# Ev**aluation of the IDEA Technical**  **As sistance and**  **Dissemination Program : Phase II**  **Statement for Paperw ork Reduction**  **Ac t Submission** 

**PA RT**  **B: Collection of Information**  **Employ ing**  **Statistical Methods Contract ED**  **- 04**  **- CO**  **- 0059/0032** 

April 11 , 201 4

Prepared for Institute of Education Sciences U.S. Department of Education

Prepared by WestatPart B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ii 

## Contents Page **Part B: Collection of Information Employ** **ing Statistical Methods ................................**  **... 1**  Overview

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 1 B.1 Respondent Universe and Sampling Methods

................................ ...................... 3 B.2 Information Collection Procedures

................................ ................................ ........ 9 B.3 Methods to Maximize Response Rates

................................ ................................ 11 B.4 Test of Procedures

................................ ................................ ............................... 12 B.5 Individuals Consulted on Statistical Aspects of Design

................................ ........ 12Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 1



## Part B: **Collection of Information Employ ing Statistical** 

**Methods Overview**  Part D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) specifies that the TA&D Program will provide technical assistance, support model demonstration projects, disseminate useful information, and implement activities that are supported by scientifically based research (IDEA 2004, P.L. 108-446 Part D Section 663, 118 Stat. 2 781). T he federal government has been funding projects that provide technical assistance related to the education of individuals with disabilities for four decades, and the TA&D Program assumed its current structure with the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA. The TA&D Program awards grants in multiple subprogram areas, with grants ranging in size from approximately $65,000 per year to approximately $2.8 million per year. Program gra ntees are located throughout the U.S. and recipients include institutions of higher education, for- profit organizations and private nonprofit institutes and organizations. Under contract with the National Center for Education Evaluation (NCEE) in the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) at the U. S. Department of Education (ED), Westat completed an evaluation of 27 national centers that were funded under the TA&D Program, referred to in this application as Phase I of the National Evaluation. Under Phase I , data were obtained from TA&D center Project Directors; State Special Education Directors; and state- level staff who oversaw or were involved with providing technical assistance in numerous areas. Phase I of the evaluation provided detailed information about project activities, need fo r TA, and satisfaction with TA received in these specified areas (Daley, Fiore, Bollmer, Nimkoff & Lysy, 2013)

. Wh ile robust and detailed information was obtained about national technical assistance and dissemination activities, Phase I of the Evaluation provided only minimal information about the State Deaf- Blind Projects. Children who are deafblind represent the quintessence of the populations that gave rise to special educatio n: they are an extremely low incidence population , challenged as learners, and difficult to instruct under traditional conditions. In recognition of the unique needs of

this population, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires that the Secretary reserve a portion of IDEA Part D funds each year to address the needs of children with deafblindness (see section 682(d)(1)(A) of IDEA, 20 U.S.C. 1482(d)). T he combined 52 projects make up approximately one-fifth of the annual expenditure fo r the TA& D Program. In collaboration with the National Center on Deaf- Blindness (NCDB), these projects play a central role in providing TA to families, professionals and paraprofessionals wh o serve children with deafblindness. And, while funded since the 1960s unde r various authorities, a formal evaluation of the State D eaf- B lind P rojects has not, to our knowledge, ever been conducted. In October 2013, a new set of 52 State Deaf- Blind Projects were awarded. These projects are each five years and range in size from $65,000 per year to $575,000 per year. Wh ile the projects all share similar features, there is also variability in the structure, specific activities, and population served, as we ll as in other areas. Phase II of the Evaluation will include two questionna ires that are designed to describe this variability as we ll as better understand the population of

p roviders who work with students with deafblindness in school and related settings

. A State Deaf- Blind Project grantee questionnaire will yield detailed descriptive information about p rojects, including the topic areas on which they focus, the technical assistance services provided by the p rojects and to whom they provide these services , and the collaborative relationships in which the projects engage. A q uestionnai re administered to servicePart B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 2

providers who are known to have worked with children with deafblindness will offer information about the needs that these individuals have fo r technical assistance to support children with deafblindness and their families

