ADDRESS

2.PHONE:

2. ADDR:

2.

2. CITY:

2.STATE:

3.CURRENT RL ADDRESS

3.PHONE:

3. ADDR: 

3. 

3.STATE:

9. Totally different address

 

1 = PERMANENT ADDRESS FROM CADE 

 2 = PARENT ADDRESS FROM CADE 

3 = ADDRESS FROM CURRENT ROSTER LINE

9 = DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE -1=DK -2=RE

If SJVERPRM lt 0 goto SJVERLOC

SJVERPR2

DO YOU NEED TO CORRECT THE ADDRESS?

2 = NO
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION J J-2

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-86

SJPRMADR

INTERVIEWER: VERIFY AND/OR UPDATE THE 

PERMANENT ADDRESS.

ENTER LINE 1 OF ADDRESS. 

ENTER LINE 2 OF ADDRESS. 

ENTER CITY OF RESIDENCE. 

ENTER ALPHABETICAL CODE FOR STATE.

ZIP CODE: 

ENTER PHONE NUMBER: 

SJVERLOC

And is your local address same or similar to:

1.PERMANENT ADDRESS

1.PHONE:

1. ADDR: 

1. 

1. CITY:

1.STATE:

2.LOCAL ADDRESS

2.PHONE:

2. ADDR:

2.

2. CITY:

2.STATE:

3.CURRENT RL ADDRESS

3.PHONE:

3. ADDR:

3. 

3. CITY:

3.STATE:

9. Totally different address

0.RETURN TO MAIN MENU

 1 = PERMANENT ADDRESS FROM PRMADD

2 = LOCAL ADDRESS FROM CADE 

3 = ADDRESS FROM CURRENT ROSTER LINE 

9 = DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE -1=DK -2=RE

If SJVERLOC lt 0 goto SJEMAIL

SJVERLO2

DO YOU NEED TO CORRECT THE ADDRESS?

1 = YES

2 = NO

If SJVERLO2 = 2 goto SJEMAIL
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION J J-3

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-87

SJ_LOCADR

INTERVIEWER: VERIFY AND/OR UPDATE THE 

LOCAL ADDRESS.

ENTER LINE 1 OF ADDRESS. 

ENTER LINE 2 OF ADDRESS. 

ENTER CITY OF RESIDENCE. 

ENTER ALPHABETICAL CODE FOR STATE.

ENTER ZIP CODE: 

ENTER PHONE NUMBER: 

SJEMAIL

Do you have an e-mail (ELECTRONIC MAIL) 

address?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SJEMAIL ne 1 goto SJNICK

SJEMADDR

What is it?

SJNICK

Do your parents, relatives, or friends know you by any 

other name other than [fill student]?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If SJNICK ne 1 goto SJDRVLIC

SJNAMSPF

What is that other name?

 SPECIFY NAME:

 
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION J J-4

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-88

SJDRVLIC SJPRVSPF

If z_drvlic gt <>, store z_drvlic in SJDRVLIC, SPECIFY CANADIAN PROVINCE

goto SJFTRCTY AB= Alberta

To help us in locating you later, please tell me in what MB= Manitoba

state your driver's license was issued. NB= New Brunswick

AL=Alabama NM=New Mexico NF= Newfoundland

AK=Alaska NY=New York NS= Nova Scotia

AS=American Samoa NC=North Carolina ON= Ontario

AZ=Arizona ND=North Dakota PE= Prince Edward Island

AR=Arkansas OH=Ohio PQ= Quebec

CA=California OK=Oklahoma SK= Saskatchewan

CO=Colorado OR=Oregon NT= Northwst Territories

CT=Connecticut PA=Pennsylvania YT= Yukon Territory

DE=Delaware PR=Puerto Rico -1= Don't Know

DC=District of Columbia RI=Rhode Island -2= Refused

FL=Florida SC=South Carolina

GA=Georgia SD=South Dakota

GU=Guam TN=Tennessee 

HI=Hawaii TX=Texas 

ID=Idaho UT=Utah May I have your driver's license number?

IL=Illinois VT=Vermont 

IN=Indiana VI=Virgin Islands 1 = YES

 IA=Iowa VA=Virginia 2 = NO

KS=Kansas WA=Washington -1 = DK

KY=Kentucky WV=West Virginia -2 = RE

LA=Louisiana WI=Wisconsin 

ME=Maine WY=Wyoming If SJNUMBR ne 1 goto SJFTRCTY

MD=Maryland AA,AE,AP=Military

MA=Massachusetts CN=Canada

 MI=Michigan FM=Fed States of

MN=Minnesota Micronesia

 MS=Mississippi MH=Marshall Islands ENTER DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER: 

MO=Missouri MX=Mexico

MT=Montana MP=Northern 

NE=Nebraska Mariana Islands

 NV=Nevada PW=Palau Island

 NH=New Hampshire FC=Foreign Country In what city and state do you expect to be living two 

 NJ=New Jersey -1=DK -2= RE years from now?

NA=Not Available

NN=No driver's license

If SJDRVLIC = CN goto SJPRVSPF SPECIFY CITY 

else if SJDRVLIC = NA goto SJFTRCTY ENTER ALPHABETICAL CODE FOR STATE 

else if SJDRVLIC = NN goto SJFTRCTY

else goto SJNUMBR

BC= British Columbia

SJNUMBR

SJNUMBRT

SJFTRCTY

ENTER -2 FOR CITY FOR REFUSAL

SJSOCSEC

If cpsmatch eq 1 goto SJCK_PAR

Can you tell me your social security number (1=YES 

2=NO)?

If SJSOCSEC = 1 goto SJCORSSN

else if SJSOCSEC = 2 goto SJSIDANS

else goto SJCK_PAR
NPSAS:96 STUDENT CATI: SECTION J J-5

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-89

SJCORSSN

What is your Social Security number? 

SJSSNSID

Is your student ID number the same as your Social 

Security number (1=YES 2=NO)?

If SJSSNSID eq 1 goto SJCK_PAR

else goto SJSTDNUM

SJSIDANS

Can you tell me your student ID number (1=YES 

2=NO)?

If SJSIDANS ne 1 goto SJCK_PAR

SJSTDNUM

What is your student ID number?

SJCK_PAR

If SAAGE gt 29 goto J_END

else if both parents are dead and there are no guardians 

goto J_END

INTERVIEWER: THIS CASE NEEDS A PARENT 

INTERVIEW. CURRENT STATUS OF THE PARENT

INTERVIEW IS: [fill pa_status].

 WE NEED TO GET LOCATING INFORMATION 

FROM THE RESPONDENT AND WILL DO SO IN 

THE NEXT COUPLE OF SCREENS.

J_END
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-90

PARENT CATI

Section L
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-91
NPSAS:96 PARENT CATI: SECTION L L-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-92

PLRELAT

 I would like to ask some questions about your role in

financing [student’s name]'s expenses for the 1995-96

school year.

 But before we begin, could you tell me your

relationship to [student’s name]?

1 = MOTHER

2 = STEP MOTHER

3 = OTHER FEMALE RELATIVE OR GUARDIAN

4 = FATHER

5 = STEP FATHER

6 = OTHER MALE RELATIVE OR GUARDIAN

PLMARST

 What is your marital status?

 1 = MARRIED

 2 = SEPARATED

 3 = DIVORCED

 4 = WIDOWED

 5 = SINGLE, NEVER MARRIED

 -2 = REFUSED

PLSTDDEP

 Was [student’s name] your dependent between July 1,

1995 and June 30, 1996.(A DEPENDENT IS

SOMEONE WHO RECEIVES MORE THAN HALF

OF HIS OR HER SUPPORT FROM YOU).

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 =DK

 -2 =RE

PLNUMDEP

 How many people did [you/you and your spouse]

support between July 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996?

PLEASE INCLUDE [student’s name], YOURSELF,

YOUR SPOUSE, AND ALL OF YOUR DEPENDENT

CHILDREN. ALSO INCLUDE [YOUR/YOUR AND

YOUR SPOUSE’S] PARENTS IF THEY RECEIVED

MORE THAN HALF OF THEIR SUPPORT FROM

YOU.

 0-20 = DEPENDENTS

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE
NPSAS:96 PARENT CATI: SECTION L L-2

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-93

PLPDSCH PLGVAMT

 

How much money have [you/you and your spouse] paid

directly to [student’s name]'s school for [his/her]

educational expenses for the 1995-96 school year? 

(We mean only money that you do not expect to be

paid back. Please include only expenses that are paid

directly to the school.)

 0-80,000 = DOLLARS

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If -1, goto PLPDSCHE; else goto PLPDSCTF

PLPDSCHE

 Would you estimate that [your/your and your spouse’s]

payments to the school for the year were...

 1 = ...less than 1,000

 2 = ...1 to 4 thousand (LESS THAN $5,000)

 3 = ...5 to 9 thousand (LESS THAN $10,000)

 4 = ...10 to 19 thousand (LESS THAN $20,000)

 5 = ...or 20 thousand or more

 -1 = DK -2 = RE

 PLPDSCTF

 INTERVIEWER: 1=YES 2=NO

 Was that money for...

...tuition and fees?

PLPDSCBS

...books and supplies?

PLPDSCHS

...for housing?

 PLPDSCML

...for meals? PLGVBOOK

 How much did [you/you and your spouse] give directly

to [student’s name] for [his/her] 1995-96 educational

expenses, including any allowance?

 INCLUDE ONLY EXPENSES THAT ARE PAID

DIRECTLY TO THE STUDENT AND

 WERE DIRECTLY RELATED TO [HIS/HER]

ENROLLMENT IN SCHOOL

 SUCH AS RENT, FOOD, PERSONAL EXPENSES,

AND TRANSPORTATION.

 0-80,000 = DOLLARS

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

PLGVEST

 Would you estimate [your/your and your spouse’s]

payments to [student’s name] were...

 1 = ...less than 1,000

 2 = ...1 to 4 thousand (LESS THAN $5,000)

 3 = ...5 to 9 thousand (LESS THAN $10,000)

 4 = ...10 to 19 thousand (LESS THAN $20,000)

 5 = ...or 20 thousand or more

 -1 = DK -2 = RE

PLGVTFEE

Was that money intended for...

 INTERVIEWER: 1 = YES 2 = NO 

-1 = DK -2 = RE

 ...tuition and fees? 

PLGVHOUS

 ...housing or rent? 

PLGVFOOD

 ...food or board?

 ...books? 

PLGVTRNS

 ...transportation expenses? 

PLGVOTH

 ...other expenses?
NPSAS:96 PARENT CATI: SECTION L L-3

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-94

PLLNAMT

How much money have [you/you and your spouse]

loaned to [student’s name] for the 1995-96 school

year?

 BY LOAN, WE MEAN MONEY THAT YOU DO

EXPECT [student’s name] TO PAY BACK.

 PROBE: IF THE ANSWER GIVEN IS A RANGE, IT

NEEDS TO BE NARROWED DOWN. 

 0-80,000 = DOLLARS

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

PLLNEST

 Would you estimate [your/your and your spouse’s] loan

to [student’s name] was...

 1 = ...less than 1,000

 2 = ...1 to 4 thousand (LESS THAN $5,000)

 3 = ...5 to 9 thousand (LESS THAN $10,000)

 4 = ...10 to 19 thousand (LESS THAN $20,000)

 5 = ...or 20 thousand or more

 -1 = DK -2 = RE

 

PLLNTFEE

Was the loan money to be used for...

 INTERVIEWER: 1 = YES 2 = NO -1 = DK -2 = RE

 ...tuition and fees? 

PLLNHOUS

 ...books and supplies?

PLLNFOOD

 ...housing or rent?

PLLNBOOK

 ...meals?

PLLNTRNS

 ...transportation expenses?

PLLNOTH

 ...other personal expenses?
NPSAS:96 PARENT CATI: SECTION L L-4

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-95

PLSAVNGS PLLONAMT

In order to contribute or lend money for [student’s You said you took out personal loans to help pay

name]'s 1995-96 school year expenses, did [you/you [student’s name]'s school expenses. About how much

and your spouse] use money from... would you say you borrowed for 1995-96?

 INTERVIEWER: 1=YES 2=NO -1=DK -2=RE 0-80,000

 -1 = DK

 ...Savings accounts, money market accounts, or -2 = RE

certificates of deposits

PLEEBOND PLLOAN1--PLLOAN5

 ...Series EE Bonds from the US Savings Bond Program

PLOTHBND

ENTER ALL THAT APPLY ENTER 0 TO EXIT

 ...Other stocks, bonds or mutual funds

PLRETIRE

 ...Funds previously set aside for retirement?

PLLIFEINS

 ...Life insurance policies?

PLTRUST

 ...A trust fund

PLLOANS

 ...Any loans including PLUS loan, home equity loan or

a line of credit?

PLMRTG

PLPREPAY

 ...A second mortgage on real estate?

(DON'T INCLUDE HOME EQUITY LOANS)

PLRLEST

 ...Real estate investments other than your home?

PLRELMNY

 ...Money from relatives, friends, or a former spouse?

PLOTHSRC

 ...Any other sources?

PLOTSCSP

OTHER SPECIFY:

 What kind of loans did you get ...READ LIST AS A

PROMPT

 

 1 = PLUS LOAN

 2 = STATE SPONSORED PARENT LOAN

 3 = SCHOOL SPONSORED PARENT LOAN

 4 = SIGNATURE LOAN?

 5 = HOME EQUITY LOAN?

 6 = LINE OF CREDIT LOAN?

 7 = LOAN AGAINST A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY

 8 = COMMERCIAL LOAN?

 9 = LOAN FROM A NON-PROFIT UNDERWRITER

 10 = FAMILY EDUCATION LOAN FROM SALLIE

MAE

 11 = LOAN AGAINST A RETIREMENT FUND

 12 = PERSONAL LOAN OR LOANS FROM A

FORMER SPOUSE,OTHER RELATIVE, OR FRIEND

 13 = LOANS FROM ANY OTHER SOURCES

 Did you use a tuition prepayment or guarantee program

or a tuition savings plan to pay [student’s name]'s

education expenses (1=YES 2=NO)?

If PLPREPAY=1 goto PLPREAMT; else goto PLPARPAY

PLPREAMT

 Approximately, how much did you spend on the

prepayment plan (1-99,999)?

PLPRETYP

 What type of prepayment plan was it?

1 = STATE-SPONSORED

2 = SCHOOL-SPONSORED

3 = A PRIVATE PLAN

4 = OTHER TYPE
NPSAS:96 PARENT CATI: SECTION L L-5

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-96

PLPARPAY

 To what extent have or will [you/you and your spouse]

help repay the money that [student’s name] has or will

have borrowed for [his/her] education?

 Will [you/you and your spouse] help with...

 1 = all of it

 2 = some of it, or

 3 = none of it?

 4 = HASN'T AND WON'T BORROW ANY

MONEY

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

PLSTUPAY

If PLLOAN1 is blank, goto L_END

 To what extent has or will [student’s name] help repay

the money [you/you and your spouse] borrowed for

[his/her] 1995-96 school year expenses?

 Will [student’s name] help with...

 1 = all of it

 2 = some of it, or

 3 = none of it?

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

 

PLSTRTSV

 What grade was [student’s name] in when [you/you

and your spouse] first began to save for [his/her]

postsecondary education?

 1 = BEFORE 1st GRADE

 2 = 1st TO 6th GRADE

 3 = 7th TO 9th GRADE

 4 = 10th TO 12th GRADE

 5 = AFTER HIGH SCHOOL

 6 = DID NOT SAVE

 -1 = DON'T KNOW

 -2 = REFUSED

L_END
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-97

PARENT CATI

Section M
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-98
NPSAS:96 Parent CATI: Section M M-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-99

PMNUMPSE

How many of your dependents, were in college or

other postsecondary school at least half time during

the 1995-96 school year?

 0 = NO DEPENDENTS IN POSTSECONDARY

SCHOOL HALF TIME

 1-20 = DEPENDENTS IN POSTSECONDARY

SCHOOL HALF TIME

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

PMAMTOTH 

 How much would you estimate you contributed or

loaned to help meet their 1995-96 school expenses?

 YOUR ESTIMATE SHOULD INCLUDE TUITION

AND FEES, ROOM AND BOARD, RENT,

TRANSPORTATION, AND ANY OTHER

EDUCATION RELATED EXPENSES.

 0-80000 = DOLLARS

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

PMEVRPSE

 Including everyone [you/you and your spouse] have

ever supported, how many have ever attended a

postsecondary school? Please include [student’s name],

[and yourself/yourself and your spouse].

 1-20 = DEPENDENTS

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

PMBORROW

 How much money have you borrowed for the

postsecondary education of your children? Please

include [student’s name] in your estimate (if

appropriate).

NOTE: INCLUDE SPOUSE'S CHILDREN/

STEPCHILDREN, IF APPLICABLE.

 0-300,000 DOLLARS 

PMDEPOWE 

If PMBORROW le 0, goto M_END

 Of the $[fill PMBORROW] you've borrowed, how

much do you still owe? 

M_END
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-100
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-101

PARENT CATI

Section N
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-102
NPSAS:96 PARENT CATI: SECTION N N-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-103

PNWRKPAY PNYRRET

My next few questions have to do with [your/your and

your spouse’s] employment. Are you currently

working for pay?

IF NO, PROBE TO DETERMINE IF R IS 60-96 =

RETIRED OR NEVER WORKED -1 = DK

1 = YES

2 = NO

 3 = NEVER WORKED

4 = RETIRED

-1 = DK

-2 = RE

If PNWRKPAY=2 or 3 then goto PNDISABL; else goto

PNOCCUPC. 

PNDISABL

 Do you have a physical, mental, or other health

condition that limits or prevents you from working?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If PNWRKPAY=2, goto PNEMPL95

If PNWRKPAY=3, goto PNSKJOB

PNOCCUPC

 Please give me your [previous] occupation.

INTERVIEWER: PLEASE ENTER THE INFO IN

THE FOLLOWING SCREENS OF THE USEREXIT

 1 = ENTER THE USEREXIT

If PNWRKPAY=4, goto PNYRRET; else goto PNHRSWRK

PNHRSWRK

 How many hours do you typically work per week?

 INCLUDE ALL HOURS, EVEN IF THEY WERE

NOT PAID FOR THOSE HOURS

 0-80 =

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

 When did you retire?

 GET THE CALENDAR YEAR

 -2 = RE

PNEMPL95

Were you employed at any time during the 1995

calendar year?

WE ARE SPECIFICALLY INTERESTED IN WORK

FOR PAY, NOT VOLUNTEER WORK.

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If PNWRKPAY=2, goto PNSKJOB; else goto PNSPWKPY

PNSKJOB

 Are you currently looking for a job?

1 = YES

2 = NO

-1 = DK

-2 = RE

If 1, goto PNDIFFEMP; else gotoPNSPWKPY

PNDIFEMP

Are you having trouble finding a job?

1 = YES

2 = NO

-1 = DK

-2 = RE
NPSAS:96 PARENT CATI: SECTION N N-2

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-104

PNSPWKPY

If PLMARST ne 1, goto PNTOTL95

Is your spouse currently working for pay? When did your spouse retire?

IF NO, PROBE TO DETERMINE IF SPOUSE IS

RETIRED OR NEVER WORKED 

 60-96 =

1 = YES -1 = DK

2 = NO -2 = RE

 3 = NEVER WORKED

4 = RETIRED

-1 = DK

-2 = RE

If PNSPWKPY=2 or 3, goto PNDISWRK; else PNOCCSP

PNDISWRK -1 = DK

 Does your spouse have a physical, mental, or other

health condition that limits the amount or kind of work

[he/she] can do?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If PNSPWKPY=2, goto PNSPEM95

If PNSPWKPY=3, goto PNSKJBSP

PNOCCSP If PNSKJBSP=1, goto PNSPDFEM; else goto PNTOTL95

 

Please give me your spouse's [previous] occupation.

INTERVIEWER: PLEASE ENTER THE INFO IN

THE FOLLOWING SCREENS OF THE USEREXIT

 1 = ENTER THE USEREXIT

If PNSPWKPY=4, goto PNRETSP

Else goto PNHRWKSP

PNHRWKSP

 How many hours does your spouse typically work per

week?

 INCLUDE ALL HOURS, EVEN IF THEY WERE

NOT PAID FOR THOSE HOURS

 0-80 =

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

 PNRETSP

 GET THE CALENDAR YEAR

PNSPEM95

Was [he/she] employed at any time during the 1995

calendar year?

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -2 = RE

If PNSPWKPY=2, goto PNSKJBSP; else goto PNTOTL95

PNSKJBSP

 Is [he/she] currently looking for a job?

1 = YES

2 = NO

-1 = DK

-2 = RE

PNSPDFEM

Is [he/she] having trouble finding a job?

1 = YES

2 = NO

-1 = DK

-2 = RE
NPSAS:96 PARENT CATI: SECTION N N-3

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-105

PNTOTL95

My next few questions refer to your 1994 and 1995

income.

INTERVIEWER: ENTER 1 FOR THE 1994

AMOUNT, IF 1994 AMOUNT IS SAME AS 1995. 

ENTER 2 FOR THE AMOUNT FROM JOBS, IF IT IS

THE SAME AS THE TOTAL INCOME. ENTER 3

FOR THE SPOUSE'S INCOME, IF IT IS THE DIFF

THE TOTAL AND R'S INCOME

What was [your/your and your spouse’s] total income

from all sources, prior to taxes and deductions,...

 ...for 1995

PNTOTL94

 ...for 1994 

PNWAGE95

What is your estimate of your total income from all jobs...

 ...in 1995? 

PNWAGE94

 ...in 1994? 

PNSPWG95

If PLMARST=1

What was your spouse's income from all jobs...

 

...in 1995? 

PNSPWG94

If PLMARST=1

 ...in 1994? 

PNUNTX95

Income from AFDC, or other government welfare

programs...

 

...in 1995? 

PNUNTX94

 ...in 1994? 
NPSAS:96 PARENT CATI: SECTION N N-4

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-106

PNEST95 PNEST94L

Would you estimate that your 1995 employment

income was more or less than $30,000?

1 = LESS THAN $30,000

 2 = MORE THAN $30,000

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

 

If PNEST95=1, goto PNEST95L; if PNEST95=2, goto

PNEST95M; else goto PNEST94

PNEST95L

Please tell me if your employment income for 1995

was...

 

1 = Less than 5,000

 2 = 5 to 9 thousand (LESS THAN $10,000)

 3 = 10 to 19 thousand (LESS THAN $20,000)

 4 = 20 to 29 thousand (LESS THAN $30,000)

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

PNEST95M 8 = $100,000 or more

I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell

me the range that best estimates your employment

income for 1995...

 1 = 30 to 39 thousand (LESS THAN $ 40,000)

 2 = 40 to 49 thousand (LESS THAN $ 50,000)

 3 = 50 to 59 thousand (LESS THAN $ 60,000)

 4 = 60 to 69 thousand (LESS THAN $ 70,000)

 5 = 70 to 79 thousand (LESS THAN $ 80,000)

 6 = 80 to 89 thousand (LESS THAN $ 90,000)

 7 = 90 to 99 thousand (LESS THAN $100,000)

 8 = $100,000 or more

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

PNEST94

Would you estimate that your 1994 employment

income was more or less than $30,000?

 1 = LESS THAN $30,000

 2 = MORE THAN $30,000

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

If PNEST94=1, goto PNEST94L; if PNEST94=2, goto

PNEST94M; else goto PNSPE95

I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell

me the range that best estimates your employment

income for 1994...

 1 = Less than 5,000

 2 = 5 to 9 thousand (LESS THAN $10,000)

 3 = 10 to 19 thousand (LESS THAN $20,000)

 4 = 20 to 29 thousand (LESS THAN $30,000)

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

PNEST94M 

I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell

me the range that best estimates your employment

income for 1994...

 1 = 30 to 39 thousand (LESS THAN $ 40,000)

 2 = 40 to 49 thousand (LESS THAN $ 50,000)

 3 = 50 to 59 thousand (LESS THAN $ 60,000)

 4 = 60 to 69 thousand (LESS THAN $ 70,000)

 5 = 70 to 79 thousand (LESS THAN $ 80,000)

 6 = 80 to 89 thousand (LESS THAN $ 90,000)

 7 = 90 to 99 thousand (LESS THAN $100,000)

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

PNSPE95

If PLMARST ne 1, goto PNTOTSAV

Would you estimate that your spouse's 1995

employment income was more or less than $30,000?

1 = LESS THAN $30,000

 2 = MORE THAN $30,000

 -1 = DK -2 = RE

If PNSPE95=1, goto PNSPE95L; if PNSPE95=2, goto

PNSPE95M; else goto PNSPE94

PNSPE95L

I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell

me the range that best estimates your spouse's

employment ncome for 1995...

 

1 = Less than 5,000

 2 = 5 to 9 thousand (LESS THAN $10,000)

 3 = 10 to 19 thousand (LESS THAN $20,000)

 4 = 20 to 29 thousand (LESS THAN $30,000)

 -1 = DK -2 = RE
NPSAS:96 PARENT CATI: SECTION N N-5

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-107

PNSPE95M PNTOTSAV

I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell Currently, is the total worth of [your/your and your

me the range that best estimates your spouse's spouse’s] cash, savings, and checking accounts more

employment income for 1995... than $10,000?

 1 = 30 to 39 thousand (LESS THAN $ 40,000) 1 = Yes

 2 = 40 to 49 thousand (LESS THAN $ 50,000) 2 = No

 3 = 50 to 59 thousand (LESS THAN $ 60,000) -1 = DK -2 = RE

 4 = 60 to 69 thousand (LESS THAN $ 70,000)

 5 = 70 to 79 thousand (LESS THAN $ 80,000)

 6 = 80 to 89 thousand (LESS THAN $ 90,000)

 7 = 90 to 99 thousand (LESS THAN $100,000) Is the total worth of [your/your and your spouse’s] 

 8 = $100,000 or more retirement and/or pension accounts worth more than

 -1 = DK $50,000?

 -2 = RE

PNSPE94

 -1 = DK -2 = RE

Would you estimate that your spouse's 1994

employment income was more or less than $30,000?

1 = LESS THAN $30,000

 2 = MORE THAN $30,000 Do you own your home?

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE INTERVIEWER: IF THE PARENT IS PAYING

 MORTGAGE, CODE IT AS YES...

If PNSPE94=1, goto PNSPE94L; if PNSPE94=2, goto

PNSPE94M; else goto PNTOTSAV 1 = YES, WE OWNED THE HOME OR WERE

PNSPE94L

I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell

me the range that best estimates your spouse's

employment income for 1994...

 

1 = Less than 5,000 PNHMVAL

 2 = 5 to 9 thousand (LESS THAN $10,000)

 3 = 10 to 19 thousand (LESS THAN $20,000)

 4 = 20 to 29 thousand (LESS THAN $30,000)

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

PNSPE94M

I'm going to read you some dollar ranges. Please tell

me the range that best estimates your spouse's PNHMVALE

employment income for 1994...

 1 = 30 to 39 thousand (LESS THAN $ 40,000)

 2 = 40 to 49 thousand (LESS THAN $ 50,000)

 3 = 50 to 59 thousand (LESS THAN $ 60,000)

 4 = 60 to 69 thousand (LESS THAN $ 70,000)

 5 = 70 to 79 thousand (LESS THAN $ 80,000)

 6 = 80 to 89 thousand (LESS THAN $ 90,000)

 7 = 90 to 99 thousand (LESS THAN $100,000)

 8 = $100,000 or more

 -1 = DK -2 = RE

PNTOTRET

 1 = Yes

 2 = No

PNOWNHM

PAYING MORTGAGE

 2 = NO, WE WERE RENTING OR LIVING

SOMEWHERE ELSE

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

 What would you estimate is the total worth of

[your/your and your spouse’s] home?

 1-9500000 = Dollars

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

 Would you say [your/your and your spouse’s] home is

worth...

 

1 = Less than $25,000

 2 = 25 to 49 thousand (LESS THAN $ 50000)

 3 = 50 to 99 thousand (LESS THAN $100000)

 4 = 100 to 249 thousand (LESS THAN $250000)

 5 = ...or, $250,000 or more

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE
NPSAS:96 PARENT CATI: SECTION N N-6

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-108

PNHMOWE

 How much would you estimate you still owe?

 0 = NONE

 1-9500000 = Dollars

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

PNHMOWEE

 Would you estimate the amount owed to be...

 

1 = Less than $25,000

2 = 25 to 49 thousand (LESS THAN $ 50000)

 3 = 50 to 99 thousand (LESS THAN $100000)

 4 = 100 to 249 thousand (LESS THAN $250000)

 5 ...or, $250,000 or more

 -1 DK

 -2 RE

PNOTHEQ

 Currently, is the equity in [your/your and your

spouse’s] business, including farms, over $50,000?

 THE BUSINESS OR FARM MUST BE OWNED BY

THE RESPONDENT OR SPOUSE

 1 = YES

 2 = NO - EQUITY IS NOT OVER 50,000

 3 = NO - NO BUSINESS /FARM OWNED

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

PNINVEST

 Not including your primary residence, is the current

worth of [your/your and your spouse’s] real estate, and

investments, such as stocks and bonds more than

$50,000?

NOTE: DON'T INCLUDE INVESTMENTS

ASSOCIATED WITH RETIREMENT/PENSION

ACCOUNTS, IRAs, ETC.

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

N_END
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-109

PARENT CATI

Section P
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-110
NPSAS:96 PARENT CATI: SECTION P P-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-111

PPNOAID PPGRADRT 

If student has aid (SZTOTAID=1 or SDRECVD1=2 or

SZPLUS gt 0) goto PPCONSDR

 Has [student’s name] ever applied for financial aid for

[his/her] education beyond high school?

 (FINANCIAL AID INCLUDES GRANTS,

SCHOLARSHIPS, FELLOWSHIPS, LOAN OR

WORK STUDY PROGRAM)

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -2 = RE

 -1 = DK

 

If PPNOAID=2 goto PPNOAID1; else goto PPCONSDR

PPNOAID1--PPNOAID0 school]?

Why did your family not apply for financial aid for

[student’s name]?

ENTER ALL THE CODES IN THE ORDER

MENTIONED BY THE RESPONDENT. ENTER 0

TO EXIT

 1 = FAMILY AND STUDENT COULD PAY

 2 = NOT WILLING TO GO INTO DEBT

 3 = FAMILY INCOME TOO HIGH TO QUALIFY

 4 = GRADES/TEST SCORES TOO LOW TO 

QUALIFY

 5 = AID APPLICATION PROCESS TOO 

DIFFICULT

 6 = DID NOT WANT TO DISCLOSE FINANCIAL 

SITUATION

 7 = PART-TIME STUDENT -- INELIGIBLE FOR 

AID

 8 = NO MONEY WAS AVAILABLE

 9 = MISSED APPLICATION DEADLINE

 10 = OTHER REASON

PPNEVSPF INFORMATION.

 OTHER SPECIFY: OTHERS WHO HAVE ATTENDED, OR WHOSE

PPCONSDR

 Did you and [student’s name] consider the graduation

rate, the campus crime rate or the job placement rate in

deciding to attend the school (1=YES 2=NO)? 

 Which ones did you consider?

INTERVIEWER: 1= YES 2= NO

 GRADUATION RATE? 

PPCRIMRT 

 CRIME RATE? 

PPPLACRT

 JOB PLACEMENT RATE? 

PPHLPSEL

 Did you help [student’s name] select [NPSAS

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE

PPHELP1 -- PPHELP7

 How did you help?

INTERVIEWER: CODE ALL THAT APPLY

ENTER 0 TO EXIT THIS SCREEN 

 1 =...VISIT THE CAMPUS.

 2 =...SOLICIT LETTERS OF 

RECOMMENDATION.

 3 =...PAY FOR STUDENT'S TRIPS TO VISIT 

CAMPUSES.

 4 =...PURCHASE OR REVIEW REFERENCE 

GUIDES ABOUT SCHOOLS.

 5 =...WRITE TO SCHOOLS FOR

 6 =...ASKED INFORMATION/QUESTIONS OF 

CHILDREN HAD ATTENDED THE SCHOOL.

 7 =...OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)

PPHELPSP

 Please specify: 

P_END
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-112
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-113

PARENT CATI

Section Q
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-114
NPSAS:96 Parent CATI: Section Q Q-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-115

PQHISP PQASIAN

Are you...

 Before we end the interview, I have a few questions

about your background and education. 1 = Chinese

 2 = Korean

Are you of Hispanic origin (if yes, of which descent)? 3 = Filipino

 4 = Japanese

 0 = NO 5 = Vietnamese

 1 = Mexican, Mexican-American, or Chicano descent? 6 = Asian Indian

 2 = Cuban descent? 7 = Thai

 3 = Puerto Rican descent? 8 = Hawaiian

 4 = some other Hispanic origin? 9 = Samoan

 -1 = DK 10 = Guamanian

 -2 = RE 11 = Other Asian or Pacific Islander?

PQRACE

 What year were you born?

What is your race?

READ LIST AS A PROMPT 

 -2 = RE

 1 = WHITE,

 2 = AFRICAN AMERICAN, BLACK,

 3 = AMERICAN INDIAN, ALASKA NATIVE,

 4 = ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER? What is the highest level of education you have

 5 = OTHER completed?

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE 1= DID NOT FINISH HIGH SCHOOL

PQRACSPF

SPECIFY OTHER RACE. 4= ONE BUT LESS THAN 2 YEARS OF 

If PQRACE=3, goto PQTRIBE; if PQRACE=4, goto BUSINESS SCHOOL

PQASIAN; else goto PQYOB 5= 2 YEARS OR MORE OF OCCUPATIONAL,

6= LESS THAN 2 YEARS OF COLLEGE

PQTRIBE

INCLUDING 2-YR DEGREE

Are you enrolled in a state- or federally-recognized 8= BACHELOR'S DEGREE - 4 OR 5 YEAR

tribe? DEGREE

9= MASTER'S DEGREE OR EQUIVALENT

 1 = YES 10= MD/DDS/LLB/OTHER ADVANCED

 2 = NO PROFESSIONAL DEGREE

 -1 = DK 11= DOCTORATE DEGREE - PHD, EDD, DBA

 -2 = RE -1 DK -2 RE 

PQYOB

 00-78

 -1 = DK

PQEDUCR

2= FINISHED HIGH SCHOOL EQUIVALENT

3= LESS THAN 1 YR OF OCCUPATIONAL,

TRADE, TECHNICAL OR BUSINESS SCHOOL

OCCUPATIONAL, TRADE, TECHNICAL, OR

TRADE, OR BUSINESS SCHOOL

7= 2 OR MORE YEARS OF COLLEGE,

PQYOBS

If PLMARST ne 1, goto PQPSESEL

 

 What year was your spouse born?

 00-78

 -1 = DK

 -2 = RE
NPSAS:96 Parent CATI: Section Q Q-2

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-116

PQEDUCS PQPRVRES

What is the highest level of education your spouse has

completed?

1= DID NOT FINISH HIGH SCHOOL

2= FINISHED HIGH SCHOOL EQUIVALENT

3= LESS THAN 1 YR OF OCCUPATIONAL,

TRADE, TECHNICAL OR BUSINESS SCHOOL

4= ONE BUT LESS THAN 2 YEARS OF 

OCCUPATIONAL, TRADE, TECHNICAL, OR

BUSINESS SCHOOL

5= 2 YEARS OR MORE OF OCCUPATIONAL,

TRADE, OR BUSINESS SCHOOL

6= LESS THAN 2 YEARS OF COLLEGE

7= 2 OR MORE YEARS OF COLLEGE, INCLUDING

2-YR DEGREE

8= BACHELOR'S DEGREE - 4 OR 5 YEAR DEGREE

9= MASTER'S DEGREE OR EQUIVALENT

10=MD/DDS/LLB/OTHER ADVANCED

PROFESSIONAL DEGREE Q_END

11= DOCTORATE DEGREE - PHD, EDD, DBA

-1 DK -2 RE 

PQPSESEL

If PQEDUCR le 2 and PQEDUCS le 2, goto PQSTATE

 How much have [you/you and your spouse] borrowed

for your own postsecondary education?

 0-100,000 DOLLARS \

If PQPSESEL le 0, goto PQSTATE

PQPAROWE

 Of the $[PSPSESEL] you've borrowed, how much do

you still owe? \

PQSTATE

What is your state of legal residence? \

ENTER STATE CODE

If PQSTATE eq CN

 SPECIFY CANADIAN PROVINCE:

AB= Alberta

BC= British Columbia

MB= Manitoba

NB= New Brunswick

NF= Newfoundland

NS= Nova Scotia

ON= Ontario

PE= Prince Edward Island

PQ= Quebec

SK= Saskatchewan

NT= Northwst Territories

YT= Yukon Territory
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-117

Abbreviated Hardcopy (English/Spanish)
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-118
OMB No. 1850-0666

Expires: 4/30/99 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-119

NATIONAL POSTSECONDARY

STUDENT AID STUDY (NPSAS)

Instructions: Please answer each question by placing a check ( ) on the line next to the appropriate response

or filling in the information requested. The NPSAS School referenced is the school shown on the label on this

page. The study period of interest is the 1995-96 school year (between July 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996). If

you do not know an exact dollar amount for an item, please try to estimate the amount. 

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and your decision to participate will not affect any

financial aid or other benefits you are receiving. You may decline to answer any question. All information you

provide is confidential. 

When you have completed your self-administered interview, please return it within 2 weeks in the selfaddressed, postage-paid return envelope provided. Thank you for participating in this very important study.

A. YOUR ENROLLMENT AT THE NPSAS SCHOOL 

1. Were you enrolled at the NPSAS school sometime between July

1, 1995 and June 30, 1996? The NPSAS school is the school

identified on the label shown on this page.

___1 Yes

___2 No

2. While at the NPSAS school between July 1, 1995 and June 30,

1996, were you enrolled in a program or taking courses leading

to a degree or certificate?

___1 Yes

___2 No

3. At anytime between July 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996, were you

enrolled at the NPSAS school in a course bearing credits that

could be transferred to another school?

___1 Yes

___2 No

4. Which of the following describes your high school experience? 

___1 Graduated from a public high school

___2 Graduated from a private high school

___3 Passed a GED test

___4 Received a certificate of high school completion

___5 Did not complete high school requirements ___2 Married

5. In what year did you graduate or complete your high school

requirements? If you did not complete high school, in what year

were you last enrolled in high school? __________

year

B. YOUR BACKGROUND

6. What is your birth date? ________/______/_______

month day year

7. Are you Hispanic?

___1 Yes

___2 No

8. What is your race?

___1 American Indian or Alaskan native

___2 Asian or Pacific Islander

___3 Black

___4 White

___5 Other (Please specify)__________________________

9. What is your current marital status?

___1 Single, never married GO TO QUESTION 11

___3 Separated

___4 Divorced

___5 Widowed

PLEASE CONTINUE 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-120

10. What was your marital status on July 1, 1995? C. YOUR ENROLLMENT AFTER HIGH SCHOOL

___1 Single, never married 17. When did you first enroll in any college or other 

___2 Married postsecondary school after 

___3 Separated high school? .......................... ______/______

___4 Divorced month year

___5 Widowed

11. As of July 1, 1995, how many children or other dependents did you attend between July 1, 1995 and 

(excluding your spouse if married) were living with you or

receiving at least 50% of their support from you? Please

include your parents or guardians 

and other individuals if they 

received at least 50% of their 19. When did you first enroll in the NPSAS 

support from you.

Enter 0 if none. ..................

12. Are you currently in the reserves or on active duty in the U.S.

military?

___1 Yes

___2 No

13. Are you a veteran of the U.S. military?

___1 Yes

___2 No

14. Do you have any disabilities or impairments? Please check all

that apply. 

____0 No disabilities or impairments

____1 A hearing impairment

____2 A speech disability or limitation

____3 An orthopedic or mobility limitation

____4 A specific learning disability

____5 A vision impairment that cannot be corrected with

eyeglasses or legally blind

____6 Other disability or limitation

15. During the 1995-96 school year, where did you live most of the

time?

___1 On-campus in school-owned housing

___2 Off-campus in school-owned housing

___3 In an apartment or house other than with parents/

guardians

___4 With parents/guardians

___5 With other relatives

___6 Other (Please specify)________________________

16. In the last year, how many hours of community service or

volunteer work did you perform, other than courtordered service?

Enter 0 if none. .....................

18. How many colleges or other postsecondary schools

June 30, 1996? If the NPSAS school 

was the only school you attended 

during that time period, enter 1 ......

school after high school? .............. ________/_______

month year

20. During the first term you were enrolled at the NPSAS school in

the 1995-96 school year, what degree, certificate, or other

award were you seeking? Please choose only one. 

UNDERGRADUATE:

___1 Bachelor’s degree (BA, BS, etc.)

___2 Associate’s degree (AA, AAS, AS, etc.)

___3 Certificate or other formal award not listed above

___4 Special undergraduate student - not enrolled in a

degree program

If you checked one of the UNDERGRADUATE options above,

GO TO QUESTION 22

GRADUATE:

___5 Post-baccalaureate certificate

___6 Master’s degree (MA, MS, MBA, etc.)

Please specify_____________________________

___7 Advanced degree (PhD, MD, JD, EdD, etc.)

Please specify ____________________________

___8 Special graduate student - not enrolled in a degree

program 

21. When did you first enroll in your current graduate

program? (If you started your current program at another

school, enter the date you enrolled in the program at that 

other school. ....................... ________/_______

month year

22. What was your major or program of study during the first term

of your enrollment at the NPSAS school in the 1995-96 school

year?

Major:__________________________________________

_______________________________________________
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-121

23. During the first term you were enrolled at the NPSAS school in

the 1995-96 school year, what was your level in the program? 

Please choose only one. 

UNDERGRADUATE:

___1 Freshman or first year undergraduate

___2 Sophomore or second year

___3 Junior or third year

___4 Senior or fourth year

___5 Fifth year or higher senior

___6 Special student - no level

GRADUATE:

___7 First year graduate student

___8 Second year

___9 Third year

___10 Fourth year

___11 Fifth year or higher

___12 Special student - no level

D. FINANCING YOUR EDUCATION 

24. How much did you spend for tuition, fees, and other expenses at

all schools attended during the 1995-96 school year?

EXPENSES IN 1995-96 AMOUNT

Tuition and fees at the NPSAS school, $

prior to any discounts or waivers

Tuition and fees at all other schools $

attended in the year, prior to any

discounts or waivers

Books and supplies $

Equipment (e.g., computers, $

microscopes, tools, or instruments)

25. During the 1995-96 school year, did you receive any financial

aid, such as grants, loans, scholarships, tuition waivers,

assistantships, employer tuition reimbursement, etc.

___1 Yes

___2 No GO TO QUESTION 27

26. Please list the sources, types, and amounts of aid you received to

attend all schools during the 1995-96 school year.

SOURCE/TYPE AMOUNT

Federal Pell grant

Federal Stafford loan

Institutional Research Assistantship

$ 2000

$ 2000

$ 2500

$

$

$
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-122

27. Did you receive any loans from parents, relatives, or from any

sources other than the federal government, state government,

your employer, or your school, for the 1995-96 school year?

___1 Yes

___2 No GO TO QUESTION 29

28. How much did you receive?

SOURCE AMOUNT

Parents/Guardians $

Other relatives or friends $

Other loan source(s): $

(Please specify)

29. Excluding any loans, how much money did you receive per

month from your parents/guardians, relatives, and friends for

your 1995-96 school expenses?

$______________ per month for ______________ months

30. What is the total amount you have ever borrowed for your

undergraduate and graduate (if applicable) education, including

federal student loans and loans from all other sources? If you

are a graduate student, how much have you borrowed for your

graduate program? How much do you still owe? Enter 0 to

indicate no money borrowed or no money owed for your

postsecondary education. 

BORROWING FOR YOUR

EDUCATION AMOUNT

Total amount EVER borrowed $

Amount borrowed for graduate $

school, if applicable

Amount borrowed in federal $

student loans

Total amount currently owed $

Amount owed on federal student $

loans

E. EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME

31. Between July 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996, how many jobs did you

have? 

 If 0, GO TO QUESTION 35. . .....

32. About how many hours did you work per week while you were

enrolled during the 95-96 school year. About how many weeks
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-123

did you work? If you did not work while enrolled, enter 0 and GO F. PARENT/GUARDIAN INFORMATION

TO QUESTION 33. 

Worked ____ hours per week for __________ weeks. 

33. How much did you earn per hour

while you were

enrolled? ....................... $ __________ per hour

34. What was your principal job for pay while enrolled? If you did

not work while enrolled or if you held more than one job at that

time, your principal job may be the job worked the longest

number of hours per week, paying the highest wage, or most

closely related to your course of study. 

Job Title:

________________________________________________

Duties: __________________________________________

________________________________________________

35. Please complete the following income matrix for the 1994 and

1995 calendar years (January 1 to December 31). 

