2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:04) 

Methodology Report

Technical Report 

U.S. Department of Education 

Institute of Education Sciences 

NCES 2006–179

2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:04) 

Methodology Report

Technical Report 

May 2006 

U.S. Department of Education 

Institute of Education Sciences 

NCES 2006–179

Ruth Heuer 

Brian Kuhr 

Mansour Fahimi 

T.R. Curtin 

Marjorie Hinsdale 

Lisa Carley-Baxter 

Pat Green 

RTI International

Linda Zimbler

Project Officer 

National Center for 

Education Statistics
U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary 

Institute of Education Sciences

Grover J. Whitehurst 

Director 

National Center for Education Statistics

Mark Schneider 

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 fulfills 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, useful, and high 

quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, 

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 

 Institute of Education Sciences 

 U.S. Department of Education 

 1990 K Street NW 

 Washington, DC 20006–5651 

May 2006 

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

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch

Suggested Citation 

Heuer, R., Kuhr, B., Fahimi, M., Curtin, T.R., Hinsdale, M., Carley-Baxter, L., and Green, P. (2005). 2004

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) Methodology Report (NCES 2006-179). U.S. 

Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

For ordering information on this report, write:

 U.S. Department of Education 

 ED Pubs 

 P.O. Box 1398 

 Jessup, MD 20794–1398 

Or call toll free 1–877–4ED–Pubs 

Content Contact:

Aurora D’Amico 

(202) 502–7334 

aurora.d’amico@ed.gov
iii 

Executive Summary 

The 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04), conducted by RTI 

International (RTI) and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES), is a nationally representative study that collects data regarding the 

characteristics, workload, and career paths of full- and part-time postsecondary faculty and 

instructional staff at public and private not-for-profit 2- and 4-year institutions in the United 

States. Conducted previously in 1988, 1993, and 1999, it serves a continuing need for data on 

faculty and instructional staff. 

For the first time, NSOPF:04 is being conducted as a component study of the 2004 

National Study of Faculty and Students (NSoFaS:04). The student component—the 2004 

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:04)—is a nationally representative study of 

students enrolled in all levels of postsecondary education. Historically, there has been 

considerable overlap in the institutions selected for participation in NSOPF and NPSAS; 

therefore, institution sampling and contacting activities for both studies were coordinated to help 

minimize response burden on institutions and to improve data collection efficiency. 

This report describes the methodology and findings of NSOPF:04, which took place 

during the 2003–04 academic year. A field test, conducted in the 2002–03 academic year, was 

used to plan, implement, and evaluate methodological procedures, instruments, and systems 

proposed for use in the full-scale study. The 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty Field 

Test Methodology Report (Heuer et al. 2004) is available from NCES. 

This methodology report is designed to report solely for NSOPF:04. NPSAS:04 

procedures and results—provided in a separate report—are discussed here only as they impact or 

overlap with those outlined for NSOPF:04. 

Target Population and Sample Design 

The NSOPF:04 sample consists of postsecondary institutions and their full- and part-time 

faculty and instructional staff. The sampled institutions represent all public and private not-forprofit Title IV-participating, degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of 

Columbia, as reported in the 2002 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 

data files. Stratified, systematic samples of institutions and faculty were designed to allow 

detailed comparisons and high levels of precision. A customized cost/variance optimization 

program was implemented to efficiently secure targeted levels of precision for key estimates. 

A two-stage sampling methodology was utilized. In the first stage, the institution sample 

was drawn based on a probability proportional to size (PPS) selection methodology, where each 

institution was assigned a composite measure of size (MOS) that reflected the number of eligible 

faculty and instructional staff in each of six strata. A sample of 1,080 postsecondary institutions 

was selected for participation; 1,070*

 of these were eligible. Each institution was asked to 

provide a list of all of the full- and part-time faculty and instructional staff that the institution 

employed during the fall 2003 term. Institutions were asked to include all employees with faculty 

 

*

 Throughout this report, faculty and institution counts are rounded to the nearest 10 to protect the confidentiality of 

faculty and institutions. However, percentages cited are based on the original unrounded numbers. 
Executive Summary 

iv 

status (both instructional and non-instructional) and all others with instructional responsibilities, 

regardless of faculty status. A total of 980 institutions provided a list suitable for sampling. 

In the second stage of sampling, full- and part-time faculty and instructional staff 

employed by participating institutions as of November 1, 2003 were selected. Sampling was 

conducted on a flow basis, as lists were received, checked for accuracy, and processed. A total of 

35,630 faculty were sampled from participating institutions. Of these, 34,330 were eligible. 

Instrumentation 

The NSOPF:04 institution questionnaire was designed to be self-administered via the 

Internet; the NSoFaS:04 website for institutional participation provided secure access to the 

questionnaire and information about each component of the study. To expedite completion, it 

could also be administered as a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI), if necessary. The 

instrument was divided into major sections that collected information on the number of faculty 

and instructional staff employed at the target institution, the policies and practices that affected 

full-time faculty and instructional staff, the policies and practices that affected part-time faculty 

and instructional staff, and the percentage of undergraduate instruction assigned to various 

instructional personnel. 

The NSOPF:04 faculty instrument was also designed as a web-based instrument for selfadministration via the Internet and by CATI for nonresponse follow-up. The faculty website, like 

the institution website, provided secure access to the self-administered questionnaire as well as 

additional information about the study. 