. A short set of questions administered to service providers who have received child -specific technical assistance from the projects will allow an assessment of satisfaction with TA services provided by the projects. The evaluation questions appear below. **1) What**  **technical assistance**  **a nd**  **dissemination activities**  **do S** **tate D** **eaf -**  **B lind**  **P rojects**  **provide and ho w does this vary**  **across the states?** a. Wh at types of technical assistance and dissemination activities do projects provide? b. To what extent do projects focus on the specific initiatives promoted by NCDB? 1 c. To whom do projects provide TA? d. How do projects determine wh ich children are eligible fo r and who will receive TA services? **2) How** **d o**  **S tate**  **D eaf** **- B**  **lind P**  **rojects collaborate**  **across the**  **program, within**  **their individual states, and with other TA**  **providers?** a. Within the network of projects, with whom do projects collaborate and in what ways? b. Outside the network of State D eaf- B lind P rojects, with which other TA providers do projects collaborate and in what ways? **3) W** **hat are the needs for TA among service pro** **viders of children who are deaf blind and**  **how do needs vary** **?** a. Wh at are the needs for TA among service providers? b. How does need for TA vary by individual characteristics of service providers? c. How does need for TA vary by characteristics of service providers’ settings? **4) How** **s atisfied**  **are service**  **providers with**  **services provided**  **by t**  **he S** **tate D** **eaf -**  **B lind**  **P rojects?**  a. How does service provider satisfaction with TA vary across projects? b. How does service provider satisfaction vary based on characteristics of the project? c. How does satisfaction with TA vary by characteristics of service providers? d. How does satisfaction with TA vary by characteristics of service providers’ settings? D ata to address the research questions above will come primarily through the two questionnaires, and we will use project proposals as an extant data source to provide some descriptive information about the projects.

1 The relevant NCDB initiatives are: Early identification and referral, Intervener services, Transition, Family engagement, Literacy, and Technology solutions.Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 3



## B.1 **Respondent Universe and Sampling Method s**  Wewill collect data to address the evaluation questions fro m t hree groups of respondents: (1) project directors of

the TA&D State Deaf- Blind P rojects ; (2) service providers who work ed with individuals with deafblind ness or their families at least on a weekly basis during 2014 - 15 ; and (3) a subset of providers who rece ived child -specific technical assistance from the p rojects during 2013 - 14 or 2014- 15

. 2 Exhibit B - 1 illustrates the relationship between the Provider and TA Recipient samples. **Exhibit B**  **- 1**  **. Relationship of the Provider and TA**  **Recipient Samples**

**Project Directors of the TA &D State Deaf**  **- Blind Project Grants**  The Project Director sample will provide data to address Evaluation Question s 1 and 2

. We have already identified the p roject directors of th e 52 TA&D State Deaf- Blind P roject grants that were funded in October 2013 , and each director will be included in this sample. Project directors will be encouraged to direct the survey or parts of the survey to other individuals worki ng on the project, if

they are the appropriate respondent fo r a given question or section. The states and project names appear in Exhibit B -2

.

2 There is a fourth group of individuals who are included in the burden estimat e—principals and special education directors

—because we contact these individuals to create the sample of service providers who worked closely with individuals with deafblindness. This group does not provide data that are used to address the evaluation questions.Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 4