INCOME SOURCE 1994 1995

AMOUNT

Total income from all sources, $ $

EXCLUDING any financial aid you

may have received

Your jobs, EXCLUDING any $ $

financial aid you may have received

Your spouse’s jobs, EXCLUDING $ $

any financial aid.

36. Did you receive any untaxed income or benefits in 1995? 

Please check all that apply.

___0 Did not receive any untaxed income or benefits

___1 Social Security Benefits

___2 Worker’s Compensation

___3 Disability payments

___4 Welfare payments 

37. What was your parents’/guardians’ marital status on July 1,

1995?

___1 Married to each other

___2 Divorced

___3 Separated

___4 Never married

___5 One or both deceased

___6 Never knew parents; no legal guardians GO TO

QUESTION 39 

___7 Never knew parents; raised by legal guardian(s)

38. What is the highest grade or level of education your

parents/guardians ever completed?

Circle the appropriate number in the first column for your

mother/female guardian and in the second column for your

father/male guardian.

Mother/Female Father/Male

Guardian Guardian

1 ... Did not complete high school ................... 1

2 ... Completed high school or equivalent .............. 2

3 ... Less than 1 yr of occupational, trade, technical, or ... 3

business school

4 ... One to less than 2 years of occupational, trade, ...... 4

technical, or business school

5 ... 2 years or more of occupational, trade, technical, or . . 5

business school

6 ... Less than 2 years of college ..................... 6

7 ... 2 or more years of college, including 2-yr degree ..... 7

8 ... Bachelor's degree - 4 or 5 year degree ............. 8

9 ... Master's degree or equivalent ................... 9

10 . . MD/DDS/JD/other advanced professional degree ... 10

11 . . Doctorate degree - PhD, EdD, DBA ............. 11

39. Do you have an e-mail address? 

What is it?_______________________________________

THANK YOU for participating in this important

study. Please return this form in the enclosed,

postage-paid envelope or mail to: 

Ms. Katy Ong

Center for Research in Education

Research Triangle Institute

P.O. Box 12194

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-124

NATIONAL POSTSECONDARY STUDENT AID

STUDY [NPSAS]

Formulario para el encuestado

[ESTUDIO NACIONAL SOBRE ASISTENCIA ECONÓMICA PARA

ESTUDIANTES EN ESCUELAS POS-SECUNDARIAS] 

Instrucciones para completar esta encuesta: Por favor conteste cada pregunta haciendo una marca ( ) en la linea

al lado de la respuesta apropiada o llenando la información requerida. El concepto de Escuela NPSAS al cual nos

refirimos en varias preguntas es la escuela cuyo nombre esta en la etiqueta que se encuentra en esta página. El

período que nos interesa para este estudio es el año escolar 1994-95 (entre las fechas del primero de mayo, 1994

hasta el 30 de junio, 1995). Si usted no sabe la cantidad exacta para una pregunta, favor de estimar la cantidad.

Su participación en este estudio es completamente voluntaria y su decisión de tomar parte no afectaría a ninguna de la

asistencia económica la cual usted este recibiendo. Usted puede negarse a contestar cualquier pregunta. Toda la

información que nos provea es confidencial. 

A. SU MATRICULACIÓN EN LA Escuela NPSAS

1. ¿Estaba usted matriculado en la Escuela NPSAS durante

cualquier período académico entre las fechas del primero de

mayo, 1994 y el 30 de junio, 1995? La Escuela NPSAS es la

escuela identificada en la etiqueta que se encuentra en esta

página.

___1 Sí

___2 No

2. Mientras asistía la Escuela NPSAS entre las fechas del primero

de mayo, 1994 y el 30 de junio, 1995, ¿estaba matriculado en un

programa o tomando cursos que resultarían en un diploma

(título) o un certificado?

___1 Sí

___2 No

3. Durante cualquier período académico entre las fechas del

primero de mayo, 1994 y el 30 de junio, 1995, ¿estaba

matriculado en un programa o tomando cursos que resultarían

en créditos que pudieran transferirse a otra escuela?

___1 Sí

___2 No

4. ¿Cuales de las siguientes mejor describe su experiencia en la

escuela secundaria (superior)?

___1 Graduado de una escuela secundaria pública

___2 Graduado de una escuela secundaria privada

___3 Aprobó el examen GED 

___4 Recibió un certificado por haber terminado la escuela

secundaria

___5 No terminó los requisitos para la escuela secundaria

5. ¿En qué fecha se graduó o terminó los requisitos para la

escuela secundaria? Si no terminó la escuela secundaria, dé la

fecha de la última vez que estuvo matriculado en una escuela

secundaria.

__________/__________ 

mes año

6. ¿Estaba terminando usted los requisitos para la escuela

secundaria durante todo el período que asistió la Escuela

NPSAS entre las fechas del primero de mayo, 1994 y el 30 de

junio, 1995? 

___1 Sí

___2 No

FAVOR CONTINUE 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-125

B. SUS ANTECEDENTES 16. Entre el primero de julio, 1994 y el 30 de junio, 1995, a través

7. ¿Cuál es la fecha de su nacimiento?

__________/_________/__________

 mes día año

8. ¿Es usted hispano/latino?

___1 Sí SECUNDARIA

___2 No

9. ¿Cual es su raza? de escuela pos-secundaria después de la escuela secundaria?

___1 Indio norte-americano o nativo de Alaska __________/__________

___2 Asiático o isleño del Pacífico

___3 Negro

___4 Blanco

___5 Otro (Por favor especifique)___________

10. ¿Cuál es su estado civil actual?

__ 1 Soltero, nunca casado SALTE A LA PREGUNTA 12

__ 2 Casado

__ 3 Separado

__ 4 Divorciado

__ 5 Viudo

11. ¿Cuál era su estado civil el primero de julio, 1994?

___1 Soltero, nunca casado

___2 Casado

___3 Separado

___4 Divorciado

___5 Viudo

12. Desde el primero de julio, 1994, ¿cuántos hijos u otros

dependientes estaban viviendo con usted o recibiendo un 50% de

apoyo financiero suyo? Favor de incluir sus padres o tutores u

otros individuos si ellos reciben un 50% apoyo financiero por

cuenta suya. 

Anote 0 si nadie ....................

13. Actualmente, ¿está en la reserva o es activio militar en las

fuerzas armadas de los EE.UU.?

___1 Sí

___2 No

14. ¿Es usted veterano de las fuerzas armadas de los EE.UU.?

___1 Sí

___2 No

15. Durante el año escolar 1994-95, ¿dónde vivió la mayor parte del

tiempo?

___1 Una vivienda propiedad universitaria hubicada en el "campus"

___2 Una vivienda propiedad universitaria no en el "campus"

___3 En un apartamento or casa que no fuera de los padres/tutores

___4 Con los padres/tutores

___5 Con otros parientes

___6 Otro (Favor especifique)___________________________

del año, ¿por cuántas horas tomó parte en servicios

communitarios o como voluntario, sin tomar en cuenta servicio

ordenado por las cortes?

 Anote 0 si ningunas ................

C. SU MARTICULACIÓN DESPUÉS DE LA ESCUELA 

17. ¿En que fecha se matriculó por primera vez en cualquier tipo

 mes año

18. Además de la Escuela NPSAS, ¿asistió a cuántas escuelas possecundarias entre el primero de julio, 1994 y el 30 de junio,

1995? Si la Escuela NPSAS fue la única escuela en la 

cual usted asistió durante ese período,

anote 0 ...........................

19. ¿En que fecha se matriculó por primera vez en la ESCUELA

NPSAS después de la escuela secundaria?

................................. __________/__________

 mes año

20. Durante el primer período académico en que se matriculó en la

Escuela NPSAS durante el año escolar 1994-95, ¿qué tipo de

diploma (título), certificado u otra asignatura lograba obtener? 

 Favor de escoger solamente una opción.

BACHILLERATO (LICENCIATURA) :

___ 1 Bachillerato (BA, BS, etc.)

___ 2 Grado asociado (AA, AAS, AS, etc.)

___ 3 Certificado u otro diploma formal no en lista

(arriba)

___ 4 Estudiante especial no licenciado-matriculado pero

no en un programa con diploma (títulado) 

Si marco una de las opciones ya mencionadas en

BACHILLERATO, SALTE A LA PREGUNTA 22.

POSGRADUADO:

___ 5 Certificado Pos Bachillerato 

___ 6 Maestría (MA, MS, MBA etc.)

--Favor especifique: _________________

___ 7 Título avanzado--doctorado (PhD, MD, JD, EdD,

etc.) --Favor especifique:_________________

___ 8 Estudiante graduado especial-matriculado pero no

en un programa con diploma (títulado).

21. ¿En qué fecha se matriculó por primera vez en una escuela

posgraduada? ................ __________/__________

 mes año

22. ¿Cuál fue su especialidad o su programa de estudio durante el 

primer plazo (semestre, trimestre) desde que empezo en la 

Escuela NPSAS en el año escolar 1994-95?

Especialización:_______________________________________
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-126

____________________________________________________ 26. Favor de anotar los tipos, las fuentes y las cantidades de

23. Durante el primer plazo (semestre, trimestre) en cuál usted escuelas durante el año escolar 1994-95.

estaba matriculado en la Escuela NPSAS durante el año escolar

1994-95, ¿cual representa su nivel en el programa? 

Favor de escoger solamente una opción.

BACHILLERATO (LICENCIATURA):

___ 1 Primer año estudiante del bachillerato

___ 2 Segundo año

___ 3 Tercer año

___ 4 Cuarto año (senior)

___ 5 Quinto año ( higher senior)

___ 6 Estudiante especial - ningún nivel

POSGRADUADO:

___ 7 Primer año estudiante posgraduado

___ 8 Segundo año

___ 9 Tercer año

___ 10 Cuarto año

___ 11 Quinto año or más

___ 12 Estudiante especial--ningún nivel

D. FINANCIAR SU EDUCACIÓN 

24. ¿Qué tanto dinero gasto usted en los pagos de matrícula,

derechos (o cuotas) de matrícula u otros gastos en todas las

escuelas que asistió durante el año escolar 1994-95?

GASTOS EN 1994-95 CANTIDAD

Matr cula y derechos de matr cula en todas las $

escuelas que asisti en este a o, antes de

discuentos o suspenci n de gastos ("waivers")

Renta y comida o gastos de hu spede si la

vivienda es propiedad universitaria (escuela)

$

Libros $

Equipo (e j., computadora, microscopios,

herramientas o instrumentos)

$

Gastos de ir y venir a las clases, incluyendo

feria de carro p blico o autobus y gasolina

$

Otros gastos eduacionales (ej., transporte a su

domicilio, cuidado de ni os mientras va a clase

$

25. Durante el año escolar 1994-95, ¿recibió algúna asistencia

económica, tal como un subsidio, préstamos, becas, suspención

de matrícula, ayudantía ("assistantships"), reembolso de su

empleador para los gastos de matrícula, y así por lo tanto?

___1 Sí

___2 No SALTE A LA PREGUNTA 27

asistencia económica que haya recibido al asistir a todas las

 TIPO/FUENTE CANTIDAD

EJEMPLOS:

 Pell Grant/Subsidio Federal

 Stafford Loan/Prestamo Federal 

 Auxiliar de inverstigaciones 

("Assistantships")/Institucional

$2000

$2500

$2500

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

27. ¿Recibió algún préstamo de sus padres, algún pariente, banco,

cooperativa de crédito ("credit union") o de cualquier fuente 

que no fuera el gobierno federal o estatal , su empleador, o su

escuela para el año escolar 1994-95?

___1 Sí

___2 No SALTE A LA PREGUNTA 29

28. ¿Qué cantidad recibió?

FUENTE CANTIDAD

Padres/Tutores $

Otros parientes o amigos $

Banco, ahorros o pr stamos , o cooperativa $

de cr dito ("credit union")

Otra fuente de pr stamos:: (Favor $

especifique)

29. Sin tomar en cuenta algún préstamo, ¿cuánto dinero recibía 

mensualmente de sus padres/tutores, parientes, o amigos para

los gastos del año escolar 1994-95?

FUENTE CANTIDAD

Pardres/Tutores $

Otros parientes y amigos $

FAVOR CONTINUE 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-127

$

30. ¿Cuánto es la cantidad total que ha tomado prestado para su

educación desde que salió de la esucuela secundaria,

incluyendo préstamos para estudiantes (federales) y préstamos

de cualquiera fuente. ¿Cuánto debe todavía ? Anote 0 si usted

no ha tomado prestado dinero para su educatión possecundaria o si no debe ningún dinero. 

 PRÉSTAMOS PARA SU CANTIDAD 

EDUCACIÓN

Cantidad total tomó prestado $

 ALGUNA VEZ

 Cantidad en préstamos para estudiantes del $

gobierno federal

Cantidad total actualmente debe $

Cantidad debido a préstamos para estudiantes $

del gobierno federal

E. EMPLEO Y INGRESOS

31. ¿Trabajó, con paga/sueldo, durante algún período entre las

fechas del primero de julio, 1994 y el 30 de junio, 1995?

___1 Sí

___2 No SALTE A LA PREGUNTA 35

32. ¿Qué era su empleo, con paga/sueldo, principal en ese

entonces? Su empleo principal puede considerarse como el

trabajo donde trabajó las más horas por semana, él que le

pagaba el sueldo más alto, o él que más utilizaba su

especialización.

Título del empleo:___________________________________

Reponsabilidades:__________________________________

___________________________________________________

33. ¿Trabajaba (con paga/sueldo) usted al mismo tiempo que estaba

matriculado en la escuela?

__ 1 Sí Si contesto sí, ¿cuántas horas por semana trabajaba

como pormedio? _______________

¿Cuánto se ganaba usted por hora?

 ................ $_______________

__ 2 No 

34. ¿Cuánto fue su ingreso total de todos los empleos que tuvo entre

el primero de julio, 1994 y el 30 de junio, 1995?

.................................... 

35. Durante el año escolar 1994-95, ¿participó en algunos de los

siguientes programas? (Marque todos los que sean

applicables.)

___1 Un programa de estudio y trabajo federal

___2 Un internado o práctica

___3 Un programa de aprendizaje

___4 Un cooperativo educacional

___5 Un maestro auxiliar ("teaching assistantship”)

___6 Un auxiliar de investigaciones ("research assistantship")

36. Por favor llene la planilla de ingresos para los años 1993 and

1994 (incluya desde el primero de enero al 31 de diciembre).

INGRESO CANTIDAD

FUENTE 1993 1994

Sus empleos, incluyendo estudio y$ $

trabajo Federal, y "assistanships"

Los empleos de su esposo, incluyendo $ $

estudio y trabajo Federal, y

"assistanships"

Inter s, dividendos, y ganancias sobre $ $

el capital

Otras fuentes tales como el $ $

mantenimiento de un hijo, el Seguro

Social, o Asistencia P blica 

F. INFORMACION SOBRE LOS PADRES/TUTORES

37. ¿Cuál era el estado civil de sus padres/tutores legales el primero

de julio, 1994?

___1 Casados uno con el otro

___2 Divorciados

___3 Separados

___4 Nunca se han casado 

___5 Uno o ambos habían fallecido

___6 Nunca conoció sus padres; 

no tenía tutores legales SALTE A LA PREGUNTA 38

___7 Nunca conoció sus padres; se crió con tutor(es) legal(es)

38. ¿Cuál es el nivel más alto o el año escolar más alto que

terminaron sus padres/tutores?

Haga un círculo al número en la primera columna para su

madre/tutora y en la segunda columna para su padre/tutor.

Madre/Tutora Padre/Tutor

1 ........ No terminó escuela secundaria ............. 1

2 ........ Terminó equivalente a la secundaria ........ 2

3 ........ Menos de 1 año en un programa técnico, ..... 3

ocupacional, o secretarial/comercio

4 ........ De 1 a menos de 2 años en un programa ...... 4

técnico, ocupacional, o secretarial/comercio

5 ........ 2 años o más en un programa técnico, ....... 5

ocupacional, o secretarial/comercio

6 ........ Menos de 2 años de universidad ........... 6

7 ........ 2 o más años de universidad, incluyendo ..... 7

un diploma de 2-años

8 ........ Bachillerato de 4 o 5 años ................ 8

9 ........ Maestría o equivalente ................... 9

10 ....... MD/DDS/JD/otro título profesional ........ 10
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-128

11 ....... Doctorado - PhD, EdD, DBA ............. 11

Reinterview
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-129
NPSAS:96 Reinterview REL-1

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-130

SAPRIAID

 Did you get any grants, loans, scholarships, assistantships,

work-study, or any other financial aid in 1994-95?

1=YES 

2=NO 

-1=DK

-2=RE

SACMPLR

As of [date of main interview], had you completed your

program of study and received your [certificate/degree]?

 1 = YES, ALREADY COMPLETED PROGRAM AND

RECEIVED DEGREE 

 2 = NO, COMPLETED PROGRAM BUT NOT YET

RECEIVED DEGREE

 3 = NO, NOT COMPLETED PROGRAM YET.

SACMPCOR

 As of [date of main interview], had you completed your course

work and all other requirements for your degree?

 0= NOT COMPLETED COURSEWORK.

 1= COMPLETED COURSEWORK, BUT NOT ALL

REQUIREMENTS

 2= COMPLETED ALL REQUIREMENTS.

SBSCHRES

While enrolled during 95-96, where did you live?

 1 = on-campus in school-owned housing,

 2 = off-campus in school-owned housing,

 3 = in an apartment or house other than with your parents or

guardians (including houses owned by fraternities and

sororities), 

4 = with your parents or guardians,

 5 = with other relatives, or

 6 = some place else?

SCPARTUI

 During 1995-96, did your [fill parent(s)/guardian(s)]

 pay for any of your...

 ...Tuition or fees (1=YES 2=NO)?

SCPARRM

 ...Room and board (1=YES 2=NO)?

SCPARBK

 ...Books or equipment (1=YES 2=NO)?
NPSAS:96 Reinterview REL-2

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-131

SCPARALW

 Did your [parent(s)/guardian(s)] give you an allowance that

you don't have to repay? INTERVIEWER: ENTER 1 TO INDICATE "ALL OF IT"

1=YES Including the $[amount borrowed 95-96 from main interview]

2=NO from [your [parent(s)/guardian(s)] and all other sources, all

-1=DK sources, H/how much have you borrowed for your education

-2=RE since you left high school (0-200,000)?...

SCNUMJBS SEHOURS

 Between July 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996, how many jobs did About how many hours did you work per week while you were

you have (0-15)? enrolled July 1, 1995 through June 30, 1996?

COUNT WORK STUDY AND ASSISTANTSHIPS IN 0-99

ADDITION TO ANY OTHER JOBS HELD.

SCREIMB

 Did you receive tuition reimbursement from your employer enrolled?

(1=YES 2=NO)?

NEW ITEM FOR REINTERVIEW ONLY

Were you awarded any financial aid for the 1995-96 school

year? FREQUENCY:

INCLUDE ANY FINANCIAL AID AWARDED FROM 2= PER WEEK

FEDERAL, STATE, OR INSTITUTIONAL SOURCES BUT 3= PER MONTH

EXCLUDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM FAMILY OR 4= PER TERM

FRIENDS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT ANY 5= FOR THE YEAR 95-96

AID WAS AWARDED.

 1 = YES

 2 = NO

-1=DK Did you work for all or most of the weeks while you were

-2=RE enrolled?

SDACCEPT

 3= NO, ONLY ABOUT HALF OF THE WEEKS WHILE

 Did you accept all of the aid you were awarded for the year? ENROLLED

 4= NO, LESS THAN HALF OF THE WEEKS WHILE

 1 = YES ENROLLED

 2 = NO -1= DK

SDBOREVR

SEENRAMT

 About how much did you earn from all jobs while you were

 AMOUNT: (0-100,000) \

SEENRFRQ

1= PER HOUR

SEENRWKS

 1= YES, EVERY WEEK WHILE ENROLLED

 2= YES, MOST OF THE WEEKS WHILE ENROLLED

 -2= RE

SFTOT95

What was your [and your spouse's] total income from all

sources, prior to taxes and deductions, excluding any (student)

financial aid you may have received... (EXCLUDE WORK ...for 1994? 

STUDY & ASSISTANTSHIPS)

...for 1995? 

SFTOT94
NPSAS:96 Reinterview REL-3

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-132

SHDADED

What was the highest grade or level of education your father 6= LESS THAN 2 YEARS OF COLLEGE

ever completed? 7= 2 OR MORE YEARS OF COLLEGE, INCLUDING 2-YR

 1= DID NOT COMPLETE HIGH SCHOOL 8= BACHELOR'S DEGREE -4 OR 5 YEAR DEGREE

 2= COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL OR EQUIVALENT 9= MASTER'S DEGREE OR EQUIVALENT

3= LESS THAN 1 YR OF OCCUPATIONAL, TRADE, 10= MD/DDS/LLB/OTHER ADVANCED PROFESSIONAL

TECHNICAL OR BUSINESS SCHOOL DEGREE

 4= ONE BUT LESS THAN 2 YEARS OF 11= DOCTORATE DEGREE -PHD, EDD, DBA

OCCUPATIONAL, TRADE, TECHNICAL, BUSINESS

SCHOOL

 5= 2 YEARS OR MORE OF OCCUPATIONAL, TRADE,

BUSINESS SCHOOL

 6= LESS THAN 2 YEARS OF COLLEGE How many of your other family members ever attended a

 7= 2 OR MORE YEARS OF COLLEGE, INCLUDING 2-YR postsecondary school? 0-20= MEMBERS

DEGREE

 8= BACHELOR'S DEGREE -4 OR 5 YEAR DEGREE

 9= MASTER'S DEGREE OR EQUIVALENT

 10= MD/DDS/LLB/OTHER ADVANCED PROFESSIONAL

DEGREE

 11= DOCTORATE DEGREE -PHD, EDD, DBA

SHMOMED

What was the highest grade or level of education your mother

ever completed?

 1= DID NOT COMPLETE HIGH SCHOOL

 2= COMPLETED HIGH SCHOOL OR EQUIVALENT

3= LESS THAN 1 YR OF OCCUPATIONAL, TRADE,

TECHNICAL OR BUSINESS SCHOOL

 4= ONE BUT LESS THAN 2 YEARS OF

OCCUPATIONAL, TRADE, TECHNICAL, BUSINESS

SCHOOL

 5= 2 YEARS OR MORE OF OCCUPATIONAL, TRADE,

BUSINESS SCHOOL

DEGREE

SHOTPSE

RELIAB_END
NPSAS:96 Reinterview REL-4

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-133
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX D D-134
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-1

Appendix E

Training Material
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-2
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-3

Appendix E

Training Material

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OF TELEPHONE INTERVIEWERS MANUAL

Page

List of Exhibits ii

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1-1

1.1. What is the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS)? ......... 1-1

1.2 What is the Purpose of NPSAS? ................................... 1-1

1.3 Who is supporting NPSAS? ...................................... 1-2

1.4 How Were Schools Selected? ..................................... 1-3

1.5 Who Will You Be Interviewing? ................................... 1-4

1.6 Project Staff .................................................. 1-5

2. GENERAL INTERVIEWING TECHNIQUES ........................... 2-1

2.1 Overview .................................................... 2-1

2.2 Asking the Questions ........................................... 2-2

2.3 Using Feedback ............................................... 2-4

2.4 Accurate Recording ............................................ 2-5

2.5 Use of Judgment in Coding ....................................... 2-6

2.6 Respondent’s Rights ............................................ 2-6

2.7 Confidentiality ................................................ 2-7

2.8 Obtaining Cooperation .......................................... 2-8

2.9 Refusals ..................................................... 2-9

2.10 Answers to Questions .......................................... 2-10

3. CONTACTING SAMPLE MEMBERS ................................. 3-1

3.1 Contacting and tracing Procedures ................................. 3-1

3.2 Scheduling a Callback ........................................... 3-2

3.3 Initial Contact ................................................. 3-3

3.4 The Student and Parent Instruments ................................ 3-4

3.5 Event codes .................................................. 3-5

4. QUALITY CONTROL .............................................. 4-1

4.1 Assuring Quality in the Interview .................................. 4-1
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-4

4.2 Problem Reports ............................................... 4-2

4.3 Quality Circles ................................................ 4-2

4.4 Conclusion ................................................... 4-3

5. SUPERVISOR SUPPLEMENT ....................................... 5-1

5.1 Training ..................................................... 5-3

5.2 Shift Preparations .............................................. 5-3

5.3 Silent Monitoring .............................................. 5-3

5.4 Supervisory Review Procedures ................................... 5-6

5.4.1 Tracing Cases ........................................... 5-6

5.4.2 Appointments ........................................... 5-6

5.4.3 Refusals ............................................... 5-7

5.4.4 Cases with Over 12 Calls .................................. 5-7

5.4.5 TSU Missed Appointments ................................. 5-8

5.4.6 Supervisor Review Queue .................................. 5-8

5.5 Problem Sheets ................................................ 5-8

5.6 Questions from Respondents ..................................... 5-9

5.7 800 Number Call-ins ............................................ 5-9

5.8 Call Scheduler ................................................ 5-9

5.9 Monitoring Costs ............................................. 5-10

5.10 Periodic Project Meetings ....................................... 5-11

5.11 Maintenance of Project Files ...................................... 5-1

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A NPSAS Glossary of Terms

Appendix B List of Degrees

Appendix C List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

Appendix D Initial Contact Letters

Appendix E Financial Aid Awards

Appendix F Tests Approved by the U.S. Department of Education

Appendix G Event Codes

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Page

1-1 NPSAS:96 Full-Scale Study Calendar .................................... 1-6

1-2 NPSAS:96 Flowchart ................................................. 1-7
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-5

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF TELEPHONE INTERVIEWERS MANUAL (Continued)

2-1 Confidentiality Agreement ............................................ 2-11

2-2 Affidavit of Nondisclosure ............................................ 2-12

2-3 Answering Questions and Dealing with Reluctant NPSAS Sample Members ...... 2-13

5-1 Call Scheduler Queues ............................................... 5-12

5-2 Event-to-Status Codes ............................................... 5-13

5-3 Appointment Report ................................................ 5-16

5-4 Schedular Reports .................................................. 5-17
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OF TELEPHONE INTERVIEWERS MANUAL

Page

List of Exhibits ii

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................. 1-1

1.1. What is the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS)? ......... 1-1

1.2 What is the Purpose of NPSAS? ................................... 1-1

1.3 Who is supporting NPSAS? ...................................... 1-2

1.4 How Were Schools Selected? ..................................... 1-3

1.5 Who Will You Be Interviewing? ................................... 1-4

1.6 Project Staff .................................................. 1-5

2. GENERAL INTERVIEWING TECHNIQUES ........................... 2-1

2.1 Overview .................................................... 2-1

2.2 Asking the Questions ........................................... 2-2

2.3 Using Feedback ............................................... 2-4

2.4 Accurate Recording ............................................ 2-5

2.5 Use of Judgment in Coding ....................................... 2-6

2.6 Respondent’s Rights ............................................ 2-6

2.7 Confidentiality ................................................ 2-7

2.8 Obtaining Cooperation .......................................... 2-8

2.9 Refusals ..................................................... 2-9

2.10 Answers to Questions .......................................... 2-10

3. CONTACTING SAMPLE MEMBERS ................................. 3-1

3.1 Contacting and tracing Procedures ................................. 3-1

3.2 Scheduling a Callback ........................................... 3-2

3.3 Initial Contact ................................................. 3-3

3.4 The Student and Parent Instruments ................................ 3-4

3.5 Event codes .................................................. 3-5

4. QUALITY CONTROL .............................................. 4-1

4.1 Assuring Quality in the Interview .................................. 4-1

4.2 Problem Reports ............................................... 4-2

4.3 Quality Circles ................................................ 4-2

4.4 Conclusion ................................................... 4-3
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-7

Table of Contents of Telephone Interviews Manual (Continued)

5. SUPERVISOR SUPPLEMENT ....................................... 5-1

5.1 Training ..................................................... 5-3

5.2 Shift Preparations .............................................. 5-3

5.3 Silent Monitoring .............................................. 5-3

5.4 Supervisory Review Procedures ................................... 5-6

5.4.1 Tracing Cases ........................................... 5-6

5.4.2 Appointments ........................................... 5-6

5.4.3 Refusals ............................................... 5-7

5.4.4 Cases with Over 12 Calls .................................. 5-7

5.4.5 TSU Missed Appointments ................................. 5-8

5.4.6 Supervisor Review Queue .................................. 5-8

5.5 Problem Sheets ................................................ 5-8

5.6 Questions from Respondents ..................................... 5-9

5.7 800 Number Call-ins ............................................ 5-9

5.8 Call Scheduler ................................................ 5-9

5.9 Monitoring Costs ............................................. 5-10

5.10 Periodic Project Meetings ....................................... 5-11

5.11 Maintenance of Project Files ...................................... 5-1

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A NPSAS Glossary of Terms

Appendix B List of Degrees

Appendix C List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

Appendix D Initial Contact Letters

Appendix E Financial Aid Awards

Appendix F Tests Approved by the U.S. Department of Education

Appendix G Event Codes

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Page

1-1 NPSAS:96 Full-Scale Study Calendar .................................... 1-6

1-2 NPSAS:96 Flowchart ................................................. 1-7

2-1 Confidentiality Agreement ............................................ 2-11

2-2 Affidavit of Nondisclosure ............................................ 2-12

2-3 Answering Questions and Dealing with Reluctant NPSAS Sample Members ...... 2-13
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-8

5-1 Call Scheduler Queues ............................................... 5-12

5-2 Event-to-Status Codes ............................................... 5-13

5-3 Appointment Report ................................................ 5-16

5-4 Schedular Reports .................................................. 5-17
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-9

NPSAS:96 TELEPHONE INTERVIEWER TRAINING AGENDA

Session 1 (240 minutes)

Topic 1 Welcome and Introduction to NPSAS:96 35 minutes

(Lead Trainer) - Background and purpose of NPSAS:96

- What data are used for

- NPSAS project overview

- What is financial aid?

Topic 2 Overview of the Training Session 15 minutes

(Lead Trainer) - Training agenda and rules

Topic 3 Demonstration Interviews 70 minutes

(Lead Trainer

& Assistant) - Student

- Parent

BREAK 10 minutes

Topic 4 Confidentiality and Informed Consent 15 minutes

(Lead Trainer) - Review Signed forms

Topic 5 NPSAS Student Questionnaire 85 minutes

(Lead Trainer

& Assistant) - Concept of Active Listening

Section A

- Review of Q x Q's

- Review "user exits" screens

- Small Group Mock #1 of Section

Production Sheet Discussion and Entry 10 minutes

Session 2 (240 Minutes)

Topic 6 NPSAS Student Questionnaire (Continued)

(Lead Trainer Sections B-E

& Assistant) - Review QxQ's 70 minutes

- Review User Exits 45 minutes

- Small Group Mock #1 of Sections 40 minutes
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-10

NPSAS:96 Telephone Interviewer Training Agenda (Continued)

BREAK 10 minutes

Topic 7 Practice User Exits in Student Questionnaire 65 minutes

(Lead Trainer)

Production Sheet Entry 10 minutes

Session 3 (240 Minutes)

Topic 8 NPSAS Student Questionnaire (Continued)

(Lead Trainer Sections F-End of Questionnaire

& Assistant) - Review of QxQ's 70 minutes

- Small Group Mock #1 of Sections 50 minutes

BREAK 10 minutes

Topic 9 Explaining the Study and Obtaining Participation 45 minutes

(Lead Trainer)

- Lead Letters

- Question and Answer sheet

Topic 10 NPSAS Front End Module 55 minutes

(Lead Trainer) Overview of Contacting/locating procedures

- preloaded information

- basic algorithms for calling each case

- brief explanation of Fastdata role

Intro to roster line concept (on data view)

QxQ Review

- introductory screens

- utility screens

Examples on Dataview

Events and Status Codes

Production Sheet Entry 10 minutes

Session 4 (240 minutes)

Topic 10 NPSAS Front End Module (Continued) 45 minutes

Overview of Contacting/locating procedures

- preloaded information
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-11

NPSAS:96 Telephone Interviewer Training Agenda (Continued)

- basic algorithms for calling each case

- brief explanation of Fastdata role

Intro to roster line concept (on data view)

QxQ Review

- introductory screens

- utility screens

Examples on Dataview

Events and Status Codes

Topic 11 Quality Control Measures 15 minutes

(Lead Trainer) - Monitoring

- Reporting problems

- How to use the Electronic Problem Sheet

- Who to report what types of problems

Topic 12 Small Group Mock #2 of Student Interview 70 minutes

(Lead Trainer

and Assistant)

BREAK 10 minutes

Topic 13 Parent Interview Review QxQ's 60 minutes

(Lead Trainer)

Topic 14 Small Group Mock #3 of Parental Interview 30 minutes

(Lead Trainer

& Assistant)

Production Sheet Entry 10 minutes

Session 5 (240 Minutes)

Topic 15 More User Exit Practice and Coding 50 minutes

(Lead Trainer

& Assistant)

Topic 16 Practice Contacting/Locating/Student Int. 90 minutes

(Lead Trainer

& Assistant) - Small Group Mock #4 of entire NPSAS package
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-12

NPSAS:96 Telephone Interviewer Training Agenda (Continued)

BREAK 10 minutes

Topic 17 Practice Contacting/Locating/Student Int 60 minutes

(Lead Trainer

& Assistant) - Small Group Mock #5

Topic 18 Question and Answer Session 20 minutes

(Lead Trainer)

Production Sheet Entry 10 minutes
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-13

1996 Field Data Collector Manual

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

List of Exhibits ............................................................ iv

List of Appendices .......................................................... iii

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................. I-1

A. Study Background ............................................. I-1

1. Overview ................................................. I-1

2. Research Triangle Institute ................................... I-2

3. Type of Data Collected ...................................... I-3

4. Use of the Data ............................................ I-3

5. Methodology .............................................. I-4

B. NPSAS:96 Progress to Date ...................................... I-7

C. Data Collection Schedule ........................................ I-8

D. Role and Responsibilities of the NPSAS Field Data Collector ............. I-9

E. Importance of Confidentiality ..................................... I-9

F. Use of Manual ............................................... I-10

G. NPSAS Materials and Supplies ................................... I-10

H. Endorsements ................................................ I-10

I. Project Organization ........................................... I-11

J. Abbreviations ................................................ I-11

K. Calendar of Events ............................................ I-11

II. CONDUCTING THE INSTITUTION VISIT ............................ II-1

A. Data Collection in Institutional Settings ............................. II-1

1. Representation, Professionalism, Accountability .................... II-1

2. Confidentiality Issues ........................................ II-3

3. Preparing for the Institution Visit ............................... II-4

4. Field Forms and Materials .................................... II-5

5. Data Collector Materials Packet .............................. II-11

6. CADE Preload for Institution Visit ............................ II-12

7. The Coordinator Call ....................................... II-12

B. Conducting the Institution Visit .................................. II-14

C. Coordinator “Kickoff” Meeting .................................. II-15

1. Institution Fact Sheet ....................................... II-15

2. FDC Checklist ............................................ II-15

D. Abstracting and CADE Data Entry ................................ II-17

E. Concluding the Institution Visit .................................. II-17

1. Exit Interview ............................................ II-17

2. Post-Visit CADE Procedures ................................. II-17
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-14

1996 Field Data Collector Manual (Continued)

3. Post-Abstraction FS Verfication .............................. II-18

III. STUDENT FINANCIAL AID PROCESS ............................... III-1

A. Overview ................................................... III-1

B. Understanding the Application Processing System .................... III-2

C. The SAR and CADE .......................................... III-3

D. Financial Air Terms ........................................... III-5

E. Financial Aid Programs ......................................... III-6

F. Graduate and First-Professional Awards ............................ III-7

IV. CADE AND THE RECORD ABSTRACTION PROCESS ................. IV-1

A. Introduction to Record Abstracting .............................. IV-1 

1. Overview of the Sections in CADE ............................ IV-1

B. CADE Terms/Concepts ....................................... IV-15

C. Instructions for Starting CADE ................................. IV-23

D. Using the CADE Tutorial ...................................... IV-31

E. Transmitting a Completed Institution ............................. IV-33

F. Entering Comments in CADE (Electronic Log) ..................... IV-34

G. Navigating CADE ........................................... IV-35

V. INTRODUCTION TO THE COMPUTER ................................ V-1

A. Overview .................................................... V-1

B. Computer Hardware ............................................ V-1

C. Computer Software ............................................ V-2

D. Caring for the Computer ......................................... V-2

E. Keys and Terms to Know ........................................ V-4

F. The Toshiba Satellite Computer ................................... V-5

1. Opening the Toshiba Satellite Computer ......................... V-5

2. Computer Components - Toshiba Satellite ........................ V-6

G. Powering the Toshiba Satellite Computer ........................... V-16

1. Using Electricity .......................................... V-16

2. Using Battery Power ....................................... V-18

3. Turning the Computer On ................................... V-20

H. Connecting the Toshiba Satellite Computer to Your Telephone Line ....... V-21

I. Transmission of Data to Research Triangle Institute ................... V-22

J. Electronic Mail ............................................... V-31

1. Read New Mail ........................................... V-34

2. Read Old Mail ............................................ V-41

3. Write New Mail Messages ................................... V-41

K. Problem Identification and Resolution Procedures .................... V-42
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-15

1996 Field Data Collector Manual (Continued)

VI. RTI ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ............................. VI-1

A. Introduction ................................................. VI-1

B. Terms of Employment ......................................... VI-1

C. Authorization for Expenditures ................................... VI-1

D. Communications .............................................. VI-2

E. Supplies and Equipment ........................................ VI-2

F. Production, Time, and Expense (PT&E) Reporting .................... VI-3

1. Reporting Production ...................................... VI-4

2. Reporting Time ........................................... VI-4

3. Reporting Expenses ........................................ VI-4

4. Allowable Time and Exense Charges ........................... VI-4

5. Other Time and Expense Considerations ........................ VI-6

6. Procedures for Paying Field Data Collectors ..................... VI-6

G. Filling Out the PT&E .......................................... VI-7

H. Common Errors ............................................. VI-11

I. Telephone Charges ........................................... VI-11

J. Expense Advances ........................................... VI-12

K. Payroll Processing ........................................... VI-13

L. Total Costs by Institution ...................................... VI-13

M. Work Absences Caused by Sickness and Vacation ................... VI-14

N. Field Accidents and Injuries .................................... VI-14

O. Performance Evaluation ....................................... VI-14

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Chief Administrator Packet

Appendix B Coordinator Packet

Appendix C CADE User’s Guide and CADE Packet

Appendix D Glossary of Financial Aid Terms

Appendix E Free Application for Federal Student Aid 

Appendix F Financial Aid Awards

Appendix G Tests Approved by the U.S. Department of Education

LIST OF EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT Page

I-1 Field Data Collector Responsibilities .................................... I-12

I-2 Confidentiality Agreements ........................................... I-13

I-3 NPSAS:96 Project Organization Chart ................................... I-14

I-4 List of Abbreviations ................................................ I-15
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-16

1996 Field Data Collector Manual (Continued)

I-5 NPSAS:96 Full Scale Study Calendar .................................... I-16

II-1 Affidavit of Nondisclosure ............................................ II-19

II-2 Disclosure Notice ................................................... II-20

II-3 Field Data Collector (FDC) Checklist .................................... II-21

II-4 Script for the Coordinator Call ......................................... II-25

II-5 Coordinator Call Script Aid ........................................... II-28

II-6 NPSAS:96 Scheduling Calendar ........................................ II-30

II-7 NPSAS:96 Materials Transmittal Form .................................. II-33

II-8 Record of Contracts Form ............................................ II-34

II-9 Problem/Comments Log .............................................. II-35

II-10 Institution Fact Sheet ................................................ II-36

II-11 List of Sampled Students ............................................. II-39

II-12 Post Abstraction Field Supervisor Verification Form ........................ II-40

 

III-1 Flow Chart of 1994-95 Federal Application Processing System ................ III-9

III-2 SAR - Page One ................................................... III-10

IV-1 CADE System Menu ................................................ IV-1

IV-2 Registration/Admissions Main Menu .................................... IV-3

IV-3 Registration/Admissions Sub-Section Menu ............................... IV-3

IV-4 Locating Sub-Section Data ........................................... IV-4

IV-5 Student Characteristics ............................................... IV-5

IV-6 Admissions Test Sub-Section Data ...................................... IV-5

IV-7 Enrollment/Tuition Sub-Section Menu .................................. IV-6

IV-8 Enrollment Sub-Section Data .......................................... IV-7

IV-9 Student Term List .................................................. IV-8

IV-10 Student Enrollment Data ............................................ IV-10

IV-11 Tuition Data ...................................................... IV-10

IV-12 Student Financial Aid Sub-Section ..................................... IV-11

IV-13 Financial Aid Awards Data ........................................... IV-12

IV-14 Need Analysis Data ................................................ IV-13

IV-15 SAR Data ....................................................... IV-14

IV-16 Institution Term List with Preloaded Term Information ..................... IV-20

IV-17 Student Term List (no term selected) ................................... IV-21

IV-18 Out of Range Warning PUB .......................................... IV-22

IV-19 Help Screen ...................................................... IV-22

IV-20 NPSAS Opening Screen ............................................. IV-23

IV-21 FDC CADE System Menu ........................................... IV-24

IV-22 List of FC Assigned Institutions ....................................... IV-25

IV-23 Roster of Sampled Student ........................................... IV-26
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-17

1996 Field Data Collector Manual (Continued) 

IV-24 F5 Completion Status for all Students at Institution ........................ IV-27

IV-25 Package Option for Transmission of Completed CADE ..................... IV-28

IV-26 Completed Institution is being “Packaged” ............................... IV-29

IV-27 “Packaged” institution that is Ready to Send to RTI ........................ IV-30

IV-28 “Recovering” Data Option ........................................... IV-31

IV-29 CADE Tutorial Option .............................................. IV-32

IV-30 Transmit Option When Institution Abstraction and Data Entry is Complete ...... IV-33

IV-31 Add/View Comments ............................................... IV-34

IV-32 End of Sub-Section ................................................ IV-36

V-1 Opening the Toshiba Saellte Computer .................................... V-5

V-2 The Top - Toshiba Satellite ............................................ V-6

V-3 The Toshiba Satellite Computer with the Display Raised ...................... V-7

V-4 Indicator Panel ...................................................... V-8

V-5 The Left Side ....................................................... V-9

V-6 The Back ......................................................... V-10

V-7 The Right Side ..................................................... V-11

V-8 The Underside ..................................................... V-12

V-9 Changing the Angle of the Keyboard .................................... V-14

V-10 Retracting the Legs ................................................. V-15

V-11 Connect the Power Cord ............................................. V-16

V-12 Connect the AC Adapter ............................................. V-17

V-13 Plug the Power Cord ................................................ V-17

V-14 Battery Removal ................................................... V-18

V-15 Turning the Computer On ............................................ V-20

V-16 Connecting the Computer to the Telephone Line ........................... V-21

V-17 Transmit the Data .................................................. V-23

V-18 Setting up the Computer for Transmitting ................................ V-24

V-19 Time Screen ....................................................... V-25

V-20 Screen to Tell You Transmission was Successful ........................... V-26

V-21 Screen to Tell You Transmission was Not Successful ........................ V-27

V-22 Change Phone Number for Transmission ................................. V-28

V-23 System Setting Screen ............................................... V-29

V-24 User Telephone Setting .............................................. V-30

V-25 CADE System Menu ................................................ V-31

V-26 Electronic Mail Menu ................................................ V-32

V-27 Read New Mail .................................................... V-34

V-28 Folder Modifer ..................................................... V-35

V-29 Existing Folders (Moving Messages) .................................... V-36

V-30 Existing Folders (Changing Folders) ..................................... V-37

V-31 Creating New Folders ............................................... V-38
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-18

1996 Field Data Collector Manual (Continued) 

V-32 Reentering User Name ............................................... V-39

V-33 Brief Description ................................................... V-40

V-34 Write New Mail Message ............................................. V-41

VI-1 Data Colelction Agreement .......................................... VI-15

VI-2 Project Staff Information ............................................ VI-16

VI-3 PT&E Report ..................................................... VI-17

VI-4 Advance Balance Sheet ............................................. VI-18

VI-5 SELECT Staffing Services, Inc., Payroll Check ........................... VI-19

VI-6A NPSAS Field Data Collector Evaluation ................................. VI-20

VI-6B NPSAS Field Data Collector Evaluation Definitions ........................ VI-21
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-19

Field Staff Data Collector Training Agenda

DAY 0

 9:00 am Welcome and Introduction

 – Meet Project Team Members

– Review Field Supervisor (FS Territories

 9:30 am Review Field Data Collector (FDC) Training

– Discuss FS Roles

10:00 am Postsecondary Institution Environment

10:30 am Contacting Coordinators (Checklist)

11:30 am Lunch

 1:00 pm Mock #5: Eric Npsastestv

– Round-Robin

– Highlight Q x Q Specifications

 2:00 pm Mock #9: José Npsastestix

– Individual

 2:00 pm Field Management System (MS) - Reports

 3:00 pm Break

 3:15 pm FMS - Production, Time and Expense (PT&E)

 3:45 pm FMS - Assignments

 4:15 pm Questions and Answers

 4:30 pm Adjourn
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-20

Field Staff Data Collector Training Agenda - (Continued)

DAY 1

 8:30 am Overview of Training Objective

– Review Training Materials

– Data Collection Time Line

 9:00 am NPSAS:96 Institutional Contacting

 9:30 am Basic Concepts of Postsecondary Financial Aid Process

10:15 am Break

10:30 am CADE - “Basics”

– Software Development

– Sections & Sub-sections

– CADE Tutorial

11:30 am General FDC Responsibilities

– Confidentiality Agreements

– Contact with Institutional Coordinator

12:00 pm Lunch

 1:00 pm Introduction to CADE

Case #1 - Rachel Npsastesti

– FDC do not use PC

– FDC locate “files”

 2:45 pm Break

 3:00 pm Case #1 - Rachel (continued)

 4:00 pm Review / Questions Case #1

 4:15 pm Using CADE

– Identify System Menu

– Select Institution

– Complete Data Entry

 5:00 pm Review Home Study
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-21

Field Staff Data Collector Training Agenda - (Continued)

 5:30 pm Adjourn

DAY 2

 8:30 am Review Case #1

 8:45 am CADE: Section by Section

– Case #10 - Monique

Registration /Admissions Section: Locating

 9:15 am Registration /Admissions Section: Characteristics

 9:45 am Registration / Admissions Section: Admission Tests

10:15 am Break

10:30 am Enrollment / Tuition Section

11:15 am Financial Aid Section: Financial Aid Awards

12:00 pm Financial Aid Section: Needs Analysis

12:30 pm Lunch

 1:30 Financial Aid Section: Student Aid Report (SAR)

 2:00 pm Round-Robin

– Case #8 - Max T.