Both instruments were designed to accommodate the mixed-mode data collection 

approach and to ensure the collection of high-quality data. Design considerations included 

appropriate question wording for both self-administered and telephone interviews, and checks for 

out-of-range or inconsistent values. The faculty instrument consisted of the following eight 

sections grouped by topic: 

• employment during the fall 2003 term (including academic rank, tenure status, and 

field of teaching); 

• academic and professional background (including highest degree earned and 

employment history); 

• institutional responsibilities and workload (including instructional activities and other 

work responsibilities performed in a typical week); 

• scholarly activities (including productivity, funding of scholarly activities, and field 

of research); 

• job satisfaction and retirement plans; 

• monetary compensation (including income from the institution and other sources, 

structure of the employment contract, and household income); 

• sociodemographic information (including gender, race, date of birth, marital status, 

number of dependent children, and citizenship); and 

• opinions about working conditions at the institution. 
Executive Summary 

v 

Institution Contacting 

Sampled institutions were contacted by mail, e-mail, and telephone beginning in spring 

2003 to allow institutions sufficient time to plan for the study and to resolve any potential 

roadblocks to participation. Institution contacts were designed to verify institutional eligibility, 

secure timely participation in each survey component, and identify a staff person at each 

institution—called the Institution Coordinator—to respond to all NSoFaS:04 data requests. The 

Institution Coordinator was mailed an introductory letter and accompanying information packet, 

and then contacted by telephone to confirm the institution’s intent and ability to participate 

within schedule constraints. At this time, each coordinator was asked to complete a Coordinator 

Response Form that confirmed the data items requested for each component of NSoFaS:04 and 

the projected deadlines for completion of the study. Upon request, project staff prepared 

additional information packets for Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and other deliberative 

bodies within institutions to secure the institution’s participation. 

Beginning in fall 2003, each Institution Coordinator was mailed a binder containing 

complete specifications for participation. Institution Coordinators were asked to provide 

electronic lists of all eligible faculty and instructional staff on November 1, 2003, and to 

complete the institution questionnaire by December 6, 2003. Follow-up activities continued with 

the Institution Coordinator until all requested data was supplied. 

Of the 1,070 eligible institutions, 980 (91 percent unweighted and weighted) provided 

faculty lists, and 920 (86 percent unweighted; 84 percent weighted) completed the institution 

questionnaire. 

Help Desk and Interviewer Training 

Training programs were developed for help desk operators who would respond to 

questions of sample members attempting to complete the web-based survey and for telephone 

interviewers who would conduct the nonresponse follow-up. Help desk operators received 

specific training in “frequently asked questions” regarding the instrument and technical issues 

related to completion of the self-administered questionnaire via the Internet. In addition, help 

desk operators received the same training as telephone interviewers because they were expected 

to complete the instrument over the telephone if requested by a caller. The telephone interviewer 

training focused on techniques for successfully locating and interviewing sample members, and 

covered such topics as administrative procedures required for case management, quality control 

of interactions with sample members and other contacts, and the organization and operation of 

the web-based faculty instrument to be used in data collection. 

Faculty Locating and Survey Completion 

NSOPF:04 data collection procedures were designed to locate sample members, 

encourage prompt completion of the self-administered questionnaire via the Internet, and 

conduct telephone interviews with nonrespondents. 

Upon receipt of faculty lists, contact information for the sampled faculty and instructional 

staff was reviewed and assessed for completeness. Incomplete information was supplemented by 

searches of the institution’s website for telephone and address information. Intensive tracing was 

performed when all telephone numbers for a respondent were exhausted. 
Executive Summary 

vi 

Faculty data collection utilized a mixed-mode approach; sample members could 

participate either by web-based self-administered questionnaire or by an intervieweradministered telephone interview. The participation of sample members was initially requested 

in a letter, which provided both instructions for completing the web questionnaire and 

completing the interview via CATI. Periodic reminder letters and e-mail messages were sent to 

nonrespondents to encourage their participation. 

After 4 weeks, interviewers began calling the sample members directly to attempt a CATI 

interview. An early-response incentive was provided to encourage prompt completion of the 

instrument. Incentives were also offered to sample members who refused or were unresponsive. 

Of the 34,330 eligible sample members, 26,110 (76 percent, unweighted and weighted) 

completed the faculty questionnaire during a field period from January to October of 2004. 

Seventy-six percent of respondents completed the self-administered web questionnaire, and 24 

percent were interviewed by telephone. The average time to complete the survey was 30 minutes. 

Evaluation of Operations and Data Quality 

Evaluations of operations and procedures focused on the joint institution contacting 

endeavor, the timeline for data collection from institutions (faculty lists and institution 

questionnaires) and faculty (CATI and self-administered interviews), tracing and locating 

procedures, refusal conversion efforts, the effectiveness of incentives, and the length of the 

faculty interview. 

Results of the data quality evaluations included the following: 

• Eighty-two percent of faculty list counts were within 10 percent of the corresponding 

institution questionnaire counts. There were greater variances between list counts and 

IPEDS, which is based on a narrower definition of faculty. Patterns of discrepancies 

between IPEDS and list data followed expected patterns, with list counts larger than 

those from IPEDS. 

• Item nonresponse was below 15 percent for 87 of the 90 items in the institution 

questionnaire and for 141 out of the 162 items in the faculty questionnaire. 

• Of the 26,550 eligible sample members who started the interview, 570 (2 percent) 

broke off before completing the interview. Of these, 430 broke off before completing 

the workload section and were not considered to be partial completes. Of the 140 

partial completes, 48 percent broke off in the scholarly activities section; 9 percent 

broke off in the job satisfaction section; 29 percent in the compensation section; 11 

percent in the characteristics section; and 4 percent in the opinions section. 

• A new assisted coding system, used to code field of teaching, highest degree field, 

and principal field of scholarly activity, coded 77 percent of verbatim strings; 23 

percent of strings required manual coding. 

• A recoding of 10 percent of teaching, research, and highest degree verbatim strings 

showed 71 percent were coded correctly, 13 percent incorrectly, and the remaining 15 

percent were too vague to code. The coding performed by web respondents was more 

often accepted as correctly coded than that done by CATI interviewers. 
Executive Summary 

vii 

• Of the approximately 25,760 postsecondary institutions coded in the faculty 

instrument, 1,130 (4 percent) were initially deemed uncodeable. Based on the 

institution information collected, however, 1,030 of these institutions were positively 

identified and recoded. 

NSOPF:04 Data Files and Products 

NSOPF:04 data can be accessed both through the NCES Data Analysis System (DAS) for 

public use and through electronically documented, restricted access data files (with associated 

Electronic Codebooks). The public-use DAS may be accessed on the NCES website at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/. 

Using DAS, researchers are able to 

• create their own analysis tables; 

• view the highlights of report findings, with figures and tables, for various 

postsecondary topics; 

• see a comprehensive listing of analyses regarding postsecondary education and 

download the reports; and 

• view and download DAS table parameter files (TPFs) used to generate report tables. 

