### 1 

## SECTION B. **Description of Statistical Methodology**

**B.1. Respondent Universe**  The primary universe of interest for IPE DS consists of approximately 7,3 00 institutions (according to our most recent count) that are eligible to participate in Title IV student financial aid programs. By law, these schools are required to respond to IPEDS. (Section 490 of the Higher Education Am e ndments of 1992 (P.L. 102

- 32 5). IPEDS allows other (non

- title IV) institutions to participate on a voluntary basis. About 200 elect to respond. Title IV schools are shown by highest level of offering (4

- year award or above, 2

- year award, less than 2

- year award) and by control (publ ic, private not

- for

profit, private for

-profit):
**Table 33 .**  **Title IV Institutions in the IPEDS Universe**

**Estimated Counts for 2014**
**- 15**  **Collection**
Private Private

Total Public not

- for

-profit for

-profit
Total 7,500 2,000 1,900 3 ,6 00 4

- year 3,100 700 1,600 8 00 2

- year 2,300 1,050 200 1,05 0 Less than 2

- yr 2,100 250 100 1,75 0

**B.2. Statistical Methodology**  There is no sampling done for any of the IPEDS survey components. Because of the institutional compliance requirements outlined in sections A.1 and A.2, in Part A of this submission, sampling is not an option. This has been discussed at length at meetings of our Technical Review Panel, with other areas of the Department of Education, including the Office for Civil Rights, the Office of Postsecondary Education, the office of Federal Student Aid, and the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, and with other Federal Agencies such as Census, BEA and EEOC.
**B.3. Methods to Maximize Response Rates**  IPEDS response rates for institutions r eceiving federal financial aid are consistently 99.8% and higher

. IPEDS targets the Title IV institutions (others may respond, but no follow

-up is done) and the web

based survey system incorporates an automated e

- mail module that automatically generates f ollow

-up e - mail to “keyholders” (individuals appointed by the CEOs as responsible for IPEDS data submission). As shown in section A.16, Table 32 , frequent communications occur with the institution over the course of the data collection to ensure complianc e with this statutorily mandated collection. Follow

-up e - mails are generated if the institution does not attempt to enter data or if, at two weeks and one week before closeout, the components are not locked. The CEOs of non

- responding institutions are al so contacted by standard mail and with follow up phone calls if, two weeks prior to closeout, the school has not entered any data. New institutions and institutions with new keyholders receive additional telephone and email prompts. This has proven to be very successful in past years. In

### 2

addition, the names of institutions that do not respond to the IPEDS surveys, and a history of all regular contact with these institutions, is provided to the Federal Student Aid office for appropriate action.
**B.4. Test**  **s of Procedures and Methods** The data collection procedures and data items described in this submission have been tested in a number of ways. Most of the data elements requested have already been collected in previous IPEDS surveys and prior to that, simi lar data elements had been collected for over 20 years in HEGIS. However, data quality is an overriding concern that NCES must continue to assess and evaluate. One approach is to assess relevant data from different IPEDS components and from different survey years to evaluate the consistency and reliability of reported data. These interrelationships among surveys and relationships over time were used to develop the automated tests used to edit each IPEDS data submission. Edit checks currently help to identify potential problems and provide opportunities to correct them early in the data collection. As the number of institutions that automate their responses to IPEDS increases, it becomes increasingly difficult to fully validate their responses. However, by implementing a web

-based data collection effort that requires error resolution and correction prior to data submission, NCES has been gathering cleaner data in a more timely fashion. The web

-based system still accommodates intermediate reporting units such as community college boards, state university systems offices , and corporate offices.
The web

-based data collection method was tested in a successful pilot collection of Institutional Price and Student Financial Aid information in August 1999, and has been in full

- scale implementation since the Fall of 2000. Throughout the implementation of the web

-based system, as a result of discussions with data providers and associations that use the data, NCES has revised the data collection items, definitions, and instructions based on the recommendations of our constituents, and following appropriate public comment periods.
**B.5. Reviewing Individuals**  Listed below are individuals who have reviewed, in whole or in part, the IPEDS surveys, and/or participated in Technical Review Panel meetings charged with revising and r efining the surveys and data items collected. Representatives from the National Center for Education Statistics Samuel Barbett, Mathematical Statistician Allison Bell, Associate Research Scientist Sarah Crissey, Research Scientist Archie Cubarrubia, IPEDS Survey Director, Student Financial Aid Tracy Hunt

- White, Statistician Tara Lawley, Associate Research Scientist/Specialist Colleen Lenihan, Associate Research Scientist Andrew Mary, Statistician Elise Miller, Program Director, IPEDS Isaiah O'Rear, As sociate Research Scientist Jeffrey Owings, Associate Commissioner Tai Phan, Mathematical Statistician