 3:15 Break

 3:30 pm Round-Robin

– Case #8 (continued)

 4:30 pm “Packing” Complete Case

 5:00 pm Adjourn
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-22

Field Staff Data Collector Training Agenda - (Continued)

DAY 3

 8:30 am Review

– Case #10

– Case #8

 9:00 am Key Elements in Student Financial Aid Data

 9:30 am Postsecondary Institution Environment

10:15 am Break

10:30 am Contacting Coordinators

– Checklist

11:15am Item Verification: System Q/C

12:15 pm Lunch

 1:15 pm Introduction to Field Management System

 1:45 pm Individual Practice

– Case #3 - David J.

 2:30 pm Break

 2:45 pm Case #3 - (continued)

 3:45 pm Review Case #3

 4:15 pm Assignment: “After Hours Practice”

– Transmission of Cases 1, 10, 8, 3

– Receipt of Cases 7, 2, 4, 6

 5:00 pm Adjourn
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-23

Field Staff Data Collector Training Agenda - (Continued)

DAY 4

 8:30 am Review Transmission

 9:00 am Introduction to E-Mail

10:15 am Break

10:30 am Round-Robin

– Case #7 - Paul T.

11:45 am Review

– Case #7

12:15 pm Lunch

 1:15 pm Individual Practice

– Case #2

– Role-play IC Call

 2:30 pm Break

 2:45 pm Review

– Case #2

 3:15 pm The Test

– Case #4 - Liz

 4:15 pm Assignment

– Transmission of Cases #7, 2, 4

 4:30 pm Adjourn
APPENDIX E: TRAINING MATERIAL 

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX E E-24
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-1

Appendix F

Design Effect Tables

Statistical Analysis Considerations ............................................ F-3

Design Effect Tables ....................................................... F-5

A. Design effect tables for undergraduate students based onthe study weights ......... F-5

B. Design effect tables for undergraduate students based on the CATI weights ....... F-27

C. Design effect tables for graduate students (excluding first-professional 

students) based on the study weights .................................... F-49

D. Design effect tables for graduate students (excluding first-professional students) 

based on the CATI weights ........................................... F-55

E. Design effect tables for first professional students based on the study weights ..... F-61

F. Design effect tables for first professional students based on the CATI weights ..... F-67
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-2
From about 3 percent for private, for-profit, less-than-2-year institutions to about 51 percent for public, 1

4-year, doctoral/first-professional-granting institutions.

NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-3

Statistical Analysis Considerations

The NPSAS:96 sampling design was a stratified two-stage design. A stratified sample of

postsecondary institutions was selected with probabilities proportional to a composite measure of

size at the first stage, and a stratified systematic sample of students was selected from sample

institutions at the second stage. Moreover, a stratified subsample of students was selected for

computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). At the first stage, about ten percent of the

eligible institutions were selected, but the institution sampling rates varied considerably by

institutional level and control. At the second stage, potential first-time, beginning (FTB) students 1

were oversampled. Moreover, FTBs were retained for CATI with certainty, while about half of

all other students were retained, and higher sampling rates were used for students whose CADE

data indicated that they were financial aid applicants. Because of this complex sampling design, it

is important that statistical analyses be conducted using software that properly accounts for the

complex survey sampling design.

Most commonly-used statistical computing packages (e.g., SAS and SPSS) assume that

the data were obtained from a simple random sample; that is, they assume that the observations

are independent and identically distributed. When data have been collected using a complex

sampling design, the simple random sampling assumption can lead to an underestimate of the

sampling variance, which can therefore lead to artificially small confidence intervals and

anticonservative hypothesis tests results (i.e., rejecting the null hypothesis when it is in fact true

more often than indicated by the nominal Type I error level) (Carlson et al, 1993).

Statistical strategies that have been developed to address this issue include: first-order

Taylor series expansion of the variance equation; balanced repeated replication; and the Jackknife

approach (see, e.g., Wolter, 1985). Special-purpose software packages that have been developed

for analysis of complex sample survey data include SUDAAN and WesVarPC. Recently, the

statistical software package Stata has added features for analysis of complex survey data. 

Evaluations of the relative performances of these packages are reported by Cohen (1997). 

SUDAAN is a commercial product developed by Research Triangle Institute; information

regarding the features of this package and its lease terms is available from the Web site

http://www.rti.org/patents/sudaan/sudaan.html. WesVarPC is a product of Westat, Inc. and can

be downloaded from the Web site http://www.westat.com/wesvarpc/index.html. NCES also has

developed a software tool called the Data Analysis System (DAS) for analysis of complex survey

data. Information about using the DAS is available from the Web site http://www.pedar-das.org. 

This site includes links to many NCES DAS files, including the NPSAS DAS files.
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-4

If one must perform a quick analysis of NPSAS:96 data without using one of the software

packages for analysis of complex survey data, the design effect tables in this appendix can be used

to make approximate adjustments to the standard errors of survey statistics computed using the

standard software packages that assume simple random sampling designs. For example, Table F.9

shows design effects based on the study weights for undergraduate students at public, 4-year,

doctoral/first-professional institutions. If one had computed a statistic (e.g., mean Pell grant) for

this domain of students using the study weights, then the summary statistics from Table F.9

suggest that the standard error computed from the standard statistical software package should be

multiplied by a survey design effect of about 3.64 (the median for this domain). However, the

range of design effects shown in Table F.9 for this domain is from 2.28 to 7.87. Therefore, one

cannot be confident regarding the actual design-based standard error without performing the

analysis using one of the software packages specifically designed for analysis of data from

complex sample surveys.

References

Carlson, B.L., Johnson, A.E., and Cohen, S.B. (1993). “An Evaluation of the Use of Personal

Computers for Variance Estimation with Complex Survey Data.” Journal of Official

Statistics, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 795-814.

Cohen, S.B. (1997). “An Evaluation of Alternative PC-Based Software Packages Developed for

the Analysis of Complex Survey Data.” The American Statistician, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp.

285-292.

Wolter, K. (1985). Introduction to Variance Estimation, Springer-Verlag: New York, NY.
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-5

DESIGN EFFECT TABLES

Section A

Design effect tables for undergraduate students based on the study weights
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-6
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-7

Table F.1—Design effects based on the study weights for all undergraduate students

Percent Design Std. Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

SRS

Received any aid 49.67 0.73 0.25 41,482 2.98 8.86

Received any federal aid 36.58 0.70 0.24 41,482 2.97 8.80

Received any non-federal aid 32.00 0.65 0.23 41,482 2.84 8.09

Received any state grant aid 12.71 0.49 0.16 41,482 3.02 9.14

Received any institution grant aid 11.68 0.47 0.16 41,482 2.99 8.95

Received any aid from other sources 12.36 0.39 0.16 41,482 2.40 5.74

Received any grant aid 38.94 0.69 0.24 41,482 2.86 8.21

Received any loan aid 25.60 0.57 0.21 41,482 2.64 6.96

Received any work-study aid 5.03 0.27 0.11 41,482 2.49 6.22

Received any other type of aid 7.58 0.33 0.13 41,482 2.55 6.50

Received a Pell grant 21.61 0.60 0.20 41,482 2.97 8.84

Received a Stafford loan 24.66 0.55 0.21 41,482 2.61 6.83

Received a subsidized loan 21.66 0.50 0.20 41,482 2.48 6.14

Received an unsubsidized loan 10.01 0.32 0.15 41,482 2.15 4.63

Received grant aid only 18.84 0.57 0.19 41,482 2.97 8.80

Married 20.95 0.57 0.20 41,482 2.88 8.27

U.S. citizen 95.12 0.33 0.11 41,482 3.12 9.74

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 4.97 0.27 0.11 39,536 2.43 5.88

Enrolled exclusively full-time 44.95 0.83 0.25 40,838 3.38 11.46

Lived on campus 20.61 0.56 0.20 41,482 2.83 8.03

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 2.15 4.63

25 percentile 2.52 6.36 th

Median 2.84 8.06

75 percentile 2.98 8.85 th

Maximum 3.38 11.46
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-8
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-9

Table F.2—Design Effects based on the study weights for male undergraduate students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 46.72 0.95 0.37 17,714 2.54 6.48

Received any federal aid 33.11 0.83 0.35 17,714 2.35 5.51

Received any non-federal aid 31.37 0.83 0.35 17,714 2.39 5.72

Received any state grant aid 11.16 0.52 0.24 17,714 2.21 4.86

Received any institution grant aid 11.45 0.56 0.24 17,714 2.33 5.45

Received any aid from other sources 13.55 0.58 0.26 17,714 2.24 5.03

Received any grant aid 35.70 0.84 0.36 17,714 2.34 5.49

Received any loan aid 24.40 0.73 0.32 17,714 2.25 5.05

Received any work-study aid 4.32 0.29 0.15 17,714 1.91 3.63

Received any other type of aid 8.94 0.45 0.21 17,714 2.10 4.43

Received a Pell grant 17.88 0.63 0.29 17,714 2.18 4.74

Received a Stafford loan 23.46 0.70 0.32 17,714 2.19 4.81

Received a subsidized loan 20.36 0.64 0.30 17,714 2.11 4.46

Received an unsubsidized loan 9.68 0.41 0.22 17,714 1.85 3.43

Received grant aid only 16.73 0.67 0.28 17,714 2.40 5.77

Married 18.29 0.73 0.29 17,714 2.52 6.37

U.S. citizen 94.84 0.38 0.17 17,714 2.27 5.14

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 9.82 0.51 0.23 16,743 2.22 4.92

Enrolled exclusively full-time 47.33 1.02 0.38 17,486 2.69 7.23

Lived on campus 21.60 0.69 0.31 17,714 2.22 4.94

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.85 3.43

25 percentile 2.19 4.78 th

Median 2.25 5.04

75 percentile 2.37 5.61 th

Maximum 2.69 7.23
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-10

Table F.3—Design effects based on the study weights for female undergraduate students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 51.91 0.86 0.32 23,768 2.67 7.10

Received any federal aid 39.22 0.84 0.32 23,768 2.66 7.08

Received any non-federal aid 32.47 0.74 0.30 23,768 2.45 6.01

Received any state grant aid 13.89 0.59 0.22 23,768 2.63 6.92

Received any institution grant aid 11.86 0.53 0.21 23,768 2.52 6.34

Received any aid from other sources 11.45 0.43 0.21 23,768 2.07 4.28

Received any grant aid 41.40 0.82 0.32 23,768 2.57 6.60

Received any loan aid 26.51 0.66 0.29 23,768 2.32 5.37

Received any work-study aid 5.56 0.31 0.15 23,768 2.09 4.39

Received any other type of aid 6.54 0.35 0.16 23,768 2.16 4.68

Received a Pell grant 24.45 0.75 0.28 23,768 2.67 7.14

Received a Stafford loan 25.58 0.65 0.28 23,768 2.31 5.35

Received a subsidized loan 22.64 0.61 0.27 23,768 2.23 4.97

Received an unsubsidized loan 10.26 0.37 0.20 23,768 1.90 3.60

Received grant aid only 20.44 0.72 0.26 23,768 2.74 7.52

Married 22.98 0.68 0.27 23,768 2.50 6.23

U.S. citizen 95.33 0.42 0.14 23,768 3.07 9.42

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 1.34 0.17 0.08 22,793 2.25 5.06

Enrolled exclusively full-time 43.13 0.91 0.32 23,352 2.82 7.94

Lived on campus 19.86 0.68 0.26 23,768 2.61 6.81

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.90 3.60

25 percentile 2.24 5.01 th

Median 2.48 6.17

75 percentile 2.66 7.09 th

Maximum 3.07 9.42
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-11

Table F.4— Design effects based on the study weights for students at less-than-2-year institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 63.21 4.13 0.78 3,831 5.31 28.15

Received any federal aid 52.18 4.17 0.81 3,831 5.16 26.64

Received any non-federal aid 25.66 3.23 0.71 3,831 4.58 20.99

Received any state grant aid 6.69 2.35 0.40 3,831 5.81 33.80

Received any institution grant aid 5.23 1.58 0.36 3,831 4.39 19.29

Received any aid from other sources 9.23 1.38 0.47 3,831 2.95 8.70

Received any grant aid 46.67 3.73 0.81 3,831 4.63 21.42

Received any loan aid 37.16 4.27 0.78 3,831 5.47 29.89

Received any work-study aid 0.12 0.06 0.06 3,831 1.06 1.13

Received any other type of aid 11.56 1.60 0.52 3,831 3.11 9.64

Received a Pell grant 39.07 3.61 0.79 3,831 4.58 20.97

Received a Stafford loan 34.65 4.15 0.77 3,831 5.40 29.16

Received a subsidized loan 33.32 4.02 0.76 3,831 5.28 27.89

Received an unsubsidized loan 21.07 3.25 0.66 3,831 4.94 24.40

Received grant aid only 19.24 3.01 0.64 3,831 4.73 22.34

Married 28.97 1.30 0.73 3,831 1.78 3.15

U.S. citizen 93.38 1.12 0.40 3,831 2.78 7.75

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 7.52 1.20 0.44 3,517 2.69 7.26

Enrolled exclusively full-time 79.80 2.73 0.66 3,711 4.14 17.10

Lived on campus 2.13 0.41 0.23 3,831 1.74 3.04

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.06 1.13

25 percentile 2.87 8.23 th

Median 4.58 20.98

75 percentile 5.22 27.27 th

Maximum 5.81 33.80
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-12

Table F.5— Design effects based on the study weights for undergraduate students at public,

2-year institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 35.20 1.28 0.61 6,167 2.11 4.45

Received any federal aid 22.10 1.12 0.53 6,167 2.12 4.50

Received any non-federal aid 22.86 1.13 0.53 6,167 2.11 4.44

Received any state grant aid 8.52 0.82 0.36 6,167 2.31 5.33

Received any institution grant aid 3.91 0.62 0.25 6,167 2.50 6.27

Received any aid from other sources 10.91 0.73 0.40 6,167 1.83 3.35

Received any grant aid 28.86 1.21 0.58 6,167 2.09 4.37

Received any loan aid 8.56 0.66 0.36 6,167 1.85 3.41

Received any work-study aid 1.54 0.29 0.16 6,167 1.86 3.47

Received any other type of aid 5.03 0.57 0.28 6,167 2.05 4.20

Received a Pell grant 16.56 1.04 0.47 6,167 2.20 4.85

Received a Stafford loan 8.06 0.62 0.35 6,167 1.80 3.23

Received a subsidized loan 6.86 0.56 0.32 6,167 1.74 3.04

Received an unsubsidized loan 3.39 0.32 0.23 6,167 1.41 1.97

Received grant aid only 21.35 1.07 0.52 6,167 2.05 4.20

Married 25.97 1.08 0.56 6,167 1.93 3.71

U.S. citizen 95.19 0.64 0.27 6,167 2.37 5.60

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 5.92 0.51 0.31 5,788 1.66 2.75

Enrolled exclusively full-time 25.62 1.26 0.56 6,045 2.25 5.05

Lived on campus 12.25 0.69 0.42 6,167 1.65 2.71

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.41 1.97

25 percentile 1.81 3.29 th

Median 2.05 4.20

75 percentile 2.16 4.67 th

Maximum 2.50 6.27
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-13

Table F.6— Design effects based on the study weights for undergraduate students at 4-year, nondoctoral/first-professional institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 63.67 1.06 0.43 12,559 2.48 6.15

Received any federal aid 49.61 1.22 0.45 12,559 2.73 7.46

Received any non-federal aid 45.27 1.23 0.44 12,559 2.76 7.64

Received any state grant aid 20.78 1.06 0.36 12,559 2.94 8.62

Received any institution grant aid 21.91 1.32 0.37 12,559 3.58 12.80

Received any aid from other sources 15.12 0.66 0.32 12,559 2.06 4.23

Received any grant aid 51.24 1.13 0.45 12,559 2.53 6.42

Received any loan aid 40.09 1.23 0.44 12,559 2.82 7.95

Received any work-study aid 10.86 0.84 0.28 12,559 3.02 9.11

Received any other type of aid 9.19 0.61 0.26 12,559 2.38 5.67

Received a Pell grant 25.86 1.05 0.39 12,559 2.70 7.28

Received a Stafford loan 38.83 1.22 0.43 12,559 2.80 7.82

Received a subsidized loan 34.36 1.08 0.42 12,559 2.54 6.44

Received an unsubsidized loan 13.38 0.65 0.30 12,559 2.14 4.57

Received grant aid only 17.98 0.90 0.34 12,559 2.63 6.93

Married 18.52 1.00 0.35 12,559 2.87 8.24

U.S. citizen 96.01 0.40 0.17 12,559 2.30 5.30

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 4.15 0.39 0.18 12,175 2.13 4.54

Enrolled exclusively full-time 57.35 1.48 0.44 12,416 3.34 11.13

Lived on campus 29.39 1.51 0.41 12,559 3.72 13.82

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 2.06 4.23

25 percentile 2.43 5.91 th

Median 2.66 7.10

75 percentile 2.88 8.28 th

Maximum 3.72 13.82
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-14

Table F.7— Design effects based on the study weights for undergraduate students at 4-year,

doctoral/first-professional institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 57.95 0.83 0.41 14,284 2.01 4.03

Received any federal aid 44.60 0.80 0.42 14,284 1.91 3.67

Received any non-federal aid 38.51 0.89 0.41 14,284 2.17 4.73

Received any state grant aid 14.41 0.74 0.29 14,284 2.53 6.39

Received any institution grant aid 18.77 0.74 0.33 14,284 2.27 5.17

Received any aid from other sources 13.35 0.47 0.28 14,284 1.65 2.73

Received any grant aid 43.18 0.79 0.41 14,284 1.90 3.61

Received any loan aid 38.35 0.83 0.41 14,284 2.04 4.15

Received any work-study aid 7.82 0.50 0.22 14,284 2.24 5.03

Received any other type of aid 9.46 0.49 0.24 14,284 2.00 4.01

Received a Pell grant 21.00 0.72 0.34 14,284 2.10 4.42

Received a Stafford loan 37.15 0.83 0.40 14,284 2.05 4.19

Received a subsidized loan 32.12 0.77 0.39 14,284 1.98 3.90

Received an unsubsidized loan 14.18 0.52 0.29 14,284 1.80 3.23

Received grant aid only 15.00 0.59 0.30 14,284 1.98 3.94

Married 11.58 0.65 0.27 14,284 2.43 5.91

U.S. citizen 94.81 0.39 0.19 14,284 2.09 4.37

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 3.00 0.26 0.15 13,609 1.81 3.26

Enrolled exclusively full-time 60.72 1.23 0.41 14,157 3.01 9.04

Lived on campus 34.09 1.05 0.40 14,284 2.65 7.04

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.65 2.73

25 percentile 1.95 3.79 th

Median 2.04 4.17

75 percentile 2.26 5.10 th

Maximum 3.01 9.04
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-15

Table F.8— Design effects based on the study weights for undergraduate students at public, 4-

year, non-doctoral/first-professional institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 55.76 1.28 0.58 7,451 2.22 4.95

Received any federal aid 45.38 1.30 0.58 7,451 2.25 5.04

Received any non-federal aid 33.94 1.21 0.55 7,451 2.21 4.90

Received any state grant aid 18.04 1.17 0.45 7,451 2.62 6.89

Received any institution grant aid 7.06 0.69 0.30 7,451 2.33 5.44

Received any aid from other sources 11.64 0.61 0.37 7,451 1.65 2.74

Received any grant aid 41.33 1.16 0.57 7,451 2.04 4.15

Received any loan aid 34.81 1.37 0.55 7,451 2.48 6.16

Received any work-study aid 5.74 0.59 0.27 7,451 2.21 4.87

Received any other type of aid 7.01 0.51 0.30 7,451 1.71 2.93

Received a Pell grant 26.08 1.16 0.51 7,451 2.28 5.19

Received a Stafford loan 33.61 1.34 0.55 7,451 2.46 6.04

Received a subsidized loan 29.34 1.15 0.53 7,451 2.19 4.79

Received an unsubsidized loan 12.06 0.69 0.38 7,451 1.84 3.39

Received grant aid only 16.33 1.02 0.43 7,451 2.38 5.66

Married 18.88 1.11 0.45 7,451 2.44 5.95

U.S. citizen 95.21 0.61 0.25 7,451 2.47 6.08

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 4.17 0.37 0.24 7,235 1.56 2.43

Enrolled exclusively full-time 53.52 1.70 0.58 7,368 2.93 8.58

Lived on campus 24.81 1.33 0.50 7,451 2.65 7.04

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.56 2.43

25 percentile 2.05 4.22 th

Median 2.23 5.00

75 percentile 2.46 6.06 th

Maximum 2.93 8.58
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-16

Table F.9—Design effects based on the study weights for undergraduate students at public, 

4-year, doctoral/first-professional institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 55.94 1.00 0.54 8,596 1.88 3.52

Received any federal aid 43.82 0.94 0.54 8,596 1.76 3.11

Received any non-federal aid 34.21 1.05 0.51 8,596 2.05 4.19

Received any state grant aid 13.79 0.87 0.37 8,596 2.33 5.41

Received any institution grant aid 13.19 0.78 0.37 8,596 2.15 4.62

Received any aid from other sources 12.25 0.53 0.35 8,596 1.51 2.28

Received any grant aid 39.91 0.94 0.53 8,596 1.77 3.14

Received any loan aid 37.30 0.99 0.52 8,596 1.89 3.58

Received any work-study aid 5.39 0.54 0.24 8,596 2.22 4.94

Received any other type of aid 8.85 0.60 0.31 8,596 1.96 3.83

Received a Pell grant 22.04 0.86 0.45 8,596 1.92 3.68

Received a Stafford loan 36.29 0.98 0.52 8,596 1.90 3.60

Received a subsidized loan 30.93 0.92 0.50 8,596 1.84 3.37

Received an unsubsidized loan 14.82 0.64 0.38 8,596 1.66 2.77

Received grant aid only 14.28 0.70 0.38 8,596 1.85 3.42

Married 11.49 0.78 0.34 8,596 2.26 5.12

U.S. citizen 95.34 0.45 0.23 8,596 1.98 3.91

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 3.31 0.33 0.20 8,199 1.67 2.78

Enrolled exclusively full-time 59.19 1.49 0.53 8,532 2.80 7.87

Lived on campus 33.65 1.23 0.51 8,596 2.42 5.85

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.51 2.28

25 percentile 1.80 3.26 th

Median 1.91 3.64

75 percentile 2.14 4.60 th

Maximum 2.80 7.87
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-17

Table F.10—Design effects based on the study weights for undergraduate students at private, 

not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctoral/first-professional institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 74.32 1.64 0.61 5,108 2.68 7.16

Received any federal aid 55.31 2.26 0.70 5,108 3.24 10.52

Received any non-federal aid 60.51 2.20 0.68 5,108 3.22 10.34

Received any state grant aid 24.47 1.95 0.60 5,108 3.23 10.46

Received any institution grant aid 41.88 2.69 0.69 5,108 3.89 15.16

Received any aid from other sources 19.81 1.26 0.56 5,108 2.27 5.13

Received any grant aid 64.59 1.97 0.67 5,108 2.94 8.66

Received any loan aid 47.19 2.22 0.70 5,108 3.17 10.07

Received any work-study aid 17.76 1.75 0.53 5,108 3.27 10.72

Received any other type of aid 12.11 1.24 0.46 5,108 2.72 7.41

Received a Pell grant 25.57 1.91 0.61 5,108 3.13 9.82

Received a Stafford loan 45.86 2.19 0.70 5,108 3.15 9.91

Received a subsidized loan 41.10 1.99 0.69 5,108 2.90 8.38

Received an unsubsidized loan 15.16 1.21 0.50 5,108 2.40 5.77

Received grant aid only 20.21 1.59 0.56 5,108 2.82 7.97

Married 18.04 1.81 0.54 5,108 3.36 11.26

U.S. citizen 97.08 0.48 0.24 5,108 2.02 4.10

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 4.12 0.77 0.28 4,940 2.70 7.31

Enrolled exclusively full-time 62.53 2.57 0.68 5,048 3.77 14.22

Lived on campus 35.56 2.98 0.67 5,108 4.45 19.84

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 2.02 4.10

25 percentile 2.71 7.36 th

Median 3.11 9.65

75 percentile 3.24 10.49 th

Maximum 4.45 19.84
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-18

Table F.11—Design effects based on the study weights for undergraduate students at private, 

not-for-profit, 4-year, doctoral/first-professional institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 65.01 1.31 0.63 5,688 2.07 4.27

Received any federal aid 47.31 1.43 0.66 5,688 2.16 4.66

Received any non-federal aid 53.59 1.58 0.66 5,688 2.39 5.69

Received any state grant aid 16.57 1.43 0.49 5,688 2.90 8.42

Received any institution grant aid 38.33 1.73 0.64 5,688 2.69 7.21

Received any aid from other sources 17.21 0.98 0.50 5,688 1.95 3.80

Received any grant aid 54.63 1.39 0.66 5,688 2.10 4.42

Received any loan aid 42.02 1.44 0.65 5,688 2.20 4.84

Received any work-study aid 16.33 1.21 0.49 5,688 2.47 6.08

Received any other type of aid 11.63 0.70 0.43 5,688 1.64 2.69

Received a Pell grant 17.36 1.11 0.50 5,688 2.22 4.93

Received a Stafford loan 40.16 1.44 0.65 5,688 2.22 4.92

Received a subsidized loan 36.33 1.36 0.64 5,688 2.13 4.52

Received an unsubsidized loan 11.93 0.76 0.43 5,688 1.78 3.16

Received grant aid only 17.53 1.06 0.50 5,688 2.11 4.44

Married 11.93 1.07 0.43 5,688 2.49 6.20

U.S. citizen 92.93 0.74 0.34 5,688 2.19 4.77

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 1.92 0.27 0.19 5,410 1.46 2.13

Enrolled exclusively full-time 66.09 1.98 0.63 5,625 3.13 9.80

Lived on campus 35.67 1.97 0.64 5,688 3.10 9.60

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.46 2.13

25 percentile 2.08 4.35 th

Median 2.19 4.81

75 percentile 2.43 5.91 th

Maximum 3.13 9.80
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-19

Table F.12—Design effects based on the study weights for undergraduate students at private, for-profit

institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 77.73 2.37 0.57 5,380 4.19 17.52

Received any federal aid 70.65 2.68 0.62 5,380 4.31 18.57

Received any non-federal aid 26.96 2.53 0.60 5,380 4.18 17.47

Received any state grant aid 9.07 1.95 0.39 5,380 4.99 24.88

Received any institution grant aid 5.20 1.29 0.30 5,380 4.26 18.11

Received any aid from other sources 9.82 1.08 0.41 5,380 2.67 7.12

Received any grant aid 55.90 2.60 0.68 5,380 3.84 14.76

Received any loan aid 55.86 3.24 0.68 5,380 4.79 22.92

Received any work-study aid 0.43 0.12 0.09 5,380 1.34 1.79

Received any other type of aid 12.70 1.24 0.45 5,380 2.73 7.48

Received a Pell grant 48.50 2.68 0.68 5,380 3.93 15.42

Received a Stafford loan 53.54 3.21 0.68 5,380 4.71 22.22

Received a subsidized loan 49.87 3.11 0.68 5,380 4.56 20.77

Received an unsubsidized loan 32.35 2.70 0.64 5,380 4.23 17.90

Received grant aid only 16.92 2.41 0.51 5,380 4.72 22.30

Married 25.33 1.19 0.59 5,380 2.01 4.04

U.S. citizen 92.73 1.21 0.35 5,380 3.41 11.62

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 6.78 0.69 0.35 5,187 1.97 3.89

Enrolled exclusively full-time 75.96 2.43 0.59 5,229 4.11 16.87

Lived on campus 2.61 0.71 0.22 5,380 3.26 10.64

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.34 1.79

25 percentile 3.00 9.06 th

Median 4.14 17.17

75 percentile 4.43 19.67 th

Maximum 4.99 24.88
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-20

Table F.13—Design effects based on the study weights for dependent undergraduate students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 50.85 0.84 0.32 24,217 2.62 6.86

Received any federal aid 39.14 0.76 0.31 24,217 2.41 5.80

Received any non-federal aid 33.36 0.79 0.30 24,217 2.60 6.76

Received any state grant aid 14.15 0.55 0.22 24,217 2.45 6.00

Received any institution grant aid 17.82 0.71 0.25 24,217 2.87 8.23

Received any aid from other sources 9.27 0.35 0.19 24,217 1.87 3.51

Received any grant aid 38.74 0.80 0.31 24,217 2.57 6.59

Received any loan aid 30.49 0.68 0.30 24,217 2.31 5.33

Received any work-study aid 7.85 0.43 0.17 24,217 2.47 6.09

Received any other type of aid 7.91 0.34 0.17 24,217 1.95 3.82

Received a Pell grant 18.45 0.61 0.25 24,217 2.43 5.90

Received a Stafford loan 29.41 0.67 0.29 24,217 2.29 5.25

Received a subsidized loan 24.60 0.59 0.28 24,217 2.13 4.56

Received an unsubsidized loan 9.29 0.33 0.19 24,217 1.78 3.18

Received grant aid only 16.13 0.58 0.24 24,217 2.45 5.99

Married 0.00 0.00 0.00 24,217 - -

a a

U.S. citizen 95.31 0.31 0.14 24,217 2.27 5.13

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 0.00 0.00 0.00 23,366 - -

a a

Enrolled exclusively full-time 61.37 0.90 0.31 23,946 2.85 8.11

Lived on campus 39.55 0.87 0.31 24,217 2.76 7.62

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.78 3.18

25 percentile 2.27 5.13 th

Median 2.44 5.94

75 percentile 2.60 6.76 th

Maximum 2.87 8.23

 The design effect is undefined because the estimate is 0.00. a
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-21

Table F.14—Design effects based on the study weights for independent undergraduate students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 48.52 1.00 0.38 17,265 2.62 6.88

Received any federal aid 34.10 0.92 0.36 17,265 2.56 6.55

Received any non-federal aid 30.68 0.86 0.35 17,265 2.46 6.06

Received any state grant aid 11.33 0.65 0.24 17,265 2.69 7.23

Received any institution grant aid 5.75 0.42 0.18 17,265 2.39 5.73

Received any aid from other sources 15.34 0.64 0.27 17,265 2.32 5.36

Received any grant aid 39.14 0.91 0.37 17,265 2.44 5.96

Received any loan aid 20.87 0.67 0.31 17,265 2.16 4.65

Received any work-study aid 2.30 0.21 0.11 17,265 1.80 3.23

Received any other type of aid 7.26 0.47 0.20 17,265 2.40 5.75

Received a Pell grant 24.67 0.81 0.33 17,265 2.47 6.12

Received a Stafford loan 20.07 0.65 0.30 17,265 2.14 4.60

Received a subsidized loan 18.81 0.63 0.30 17,265 2.11 4.46

Received an unsubsidized loan 10.71 0.49 0.24 17,265 2.06 4.26

Received grant aid only 21.46 0.79 0.31 17,265 2.54 6.46

Married 41.22 0.91 0.37 17,265 2.44 5.94

U.S. citizen 94.94 0.45 0.17 17,265 2.69 7.22

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 9.95 0.50 0.24 16,170 2.14 4.59

Enrolled exclusively full-time 28.99 0.91 0.35 16,892 2.61 6.82

Lived on campus 2.29 0.18 0.11 17,265 1.57 2.46

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.57 2.46

25 percentile 2.14 4.60 th

Median 2.42 5.86

75 percentile 2.55 6.50 th

Maximum 2.69 7.23
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-22

Table F.15—Design effects based on the study weights for white, non-hispanic undergraduate

 students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 47.05 0.81 0.30 28,449 2.75 7.55

Received any federal aid 33.13 0.72 0.28 28,449 2.60 6.74

Received any non-federal aid 31.13 0.73 0.27 28,449 2.67 7.12

Received any state grant aid 11.13 0.46 0.19 28,449 2.44 5.96

Received any institution grant aid 12.18 0.57 0.19 28,449 2.95 8.69

Received any aid from other sources 13.04 0.40 0.20 28,449 2.02 4.10

Received any grant aid 35.37 0.74 0.28 28,449 2.60 6.75

Received any loan aid 25.53 0.64 0.26 28,449 2.46 6.04

Received any work-study aid 4.62 0.29 0.12 28,449 2.35 5.53

Received any other type of aid 7.61 0.35 0.16 28,449 2.24 5.04

Received a Pell grant 16.28 0.52 0.22 28,449 2.36 5.59

Received a Stafford loan 24.81 0.62 0.26 28,449 2.43 5.91

Received a subsidized loan 21.34 0.56 0.24 28,449 2.31 5.31

Received an unsubsidized loan 10.59 0.35 0.18 28,449 1.92 3.70

Received grant aid only 16.80 0.57 0.22 28,449 2.56 6.54

Married 22.64 0.65 0.25 28,449 2.62 6.85

U.S. citizen 98.67 0.13 0.07 28,449 1.94 3.76

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 4.81 0.29 0.13 27,162 2.25 5.06

Enrolled exclusively full-time 44.73 0.93 0.30 28,153 3.14 9.88

Lived on campus 22.29 0.64 0.25 28,449 2.59 6.73

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.92 3.70

25 percentile 2.28 5.19 th

Median 2.45 6.00

75 percentile 2.60 6.74 th

Maximum 3.14 9.88
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-23

Table F.16—Design effects based on the study weights for black, non-Hispanic undergraduate students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 62.95 1.87 0.67 5,264 2.81 7.88

Received any federal aid 49.99 1.75 0.69 5,264 2.55 6.48

Received any non-federal aid 38.28 1.60 0.67 5,264 2.39 5.73

Received any state grant aid 16.34 1.23 0.51 5,264 2.41 5.81

Received any institution grant aid 11.93 1.08 0.45 5,264 2.43 5.89

Received any aid from other sources 14.03 1.03 0.48 5,264 2.15 4.62

Received any grant aid 52.73 1.66 0.69 5,264 2.42 5.85

Received any loan aid 30.94 1.73 0.64 5,264 2.71 7.33

Received any work-study aid 6.05 0.62 0.33 5,264 1.89 3.59

Received any other type of aid 9.99 0.87 0.41 5,264 2.09 4.38

Received a Pell grant 37.90 1.52 0.67 5,264 2.28 5.19

Received a Stafford loan 29.77 1.69 0.63 5,264 2.68 7.16

Received a subsidized loan 27.64 1.59 0.62 5,264 2.58 6.65

Received an unsubsidized loan 11.33 0.87 0.44 5,264 2.00 3.99

Received grant aid only 24.46 1.46 0.59 5,264 2.47 6.10

Married 16.16 1.13 0.51 5,264 2.22 4.92

U.S. citizen 94.91 0.70 0.30 5,264 2.32 5.37

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 7.77 0.73 0.38 5,031 1.94 3.77

Enrolled exclusively full-time 43.72 1.84 0.69 5,138 2.67 7.11

Lived on campus 17.67 1.24 0.53 5,264 2.35 5.52

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.89 3.59

25 percentile 2.19 4.80 th

Median 2.40 5.77

75 percentile 2.56 6.57 th

Maximum 2.81 7.88
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-24

Table F.17—Design effects based on the study weights for Asian/Pacific Islander 

undergraduate students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 42.88 1.94 0.97 2,612 2.00 4.00

Received any federal aid 33.08 1.69 0.92 2,612 1.84 3.38

Received any non-federal aid 30.77 1.79 0.90 2,612 1.99 3.95

Received any state grant aid 15.04 1.43 0.70 2,612 2.04 4.17

Received any institution grant aid 12.68 1.18 0.65 2,612 1.82 3.30

Received any aid from other sources 7.71 0.92 0.52 2,612 1.77 3.14

Received any grant aid 35.68 1.78 0.94 2,612 1.90 3.61

Received any loan aid 21.20 1.42 0.80 2,612 1.77 3.15

Received any work-study aid 6.57 0.72 0.48 2,612 1.50 2.24

Received any other type of aid 5.73 0.73 0.45 2,612 1.60 2.55

Received a Pell grant 22.63 1.37 0.82 2,612 1.68 2.81

Received a Stafford loan 19.69 1.32 0.78 2,612 1.69 2.86

Received a subsidized loan 18.07 1.25 0.75 2,612 1.65 2.74

Received an unsubsidized loan 5.28 0.57 0.44 2,612 1.29 1.67

Received grant aid only 16.49 1.54 0.73 2,612 2.12 4.49

Married 15.79 1.78 0.71 2,612 2.49 6.19

U.S. citizen 66.04 1.87 0.93 2,612 2.01 4.05

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 2.80 0.67 0.33 2,427 2.00 4.00

Enrolled exclusively full-time 49.09 2.12 0.99 2,571 2.15 4.63

Lived on campus 21.05 1.62 0.80 2,612 2.03 4.12

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.29 1.67

25 percentile 1.68 2.84 th

Median 1.87 3.49

75 percentile 2.02 4.09 th

Maximum 2.65 7.04
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-25

Table F.18—Design effects based on the study weights for Hispanic undergraduate students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 54.16 2.06 0.75 4,424 2.75 7.59

Received any federal aid 44.61 2.14 0.75 4,424 2.86 8.16

Received any non-federal aid 30.60 1.68 0.69 4,424 2.42 5.88

Received any state grant aid 17.59 1.50 0.57 4,424 2.61 6.83

Received any institution grant aid 7.83 0.75 0.40 4,424 1.86 3.44

Received any aid from other sources 8.29 0.87 0.41 4,424 2.10 4.41

Received any grant aid 47.30 2.04 0.75 4,424 2.72 7.41

Received any loan aid 22.32 1.55 0.63 4,424 2.48 6.15

Received any work-study aid 5.78 0.85 0.35 4,424 2.42 5.87

Received any other type of aid 5.22 0.58 0.33 4,424 1.74 3.02

Received a Pell grant 35.91 2.11 0.72 4,424 2.92 8.53

Received a Stafford loan 20.56 1.41 0.61 4,424 2.33 5.42

Received a subsidized loan 18.75 1.31 0.59 4,424 2.24 5.00

Received an unsubsidized loan 7.52 0.75 0.40 4,424 1.89 3.56

Received grant aid only 26.39 1.78 0.66 4,424 2.68 7.18

Married 18.53 1.53 0.58 4,424 2.62 6.88

U.S. citizen 88.58 1.52 0.48 4,424 3.18 10.09

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 4.43 0.94 0.32 4,207 2.96 8.77

Enrolled exclusively full-time 44.52 2.36 0.76 4,268 3.10 9.62

Lived on campus 12.48 1.05 0.50 4,424 2.11 4.44

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.74 3.02

25 percentile 2.17 4.72 th

Median 2.55 6.49

75 percentile 2.81 7.87 th

Maximum 3.18 10.09
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-26

Table F.19—Design effects based on the study weights for low-income undergraduate students

 (less than 150 percent of poverty)

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 71.24 0.99 0.39 13,306 2.52 6.36

Received any federal aid 63.37 1.12 0.42 13,306 2.68 7.20

Received any non-federal aid 40.62 1.13 0.43 13,306 2.66 7.07

Received any state grant aid 24.09 1.12 0.37 13,306 3.01 9.06

Received any institution grant aid 11.65 0.62 0.28 13,306 2.25 5.05

Received any aid from other sources 11.00 0.58 0.27 13,306 2.13 4.55

Received any grant aid 64.78 1.04 0.41 13,306 2.51 6.30

Received any loan aid 35.73 1.03 0.42 13,306 2.47 6.09

Received any work-study aid 7.51 0.46 0.23 13,306 2.02 4.09

Received any other type of aid 8.24 0.49 0.24 13,306 2.06 4.23

Received a Pell grant 55.94 1.10 0.43 13,306 2.56 6.58

Received a Stafford loan 34.04 1.01 0.41 13,306 2.46 6.04

Received a subsidized loan 33.04 0.98 0.41 13,306 2.41 5.82

Received an unsubsidized loan 12.37 0.63 0.29 13,306 2.21 4.89

Received grant aid only 28.21 1.10 0.39 13,306 2.83 8.00

Married 16.97 0.72 0.33 13,306 2.22 4.91

U.S. citizen 91.30 0.65 0.24 13,306 2.65 7.02

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 6.25 0.39 0.21 12,984 1.82 3.29

Enrolled exclusively full-time 49.48 1.16 0.44 12,914 2.64 6.94

Lived on campus 10.21 0.53 0.26 13,306 2.01 4.03

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.82 3.29

25 percentile 2.12 4.49 th

Median 2.46 6.06

75 percentile 2.64 6.98 th

Maximum 3.01 9.06
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-27
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-28

Section B

Design effect tables for undergraduate students based on the CATI weights
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-29
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-30

Table F.20—Design effects based on the CATI weights for all undergraduate students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 8.86 0.51 0.17 27,414 2.95 8.68

Worked while in school 78.82 0.62 0.25 26,359 2.46 6.05

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 63.29 0.84 0.30 26,359 2.82 7.96

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 31.97 0.75 0.29 25,038 2.54 6.43

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 32.15 0.94 0.33 20,217 2.87 8.25

Born outside the U.S. 12.05 0.71 0.21 24,462 3.39 11.50

Registered to vote 76.97 0.67 0.28 22,818 2.40 5.76

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 82.57 0.63 0.25 22,211 2.46 6.03

Has a disability 5.52 0.26 0.14 26,664 1.88 3.55

Applied for financial aid 60.92 1.05 0.30 25,839 3.45 11.90

Attended more than one institution in 1995- 5.55 0.29 0.14 27,113 2.06 4.26

96

Has dependents other than spouse 24.23 0.79 0.26 27,414 3.05 9.28

Has children under 5 years old 8.42 0.41 0.17 25,647 2.37 5.60

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 7.92 0.46 0.17 25,647 2.75 7.55

Accepted all aid offered 86.72 0.60 0.28 15,162 2.16 4.68

First-time beginner in 1995-96 21.93 0.52 0.25 27,414 2.06 4.25

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 27.20 0.68 0.29 23,112 2.33 5.43

placement rate when deciding which school

to attend

Ever attended a community college 52.35 0.99 0.30 27,414 3.29 10.83

Have a degree or license 16.52 0.59 0.22 27,414 2.61 6.84

Did community service during 1995-96 39.28 0.78 0.31 24,639 2.50 6.26

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.88 3.55

25 percentile 2.35 5.52 th

Median 2.52 6.34

75 percentile 2.85 8.10 th

Maximum 3.45 11.90
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-31

Table F.21—Design effects based on the CATI weights for male undergraduate students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 8.72 0.74 0.26 11,512 2.82 7.93

Worked while in school 80.43 0.87 0.38 11,068 2.30 5.31

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 66.92 1.20 0.45 11,068 2.68 7.16

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 35.02 1.07 0.47 10,471 2.29 5.26

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 29.78 1.39 0.49 8,805 2.86 8.18