An ongoing series of descriptive statistical reports may be accessed online or ordered 

through NCES as they are released. Descriptive reports focus on topics of interest, such as 

undergraduate teaching, teaching with technology, distance education instruction, gender and 

racial/ethnic composition of the faculty population, tenure status, work activities and 

compensation, and characteristics of part-time faculty. Publications available for public use may 

be downloaded or ordered at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=011. 
Executive Summary 

viii 
ix 

Foreword 

This report describes the methods and procedures used for the data collection effort of the 

2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). NSOPF:04 serves a continuing need 

for data on faculty and instructional staff, all of whom directly affect the quality of education in 

postsecondary institutions. 

We hope that the information provided here will be useful to a wide range of interested 

readers and that the results reported in the forthcoming descriptive summary report will 

encourage others to use the NSOPF:04 data. We welcome recommendations for improving the 

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

useful. 

C. Dennis Carroll 

Associate Commissioner 

Postsecondary Studies Division 
Foreword 

x 
xi 

Acknowledgments 

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

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) for their 

advice, guidance, and review in the design and conduct of the study, and in the preparation of 

this document. We are especially grateful to Linda Zimbler, the NSOPF:04 Project Officer; 

James Griffith, Program Director, Postsecondary Longitudinal and Sample Survey Studies 

(PLSSS); Tracy Hunt-White, Statistician (PLSSS), and C. Dennis Carroll, Associate 

Commissioner, Postsecondary Studies Division (PSD), for their constructive input and review. 

Particular thanks are extended as well to the Technical Review Panel members, who 

provided considerable insight and guidance in the development of the design and instrumentation 

of this study. For their careful review of the document, we also extend particular thanks to Ralph 

Lee, NCES Office of the Deputy Commissioner (ODC); Professor James Palmer, Illinois State 

University; Michael Cohen; Bureau of Transportation Statistics; and Marilyn Seastrom, Chief 

Statistician and Program Director, NCES Statistical Standards Program (ODC). 

We also extend our thanks to the project staff members of contractors RTI International, 

MPR Associates, Inc. and Pinkerton Computer Consultants, Inc. A number of staff from these 

organizations—including statisticians, analysts, survey managers, programmers, data collectors, 

and interviewers, too numerous to name here—worked long hours on this study. At RTI, we are 

especially indebted to Sallie Fiore, Sharon Powell, Lynne Hawley, and Craig R. Hollingsworth 

for their excellent and tireless efforts in preparing the drafts and final version of this report. 

Most of all, we are indebted to the many Chief Administrators, Institution Coordinators, 

institution respondents, and faculty and instructional staff members who participated in the 

NSOPF:04 study. Their willingness to take the time to share information made this study a 

success. 
Acknowledgments 

xii 
xiii 

Contents 

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................iii

Foreword.....................................................................................................................................................ix

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................xi

Chapter 1 Overview of NSOPF:04 ............................................................................................................1

1.1 Background and Purpose of NSOPF:04 .......................................................................................1

1.2 Methodological Issues and Changes for NSOPF:04.....................................................................2

1.2.1 Combining NSOPF and NPSAS......................................................................................2

1.2.2 Institution Sampling and List Collection.........................................................................2

1.2.3 Faculty Sampling and Data Collection............................................................................3

1.3 NSOPF:04 Products......................................................................................................................4

Chapter 2 Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 .............................................................................7

2.1 Sampling Design...........................................................................................................................7

2.1.1 Institution Frame..............................................................................................................8

2.1.2 Faculty Frame..................................................................................................................9

2.1.3 Institution Sample Selection..........................................................................................10

2.1.4 Faculty Sample Selection ..............................................................................................11

2.2 Instrumentation...........................................................................................................................13

2.2.1 Development of Instrumentation ...................................................................................13

2.2.2 Instrument Programming...............................................................................................15

2.2.3 Institution Questionnaire ...............................................................................................15

2.2.4 Faculty Questionnaire....................................................................................................18

2.3 Institution Data Collection..........................................................................................................25

2.3.1 Institution Website.........................................................................................................26

2.3.2 Institution Contacting ....................................................................................................28

2.4 Faculty Data Collection ..............................................................................................................33

2.4.1 Faculty Website .............................................................................................................33

2.4.2 Locating and Interviewing Procedures ..........................................................................34

2.5 Data Collection Systems.............................................................................................................38

2.5.1 Instrument Development and Documentation System ..................................................38

2.5.2 Integrated Management System ....................................................................................39

Chapter 3 Data Collection Outcomes.....................................................................................................41

3.1 Institution Data Collection Results.............................................................................................41

3.1.1 Institution Participation .................................................................................................41

3.1.2 Institution Survey Completion Timing..........................................................................44

3.2 Faculty Data Collection Results .................................................................................................45

3.2.1 Response Rate................................................................................................................45

3.2.2 Locating and Survey Completion ..................................................................................47

3.2.3 E-mail Contacting Efforts..............................................................................................52

3.2.4 Refusal Conversion Efforts ...........................................................................................52

3.2.5 Incentives.......................................................................................................................53

3.3 Burden and Effort .......................................................................................................................54

3.3.1 Faculty Survey Completion Timing ..............................................................................54

3.3.2 Help Desk ......................................................................................................................59

3.3.3 Interviewer Hours..........................................................................................................60
Contents 

xiv 

3.3.4 Number of Calls.............................................................................................................60

3.4 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................62

Chapter 4 Evaluation of Data Quality ....................................................................................................63

4.1 List Quality.................................................................................................................................63

4.1.1 List Types ......................................................................................................................63

4.1.2 List Data Quality ...........................................................................................................65

4.2 Item Nonresponse.......................................................................................................................67

4.3 Faculty Data Quality...................................................................................................................68

4.3.1 Item Mode Effects .........................................................................................................68

4.3.2 Breakoffs .......................................................................................................................71

4.3.3 Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) Coding.................................................72

4.3.4 IPEDS Coding ...............................................................................................................73

4.3.5 Monitoring..................................................................................................................... 74

4.3.6 Interviewer Feedback ....................................................................................................74

4.3.7 Instrument Feedback......................................................................................................78

4.4 Comparisons with NSOPF:99.....................................................................................................78

Chapter 5 Data File Development and Imputation................................................................................81