**Exhibit B**  **- 2**  **. State Deaf -** **Blind Project Grants State**  **Project Name Alaska**  Alaska Deaf -Blind Project **Alabama** Alabama Deaf -Blind Project **Arkansas** Children and Youth with Sensory Impairments (CAYSI) **Arizona** Arizona Deafblind Project **California** California Deaf -Blind Services **Colorado** Colorado Services for Children and Youth with Combined Vision and Hearing Loss Project **Connecticut** New England Consortium for Deaf-Blind Technical Assistance and Training (NEC) **DC** Connections Beyond Sight and Sound (CBSS) **Delaware** Delaware Statewide Programs for the Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and Deaf-Blind **Florida** Florida and Virgin Islands Deaf-Blind Collaborative **Georgia** Georgia Sensory Assistance Project (GSAP) **Hawaii** Hawai‘i and Pacific Deaf-Blind Project **Iowa** Iowa's Deafblind Services Project **Idaho** Idaho Project for Children and Youth with Deaf-Blindness **Illinois** Project Reach: Illinois Deaf -Blind Services **Indiana** Indiana Deafblind Services Project **Kansas** Kansas Deaf-Blind Project **Kentucky** Kentucky Deaf-Blind Project **Louisiana** Louisiana Deafblind Project for Children and Youth **Massachusetts** New England Consortium for Deaf-Blind Technical Assistance and Training **Maryland** Connections Beyond Sight and Sound (CBSS) **Maine** New England Consortium for Deaf-Blind Technical Assistance and Training **Michigan** Deaf -Blind Central: Michigan's Training and Resource Project **Minnesota** Minnesota Deaf -Blind Technical Assistance Project **Missouri** Missouri Deafblind Technical Assistance Project **Mississippi** Mississippi Hearing-Vision Project **Montana** Montana Deaf-Blind Project **North Carolina** North Carolina Deaf-Blind Project **North Dakota** North Dakota Dual Sensory Project **Nebraska** Nebraska Project for Children who are Deaf-Blind **New Hampshire** New England Consortium for Deaf-Blind Technical Assistance and Training **New Jersey** New Jersey Constortium on Deaf Blindness (NJCDB) **New Mexico** Project for New Mexico Children and Youth who are Deaf -Blind **Nevada** Nevada Dual Sensory Impairment Project **New York** New York Deaf -Blind Collaborative **Ohio** Ohio Center for Deafblind Education **Oklahoma** Oklahoma Deaf-Blind Technical Assistance Project (OKDBTAP) **Oregon** Oregon Deaf-Blind Project **Pennsylvania** The Pennsylvania Deaf -Blind Project **Puerto Rico** Deafblind Program in Puerto Rico **Rhode Island** Rhode Island Services to Children and Youth with Dual Sensory Impairments **South Carolina** South Carolina Interagency Deaf-Blind Project (SCIDB) **South Dakota** South Dakota Deaf -Blind Project **Tennessee** Tennessee Deaf-Blind Project (TNDB) **Texas** Texas Deaf -Blind Project **Utah** Utah Deaf -Blind Project **Virginia** Virginia Project for Children and Young Adults with Deafblindness (VA Deaf -Blind Project) **Vermont** Vermont Sensory Access Project (Deaf -Blind Project) **Washington** Washington State Services for Children with Deaf -Blindness **Wisconsin** Wisconsin Deaf -Blind Technical Assistance Project (WDBTAP) **West Virginia** WV SenseAbilities **Wyoming** Wyoming Deaf-Blind ProjectPart B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 5

**Providers and TA** 

**Recipients** P roviders will contribute information about needs for TA that are experienced by those who work directly with students with deafblindness , and information from this sample will allow us to address Evaluation Question 3

. The Provider sample is composed of individuals who are identified by school or district administrative staff as working closely with students with deafblindness and their families on at least a weekly basis during the year of the project (2014- 15). By targeting the individuals who are responsible fo r providing direct services to students with deafblindness, we will obtain information from the most knowledgeable individuals at the local level. This process mirrors our procedure successfully used in Phase I of the evaluation. Providers will receive questions about their background and experiences with deafblindness, about their needs fo r TA, and about their usual sources fo r receiving information about deafblindness. As noted above, a subset of p roviders will have received child -specific assistance from their State Deaf- Blind Project during the 2013- 14 school year or will self- identify as having received child -specific assistance fro m their state project. Child-specific assistance mean s technical assistance that was focused on a particular child, and is by definition individualized

. Child specific assistance is most commonly provided through onsite visits, but can also be provided through the use of

d istance technology. The sample of TA Recipients will allow us to address Evaluation Question 4, which focuses on the performance of the Deaf- Blind Projects in providing child -specific technical assistance. The P rovider and TA Recipient samples will comprise diverse respondents who represen t many professions. Because of the complexity of the condition of d eafblindness , children are typically served by a team of professionals and related services providers to address their needs. There is no existing list of individuals who work with students with deafblindness in the U.S

. To access the individuals who work with this population, we wil l identify participants using a stratified twostage design. Stage 1 1. F rom each State Deaf- Blind P roject , we will request a list that contains the school and district at which each student aged 6-21 with deafblindness was reported to attend, based on the Child Count project data submitted to the National Center on DeafBlindness ( NCDB ) in 2014. I dentifying information about the child will not be requested n or provided to Westat. For any state unable to provide this information, we will ask projects to identify any schools or districts which are known to have children and youth with deafblindness enrolled, even if no TA was provided. 2. Wewill also request a li st of a ll school s where child -specific assistance was provided to a child or youth age 6-21 during 2013- 14 , along with contact information (name and email address) for all service providers who received child -specific assistance

. C hild and family names wil l not be obtained. 3. Using both available sources, a master list of schools across the states will be compiled. Stratification will be made on the basis of number of students in attendance in the school and possibly by urban/rural designation if feasible