Born outside the U.S. 13.74 1.13 0.34 10,261 3.31 10.96

Registered to vote 74.88 1.03 0.44 9,502 2.31 5.34

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 81.13 1.05 0.41 9,256 2.59 6.73

Has a disability 6.26 0.43 0.23 11,202 1.90 3.61

Applied for financial aid 57.29 1.49 0.48 10,770 3.12 9.75

Attended more than one institution in 1995- 4.68 0.33 0.20 11,393 1.69 2.86

96

Has dependents other than spouse 18.62 0.98 0.36 11,512 2.70 7.30

Has children under 5 years old 6.97 0.61 0.24 11,091 2.51 6.29

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 5.85 0.61 0.22 11,091 2.76 7.60

Accepted all aid offered 86.87 0.82 0.44 6,027 1.89 3.56

First-time beginner in 1995-96 22.80 0.74 0.39 11,512 1.89 3.59

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 24.55 0.95 0.44 9,718 2.17 4.72

placement rate when deciding which school

to attend

Ever attended a community college 51.26 1.32 0.47 11,512 2.84 8.07

Have a degree or license 15.74 0.95 0.34 11,512 2.79 7.81

Did community service during 1995-96 36.70 1.12 0.47 10,316 2.35 5.53

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.69 2.86

25 percentile 2.23 4.99 th

Median 2.55 6.51

75 percentile 2.80 7.87 th

Maximum 3.31 10.96
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-32

Table F.22—Design effects based on the CATI weights for female undergraduate students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 8.97 0.69 0.23 15,902 3.05 9.29

Worked while in school 77.55 0.76 0.34 15,291 2.26 5.11

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 60.44 0.99 0.40 15,291 2.49 6.22

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 29.57 0.86 0.38 14,567 2.27 5.17

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 34.13 1.18 0.44 11,412 2.67 7.11

Born outside the U.S. 10.72 0.78 0.26 14,201 2.99 8.97

Registered to vote 78.59 0.79 0.36 13,316 2.22 4.95

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 83.68 0.79 0.32 12,955 2.43 5.90

Has a disability 4.93 0.32 0.17 15,462 1.82 3.32

Applied for financial aid 63.75 1.22 0.39 15,069 3.11 9.65

Attended more than one institution in 1995-96 6.23 0.40 0.19 15,720 2.08 4.32

Has dependents other than spouse 28.64 1.04 0.36 15,902 2.89 8.38

Has children under 5 years old 9.62 0.60 0.24 14,556 2.46 6.03

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 9.62 0.67 0.24 14,556 2.76 7.60

Accepted all aid offered 86.63 0.78 0.36 9,135 2.20 4.84

First-time beginner in 1995-96 21.24 0.64 0.32 15,902 1.98 3.91

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 29.26 0.87 0.39 13,394 2.20 4.85

placement rate when deciding which school to

attend

Ever attended a community college 53.20 1.19 0.40 15,902 3.01 9.05

Have a degree or license 17.13 0.72 0.30 15,902 2.41 5.83

Did community service during 1995-96 41.33 0.97 0.41 14,323 2.35 5.53

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.82 3.32

25 percentile 2.21 4.90 th

Median 2.42 5.86

75 percentile 2.78 7.71 th

Maximum 3.11 9.65
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-33

Table F.23—Design effects based on the CATI weights for students at less-than-2-year institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 3.24 0.71 0.36 2,421 1.98 3.92

Worked while in school 58.09 2.64 1.03 2,291 2.56 6.55

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 50.39 2.77 1.04 2,291 2.65 7.03

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 23.67 1.54 0.91 2,183 1.69 2.86

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 26.42 2.30 1.16 1,444 1.98 3.92

Born outside the U.S. 14.55 1.88 0.77 2,110 2.44 5.97

Registered to vote 66.78 1.53 1.08 1,903 1.41 2.00

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 69.29 1.71 1.08 1,815 1.58 2.49

Has a disability 8.94 1.21 0.59 2,316 2.04 4.16

Applied for financial aid 78.39 3.59 0.86 2,265 4.15 17.23

Attended more than one institution in 1995- 4.16 1.08 0.41 2,345 2.62 6.88

96

Has dependents other than spouse 41.88 2.01 1.01 2,408 2.00 4.01

Has children under 5 years old 18.61 1.58 0.87 1,981 1.81 3.27

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 14.89 1.21 0.80 1,981 1.51 2.29

Accepted all aid offered 94.34 1.03 0.61 1,418 1.68 2.84

First-time beginner in 1995-96 48.59 2.76 1.02 2,421 2.72 7.38

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 67.17 1.63 1.03 2,073 1.58 2.49

placement rate when deciding which school

to attend

Ever attended a community college 7.69 0.88 0.54 2,421 1.62 2.63

Have a degree or license 24.82 1.97 0.88 2,421 2.24 5.03

Did community service during 1995-96 27.49 2.70 0.97 2,131 2.79 7.81

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.41 2.00

25 percentile 1.65 2.73 th

Median 1.99 3.97

75 percentile 2.59 6.71 th

Maximum 4.15 17.23
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-34

Table F.24—Design effects based on the CATI weights for undergraduate students at public, 2-year

 institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 10.43 0.96 0.49 3,954 1.97 3.87

Worked while in school 83.61 1.07 0.60 3,804 1.79 3.19

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 74.53 1.29 0.71 3,804 1.83 3.34

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 27.92 1.41 0.75 3,623 1.90 3.59

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 35.47 1.79 0.87 3,012 2.06 4.22

Born outside the U.S. 12.87 1.39 0.56 3,577 2.48 6.16

Registered to vote 75.91 1.32 0.74 3,339 1.78 3.18

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 81.05 1.22 0.69 3,222 1.76 3.11

Has a disability 5.98 0.48 0.38 3,825 1.25 1.57

Applied for financial aid 45.86 1.96 0.83 3,599 2.36 5.55

Attended more than one institution in 1995- 6.46 0.58 0.39 3,937 1.47 2.17

96

Has dependents other than spouse 30.22 1.48 0.73 3,954 2.02 4.10

Has children under 5 years old 11.07 0.80 0.52 3,669 1.55 2.39

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 10.24 0.90 0.50 3,669 1.79 3.20

Accepted all aid offered 88.47 1.57 0.89 1,302 1.77 3.14

First-time beginner in 1995-96 21.90 0.97 0.66 3,954 1.48 2.19

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 20.40 1.18 0.73 3,039 1.61 2.61

placement rate when deciding which school

to attend

Ever attended a community college 100.00 0.00 0.00 3,954 - -

a a

Have a degree or license 17.07 1.05 0.60 3,954 1.75 3.07

Did community service during 1995-96 32.79 1.39 0.79 3,566 1.77 3.12

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.25 1.57

25 percentile 1.61 2.61 th

Median 1.78 3.18

75 percentile 1.90 3.59 th

Maximum 2.48 6.16

 The design effect is undefined because the estimate is 100.00. a
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-35

Table F.25—Design effects based on the CATI weights for undergraduate students at 4-year, 

non-doctoral/first-professional institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 10.63 0.95 0.33 8,650 2.85 8.15

Worked while in school 78.66 0.85 0.45 8,332 1.90 3.63

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 57.45 1.51 0.54 8,332 2.80 7.81

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 34.06 1.10 0.53 7,953 2.07 4.30

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 31.31 1.40 0.57 6,572 2.45 5.99

Born outside the U.S. 9.17 0.83 0.33 7,681 2.53 6.38

Registered to vote 79.61 0.78 0.47 7,271 1.65 2.71

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 85.93 0.70 0.41 7,116 1.69 2.87

Has a disability 5.66 0.48 0.25 8,446 1.92 3.69

Applied for financial aid 73.29 1.36 0.49 8,197 2.78 7.73

Attended more than one institution in 1995-96 4.76 0.32 0.23 8,584 1.39 1.92

Has dependents other than spouse 18.84 1.21 0.42 8,650 2.88 8.32

Has children under 5 years old 5.18 0.43 0.24 8,251 1.76 3.10

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 6.56 0.76 0.27 8,251 2.80 7.87

Accepted all aid offered 86.68 0.83 0.48 5,029 1.74 3.01

First-time beginner in 1995-96 19.29 0.79 0.42 8,650 1.85 3.43

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 27.41 1.13 0.52 7,328 2.16 4.68

placement rate when deciding which school to

attend

Ever attended a community college 11.92 0.82 0.35 8,650 2.36 5.59

Have a degree or license 17.89 1.16 0.41 8,650 2.81 7.92

Did community service during 1995-96 47.61 1.13 0.56 7,837 2.01 4.03

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.39 1.92

25 percentile 1.81 3.27 th

Median 2.12 4.49

75 percentile 2.77 7.68 th

Maximum 2.85 8.15
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-36

Table F.26—Design effects based on the CATI weights for undergraduate students at 4-year, doctoral/

first-professional institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 5.74 0.49 0.24 9,420 2.05 4.21

Worked while in school 74.46 0.99 0.46 9,072 2.16 4.65

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 49.57 1.38 0.52 9,072 2.63 6.94

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 39.49 1.08 0.53 8,545 2.04 4.16

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 27.63 1.10 0.53 7,096 2.08 4.32

Born outside the U.S. 12.45 0.90 0.36 8,450 2.50 6.26

Registered to vote 79.47 0.87 0.46 7,866 1.91 3.64

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 85.98 0.86 0.40 7,712 2.17 4.72

Has a disability 3.89 0.35 0.20 9,187 1.71 2.94

Applied for financial aid 69.95 1.14 0.49 8,909 2.34 5.47

Attended more than one institution in 1995-96 4.83 0.31 0.22 9,334 1.39 1.94

Has dependents other than spouse 11.30 0.80 0.33 9,420 2.46 6.08

Has children under 5 years old 3.84 0.41 0.20 9,171 2.04 4.16

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 3.24 0.38 0.19 9,171 2.05 4.21

Accepted all aid offered 82.27 0.95 0.52 5,387 1.82 3.31

First-time beginner in 1995-96 18.59 0.50 0.40 9,420 1.26 1.59

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 25.48 1.06 0.48 8,116 2.20 4.84

placement rate when deciding which school to

attend

Ever attended a community college 14.48 0.82 0.36 9,420 2.25 5.06

Have a degree or license 12.33 0.77 0.34 9,420 2.26 5.11

Did community service during 1995-96 47.67 1.22 0.54 8,414 2.23 4.99

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.26 1.59

25 percentile 1.97 3.90 th

Median 2.12 4.49

75 percentile 2.24 5.03 th

Maximum 2.63 6.94
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-37

Table F.27—Design effects based on the CATI weights for undergraduate students at public, 4-year, 

non-doctoral/first-professional institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 6.70 0.69 0.35 5,166 1.99 3.96

Worked while in school 77.88 1.03 0.59 4,969 1.75 3.05

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 60.28 1.60 0.69 4,969 2.30 5.29

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 32.29 1.24 0.68 4,749 1.83 3.36

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 28.96 1.38 0.72 3,948 1.91 3.64

Born outside the U.S. 9.89 1.15 0.44 4,687 2.65 7.01

Registered to vote 79.82 1.03 0.60 4,405 1.71 2.91

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 85.97 0.88 0.53 4,316 1.66 2.76

Has a disability 5.51 0.66 0.32 5,038 2.06 4.23

Applied for financial aid 66.91 1.74 0.68 4,854 2.58 6.66

Attended more than one institution in 1995-96 4.57 0.41 0.29 5,129 1.42 2.02

Has dependents other than spouse 17.84 1.10 0.53 5,166 2.07 4.28

Has children under 5 years old 5.63 0.52 0.33 4,944 1.59 2.53

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 5.38 0.56 0.32 4,944 1.76 3.09

Accepted all aid offered 87.27 1.16 0.63 2,826 1.85 3.43

First-time beginner in 1995-96 17.46 0.96 0.53 5,166 1.81 3.27

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 21.26 1.11 0.62 4,424 1.81 3.28

placement rate when deciding which school to

attend

Ever attended a community college 13.93 1.15 0.48 5,166 2.38 5.68

Have a degree or license 17.75 1.32 0.53 5,166 2.48 6.17

Did community service during 1995-96 44.15 1.20 0.73 4,684 1.65 2.73

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.42 2.02

25 percentile 1.73 2.98 th

Median 1.84 3.39

75 percentile 2.21 4.88 th

Maximum 2.65 7.01
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-38

Table F.28—Design effects based on the CATI weights for undergraduate students at public, 

4-year, doctoral/first-professional institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 4.49 0.54 0.27 5,714 1.96 3.84

Worked while in school 74.54 1.21 0.59 5,527 2.06 4.25

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 51.29 1.69 0.67 5,527 2.52 6.33

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 39.17 1.29 0.68 5,206 1.91 3.65

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 26.37 1.32 0.67 4,323 1.97 3.89

Born outside the U.S. 11.79 1.09 0.45 5,187 2.43 5.91

Registered to vote 79.76 1.03 0.58 4,868 1.78 3.18

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 85.57 1.04 0.51 4,766 2.05 4.20

Has a disability 3.70 0.42 0.25 5,587 1.65 2.72

Applied for financial aid 69.07 1.34 0.63 5,385 2.12 4.51

Attended more than one institution in 1995-96 5.15 0.38 0.29 5,654 1.29 1.66

Has dependents other than spouse 11.55 0.98 0.42 5,714 2.33 4.28

Has children under 5 years old 4.04 0.51 0.26 5,562 1.92 3.70

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 3.29 0.47 0.24 5,562 1.95 3.80

Accepted all aid offered 81.21 1.17 0.69 3,172 1.69 2.85

First-time beginner in 1995-96 17.83 0.60 0.51 5,714 1.19 1.41

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 22.66 1.29 0.59 4,972 2.18 4.76

placement rate when deciding which school to

attend

Ever attended a community college 15.93 1.01 0.48 5,714 2.09 4.38

Have a degree or license 12.08 0.91 0.43 5,714 2.12 4.48

Did community service during 1995-96 45.44 1.46 0.70 5,127 2.10 4.42

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.19 1.41

25 percentile 1.85 3.41 th

Median 2.01 4.04

75 percentile 2.11 4.47 th

Maximum 2.52 6.33
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-39

Table F.29—Design effects based on the CATI weights for undergraduate students at private, 

not-for-profit, 4-year, non-doctoral/first-professional institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 16.02 1.95 0.62 3,484 3.14 9.86

Worked while in school 79.74 1.45 0.69 3,363 2.09 4.38

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 53.60 2.83 0.86 3,363 3.29 10.81

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 36.46 1.94 0.85 3,204 2.29 5.23

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 34.53 2.74 0.93 2,624 2.95 8.69

Born outside the U.S. 8.15 1.18 0.50 2,994 2.35 5.52

Registered to vote 79.31 1.18 0.76 2,866 1.56 2.44

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 85.87 1.13 0.66 2,800 1.72 2.97

Has a disability 5.87 0.70 0.40 3,408 1.74 3.03

Applied for financial aid 81.72 2.02 0.67 3,343 3.02 9.10

Attended more than one institution in 1995-96 5.03 0.52 0.37 3,455 1.40 1.95

Has dependents other than spouse 20.20 2.45 0.68 3,484 3.60 12.96

Has children under 5 years old 4.56 0.73 0.36 3,307 2.00 4.00

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 8.18 1.62 0.48 3,307 3.41 11.60

Accepted all aid offered 86.01 1.18 0.74 2,203 1.60 2.56

First-time beginner in 1995-96 21.79 1.33 0.70 3,484 1.91 3.64

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 35.97 2.17 0.89 2,904 2.44 5.94

placement rate when deciding which school to

attend

Ever attended a community college 9.16 1.12 0.49 3,484 2.28 5.22

Have a degree or license 18.06 2.07 0.65 3,484 3.17 10.06

Did community service during 1995-96 52.34 2.07 0.89 3,153 2.33 5.41

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.40 1.95

25 percentile 1.82 3.34 th

Median 2.31 5.32

75 percentile 3.08 9.48 th

Maximum 3.41 11.60
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-40

Table F.30—Design effects based on the CATI weights for undergraduate students at private, 

not-for-profit, 4-year, doctoral/first-professional institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 10.03 1.08 0.49 3,706 2.19 4.79

Worked while in school 74.18 1.39 0.74 3,545 1.89 3.56

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 43.57 2.04 0.83 3,545 2.45 6.02

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 40.58 1.74 0.85 3,339 2.05 4.19

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 32.14 1.71 0.89 2,773 1.93 3.71

Born outside the U.S. 14.83 1.32 0.62 3,263 2.12 4.50

Registered to vote 78.39 1.49 0.75 2,998 1.99 3.95

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 87.48 1.18 0.61 2,946 1.93 3.73

Has a disability 4.51 0.55 0.35 3,600 1.60 2.55

Applied for financial aid 73.03 2.08 0.75 3,524 2.78 7.72

Attended more than one institution in 1995- 3.76 0.45 0.31 3,680 1.42 2.02

96

Has dependents other than spouse 10.42 1.12 0.50 3,706 2.24 5.00

Has children under 5 years old 3.19 0.52 0.29 3,609 1.77 3.12

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 3.09 0.53 0.29 3,609 1.84 3.38

Accepted all aid offered 85.86 1.18 0.74 2,215 1.59 2.54

First-time beginner in 1995-96 21.22 0.88 0.67 3,706 1.31 1.71

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 35.50 1.48 0.85 3,144 1.73 2.99

placement rate when deciding which school

to attend

Ever attended a community college 9.48 0.98 0.48 3,706 2.04 4.18

Have a degree or license 13.18 1.29 0.56 3,706 2.33 5.42

Did community service during 1995-96 55.55 1.84 0.87 3,287 2.13 4.52

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.31 1.71

25 percentile 1.75 3.06 th

Median 1.96 3.84

75 percentile 2.12 4.51 th

Maximum 2.78 7.72
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-41

Table F.31—Design effects based on the CATI weights for undergraduate students at private, 

for-profit institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 4.35 0.72 0.35 3,445 2.07 4.27

Worked while in school 63.45 2.19 0.84 3,280 2.61 6.81

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 56.45 2.29 0.87 3,280 2.65 7.00

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 27.52 1.36 0.80 3,124 1.71 2.92

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 24.03 1.82 0.90 2,243 2.01 4.05

Born outside the U.S. 13.57 1.29 0.62 3,014 2.07 4.30

Registered to vote 67.38 1.21 0.89 2,751 1.35 1.82

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 69.96 1.25 0.90 2,619 1.39 1.94

Has a disability 7.40 0.91 0.45 3,325 2.00 4.02

Applied for financial aid 88.58 1.91 0.55 3,316 3.45 11.91

Attended more than one institution in 1995- 4.82 0.86 0.37 3,397 2.34 5.49

96

Has dependents other than spouse 45.62 1.87 0.85 3,445 2.21 4.87

Has children under 5 years old 18.27 1.39 0.72 2,857 1.92 3.70

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 12.37 0.89 0.62 2,857 1.45 2.10

Accepted all aid offered 94.74 0.65 0.46 2,402 1.43 2.03

First-time beginner in 1995-96 44.73 1.92 0.85 3,445 2.27 5.15

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 73.07 1.68 0.81 2,970 2.06 4.24

placement rate when deciding which school

to attend

Ever attended a community college 5.03 0.61 0.37 3,445 1.65 2.72

Have a degree or license 19.07 1.44 0.67 3,445 2.15 4.63

Did community service during 1995-96 23.73 1.30 0.77 3,072 1.69 2.86

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.35 1.82

25 percentile 1.67 2.79 th

Median 2.04 4.14

75 percentile 2.28 5.22 th

Maximum 3.45 11.91
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-42

Table F.32—Design effects based on the CATI weights for dependent undergraduate students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 2.82 0.32 0.13 16,872 2.53 6.39

Worked while in school 77.73 0.78 0.33 16,189 2.40 5.75

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 54.96 1.10 0.39 16,189 2.80 7.85

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 42.47 0.94 0.40 15,362 2.35 5.51

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 21.03 0.97 0.36 12,828 2.69 7.23

Born outside the U.S. 10.67 0.70 0.25 14,994 2.77 7.68

Registered to vote 72.68 0.90 0.38 14,004 2.39 5.71

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 80.83 0.96 0.34 13,655 2.86 8.16

Has a disability 4.57 0.30 0.16 16,394 1.84 3.38

Applied for financial aid 67.37 1.09 0.37 16,022 2.95 8.72

Attended more than one institution in 1995- 6.23 0.35 0.19 16,731 1.88 3.53

96

Has dependents other than spouse 0.00 0.00 0.00 16,872 - -

a a

Has children under 5 years old 0.00 0.00 0.00 16,872 - -

a a

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 0.00 0.00 0.00 16,872 - -

a a

Accepted all aid offered 87.94 0.57 0.33 9,669 1.73 3.00

First-time beginner in 1995-96 31.87 0.74 0.36 16,872 2.07 4.30

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 28.56 0.88 0.38 14,345 2.33 5.43

placement rate when deciding which school

to attend

Ever attended a community college 42.99 1.29 0.38 16,872 3.38 11.40

Have a degree or license 5.43 0.44 0.17 16,872 2.51 6.29

Did community service during 1995-96 40.09 0.94 0.40 15,095 2.37 5.60

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.73 3.00

25 percentile 2.33 5.43 th

Median 2.40 5.75

75 percentile 2.77 7.68 th

Maximum 3.38 11.40

 The design effect is undefined because the estimate is 100.00. a
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-43

Table F.33—Design effects based on the CATI weights for independent undergraduate students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 14.74 0.90 0.35 10,542 2.60 6.76

Worked while in school 79.87 0.86 0.40 10,170 2.16 4.67

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 71.28 1.01 0.45 10,170 2.24 5.02

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 21.76 0.98 0.42 9,676 2.33 5.42

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 43.57 1.45 0.58 7,389 2.51 6.28

Born outside the U.S. 13.37 1.01 0.35 9,468 2.90 8.41

Registered to vote 81.08 0.93 0.42 8,814 2.23 4.96

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 84.23 0.86 0.39 8,556 2.18 4.74

Has a disability 6.43 0.43 0.24 10,270 1.79 3.22

Applied for financial aid 54.44 1.49 0.50 9,817 2.97 8.84

Attended more than one institution in 1995- 4.87 0.37 0.21 10,382 1.77 3.13

96

Has dependents other than spouse 47.79 1.23 0.49 10,542 2.52 6.35

Has children under 5 years old 17.58 0.85 0.41 8,775 2.09 4.35

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 16.53 0.89 0.40 8,775 2.25 5.07

Accepted all aid offered 85.28 1.08 0.48 5,493 2.26 5.10

First-time beginner in 1995-96 12.26 0.54 0.32 10,542 1.70 2.88

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 25.80 1.02 0.47 8,767 2.17 4.73

placement rate when deciding which school

to attend

Ever attended a community college 61.45 1.27 0.47 10,542 2.67 7.13

Have a degree or license 27.30 0.98 0.43 10,542 2.27 5.15

Did community service during 1995-96 38.49 1.14 0.50 9,544 2.29 5.23

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.70 2.88

25 percentile 2.17 4.70 th

Median 2.26 5.09

75 percentile 2.42 5.85 th

Maximum 2.97 8.84
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-44

Table F.34—Design effects based on the CATI weights for white, Non-Hispanic undergraduate students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 9.78 0.60 0.21 19,224 2.79 7.80

Worked while in school 79.56 0.69 0.30 18,543 2.33 5.42

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 64.02 0.94 0.35 18,543 2.68 7.18

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 34.04 0.85 0.36 17,446 2.38 5.67

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 31.80 1.00 0.38 14,892 2.63 6.90

Born outside the U.S. 4.34 0.33 0.15 17,497 2.14 4.58

Registered to vote 78.81 0.71 0.31 16,848 2.24 5.04

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 84.46 0.64 0.28 16,445 2.28 5.20

Has a disability 6.24 0.35 0.18 18,738 1.96 3.83

Applied for financial aid 57.30 1.16 0.37 18,042 3.16 9.99

Attended more than one institution in 1995- 5.24 0.31 0.16 19,061 1.92 3.69

96

Has dependents other than spouse 21.34 0.79 0.30 19,224 2.67 7.14

Has children under 5 years old 7.41 0.47 0.19 18,301 2.45 5.99

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 7.18 0.46 0.19 18,301 2.39 5.70

Accepted all aid offered 86.47 0.69 0.34 10,304 2.03 4.13

First-time beginner in 1995-96 21.34 0.58 0.30 19,224 1.96 3.83

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 23.91 0.75 0.33 16,468 2.25 5.05

placement rate when deciding which school

to attend

Ever attended a community college 51.19 1.19 0.36 19,224 3.31 10.94

Have a degree or license 16.57 0.66 0.27 19,224 2.47 6.09

Did community service during 1995-96 41.36 0.90 0.38 17,187 2.39 5.72

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.92 3.69

25 percentile 2.19 4.81 th

Median 2.38 5.66

75 percentile 2.55 6.49 th

Maximum 3.31 10.94
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-45

Table F.35—Design effects based on the CATI weights for black, Non-Hispanic undergraduate students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 9.76 1.76 0.51 3,394 3.46 11.99

Worked while in school 80.11 1.32 0.70 3,222 1.87 3.51

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 67.22 1.69 0.83 3,222 2.04 4.17

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 29.78 2.00 0.82 3,130 2.44 5.98

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 32.35 2.55 0.95 2,447 2.70 7.28

Born outside the U.S. 11.70 1.73 0.57 3,145 3.01 9.08

Registered to vote 78.20 1.62 0.76 2,924 2.13 4.52

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 81.76 1.46 0.73 2,837 2.02 4.07

Has a disability 3.38 0.54 0.32 3,276 1.70 2.90

Applied for financial aid 76.35 2.53 0.74 3,273 3.41 11.61

Attended more than one institution in 1995- 6.02 0.80 0.41 3,348 1.95 3.79

96

Has dependents other than spouse 41.05 2.34 0.84 3,394 2.77 7.66

Has children under 5 years old 15.27 1.76 0.66 2,995 2.68 7.17

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 13.90 1.79 0.63 2,995 2.83 8.00

Accepted all aid offered 89.85 1.14 0.63 2,324 1.82 3.30

First-time beginner in 1995-96 23.25 1.44 0.73 3,394 1.98 3.92

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 33.67 1.98 0.86 3,025 2.31 5.33

placement rate when deciding which school

to attend

Ever attended a community college 55.39 2.81 0.85 3,394 3.29 10.85

Have a degree or license 19.35 1.88 0.68 3,394 2.77 7.70

Did community service during 1995-96 35.74 1.96 0.86 3,086 2.27 5.16

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.70 2.90

25 percentile 2.00 4.00 th

Median 2.38 5.65

75 percentile 2.80 7.85 th

Maximum 3.46 11.99
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-46

Table F.36—Design effects based on the CATI weights for Asian/Pacific Islander undergraduate students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 4.12 1.07 0.50 1,602 2.16 4.65

Worked while in school 65.32 2.92 1.22 1,513 2.38 5.68

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 40.11 3.15 1.26 1,513 2.50 6.25

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 25.07 2.43 1.13 1,474 2.15 4.62

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 25.36 3.10 1.35 1,039 2.30 5.28

Born outside the U.S. 77.60 2.36 1.09 1,475 2.18 4.74

Registered to vote 56.13 3.58 1.58 992 2.27 5.16

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 71.41 3.04 1.47 939 2.06 4.25

Has a disability 1.89 0.65 0.35 1,540 1.88 3.55

Applied for financial aid 57.83 3.31 1.27 1,510 2.60 6.77

Attended more than one institution in 1995- 7.88 1.43 0.68 1,581 2.11 4.45

96

Has dependents other than spouse 13.21 2.20 0.85 1,602 2.60 6.74

Has children under 5 years old 2.20 0.68 0.38 1,522 1.82 3.32

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 4.27 1.95 0.52 1,522 3.76 14.11

Accepted all aid offered 79.84 2.92 1.35 882 2.16 4.67

First-time beginner in 1995-96 21.30 1.76 1.02 1,602 1.72 2.96

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 43.20 3.20 1.33 1,390 2.41 5.80

placement rate when deciding which school

to attend

Ever attended a community college 46.74 3.27 1.25 1,602 2.62 6.89

Have a degree or license 13.10 2.19 0.84 1,602 2.60 6.75

Did community service during 1995-96 34.15 3.11 1.25 1,440 2.49 6.19

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.72 2.96

25 percentile 2.13 4.54 th

Median 2.29 5.22

75 percentile 2.55 6.50 th

Maximum 3.76 14.11
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-47

Table F.37—Design effects based on the CATI weights for Hispanic undergraduate students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 4.81 0.89 0.41 2,792 2.19 4.79

Worked while in school 80.60 2.24 0.76 2,696 2.95 8.69

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 67.32 2.81 0.90 2,696 3.11 9.69

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 25.35 2.00 0.85 2,624 2.36 5.55

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 36.91 4.53 1.21 1,591 3.75 14.03

Born outside the U.S. 30.79 3.81 1.03 1,994 3.69 13.59

Registered to vote 70.02 3.40 1.10 1,746 3.10 9.61

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 72.69 3.52 1.08 1,692 3.25 10.54

Has a disability 4.11 0.69 0.38 2,725 1.81 3.27

Applied for financial aid 67.42 3.13 0.91 2,634 3.43 11.73

Attended more than one institution in 1995- 6.04 0.95 0.46 2,726 2.08 4.33

96

Has dependents other than spouse 29.89 2.43 0.87 2,792 2.80 7.85

Has children under 5 years old 10.95 1.68 0.63 2,466 2.67 7.13

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 8.29 1.48 0.56 2,466 2.67 7.12

Accepted all aid offered 86.00 2.82 0.92 1,407 3.05 9.33

First-time beginner in 1995-96 24.52 1.73 0.81 2,792 2.13 4.52

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 34.69 3.25 1.09 1,893 2.97 8.81

placement rate when deciding which school

to attend

Ever attended a community college 59.64 3.74 0.93 2,792 4.03 16.25

Have a degree or license 14.79 2.05 0.67 2,792 3.04 9.27

Did community service during 1995-96 32.69 2.96 0.92 2,572 3.20 10.26

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.81 3.27

25 percentile 2.51 6.34 th

Median 3.01 9.04

75 percentile 3.22 10.40 th

Maximum 4.03 16.25
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-48

Table F.38—Design effects based on the CATI weights for low-income undergraduate students (less than 

150 percent of poverty)

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 4.24 0.62 0.22 8,581 2.86 8.18

Worked while in school 73.17 1.07 0.49 8,238 2.20 4.82

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 57.39 1.26 0.54 8,238 2.31 5.32

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 29.58 1.17 0.51 7,963 2.29 5.26

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 27.02 1.27 0.59 5,705 2.15 4.64

Born outside the U.S. 15.68 1.04 0.42 7,478 2.49 6.18

Registered to vote 73.95 1.14 0.53 6,753 2.13 4.56

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 78.59 1.11 0.51 6,516 2.18 4.75

Has a disability 6.48 0.47 0.27 8,343 1.73 3.00

Applied for financial aid 82.32 1.15 0.42 8,340 2.76 7.63

Attended more than one institution in 1995- 7.05 0.62 0.28 8,451 2.23 4.98

96

Has dependents other than spouse 37.71 1.32 0.52 8,581 2.52 6.36

Has children under 5 years old 16.78 1.04 0.43 7,451 2.41 5.83

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 11.34 0.85 0.37 7,451 2.32 5.39

Accepted all aid offered 87.04 0.89 0.44 5,939 2.04 4.17

First-time beginner in 1995-96 24.19 0.87 0.46 8,581 1.87 3.51

Considered crime rate, graduation rate, or job 30.42 1.08 0.54 7,142 1.99 3.94

placement rate when deciding which school

to attend

Ever attended a community college 50.26 1.47 0.54 8,581 2.72 7.38

Have a degree or license 17.37 0.98 0.41 8,581 2.39 5.70

Did community service during 1995-96 35.67 1.15 0.54 7,846 2.12 4.50

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.73 3.00

25 percentile 2.13 4.53 th

Median 2.26 5.12

75 percentile 2.45 6.00 th

Maximum 2.86 8.18
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-49
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-50

Section C

Design effect tables for graduate students (excluding first-professional students) based on the

study weights
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-51
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-52

Table F.39—Design effects based on the study weights for all graduate students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 48.25 1.19 0.73 4,721 1.63 2.66

Received any federal aid 19.53 0.76 0.58 4,721 1.32 1.74

Received any non-federal aid 38.12 1.19 0.71 4,721 1.69 2.84

Received any state grant aid 1.51 0.23 0.18 4,721 1.28 1.63

Received any institution grant aid 8.52 0.94 0.41 4,721 2.31 5.35

Received any aid from other sources 15.78 0.72 0.53 4,721 1.36 1.85

Received any grant aid 23.40 0.98 0.62 4,721 1.59 2.54

Received any loan aid 18.89 0.76 0.57 4,721 1.34 1.79

Received any work-study aid 1.58 0.24 0.18 4,721 1.35 1.81

Received any other type of aid 18.66 1.08 0.57 4,721 1.90 3.61

Received an assistantship 12.02 0.89 0.47 4,721 1.89 3.57

Received a Stafford loan 18.63 0.75 0.57 4,721 1.33 1.77

Received a subsidized loan 17.27 0.73 0.55 4,721 1.33 1.77

Received an unsubsidized loan 10.86 0.56 0.45 4,721 1.23 1.50

Received grant aid only 15.12 0.88 0.52 4,721 1.68 2.82

Married 41.67 1.35 0.96 2,606 1.40 1.97

U.S. citizen 92.80 0.51 0.38 4,721 1.36 1.84

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 4.04 0.33 0.30 4,191 1.10 1.21

Enrolled exclusively full-time 30.27 1.34 0.67 4,702 1.99 3.98

Lived on campus 4.36 0.44 0.30 4,721 1.49 2.23

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.10 1.21

25 percentile 1.33 1.77 th

Median 1.42 2.02

75 percentile 1.68 2.83 th

Maximum 2.31 5.35
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-53

Table F.40—Design effects based on the study weights for graduate students at public, 

4-year institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 47.49 1.54 0.98 2,606 1.58 2.49

Received any federal aid 17.33 0.79 0.74 2,606 1.06 1.13

Received any non-federal aid 39.27 1.54 0.96 2,606 1.61 2.59

Received any state grant aid 2.04 0.35 0.28 2,606 1.27 1.61

Received any institution grant aid 6.30 0.74 0.48 2,606 1.56 2.43

Received any aid from other sources 14.23 0.82 0.68 2,606 1.20 1.44

Received any grant aid 20.88 1.06 0.80 2,606 1.33 1.76

Received any loan aid 16.74 0.78 0.73 2,606 1.06 1.13

Received any work-study aid 2.02 0.38 0.28 2,606 1.38 1.91

Received any other type of aid 23.08 1.54 0.83 2,606 1.87 3.48

Received an assistantship 16.47 1.38 0.73 2,606 1.90 3.63

Received a Stafford loan 16.48 0.77 0.73 2,606 1.06 1.12

Received a subsidized loan 15.42 0.75 0.71 2,606 1.05 1.11

Received an unsubsidized loan 8.34 0.50 0.54 2,606 0.91 0.84

Received grant aid only 13.15 0.82 0.66 2,606 1.24 1.53

Married 40.64 1.35 0.96 2,606 1.40 1.97

U.S. citizen 92.55 0.65 0.51 2,606 1.26 1.59

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 4.13 0.45 0.41 2,323 1.09 1.18

Enrolled exclusively full-time 29.69 1.57 0.90 2,602 1.75 3.06

Lived on campus 4.57 0.56 0.41 2,606 1.36 1.86

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 0.91 0.84

25 percentile 1.07 1.16 th

Median 1.30 1.68

75 percentile 1.57 2.46 th

Maximum 1.90 3.63
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-54

Table F.41—Design effects based on the study weights for graduate students at private, 

not-for-profit, 4-year institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 49.12 1.93 1.12 1,988 1.72 2.95

Received any federal aid 22.40 1.48 0.94 1,988 1.58 2.50

Received any non-federal aid 36.72 1.96 1.08 1,988 1.81 3.29

Received any state grant aid 0.76 0.22 0.20 1,988 1.14 1.30

Received any institution grant aid 12.40 2.05 0.74 1,988 2.78 7.73

Received any aid from other sources 17.47 1.24 0.85 1,988 1.46 2.13

Received any grant aid 27.07 1.81 1.00 1,988 1.81 3.29

Received any loan aid 21.63 1.48 0.92 1,988 1.60 2.58

Received any work-study aid 0.98 0.23 0.22 1,988 1.03 1.05

Received any other type of aid 12.60 1.41 0.74 1,988 1.89 3.58

Received an assistantship 5.70 0.87 0.52 1,988 1.67 2.78

Received a Stafford loan 21.37 1.47 0.92 1,988 1.60 2.57

Received a subsidized loan 19.82 1.44 0.89 1,988 1.61 2.59

Received an unsubsidized loan 14.11 1.11 0.78 1,988 1.42 2.02

Received grant aid only 17.83 1.78 0.86 1,988 2.07 4.28

Married 42.58 1.74 1.11 1,988 1.57 2.46

U.S. citizen 92.93 0.86 0.58 1,988 1.49 2.22

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 3.18 0.45 0.42 1,763 1.08 1.16

Enrolled exclusively full-time 30.26 2.30 1.03 1,974 2.23 4.96

Lived on campus 4.24 0.76 0.45 1,988 1.69 2.86

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.03 1.05

25 percentile 1.47 2.17 th

Median 1.61 2.61

75 percentile 1.81 3.29 th

Maximum 2.78 7.73
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-55
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-56

Section D

Design effect tables for graduate students (excluding first-professional students) based on the CATI weights
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-57
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-58

Table F.42—Design effects based on the CATI weights for all graduate students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 22.61 1.40 0.80 2,761 1.76 3.10

Worked while in school 82.60 1.17 0.73 2,694 1.61 2.59

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 73.36 1.34 0.85 2,694 1.57 2.46

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 22.31 1.27 0.82 2,589 1.55 2.39

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 74.55 1.62 0.92 2,255 1.77 3.12

Employed as a teacher 20.43 1.56 0.79 2,584 1.97 3.87

Born outside the U.S. 15.80 1.21 0.72 2,587 1.69 2.85

Registered to vote 89.80 1.01 0.62 2,373 1.63 2.67

Voted in the 1992 elections (or planned to) 91.77 0.93 0.59 2,178 1.59 2.52

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 93.48 0.80 0.51 2,352 1.57 2.48

Has a disability 3.39 0.48 0.35 2,721 1.38 1.91

Applied for financial aid 52.03 2.06 1.00 2,479 2.06 4.23

Attended more than one institution in 1995- 2.87 0.42 0.32 2,732 1.32 1.74

96

Has dependents other than spouse 30.87 1.42 0.88 2,761 2.61 2.58

Has children under 5 years old 9.02 0.71 0.56 2,631 1.27 1.60

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 12.73 1.05 0.65 2,631 1.61 2.60

Accepted all aid offered 78.63 1.78 1.27 1,045 1.41 1.98

Ever attended a community college 18.07 1.26 0.73 2,761 1.72 2.94

Hasany associate degree 7.11 0.75 0.49 2,761 1.53 2.33

Did community service during 1995-96 53.13 1.59 0.99 2,559 1.61 2.60

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 0.98 0.96

25 percentile 1.41 1.98 th

Median 1.61 2.59

75 percentile 1.72 2.94 th

Maximum 2.06 4.23

 The design effect is undefined because the estimate is 100.00. a
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-59

Table F.43—Design effects based on the CATI weights for graduate students at public, 4-year institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 20.69 1.79 1.03 1,538 1.73 3.01

Worked while in school 82.57 1.43 0.98 1,503 1.46 2.12

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 72.98 1.67 1.15 1,503 1.46 2.13

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 23.83 1.74 1.12 1,459 1.56 2.44

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 74.14 2.20 1.23 1,277 1.79 3.21

Employed as a teacher 20.30 1.92 1.05 1,455 1.82 3.30

Born outside the U.S. 16.25 1.56 0.97 1,460 1.62 2.61

Registered to vote 90.31 1.33 0.81 1,324 1.63 2.67

Voted in the 1992 elections (or planned to) 91.92 1.16 0.78 1,215 1.48 2.20

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 94.08 1.09 0.65 1,310 1.67 2.78

Has a disability 3.40 0.54 0.47 1,514 1.16 1.33

Applied for financial aid 50.80 2.59 1.34 1,384 1.93 3.72

Attended more than one institution in 1995- 2.76 0.51 0.42 1,526 1.22 1.49

96

Has dependents other than spouse 29.84 1.78 1.17 1,538 1.53 2.33

Has children under 5 years old 8.35 0.84 0.72 1,481 1.16 1.35

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 12.45 1.41 0.86 1,481 1.65 2.72

Accepted all aid offered 76.91 2.53 1.83 528 1.38 1.90

Ever attended a community college 19.13 1.67 1.00 1,538 1.66 2.76

Has any associate degree 8.07 1.11 0.69 1,538 1.60 2.57

Did community service during 1995-96 52.51 2.06 1.31 1,443 1.57 2.47

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 0.95 0.91

25 percentile 1.38 1.90 th

Median 1.57 2.47

75 percentile 1.67 2.78 th

Maximum 1.93 3.72

 The design effect is undefined because the estimate is 100.00. a
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-60

Table F.44—Design effects based on the CATI weights for graduate students at private, not-for-profit, 

4-year institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Err. Size DEFT DEFF

Received any employer aid 24.55 2.13 1.27 1,140 1.67 2.79

Worked while in school 82.26 2.06 1.15 1,110 1.80 3.23

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 73.50 2.21 1.32 1,110 1.67 2.79

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 20.53 1.79 1.24 1,056 1.44 2.08

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 76.29 2.12 1.41 911 1.51 2.27

Employed as a teacher 21.26 2.73 1.26 1,055 2.16 4.68

Born outside the U.S. 15.33 2.01 1.11 1,053 1.81 3.29

Registered to vote 89.23 1.65 0.99 977 1.66 2.77

Voted in the 1992 elections (or planned to) 91.4 1.65 0.93 896 1.77 3.12

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 92.45 1.23 0.85 971 1.45 2.11

Has a disability 3.39 0.94 0.54 1,125 1.73 3.01

Applied for financial aid 54.78 3.42 1.56 1,016 2.19 4.80

Attended more than one institution in 1995- 3.04 0.75 0.51 1,124 1.46 2.14

96

Has dependents other than spouse 30.80 2.2107 1.37 1,140 1.62 2.62

Has children under 5 years old 9.29 1.17 0.88 1,076 1.32 1.75

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 12.77 1.60 1.02 1,076 1.57 2.46

Accepted all aid offered 80.09 2.60 1.83 478 1.42 2.03

Ever attended a community college 16.41 1.98 1.10 1,140 1.80 3.25

Has any associate degree 5.38 0.82 0.67 1,140 1.22 1.50

Did community service during 1995-96 54.11 2.60 1.54 1,042 1.68 2.83

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 0.98 0.96

25 percentile 1.45 2.11 th

Median 1.66 2.77

75 percentile 1.80 3.23 th

Maximum 2.19 4.80

 The design effect is undefined because the estimate is 100.00. a
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-61
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-62

Section E

Design effect tables for first-professional students based on the study weights
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-63
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-64

Table F.45—Design effects based on the study weights for all first-professional students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 80.23 1.68 0.83 2,309 2.02 4.10

Received any federal aid 69.03 3.07 0.96 2,309 3.19 10.15

Received any non-federal aid 50.37 2.62 1.04 2,309 2.52 6.34

Received any state grant aid 8.60 2.10 0.58 2,309 3.60 12.96

Received any institution grant aid 23.58 3.43 0.88 2,309 3.88 15.08

Received any aid from other sources 20.97 1.76 0.85 2,309 2.08 4.33

Received any grant aid 35.87 3.09 1.00 2,309 3.10 9.61

Received any loan aid 69.44 2.88 0.96 2,309 3.00 9.01

Received any work-study aid 5.23 0.80 0.46 2,309 1.72 2.96

Received any other type of aid 11.03 1.56 0.65 2,309 2.39 5.72

Received an assistantship 4.05 0.67 0.41 2,309 1.64 2.70

Received a Stafford loan 67.88 3.15 0.97 2,309 3.24 10.48

Received a subsidized loan 66.40 3.06 0.98 2,309 3.11 9.68

Received an unsubsidized loan 52.14 2.94 1.04 2,309 2.82 7.98

Received grant aid only 6.34 2.46 0.51 2,309 4.86 23.60

Married 24.974 2.42 0.90 2,309 2.69 7.24

U.S. citizen 95.25 0.79 0.44 2,309 1.79 3.19

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 4.50 0.60 0.44 2,210 1.35 1.83

Enrolled exclusively full-time 80.15 2.77 0.83 2,302 3.33 11.07

Lived on campus 6.91 1.30 0.53 2,309 2.46 6.07

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.35 1.83

25 percentile 2.05 4.21 th

Median 2.82 7.97

75 percentile 3.21 10.31 th

Maximum 4.86 23.60
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-65

Table F.46—Design effects based on the study weights for first-professional students at public, 

4-year institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 84.27 1.93 1.16 978 1.65 2.74

Received any federal aid 77.55 2.27 1.33 978 1.70 2.90

Received any non-federal aid 50.14 3.41 1.60 978 2.13 4.56

Received any state grant aid 10.15 3.76 0.97 978 3.89 15.16

Received any institution grant aid 25.77 4.53 1.40 978 3.24 10.49

Received any aid from other sources 16.10 1.68 1.18 978 1.43 2.04

Received any grant aid 40.48 3.56 1.57 978 2.27 5.15

Received any loan aid 76.88 2.35 1.35 978 1.75 3.05

Received any work-study aid 5.12 1.04 0.70 978 1.47 2.16

Received any other type of aid 12.34 1.61 1.05 978 1.53 2.35

Received an assistantship 5.24 1.16 0.71 978 1.62 2.64

Received a Stafford loan 76.42 2.39 1.36 978 1.76 3.09

Received a subsidized loan 74.94 2.23 1.39 978 1.61 2.58

Received an unsubsidized loan 53.17 3.92 1.60 978 2.45 6.02

Received grant aid only 4.30 1.00 0.65 978 1.55 2.40

Married 24.51 3.29 1.38 978 2.39 5.73

U.S. citizen 96.94 0.91 0.55 978 1.65 2.73

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 3.92 1.02 0.63 945 1.61 2.59

Enrolled exclusively full-time 84.88 3.16 1.15 977 2.75 7.58

Lived on campus 4.37 0.88 0.65 978 1.34 1.80

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.34 1.80

25 percentile 1.58 2.49 th

Median 1.68 2.82

75 percentile 2.36 5.58 th

Maximum 3.89 15.16
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-66

Table F.47—Design effects based on the study weights for first-professional students at private,

not-for-profit, 4-year institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Err. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err.