5.1 Overview of the NSOPF:04 Data Files ......................................................................................81

5.2 Data Coding and Editing ............................................................................................................82

5.3 Data Perturbation........................................................................................................................83

5.4 Imputation Methodology ............................................................................................................83

5.4.1 Imputation Methods.......................................................................................................84

5.4.2 Imputation of Faculty Data............................................................................................85

5.4.3 Imputation of Institution Data .......................................................................................86

5.4.4 Evaluation of Imputations .............................................................................................86

5.5 Derived Variables .......................................................................................................................88

Chapter 6 Weighting and Variance Estimation .....................................................................................91

6.1 Institution Weights .....................................................................................................................92

6.1.1 Adjustment for Institution Multiplicity .........................................................................93

6.1.2 Nonresponse Adjustment...............................................................................................93

6.1.3 Poststratification Adjustment ........................................................................................94

6.2 Faculty Weights..........................................................................................................................94

6.2.1 Selection Probability for Faculty...................................................................................94

6.2.2 Adjustment for Faculty Multiplicity..............................................................................95

6.2.3 Adjustment for Unknown Eligibility Status ..................................................................95

6.2.4 Nonresponse Adjustments .............................................................................................95

6.2.5 Poststratification/Raking Adjustment............................................................................95

6.3 Variance Estimation ...................................................................................................................97

6.4 Design Effects and Standard Errors..........................................................................................100

References................................................................................................................................................101

Appendixes 

A. Sampling Details ........................................................................................................................A-1 

B. Technical Review Panel ............................................................................................................. B-1 

C. Facsimile Instruments ................................................................................................................ C-1 

D. Item Crosswalks .........................................................................................................................D-1 
Contents 

xv 

E. Endorsements ............................................................................................................................. E-1 

F. Contacting Materials ...................................................................................................................F-1 

G. Training Materials......................................................................................................................G-1 

H. Quality of Lists...........................................................................................................................H-1 

I. Nonresponse Bias Analysis..........................................................................................................I-1 

J. CIP Code Mapping...................................................................................................................... J-1 

K. Analysis Variables......................................................................................................................K-1 

L. GEM Adjustment Procedure ...................................................................................................... L-1 

M. Design Effects ........................................................................................................................... M-1 
Contents 

xvi 

Table Page 

1. Schedule of major NSOPF:04 data collection activities: 2004 ...................................................... 3

2. Institution frame for the NSOPF:04, by Carnegie code, institution control, and degree 

granted: 2004.................................................................................................................................. 9

3. Distribution of NSOPF:04 institution universe and sample, by institution control and 

degree granted: 2004 .................................................................................................................... 11

4. Distribution of NSOPF:04 faculty sample sizes and completed interviews by faculty 

stratum: 2004................................................................................................................................ 13

5. Content and formatting changes to the NSOPF:99 institution questionnaire in 

preparation for the NSOPF:04 instrument: 2004 ......................................................................... 17

6. Overview of the NSOPF:04 questionnaire for faculty and instructional staff: 2004 ................... 19

7. Items removed from the NSOPF:04 faculty/instructional staff questionnaire following 

the NSOPF:04 field test and estimated time savings: 2004 ......................................................... 20

8. Content and formatting changes to the NSOPF:99 faculty questionnaire in preparation 

for the NSOPF:04 instrument: 2004............................................................................................. 22

9. Number and percentage of institutions providing faculty lists, by cycle of National Study 

of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF): 1988 to 2004 ...................................................................... 42

10. Number and percentage of institutions providing faculty lists, by type of institution: 

2004.............................................................................................................................................. 42

11. Number and percentage of institutions providing institution questionnaires, by type of 

institution: 2004............................................................................................................................ 43

12. Number and percentage of institutions providing institution questionnaires, by mode of 

administration: 2004..................................................................................................................... 43

13. Average and maximum completion time, in seconds, for forms in the institution 

questionnaire: 2004 ...................................................................................................................... 45

14. Number of sampled, eligible, and responding faculty and response rates, by institution 

type: 2004..................................................................................................................................... 46

15. Faculty response rates, by date lead letter package was mailed: 2004......................................... 47

16. Locate and interview rates, by intensive tracing efforts: 2004..................................................... 48

17. Locate rates, by intensive tracing source: 2004............................................................................ 48

18. Faculty and instructional staff requiring intensive tracing procedures, by employment 

status and institution type: 2004................................................................................................... 49

19. Faculty locating and survey completion results, by employment status and institution 

type: 2004..................................................................................................................................... 50

20. Response rates and mode of completion, by employment status and institution type: 

2004.............................................................................................................................................. 51

21. Faculty response rates, by incentive period: 2004 ....................................................................... 54

22. Average on-screen, transit, and total survey completion time, in minutes, for the faculty 

questionnaire, by mode: 2004 ...................................................................................................... 55

23. Average on-screen, transit, and total completion time, in minutes, by time of day and 

mode: 2004................................................................................................................................... 56
Contents 

xvii 

24. Average and maximum completion time, in seconds, for forms in the faculty instrument: 

2004.............................................................................................................................................. 56

25. Response pattern, by help desk problem type: 2004 .................................................................... 60

26. Total and average number of calls, by completion status and mode of completion: 2004........... 61

27. Average call attempts, by reached answering machine: 2004...................................................... 61

28. Number of submitted faculty lists, by type of institution and transmittal mode: 2004 ................ 64

29. Faculty list types, by NSOPF cycle: 1999 and 2004.................................................................... 64

30. Type of discrepancies encountered, by type of institution: 2004................................................. 66

31. Percentage differences between sources of data across all cycles of NSOPF: 1988 to 

2004.............................................................................................................................................. 66

32. Mean differences between sources of data across all cycles of NSOPF: 1988 to 2004 ............... 67

33. Satisfaction with various aspects of job, by mode of administration: 2004................................. 71

34. Faculty instrument forms where more than 15 sample members terminated the 

interview: 2004............................................................................................................................. 72

35. Summary of coding results for fields of teaching, research, and highest degree, by mode 

of administration: 2004 ................................................................................................................ 73

36. Weighted estimates obtained based on the 1999 and 2004 survey data for a series of key 

analytical variables: 2004............................................................................................................. 79