. Schools at which the project worked will be sampled with certainty

. A simple random sample of schools will be selected from each stratum with a sample size allocated proportionally to the number of students so that large size schools will be selected wit h a higher probability

. If urban/rural stratification is feasible, it will be necessary to oversample the rural strata to have an adequate sample size fo r providers serving rural schools ; see additional sampling detail below

.Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 6

Stage 2 4. We will contact the principal or associated district special education director of each sampl ed school

. a. In schools where children and youth with deafblindn ess are known to have attended, principals will be asked to provide contact information (name and email) for all provide rs in the school who with children and youth with deafblindness on a weekly basis

. b. In schools where providers are known to have received TA fro m the project in 2013- 14 , we will provide this list of names and ask principals to identify all other individuals who work wit h students with deafblindness on a weekly basis in their school



### . 5. All providers identified by schools will receive the Provider Questionnaire. 6. All providers identified as having received child -specific assistance by the State DeafBlind Project, or who self- identify as such, will receive the questions that constitute the TA Recipien t Supplement in addition to completing the Provider Questionna ire . Fo r such respondents, the TA Recipient Supplement appears as a short set of questions that follow those on background and needs for TA, and is seamlessly integrated as one instrument. Estimates Using information fro m the 2012 NCDB Child Count (Census) data and estimates provided by project directors , we estimate that there may be roughly 4,920 schools that students age 6-21 with deafblindness attend

. For the purpose of this study we define Providers as all individuals identified by a school principal or administer as someone who works with deafblind students and their families on at least a weekly basis at each of those schools. Weestimate that principals are likely to identify an average of

four providers per school who meet the criteria of “working with students with deafblindness on at least a weekly basis.” Using this estimate, we calculate the population of providers to be 19,680. For the purpose of

this study, we define TA Recipients as a subset of p roviders who have received child -specific TA fro m a deaf- blind project , whereas non -TA providers are individuals who have not received TA

. Within this group, we estimate that there are, across all states, approximately 1 , 500 providers who will eithe r be identified as having received child -specific TA in 2013- 14 by a project or will self- identify as having received child -specific TA from their state deaf- blind project though they were not reported to do so by the project . Schools at which these provid ers are located are selected with certainty, and individuals identified as having received child -specific TA automatically are included in the TA Recipient sample

. Weassume some clustering of

these recipients of

TA and estimate that a project will identif y 3 providers per school on average as TA recipients, resulting in a total of 500 schools that are selected with certainty. In schools where TA has been provided and these individuals are located, we estimate that principals will identify only one addition al provider and no additional TA recipients beyond the 3 already identified on average . Using these assumptions, we need 1,250 providers who have not received TA in order to meet the precision goal of a standard error of 2 percent for the Provider sample , which means that wePart B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 7

will need to select 750 providers fro m schools at which no TA has been provided

– more discussion follows how this sample size is derived. The number of such schools required to obtain these providers is 188 (=750/4). Weexpect that a small number of schools that served students with deafblindness in 2013- 14 will no longer do so in 2014- 15, and that some sampled schools will decline to participate. To account for these factors, we increase the sample size of 188 to 220. Therefore the total school sample size becomes 720, including 500 schools sampled with certainty. Because it is also feasible that fewer than four providers will be identified on average, and that the school participation rate is lower than expected, we will select 180 additional schools (25% more) as a back- up sample, resulting in a total of 900 schools needed in the first-stage sampling. To calculate an appropriate sample size, we need to kn ow two parameters: the precision goal and an anticipated design effect. The des ig n effect is a measure of l oss in sampling efficiency by using a more complex sample design than the most simplistic sample design that is the simple random sampling (SRS) method, which selects providers with an equal probability directly from the list of providers without going through schools. In our case, this is not feasible because the SRS method would require the list (sampling frame) of all providers who work with deafblind students fo r all 4,920 schools, and it is not feasible to create such a list within the constraints of

this evaluation. The sample design (a stratified two-stage design) we propose is necessarily more complex than the SRS design, and we expect some loss in sampling efficiency compared with the SRS method. This loss is measured by the inflation of the variance, that is, the ratio of the variance under the complex design to the variance under the SRS design for the same sample size. This measure , called the design effect, is usually greater than one for a complex design and usually consists of two factors: the weighting factor, which is the effect due to unequal weights, and the clustering effect, which is the effect of u sing clusters (schools) instead of direct sampling of providers. We expect that the variance will be inflated by 3 0 percent due to clustering and 2 0 percent due to unequal weights, and the combined design effect is then 1. 6 (= 1. 3 * 1. 2 ). It is customary to set the precision goal to be the maximum standard error fo r estimating a population proportion of 50 percent from a nationally representative sample. If this precision goal is set at a standard error of 2 percentage points, the required sample size for the sample design we plan to use to meet the precision requirement is 1,000 with the assumed design effect of 1. 6