Received any aid 77.36 2.45 1.15 1,331 2.14 4.56

Received any federal aid 62.97 4.59 1.32 1,331 3.47 12.04

Received any non-federal aid 50.53 3.77 1.37 1,331 2.75 7.56

Received any state grant aid 7.49 2.31 0.72 1,331 3.20 10.22

Received any institution grant aid 22.02 4.94 1.14 1,331 4.35 18.94

Received any aid from other sources 24.44 2.64 1.18 1,331 2.24 5.01

Received any grant aid 32.59 4.58 1.28 1,331 3.56 12.71

Received any loan aid 64.15 4.32 1.31 1,331 3.29 10.80

Received any work-study aid 5.32 1.15 0.62 1,331 1.87 3.50

Received any other type of aid 10.10 2.44 0.83 1,331 2.96 8.74

Received an assistantship 3.20 0.82 0.48 1,331 1.69 2.86

Received a Stafford loan 61.81 4.71 1.33 1,331 3.54 12.50

Received a subsidized loan 60.32 4.59 1.34 1,331 3.43 11.74

Received an unsubsidized loan 51.42 4.13 1.37 1,331 3.02 9.11

Received grant aid only 7.80 4.10 0.74 1,331 5.58 31.18

Married 25.29 3.43 1.19 1,331 2.88 8.30

U.S. citizen 94.06 1.14 0.65 1,331 1.76 3.08

U.S. Armed Forces veteran 4.92 0.74 0.61 1,265 1.22 1.48

Enrolled exclusively full-time 76.75 3.94 1.16 1,325 3.39 11.53

Lived on campus 8.71 2.05 0.77 1,331 2.65 7.02

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.22 1.48

25 percentile 2.19 4.78 th

Median 3.01 9.05

75 percentile 3.45 11.89 th

Maximum 5.58 31.18
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-67
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-68

Section F

Design effect tables for first-professional students based on the CATI weights
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-69
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-70

Table F.48—Design effects based on the CATI weights for all first-professional students

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err. Err.

Received any employer aid 4.54 1.18 0.59 1,256 2.02 4.07

Worked while in school 50.37 3.07 1.43 1,223 2.14 4.60

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 28.39 2.79 1.29 1,223 2.17 4.69

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 22.38 2.60 1.22 1,159 2.12 4.50

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 66.11 2.60 1.80 689 1.44 2.08

Employed as a teacher 1.03 0.64 0.30 1,159 2.15 4.62

Born outside the U.S. 15.75 1.98 1.08 1,141 1.84 3.38

Registered to vote 88.96 1.70 0.95 1,083 1.79 3.20

Voted in the 1992 elections (or planned to) 89.50 1.21 0.99 953 1.22 1.49

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 91.11 1.43 0.87 1,076 1.65 2.72

Has a disability 2.28 0.50 0.42 1,241 1.17 1.37

Applied for financial aid 85.38 1.94 1.02 1,209 1.91 3.66

Attended more than one institution in 1995-96 1.98 0.41 0.40 1,236 1.03 1.06

Has dependents other than spouse 13.18 1.57 0.95 1,256 1.64 2.70

Has children under 5 years old 4.05 1.09 0.57 1,186 1.90 3.63

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 3.63 0.93 0.54 1,186 1.71 2.91

Accepted all aid offered 81.19 1.85 1.30 899 1.42 2.01

Ever attended a community college 17.09 1.76 1.06 1,256 1.65 2.74

Has any associate degree 5.30 0.93 0.63 1,256 1.47 2.15

Did community service during 1995-96 57.54 2.86 1.46 1,146 1.96 3.84

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.03 1.06

25 percentile 1.44 2.08 th

Median 1.79 3.20

75 percentile 2.02 4.07 th

Maximum 2.17 4.69

 The design effect is undefined because the estimate is 100.00. a
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-71

Table F.49—Design effects based on the CATI weights for first-professional students at public,

4-year institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err. Err.

Received any employer aid 2.05 0.78 0.61 539 1.28 1.64

Worked while in school 40.55 3.14 2.13 529 1.47 2.17

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 18.94 2.59 1.70 529 1.52 2.32

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 15.49 2.49 1.61 507 1.55 2.41

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 70.12 3.68 2.79 270 1.32 1.74

Employed as a teacher 1.78 1.44 0.59 507 2.45 6.02

Born outside the U.S. 13.09 2.48 1.50 506 1.66 2.74

Registered to vote 88.95 2.30 1.41 491 1.63 2.65

Voted in 1992 elections (or planned to) 90.47 1.60 1.42 426 1.12 1.26

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 91.48 2.31 1.26 492 1.83 3.36

Has a disability 1.43 0.41 0.51 536 0.80 0.64

Applied for financial aid 86.38 2.67 1.50 520 1.77 3.14

Attended more than one institution in 1995-96 1.67 0.58 0.56 528 1.04 1.08

Has dependents other than spouse 10.73 1.75 1.33 539 1.31 1.72

Has children under 5 years old 2.94 0.80 0.74 515 1.08 1.16

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 3.13 0.85 0.77 515 1.11 1.24

Accepted all aid offered 80.38 2.28 1.94 418 1.18 1.38

Ever attended a community college 18.49 2.31 1.67 539 1.38 1.91

Has any associate degree 3.97 0.95 0.84 539 1.13 1.27

Did community service during 1995-96 54.23 3.92 2.23 500 1.76 3.09

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 0.80 0.64

25 percentile 1.18 1.38 th

Median 1.38 1.91

75 percentile 1.66 2.74 th

Maximum 2.45 6.02

 The design effect is undefined because the estimate is 100.00. a
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-72

Table F.50—Design effects based on the CATI weights for first-professional students at private, 

not-for-profit, 4-year institutions

Percent Design SRS Sample

Estimate Std. Std. Size DEFT DEFF

Err. Err.

Received any employer aid 6.10 1.84 0.89 717 2.06 4.24

Worked while in school 56.70 4.20 1.88 694 2.23 4.98

Worked 20 or more hours per week while in 34.47 3.93 1.80 694 2.18 4.76

school

Worked multiple jobs in 1995-96 26.87 3.65 1.74 652 2.10 4.43

Principal job in 1995-96 related to major 63.94 3.51 2.35 419 1.50 2.24

Employed as a teacher 0.54 0.45 0.29 652 1.55 2.42

Born outside the U.S. 17.50 2.78 1.51 635 1.84 3.39

Registered to vote 88.98 2.41 1.29 592 1.87 3.51

Voted in the 1992 elections (or planned to) 88.84 1.72 1.37 527 1.26 1.58

Voted in the 1996 elections (or planned to) 90.85 1.83 1.19 584 1.54 2.36

Has a disability 2.82 0.76 0.62 705 1.22 1.48

Applied for financial aid 84.73 2.69 1.37 689 1.96 3.86

Attended more than one institution in 1995-96 2.17 0.55 0.55 708 1.01 1.01

Has dependents other than spouse 14.70 2.30 1.32 717 1.74 3.03

Has children under 5 years old 4.75 1.68 0.82 671 2.05 4.19

Has children aged 5 to 13 years old 3.95 1.40 0.75 671 1.86 3.47

Accepted all aid offered 81.85 2.77 1.76 481 1.58 2.49

Ever attended a community college 16.21 2.48 1.38 717 1.80 3.25

Has any associate degree 6.13 1.38 0.90 717 1.54 2.38

Did community service during 1995-96 59.68 4.06 1.93 646 2.11 4.43

SUMMARY STATISTICS

Minimum 1.01 1.01

25 percentile 1.54 2.36 th

Median 1.84 3.39

75 percentile 2.06 4.24 th

Maximum 2.23 4.98

 The design effect is undefined because the estimate is 100.00. a
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-73
NPSAS:96 Methodology Report: Appendix F F-74
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX G G-1

Appendix G

Supplemental Tables
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX G G-2
Table G.1—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and student level for 

all institutions

Total Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior undergraduate professional

Unclassified Graduate/firstTOTAL Unweighted size 48,389 24,326 5,769 4,698 5,134 1,540 6,922

Weighted size 19,375,435 8,390,721 3,623,405 1,816,640 2,093,699 738,992 2,711,978

SE weighted 307,958 190,091 126,923 47,960 55,473 87,945 82,544

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size 2,346 1,501 366 222 206 51 *

Weighted size 743,197 412,584 163,436 80,439 75,557 11,181 *

SE weighted 35,256 23,779 14,968 6,726 8,100 2,526 *

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 2,560 1,684 333 263 239 41 *

Weighted size 803,725 449,238 154,590 92,607 85,705 21,585 *

SE weighted 32,213 24,432 14,436 7,502 6,209 6,128 *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 2,821 1,779 409 318 264 51 *

Weighted size 968,776 509,355 211,026 125,147 99,729 23,519 *

SE weighted 41,123 27,872 16,996 9,151 7,867 8,600 *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size 2,610 1,615 411 290 261 33 *

Weighted size 907,019 455,046 228,929 105,975 100,552 16,517 *

SE weighted 34,572 23,910 18,894 7,675 7,430 5,843 *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 2,772 1,777 354 334 258 49 *

Weighted size 944,908 504,976 185,278 127,474 99,572 27,608 *

SE weighted 37,563 27,481 15,235 8,555 7,736 8,439 *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size 2,480 1,535 331 305 287 * *

Weighted size 917,614 496,748 164,959 124,279 120,525 * *

SE weighted 38,869 30,334 14,081 8,453 8,038 * *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size 2,197 1,343 298 275 262 * *

Weighted size 767,506 381,634 153,840 109,757 111,099 * *

SE weighted 33,426 24,559 14,060 7,738 8,354 * *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size 1,706 1,059 228 215 177 * *

Weighted size 588,248 285,152 120,467 90,438 76,073 * *

SE weighted 26,265 18,133 12,439 7,472 6,994 * *
Table G.1—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and student level for 

all institutions (continued)

Total Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior undergraduate professional

Unclassified Graduate/firstDependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size 2,061 1,280 289 256 216 * *

Weighted size 687,985 316,294 159,888 103,946 94,918 * *

SE weighted 30,172 19,590 15,932 7,652 7,224 * *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size 2,663 1,619 331 339 348 * *

Weighted size 887,638 406,548 160,408 147,935 159,637 * *

SE weighted 41,408 28,494 12,779 10,795 12,144 * *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 5,190 2,067 470 358 557 155 1,583

Weighted size 1,632,652 605,751 262,403 118,449 198,898 58,597 388,554

SE weighted 47,673 29,197 21,005 8,410 11,058 9,835 19,568

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 3,804 1,539 413 312 441 173 926

Weighted size 1,542,179 571,037 314,138 112,999 168,950 73,495 301,560

SE weighted 48,220 32,402 25,620 8,861 9,815 13,247 14,066

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 5,156 2,183 541 378 556 277 1,221

Weighted size 2,382,658 1,012,851 404,032 139,461 223,882 127,195 475,237

SE weighted 71,974 50,327 31,058 9,732 12,365 19,530 22,302

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 3,363 1,275 354 264 353 221 896

Weighted size 1,772,544 699,366 332,670 102,979 143,596 100,464 393,469

SE weighted 66,106 44,401 28,505 9,010 9,130 15,917 20,036

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 3,582 1,168 388 339 373 204 1,110

Weighted size 2,013,442 688,375 359,587 134,499 169,349 126,818 534,814

SE weighted 68,578 39,398 33,132 11,019 12,732 16,331 25,380

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size 3,078 902 253 230 336 173 1,184

Weighted size 1,815,344 595,766 247,754 100,256 165,657 88,941 616,970

SE weighted 69,323 41,300 25,383 9,866 11,852 12,711 29,943

*Insufficient number of cases for reliable estimation. Graduate students are independent students. 
Table G.2—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and student level for public, 

less-than-4-year institutions

Total Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior undergraduate professional

Unclassified Graduate/firstTOTAL Unweighted size 7,187 5,421 1,213 53 * 490 *

Weighted size 7,839,449 5,183,471 2,087,088 79,338 * 477,990 *

SE weighted 256,017 173,722 119,982 18,006 * 81,531 *

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size 339 283 45 * * * *

Weighted size 281,604 215,820 57,430 * * * *

SE weighted 27,186 21,153 12,404 * * * *

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 374 312 41 * * * *

Weighted size 304,021 230,232 55,820 * * * *

SE weighted 25,293 21,845 12,804 * * * *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 408 331 57 * * * *

Weighted size 401,566 280,952 96,705 * * * *

SE weighted 35,363 25,734 15,187 * * * *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size 349 272 61 * * * *

Weighted size 369,669 247,846 109,047 * * * *

SE weighted 29,143 21,998 17,374 * * * *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 385 311 50 * * * *

Weighted size 380,332 275,313 81,757 * * * *

SE weighted 31,363 25,444 13,394 * * * *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size 308 261 36 * * * *

Weighted size 350,877 285,066 55,615 * * * *

SE weighted 33,248 28,888 11,557 * * * *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size 207 177 * * * * *

Weighted size 264,211 206,093 * * * * *

SE weighted 27,898 23,259 * * * * *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size 184 146 * * * * *

Weighted size 200,879 139,384 * * * * *

SE weighted 20,385 16,421 * * * * *
Table G.2—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and student level for public, 

less-than-4-year institutions (continued)

Total Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior undergraduate professional

Unclassified Graduate/firstDependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size 189 145 33 * * * *

Weighted size 220,862 147,060 62,440 * * * *

SE weighted 23,456 17,775 14,009 * * * *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size 175 149 * * * * *

Weighted size 217,200 175,088 * * * * *

SE weighted 29,143 26,040 * * * * *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 690 517 117 * * 51 *

Weighted size 564,498 352,335 166,563 * * 36,748 *

SE weighted 36,778 25,293 19,846 * * 8,775 *

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 667 463 146 * * 50 *

Weighted size 675,647 381,249 242,445 * * 40,639 *

SE weighted 41,886 30,279 24,977 * * 11,719 *

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 1,031 754 181 * * 89 *

Weighted size 1,127,319 733,262 298,625 * * 87,399 *

SE weighted 63,303 47,901 30,203 * * 18,413 *

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 668 459 135 * * 67 *

Weighted size 866,391 530,072 266,186 * * 61,097 *

SE weighted 59,110 43,151 27,937 * * 14,606 *

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 704 477 145 * * 75 *

Weighted size 907,120 531,634 273,742 * * 88,848 *

SE weighted 57,410 37,824 32,268 * * 15,373 *

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size 509 364 99 * * 40 *

Weighted size 707,253 452,065 195,434 * * 46,821 *

SE weighted 55,444 39,707 24,761 * * 11,135 *

*Insufficient number of cases for reliable estimation. Graduate students are independent students. 
Table G.3—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and student level for 

public, 4-year institutions

Total Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior undergraduate professional

Unclassified Graduate/firstTOTAL Unweighted size 19,537 7,931 2,103 2,711 3,042 243 3,507

Weighted size 6,779,202 1,507,310 934,060 1,212,881 1,467,255 99,103 1,558,593

SE weighted 133,682 48,731 32,590 39,005 47,988 17,416 49,299

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size 885 514 133 127 104 * *

Weighted size 264,216 97,427 60,809 54,572 49,555 * *

SE weighted 15,999 7,290 6,502 5,085 5,638 * *

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 1,121 687 163 141 125 * *

Weighted size 308,212 123,742 66,354 60,586 56,335 * *

SE weighted 16,300 8,884 5,575 6,188 5,185 * *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 1,308 793 176 190 138 * *

Weighted size 361,641 132,930 74,979 83,616 66,656 * *

SE weighted 17,723 8,481 6,515 6,972 6,593 * *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size 1,220 711 181 178 141 * *

Weighted size 341,733 116,817 78,154 78,620 65,509 * *

SE weighted 15,621 7,598 6,432 7,070 6,156 * *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 1,317 800 165 200 145 * *

Weighted size 363,456 133,670 70,322 88,956 67,411 * *

SE weighted 17,461 8,198 6,370 7,327 6,625 * *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size 1,245 723 156 197 164 * *

Weighted size 380,853 130,048 73,574 92,448 83,177 * *

SE weighted 16,958 7,398 6,818 7,611 7,131 * *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size 1,069 630 152 138 145 * *

Weighted size 322,026 104,594 72,862 66,505 76,389 * *

SE weighted 15,197 6,308 6,314 6,025 7,273 * *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size 858 527 102 118 106 * *

Weighted size 252,486 87,678 49,178 57,840 55,626 * *

SE weighted 13,794 6,164 5,824 5,803 6,076 * *
Table G.3—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and student level for 

public, 4-year institutions (continued)

Total Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior undergraduate professional

Unclassified Graduate/firstDependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size 988 607 125 143 113 * *

Weighted size 291,097 95,898 61,314 71,481 62,404 * *

SE weighted 15,807 6,661 6,288 6,803 5,896 * *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size 1,224 728 145 169 180 * *

Weighted size 407,531 129,997 77,255 94,948 104,596 * *

SE weighted 23,014 9,034 6,754 8,780 10,478 * *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 1,787 246 133 214 373 * 803

Weighted size 561,128 56,624 52,288 79,017 152,458 * 213,094

SE weighted 20,015 5,305 5,163 5,943 9,950 * 13,980

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 1,342 180 106 207 309 * 514

Weighted size 505,512 48,008 39,650 82,228 133,667 * 189,890

SE weighted 17,455 5,086 4,505 6,352 8,877 * 10,521

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 1,707 289 147 232 352 33 654

Weighted size 697,686 84,278 57,989 97,085 165,426 12,824 280,084

SE weighted 24,095 7,806 5,326 8,275 10,667 3,190 15,263

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 1,130 180 81 162 224 40 443

Weighted size 507,948 52,759 35,124 68,323 106,260 14,743 230,739

SE weighted 22,549 5,554 4,385 7,077 8,073 3,506 15,226

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 1,222 177 89 181 221 * 527

Weighted size 601,912 56,199 40,691 82,000 109,249 * 300,187

SE weighted 27,187 6,573 4,828 8,732 9,884 * 18,143

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size 1,114 139 49 114 202 46 564

Weighted size 611,765 56,641 23,517 54,656 112,537 21,189 343,225

SE weighted 29,118 6,494 3,668 6,420 9,839 4,257 19,540

*Insufficient number of cases for reliable estimation. Graduate students are independent students. 
Table G.4—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and student level for 

private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions

Total Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior undergraduate professional

Unclassified Graduate/firstTOTAL Unweighted size 2,072 1,553 311 46 * 149 *

Weighted size 223,522 161,988 35,655 5,160 * 18,224 *

SE weighted 31,706 24,075 6,478 2,277 * 11,541 *

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size 94 75 * * * * *

Weighted size 10,261 7,823 * * * * *

SE weighted 2,087 1,554 * * * * *

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 103 91 * * * * *

Weighted size 9,186 7,915 * * * * *

SE weighted 1,717 1,571 * * * * *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 92 72 * * * * *

Weighted size 9,465 7,344 * * * * *

SE weighted 2,050 1,916 * * * * *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size 83 68 * * * * *

Weighted size 7,669 5,930 * * * * *

SE weighted 1,542 1,445 * * * * *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 103 70 * * * * *

Weighted size 9,278 5,594 * * * * *

SE weighted 2,050 1,217 * * * * *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size 79 50 * * * * *

Weighted size 7,119 4,030 * * * * *

SE weighted 1,613 909 * * * * *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size 62 53 * * * * *

Weighted size 5,185 4,338 * * * * *

SE weighted 969 893 * * * * *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size 66 55 * * * * *

Weighted size 6,926 5,638 * * * * *

SE weighted 1,399 1,301 * * * * *
Table G.4—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and student level for 

private, not-for-profit, less-than-4-year institutions (continued)

Total Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior undergraduate professional

Unclassified Graduate/firstDependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size 40 30 * * * * *

Weighted size 3,858 2,872 * * * * *

SE weighted 913 893 * * * * *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size 49 38 * * * * *

Weighted size 4,845 3,249 * * * * *

SE weighted 1,043 827 * * * * *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 286 225 46 * * * *

Weighted size 28,358 21,408 5,078 * * * *

SE weighted 6,706 4,726 1,845 * * * *

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 210 159 31 * * * *

Weighted size 22,387 16,739 3,353 * * * *

SE weighted 4,291 3,338 1,153 * * * *

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 317 224 49 * * 37 *

Weighted size 36,599 26,257 5,007 * * 4,246 *

SE weighted 7,361 6,058 1,162 * * 2,141 *

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 172 128 * * * * *

Weighted size 21,288 15,304 * * * * *

SE weighted 4,995 3,637 * * * * *

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 182 120 30 * * * *

Weighted size 22,866 14,920 4,086 * * * *

SE weighted 4,269 2,990 1,190 * * * *

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size 134 95 * * * * *

Weighted size 18,232 12,627 * * * * *

SE weighted 4,483 3,308 * * * * *

*Insufficient number of cases for reliable estimation. Graduate students are independent students. 
Table G.5—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and student level for 

private, not-for-profit, 4-year institutions

Total Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior undergraduate professional

Unclassified Graduate/firstTOTAL Unweighted size 14,086 5,246 1,650 1,752 2,004 146 3,288

Weighted size 3,561,088 841,086 465,515 499,134 601,524 47,165 1,106,664

SE weighted 92,252 33,802 20,526 21,239 27,478 7,446 63,083

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size 694 360 144 87 99 * *

Weighted size 134,790 51,646 36,060 20,494 25,485 * *

SE weighted 14,070 5,831 4,603 2,738 5,805 * *

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 703 373 105 113 111 * *

Weighted size 139,827 52,365 28,130 30,014 28,909 * *

SE weighted 10,373 4,749 3,482 4,151 3,406 * *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 807 416 141 122 123 * *

Weighted size 159,062 58,854 33,067 33,172 32,606 * *

SE weighted 10,022 4,983 3,404 3,560 4,276 * *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size 784 422 134 107 118 * *

Weighted size 158,239 60,394 35,933 26,549 34,702 * *

SE weighted 9,433 4,525 3,472 2,961 4,153 * *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 815 475 102 127 110 * *

Weighted size 164,162 68,812 27,303 36,015 31,721 * *

SE weighted 10,221 5,358 3,182 4,098 3,987 * *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size 731 409 99 103 120 * *

Weighted size 158,510 62,293 29,259 30,093 36,865 * *

SE weighted 10,378 4,941 3,968 3,457 3,699 * *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size 759 404 105 131 115 * *

Weighted size 160,662 55,269 29,870 40,007 34,331 * *

SE weighted 10,135 4,314 3,387 4,567 4,101 * *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size 540 288 87 94 70 * *

Weighted size 113,951 42,045 23,113 28,332 20,291 * *

SE weighted 8,662 3,677 2,784 3,681 3,460 * *
Table G.5—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and student level for

private, not-for-profit, 4-year institutions (continued)

Total Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior undergraduate professional

Unclassified Graduate/firstDependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size 761 436 110 110 102 * *

Weighted size 154,864 57,927 32,138 31,410 32,381 * *

SE weighted 10,054 4,114 4,041 3,369 4,173 * *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size 1,137 646 151 166 165 * *

Weighted size 242,745 87,939 48,510 49,584 54,365 * *

SE weighted 18,103 6,870 5,352 5,618 6,118 * *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 1,454 264 109 125 175 * 776

Weighted size 318,288 43,280 26,282 30,217 43,293 * 174,064

SE weighted 17,442 5,492 3,493 3,837 4,514 * 13,628

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 799 112 69 82 122 * 405

Weighted size 202,059 22,987 16,309 18,255 32,372 * 108,495

SE weighted 11,810 3,941 2,616 2,586 3,953 * 9,148

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 1,157 203 88 112 192 * 548

Weighted size 357,107 51,362 26,631 32,106 55,164 * 187,827

SE weighted 20,501 6,400 3,681 3,817 6,041 * 15,917

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 880 147 76 80 117 * 432

Weighted size 287,651 40,677 21,392 23,446 35,396 * 156,890

SE weighted 16,964 5,237 3,205 3,299 4,285 * 12,757

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 1,052 139 79 114 144 * 550

Weighted size 395,899 38,533 31,383 39,930 53,981 * 222,680

SE weighted 23,812 5,455 5,238 4,987 6,176 * 16,517

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size 1,013 152 51 79 121 33 577

Weighted size 413,272 46,703 20,135 29,510 49,662 10,554 256,708

SE weighted 27,738 7,347 3,571 4,402 6,536 2,539 21,232

*Insufficient number of cases for reliable estimation. Graduate students are independent students. 
Table G.6—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and student level 

for private, for-profit, institutions

Total Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior undergraduate professional

Unclassified Graduate/firstTOTAL Unweighted size 5,507 4,175 492 136 65 512 127

Weighted size 972,174 696,866 101,087 20,127 10,863 96,510 46,721

SE weighted 54,359 45,393 14,417 3,937 2,656 24,420 21,230

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size 334 269 38 * * * *

Weighted size 52,326 39,868 8,141 * * * *

SE weighted 6,864 5,369 2,563 * * * *

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 259 221 * * * * *

Weighted size 42,479 34,984 * * * * *

SE weighted 4,715 4,011 * * * * *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 206 167 * * * * *

Weighted size 37,042 29,275 * * * * *

SE weighted 4,695 3,784 * * * * *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size 174 142 * * * * *

Weighted size 29,709 24,059 * * * * *

SE weighted 3,351 2,818 * * * * *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 152 121 * * * * *

Weighted size 27,680 21,587 * * * * *

SE weighted 3,765 3,259 * * * * *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size 117 92 * * * * *

Weighted size 20,255 15,311 * * * * *

SE weighted 2,864 2,383 * * * * *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size 100 79 * * * * *

Weighted size 15,422 11,340 * * * * *

SE weighted 2,222 1,720 * * * * *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size 58 43 * * * * *

Weighted size 14,006 10,407 * * * * *

SE weighted 2,671 2,443 * * * * *
Table G.6—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and student level for 

private, for-profit, institutions (continued)

Total Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior undergraduate professional

Unclassified Graduate/firstDependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size 83 62 * * * * *

Weighted size 17,304 12,537 * * * * *

SE weighted 2,892 2,395 * * * * *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size 78 58 * * * * *

Weighted size 15,317 10,275 * * * * *

SE weighted 2,624 2,080 * * * * *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 973 815 65 * * 72 *

Weighted size 160,380 132,104 12,192 * * 11,805 *

SE weighted 13,383 11,660 2,262 * * 3,495 *

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 786 625 61 * * 74 *

Weighted size 136,574 102,054 12,381 * * 15,890 *

SE weighted 10,715 9,141 2,061 * * 5,174 *

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 944 713 76 * * 104 *

Weighted size 163,947 117,692 15,780 * * 18,709 *

SE weighted 11,834 10,387 3,076 * * 5,001 *

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 513 361 41 * * 72 *

Weighted size 89,266 60,554 6,913 * * 13,411 *

SE weighted 8,075 6,302 1,384 * * 4,518 *

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 422 255 45 * * 55 33

Weighted size 85,645 47,089 9,685 * * 12,009 11,947

SE weighted 10,411 6,412 2,210 * * 3,313 6,680

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size 308 152 36 31 * 36 43

Weighted size 64,822 27,730 6,620 4,618 * 7,066 17,037

SE weighted 11,096 4,742 2,129 1,590 * 2,439 8,584

*Insufficient number of cases for reliable estimation. Graduate students are independent students. 
Table G.7—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and student level for 

Public, 2-year institutions

Total Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior undergraduate professional

Unclassified Graduate/firstTOTAL Unweighted size 6,167 4,631 1,186 53 * 287 *

Weighted size 7,631,866 5,057,866 2,083,708 79,338 * 399,392 *

SE weighted 253,955 172,278 119,974 18,006 * 76,060 *

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size 312 262 42 * * * *

Weighted size 277,759 213,484 57,229 * * * *

SE weighted 27,166 21,141 12,403 * * * *

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 313 264 39 * * * *

Weighted size 289,789 221,490 55,564 * * * *

SE weighted 25,006 21,703 12,802 * * * *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 370 297 57 * * * *

Weighted size 395,548 276,504 96,705 * * * *

SE weighted 35,333 25,705 15,187 * * * *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size 301 236 58 * * * *

Weighted size 362,805 242,333 108,834 * * * *

SE weighted 29,089 21,939 17,373 * * * *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 337 277 49 * * * *

Weighted size 369,334 268,755 81,642 * * * *

SE weighted 31,200 25,328 13,393 * * * *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size 290 246 35 * * * *

Weighted size 347,955 282,842 55,549 * * * *

SE weighted 33,239 28,880 11,557 * * * *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size 197 167 * * * * *

Weighted size 263,297 205,179 * * * * *

SE weighted 27,892 23,253 * * * * *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size 168 134 * * * * *

Weighted size 198,431 137,508 * * * * *

SE weighted 20,362 16,407 * * * * *
Table G.7—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and student level for

public, 2-year institutions (continued)

Total Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior undergraduate professional

Unclassified Graduate/firstDependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size 175 135 32 * * * *

Weighted size 219,130 146,092 62,157 * * * *

SE weighted 23,449 17,770 14,006 * * * *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size 171 147 * * * * *

Weighted size 216,394 174,882 * * * * *

SE weighted 29,137 26,040 * * * * *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 553 407 115 * * * *

Weighted size 540,451 338,335 166,389 * * * *

SE weighted 36,464 25,144 19,846 * * * *

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 545 363 144 * * 30 *

Weighted size 652,946 366,979 242,261 * * 32,392 *

SE weighted 41,650 30,034 24,977 * * 11,197 *

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 844 616 177.00 * * 44 *

Weighted size 1,087,970 712,963 298,060.00 * * 68,914 *

SE weighted 62,502 47,694 30,200.34 * * 15,484 *

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 567 380 134.00 * * 46 *

Weighted size 842,114 514,215 266,150.00 * * 52,713 *

SE weighted 58,933 42,996 27,937.15 * * 14,216 *

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 582 387 143.00 * * 45 *

Weighted size 878,948 515,851 273,634.00 * * 76,567 *

SE weighted 57,118 37,673 32,267.37 * * 14,480 *

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size 442 313 95.00 * * * *

Weighted size 688,995 440,454 194,284.00 * * * *

SE weighted 55,315 39,593 24,741.84 * * * *

*Insufficient number of cases for reliable estimation. Graduate students are independent students. 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX G G-17

Table G.8—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and 

tuition for all institutions

Total $0-$999 $1,999 $2,999 $3,999 $4,999 $5,999 $6,999 $7,999

$1,000- $2,000- $3,000- $4,000- $5,000- $6,000- $7,000-

TOTAL Unweighted size 48,389 10,328 7,771 6,223 4,376 3,026 2,058 1,851 1,541

Weighted size 19,375,435 8,178,051 3,259,839 2,082,292 1,255,703 864,256 485,717 404,459 342,181

SE weighted 307,958 246,309 120,066 90,392 65,091 70,784 36,198 34,730 29,362

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size 2,346 410 446 357 204 141 86 106 84

Weighted size 743,197 255,644 149,666 88,596 54,523 40,342 19,823 18,635 15,792

SE weighted 35,256 21,845 14,727 9,557 7,111 6,902 4,013 3,143 3,091

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 2,560 430 467 386 243 184 99 110 74

Weighted size 803,725 269,933 161,391 101,186 56,589 47,027 22,564 19,737 14,685

SE weighted 32,213 22,092 14,305 9,007 6,271 8,170 3,957 3,378 2,934

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 2,821 442 509 399 317 164 102 105 88

Weighted size 968,776 333,140 198,439 111,345 76,762 46,384 21,174 19,905 20,082

SE weighted 41,123 31,963 16,823 9,862 7,817 6,822 3,336 3,326 3,318

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size 2,610 380 438 362 274 153 106 103 68

Weighted size 907,019 281,229 176,023 117,432 70,159 44,486 21,925 23,028 13,350

SE weighted 34,572 22,582 15,011 11,745 7,464 6,676 3,613 4,419 2,443

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 2,772 442 472 393 307 156 96 97 57

Weighted size 944,908 312,729 176,350 115,321 83,925 45,321 20,987 22,393 14,045

SE weighted 37,563 26,740 15,223 10,382 8,667 7,613 3,507 4,164 2,669

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size 2,480 336 425 396 269 155 96 77 49

Weighted size 917,614 277,870 194,064 132,981 67,870 47,404 21,759 15,886 10,483

SE weighted 38,869 26,366 17,699 12,657 8,197 6,628 3,264 2,523 2,138

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size 2,197 265 305 323 277 117 93 69 54

Weighted size 767,506 230,568 120,383 106,316 80,453 36,186 23,882 13,473 11,033

SE weighted 33,426 23,916 12,301 11,531 8,125 6,111 4,107 2,198 2,289

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size 1,706 219 227 282 187 94 72 60 41

Weighted size 588,248 173,828 89,814 89,994 50,910 27,956 18,513 12,588 11,771

SE weighted 26,265 18,437 9,491 8,937 6,035 4,110 3,461 2,681 2,282

Dependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size 2,061 217 259 260 234 137 84 71 53

Weighted size 687,985 178,835 116,960 86,675 57,501 45,958 19,568 16,086 11,476

SE weighted 30,172 18,278 15,213 9,019 6,211 7,622 3,585 2,587 2,741

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size 2,663 209 270 312 236 165 102 76 74

Weighted size 887,638 179,310 107,564 119,023 76,283 67,050 24,393 17,146 21,743

SE weighted 41,408 24,440 13,460 13,530 8,452 11,121 4,274 3,015 3,862

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 5,190 863 752 621 426 364 264 286 269

Weighted size 1,632,652 561,018 273,578 183,831 115,938 85,907 54,174 56,344 49,006

SE weighted 47,673 33,977 17,311 12,549 9,220 8,636 6,016 7,944 7,906

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 3,804 860 573 498 315 258 191 171 211

Weighted size 1,542,179 666,551 253,335 168,656 93,717 63,912 42,701 36,124 41,609

SE weighted 48,220 39,572 16,076 12,291 8,094 5,825 4,936 5,367 5,329

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 5,156 1,512 853 614 359 340 259 219 184

Weighted size 2,382,658 1,232,929 385,435 219,683 101,072 85,605 57,963 54,357 39,646

SE weighted 71,974 61,831 22,563 15,607 7,834 7,634 7,179 7,835 5,254

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 3,363 1,124 588 348 229 223 144 124 102

Weighted size 1,772,544 1,009,055 272,820 132,380 69,707 59,630 31,296 31,980 26,594

SE weighted 66,106 56,678 18,686 10,200 6,329 5,967 4,550 4,293 3,915

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 3,582 1,337 631 358 271 212 155 101 75

Weighted size 2,013,442 1,145,057 308,815 156,209 101,073 67,441 49,121 25,484 21,767

SE weighted 68,578 58,021 19,002 12,495 9,743 6,404 5,691 4,205 3,518

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size 3,078 1,282 556 314 228 163 109 76 58

Weighted size 1,815,344 1,070,355 275,202 152,664 99,221 53,647 35,874 21,293 19,099

SE weighted 69,323 58,038 17,956 12,128 9,659 5,968 4,595 3,427 3,438
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX G G-18

Table G.8—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and tuition

for all institutions (continued)

$8,000- $9,000- $10,000- $11,000- $12,000- $13,000- $14,000- $15,000 

$8,999 $9,999 $10,999 $11,999 $12,999 $13,999 $14,999 or More Missing

TOTAL Unweighted size 1,567 1,115 847 673 830 1,043 952 3,676 512

Weighted size 360,591 259,068 226,576 167,996 180,886 201,513 189,770 700,168 216,369

SE weighted 37,615 28,707 28,080 26,771 24,080 28,469 31,903 66,092 34,395

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size 61 44 37 32 52 37 49 166 34

Weighted size 13,422 6,855 8,176 6,341 8,478 6,584 8,108 33,638 8,574

SE weighted 3,083 1,497 1,928 1,454 2,045 1,706 1,840 9,229 2,457

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 70 67 53 36 42 49 47 174 *

Weighted size 14,258 14,109 12,440 8,224 7,353 7,475 8,553 30,456 *

SE weighted 2,960 2,905 3,065 2,553 1,781 1,773 2,258 4,637 *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 73 71 65 46 57 81 76 210 *

Weighted size 19,324 13,013 15,768 9,974 9,472 14,605 15,506 37,241 *

SE weighted 3,783 2,620 3,553 2,551 2,170 3,399 3,587 6,166 *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size 80 65 62 49 68 65 81 233 *

Weighted size 20,262 14,606 12,741 11,588 12,296 13,471 14,448 39,449 *

SE weighted 3,405 2,951 2,831 3,007 2,893 2,906 3,657 5,404 *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 81 72 51 49 56 100 72 251 *

Weighted size 20,590 15,934 12,428 10,206 9,765 18,615 13,777 44,315 *

SE weighted 4,295 2,859 2,798 2,525 2,323 4,102 4,029 7,421 *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size 57 76 38 51 63 84 83 216 *

Weighted size 18,374 18,916 8,300 11,922 14,664 18,650 16,146 39,120 *

SE weighted 3,828 4,157 1,948 3,938 3,093 4,195 4,397 5,900 *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size 59 69 55 37 65 67 65 268 *

Weighted size 14,426 14,042 13,756 9,697 14,447 13,562 13,058 48,966 *

SE weighted 3,165 2,811 3,095 2,627 4,044 3,765 3,890 6,367 *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size 59 * 41 30 43 72 50 197 *

Weighted size 16,186 * 11,309 9,780 7,580 14,837 9,355 36,293 *

SE weighted 3,232 * 3,600 2,599 2,087 3,823 2,142 5,165 *

Dependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size 68 52 53 37 57 78 91 295 *

Weighted size 17,160 10,136 13,151 9,848 12,220 16,785 19,231 51,639 *

SE weighted 3,127 2,439 4,134 2,568 2,582 3,603 5,294 6,885 *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size 97 113 69 60 79 87 130 572 *

Weighted size 27,747 29,620 18,040 15,540 19,881 18,624 21,833 115,163 *

SE weighted 5,703 8,247 4,278 3,398 3,974 3,517 4,948 15,616 *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 275 138 75 56 72 131 64 432 102

Weighted size 46,183 26,323 19,492 12,416 14,015 20,716 12,514 73,381 27,816

SE weighted 7,600 3,412 3,187 2,498 2,656 5,703 2,090 6,650 5,610

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 137 89 49 62 44 49 40 202 55

Weighted size 28,086 23,976 15,628 14,362 10,511 7,914 7,256 39,291 28,550

SE weighted 4,506 3,620 3,532 5,618 2,238 2,066 1,485 4,466 10,433

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 206 81 58 47 51 57 48 182 86

Weighted size 46,451 16,671 17,486 13,443 14,436 10,826 14,962 39,837 31,856

SE weighted 7,476 2,853 2,876 3,558 2,908 2,304 3,261 5,325 7,527

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 116 60 58 31 * * * 95 42

Weighted size 25,505 18,922 21,205 9,503 * * * 22,821 18,831

SE weighted 3,949 3,188 3,816 2,645 * * * 3,641 5,207

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 82 60 53 * 30 33 * 103 38

Weighted size 19,881 20,152 17,918 * 9,369 6,688 * 26,027 27,629

SE weighted 3,596 3,432 3,476 * 2,249 1,475 * 3,855 10,057

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size 46 33 30 * * * * 80 *

Weighted size 12,736 9,974 8,738 * * * * 22,531 *

SE weighted 2,732 2,330 2,108 * * * * 3,389 *

*Insufficient number of cases for reliable estimation. Graduate students are independent students. 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX G G-19

Table G.9—Number of sudents enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and tuition 

for undergraduate students

Total $0-$999 $1,999 $2,999 $3,999 $4,999 $5,999 $6,999 $7,999

$1,000- $2,000- $3,000- $4,000- $5,000- $6,000- $7,000-

TOTAL Unweighted size 41,467 9,191 6,863 5,600 3,864 2,545 1,729 1,577 1,260

Weighted size 16,663,457 7,495,161 2,778,715 1,792,623 1,031,958 694,359 367,622 306,716 257,255

SE weighted 299,076 242,523 113,819 86,065 60,662 65,434 34,889 31,864 27,415

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size 2,346 410 446 357 204 141 86 106 84

Weighted size 743,197 255,644 149,666 88,596 54,523 40,342 19,823 18,635 15,792

SE weighted 35,256 21,845 14,727 9,557 7,111 6,902 4,013 3,143 3,091

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 2,560 430 467 386 243 184 99 110 74

Weighted size 803,725 269,933 161,391 101,186 56,589 47,027 22,564 19,737 14,685

SE weighted 32,213 22,092 14,305 9,007 6,271 8,170 3,957 3,378 2,934

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 2,821 442 509 399 317 164 102 105 88

Weighted size 968,776 333,140 198,439 111,345 76,762 46,384 21,174 19,905 20,082

SE weighted 41,123 31,963 16,823 9,862 7,817 6,822 3,336 3,326 3,318

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size 2,610 380 438 362 274 153 106 103 68

Weighted size 907,019 281,229 176,023 117,432 70,159 44,486 21,925 23,028 13,350

SE weighted 34,572 22,582 15,011 11,745 7,464 6,676 3,613 4,419 2,443

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 2,772 442 472 393 307 156 96 97 57

Weighted size 944,908 312,729 176,350 115,321 83,925 45,321 20,987 22,393 14,045

SE weighted 37,563 26,740 15,223 10,382 8,667 7,613 3,507 4,164 2,669

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size 2,480 336 425 396 269 155 96 77 49

Weighted size 917,614 277,870 194,064 132,981 67,870 47,404 21,759 15,886 10,483

SE weighted 38,869 26,366 17,699 12,657 8,197 6,628 3,264 2,523 2,138

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size 2,196 265 305 322 277 117 93 69 54

Weighted size 766,788 230,568 120,383 105,598 80,453 36,186 23,882 13,473 11,033

SE weighted 33,417 23,916 12,301 11,485 8,125 6,111 4,107 2,198 2,289

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size 1,705 219 226 282 187 94 72 60 41

Weighted size 587,592 173,828 89,158 89,994 50,910 27,956 18,513 12,588 11,771

SE weighted 26,249 18,437 9,474 8,937 6,035 4,110 3,461 2,681 2,282

Dependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size 2,061 217 259 260 234 137 84 71 53

Weighted size 687,985 178,835 116,960 86,675 57,501 45,958 19,568 16,086 11,476

SE weighted 30,172 18,278 15,213 9,019 6,211 7,622 3,585 2,587 2,741

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size 2,663 209 270 312 236 165 102 76 74

Weighted size 887,638 179,310 107,564 119,023 76,283 67,050 24,393 17,146 21,743

SE weighted 41,408 24,440 13,460 13,530 8,452 11,121 4,274 3,015 3,862

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 3,607 791 649 506 331 265 179 210 177

Weighted size 1,244,098 526,144 232,583 144,553 86,142 59,125 32,244 35,613 28,127

SE weighted 44,331 33,569 16,452 11,253 8,254 7,534 4,732 6,775 6,686

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 2,878 789 481 405 247 195 138 127 154