37. Description of missing data codes: 2004...................................................................................... 82

38. Prevalence of missing/imputed data for the faculty and institution surveys: 2004 ...................... 84

39. Before and after imputation distributions of key faculty questionnaire variables: 2004.............. 87

40. Before and after imputation distributions of key institution questionnaire variables: 2004......... 89

41. Counts of sampled, eligible, and participating institutions, by institution type: 2004 ................. 92

42. Faculty counts obtained from EAP:03, by institution type and employment status..................... 96

43. Faculty counts obtained from EAP:03 and NSOPF:04 sampling frame, by institution 

type, race/ethnicity, and gender.................................................................................................... 96

44. Design effects (DEFFs) and root design effects (DEFT) for faculty statistics: 2004................. 100

 

Figure Page 

1. The 2004 National Study of Faculty and Students institution website home page ...................... 26

2. The 2004 National Study of Faculty and Students institution website status screen ................... 28

3. The NSOPF:04 faculty website home page ................................................................................. 34

4. NSOPF:04 faculty data collection overview ................................................................................ 35

5. Contacting and survey completion outcomes: 2004..................................................................... 46

6. Cumulative response rates, by mode of completion: 2004........................................................... 52
Contents 

xviii 
1 

Chapter 1 

Overview of NSOPF:04 

This document describes the study design, procedures, and outcomes for the 2004 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04), which was conducted for the National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, 

as authorized by Title I, Section 153, of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 [PL 107-

279]. For the 2004 cycle, NSOPF:04 was conducted as a component study of the 2004 National 

Study of Faculty and Students (NSoFaS:04) under contract by RTI International,1 with the 

assistance of MPR Associates, Inc., and Pinkerton Computer Consultants, Inc. Results for the 

student component, the 2004 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:04), are 

provided in a separate methodology report (Cominole et al.). 

This introductory chapter provides an overview of NSOPF:04, including a description of 

the background and purpose of the study, the types of policy-relevant issues addressed, the 

changes to the study from previous cycles, the data and reports generated from the study, and the 

schedule of data collection activities. 

1.1 Background and Purpose of NSOPF:04 

NSOPF:04 was a comprehensive nationwide study of the characteristics, workload, and 

career paths of postsecondary faculty and instructional staff.2 The study was based on a 

nationally representative sample of all full- and part-time faculty and instructional staff at public 

and private not-for-profit 2- and 4-year degree-granting institutions in the United States. The 

NSOPF:04 full-scale sample consisted of 35,630 faculty and instructional staff selected from 980 

sampled institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.3

 

NSOPF:04 comprises the fourth cycle of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty. 

Previous studies, conducted in 1988, 1993, and 1999 (called NSOPF:88, NSOPF:93, and 

NSOPF:99, respectively), provided national profiles of faculty and instructional staff in 

postsecondary institutions, national benchmarks for faculty productivity and workload, and 

information on institutional policies and practices that affect faculty. The fourth cycle of the 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, NSOPF:04, expanded the information about faculty 

and instructional staff in two ways: (1) it allowed for comparisons to be made over an extended 

period of time, and (2) it helped examine emerging issues concerning faculty, such as changes 

related to increased use of the Internet and distance education. 

NSOPF:04 was designed to address a variety of policy-relevant issues concerning faculty, 

instructional staff, and postsecondary institutions. The study included faculty and institution 

questionnaires covering general policies concerning faculty. Information obtained from these 

two sources helped address important questions about postsecondary education, such as the 

following: 

 

1

 RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. 

2

 References to “faculty” in this report include instructional staff and others (e.g., administrators) with faculty status 

(who may or may not have instructional duties). 

3

 Throughout this report, faculty and institution counts are rounded to the nearest 10 to protect the confidentiality of 

faculty and institutions. However, percentages cited are based on the original unrounded numbers. 
Chapter 1. Overview of NSOPF:04 

2 

• What are the background characteristics of full- and part-time faculty? 

• What are their workloads and how is their time allocated between classroom 

instruction and other activities? 

• What are the current teaching practices and uses of technology among postsecondary 

faculty and instructional staff? 

• How satisfied are they with current working conditions and institutional policies? 

• How are faculty and instructional staff compensated by their institutions? How 

important are other sources of income? 

• What are the career and retirement plans of faculty and instructional staff? 

• What retirement packages are available to faculty and instructional staff? 

• Have institutions changed their policies on granting tenure to faculty members? Are 

changes anticipated in the future? 

1.2 Methodological Issues and Changes for NSOPF:04 

1.2.1 Combining NSOPF and NPSAS 

NSOPF:04 was, in one respect, unlike any previous cycle of NSOPF, as it was conducted 

in tandem with another major study, NPSAS:04, under one overarching contract: NSoFaS:04. 

NCES recognized that, historically, there has been considerable overlap in the institutions 

selected for participation in NSOPF:04 and NPSAS:04. By combining the two independent 

studies under one contract, NCES sought to minimize the response burden on institutions and to 

realize data collection efficiencies. The NSOPF:04 and NPSAS:04 studies retain their separate 

identities. The purpose of this report is to summarize the methodology of NSOPF:04; sampling 

and data collection procedures for NPSAS:04 are referred to only as they are combined with, or 

impact, the parallel procedures for NSOPF:04. 

The combination of NSOPF:04 and NPSAS:04 into NSoFaS:04 had important 

implications for the NSOPF:04 institution sample design and institution contacting procedures. 

Institutions for the NSOPF:04 sample were selected as a subsample of the NPSAS:04 sample 

institutions.4

 This combination resulted in a somewhat larger sample of institutions for the fullscale study than previous NSOPF cycles (1,070 eligible institutions compared to 960 in 1999) 

and created a need to balance the design requirements of both studies in all institution-related 

study procedures. 

1.2.2 Institution Sampling and List Collection 

Apart from the changes necessitated by combining NSOPF:04 and NPSAS:04, as noted 

above, the key change in sampling procedures for NSOPF:04 was its use of a customized 

cost/variance optimization technique. This procedure was designed to identify the allocation that 

would accommodate all analytical objectives of this survey while minimizing data collection 

 

4

 The larger NPSAS sample includes about 400 schools not eligible for NSOPF, including less-than-two-year and 

proprietary schools, and schools located in Puerto Rico. It also includes about 140 institutions that were NSOPFeligible but not included in the sample because the precision requirements for NSOPF could be met without their 

inclusion. 
Chapter 1. Overview of NSOPF:04 

3 

costs. As with the institution-level sampling, a customized cost/variance optimization technique 

was used to determine the optimal allocation of faculty to the sampling strata. 