### 3

Jan Plotczyk, Education Statistician Sabrina Ratchford, Education Statistician Jessica Shedd, Program Director, IPEDS Matthew Soldner, Senior Technical Advisor Thomas Weko, Associate Commissioner , Postsecondary, Adult , and Career Education Division Representatives from Associations , Postsecondary Institutions/Systems, and Other Federal Offices Gary Andeen, Oregon Independent Colleges Association Thomas Bailey, Teachers College, Columbia University Julia Blixrud, Association of Research Libraries Eileen Brennan , Oakland Community College Chris Brewer, Post Secondary Consultants Keith Brown, North Carolina Community College System Robert Burke, Association of Independent Colleges and Universities of Ohio Susan Campbell, College Center for Library Automation Julie Carpenter

- Hubin, Ohio State University Stephanie Cellini, George Washington University Janice Childress, Indiana University

- Purdue University Indi anapolis Melodie Christal, Washburn University Margaret Cohen, George Washington University Valerie Conley, Ohio University Bryan Cook, American Council on Education Mary Ann Coughlin, Springfield Colleg Kristina Cragg, Bridgepoint Education Alisa Cunningham, Institute for Higher Education Policy Michael Dakduk, Student Veterans of America (SVA) Dawn Dawson, DeVry Inc. Jill DeAtley, Career Education Corporation Faith DesLauriers, Embry

- Riddle Aeronautical University Cassandria Dortch, Congressional Research Service (CRS) Ray Emry, Capella University Christy England

- Siegerdt , Washington Student Achievement Council Thomas Erickson, Veterans Benefits Administration Gayle Fink, Bowie State University Michael Frola, Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), U

. S

. Department of Education Bernard Fryshman, Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools Carol Fuller, Independent Consultant Ryan Gallucci, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) Carlos Gonzalez, EDMC Kerry Grosse, Marquette University Tam my Halligan, Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities Laura Hardesty, U.S. Census Bureau Kim berly Harvey , Louisiana Board of Regents Stephen Haworth, DeVry Inc. Billy Helton, University of North Carolina

- Chapel Hill Cherron Hoppes , Golden Gate University Braden Hosch, Connecticut Board of Regents for Higher Education Myrna Huffman, California Community Colleges Chancellors Office Gigi Jones, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA) Laura Keck, American Association of Community Colleges Jeffrey Keith, Sterling Partners

### 4

Christine Keller, Association of Public and Land

- grant Universities (APLU) Jo nathan Keller, Massachusetts Department of Higher Education Kit Keller, American Library Association Marsha Kelman, University of Texas System Sandra Kinney, Technical College System of Georgia Martha Kyrillidou, Association of Research Libraries Albertha Lawson , Baton Rouge Community College Erez Lenchner, CUNY LaGuardia Community Colleg e Fred Lillibridge , Doña Ana Community College Marc LoGrasso, Bryant & Stratton College Hans L’Orange, State Higher Education Executive Officers Mary Goodhue Lynch, Massasoit Community College Shelly Martinez, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Tod Massa, State Council of Higher Education for Virg inia Lesley McBain, American Association of State Colleges and Universities Mari McCarty, WI Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (WAICU) Frank McCluskey, American Public University System (APUS) Susan Menditto, National Association of College and University Business Officers Soon Merz, Austin Community College Gary Nigh , NJ Commission on Higher Education Jo n O'Bergh, Office of the Under Secretary, US Department of Education Emily Parker , Am erican Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) Ginger Pauley, University of Phoenix Kim berly Pearce, Capella Universit Mary Jane Petrowski, Association of College and Research Libraries Kent Phillippe, American Association of Community College Lu Wayne Phillips, Lorain County Community College Jo hn Porter, State University of New York

- SUNY System Administration Brian Prescott, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education Pat Profeta, Indian River State College, Miley Library Chris Rasmussen, Midwestern Higher Education Compact Kenneth Redd, National Association of College and University Business Officers George Rezendes, Three Rivers Community College Gary Rice , University of Alaska Anchorage Stephanie Rikard , Utah College of Applied Technology Terrence Russell, Association for Institutional Research Rebecca Sanders, Apollo Accounting Mary Sapp, University of Miami Jim Selbe, University of Maryland University College Raj at Shah , Lincoln College Cindy Sheckells, U.S. Census Bureau Donna Silber, Maricopa Community College District Randy Swing, Association for Institutional Research Dawit Teklu , Strayer University Judith Thompson, Florida Department of Education Kim berly Thompson, Pearson eCollege Wendy Weiler, National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU) Judith Wheaton, Austin College Christina Whitfield, K entucky C ommunity and T echnical C ollege S ystem Rachel Zinn, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)