Weighted size 1,240,619 628,132 210,972 130,298 67,804 45,181 23,892 23,319 26,555

SE weighted 46,282 39,225 14,998 10,801 6,717 4,931 3,607 4,727 4,573

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 3,935 1,352 680 507 280 230 194 160 143

Weighted size 1,907,421 1,140,604 295,719 171,404 68,446 49,711 32,696 27,806 26,186

SE weighted 68,621 61,276 20,642 14,371 5,670 5,719 5,901 4,545 4,546

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 2,467 940 447 267 157 165 114 91 69

Weighted size 1,379,075 897,685 198,181 93,673 37,709 38,096 21,841 17,908 13,401

SE weighted 62,794 55,626 16,582 8,750 4,228 4,816 4,015 2,992 2,656

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 2,472 1,064 439 255 182 137 101 67 48

Weighted size 1,478,628 976,142 197,738 100,120 56,999 34,366 24,741 12,572 12,288

SE weighted 63,010 55,859 15,450 10,141 7,825 4,349 4,127 2,142 2,178

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size 1,894 905 350 191 119 87 67 48 *

Weighted size 1,198,374 833,368 153,524 84,424 39,883 19,766 17,620 10,621 *

SE weighted 60,670 55,044 13,068 9,280 5,492 3,111 2,936 1,919 *
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX G G-20

Table G9—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and tuition

 for undergraduate students (continued)

$8,000- $9,000- $10,000- $11,000- $12,000- $13,000- $14,000- $15,000 

$8,999 $9,999 $10,999 $11,999 $12,999 $13,999 $14,999 or More Missing

TOTAL Unweighted size 1,179 928 676 573 693 818 827 2,733 411

Weighted size 277,754 203,378 163,733 136,119 137,677 164,806 157,381 505,533 192,667

SE weighted 34,317 27,191 25,826 25,624 22,814 26,860 31,266 60,412 33,884

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size 61 44 37 32 52 37 49 166 34

Weighted size 13,422 6,855 8,176 6,341 8,478 6,584 8,108 33,638 8,574

SE weighted 3,083 1,497 1,928 1,454 2,045 1,706 1,840 9,229 2,457

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 70 67 53 36 42 49 47 174 *

Weighted size 14,258 14,109 12,440 8,224 7,353 7,475 8,553 30,456 *

SE weighted 2,960 2,905 3,065 2,553 1,781 1,773 2,258 4,637 0

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 73 71 65 46 57 81 76 210 *

Weighted size 19,324 13,013 15,768 9,974 9,472 14,605 15,506 37,241 *

SE weighted 3,783 2,620 3,553 2,551 2,170 3,399 3,587 6,166 0

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size 80 65 62 49 68 65 81 233 *

Weighted size 20,262 14,606 12,741 11,588 12,296 13,471 14,448 39,449 *

SE weighted 3,405 2,951 2,831 3,007 2,893 2,906 3,657 5,404 0

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 81 72 51 49 56 100 72 251 *

Weighted size 20,590 15,934 12,428 10,206 9,765 18,615 13,777 44,315 *

SE weighted 4,295 2,859 2,798 2,525 2,323 4,102 4,029 7,421 0

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size 57 76 38 51 63 84 83 216 *

Weighted size 18,374 18,916 8,300 11,922 14,664 18,650 16,146 39,120 *

SE weighted 3,828 4,157 1,948 3,938 3,093 4,195 4,397 5,900 0

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size 59 69 55 37 65 67 65 268 *

Weighted size 14,426 14,042 13,756 9,697 14,447 13,562 13,058 48,966 *

SE weighted 3,165 2,811 3,095 2,627 4,044 3,765 3,890 6,367 0

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size 59 * 41 30 43 72 50 197 *

Weighted size 16,186 * 11,309 9,780 7,580 14,837 9,355 36,293 *

SE weighted 3,232 * 3,600 2,599 2,087 3,823 2,142 5,165 0

Dependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size 68 52 53 37 57 78 91 295 *

Weighted size 17,160 10,136 13,151 9,848 12,220 16,785 19,231 51,639 *

SE weighted 3,127 2,439 4,134 2,568 2,582 3,603 5,294 6,885 0

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size 97 113 69 60 79 87 130 572 *

Weighted size 27,747 29,620 18,040 15,540 19,881 18,624 21,833 115,163 *

SE weighted 5,703 8,247 4,278 3,398 3,974 3,517 4,948 15,616 0

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 124 80 44 34 37 42 * 50 63

Weighted size 22,291 15,352 10,031 6,693 6,455 7,790 * 7,780 19,003

SE weighted 4,337 2,533 2,085 1,766 1,850 2,869 * 1,455 4,918

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 81 57 * 45 * * * 39 39

Weighted size 14,511 12,299 * 9,159 * * * 6,348 25,603

SE weighted 3,617 2,389 * 5,356 * * * 1,233 10,383

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 130 58 * * * * * * 67

Weighted size 27,117 11,324 * * * * * * 28,490

SE weighted 6,028 2,376 * * * * * * 7,387

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 74 33 * * * * * * *

Weighted size 16,044 8,779 * * * * * * *

SE weighted 3,080 1,947 * * * * * * 0

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 43 30 * * * * * * 30

Weighted size 9,834 8,247 * * * * * * 24,908

SE weighted 2,341 1,921 * * * * * * 9,987

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * 0

*Insufficient number of cases for reliable estimation. Graduate students are independent students. 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX G G-21

Table G.10—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and 

tuition for graduate/first-professional students

Total $0-$999 $1,999 $2,999 $3,999 $4,999 $5,999 $6,999 $7,999

$1,000- $2,000- $3,000- $4,000- $5,000- $6,000- $7,000-

TOTAL Unweighted size 6,922 1,137 908 623 512 481 329 274 281

Weighted size 2,711,978 682,890 481,124 289,669 223,745 169,897 118,095 97,743 84,926

SE weighted 82,544 36,048 25,216 16,726 16,950 13,882 9,773 13,749 9,026

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 1,583 72 103 115 95 99 85 76 92

Weighted size 388,554 34,874 40,995 39,278 29,796 26,782 21,930 20,731 20,879

SE weighted 19,568 4,920 5,087 5,129 4,141 3,795 3,720 4,212 4,127

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 926 71 92 93 68 63 53 44 57

Weighted size 301,560 38,419 42,363 38,358 25,913 18,731 18,809 12,805 15,054

SE weighted 14,066 4,920 5,106 5,114 3,826 2,955 3,294 2,556 2,822

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 1,221 160 173 107 79 110 65 59 41

Weighted size 475,237 92,325 89,716 48,279 32,626 35,894 25,267 26,551 13,460

SE weighted 22,302 7,953 8,294 5,694 5,362 4,716 4,242 6,441 2,548

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 896 184 141 81 72 58 30 33 33

Weighted size 393,469 111,370 74,639 38,707 31,998 21,534 9,455 14,072 13,193

SE weighted 20,036 10,324 7,803 4,967 4,602 3,278 2,145 3,035 2,930

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 1,110 273 192 103 89 75 54 34 *

Weighted size 534,814 168,915 111,077 56,089 44,074 33,075 24,380 12,912 *

SE weighted 25,380 14,257 10,090 6,553 5,747 4,820 3,908 3,537 *

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size 1,184 377 206 123 109 76 42 * 31

Weighted size 616,970 236,987 121,678 68,240 59,338 33,881 18,254 * 12,861

SE weighted 29,943 16,806 11,174 7,279 7,741 5,163 3,543 * 2,869
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX G G-22

Table G.10—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and tuition 

for graduate/first-professional students (continued)

$8,000- $9,000- $10,000- $11,000- $12,000- $13,000- $14,000- $15,000

$8,999 $9,999 $10,999 $11,999 $12,999 $13,999 $14,999 or More Missing

TOTAL Unweighted size 388 187 171 100 137 225 125 943 101

Weighted size 82,837 55,690 62,843 31,877 43,209 36,707 32,389 194,635 23,702

SE weighted 15,547 6,888 9,111 5,994 6,791 9,983 5,664 17,478 4,609

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 151 58 31 * 35 89 39 382 39

Weighted size 23,892 10,971 9,461 * 7,560 12,926 8,342 65,601 8,813

SE weighted 6,268 2,167 2,450 * 1,888 4,960 1,768 6,431 2,529

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 56 32 * * * 32 * 163 *

Weighted size 13,575 11,677 * * * 4,982 * 32,943 *

SE weighted 2,682 2,779 * * * 1,904 * 4,336 *

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 76 * 34 * 30 41 33 153 *

Weighted size 19,334 * 12,172 * 10,484 7,493 11,314 33,850 *

SE weighted 4,445 * 2,558 * 2,674 2,138 2,871 4,968 *

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 42 * 36 * * * * 82 *

Weighted size 9,461 * 15,049 * * * * 19,289 *

SE weighted 2,423 * 3,401 * * * * 3,584 *

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 39 30 * * * * * 95 *

Weighted size 10,047 11,905 * * * * * 23,986 *

SE weighted 2,746 2,897 * * * * * 3,775 *

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size * * * * * * * 68 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 18,966 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 3,296 *

*Insufficient number of cases for reliable estimation. Graduate students are independent students. 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX G G-23

Table G.11—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and tuition

for freshman/first-year students

Total $0-$999 $1,999 $2,999 $3,999 $4,999 $5,999 $6,999 $7,999

$1,000- $2,000- $3,000- $4,000- $5,000- $6,000- $7,000-

TOTAL Unweighted size 24,326 5,829 3,815 2,993 2,211 1,512 1,157 1,076 858

Weighted size 8,390,721 4,527,794 1,322,674 665,148 353,724 278,776 174,976 157,642 130,613

SE weighted 190,091 156,482 72,882 44,292 26,057 28,147 23,216 23,094 18,407

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size 1,501 306 294 212 114 81 63 80 60

Weighted size 412,584 185,387 81,738 40,392 20,055 14,713 10,512 10,758 7,712

SE weighted 23,779 16,492 10,568 5,585 3,599 2,597 2,276 2,079 1,733

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 1,684 322 312 237 163 121 67 88 63

Weighted size 449,238 184,539 99,291 44,089 27,215 21,265 10,265 12,250 9,757

SE weighted 24,432 17,205 11,829 4,833 4,001 4,113 1,878 2,436 2,314

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 1,779 316 350 234 209 97 77 79 53

Weighted size 509,355 208,968 123,578 42,340 31,541 19,027 10,612 11,049 9,677

SE weighted 27,872 21,431 12,751 4,828 3,645 3,078 1,889 1,921 2,221

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size 1,615 260 284 218 182 88 74 59 45

Weighted size 455,046 179,945 90,872 45,978 28,216 16,527 11,361 8,969 6,405

SE weighted 23,910 17,007 9,826 5,723 3,739 2,915 1,904 2,263 1,433

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 1,777 324 305 242 193 95 67 62 36

Weighted size 504,976 216,079 99,109 43,747 34,370 17,104 9,644 10,006 6,680

SE weighted 27,481 21,318 10,490 5,162 4,841 3,990 1,874 2,379 1,486

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size 1,535 232 283 228 177 89 61 54 *

Weighted size 496,748 197,790 123,530 52,579 27,518 18,517 9,566 7,366 *

SE weighted 30,334 22,178 15,523 8,429 3,569 2,903 1,893 1,448 *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size 1,343 190 196 197 163 69 58 46 38

Weighted size 381,634 166,204 61,791 44,786 24,690 12,209 9,914 5,392 6,083

SE weighted 24,559 19,839 9,248 7,038 3,035 2,134 2,218 1,040 1,454

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size 1,059 162 134 186 124 58 43 43 *

Weighted size 285,152 114,663 42,249 40,071 16,574 12,683 6,654 6,274 *

SE weighted 18,133 14,736 6,664 5,124 2,382 2,426 1,475 1,506 *

Dependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size 1,280 146 164 154 154 76 60 50 34

Weighted size 316,294 113,866 53,618 34,561 20,904 14,537 9,635 7,011 4,463

SE weighted 19,590 14,504 7,892 6,580 3,092 2,628 1,761 1,459 1,096

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size 1,619 157 177 174 136 88 73 53 46

Weighted size 406,548 137,119 55,985 39,704 22,564 21,686 10,226 8,300 8,939

SE weighted 28,494 23,056 9,827 5,850 2,973 4,649 1,893 1,858 1,921

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 2,067 491 323 253 163 174 128 159 128

Weighted size 605,751 296,468 103,313 49,605 25,896 29,399 17,253 22,256 17,263

SE weighted 29,197 22,594 12,043 7,059 3,593 5,209 3,585 4,964 5,203

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 1,539 479 194 161 103 122 99 86 123

Weighted size 571,037 348,057 62,513 39,949 14,823 19,360 13,471 13,480 15,844

SE weighted 32,402 27,675 7,776 7,473 2,440 2,990 2,888 4,087 3,702

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 2,183 831 312 216 131 133 137 110 96

Weighted size 1,012,851 682,252 128,976 57,810 21,741 21,824 18,969 17,044 13,739

SE weighted 50,327 45,842 14,139 8,593 2,905 4,354 5,384 3,918 2,911

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 1,275 530 184 119 82 94 71 50 47

Weighted size 699,366 500,816 83,650 33,323 12,445 16,498 11,667 8,225 7,362

SE weighted 44,401 39,406 12,074 5,630 2,104 3,019 3,455 2,046 1,968

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 1,168 588 158 98 72 72 47 35 *

Weighted size 688,375 523,777 58,743 31,459 15,406 12,429 9,209 5,346 *

SE weighted 39,398 37,575 8,169 5,880 3,709 2,469 3,262 1,443 *

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size 902 495 145 64 45 55 32 * *

Weighted size 595,766 471,864 53,718 24,755 9,766 10,998 6,018 * *

SE weighted 41,300 39,937 7,125 6,099 2,125 2,127 1,767 * *
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX G G-24

Table G.11—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and 

tuition for freshman/first-year students (continued)

$8,000- $9,000- $10,000- $11,000- $12,000- $13,000- $14,000- $15,000

$8,999 $9,999 $10,999 $11,999 $12,999 $13,999 $14,999 or More Missing

TOTAL Unweighted size 697 526 338 316 361 436 447 1,446 308

Weighted size 128,988 78,315 54,408 53,770 47,074 52,192 59,885 156,982 147,760

SE weighted 20,753 11,109 12,301 14,279 9,343 9,388 12,383 19,478 31,068

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size 47 * * * 30 * * 69 *

Weighted size 7,830 * * * 3,290 * * 7,775 *

SE weighted 1,965 * * * 918 * * 2,276 *

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 39 38 * * 30 * * 88 *

Weighted size 4,466 5,625 * * 3,814 * * 7,989 *

SE weighted 930 1,469 * * 1,043 * * 1,329 *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 36 46 32 * 31 44 * 106 *

Weighted size 8,043 6,268 4,941 * 3,647 4,733 * 11,361 *

SE weighted 1,831 1,371 1,740 * 999 1,231 * 1,914 *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size 47 * 35 * 42 34 48 128 *

Weighted size 8,925 * 4,599 * 5,308 3,658 5,545 13,790 *

SE weighted 1,846 * 1,133 * 1,240 966 1,297 2,068 *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 47 58 * * * 65 46 138 *

Weighted size 9,760 10,837 * * * 7,316 6,045 13,938 *

SE weighted 2,205 2,186 * * * 2,399 1,529 2,588 *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size 33 40 * * 34 47 50 119 *

Weighted size 7,443 6,021 * * 5,900 6,255 6,649 13,141 *

SE weighted 2,032 1,656 * * 1,885 1,513 2,076 2,301 *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size 35 46 * * 33 31 35 152 *

Weighted size 6,121 6,638 * * 3,965 3,813 4,764 16,429 *

SE weighted 1,783 1,350 * * 1,210 1,190 1,632 2,584 *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size 34 * * * * 41 * 104 *

Weighted size 6,491 * * * * 5,465 * 11,757 *

SE weighted 1,972 * * * * 1,438 * 1,898 *

Dependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size 36 40 * * * 42 53 187 *

Weighted size 5,973 5,699 * * * 4,570 7,117 20,676 *

SE weighted 1,310 1,359 * * * 981 1,906 3,052 *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size 56 71 46 32 39 56 83 324 *

Weighted size 11,410 10,519 8,507 5,245 4,862 6,642 11,344 36,813 *

SE weighted 2,891 3,491 3,048 1,337 1,195 1,459 2,732 5,308 *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 76 37 * * * * * * 47

Weighted size 12,096 5,188 * * * * * * 14,816

SE weighted 3,407 1,123 * * * * * * 4,546

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 57 * * 30 * * * * 31

Weighted size 9,136 * * 5,780 * * * * 21,858

SE weighted 2,332 * * 5,230 * * * * 10,162

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 86 * * * * * * * 48

Weighted size 17,190 * * * * * * * 19,842

SE weighted 5,158 * * * * * * * 6,024

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 37 * * * * * * * *

Weighted size 7,418 * * * * * * * *

SE weighted 2,302 * * * * * * * *

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

*Insufficient number of cases for reliable estimation. Graduate students are independent students. 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX G G-25

Table G.12—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and tuition

for

sophomore/second-year students

Total $0-$999 $1,999 $2,999 $3,999 $4,999 $5,999 $6,999 $7,999

$1,000- $2,000- $3,000- $4,000- $5,000- $6,000- $7,000-

TOTAL Unweighted size 5,769 1,395 1,028 736 522 327 190 176 152

Weighted size 3,623,405 1,803,633 627,447 345,496 212,070 122,304 58,660 50,031 44,008

SE weighted 126,923 107,057 41,352 25,737 17,874 15,460 8,646 6,622 6,954

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size 366 58 66 60 39 * * * *

Weighted size 163,436 48,394 36,261 19,022 14,160 * * * *

SE weighted 14,968 10,949 6,790 3,265 3,340 * * * *

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 333 51 73 51 32 * * * *

Weighted size 154,590 52,037 31,193 20,121 12,048 * * * *

SE weighted 14,436 11,783 5,001 3,583 2,287 * * * *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 409 63 76 46 42 * * * *

Weighted size 211,026 84,899 40,698 18,459 17,023 * * * *

SE weighted 16,996 14,463 6,384 3,267 3,442 * * * *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size 411 69 68 53 33 * * * *

Weighted size 228,929 80,648 45,438 29,213 16,858 * * * *

SE weighted 18,894 14,537 8,176 6,584 4,469 * * * *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 354 54 61 52 32 * * * *

Weighted size 185,278 60,563 34,319 27,833 13,114 * * * *

SE weighted 15,235 11,693 7,288 5,248 2,494 * * * *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size 331 52 55 41 36 * * * *

Weighted size 164,959 53,050 28,920 20,828 15,256 * * * *

SE weighted 14,081 10,479 5,671 4,007 3,146 * * * *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size 298 33 36 52 39 * * * *

Weighted size 153,840 39,245 23,046 26,854 20,011 * * * *

SE weighted 14,060 11,285 5,390 4,608 3,456 * * * *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size 228 * 33 31 30 * * * *

Weighted size 120,467 * 18,197 15,829 18,030 * * * *

SE weighted 12,439 * 4,240 3,622 4,418 * * * *

Dependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size 289 34 42 39 * * * * *

Weighted size 159,888 41,584 38,431 18,202 * * * * *

SE weighted 15,932 9,210 11,351 3,265 * * * * *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size 331 * 37 39 30 * * * *

Weighted size 160,408 * 23,260 26,973 14,607 * * * *

SE weighted 12,779 * 4,620 6,114 3,380 * * * *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 470 135 98 56 37 * * * *

Weighted size 262,403 141,600 50,079 22,075 12,189 * * * *

SE weighted 21,005 18,220 7,579 3,981 4,000 * * * *

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 413 135 81 54 38 * * * *

Weighted size 314,138 185,203 67,037 23,964 10,833 * * * *

SE weighted 25,620 21,335 10,696 4,682 2,479 * * * *

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 541 205 107 76 37 31 * * *

Weighted size 404,032 267,656 65,948 30,428 9,919 8,155 * * *

SE weighted 31,058 29,207 10,980 5,134 1,975 1,770 * * *

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 354 151 68 35 * * * * *

Weighted size 332,670 251,072 39,447 15,174 * * * * *

SE weighted 28,505 26,832 6,980 3,668 * * * * *

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 388 182 76 33 35 * * * *

Weighted size 359,587 253,025 53,726 19,718 13,844 * * * *

SE weighted 33,132 29,176 9,499 5,611 4,552 * * * *

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size 253 126 51 * * * * * *

Weighted size 247,754 188,418 31,447 * * * * * *

SE weighted 25,383 22,034 7,780 * * * * * *
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX G G-26

Table G.12—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and tuition 

for sophomore/second-year students (continued)

$8,000- $9,000- $10,000- $11,000- $12,000- $13,000- $14,000- $15,000

$8,999 $9,999 $10,999 $11,999 $12,999 $13,999 $14,999 or More Missing

TOTAL Unweighted size 148 142 90 96 126 107 114 384 36

Weighted size 42,458 40,652 30,323 30,075 32,301 29,990 27,997 103,651 22,309

SE weighted 6,451 6,925 6,241 7,606 6,302 6,381 6,818 14,047 7,370

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 37 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 10,207 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 2,594 *

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 36 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 9,412 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 2,364 *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 43 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 10,046 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 1,869 *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 34 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 9,607 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 1,956 *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 32 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 8,280 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 1,804 *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size * * * * * * * 77 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 24,125 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 3,958 *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

*Insufficient number of cases for reliable estimation. Graduate students are independent students. 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX G G-27

Table G.13—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and tuition 

for junior/third-year students

Total $0-$999 $1,999 $2,999 $3,999 $4,999 $5,999 $6,999 $7,999

$1,000- $2,000- $3,000- $4,000- $5,000- $6,000- $7,000-

TOTAL Unweighted size 4,698 551 866 764 521 315 176 137 81

Weighted size 1,816,640 284,617 343,388 321,287 214,817 133,677 61,965 44,417 28,419

SE weighted 47,960 24,109 20,366 17,665 17,135 16,742 7,982 6,030 4,052

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size 222 * 45 37 * * * * *

Weighted size 80,439 * 17,097 13,244 * * * * *

SE weighted 6,726 * 2,944 2,378 * * * * *

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 263 * 45 46 * * * * *

Weighted size 92,607 * 17,925 18,177 * * * * *

SE weighted 7,502 * 3,229 3,039 * * * * *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 318 * 45 60 44 * * * *

Weighted size 125,147 * 17,727 26,899 19,093 * * * *

SE weighted 9,151 * 3,270 4,139 3,397 * * * *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size 290 * 36 42 39 * * * *

Weighted size 105,975 * 15,273 18,270 15,969 * * * *

SE weighted 7,675 * 2,826 2,781 3,061 * * * *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 334 * 62 54 42 * * * *

Weighted size 127,474 * 23,735 24,795 19,582 * * * *

SE weighted 8,555 * 3,785 3,436 3,513 * * * *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size 305 * 50 69 * * * * *

Weighted size 124,279 * 22,500 31,914 * * * * *

SE weighted 8,453 * 3,684 4,358 * * * * *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size 275 * 35 36 40 * * * *

Weighted size 109,757 * 15,696 16,652 18,098 * * * *

SE weighted 7,738 * 3,081 2,836 3,131 * * * *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size 215 * 35 * * * * * *

Weighted size 90,438 * 15,961 * * * * * *

SE weighted 7,472 * 3,131 * * * * * *

Dependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size 256 * * * 33 * * * *

Weighted size 103,946 * * * 14,901 * * * *

SE weighted 7,652 * * * 2,899 * * * *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size 339 * * 48 34 * * * *

Weighted size 147,935 * * 24,657 18,665 * * * *

SE weighted 10,795 * * 4,153 3,946 * * * *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 358 36 86 75 40 * * * *

Weighted size 118,449 18,594 26,808 27,636 14,217 * * * *

SE weighted 8,410 5,067 3,249 3,569 2,592 * * * *

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 312 46 64 64 43 * * * *

Weighted size 112,999 22,999 23,776 21,816 17,990 * * * *

SE weighted 8,861 5,951 3,171 3,185 3,256 * * * *

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 378 82 98 63 42 * * * *

Weighted size 139,461 38,250 37,461 23,820 14,766 * * * *

SE weighted 9,732 6,151 4,607 3,538 2,454 * * * *

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 264 64 80 * * * * * *

Weighted size 102,979 34,012 30,733 * * * * * *

SE weighted 9,010 5,937 4,196 * * * * * *

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 339 91 85 50 32 * * * *

Weighted size 134,499 45,921 32,926 19,833 11,168 * * * *

SE weighted 11,019 6,675 4,750 3,311 2,376 * * * *

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size 230 60 52 38 * * * * *

Weighted size 100,256 38,414 22,140 14,665 * * * * *

SE weighted 9,866 7,291 3,580 2,593 * * * * *
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX G G-28

Table G.13—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and tuition 

for junior/third-year students (continued)

$8,000- $9,000- $10,000- $11,000- $12,000- $13,000- $14,000- $15,000

$8,999 $9,999 $10,999 $11,999 $12,999 $13,999 $14,999 or More Missing

TOTAL Unweighted size 138 110 121 71 107 138 147 428 *

Weighted size 47,407 36,038 40,677 23,408 29,065 42,515 39,119 113,342 *

SE weighted 8,930 6,924 6,621 4,993 5,957 8,302 8,795 14,458 *

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 33 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 7,469 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 1,590 *

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 31 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 7,078 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 1,626 *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 31 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 8,513 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 2,385 *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 42 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 10,896 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 2,303 *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 30 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 8,582 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 2,129 *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 40 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 10,739 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 2,315 *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 36 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 8,949 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 1,695 *

Dependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 36 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 10,081 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 2,055 *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size * * * * * * * 84 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 26,963 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 4,626 *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

*Insufficient number of cases for reliable estimation. Graduate students are independent students. 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX G G-29

Table G.14—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and tuition

for senior/fourth- or fifth-year students

Total $0-$999 $1,999 $2,999 $3,999 $4,999 $5,999 $6,999 $7,999

$1,000- $2,000- $3,000- $4,000- $5,000- $6,000- $7,000-

TOTAL Unweighted size 5,134 730 952 942 525 323 159 145 103

Weighted size 2,093,699 348,086 422,155 415,049 234,154 145,729 61,663 48,446 37,686

SE weighted 55,473 21,239 25,465 25,963 17,510 16,655 7,357 6,495 4,927

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size 206 * 33 41 * * * * *

Weighted size 75,557 * 12,785 14,358 * * * * *

SE weighted 8,100 * 2,674 2,707 * * * * *

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 239 * 33 47 * * * * *

Weighted size 85,705 * 11,998 17,608 * * * * *

SE weighted 6,209 * 2,227 3,119 * * * * *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 264 * 35 49 * * * * *

Weighted size 99,729 * 15,480 21,565 * * * * *

SE weighted 7,867 * 2,935 3,881 * * * * *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size 261 * 47 43 * * * * *

Weighted size 100,552 * 21,413 19,677 * * * * *

SE weighted 7,430 * 3,721 3,455 * * * * *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 258 * 42 39 38 * * * *

Weighted size 99,572 * 18,824 17,245 16,695 * * * *

SE weighted 7,736 * 3,626 3,100 2,868 * * * *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size 287 * 35 56 * * * * *

Weighted size 120,525 * 18,192 25,833 * * * * *

SE weighted 8,038 * 3,390 3,725 * * * * *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size 262 * 38 34 34 * * * *

Weighted size 111,099 * 19,850 16,659 17,413 * * * *

SE weighted 8,354 * 3,424 2,899 3,311 * * * *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size 177 * * 31 * * * * *

Weighted size 76,073 * * 17,229 * * * * *

SE weighted 6,994 * * 3,701 * * * * *

Dependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size 216 * * 40 * * * * *

Weighted size 94,918 * * 21,443 * * * * *

SE weighted 7,224 * * 3,295 * * * * *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size 348 * 36 49 35 * * * *

Weighted size 159,637 * 17,207 27,293 20,206 * * * *

SE weighted 12,144 * 3,308 5,062 4,412 * * * *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 557 75 123 109 83 32 * * *

Weighted size 198,898 31,071 46,893 42,050 32,447 11,600 * * *

SE weighted 11,058 4,195 5,031 4,890 4,661 2,611 * * *

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 441 64 116 104 47 * * * *

Weighted size 168,950 26,997 47,963 40,868 19,681 * * * *

SE weighted 9,815 3,848 5,269 4,630 3,485 * * * *

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 556 123 120 130 51 30 * * *

Weighted size 223,882 60,326 50,789 54,528 19,674 10,334 * * *

SE weighted 12,365 6,144 5,735 6,379 2,907 2,221 * * *

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 353 97 81 56 31 * * * *

Weighted size 143,596 41,773 35,805 23,606 13,994 * * * *

SE weighted 9,130 4,968 4,754 3,358 2,635 * * * *

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 373 94 88 59 35 * * * *

Weighted size 169,349 52,727 41,725 25,588 14,638 * * * *

SE weighted 12,732 8,219 5,288 4,201 2,675 * * * *

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size 336 121 78 55 * * * * *

Weighted size 165,657 64,158 39,683 29,499 * * * * *

SE weighted 11,852 7,472 5,639 4,526 * * * * *
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX G G-30

Table G.14—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and tuition 

for senior/fourth- or fifth-year students (continued)

$8,000- $9,000- $10,000- $11,000- $12,000- $13,000- $14,000- $15,000

$8,999 $9,999 $10,999 $11,999 $12,999 $13,999 $14,999 or More Missing

TOTAL Unweighted size 115 125 112 85 90 132 119 457 *

Weighted size 41,987 43,783 35,725 28,123 27,529 39,095 30,380 127,478 *

SE weighted 6,031 7,208 5,962 5,242 4,858 7,812 6,517 16,399 *

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 32 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 7,987 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 1,823 *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 36 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 9,196 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 2,259 *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 42 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 11,415 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 2,719 *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 41 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 10,876 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 2,189 *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 40 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 11,690 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 2,075 *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 33 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 9,007 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 2,066 *

Dependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * 40 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 12,602 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 2,410 *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size * * * * * * * 81 *

Weighted size * * * * * * * 25,941 *

SE weighted * * * * * * * 4,851 *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

*Insufficient number of cases for reliable estimation. Graduate students are independent students. 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX G G-31

Table G.15—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and tuition 

for unclassified undergraduate students

Total $0-$999 $1,999 $2,999 $3,999 $4,999 $5,999 $6,999 $7,999

$1,000- $2,000- $3,000- $4,000- $5,000- $6,000- $7,000-

TOTAL Unweighted size 1,540 686 202 165 85 68 47 43 66

Weighted size 738,992 531,031 63,051 45,643 17,193 13,873 10,358 6,180 16,529

SE weighted 87,945 79,050 10,899 9,182 4,975 4,650 2,993 2,331 6,552

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size 51 * * * * * * * *

Weighted size 11,181 * * * * * * * *

SE weighted 2,526 * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 41 * * * * * * * *

Weighted size 21,585 * * * * * * * *

SE weighted 6,128 * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 51 * * * * * * * *

Weighted size 23,519 * * * * * * * *

SE weighted 8,600 * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size 33 * * * * * * * *

Weighted size 16,517 * * * * * * * *

SE weighted 5,843 * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 49 * * * * * * * *

Weighted size 27,608 * * * * * * * *

SE weighted 8,439 * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size 155 54 * * * * * * *

Weighted size 58,597 38,411 * * * * * * *

SE weighted 9,835 8,833 * * * * * * *

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size 173 65 * * * * * * *

Weighted size 73,495 44,876 * * * * * * *

SE weighted 13,247 11,661 * * * * * * *

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size 277 111 43 * * * * * *

Weighted size 127,195 92,120 12,545 * * * * * *

SE weighted 19,530 17,945 3,462 * * * * * *

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size 221 98 34 * * * * * *

Weighted size 100,464 70,012 8,546 * * * * * *

SE weighted 15,917 14,151 2,294 * * * * * *

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size 204 109 32 * * * * * *

Weighted size 126,818 100,692 10,618 * * * * * *

SE weighted 16,331 15,310 2,678 * * * * * *

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size 173 103 * * * * * * *

Weighted size 88,941 70,514 * * * * * * *

SE weighted 12,711 11,953 * * * * * * *
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX G G-32

Table G.15—Number of students enrolled in postsecondary institutions by family income and

tuition for unclassified undergraduate students (continued)

$8,000- $9,000- $10,000- $11,000- $12,000- $13,000- $14,000- $15,000

$8,999 $9,999 $10,999 $11,999 $12,999 $13,999 $14,999 or More Missing

TOTAL Unweighted size 81 * * * * * * * *

Weighted size 16,914 * * * * * * * *

SE weighted 8,412 * * * * * * * *

Dependent: less than $10,000 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $30,000-$39,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $40,000-$49,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $50,000-$59,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $60,000-$69,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $70,000-$79,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $80,000-$99,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Dependent: $100,000 or more Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: less than $5,000 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $5,000-$9,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $10,000-$19,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $20,000-$29,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $30,000-$49,999 Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

Independent: $50,000 or more Unweighted size * * * * * * * * *

Weighted size * * * * * * * * *

SE weighted * * * * * * * * *

*Insufficient number of cases for reliable estimation. Graduate students are independent students. 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX H H-1

Appendix H

NPSAS:96 Analysis Variables

Note: This list of NPSAS:96 analysis variables is current as this report is being published. 

However, it is anticipated that additional variables will be created and added in the

future. Links to the most recent NPSAS Data Analysis Systems, which contain the

NPSAS analysis variables can be found at the following web sites.

http://nces.ed.gov/

http://www.pedar-das.org
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX H H-2
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

DERIVED EMPLYAMT Aid Total employer aid 95-96

DERIVED MERITAID Aid Total merit-only grants and scholarships 95-96

DERIVED NEEDAID Aid Total need-based grant aid 95-96

DERIVED TNFEDAID Aid Total non-federal aid 95-96

DERIVED TNFEDGRT Aid Total non-federal grants 95-96

DERIVED TNFEDLN Aid Total non-federal loans 95-96

DERIVED TNFEDOTH Aid Total other type of non-federal 95-96

DERIVED TOTAID Aid Total aid 95-96

DERIVED TOTAID2 Aid Total federal (Title IV), state, & institutional aid 95-96

DERIVED TOTGRT Aid Total grant 95-96

DERIVED TOTLOAN Aid Total loan (except PLUS) 95-96

DERIVED TOTLOAN2 Aid Total loan (including PLUS) 95-96

DERIVED TOTOTHR Aid Total other type of aid (includes assistantships & PLUS) 95-96

DERIVED TOTWKST Aid Total work-study 95-96

DERIVED WAIVAMT Aid Total tuition waiver 95-96

DERIVED AIDPACK Aid package Package by type of aid (grants/loans/work) 95-96

DERIVED FEDPACK Aid package Package with federal aid (Pell and Stafford) 95-96

DERIVED INSTPACK Aid package Type of institutional aid package 95-96

DERIVED PELLPACK Aid package Package with Pell grants 95-96

DERIVED SCRPACK1 Aid package Package with Title IV aid by source 95-96

DERIVED SCRPACK2 Aid package Package by source of aid (fed./st./inst.) 95-96

DERIVED STAFPACK Aid package Package with Stafford loans 95-96

DERIVED CAMPAMT AidFed Campus-based federal aid (Perkins, SEOG, FWSP) 95-96

DERIVED FDLNAMT2 AidFed Federal loan (Stafford & Perkins) amt at non-NPSAS inst 95-96

DERIVED PELL2AMT AidFed Pell grant amount at non-NPSAS inst. 95-96

DERIVED PELLAMT AidFed Pell grant 95-96

DERIVED SCHL2AID AidFed Federal aid amt. received at non-NPSAS institution 95-96

DERIVED SCHOOL2 AidFed Loans at second (non-NPSAS) institution 95-96

DERIVED STAF2AMT AidFed Stafford loan amount (FFEL+Direct) rcvd at oth school 95-96

DERIVED STAFFAMT AidFed Stafford loan total amount (FFEL+Direct) 95-96

DERIVED STAFFCT1 AidFed Stafford subsidized amount categories 95-96

DERIVED STAFFCT2 AidFed Stafford total amount categories 95-96

DERIVED STAFSUB AidFed Stafford subsidized amount (FFEL+Direct) 95-96

DERIVED STAFUNSB AidFed Stafford unsubsidized amount (FFEL+Direct) 95-96

DERIVED T4LNAMT1 AidFed Title IV loans (except PLUS) 95-96

DERIVED T4LNAMT2 AidFed Title IV loans (including PLUS) 95-96

DERIVED TFEDAID AidFed Total federal aid amount (except VA/DOD) 95-96

DERIVED TFEDAID2 AidFed Total federal aid amount (including VA/DOD) 95-96

DERIVED TFEDGRT AidFed Total federal grant amount 95-96

DERIVED TFEDLN AidFed Total federal loan amount (except PLUS) 95-96

DERIVED TFEDLN2 AidFed Total federal loan amount (including PLUS) 95-96

DERIVED TITIVAMT AidFed Title IV aid total amount 95-96

DERIVED ZPERKINS AidFed Source for Perkins loan amount 95-96

DERIVED ZPLUS AidFed Source for PLUS loans 95-96

DERIVED ZSTAFF AidFed Source for Stafford loans 95-96

DERIVED SEOGAMT AidFedgrant SEOG amount 95-96

DERIVED OTHFDGRT AidFedgrant Other federal grants and scholarships 95-96

DERIVED DIRECTLN AidFedloan Direct loan amount-total 95-96

DERIVED DIRECTSB AidFedloan Direct loan subsidized amount 95-96

DERIVED DIRECTUN AidFedloan Direct loan unsubsidized amount 95-96
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

DERIVED FFELAMT AidFedloan FFEL loan total 95-96

DERIVED FFELSUB AidFedloan FFEL subsidized 95-96

DERIVED FFELUNSB AidFedloan FFEL unsubsidized 95-96

DERIVED NUMFEDL2 AidFedloan Number of federal loans received (incl. PLUS) 95-96

DERIVED NUMFEDLN AidFedloan Number of federal loans received (excl. PLUS) 95-96

DERIVED PERK2AMT AidFedloan Perkins amount at second (non-NPSAS) institution 95-95

DERIVED PERKAMT AidFedloan Perkins loan amount 95-96

DERIVED PHSLOAN AidFedloan Federal public health service loans 95-96

DERIVED PLUSAMT1 AidFedother PLUS loan (direct) 95-96

DERIVED PLUSAMT2 AidFedother PLUS loan (FFEL) 95-96

DERIVED PLUSAMT3 AidFedother PLUS loan total 95-96

DERIVED PLUSAMT4 AidFedother PLUS loan amount at non-NPSAS inst. 95-96

DERIVED TFEDOTHR AidFedother Other federal amount-including PLUS 95-96

DERIVED FWSP AidFedwork Total federal work-study 1995-96

DERIVED TFEDWRK AidFedwork Total federal work-study 95-96

DERIVED ASTAMT AidInst Total assistantships 95-96

DERIVED FELLAMT AidInst Total graduate fellowships 95-96

DERIVED INATHAMT AidInst Athletic scholarship 95-96

DERIVED INGRTAMT AidInst Institutional grant total 95-96

DERIVED INLNAMT AidInst Institutional loan total 95-96

DERIVED INOTHAMT AidInst Institutional other aid-includes assistantships 95-96

DERIVED INSTAMT AidInst Institutional total aid 95-96

DERIVED INSTNEED AidInst Institution need-based grants and scholarships 95-96

DERIVED INSTNOND AidInst Institutional non-need-based grants 95-96

DERIVED INSTWRK AidInst Institution work-study amount 95-96

DERIVED RESAMT AidInst Research assistant total 95-96

DERIVED TEACHAMT AidInst Teaching assistantship total 95-96

DERIVED UNKNAST AidInst Amount received for grad. assistantships (unspecified) 95-96

DERIVED ZAST AidInst Source for assistantships

DERIVED DODTOT AidOther Federal military tuition aid (Includes ROTC) 95-95

DERIVED JTPA AidOther Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) amount 95-96

DERIVED OTHERSCR AidOther Other source-total amt (including VA/DOD) 95-96

DERIVED OTHGTAMT AidOther Other grant total (not fed./state/institutional) 95-96

DERIVED OTHLNAMT AidOther Other loan total (not fed./state/institutional) 95-96

DERIVED OTHNEED AidOther Other need-based grants/scholarships 95-96

DERIVED OTHNOND AidOther Other non-need-based grants/scholarships 95-96

DERIVED OTHROTHR AidOther Other source-other type of aid (inc. VA/DOD) 95-96

DERIVED OTHWKAMT AidOther Other work-study total (not fed./state/institutional) 95-96

DERIVED PRIVAID AidOther Grants from private outside sources 95-96

DERIVED SDFGNAID AidOther Received aid from home country

DERIVED TOTMIL AidOther Total military tuition aid 95-96

DERIVED TOTVET AidOther Total veterans aid (including non-federal)

DERIVED VADODAMT AidOther VA/DOD benefits amount 95-96

DERIVED VETBFED AidOther Total federal veterans aid and benefits

DERIVED VOCHELP AidOther Vocational rehabilitation and JTPA amount 95-96

DERIVED VOCREHAB AidOther Vocational rehabilitation grants 95-96

DERIVED ZOTHAID AidOther Source for other aid

DERIVED ZVADOD AidOther Source for military aid

DERIVED STATEAMT AidState Total state aid amount 95-96

DERIVED STATNEED AidState State need-based grant/scholarship amount 95-96
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

DERIVED STATNOND AidState State non-need-based grant/scholarship amount 95-96

DERIVED STGTAMT AidState State grant total 95-96

DERIVED STLNAMT AidState State loan total 95-96

DERIVED STOTHAMT AidState State - other type of aid 95-96

DERIVED STWKAMT AidState State work-study total 95-96

DERIVED APART AP test Took AP tests - Art history, or studio

DERIVED APBIO AP test Took AP tests - Biology

DERIVED APCALC AP test Took AP tests - Calculus

DERIVED APCHEM AP test Took AP tests - Chemistry

DERIVED APCOMPTR AP test Took AP tests - Computer science

DERIVED APECON AP test Took AP tests - Economics (macro / micro)

DERIVED APENGLSH AP test Took AP tests - Englich (comp. / lit.)