In previous cycles, delays in receiving faculty lists created critical delays in sampling and 

contacting respondents during the time optimal to reach them (i.e., prior to the close of the 

regular academic year). Because the perceived burden of NSoFaS:04 would likely be greater 

than that of the individual studies by themselves, an advance notification and early contacting 

strategy was developed for this cycle. The purpose of advance notification and early contacting 

was to provide sufficient time to resolve any roadblocks to participation, allow the Institution 

Coordinator sufficient time to plan staffing and resources for the study, and to allow sufficient 

time for the completion of any review process the institution required, thereby facilitating the 

finish of data collection prior to the deadline. 

For faculty list collection, procedures were developed that would encourage institutions 

to provide lists of faculty and complete related documentation (including the institution 

questionnaire) online. On the NSoFaS:04 website, a secure tool for uploading lists was provided 

to eliminate the need for institutions to send data files through conventional mail. 

The institution questionnaire was designed as a single integrated web/computer-assisted 

telephone interview (CATI) instrument; there was no hardcopy instrument, although a facsimile 

was provided to allow dissemination of questions to different departments. 

Table 1 summarizes the data collection schedule for the full-scale study. 

Table 1. Schedule of major NSOPF:04 data collection activities: 2004 

Activity Start date1 End date2

Select institution sample May 22, 2002 August 25, 2002 

Institutional recruitment/early contacting of institution coordinators3 March 10, 2003 September 29, 2003 

Obtain faculty lists4

 September 29, 2003 July 11, 2004 

Implement institution questionnaire September 29, 2003 October 22, 2004 

Select faculty samples November 6, 2003 July 12, 2004 

Send mail and e-mail to faculty January 15, 2004 October 1, 2004 

Implement faculty web questionnaire January 15, 2004 October 6, 2004 

Implement faculty CATI interviewing February 12, 2004 October 5, 2004 

1 This is the date on which the activity was initiated for the first applicable institution and/or its associated faculty. 2 This is the date on which the activity was completed for the last applicable institution and/or its associated faculty. 3 The Chief Administrator’s office at each institution was contacted to appoint an Institution Coordinator, who served 

as the primary point of contact to deal with specific survey-related questions, correspondence, and follow-up. 4 Faculty sampling rates were determined based upon frame counts using Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System (IPEDS) information, and selected on a rolling basis as lists were received. 

NOTE: CATI = computer assisted telephone interview. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

1.2.3 Faculty Sampling and Data Collection 

Precision goals for NSOPF:04 were to secure national-level survey estimates with 

precisions comparable to or better than those of NSOPF:99 for the overall faculty population. As 

with institution-level sampling, a customized cost/variance optimization technique was used to 

allocate the sample faculty to the institution and person strata while minimizing cost and 
Chapter 1. Overview of NSOPF:04 

4 

variance. Further details about faculty sampling may be found in Section 2.1; sample allocation 

to strata is fully detailed in appendix A.” 

Sample size was significantly larger than in the previous cycle: 35,630 faculty were 

sampled for NSOPF:04; of which, 34,330 were eligible. The final eligible sample for NSOPF:99 

was 19,210. Criteria for faculty eligibility are discussed in section 2.1.2. 

Prior to sampling, faculty counts from all lists provided by participating institutions were 

checked against both the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and the 

counts provided by the institution on their institution questionnaire. (In 1999, the IPEDS 

comparison was used as a quality control check only when institution questionnaire counts were 

absent). As in NSOPF:99, institutions were contacted to resolve any discrepancies between data 

sources. 

As in past cycles, faculty data collection utilized a mixed-mode approach; however, for 

NSOPF:04, sample members could participate only by a web-based self-administrated 

questionnaire or by an interviewer-administered telephone interview—there was no hardcopy 

version of the questionnaire. The participation of sample faculty members was initially requested 

in a letter that provided both instructions for completing the web questionnaire and calling to 

complete the interview via CATI. After 4 weeks, interviewers contacted the sample faculty 

members who had not completed the questionnaire to attempt a telephone interview. An earlyresponse incentive was provided to encourage prompt completion of the instrument. Refusal or 

nonresponse incentives were also offered to selected sample members. Incentives are discussed 

in section 3.2.5. 

1.3 NSOPF:04 Products 

Data from the full-scale study will be used by researchers and policymakers to examine a 

wide range of topics, including who faculty are, what they do, and whether and how they are 

changing over time. NSOPF:04 provides data on each of these topics. The NCES Data Analysis 

System (DAS) for public release has been constructed from the data and is available to the public 

at http://nces.ed.gov/das. Electronically documented, restricted access data files with associated 

Electronic Codebooks (ECBs) are also available to qualified researchers. 

The following types of reports are products of NSOPF:04: (1) this methodology report, 

providing details of sample design and selection procedures, data collection procedures, 

weighting methodologies, estimation procedures and design effects, and the results of 

nonresponse analyses; and (2) a series of descriptive statistical reports on key topics of interest. 

These topics include undergraduate teaching, faculty work activities and compensation, gender 

and racial/ethnic composition, and characteristics of part-time faculty. NSOPF:04 publications 

can be accessed electronically through the NCES website at 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/getpubcats.asp?sid=011. 

Special tabulations are available on a limited basis from the National Education Data 

Resource Center (NEDRC) upon request. Use of NEDRC services is most appropriate for well 

defined questions that are likely to yield a few tables. It is recommended that those requiring 

more extensive research and in-depth analysis apply for direct access to the restricted access data 

files. Questions regarding NEDRC services may be directed by e-mail to nedrc@pcci.com or to 

Aurora D’Amico at aurora.d'amico@ed.gov or (202) 502-7334. 
Chapter 1. Overview of NSOPF:04 

5 

The remainder of this report contains the details of various activities. Chapter 2 details 

the survey design and implementation. Data collection outcomes are reported in chapter 3. 