. This is our precision goal for the Provider sample. Assuming an 80 % response rate of p roviders, we need to select and contact about 1,250 providers whom we do not believe to have received TA. Wea nticipate that some providers serve more than one school. The survey will instruct respondents to complete the survey only once, and through our survey management system, we will be able to identify those individuals who were listed more than once (even if they are non - responders). Weview the likelihood of this occurrence as low, and identified duplicate names will be treated as ineligible in weighting. The precision goal can be translated into the margin of error for the 95 percent confidence interval to be 4 percentage points. These calculations are summarized in the Exhibit B-3

.Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 8

**Exhibit B**  **- 3**  **. Precision goal and the required sample size for the Provider Sample**  **Precision in S.E. (%) Margin of Error for**  **95% CI (%) Respondent Sample**  **Size Initial Sample Size for** 

**Data Collection 1**  2 4 1,000 1,250 1 Rounded at hundreds. Being a census for the TA Recipients, the precision is expected to be very good fo r this group, even when accounting for some nonresponses. The expected precision for the entire sample of Providers and TA Recipients will be quite good and estimated to be a standard error of 1.7 percent for an estimate of 50 percent population proportion assuming a design effect of 2.6. We expect that the design effect will increase because the weights for the TA group and non -TA group will be very different. W e assumed that the clustering effect is the same (i.e., 1.3) but the we ighting factor is 2 in the design effect. Wh en a population proportion less than or greater than 50 percent is estimated, the precision is expected to be better than the ta rget precision with the same sample size because precision is worst for a 50 percent population proportion. Once we obtain the full list of schools, we will examine and discuss the potential capability for stratification based on either or both of the fol lowing dimensions: Number of students with deafblind ness who enrolled: Wh ile students are fa r more dispersed across schools than in any time in the past , there remain special schools for the deaf, blind and deafblind , and there are also schools that serve clusters of students from across a wide geographical area (e.g., a county). Stratification by number of students with deafblind ness in attendance would ensure that schools that serve multiple students with deafblind ness are included in the sample with a higher chance and that there is adequate power to address Evaluation Question 3c and 4d

. Urban/ Rural -remote: Rural and remote schools are of ten difficult to serve through child -specific TA due to the challenge of p hysically reaching geographically remote populations. Numerous grantees noted this challenge in their proposals, and included estimates of d istance and travel time to highlight this point. Oversampling these schools would ensure that an adequate number of rural/remote schools are included in th e sample to address the important issues faced by these providers, and provide adequate power to address Evaluation Question 3c and 4d

.Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 9



## B.2 **Information Collection Procedures Collection of Extant Data**  OSEP has already provided each of the successful grantee applications fro m the recently funded p rojects, and has provided information on the funding level for each p roject. In addition to our review of these that we completed to inform our questionnaire development, we will extract the following information to provide a descriptive context to the project:

 Project funding amount from ED  Administrative location of the project  Number of full time staff associated with the project  Number of part time staff associated with the project  Total FTEs supported through the grant  Total FTEs supported through external sources  Geocoded project location to allow calculation of d istance between the provider setting and the project location In conjunction with survey data, these data will be used as contextual background and as part of each state project profile. **Collection of State Deaf** **- Blind Project**  **Data** The TA&D State Deaf- Blind Project Questionnaire will be a web- based tool to collect detailed descriptive information of projects concerning: (1) structural aspects of the Projects not available through extant sources , (2) the type of technical assistance activities conducted, (3 ) who is served, and (4) with wh om projects collaborate. The questionnaire was modeled after a tool used successfully during Phase I of the Eva luation to obtain information about the National TA&D Centers and was informed through review of the grantee proposals for the 2013-2017 cycle of funding , as well as through close examination of existing survey tools used by grantees