DERIVED APFLANG AP test Took AP tests - Foreign languages

DERIVED APGOVNT AP test Took AP tests - Government

DERIVED APHISTRY AP test Took AP tests - History

DERIVED APPHYSIC AP test Took AP tests - Physics

DERIVED APPSYCH AP test Took AP tests - Psychology

DERIVED APTEST AP test Number of Advanced Placement (AP) tests taken

DERIVED PARBUS AssetsParents Parents own a business 95-96

DERIVED PARBUSDB AssetsParents Parents business debt 95-96

DERIVED PARBUSNT AssetsParents Parent^s business net value 95-96

DERIVED PARBUSVL AssetsParents Parents business value 95-96

DERIVED PARFRM AssetsParents Parents own a farm 95-96

DERIVED PARFRMDB AssetsParents Parents farm debt 95-96

DERIVED PARFRMNT AssetsParents Parents farm net value 95-96

DERIVED PARFRMVL AssetsParents Parents farm value 95-96

DERIVED PARINV AssetsParents Parents have other investments 95-96

DERIVED PARINV50 AssetsParents Parents have investments over $50,000

DERIVED PARINVDB AssetsParents Parents other investment debt 95-96

DERIVED PARINVNT AssetsParents Parents other investment net value 95-96

DERIVED PARINVVL AssetsParents Parents other investment value 95-96

DERIVED PFRBUS50 AssetsParents Parents own business or farm over $50,000

DERIVED PHOME AssetsParents Parents own a home 95-96

DERIVED PHOMEQ AssetsParents Parent^s home equity 95-96

DERIVED PMONEY AssetsParents Parent^s cash and savings 95-96

DERIVED PMONEY10 AssetsParents Parents have cash and savings over $10,000

DERIVED PNETWOR AssetsParents Parents net worth 95-96

DERIVED SHOMEQ AssetsStudent Student^s home equity 95-96

DERIVED SMONEY AssetsStudent Student^s cash and savings 95-96

DERIVED SNETWOR AssetsStudent Student net worth 95-96

DERIVED STBUSDB AssetsStudent Student business debt 95-96

DERIVED STBUSNT AssetsStudent Student business net value 95-96

DERIVED STBUSVL AssetsStudent Student business value 95-96

DERIVED STFRMDB AssetsStudent Student farm debt 95-96

DERIVED STFRMNT AssetsStudent Student farm net value 95-96

DERIVED STFRMVL AssetsStudent Student farm value 95-96

DERIVED STINVDB AssetsStudent Student other investment debt 95-96

DERIVED STINVNT AssetsStudent Student other investment net value 95-96

DERIVED STINVVL AssetsStudent Student other investment value 95-96

DERIVED ATTEND Attendance Attendance intensity fall 1995-96
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

DERIVED ATTEND2 Attendance Attendance intensity first term enrolled 1995

DERIVED ATTNPT1 Attendance Attendance intensity at NPSAS inst 95-96

DERIVED ATTNPTRN Attendance Attendance intensity 95-96

DERIVED ATTNST1 Attendance Attendance pattern at NPSAS inst 1995-96

DERIVED ATTNST3 Attendance Attendance pattern (full year=9 months) 95-96

DERIVED ATTNSTAT Attendance Attendance pattern 95-96

DERIVED CREDHRS Attendance Number of credit hours taken during 95-96

DERIVED CREDHRS1 Attendance Number of credit hours taken at NPSAS inst. 95-96

DERIVED ENLEN Attendance Number of months enrolled - 1995-96

DERIVED ENLEN1 Attendance Number of months enrolled at the NPSAS inst. 95-96

DERIVED ENR9505 Attendance Enrollment 95/05

DERIVED ENR9506 Attendance Enrollment 95/06

DERIVED ENR9507 Attendance Enrollment 95/07

DERIVED ENR9508 Attendance Enrollment 95/08

DERIVED ENR9509 Attendance Enrollment 95/09

DERIVED ENR9510 Attendance Enrollment 95/10

DERIVED ENR9511 Attendance Enrollment 95/11

DERIVED ENR9512 Attendance Enrollment 95/12

DERIVED ENR9601 Attendance Enrollment 96/01

DERIVED ENR9602 Attendance Enrollment 96/02

DERIVED ENR9603 Attendance Enrollment 96/03

DERIVED ENR9604 Attendance Enrollment 96/04

DERIVED ENR9605 Attendance Enrollment 96/05

DERIVED ENR9606 Attendance Enrollment 96/06

DERIVED ENRFIR1 Attendance Date first enrolled at NPSAS inst in 1995-96 (yyyymm)

DERIVED ENRFIRST Attendance Date first enrolled in 1995-96 (yyyymm)

DERIVED ENRL9495 Attendance Enrolled in PSE during 1994-95

DERIVED ENRLAS1 Attendance Date last enrolled at NPSAS inst in 1995-96 (yyyymm)

DERIVED ENRLAST Attendance Date last enrolled in 1995-96 (yyyymmdd)

DERIVED FTPCT Attendance Percent months enrolled full-time - 1995-96

DERIVED FTPCT1 Attendance Percent months enrolled full-time at NPSAS inst.1995-96

DERIVED HRSPERWK Attendance Clock hours required per week at NPSAS inst 1995-96

DERIVED HTPCT Attendance Percent months enrolled half-time 95-96

DERIVED HTPCT1 Attendance Percent months enrolled half-time at NPSAS inst1995-96

DERIVED IND9505 Attendance Institution used for enrollment in 95/05

DERIVED IND9506 Attendance Institution used for enrollment in 95/06

DERIVED IND9507 Attendance Institution used for enrollment in 95/07

DERIVED IND9508 Attendance Institution used for enrollment in 95/08

DERIVED IND9509 Attendance Institution used for enrollment in 95/09

DERIVED IND9510 Attendance Institution used for enrollment in 95/10

DERIVED IND9511 Attendance Institution used for enrollment in 95/11

DERIVED IND9512 Attendance Institution used for enrollment in 95/12

DERIVED IND9601 Attendance Institution used for enrollment in 96/01

DERIVED IND9602 Attendance Institution used for enrollment in 96/02

DERIVED IND9603 Attendance Institution used for enrollment in 96/03

DERIVED IND9604 Attendance Institution used for enrollment in 96/04

DERIVED IND9605 Attendance Institution used for enrollment in 96/05

DERIVED IND9606 Attendance Institution used for enrollment in 96/06

DERIVED LENGTHCL Attendance Length of program (clock-hour students NPSAS inst) 1995-96

DERIVED MFT Attendance Number of months attended full-time 1995-96
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

DERIVED MFT1 Attendance Number of months attended full-time NPSAS inst 1995-96

DERIVED MHT Attendance Number of months attended half-time or more 1995-96

DERIVED MHT1 Attendance Number of months attended ht or more at NPSAS inst 95-96

DERIVED MISSPCT Attendance Percent months enrollment missing 1995-96

DERIVED MISSPCT1 Attendance Percent months enrollment missing NPSAS inst. 1995-96

DERIVED MMISS Attendance Number of months enrollment status missing -1995-96

DERIVED MMISS1 Attendance Number of months enr status missing (NPSAS inst) 95-96

DERIVED MPT Attendance Number of months attended less than half-time -1995-96

DERIVED MPT1 Attendance Number of months attended lt ht at NPSAS inst 95-96

DERIVED PSECTYR Attendance Year first enrolled in postsecondary education

DERIVED PTPCT Attendance Percent months enrolled less than half-time 19-95-96

DERIVED PTPCT1 Attendance Percent months enrolled lt ht, NPSAS inst 95-96

CATI SATRNSFR Attendance Transferred in during (student report) 95-96

DERIVED STUDMULT Attendance Number of institutions attended 1995-96

DERIVED TERMS Attendance Number terms/periods enrolled - 1995-96

DERIVED TERMS1 Attendance Number terms/periods enrolled - NPSAS inst 1995-96

DERIVED ZATTEND Attendance Source for student attendance

DERIVED ZSMULT Attendance Source for multiple schools 95-96

DERIVED BORAMT1 Borrowed Cumulative borrowed for undergraduate education through 1996

DERIVED BORAMT2 Borrowed Cumulative borrowed for graduate education through 1996

DERIVED BORAMT3 Borrowed Cumulative borrowed for ed. (ug & grad) through 1996

DERIVED BORFED Borrowed Cumulative federal amount borrowed for education through 96

DERIVED BORTYPE Borrowed Type of loans borrowed (federal/family) through 1996

DERIVED FAMLOAN Borrowed Total amount ever borrowed from family

DERIVED FAMOWE Borrowed Amount still owed for loans from family

DERIVED OWEAMT Borrowed Amount still owed on loans- total in 1996

DERIVED OWEFED Borrowed Cumulative amount owed on fed. loans for education thru 96

CATI PLPARPAY Borrowed Amount of parent help with student debt

CATI PLSTUPAY Borrowed Amount of student help with parent debt

CATI PMBORROW Borrowed Amount borrowed ever for dependent PSE (parent)

DERIVED PPARLOAN Borrowed Amount of parent loan to student 95-96

DERIVED RELLOAN Borrowed Amount relatives/friends loaned for 95-96

CATI SCHOMEQ Borrowed Used home eq loan/2nd mtg/refinancing (student)

DERIVED WKBORR95 Borrowed Working and borrowing status 95-96

DERIVED ZBOR Borrowed Source for cumulative loans

DERIVED COMMLOAN Borrowed, loan type Commercial loan 95-96

DERIVED CREDLOAN Borrowed, loan type Line of credit 95-96

DERIVED HOMELOAN Borrowed, loan type Home equity loan 95-96

DERIVED LIFELOAN Borrowed, loan type Loan against a life insurance policy 95-9

DERIVED OTHRLOAN Borrowed, loan type Other type of loan not mentioned 95-96

DERIVED PLUSLOAN Borrowed, loan type PLUS loan 95-96

DERIVED RETRLOAN Borrowed, loan type Loan against a retirement fund 95-96

DERIVED SCHLLOAN Borrowed, loan type School-sponsored parent loan 95-96

DERIVED SIGNLOAN Borrowed, loan type Signature loan

DERIVED SMAELOAN Borrowed, loan type Family Ed. Loan from Sallie Mae 95-96

DERIVED STATLOAN Borrowed, loan type State-sponsored parent loan 95-96

DERIVED UNDRLOAN Borrowed, loan type Loan from a non-profit underwriter 95-96

CATI SIARTS BPSClimate Participated in fine arts activities 95-96

CATI SICLUBS BPSClimate Participate in school clubs 95-96

CATI SIFRIEND BPSClimate Go places with friends 95-96
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

CATI SIINTRAM BPSClimate Participated in intramural sports 95-96

CATI SILECTUR BPSClimate Attend lectures/conventions/field trips 95-96

CATI SIMEET BPSClimate Meet with advisor about plans 95-96

CATI SISOCIAL BPSClimate Have social contact with faculty 95-96

CATI SISTUDGP BPSClimate Attend study groups outside class 95-96

CATI SITALK BPSClimate Talk with faculty outside class 95-96

CATI SIVARSTY BPSClimate Participated in varsity sports 95-96

CATI SIAUTH BPSGoal Become an authority in field

CATI SIAWAY BPSGoal Get away from home

CATI SIBTROPP BPSGoal Offer better opportunities to children

CATI SIBUSIN BPSGoal Succeed in own business

CATI SIFAMILY BPSGoal Raise a family

CATI SIFINC BPSGoal Be well off financially

CATI SIINFL BPSGoal Influence political structure

CATI SILEAD BPSGoal Be leader in community

CATI SILEISR BPSGoal Have leisure time

CATI SILIVCLS BPSGoal Live close to family

CATI SISUCCAR BPSGoal Succeed in career

DERIVED COUNSEL BPSSatisfaction Satisfied with counseling 95-96

DERIVED CULTUR BPSSatisfaction Satisfied with cultural activities 95-96

DERIVED JOBPLC BPSSatisfaction Satisfied with job placement 95-96

CATI SICLIMT BPSSatisfaction Satisfied-Campus climate 95-96

CATI SICLSIZE BPSSatisfaction Satisfied-Class size 95-96

CATI SICOST BPSSatisfaction Satisfied-cost of attending 95-96

CATI SICOURS BPSSatisfaction Satisfied-course availability 95-96

CATI SIINTELL BPSSatisfaction Satisfied- intellectual growth 95-96

CATI SIPRSTG BPSSatisfaction Satisfied-Prestige of school 95-96

CATI SISOCLIF BPSSatisfaction Satisfied-social life 95-96

CATI SITEACH BPSSatisfaction Satisfied-instructors ability to teach 95-96

DERIVED SPORTS BPSSatisfaction Satisfied with sports and recreational 95-96

DERIVED COACH Community service Work with kids as a coach /scouting 95-96

DERIVED COMMHOUR Community service Student^s hours/week doing community service 95-96

DERIVED COMMNUM Community Service Number of community service or volunteer activities

DERIVED COMMREQ Community service Was any service required for graduation 95-96

DERIVED COMMSERV Community service Performed community service in 1995-96

DERIVED HOSPITAL Community service Hospital, nursing home, group home 95-96

DERIVED LITERACY Community service Adult literacy project 95-96

DERIVED MENTOR Community service Work with kids as tutor/mentor 95-96

DERIVED MONEYNP Community service Raise money for non-political purpose 95-96

DERIVED MONEYP Community service Raise money or vol. for political campaign 95-96

DERIVED NEIGHBOR Community service Neighborhood improvement/cleanup projects 95-96

DERIVED OTHCOMM Community service Other type of community service 95-96

DERIVED SHELTER Community service Worked at a shelter/soup kitchen 95-96

DERIVED TELCRIS Community service Telephone crisis center 95-96

CATI SBBOOKS Cost, Budget Books and Supplies

CATI SBEQUIP Cost, budget Equipment and Instruments

DERIVED INJURIS Cost, tuition Tuition jurisdiction (in/out of area)-NPSAS inst 95-96

DERIVED TUITION Cost, tuition Tuition and fees for terms attended-NPSAS inst 95-96

DERIVED BUDGETAJ CostBudget Total student budget (attendance adjusted) 95-96

DERIVED BUDGETFT CostBudget Total student budget (full-time, full-year) 95-96
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

DERIVED SBNONTAJ CostBudget Total budget non-tuition costs (attendance adjusted) 95-96

DERIVED SBNONTUN CostBudget Total non-tuition costs (full-time, full-year) 95-96

DERIVED ZBUDGET CostBudget Source for student budget

DERIVED CPS00096 CPS96 96CPS000: CPS student record (ISIR) available 95-96

CPS96 CPS100 CPS96 96CPS100: Parent^s type of 1994 tax form (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS101 CPS96 96CPS101: Parents exemptions claimed in 1994 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS102 CPS96 96CPS102: Parents adjusted gross income in 1994 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS103 CPS96 96CPS103: Parents income taxes paid in 1994 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS104 CPS96 96CPS104: Fathers income earned from work in 1994 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS105 CPS96 96CPS105: Mothers income earned from work in 1994 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS106 CPS96 96CPS106: Parents annual Soc. Sec. benefits in 1994 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS107 CPS96 96CPS107: Parents annual AFDC/ADC benefits in 1994 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS108 CPS96 96CPS108: Parents annual child support recvd in 1994 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS109 CPS96 96CPS109: Parents other nontaxed income in 1994 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS110 CPS96 96CPS110: Age of older parent (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS111 CPS96 96CPS111: Parents cash, savings, checking (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS112 CPS96 96CPS112: Parents other investment value (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS113 CPS96 96CPS113: Parents other investment debt (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS114 CPS96 96CPS114: Parents business value (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS115 CPS96 96CPS115: Parents business debt (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS116 CPS96 96CPS116: Parents farm value (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS117 CPS96 96CPS117: Parents farm debt (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS15 CPS96 96CPS015: Student state of legal residence (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS157 CPS96 96CPS157: Paid EFC type (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS159 CPS96 96CPS159: Automatic zero EFC (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS16 CPS96 96CPS016: Student legal residence date (yyyymmdd) (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS160 CPS96 96CPS160: Dependency and EFC formula type in 1994(ISIR)

CPS96 CPS161 CPS96 96CPS161: Adjusted EFC calculation requested (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS162 CPS96 96CPS162: Primary EFC (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS163 CPS96 96CPS163: Secondary EFC (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS188 CPS96 96CPS188: TI: Total income (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS189 CPS96 96CPS189: ATI: Allowances against total income (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS19 CPS96 96CPS019: Student citizenship status (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS190 CPS96 96CPS190: STX: State tax allowance (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS191 CPS96 96CPS191: EA: Employment allowance (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS192 CPS96 96CPS192: IPA: Income protection allowance (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS193 CPS96 96CPS193: AI: Available income (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS194 CPS96 96CPS194: DNW: Discretionary net worth (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS195 CPS96 96CPS195: APA: Asset protection allowance (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS196 CPS96 96CPS196: PCA: Contribution from assets (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS197 CPS96 96CPS197: AAI: Adjusted available income (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS198 CPS96 96CPS198: TPC: Total parent contribution (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS199 CPS96 96CPS199: TSC: Total student contribution (indep)

CPS96 CPS200 CPS96 96CPS200: APC: Adjusted parents contribution (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS201 CPS96 96CPS201: SIC: Dependent Students Inc contribution (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS202 CPS96 96CPS202: SCA: Students Contribution from assets (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS205 CPS96 96CPS205: Request for information transfer (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS206 CPS96 96CPS206: Dependency status (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS21 CPS96 96CPS021: First Bachelor degree by 7-1-95? (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS22 CPS96 96CPS022: Student marital status (ISIR)
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

CPS96 CPS23 CPS96 96CPS023: Student marital status date (yyyymm) (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS26 CPS96 96CPS026: Born before 1-1-72? (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS267 CPS96 96CPS267: STI: Dependent students total income (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS27 CPS96 96CPS027: Veteran status (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS28 CPS96 96CPS028: Graduate/Prof student in 1995-96? (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS29 CPS96 96CPS029: Is student married? (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS30 CPS96 96CPS030: Orphan or ward of court? (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS31 CPS96 96CPS031: Have dependents other than spouse (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS32 CPS96 96CPS032: Students number in family (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS33 CPS96 96CPS033: Student family members in college 1995-96 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS34 CPS96 96CPS034: Student type of 1994 tax form (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS35 CPS96 96CPS035: Students exemptions claimed in 1994 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS36 CPS96 96CPS036: Student adj. gross income in 1994 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS37 CPS96 96CPS037: Student income taxes paid in 1994 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS38 CPS96 96CPS038: Student earned income from work in 1994 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS39 CPS96 96CPS039: Spouses income earned from work in 1994 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS40 CPS96 96CPS040: Student annual Soc. Sec. benefits in 1994 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS41 CPS96 96CPS041: Student annual AFDC/ADC benefits in 1994 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS42 CPS96 96CPS042: Student annual child support recvd in 1994 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS43 CPS96 96CPS043: Student other nontaxed income in 1994 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS44 CPS96 96CPS044: Monthly Veterans education benefits (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS45 CPS96 96CPS045: # Monthly Veterans education benefits (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS46 CPS96 96CPS046: Student cash, savings, checking (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS47 CPS96 96CPS047: Student other investment value (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS48 CPS96 96CPS048: Student other investment debt (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS49 CPS96 96CPS049: Student business value (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS50 CPS96 96CPS050: Student business debt (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS51 CPS96 96CPS051: Student farm value (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS52 CPS96 96CPS052: Student farm debt (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS54 CPS96 96CPS054: Intersted in student employment (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS55 CPS96 96CPS055: Interested in student loans (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS56 CPS96 96CPS056: Interested in parent loans for students (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS61 CPS96 96CPS061: College choice #1 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS62 CPS96 96CPS062: College choice #2 (ISIR) 95-96

CPS96 CPS63 CPS96 96CPS063: College choice #3 (ISIR) 95-96

CPS96 CPS64 CPS96 96CPS064: College choice #4 (ISIR) 95-96

CPS96 CPS65 CPS96 96CPS065: College choice #5 (ISIR) 95-96

CPS96 CPS66 CPS96 96CPS066: College choice #6 (ISIR) 95-96

CPS96 CPS67 CPS96 96CPS067: Release data to state (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS68 CPS96 96CPS068: FAFSA application signed by (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS69 CPS96 96CPS069: Date application completed (yyyymmdd) (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS72 CPS96 96CPS072: Preparers signature (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS73 CPS96 96CPS073: Fathers education level (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS74 CPS96 96CPS074: Mothers education level (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS75 CPS96 96CPS075: Date GED earned (yyyymmdd) (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS76 CPS96 96CPS076: Selective service match (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS77 CPS96 96CPS077: Selective service registration flag (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS78 CPS96 96CPS078: High school graduation date (yyyymm) (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS79 CPS96 96CPS079: INS match (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS82 CPS96 96CPS082: Enrollment plan for Summer 95 (ISIR)
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

CPS96 CPS83 CPS96 96CPS083: Enrollment plan for Fall 1995 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS84 CPS96 96CPS084: Enrollment plan for Winter 1996 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS85 CPS96 96CPS085: Enrollment plan for Spring 1996 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS86 CPS96 96CPS086: Enrollment plan for Summer 1996 (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS87 CPS96 96CPS087: Self-reported degree/certificate expected (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS89 CPS96 96CPS089: Self-reported major or course of study (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS91 CPS96 96CPS091: Date expected to complete program (yyyymmdd) (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS92 CPS96 96CPS092: Self-reported class level (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS93 CPS96 96CPS093: Child care paid for how many kids? (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS94 CPS96 96CPS094: Date application received (yyyymmdd) (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS95 CPS96 96CPS095: Parents marital status (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS96 CPS96 96CPS096: Parents state of legal residence (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS97 CPS96 96CPS097: Parents legal residence date (yyyymmdd) (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS98 CPS96 96CPS098: Parents number of family members (ISIR)

CPS96 CPS99 CPS96 96CPS099: Parent family members in college 1995-96 (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_013 CPS97 97CPS013: Student title

CPS97 C97_014 CPS97 97CPS014: Student State of Legal Residence (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_015 CPS97 97CPS015: Student Legal Residence Date (yyyymmdd) (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_017 CPS97 97CPS017: Student date of birth (yyyymmdd)

CPS97 C97_018 CPS97 97CPS018: Student Citizenship Status (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_020 CPS97 97CPS020: First Bachelor Degree by 7-1-96? (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_021 CPS97 97CPS021: Student Marital Status (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_022 CPS97 97CPS022: Student Marital Status Date (yyyymm) (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_023 CPS97 97CPS023: Born Before 1-1-73? (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_024 CPS97 97CPS024: Veteran of US Armed Forces (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_025 CPS97 97CPS025: Graduate/Prof Student in 96-97 (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_026 CPS97 97CPS026: Is Student Married? (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_027 CPS97 97CPS027: Orphan or Ward of Court (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_028 CPS97 97CPS028: Have Dependents Other Than Spouse (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_029 CPS97 97CPS029: Students Number of Family (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_030 CPS97 97CPS030: Students Number in College in 1996-97 (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_031 CPS97 97CPS031: Students Type of 1995: Tax Form (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_032 CPS97 97CPS032: Students Exemptions Claimed in 1995 (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_033 CPS97 97CPS033: Students Adjusted Gross Income in 1995 (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_034 CPS97 97CPS034: Students US Income Tax Paid in 1995 (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_035 CPS97 97CPS035: Student Income Earned from Work in 1995 (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_036 CPS97 97CPS036: Spouses Income Earned from Work in 1995 (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_037 CPS97 97CPS037: Students Annual Social Security Benefits in 1995

(SAR

CPS97 C97_038 CPS97 97CPS038: Students Annual AFDC/ADC in 1995 (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_039 CPS97 97CPS039: Students Annual Child Support Received in 1995

(ISIR)

CPS97 C97_040 CPS97 97CPS040: Students Other Untaxed Income in 1995 (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_041 CPS97 97CPS041: Monthly Veterans Education Benefits (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_042 CPS97 97CPS042: # Monthly Veterans Education Benefits (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_068 CPS97 97CPS068: Fathers Highest Grade Level Completed (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_069 CPS97 97CPS069: Mothers Highest Grade Level Completed (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_070 CPS97 97CPS070: Date GED Earned (yyyymm) (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_073 CPS97 97CPS073: High School Graduation Date (yyyymm) (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_082 CPS97 97CPS082: Degree/Certificate expected (self-reported) (ISIR)
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

CPS97 C97_083 CPS97 97CPS083: Course of Study (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_084 CPS97 97CPS084: Date Expected to Complete Pgm (yyyymmdd) (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_085 CPS97 97CPS085: Year in College in 1996-97 (self reported) (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_088 CPS97 97CPS088: Parents Marital Status (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_089 CPS97 97CPS089: Parents State of Legal Residence (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_090 CPS97 97CPS090: Parents Legal Residence Date (yyyymmdd) (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_091 CPS97 97CPS091: Parents Number of Family Members (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_092 CPS97 97CPS092: Parents Number in College in 1996-97 (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_093 CPS97 97CPS093: Parents Type of 1996: Tax Form Used (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_094 CPS97 97CPS094: Parents Exemptions Claimed in 1995 (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_095 CPS97 97CPS095: Parents Adjusted Gross Income (IRS Form) in 1995

(SAR

CPS97 C97_096 CPS97 97CPS096: Parents US Income Tax Paid in 1995 (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_097 CPS97 97CPS097: Fathers Income Earned from Work in 1995 (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_098 CPS97 97CPS098: Mothers Income Earned from Work in 1995 (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_099 CPS97 97CPS099: Parents Annual Social Security Benefits in 1995

(ISIR)

CPS97 C97_100 CPS97 97CPS100: Parents Annual AFDC/ADC in 1995 (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_101 CPS97 97CPS101: Parents Annual Child Support Received in 1995 (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_102 CPS97 97CPS102: Parents Other Untaxed Income in 1995 (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_103 CPS97 97CPS103: Age of Older Parent (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_148 CPS97 97CPS148: Paid EFC Type (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_150 CPS97 97CPS150: Automatic Zero EFC (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_151 CPS97 97CPS151: Dependency and EFC Formula Type (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_152 CPS97 97CPS152: Adjusted EFC Calculation Requested (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_153 CPS97 97CPS153: Primary EFC (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_154 CPS97 97CPS154: Secondary EFC (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_163 CPS97 97CPS163: Students 1995: Total from Worksheet #3

CPS97 C97_175 CPS97 97CPS175: Parents 1995: Total from Worksheet #3

CPS97 C97_179 CPS97 97CPS179: TI: Total Income (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_180 CPS97 97CPS180: ATI: Allowances Against Total Income (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_181 CPS97 97CPS181: STX: State Tax Allowance (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_182 CPS97 97CPS182: EA: Employment Allowance (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_183 CPS97 97CPS183: IPA: Income Protection Allowance (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_184 CPS97 97CPS184: AI: Available Income (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_185 CPS97 97CPS185: DNW: Discretionary Net Worth (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_186 CPS97 97CPS186: APA: Asset Protection Allowance (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_187 CPS97 97CPS187: PCA: Contribution from Assets (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_188 CPS97 97CPS188: AAI: Adjusted Available Income (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_189 CPS97 97CPS189: TPC: Total Parent Contribution (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_190 CPS97 97CPS190: TSC: Total Student Contribution (indep)

CPS97 C97_191 CPS97 97CPS191: PC: Adjusted Parents Contribution (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_192 CPS97 97CPS192: SIC: Dependent Students Inc Contribution (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_193 CPS97 97CPS193: SCA: Students Contribution from Assets (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_196 CPS97 97CPS196: Dependency Status (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_251 CPS97 97CPS251: STI: Dependent Students Total Income (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_255 CPS97 97CPS255: CAI: Contribution from Available Income (ISIR)

CPS97 C97_256 CPS97 97CPS256: Graduate Flag (ISIR)

DERIVED CPS00097 CPS97 97CPS000: CPS student record (ISIR) available 96-97?

DERIVED DEAFNESS Disability Hearing impaired or deaf
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

DERIVED DISABIL Disability Student have any disabilities

DERIVED HEALTOTH Disability Other health related disabilities

DERIVED LEARNDIS Disability Learning disability

DERIVED ORTHO Disability Orthopedic limitation

CATI SGHEAR Disability Extent of hearing impairment

CATI SGORTHO1 Disability Walk 1/4 mile without assistance

CATI SGORTHO2 Disability Able to walk up stairs without resting

CATI SGORTHO3 Disability Able to lift/carry up to 10 pounds

CATI SGORTHO4 Disability How difficult to enter/exit buildings

CATI SGSPEECH Disability Extent of speech impairment/disability

CATI SGVISION Disability Extent of visual impairment

DERIVED SPEECH Disability Speech limitation

DERIVED VISUAL Disability Partially sighted or blind

DERIVED EFC1 EFC FM expected family contribution as recorded 95-96

DERIVED EFC3 EFC FM expected family contribution - regression estimate 95-96

DERIVED EFC4 EFC FM expected family contribution - composite 95-96

DERIVED FMPC EFC FM parental contribution for dependent students 95-96

DERIVED FMSC EFC FM dependent student contribution 95-96

DERIVED ZEFC EFC Source for EFC

CATI SECAREER Employee/Student Helps prepare for career 95-96

CATI SECHOICE Employee/Student Reduces class choices 95-96

CATI SECONTNT Employee/Student Assists with class content 95-96

CATI SEDEGREE Employee/Student Enrolled to earn degree/certificate 95-96

CATI SEEXPENS Employee/Student Pays tuition and living expenses 95-96

CATI SEJOBADV Employee/Student Enrolled to advance job 95-96

CATI SEJOBEXP Employee/Student Gives experience for future employment 95-96

CATI SEJOBREQ Employee/Student Enrollment required by job 95-96

CATI SELIBRY Employee/Student Limits access to library 95-96

CATI SEMONEY Employee/Student Provides spending money 95-96

CATI SENEWSKL Employee/Student Enrolled to learn new job skills 95-96

CATI SEPERS Employee/Student Enrolled for personal interest 95-96

CATI SERECR Employee/Student Enrolled for recreation 95-96

CATI SEROLE Employee/Student Primary role while enrolled & working 95-96

CATI SESCHED Employee/Student Limits class schedule 95-96

CATI SETIME Employee/Student Limits study time 95-96

DERIVED EM2ENRL Employment Ratio employed during month enrolled 95-96

DERIVED HRSWORK Employment Average hours worked per week while enrolled 95-96

CATI SCNUMJBS Employment Number of jobs held 95-96

CATI SECOMSRV Employment Work study part of comm service project 95-96

CATI SECWSOFF Employment CWS on/off-campus 95-96

CATI SECWSTYP Employment CWS type of employer 95-96

CATI SEENRWKS Employment Weeks employed while enrolled 95-96

CATI SEONOFF Employment Principal job-on campus 95-96

CATI SEORGTYP Employment Organization type-principal job 95-96

CATI SEPRNCWS Employment Principal job - CWS/assistantship 95-96

CATI SERELMAJ Employment Principal job related to major 95-96

CATI SESCHEMP Employment Employed by school 95-96

CATI SESMRHRS Employment Hours worked summer 1995

CATI SESMRWRK Employment Worked summer 1995

CATI SESTLEMP Employment Still employed in principal job 95-96
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

CATI SHEFFECT Employment Effect of job on academic performance 95-96

CATI SHHRSEXP Employment # of work hours expected by parents 95-96

CATI SHWRKEXP Employment Parent expected student to work 95-96 sy

CATI SEENRFRQ Employment Frequency of earnings 95-96

DERIVED INCOME2 Family Income Family income and dependency level (cat.) 1994

DERIVED PFAMNUM FamilyParent Parent^s family size 95-96

DERIVED PPOSTED FamilyParent Number in college parent^s family 95-96

DERIVED ZPFAMSZ FamilyParent Source for parents family size

DERIVED CHILDCAR FamilyStudent Number of dependents paying childcare for 95-96

DERIVED DEPAGE1 FamilyStudent Number of dependents under age 5 95-96

DERIVED DEPAGE2 FamilyStudent Number of dependents age five to thirteen 95-96

DERIVED DEPAGE3 FamilyStudent Number of dependents, over 13 years of age 95-96

DERIVED NDEPEND FamilyStudent Number of dependents (student) 95-96

DERIVED SFAMNUM FamilyStudent Student^s family size 95-96

CATI SFSPSAID FamilyStudent Spouse received financial aid 95-96

CATI SFSPSENR FamilyStudent Spouse enrolled for 6+ credits 95-96

DERIVED SPOSTED FamilyStudent Number in college student^s family 95-96

DERIVED ZSFAMSZ FamilyStudent Source for student family size

DERIVED AIDAPP Financial aid Applied for financial aid in 1995-96

DERIVED AIDDEP Financial aid Financial aid receipt and dependency status 95-96

DERIVED ANYEFC Financial Aid Received federal aid subject to EFC limitations 95-96

DERIVED ANYFED Financial Aid Received federal financial aid in 1995-96

DERIVED ANYFIN Financial aid Received any financial aid in 1995-96

DERIVED APPDATE Financial Aid Date FAFSA application received

DERIVED PRIORAID Financial aid Received any financial aid in 1994-95

DERIVED PREPAID Fund Source, student Prepaid tuition amount use 95-96

CATI SCUSBOND Fund source, student Used U.S. savings bonds 95-96

DERIVED STRAT1 Fund source, student Number of strategies used to finance 95-96 costs

DERIVED STSAVPLN Fund source, student Student/parents use a college prepay plan 95-96

DERIVED AFDC IncomeFamily Student/parents received AFDC in 1994 or 1995

DERIVED CAGI IncomeFamily AGI combined (continuous)-1994

DERIVED CAGICAT IncomeFamily AGI combined (categorical) -1994

DERIVED CHILDSUP IncomeFamily Student/parents received child support in 1994 or 1995

DERIVED CINCOME IncomeFamily Total income (cont.) parents and indep. students-1994

DERIVED CINCOME2 IncomeFamily Total income (cont.) parents and indep. students-94-imp

DERIVED DEPINC IncomeFamily Dependent students parents income -1994

DERIVED DEPINC2 IncomeFamily Dependent students parents income -1994 (imp)

DERIVED INCOME IncomeFamily Income and dependency level (categorical) 1994

DERIVED INCSUP IncomeFamily Student/parents received income support during 1995-96

DERIVED INDEPIN2 IncomeFamily Total income independent students 1994 (imp)

DERIVED INDEPINC IncomeFamily Total income independent students 1994

DERIVED PCTALL IncomeFamily Total income parents and indep. students percentile 1994

DERIVED PCTDEP IncomeFamily Parents total income, percentile (dep. students) 1994

DERIVED PCTINDEP IncomeFamily Independent student total income, percentile rank 1994

DERIVED PCTPOV94 IncomeFamily Percent of poverty level 1994

DERIVED PCTPOV95 IncomeFamily Percent of poverty level 1995

DERIVED SSI IncomeFamily Student/parents received social security in 1994 or 1995

DERIVED DADWORK IncomeParent Father^s income from work-1994

DERIVED MOMWORK IncomeParent Mother^s income from work-1994

DERIVED PAGICAT IncomeParent Parents AGI (categorical) 1994
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

DERIVED PARAFDC IncomeParent Parents AFDC/ADC benefits 1994

DERIVED PARCHILD IncomeParent Parent annual child support recvd-amount-1994

DERIVED PAREXEM IncomeParent Parents exemptions claimed in 1994

DERIVED PARFORM IncomeParent Parents tax form 1994

DERIVED PARINC94 IncomeParent Parent^s income (including parents of independents)-1994

DERIVED PARINC95 IncomeParent Parent^s income (including parents of independents)-1995

DERIVED PAROTHR IncomeParent Parents other nontaxed income-amount-1994

DERIVED PARSOC IncomeParent Parents social security benefits 1994

DERIVED PARTAX IncomeParent Parents income taxes paid in 1994

DERIVED PUNTAX IncomeParent Parents untaxed income-1994

DERIVED ZPARINC IncomeParent Source for parents income

DERIVED SAGICAT IncomeStudent Independent student AGI (categorical) 1994

CATI SFCOMP95 IncomeStudent Received Worker^s Compensation in 1995

CATI SFDIS95 IncomeStudent Received Disability in 1995

CATI SFFOOD IncomeStudent Received food stamps in 1995

CATI SFWELF95 IncomeStudent Received welfare in 1995

DERIVED SPSEMP IncomeStudent Spouse employed 95-96

DERIVED SPSINC IncomeStudent Spouses earned income from work 1995-96

DERIVED STUAFDC IncomeStudent Student AFDC/ADC benefits 1994

DERIVED STUCHILD IncomeStudent Student child support received in 1994

DERIVED STUEXEM IncomeStudent Student exemptions claimed in 1994

DERIVED STUFORM IncomeStudent Student tax form 1994

DERIVED STUINC94 IncomeStudent Student^s income (including dependents) -1994

DERIVED STUINC95 IncomeStudent Student^s income (including dependents) -1995

DERIVED STUOTHER IncomeStudent Student other nontaxed income 1994

DERIVED STUSOC IncomeStudent Student social security benefits 1994

DERIVED STUTTAX IncomeStudent Student income taxes paid in 1994

DERIVED STUWORK IncomeStudent Student income earned from work-1994

DERIVED SUNTAX IncomeStudent Student untaxed income-1994

DERIVED WKINC IncomeStudent Student earnings while enrolled 1995-96

DERIVED ZSTUINC IncomeStudent Source for student income

IPEDS AFFIL Institution NPSAS institution affiliation (IPEDS) 95-96

DERIVED AIDCTRL Institution Control of institution where aid received 95-96

DERIVED AIDLEVL Institution Level of institution where aid received 95-96

DERIVED AIDSEC2 Institution Type of other inst. (not NPSAS) where aid received 95-96

DERIVED AIDSECT Institution Institution type where aid received in 95-96

IPEDS BEAUTYFL Institution NPSAS institution is a cosmetology school 95-96

IPEDS CARNEGIE Institution NPSAS institution Carnegie code 95-96

CADE CLOCK Institution Institution awards clock vs. credit hours 95-96

IPEDS CONTROL Institution Institution control 95-96

DERIVED ENDCAT Institution Endowment/FTE categories (NPSAS inst) 95-96

DERIVED ENRLCATB Institution Control and size (total enrollment) (NPSAS inst) 95-96

IPEDS ENRLSIZE Institution Enrollment at the NPSAS institution 95-96

IPEDS FICE Institution FICE code NPSAS Institution 95-96

IPEDS FPOFFER Institution First professional offerings at the NPSAS inst 95-96

DERIVED FRSTSCHL Institution Is the NPSAS inst. the first institution attended?

IPEDS HBCU Institution Historically black college/university (NPSAS inst

IPEDS HLOFFER Institution Highest level offering 95-96

DERIVED HLOFFER2 Institution Highest level offering -revised 95-96

DERIVED INSSTATE Institution State where NPSAS institution is located 95-96
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

DERIVED INSTCPS Institution Number of schls student planned to apply to, 95-96 (CPS)

IPEDS IPEDSID Institution IPEDS identification code - NPSAS inst

IPEDS LEVEL Institution Institution level 95-96

IPEDS LOCALE Institution Location of institution (Urban/rural)

CADE MCALSYS Institution Institution calendar system 95-96

IPEDS OBEREG Institution NPSAS inst region of country

DERIVED OPEID Institution OPEID identification code-NPSAS institution

DERIVED OPEID2 Institution OPEID code alternate for the NPSAS insttituion

IPEDS PCTMIN1 Institution NPSAS inst percent black non-Hispanic, Fall 1995

IPEDS PCTMIN2 Institution NPSAS inst percent American Indian, Fall 1995

IPEDS PCTMIN3 Institution NPSAS inst percent Asian, Fall 1995

IPEDS PCTMIN4 Institution NPSAS inst percent Hispanic, Fall 1995

DERIVED PCTMIN5 Institution NPSAS inst percent White non-Hispanic, Fall 1995

DERIVED PCTMIN6 Institution NPSAS inst percent minority, Fall 1995

DERIVED PCTMIN7 Institution NPSAS inst percent minority (excl Asians), Fall 1995

IPEDS PEO1ISTR Institution NPSAS institution has occupational courses 95-96

IPEDS PEO2ISTR Institution NPSAS institution has academic courses 95-96

IPEDS PEO3ISTR Institution NPSAS institution has continuing ed/prof courses 95-96

IPEDS PEO4ISTR Institution NPSAS institution has recrtnl/avocational courses 95-96

IPEDS PEO5ISTR Institution NPSAS institution has adult remed/HS equiv. courses 95-96

IPEDS PEO6ISTR Institution NPSAS institution offers secondary courses 95-96

DERIVED PGMSEC Institution Graduate program and institution type 95-96

DERIVED SCHLSEQ Institution Sequence of enrollment (multiple enrollments) 95-96

DERIVED SECTOR Institution Institution type (level & control) 95-96

DERIVED SECTOR9 Institution Institution type and highest degree 95-96

DERIVED TERMSNA Institution Indicator for no standard terms at the school 95-96

CADE COSTLIVE Institution Choice Other living costs were less 95-96

DERIVED COSTREL Institution Choice Num. cost related rsns for attending school 95-96

DERIVED FACILITY Institution Choice Facilities/equipment 95-96

DERIVED FRIENDAT Institution Choice Friends/spouse attended the school 95-96

DERIVED INFLREL Institution Choice Number influence rel. rsns for attndng schl 95-96

DERIVED INFLUNCE Institution Choice Other influence factors 95-96

DERIVED LIVEHOME Institution Choice Could live at home 95-96

DERIVED LOCATION Institution Choice Other location reason 95-96

DERIVED LOCREL Institution Choice Number location rel. rsns for attending schl 95-96

DERIVED MOREAID Institution Choice Got more financial aid 95-96

DERIVED OTHCOST Institution Choice Other cost related reason 95-96

DERIVED OTHRSN Institution Choice Other reputation reason 95-96

DERIVED PARENT Institution Choice Parent(s) wanted student to attend 95-96

DERIVED PARNATT Institution Choice Parent(s) attended the school 95-96

DERIVED PLACEMNT Institution Choice Job placement 95-96

DERIVED PROFESOR Institution Choice Faculty reputation 95-96

DERIVED RATED Institution Choice Number of rating criteria considered 95-96

DERIVED REPREL Institution Choice Number reputation rel. rsns for attndng schl 95-96

DERIVED REPUTATN Institution Choice School has good reputation 95-96

CATI SBCRIMRT Institution Choice Considered crime rate

CATI SBGRADRT Institution Choice Considered graduation rate

CATI SBPLACRT Institution Choice Considered job placement rate

CATI SBRSNMST Institution choice Most important reason to attend

DERIVED SCHCLOSE Institution Choice Close to home 95-96
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

DERIVED SCHLNWRK Institution Choice Close to job 95-96

DERIVED SHORTER Institution Choice Shorter time to finish 95-96

CATI SIMILES Institution Choice Distance from school to permanent home 95-96

CATI SINUMACC Institution Choice Number of schools where accepted 95-96

CATI SINUMAPP Institution Choice Number of schools applied to 95-96

DERIVED SURROUND Institution Choice Liked the campus 95-96

DERIVED TEACHER Institution Choice Teacher/guidance counselor recommended 95-96

DERIVED TUITLESS Institution Choice Tuition was low 95-96

IPEDS ADMREQ1 InstitutionAdmission NPSAS inst require HS diploma/equiv.(IPEDS)

IPEDS ADMREQ10 InstitutionAdmission NPSAS inst require TOEFL or equivalent (IPEDS)

IPEDS ADMREQ11 InstitutionAdmission NPSAS inst has open admissions

IPEDS ADMREQ12 InstitutionAdmission NPSAS inst other admissions requirement

IPEDS ADMREQ2 InstitutionAdmission NPSAS inst require HS class standing (IPEDS)

IPEDS ADMREQ3 InstitutionAdmission NPSAS inst require test scores (IPEDS)

IPEDS ADMREQ4 InstitutionAdmission NPSAS inst require SAT (IPEDS)

IPEDS ADMREQ5 InstitutionAdmission NPSAS inst require ACT (IPEDS)

IPEDS ADMREQ6 InstitutionAdmission NPSAS inst require other test (IPEDS)

IPEDS ADMREQ7 InstitutionAdmission NPSAS inst require residence (IPEDS)

IPEDS ADMREQ8 InstitutionAdmission NPSAS inst require ability to benefit (IPEDS)

IPEDS ADMREQ9 InstitutionAdmission NPSAS inst require age (IPEDS)

DERIVED INSTREQ InstitutionAdmission NPSAS inst. require either the ACT or SAT? 95-96

DERIVED PACPDATE Interview Parent Interview completion date (YYYYMMDD)

DERIVED BPSELNEW Interview FTB Indicator

DERIVED FTBTYPE Interview First-time beginner

DERIVED PACPTIME Interview Parent Interview completion time

DERIVED STCPDATE Interview Student Interview completion date

DERIVED STCPTIME Interview Student Interview completion time

DERIVED SUMDATE Interview Summary status - Date (yyyymmdd)

DERIVED SUMSTAT Interview Summary status

DERIVED SUMTIME Interview Summary status - Time

DERIVED EFCAID1 Need Amount of total aid subject to EFC limitations 95-96

DERIVED EFCAID2 Need Amount of federal aid subject to EFC limitations 95-96

DERIVED EFCPCT1 Need Ratio, EFC to total student budget (full-time, full-year)

95-96

DERIVED EFCPCT2 Need Ratio, EFC to total student budget (adjusted) 95-96

DERIVED FTNEED1 Need Student budget (full-time, full-year) minus EFC 95-96

DERIVED FTNEED2 Need Student budget (full-time, full-year) minus EFC minus aid

95-96

DERIVED SNEED1 Need Student budget (adjusted) minus EFC 95-96

DERIVED SNEED2 Need Student budget (adjusted) minus EFC minus aid 95-96

DERIVED SNEED3 Need Student budget (adjusted) minus EFC minus federal grants 95-96

DERIVED NETCST1 Net cost Student budget (adjusted) minus all aid 95-96

DERIVED NETCST10 Net cost Tuition and fees minus federal grants 95-96

DERIVED NETCST11 Net cost Student budget (adj.) minues EFC minus fed. grants

DERIVED NETCST2 Net cost Student budget (adjusted) minus federal grants 95-96

DERIVED NETCST3 Net cost Student budget (adjusted) minus grants 95-96

DERIVED NETCST4 Net cost Student budget (adjusted) minus grants and 0.5*loans 95-96

DERIVED NETCST5 Net cost Student budget (full-time) minus all aid 95-96

DERIVED NETCST6 Net cost Student budget (full-time) minus federal grants 95-96

DERIVED NETCST7 Net cost Student budget (full-time) minus grants 95-96
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

DERIVED NETCST8 Net cost Student budget (full-time) minus grants and 0.5*loans 95-96

DERIVED NETCST9 Net cost Tuition and fees minus all grants 95-96

DERIVED CNSLD89 NSLDS Consolidated loans-1989-90 and earlier

DERIVED CNSLD90 NSLDS Consolidated loans-1990-91

DERIVED CNSLD91 NSLDS Consolidated loans-1991-92

DERIVED CNSLD92 NSLDS Consolidated loans-1992-93

DERIVED CNSLD93 NSLDS Consolidated loans-1993-94

DERIVED CNSLD94 NSLDS Consolidated loans-1994-95

DERIVED CNSLD95 NSLDS Consolidated loans-1995-96

DERIVED CNSLDCUM NSLDS Consolidated loans - cumulative through 1996

DERIVED CUMGRAD1 NSLDS Cumulative borrowed graduate (Stafford & Perkins) through 1996