Chapter 4 presents evaluations of the quality of data collected from institutions and faculty. 

Chapter 5 details procedures for data file development and imputation. Chapter 6 reports on 

procedures for weighting and variance estimation. 
Chapter 1. Overview of NSOPF:04 

6 
7 

Chapter 2 

Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

This chapter provides a detailed summary of the design and implementation of the 2004 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) full-scale study. Sampling of institutions 

and of faculty and instructional staff is discussed in detail. In addition, instrument design and 

data collection procedures are described. 

A Technical Review Panel (TRP) meeting was held on September 8–9, 2003. The panel, 

comprised of nationally recognized experts in higher education, reviewed the impact of 

methodological changes in sampling and data collection, including combining NSOPF:04 with 

NPSAS:04, the elimination of paper instruments, shortening the data collection period, and 

revisions to the instruments. The list of panel members is provided in appendix B. 

2.1 Sampling Design 

NSOPF:04 employed a two-stage sampling methodology for selection of eligible faculty 

and instructional staff based on a cost/variance optimization process, details of which are 

provided in appendix A. In the first step, samples of eligible institutions were selected within the 

following 10 institutional strata:

• public doctoral; 

• public master’s; 

• public baccalaureate; 

• public associate; 

• public other/unknown; 

• private not-for-profit doctoral; 

• private not-for-profit master’s; 

• private not-for-profit baccalaureate; 

• private not-for-profit associate; and 

• private not-for-profit other/unknown. 

In the second step, samples of faculty members were selected within sampled institutions using a 

stratified systematic sampling where the six strata were defined in the following hierarchical 

order:

• Hispanic; 

• non-Hispanic Black; 

• Asian and Pacific Islander; 

• full-time female; 

• full-time male; and 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

8 

• all other. 

The institution frame was comprised of all 3,380 eligible postsecondary institutions, 

while the faculty frame included all faculty and instructional staff in the corresponding 

institutions, which was estimated to include approximately 1.1 million individuals (Zimbler 

2001).5

The composition and eligibility definitions for these frames are outlined below. 

2.1.1 Institution Frame 

The institution frame for the NSOPF:04, like previous NSOPF cycles, consisted of all 

institutions meeting the following criteria: 

• located in the 50 states or the District of Columbia; 

• classified as participating in Title IV6

 student aid programs; 

• public or private not-for-profit; 

• 2- or 4-year degree-granting; 

• offers educational programs designed for students beyond high school; 

• academically, occupationally, or vocationally oriented; and 

• makes programs available to the public. 

The resulting frame was a subset of that used for the National Postsecondary Student Aid 

Study (NPSAS:04), in that NSOPF:04 did not include private for-profit less-than-2-year nondegree-granting or Puerto Rican institutions that were included in NPSAS:04. 

The institution frame for NSOPF:04 was constructed from the Winter 2001–02 Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System Data Collection (Winter:02 IPEDS) file. To allow precise 

survey estimates for sectors of interest to the education community, this set of institutions was 

stratified based on institution control and level of degree offered. Institution control 

distinguished between public and private not-for-profit institutions, while level of degree offered 

was based on the 2000 Carnegie classification system7

 for segmentation of institutions. Table 2 

summarizes the number of the eligible institutions for each of the resulting 10 primary 

institutional strata, based on the Winter:02 IPEDS file. 

 

5

 This was used as a preliminary estimate and was adjusted later. 

6

 Postsecondary institutions which have signed Title IV federal student aid program participation agreements with the 

U.S. Department of Education. 

7

 The Carnegie Classification is a taxonomy of colleges and universities in the United States according to such 

variables as degrees awarded, number of fields covered, and specialization. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

9 

Table 2. Institution frame for the NSOPF:04, by Carnegie code, institution control, and degree 

granted: 2004 

Degree granting Total Carnegie code Public Private not-for-profit 

 Total 3,380 † 1,700 1,680 

 

Doctoral 300 15, 16, and 52 190 110 

Master’s 590 21 and 22 270 320 

Bachelor’s 570 31, 32, and 33 90 480 

Associate’s 1,180 40 and 60 1,030 150 

Other/unknown 730 51, 53–59, and unknown 110 620 

† Not applicable. 

NOTE: For sampling purposes, public baccalaureate, private associate, and other/unknown institutions are collapsed 

into a single stratum. Definitions of Carnegie codes are available at http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classification. 

The institution universe counts include institutions that were added after the sample was selected to account for 

institutions that became eligible for NSOPF:04 after construction of the institution sampling frame from the Winter:02 

IPEDS. Also, the 44 institutions that had an unknown Carnegie code at the time of sample selection have been 

reassigned to their appropriate strata. Therefore, there are no longer any institutions with unknown Carnegie codes in 

the sample, but some still remain in the universe. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10. Detail may not sum 

to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS), Fall 2000. 

2.1.2 Faculty Frame 

The second-stage sampling frame for NSOPF:04 includes faculty and instructional staff 

in the eligible postsecondary institutions. This includes both instructional faculty and faculty 

with no instructional responsibilities (e.g., research or administrative faculty) as well as staff 

with instructional responsibilities regardless of faculty status. In summary, eligible individuals 

for the NSOPF:04 study included any faculty and instructional staff who 

• were permanent, temporary, adjunct, visiting, acting, or postdoctoral appointees; 

• were employed full- or part-time by the institution; 

• taught credit or noncredit classes; 

• were tenured, nontenured but on tenure track, or nontenured and not on tenure track; 

• provided individual instruction, served on thesis or dissertation committees, advised, 

or otherwise interacted with first-professional, graduate, or undergraduate students; 

• were in professional schools (e.g., medical, law, dentistry); or 

• were on paid sabbatical leave. 

Ineligible individuals for NSOPF:04 included staff who: 

• were graduate or undergraduate teaching or research assistants; 

• had instructional duties outside of the United States, unless on sabbatical leave; 

• were on leave without pay; 

• were not paid by the institution, e.g., those in the military or part of a religious order; 

• were supplied by independent contractors; or 

• who otherwise volunteer their services. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

10 

2.1.3 Institution Sample Selection 

The administration of NSOPF:04 consisted of a sample of 35,630 faculty and 

instructional staff across a sample of 1,080 institutions in the 50 states and the District of 

Columbia. This section provides details regarding the composition and construction of the 

institution sampling frame and methods used for selection of the institution sample. 