. One week prior to requesting the lists of schools that children attended and of TA recipients, a personalized cover letter will be mailed to the Project Director to provide an overview of the project and timeline for data collection (see Appendix D )

. Wewill then follow up by email with electronic templates fo r the project directors to use to provide two lists. One list will identify the school and district for each stu dent included in the state deafblind census for children aged 6- 21

. The second list will consist of names a nd contact information for service providers to whom projects have provided child -specific technical assistance during 2013- 14 , either onsite or using distance technology

. Both lists will be used to identify all schools at which students with deafblindness may be located , and neither list will include student names or other student identifiers

. The Deaf- Blind Project Q uestionnaire itself will not be administered to directors until October 2014, a full year fro m the start of their project. Follow- up with directors will be conducted by email and phone to clarify any items, as needed. Once the questionnaire and follow- up have been completed, the data collection will be closed out. To help ensure a high response rate among State Deaf- Blind Project directors , we will provide information to the TA&D Program Project Officers and to the directors themselves at OSEP’s annual meeting in J uly 2014 , and will also use the meeting to address any challenges thePart B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 10

Projects have had in compiling their lists of schools and TA recipients

. Wed o not anticipate difficulty in achieving 100% participation among TA&D Deaf- Blind Project grantees. **Collection of Provider Data** The Provider Questionnaire will be completed by individuals who are identified by school or district administrative staff as having worked closely with students with deafblind ness on at least a weekly basis during the 2014- 15 school year . By targeting those individuals who have had the most responsibility for providing services to students with deafblindness, we will obtain information fro m the most knowledgeable individuals at the local level. This process mirrors our procedure successfully used in Phase I of the evaluation. Providers will receive questions about their background and experiences with deafblind ness, about their needs for TA, and about their usual sources for receiving information about deafblind ness. The Provider Questionnaire was developed through review of the grantee proposals , review of existing “needs assessment” tools by grantees, satisfaction surveys used by grantees, and TA request forms used by grantees. It was revised through testing with providers who had a range of p rofessional experiences working with students with deafblind ness, and reviewed by former project directors and NCDB staff. Once the sample of schools is selected, contact information for the principal for each school and district special education director will be identified using publicly available information on school and district websites. Data collection procedures will then be as follows: **Step 1**  : M ail an advance letter from Westat to inform special education directors of the forthcoming survey, to share with them the purpose of the study and its importance, a nd to ask for their cooperation (See Appendix D for Advance letter). **Step 2:**  Af

ter one week, em ail each special education director with the web address fo r logging in to the Respondent Assignment page , along with login directions

. (See Appendix B fo r Email and Respondent Assignment page). **Step 3**  **:** Begin follow- up contact by telephone and email to confirm receipt of the survey information packet by the correct person and to address technical difficulties with the web- based survey or answer questions about the Respondent Assignment page. **Step 4**  **:** As providers are assigned surveys, initiate email contact on an ongoing basis to provide clarification about questions as needed , p rioritizing those respondents who have not begun or have co mpleted only a limited portion of the survey. All follow- up within a given state will be conducted by the same individual to allow a cohesive process of d ata retrieval, and to immediately identify any cases where a secondary respondent may not have received correct information.Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 11

**Collection of TA** 

**Recipient Data**  The TA Recipient Supplement will be administered to all providers identified by each State Deaf- Blind Project as an individual who received child -specific technical assistance (whether onsite or through distance technology) during 2013- 14

. This is a verified customer group. In addition, p roviders who indicate “yes” to screener questions on the Provider Questionnaire will be invited to complete the TA Recipient Supplement

. This is a self- identified group of TA recipients. The TA Recipient Supplement was developed using the same process as the Provider Questionnaire, and was tested with individuals who in the past have received child specific assistance from projects. The same fo llow- up techniques will be used with the TA Recipient sample, namely, email and phone calls to encourage completion. 