DERIVED CUMGRAD2 NSLDS Cumulative borrowed graduate (Staff.,Perk.,Plus) through 1996

DERIVED CUMOWE1 NSLDS Amount owed (Stafford & Perkins) in 1996

DERIVED CUMOWE2 NSLDS Amount owed (Stafford,Perkin, & Plus) in 1996

DERIVED CUMUG1 NSLDS Cumulative borrowed undergrad. (Staff.,Perk.,SLS) through 1996

DERIVED CUMUG2 NSLDS Cumulative borrowed undrgrd. (Staff.,Perk.,Plus,SLS) thru 1996

DERIVED NSLDS096 NSLDS NSLDS federal student loan records available 1995-96

DERIVED PERK89 NSLDS Perkins loans-AY89-90 and prior

DERIVED PERK90 NSLDS Perkins loans-AY90-91

DERIVED PERK91 NSLDS Perkins loans-AY91-92

DERIVED PERK92 NSLDS Perkins loans-AY92-93

DERIVED PERK93 NSLDS Perkins loans-AY93-94

DERIVED PERK94 NSLDS Perkins loans-AY94-95

DERIVED PERK95 NSLDS Perkins loans-AY95-96

DERIVED PERKCUM NSLDS Perkins loans - cumulative through 1996

DERIVED PLUS89 NSLDS PLUS loans-1989-90 and earlier

DERIVED PLUS90 NSLDS PLUS loans-1990-91

DERIVED PLUS91 NSLDS PLUS loans-1991-92

DERIVED PLUS92 NSLDS PLUS loans-1992-93

DERIVED PLUS93 NSLDS PLUS loans-1993-94

DERIVED PLUS94 NSLDS PLUS loans-1994-95

DERIVED PLUS95 NSLDS PLUS loans-1995-96

DERIVED PLUSCUM NSLDS PLUS loans - cumulative through 1996

DERIVED STF01 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans-undergraduate year 1

DERIVED STF02 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans-undergraduate year 2

DERIVED STF03 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans-undergraduate year 3

DERIVED STF04 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans-undergraduate year 4

DERIVED STF05 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans-undergraduate year 5

DERIVED STF06 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans-graduate year 1

DERIVED STF07 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans-graduate year 2

DERIVED STF08 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans-graduate year 3

DERIVED STF09 NSLDS Stafford SLS loans-graduate year 4 plus

DERIVED STF10 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans-graduate year unknown

DERIVED STF11 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans-year unknown (special)

DERIVED STFCUM NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans total - cumulative through 1996

DERIVED STFIRSTL NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans- first class level borrowed

DERIVED STFIRSTY NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans- first year borrowed

DERIVED STFLVL89 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loan class level-AY89-90

DERIVED STFLVL90 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loan class level-AY90-91

DERIVED STFLVL91 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loan class level-AY91-92
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

DERIVED STFLVL92 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loan class level-AY92-93

DERIVED STFLVL93 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loan class level-AY93-94

DERIVED STFLVL94 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loan class level-AY94-95

DERIVED STFLVL95 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loan class level-AY95-96

DERIVED STFSBCUM NSLDS Stafford loans subsidized- cumulative through 1996

DERIVED STFY89 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans-AY89-90 and prior

DERIVED STFY90 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans-AY90-91

DERIVED STFY91 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans-AY91-92

DERIVED STFY92 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans-AY92-93

DERIVED STFY93 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans-AY93-94

DERIVED STFY94 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans-AY94-95

DERIVED STFY95 NSLDS Stafford and SLS loans-AY95-96

DERIVED STFYEARS NSLDS Number of years borrowed Stafford and SLS loans

DERIVED STLASTL NSLDS Stafford loan- last class level borrowed

DERIVED STLASTY NSLDS Stafford loan- last year borrowed

DERIVED STSUB89 NSLDS Stafford subsidized amount in 1989

DERIVED STSUB90 NSLDS Stafford subsidized amount in 1990

DERIVED STSUB91 NSLDS Stafford subsidized amount in 1991

DERIVED STSUB92 NSLDS Stafford subsidized amount in 1992

DERIVED STSUB93 NSLDS Stafford subsidized amount in 1993

DERIVED STSUB94 NSLDS Stafford subsidized amount in 1994

DERIVED STSUB95 NSLDS Stafford subsidized amount in 1995

DERIVED T4SUB89 NSLDS Title IV Subsidized loans (incl. Perkins)-1989-90 and earlier

DERIVED T4SUB90 NSLDS Title IV Subsidized loans (incl. Perkins)-1990-91

DERIVED T4SUB91 NSLDS Title IV Subsidized loans (incl. Perkins)-1991-92

DERIVED T4SUB92 NSLDS Title IV Subsidized loans (incl. Perkins)-1992-93

DERIVED T4SUB93 NSLDS Title IV Subsidized loans (incl. Perkins)-1993-94

DERIVED T4SUB94 NSLDS Title IV Subsidized loans (incl. Perkins)-1994-95

DERIVED T4SUB95 NSLDS Title IV Subsidized loans (incl. Perkins)-1995-96

DERIVED T4SUBCUM NSLDS Title IV Subsidized loans (incl. Perk.)-cumulative thru 1996

DERIVED T4TOT89 NSLDS Title IV loans including PLUS-1989-90 and earlier

DERIVED T4TOT90 NSLDS Title IV loans including PLUS-1990-91

DERIVED T4TOT91 NSLDS Title IV loans including PLUS-1991-92

DERIVED T4TOT92 NSLDS Title IV loans including PLUS-1992-93

DERIVED T4TOT93 NSLDS Title IV loans including PLUS-1993-94

DERIVED T4TOT94 NSLDS Title IV loans including PLUS-1994-95

DERIVED T4TOT95 NSLDS Title IV loans including PLUS-1995-96

DERIVED T4TOTCUM NSLDS Title IV loans including PLUS - cumulative through 1996

DERIVED T4TOX89 NSLDS Title IV loans excluding PLUS-1989-90 and earlier

DERIVED T4TOX90 NSLDS Title IV loans excluding PLUS-1990-91

DERIVED T4TOX91 NSLDS Title IV loans excluding PLUS-1991-92

DERIVED T4TOX92 NSLDS Title IV loans excluding PLUS-1992-93

DERIVED T4TOX93 NSLDS Title IV loans excluding PLUS-1993-94

DERIVED T4TOX94 NSLDS Title IV loans excluding PLUS-1994-95

DERIVED T4TOX95 NSLDS Title IV loans excluding PLUS-1995-96

DERIVED T4TOXCUM NSLDS Title IV loans excluding PLUS - cumulative through 1996

DERIVED T4UNS89 NSLDS Title IV Unsubsidized loans -1989-90 and earlier

DERIVED T4UNS90 NSLDS Title IV Unsubsidized loans -1990-91

DERIVED T4UNS91 NSLDS Title IV Unsubsidized loans -1991-92

DERIVED T4UNS92 NSLDS Title IV Unsubsidized loans -1992-93
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

DERIVED T4UNS93 NSLDS Title IV Unsubsidized loans -1993-94

DERIVED T4UNS94 NSLDS Title IV Unsubsidized loans -1994-95

DERIVED T4UNS95 NSLDS Title IV Unsubsidized loans -1995-96

DERIVED T4UNSCUM NSLDS Title IV Unsubsidized loans - cumulative through 1996

DERIVED ALLOWNCE Parental support Monthly allowance from parents 95-96

DERIVED PARHELP Parental support Parents helped with loan or direct contribution 95-9

DERIVED PARPDIR Parental support Parents helped with direct contribution 95-96

CATI PLGVAMT Parental support Amount given to student (parent) 95-96

CATI PLLNAMT Parental support Amount loaned to student (parent) 95-96

CATI PLPDSCH Parental support Amount paid to school (parent) 95-96

CATI SBPDBRD Parental support Paid room and board to parents 95-96

CATI SCOTSUP Parental support Provided other types of support 95-96

CATI SCPARALW Parental support Parents paid - Allowance 95-96

CATI SCPARBK Parental support Parents paid - books/equipment 95-96

CATI SCPARLON Parental support Parent(s) loaned for 95-96

CATI SCPARRM Parental support Parents paid - room/board 95-96

CATI SCPARTUI Parental support Parents paid - tuition/fees 95-96

CATI SCSUPCAR Parental support Car loan payments 95-96

CATI SCSUPCHG Parental support Charge cards 95-96

CATI SCSUPCLS Parental support Clothing 95-96

CATI SCSUPHS Parental support Housing 95-96

CATI SCSUPINS Parental support Any type of insurance 95-96

CATI SCSUPMLS Parental support Meals 95-96

CATI SCSUPOTH Parental support Other types of assistance 95-96

CATI SCSUPREP Parental support Car repair bills 95-96

DERIVED TOTALLOW Parental support Total amount of allowance from parents 1995-96

CATI PLPREPAY Parental support Parents used a prepayment plan 95-96

CATI PLEEBOND ParentFundSource EE Bonds 95-96

CATI PLLIFINS ParentFundSource Life insurance policies 95-96

CATI PLLOANS ParentFundSource Loans 95-96

CATI PLMRTG ParentFundSource Second mortgage 95-96

CATI PLOTHBND ParentFundSource Other stocks, bonds, mutual funds 95-96

CATI PLOTHSRC ParentFundSource Other sources of funds 95-96

CATI PLRELMNY ParentFundSource Money from relatives, friends, spouse 95-96

CATI PLRETIRE ParentFundSource Retirement funds 95-96

CATI PLSAVNGS ParentFundSource Savings, money market, CD 95-96

CATI PLTRUST ParentFundSource Trust fund 95-96

DERIVED DADAGE Parents Father^s age 95-96

DERIVED DADOC Parents Father^s occupation 95-96

DERIVED MOMAGE Parents Mother^s age 95-96

DERIVED MOMOC Parents Mother^s occupation 95-96

DERIVED PARAGE Parents Age of older parent 95-96

DERIVED PARSTATE Parents Parents^ state of legal residence 95-96

DERIVED PMARITAL Parents Parents marital status 95-96

DERIVED RPAR Parents Referent parent 95-96

DERIVED ZPMARIT Parents Source for parents marital status

DERIVED B2TO3 ParentsEducation Both parents have 2-3 years of PSE 95-96

DERIVED BASSOC ParentsEducation Both parents have an Associate^s 95-96

DERIVED BBA ParentsEducation Both parents have a Bachelor^s 95-96

DERIVED BBAPLUS ParentsEducation Both parents have a Bachelor^s or higher 95-96
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

DERIVED BHSG ParentsEducation Both parents have a high school diploma 95-96

DERIVED BLTHS ParentsEducation Both parents have a less than HS education 95-96

DERIVED BMAPLUS ParentsEducation Both parents have a Master^s degree or higher 95-96

DERIVED BSMPSE ParentsEducation Both parents have some PSE, lt 2 years 95-96

DERIVED DADED ParentsEducation Father^s highest level of education 95-96

DERIVED E2TO3 ParentsEducation Either parents has 2-3 years of PSE 95-96

DERIVED EASSOC ParentsEducation Either parent has an Associate^s 95-96

DERIVED EBA ParentsEducation Either parent has a Bachelor^s 95-96

DERIVED EBA1 ParentsEducation Parent^s Bachelor^s degree status 95-96

DERIVED EBAPLUS ParentsEducation Either parent has a Bachelor^s or higher 95-96

DERIVED EHSG ParentsEducation Either parent has a high school diploma 95-96

DERIVED ELTHS ParentsEducation Either parent has a less than HS education 95-96

DERIVED EMAPLUS ParentsEducation Either parent has a Master^s degree or higher 95-96

DERIVED ESMPSE ParentsEducation Either parent has some PSE, lt 2 years 95-96

DERIVED FATHEDUC ParentsEducation Highest level of education completed by father 95-96

DERIVED MOMED ParentsEducation Mother^s highest level of education 95-96

DERIVED MOMGTDAD ParentsEducation Mother has more education than father 95-96

DERIVED MOTHEDUC ParentsEducation Highest level of education completed by mother 95-96

DERIVED PARED ParentsEducation Parents^ highest education level (3 values) 95-96

DERIVED PAREDUC ParentsEducation Highest education level compl. by either parent 95-9

DERIVED ZPARED ParentsEducation Source for parents education

DERIVED AIDCST1 Ratio Ratio of total aid to student budget (adjusted) 95-96

DERIVED AIDCST2 Ratio Ratio of total aid to student budget (full-time) 95-96

DERIVED FEDPCT Ratio Ratio of federal aid to total aid 95-96

DERIVED GRTLOAN Ratio Ratio of grants to total loans 95-96

DERIVED GRTPCT Ratio Ratio of grants to total aid 95-96

DERIVED GRTRATIO Ratio Ratio of grants to grants and loans 95-96

DERIVED INSTPCT Ratio Ratio of institution aid to total aid 95-96

DERIVED LOANPCT Ratio Ratio of loans to total aid 95-96

DERIVED STAPCT Ratio Ratio of state aid to total aid 95-96

DERIVED WORKPCT Ratio Ratio of work-study to total aid 95-96

DERIVED SFAMPAY Reason no apply-student Family/student could pay 95-96

DERIVED SHARDAPP Reason no apply-student Too difficult to apply 95-96

DERIVED SHINCOME Reason no apply-student Family income too high 95-96

DERIVED SLOWGRAD Reason no apply-student Grades/scores too low 95-96

DERIVED SMISDLIN Reason no apply-student Missed application deadline 95-96

DERIVED SNOAIDMO Reason no apply-student No money was available 95-96

DERIVED SNODEBT Reason no apply-student Didn^t want debt 95-96

DERIVED SNODISCL Reason no apply-student Not want to disclose finances 95-96

DERIVED SNOELIGB Reason no apply-student Ineligible since part-time 95-96

DERIVED SOTHERR Reason no apply-student Other reason 95-96

DERIVED REFUSAID Reject reason Student did not accept some of aid awarded in 1995-96

DERIVED RFUSASST Reject reason Student did not accept grad. assistantship in 1995-96

DERIVED RFUSGRNT Reject reason Student refused grant aid for 1995-96

DERIVED RFUSLOAN Reject reason Student refused loan aid for 1995-96

DERIVED RFUSOTHR Reject reason Student refused other aid for 1995-96

DERIVED RFUSWKST Reject reason Student refused work study aid for 1995-96

DERIVED ANYREM Remedial Any remedial courses taken? 95-96

DERIVED REMED2 Remedial Any remedial math, reading, writing or lang. courses? 95-96

CATI SILANG Remedial Remedial course - Eng language 95-96
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

CATI SIMATH Remedial Remedial course - math 95-96

CATI SIREAD Remedial Remedial course - reading 95-96

CATI SISTUD Remedial Remedial course - study skills 95-96

CATI SIWRIT Remedial Remedial course - writing 95-96

DERIVED CATIRESP Sample CATI respondent status

DERIVED CHKDGT1 Sample Check digit 1

DERIVED CHKDGT2 Sample Check digit 2

DERIVED CHKDGT3 Sample Check digit 3

DERIVED COMPTO87 Sample Comparable to 1987 NPSAS

DERIVED ACTVDUTY Student Military-active duty

DERIVED AGE Student Age as of 12/31/95

DERIVED BDATE Student Birth date (YYYYMMDD)

DERIVED CENRACE Student Race/ethnicity of student-census categories 95-96

DERIVED CITIZEN2 Student Citizenship 95-96

DERIVED DELAYED Student Delayed enrollement status (excl GED & cert of compl.)

DERIVED DELAYENR Student Delayed enrollment into PSE 95-96

DERIVED DEPATT Student Dependency and attendance status first term 95-96

DERIVED DEPEND Student Dependency status 95-96

DERIVED DEPEND2 Student Dependency status for financial aid 95-96

DERIVED DEPEND3 Student Dependency status for pell and federal loans 95-96

DERIVED DEPEND4 Student Dependency status for financial aid-incl marital status 95-96

DERIVED GENDER Student Gender

DERIVED HISPANIC Student Hispanic ethnicity

DERIVED HISPTYPE Student Type of Hispanic origin

DERIVED LOANDEP Student Dependency status for last loan (NSLDS) 95-96

DERIVED LOCALRES Student Student housing status for need analysis 95-96

DERIVED ORPHAN Student Orphan or ward of court 95-96

DERIVED RACE Student Race/ethnicity of student

DERIVED RACEDINC Student Race/ethnicity and dependency and income 95-96

DERIVED RACESEX Student Race/ethnicity and gender

DERIVED RISKINDX Student Sum of seven risk factor indices 95-96

DERIVED RISKNDX2 Student Sum of 7 risk factors, comparable to NPSAS:87/90

CATI SBNPSED Student Highest level of ed exp @ sample school 95-96

CATI SCCNTRY Student Country of origin

CATI SEBRNCH Student Military service branch

CATI SEMILTYP Student Military service type

CATI SGASIAN Student Type of asian origin

CATI SGLANG Student Primary language in home

CATI SGTRIBE Student Enrolled in a recognized tribe

DERIVED SINGLPAR Student Single parent 95-96

DERIVED SMARITAL Student Marital status when applied for financial aid 95-96

DERIVED STUOCC1 Student Occupation 95-96

DERIVED STUREGN Student Region of legal residence 95-96

DERIVED STUSTATE Student Student^s state of legal residence 95-96

DERIVED TYPAGE Student Age, typical for student classification 95-96

DERIVED TYPAGE2 Student Age, typical/older classification 95-96

DERIVED VETERAN Student Veteran status 95-96

DERIVED ZAGE Student Source for student age

DERIVED ZCITZN Student Source for student citizenship

DERIVED ZDEPEND Student Source for student dependency
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

DERIVED ZGENDER Student Source for student gender

DERIVED ZHISP Student Source for student Hispanic status

DERIVED ZHSGYY Student Source for year of H.S. graduation

DERIVED ZLOCRES Student Source for local residence

DERIVED ZRACE Student Source for student race/ethnicity

DERIVED ZSMARIT Student Source for student marital status

DERIVED COSMLIC Student, degree Holds a cosmetology license 95-96

DERIVED DEGFIRST Student, degree Degree program during first term 95-96

DERIVED DEGLAST Student, degree Degree program during last term 95-96

DERIVED DOCTOR Student, degree Doctoral program 1995-96

DERIVED GOTDEGRE Student, degree Degree completed in 1995-96

DERIVED LICENSE Student, degree Number of licenses/certs. the student holds 95-96

DERIVED MASTERS Student, degree Masters program 95-96

DERIVED NOHHALIC Student, degree Holds a nurses aid/home health aid license 95-96

DERIVED NURSELIC Student, degree Holds a nursing/lpn license 95-96

DERIVED OTHRAA Student, degree Holds an associates degree 95-96

DERIVED OTHRBA Student, degree Holds a bachelors degree 95-96

DERIVED OTHRCERT Student, degree Holds a certificate or other formal award 95-96

DERIVED OTHRDEGS Student, degree Number of other degrees, licenses or certs. 95-96

DERIVED OTHRDFP Student, degree Holds a doctoral of first professional dgeree 95-9

DERIVED OTHRLIC Student, degree Holds other type of license 95-96

DERIVED OTHRMA Student, degree Holds a masters degree 95-96

DERIVED OTHRPBA Student, degree Holds a post-baccalaureate certificate 95-96

DERIVED TEACHLIC Student, degree Holds a teaching license 95-96

DERIVED ZDEGFRST Student, degree Source for degree program first term

DERIVED ZDEGLAST Student, degree Source for degree program last term

DERIVED APPRENT Student, education Student participated in an apprenticship 95-96

DERIVED BATYPE Student, education Level and control of school of first BA

DERIVED COOP Student, education Student participated in a cooperative ed pgm 95-96

DERIVED CRTRANSF Student, education Any transfer credits from other school?

DERIVED EVERCC Student, education Ever attended a public 2-year institution

DERIVED EXPDATE Student, education Date expected to complete program (yyyymm) 95-96

DERIVED FACPRLIC Student, education Holds a first aid/CPR license 95-96

DERIVED FOODLIC Student, education Holds a food service license 95-96

DERIVED FRSTYPE Student, education Level and control of first postsecondary inst.

DERIVED FUTRPLAN Student, education What does student plan to be doing next year? 95-96

DERIVED GEDYEAR Student, education Year GED earned (yyyy)

DERIVED GPA Student, education Grade point average 95-96

DERIVED GRADGAP Student, education Number of years between BA and graduate study

DERIVED GRADPYR Student, education Year began graduate education

DERIVED GRADYRS Student, education Number of years of graduate study

DERIVED HSDEG Student, education High school degree or equivalent

DERIVED HSGRADYY Student, education High school graduation year

DERIVED INTERN Student, education Student participated in an intership 95-96

DERIVED MAJORS Student, education Field of study 95-96 (99 categories)

DERIVED MAJORS3 Student, education Undergraduate field of study 95-96 (12 cat.)

DERIVED MAJORS4 Student, education Graduate field of study 95-96 (12 cat.)

DERIVED PROGDATE Student, education Date completed program (yyyymm)

DERIVED PROGSTAT Student, education Student completed degree program 95-96

CATI SABA_YR Student, education Year of first bachelor^s degree
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

CATI SABSIPDS Student, education School of bachelor^s degree - IPEDS

CATI SAHSTYPE Student, education Type of high school attended

DERIVED SAMEREGN Student, education Attend inst. in region of legal residence 95-96?

DERIVED SAMESTAT Student, education Attend inst. in state of legal residence 95-96?

CATI SBENRPUR Student, education Primary reason for enrolling

CATI SBHIGHED Student, education Highest level of education planned 95-96

CATI SBOTHRES Student, education Living arrangement when not in school

CATI SEPROGRM Student, education Participated in coop ed/intersh/apprent

DERIVED STYPEFST Student, education Student type during first term enrolled 95-96

DERIVED STYPELST Student, education Student type during last term enrolled 95-96

DERIVED ZHSDEG Student, Education Source for high school degree

DERIVED ZMAJOR Student, Education Source for student major

DERIVED FRSTPROF Student, education First professional degree program 1995-96

DERIVED GRADDEG Student, education Graduate dgeree program 1995-96

DERIVED CHNGUG Student, level Undergraduate became graduate in 1995-96

DERIVED COLLGRAD Student, level Graduating senior in 1995-96

DERIVED GRADLEV1 Student, level Graduate level first term 95-96

DERIVED GRADLEV2 Student, level Graduate level last term 95-96

DERIVED LEVFIRST Student, level Student level during first term 95-96

DERIVED LEVLAST Student, level Student level during last term 95-96

DERIVED LOANLVL Student, level Student level reported for last loan (NSLDS) 95-96

DERIVED LVLCHNG Student, level Student level changed btw 1st and last term, 95-96

DERIVED UGLEVEL1 Student, level Undergraduate level first term 95-96

DERIVED UGLEVEL2 Student, level Undergraduate level last term 95-96

DERIVED ZLEVFRST Student, level Source for student level first term

DERIVED ZLEVLAST Student, level Source for student level last term

DERIVED ACT Test ACT composite score

DERIVED DAT Test Dental admissions exam (DAT)

DERIVED GMAT Test General Management Acheivment Test (GMAT)

DERIVED GRE Test Graduate Record Exam (GRE)

DERIVED GREA Test GRE analytic score

DERIVED GREM Test GRE math score

DERIVED GREV Test GRE verbal score

DERIVED LSAT Test Law School Admissions Test (LSAT)

DERIVED MCAT Test Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT)

DERIVED MILLER Test Miller^s analogies test

DERIVED SATM Test SAT score-math score

DERIVED SATR Test SAT score-reasoning score

DERIVED SATTOTAL Test SAT score -combined verbal and math

DERIVED SATV Test SAT score-verbal score

DERIVED TOEFL Test Test of English Language Proficency (TOEFL)

DERIVED POLACT Vote Participation in political activities 95-96

CATI SGPOLLTR Vote Wrote letter to public official 95-96

CATI SGPOLMTG Vote Went to political meetings, rallies, dinners 95-96

CATI SGVOTE Vote Registered to vote in US elections

CATI SGVOTE92 Vote Voted in 92 presidential election

CATI SGVOTE96 Vote Will (or did) vote in 96 pres. election

CATI SGVOTEVR Vote Ever voted-natl, state, local elections

DERIVED CATIWT1 Weight CATI weight for UG in first or last term

DERIVED CATIWT2 Weight CATI weight for GR/FP in first or last term
Variable Type Variable Name DAS/ECB Prefix Variable Label

DERIVED DASWT1 Weight Weight for UG in first or last term

DERIVED DASWT2 Weight Weight for GR/FP in first or last term
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX I I-1

Appendix I

Imputations
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX I I-2
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX I I-3

A. Hot Deck Imputations

As described in Section 5.4, data for 21 analysis variables were statistically imputed using the

weighted hot deck procedure. This appendix shows the imputation classes and sorting variables for all of

these variables. As presented in Table 5.3, the variables are ordered by the percentage of missing data.

(1) Variable Name: STUINC94

Description: Student Income

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents (48,389)

Number Missing: 12,928 (26.7%)

Imputation Classes: 57 CHAID segments defined by cross-classifications of

Dependency status

Amount of need-based aid received (categorical recode)

Marital status

Age (categorical recode)

Race/ethnicity

Tuition

OBE region

Institution level

Parent income (categorical recode of imputed variable)

Attendance status

Sorting Variable(s):

Institution level

Race/ethnicity

Amount of need-based aid received

(2) Variable Name: PARINC94

Description: Parent Income

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents, Dependents(24,218)

Number Missing: 5,889 (24.2%)

Imputation Classes, 1 Stage: Parent income category from student reports (if reported) st

Imputation Classes, 2 Stage: 49 CHAID segments defined by cross-classifications of nd

Amount of need-based aid received (categorical recode)

Tuition

Race/ethnicity

OBE region

Institution level

Institution control

Sorting Variable(s):

Amount of need-based aid received

NOTE: The imputation for parent income was performed in two stages. The first stage used parent income

categories as the imputation classes among students who reported their parents’ income category. 

The second stage imputed the remaining missing values where other variables were used to define

the imputation classes. In both stages, the amount of need-based aid received was used as the

sorting variable. 
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX I I-4

(3) Variable Name: NDEPEND

Description: Number of Dependents

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents, Independents (24,171)

Number Missing: 4,749 (19.6%)

Imputation Classes: 17 CHAID segments defined by cross-classifications of

Student marital status

Age group

Gender

Student type

Indicator of CPS data

Institution level

Sorting Variable(s):

Gender 

Age

(4) Variable Name: PFAMNUM

Description: Parent Family Size

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents, Dependents (24,218)

Number Missing: 4,375 (18.0%)

Imputation Classes: Institution highest level of offering 

Sorting Variable(s): Age

(5) Variable Name: ANYDEP

Description: Dependents indicator

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents, Independents (24,171)

Number Missing: 4,306 (17.8%)

Imputation Classes: 13 CHAID segments defined by cross-classifications of

Age group

Student income

Gender

Student type

Indicator of CPS data

Indicator of CATI data

Institution level

Sorting Variable(s):

Gender 

Age

(6) Variable Name: PMARITAL

Description: Parent Marital Status

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents, Dependents (24,218)

Number Missing: 3,775 (15.5%)

Imputation Classes: Institution highest level of offering 

Sorting Variable(s): Age
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX I I-5

(7) Variable Name: HSDEG

Description: Indicator and Type of High School Degree

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents (48,389)

Number Missing: 2,561 (5.3%)

Imputation Classes: Degree program in first term (imputed)

Sorting Variable(s): Age

(8) Variable Name: HSGRADYY

Description: High School Graduation Year

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents, High School Degree or Certificate (47,508)

Number Missing: 2,511 (5.3%)

Imputation Classes: A cross-classification of

Type of high school degree

Age (categorical recode)

Sorting Variable(s):

Age

(9) Variable Name: Smarital

Description: Student Marital Status

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents (48,389)

Number Missing: 2,211 (4.6%)

Imputation Classes: 11 CHAID segments defined by cross-classifications of

Dependency status

Student income

Student type

Indicator of CPS data

Age group

Sorting Variable(s):

Age

(10) Variable Name: CITIZEN2

Description: Citizenship of Student

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents (48,389)

Number Missing: 2,084 (4.3%)

Imputation Classes: Federal aid status

Sorting Variable(s):

Institution control

Institution level

Student legal residence region
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX I I-6

(11) Variable Name: LEVLAST

Description: Student Level in Last Term

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents (48,389)

Number Missing: 2,073 (4.3%)

Imputation Classes: Degree program in last term

Sorting Variable(s):

Institution highest level of offering

Age

(12) Variable Name: LEVFIRST

Description: Student Level in First Term

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents (48,389)

Number Missing: 2,063 (4.3%)

Imputation Procedure:

Copied imputed values of LEVLAST into missing values of LEVFIRST.

(13) Variable Name: RACE

Description: Race/ethnicity 

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents(48,389)

Number Missing: 1,794 (3.5%)

Imputation Classes: 69 CHAID segments defined by cross-classifications of

OBE region

Percent blacks at institution 

Percent Hispanics at institution 

Percent Asian/Pacific Islander at institution

Percent American Indian/American Native at institution

Institution level 

Institution control

Sorting Variable(s):

Percent white at institution

(14) Variable Name: LOCALRES

Description: Local Residence

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents (48,389)

Number Missing: 1,259 (2.6%)

Imputation Classes: A cross-classification of

Indicator of dorms on campus

Dependency status

Marital status

Sorting Variable(s):

Age
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX I I-7

(15) Variable Name: AGE

Description: Student Age

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents (48,389)

Number Missing: 456 (0.9%)

Imputation Classes: A cross-classification of

Dependency status

Student level in last term

Sorting Variable(s):

Marital status

Attendance status

(16) Variable Name: ATTEND

Description: Attendance Intensity in Fall Term

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents, Enrolled in Fall Term (40,058)

Number Missing: 314 (0.6%)

Imputation Classes: A cross-classification of

Federal aid status

Marital status

Sorting Variable(s):

Age

Note: The fall enrollment variable was imputed first to classify students as enrolled in the fall

term or not.

(17) Variable Name: DEPEND2

Description: Dependency Status

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents (48,389)

Number Missing: 283 (0.6%)

Imputation Procedure:

Imputed missing values by applying the dependency status definition for Federal aid 

applicants to the imputed variables for age, marital status, student level, and family size.

(18) Variable Name: FALL

Description: Fall Enrollment Indicator

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents (48,389)

Number Missing: 164 (0.3%)

Imputation Classes: Marital status

Sorting Variable(s): Age

(19) Variable Name: GENDER

Description: Student Gender

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents (48,389)

Number Missing: 96 (0.2%)

Imputation Classes: Race

Sorting Variable(s): Student major
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX I I-8

(20) Variable Name: DEGLAST

Description: Degree Program in Last Term

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents (48,389)

Number Missing: 92 (0.2%)

Imputation Classes: Student level in last term

Sorting Variable(s):

Institution highest level of offering

Age

(21) Variable Name: DEGFIRST

Description: Degree Program in First Term

Data Used in Imputation: Study Respondents (48,389)

Number Missing: 74 (0.2%)

Imputation Procedure:

Copied imputed values of DEGLAST into missing values of DEGFIRST.
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX I I-9

B. EFC Imputations

For expected family contribution (EFC), a regression approach was used for imputation. 

The goal was to obtain the most parsimonious and best fitting equations using information likely

to be available for non-aided students (those most likely to have a missing EFC). The general

appoach was to develop logistic regression models to estimate zero EFC cases, and then use

ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models to estimate the predicted EFC for non-zero EFC

cases. This approach was designed to accommodate the truncated EFC distribution (i.e., the large

number of zero EFC cases in the population) and followed a conventional econometric approach

for such cases. 

The EFC imputations were performed separately for three categories of students:

Dependent Students, Independent Students without Dependents, and Independent Students with

Dependents. The extent of the imputation is shown in Table I.1 for the total group and for three

categories of student dependency.

Table I.1—Sources of EFC by student dependency status

Source Total Dependents dependents with dependents

Independent no Independent 

Number Percent Number Percent Number t Number t

Percen Percen

Total 48,389 100.0 24,218 100.0 13,593 100.0 10,578 100.0

Institution SAR 1,250 2.6 660 2.7 349 2.6 241 2.3

CPS 95-6 ISIR 28,479 58.9 15,148 62.5 7,208 53.0 6,123 57.9

CPS 96-7 ISIR 1,048 2.2 545 2.3 327 2.4 176 1.7

Pell grant file 596 1.2 245 1.0 114 0.8 237 2.2

Imputed 17,016 35.2 7,620 31.4 5,595 41.2 3,801 35.9

The first step in imputing EFC for independent students used the parameter estimates from

logistic regressions to predict whether or not the student fell into the zero EFC group. If the

estimate probability was below 0.5, the cases was estimated to have a non-zero EFC; if above 0.5,

the case was estimated to have a zero EFC. For the non-zero cases, an ordinary least squares

based regression formula was then used to estimate the independent student EFC.

For independent students without dependents, the variables used in the imputation were:

Student Total Income (STUINC94)

Dummy variable based on Student Marital Status Married (SMARITAL=2)
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX I I-10

For independent students with dependents, the variables used in the imputation were:

Student Total Income (STUINC94)

Dummy Variable based on STUINC94 GE $60,000

Dummy variable based on Student Marital Status Married (SMARITAL=2)

Dummy variable based on Student Marital Status Separated (SMARITAL=3)

Student Family Size (SFAMNUM)

Number of Family Members in Postsecondary Education (SPOSTED)

For dependent students, two components of EFC were estimated and the sum of the

estimated components was used as the estimate of the dependent students’ EFC. The two

components of dependent student EFC were: (a) the adjusted parent contribution and (b) the

dependent student contribution. The estimation proceeded along lines similar to those used for

the independent students, with a logistic regression first used to estimate zero EFC, followed by

OLS regression. However, the logistic prediction for the adjusted parent contribution was not

satisfactory, so OLS was used to estimate the entire component for all cases.

For dependent students, the variables used to predict the Adjusted Parent Contribution

were:

Parent Total Income (PARINC94)

Dummy Variable based on PARINC94 GE $60,000

Family Size (PFAMNUM)

Dummy Variable based on business or real estate assets GT $50,000 or savings

more than $10,000

Dummy Variable for Parent Marital Status Single (PMARITAL=1)

Dummy Variable for Parent Marital Status Separated (PMARITAL=3)

Dummy Variable for Parent Marital Status Divorced (PMARITAL=4)

The variables used to predict the Student Income Contribution component of dependent

students’ EFC were:

Student Total Income (STUINC94)

Dummy Variable based on STUINC94 LE $1,750

Parent Total Income (PARINC94)

Dummy Variable based on PARINC94 GE $60,000

Dummy Variable for Parent Marital Status Single (PMARITAL=1)

Dummy Variable for Parent Marital Status Separated (PMARITAL=3)

Dummy Variable for Parent Marital Status Divorced (PMARITAL=4)
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX I I-11

The correlation coefficients between estimated and actual EFC among those students with

1995-96 CPS records were:

dependent .83;

independent/no dependents .93; 

independent/with dependents .95.

For independent students, over 90 percent of the predicted values were within one thousand

dollars of the actual value for the EFC. As shown in Table I.2, the results for dependent students

were less satisfactory, with only about half of the values within one thousand dollars. When the

equations were tested using the 1996-97 CPS records for those students who had financial aid

application data available for both years, the results were similar.

Table I.2—Differences between actual and predicted EFC, by type of student dependency

Difference Total Dependent no dependents dependents

Student dependency type

Independent, with

Independent

Within $1,000 75.8 53.4 90.7 93.9

$100 or less 35.0 12.7 35.7 69.8

$101-250 10.3 9.2 15.0 6.5

$251- 500 15.9 11.8 27.6 8.6

$501-1000 14.6 19.7 12.4 9.0

Over $1,000 24.2 46.6 9.3 6.1

The composite EFC variable in the analysis file represents the actual recorded EFC (if available)

or the EFC estimated by regression for the cases with no recorded information. The distribution

of the recorded, imputed, and composite EFC values are shown in Table I.3. Since higher income

students and families are less likely to apply for financial aid, approximately one-half of the

imputed EFC’s are in the ranges above 9,500.
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX I I-12

Table I.3—Frequency distributions of recorded, imputed, and composite EFC

Value of EFC Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Type of EFC value considered

Recorded Imputed Composite

Total 31,373 100.0 17,016 100.0 48,389 100.0

zero 9,616 30.7 1,349 7.9 10,965 22.7

1-1500 5,557 17.7 979 5.8 6,536 13.5

1501-2500 2,657 8.5 814 4.8 3,471 7.2

2501-3500 2,088 6.7 875 5.1 2,963 6.1

3501-4500 1,795 5.7 979 5.8 2,774 5.7

4501-5500 1,469 4.7 918 5.4 2,387 4.9

5501-6500 1,131 3.6 1,051 6.2 2,182 4.5

6501-7500 942 3.0 644 3.8 1,586 3.3

7501-8500 783 2.5 710 4.2 1,493 3.1

8501-9500 718 2.3 623 3.7 1,341 2.8

9501-12500 1,582 5.0 2,165 12.7 3,747 7.7

12501-17500 1,396 4.4 2,597 15.3 3,993 8.3

17501-22500 719 2.3 1,158 6.8 1,877 3.9

22501+ 920 2.9 2,154 12.7 3,074 6.4

Table I.4 compares the average income by EFC level and dependency status before and after 

imputation. Table I.5 compares the income distribution of dependent and independent students

before and after the EFC imputations, as well as the average actual EFC and composite EFC for

each income level before and after imputation.
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX I I-13

Table I.4—Average total income by recorded and composite EFC and student

dependency status

EFC range

Dependent parents no dependents Independent with dependents

Independent

EFC EFC EFC EFC EFC EFC

recorded composite recorded composite recorded composite

Total $45,504 $54,551 $13,093 $20,448 $18,921 $26,450

zero 16,087 15,038 3,368 3,074 9,220 9,211

1-1500 23,450 22,238 5,990 5,898 23,071 21,995

1501-2500 32,409 30,466 9,443 9,132 30,527 26,958

2501-3500 38,133 36,137 12,366 11,821 36,115 30,146

3501-4500 42,754 40,458 15,014 14,483 41,001 31,039

4501-5500 48,120 45,569 18,024 17,328 44,228 34,145

5501-6500 55,005 51,575 20,954 20,264 48,575 34,420

6501-7500 57,497 54,853 23,247 23,220 50,455 41,376

7501-8500 60,172 57,958 26,362 25,883 53,435 36,583

8501-9500 64,242 62,209 28,741 28,405 55,350 42,226

9501-12500 70,379 69,019 33,948 34,319 58,672 47,781

12501-17500 79,683 82,636 43,261 45,742 70,396 47,059

17501-22500 89,251 92,605 52,486 59,448 78,733 55,520

22501+ 121,793 160,905 64,106 94,071 89,229 90,921
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX I I-14

Table I.5—Distribution of recorded and composite EFC by dependency and income

Student

dependency

status and

income

EFC recorded EFC composite

Number Percent Average Number Percent Average

Dependents

Total 16,598 100.0 6,289 24,218 100.0 8,179

Under $15,000 2,888 17.4 814 3,550 14.7 845

$15-$30,000 3,442 20.7 1,314 4,177 17.2 1,563

$30-$45,000 3,055 18.4 3,419 4,051 16.7 3,700

$45-$60,000 2,635 15.9 6,434 3,811 15.7 6,552

$60-$75,000 1,936 11.7 10,191 3,152 13.0 10,491

$75-$100,000 1,631 9.8 14,859 2,814 11.6 14,231

$100-$125,000 586 3.5 20,053 1,435 5.9 20,353

$125-$150,000 198 1.2 28,469 403 1.7 27,560

Over $150,000 227 1.4 38,583 825 3.4 42,611

Independent

No dependents

Total 7,998 100.0 3,679 13,593 100.0 6,074

Under $5,000 2,855 35.7 493 3,433 25.3 424

$5-$10,000 1,678 21.0 1,642 2,285 16.8 1,668

$10-$20,000 1,770 22.1 4,012 2,962 21.8 4,067

$20-$30,000 810 10.1 7,070 1,799 13.2 7,148

$30-$50,000 600 7.5 11,024 1,736 12.8 11,429

Over $50,000 285 3.6 20,431 1,378 10.1 23,625

Independent

With dependents

Total 6,777 100.0 1,441 10,578 100.0 4,996

Under $5,000 1,510 22.3 192 1,756 16.6 177

$5-$10,000 1,260 18.6 114 1,519 14.4 287

$10-$20,000 1,619 23.9 306 2,194 20.7 1,006

$20-$30,000 1,051 15.5 1,013 1,563 14.8 2,905

$30-$50,000 849 12.5 3,080 1,846 17.5 7,588

Over $50,000 488 7.2 10,574 1,700 16.1 18,435
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX J J-1

Appendix J

Comparison of NPSAS:96 CATI Respondents and Nonrespondents
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX J J-2
NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX J J-3

Table J-1—Comparison of NPSAS:96 CATI respondents and nonrespondents among study

respondents

CATI respondents CATI nonrespondents

Sample size estimate Sample size estimate

Percent Percent

Age

 19 or younger 11,307 19.43 2,301 14.96*

 20 to 23 7,949 31.03 1,684 31.12 

 24 to 29 5,206 20.82 1,377 24.67*

 30 to 39 4,040 15.98 930 15.95 

 40 or older 2,826 12.75 670 13.31 

Race

 White, non-Hispanic 22,301 72.64 4,598 67.56*

 Black, non-Hispanic 3,692 10.94 942 12.30 

 Hispanic 3,002 9.28 716 9.04 

 Asian/Pacific Islander 1,882 5.81 522 8.73*

 American Indian/Alaskan Native 257 0.80 103 1.23 

 Other 194 0.53 81 1.14 

Gender

 Male 13,317 44.22 3,043 45.54 

 Female 18,011 55.78 3,919 54.46 

Income

 Dependent: less than $20,000 3,249 7.79 786 8.52 

 Dependent: $20,000 to $39,999 3,895 10.36 685 8.92 

 Dependent: $40,000 to $59,999 3,767 10.14 711 8.87 

 Dependent: $60,000 to $79,999 2,670 7.51 563 6.65*

 Dependent: $80,000 to $99,999 1,393 3.46 330 4.15 

 Dependent: $100,000 or more 1,897 4.97 353 4.01*

 Independent: less than $10,000 4,988 15.01 1,560 20.34 

 Independent: $10,000 to $19,999 3,049 11.74 776 13.45 

 Independent: $20,000 to $29,999 2,038 8.51 457 9.41 

 Independent: $30,000 to $49,999 2,282 10.43 432 8.47 

 Independent: $50,000 or more 2,099 10.09 309 7.22*
Table J-1—Comparison of NPSAS:96 CATI respondents and nonrespondents among study

respondents (continued)

CATI respondents CATI nonrespondents

Sample size estimate Sample size estimate

Percent Percent

NPSAS:96 METHODOLOGY REPORT: APPENDIX J J-4

Receipt of any aid

 Yes 22,460 58.22 3,966 39.63*

 No 8,868 41.78 2,996 60.37*

Receipt of federal aid

 Yes 17,977 40.43 3,317 29.98*

 No 13,351 59.57 3,645 70.02*

Receipt of state aid

 Yes 5,621 13.48 902 9.85*

 No 25,707 86.52 6,060 90.15*

Receipt of institution aid

 Yes 7,658 17.71 1,259 13.28*

 No 23,670 82.29 5,703 86.72*

Notes:

1. There were 38,995 eligible students selected for the CATI subsample which resulted in 31,328 respondents and 7,667

nonrespondents. This table excludes 705 of the 7,667 CATI nonrespondents because they were also study nonrespondents

and therefore had missing data for the analysis variables of interest. These exclusions could cause some bias in the

nonrespondent estimates, but we expect that it is negligible because of the relatively small number of students excluded.

2. Tests for significant differences between the distributions of the respondents and nonrespondents were performed for each

of the eight primary variables at the (0.05 / 8) level to account for multiple comparison effects. Except for gender, all of

the variables were found to be significant.

3. Within each variable, the category percentages of respondents and nonrespondents were tested for significant differences

at the (0.05 / (c -1)) level, where c is the number of categories. Estimates that were found to be significantly different are

flagged with an asterisk. 

4. The effects of these significant differences on the CATI-based estimates are mitigated by the CATI nonresponse weight

adjustments, which explicitly accounted for differences in age distribution and aid status.

5. Some of the statistically significant differences may not be of practical significance (e.g., 4 percent versus 5 percent for

dependent students with incomes of $100,000 or more). 

 Difference between respondents and nonrespondents is significant at the 0.05/(c-1) level, where c is the number of *

categories within the primary variable.