## B.3 **Methods to Maximize Response Rates** Section B.2 describes the procedures that we will use to implement the State Deaf- Blind Project Directo r Q uestionnaire and the Provider Questionnaire and TA Recipient Supplement

. These procedures were developed to encourage cooperation and completion of the activities within the data collection period. We anticipate that we will be able to obtain a 100% response rate with the Project Directors. Our goal is to achieve over an 80% response rate fo r th e samples of Providers and TA Recipients. Wea re confident about achieving this goal for TA Recipients, given that they have received services and have a relationship with the State Projects, and therefore have a greater investment in completing the survey. Due to the high demands on time among providers in school settings, we have some concerns about obtaining a sufficient sample of P roviders , especially if they were not TA Recipients, so we propose appropriate incentives to compensate these service providers for the time required to complete a survey . Exhibit B-4 highlights the specific strategies we will employ to maximize response rates for all samples a nd to deal with issues of non - response. **Exhibit B**  **- 4**  **. Strategies to Maximize Response Rates Strategy**  **Explanation** Design a high quality and user-friendly instrument All surveys have been pre-tested to ensure that the questions are clear and as user-friendly as possible (in particular, many of the items are answered by checking off boxes rather than writing in responses), and the survey can be completed quickly. It has also been kept short by excluding requests for information that can be obtained from other data sources. Advance notification of survey Gai n support and cooperation of State Deaf-B lind P roject directors and of principals/special education directors by providing advance notice of the survey

. Provide clear instructions and user-friendly materials Send introductory letter from Westat along with a personalized cover letter that explains the survey and what participation entails, provides assurance of confidentiality, and provides the web address for the on line survey along with instructions for completing the on -line survey. Offer appropriate incentives A small but meaningful incentive of a $20 gift certificate at Amazon, which is immediately accessible and redeemable, will serve as a mechanism to maximize the response rates in this sample of providers, particularly if respondents are completing the survey during their break or off -school hours. Offer technical assistance for survey respondents  Provide toll -free technical assistance telephone number  Provide study website with instructions for web-based survey completion Monitor progress regularly  Produce weekly data collection report of completed surveys  Maintain regular contact between study team members to monitor response rates, identify non respondents, and resolve problems  Use follow-up and reminder calls and e-mails to non -respondentsPart B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 12



## B.4 **Test of Procedures** The State Deaf- Blind Project Q uestionnaire , Provider Questionnaire , and TA Recipient Supplement were tested internally, and information derived from the tests was used to refine them. The Deaf- Blind Project Q uestionnaire was also pre-tested with 9 individuals familiar with state Deaf- Blind Project

. As part of the pre-testing, the responden ts completed the questionnaire and then participated in telephone calls or in - person interviews with project staff in order to pre-test the interview items. T he information obtained from the pre-test respondents was used to refine questionnaire items and to assess potential burden. T he Provider Questionnaire and TA Recipient Supplement were tested with 9 service providers fro m different states. Formal cognitive testing procedures were conducted with respondents, who each participated in telephone call s with project staff member and survey specialists to go over their responses and comments. The information obtained from the pre-test respondents was used to refine survey items a nd to assess potential burden. It should be noted that pre-testing of the Provi der Questionnaire and TA Recipient Supplement involved various iterations of the surveys to ensure confidence that the refined survey items were capturing key constructs. 

## B.5 **Individuals Consulted on Statistical A spects of Design**  These data collection plans were developed by Westat. T he research team is led by Tamara Daley, project director and Tom Fiore, Principal Investigator. Other members of the evaluation team who worked on the design include Hyunshik Lee fro m Westat. T he N CEE project officer, Meredith Bachman, also played a central role in data collection plans. Additional input was provided by Jonathan Jacobson, NCEE, and by OSEP staff, Larry Wexler, JoAnn McCann and David Egnor. The four TW G members , John Killoran, Mark S chalock, Robbie Blaha and Kathleen Scoggins reviewed multiple drafts of the instruments and provided comments

. Contact information for these individuals is provided in Exhibit B-5

. **Exhibit B**  **- 5**  **. Individuals consulted on aspects of the design of the study Name**  **Organization Telephone**  Dr. Tamara Daley, Project Director Westat 919-474-8038 Dr. Thomas Fiore, Principal Investigator Westat 919-474-0349 Dr. Hyunshik Lee Westat 301 -610-5112 Dr. Meredith Bachman Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education 202-219-2014 Dr. Jonathan Jacobson Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education 202-208-3876 Dr. Larry Wexler Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education 202-245-7571 JoAnn McCann Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education 202-245-7434 David Egnor Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education 202-245-7334 John Killoran National Center on Deaf -Blindness 503-838-8757 Mark Schalock National Center on Deaf -Blindness 503-838-8777 Robbie Blaha Retired Director of Texas’ Deaf-Blind Project 512-636-6753 Kathleen Scoggins Retired Director of Washington’s Deaf -Blind Project 509-951 -7038