Institution frame construction 

The institution sample was selected using Chromy’s sequential probability minimum 

replacement (PMR) sampling algorithm (Chromy 1979) to select institutions with probabilities 

proportional to a composite measure of size, details of which are provided in appendix A. For 

this purpose, each institution was assigned a measure of size (MOS) based on the number of 

eligible faculty and instructional staff and students in the given institution. Specifically, the 

composite size measure was the sum of cross products of sampling rates and population sizes for 

the groups, operating as the expected combined sample size at an institution. This measure was 

designed to ensure that student and faculty in certain minority strata would have a higher chance 

of selection. For faculty, these minority strata included: 

• Hispanic; 

• non-Hispanic Black or African American; 

• Asian and Pacific Islander; 

• female, full-time employee; 

• male, full-time employee; and 

• all others. 

It should be noted that the MOS for each institution was calculated to reflect the number 

of students in the given institutions, since for this administration the institution samples for 

NPSAS:04 and NSOPF:04 were selected jointly. That is, precision requirements for NSoFaS:04 

were considered jointly by reflecting both the faculty and student design objectives. Faculty 

counts needed for MOS calculations were initially obtained from the Fall Staff Survey 

component of the Winter:02 IPEDS data collection. However, this source could not provide all 

information necessary to classify faculty members into one of the above sampling strata. For 

instance, in a number of institutions faculty counts were not reported, while for others reported 

counts were not indexed by race and ethnicity. As a result, the missing information was imputed 

in two steps. In the first step, unreported (missing) faculty counts were imputed, while in the 

second step, faculty reported as unknown race/ethnicity or nonresident aliens were distributed 

among the known race categories using a special procedure, details of which are provided in 

appendix A. 

Institution sample selection 

The institution sampling frame was constructed from the IPEDS-IC files and was 

partitioned into institutional strata based on institutional control, highest level of offering, and 

Carnegie classification.8 As mentioned earlier, the sample of institutions was selected probability 

 

8

 More detailed information about the Carnegie classification can be found in appendix A. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

11 

proportional to size (PPS) based on the number of faculty and students at each institution, using 

Chromy’s sampling algorithm. Sample sizes and their corresponding sampling rates were 

established using a customized cost/variance optimization procedure, which aimed to identify the 

allocation that would accommodate all analytical objectives of this survey while minimizing data 

collection costs. 

Table 3 summarizes the distribution of the resulting sample of institutions for NSOPF:04. 

Subsequent to selection of the sample, the resulting institutions were contacted and asked to 

provide lists of eligible faculty and instructional staff for their institutions. 

Table 3. Distribution of NSOPF:04 institution universe and sample, by institution control and 

degree granted: 2004 

Total Public Private not-for-profit 

Degree granting Universe Sample Universe Sample Universe Sample 

 Total 3,380 1,080 1,700 680 1,680 400 

 

Doctoral 300 300 190 190 110 110 

Master’s 590 200 270 120 320 80 

Bachelor’s 570 160 90 30 480 130 

Associate’s 1,180 350 1,030 340 150 10 

Other/unknown 730 70 110 10 620 60 

NOTE: The universe and sample counts include institutions that were added after the sample was selected to 

account for institutions that became eligible for NSOPF:04 since construction of the institution sampling frame from 

the Winter:02 IPEDS. Also, the 44 sample institutions that had an unknown Carnegie code at the time of sample 

selection were reassigned to their appropriate strata. Therefore, there are no longer any institutions with unknown 

Carnegie codes in the sample, but some still remain in the universe. Universe and sample counts are rounded to the 

nearest 10. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

2.1.4 Faculty Sample Selection 

This section provides an overview of the faculty sample selection procedures, which 

include methods used for frame construction and the technical details of cost/variance 

optimization process for selection of the initial sample sizes and calculation of needed sampling 

rates. 

Faculty frame construction 

The sampling frames for selection of faculty and instructional staff were constructed 

institution-by-institution. Each sampled institution was asked to provide a complete listing of 

eligible full- and part-time faculty and instructional staff. The majority of lists were delivered 

electronically; however, some of these lists were abstracted from online sources such as 

institution directories or supplied on paper. 

Faculty sample selection 

The sample of faculty was selected using an equal probability stratified systematic 

sampling, within cells indexed by institutional and faculty strata. As detailed in the next section, 

a customized cost/variance optimization program was utilized. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

12 

Determining initial faculty sample sizes and sample allocation 

A special cost/variance optimization program was used to determine the desired 

allocation of respondents to institution-by-person strata, the goal of which was to secure at least 

the same level of precision for key estimates as those achieved during the previous 

administration of the survey. This optimization process, which is detailed in appendix A, 

consisted of the following steps: 

• establishing precision requirements for key estimates; 

• constructing a cost model specific to the structure of the NSOPF:04 sample; 

• developing a relative variance model; and 

• determining the optimum sample allocation. 

Faculty sample selection 

Faculty members were sampled as faculty lists were received from participating 

institutions. Prior to selecting the faculty sample for a given institution, expected sample sizes for 

each faculty stratum were calculated using the institution-specific faculty list counts and 

sampling rates. These sampling rates were then modified, as necessary, for the reasons given 

below. 

• Rates were increased across all faculty strata to ensure that at least ten faculty 

members were selected from each institution, if possible. 

• Rates were increased within faculty strata to guarantee that at least one faculty 

member was selected per stratum within each institution, if possible. 

• The sample yield was monitored throughout the months during which faculty lists 

were received, and the faculty sampling rates were adjusted periodically for 

institutions for which sample selection had not yet been performed to ensure that the 

desired faculty sample sizes were achieved. 

Stratified systematic sampling was used to select faculty members from the faculty lists. 

Specifically, from each list (institution) sample faculty were selected within each faculty stratum 

defined by race/ethnicity, gender, and employment status using the corresponding rate for the 

given institution-faculty stratum, with academic field serving as an implicit sort variable. 

Whenever a list contained insufficient data to identify faculty strata, a systematic sample of 

faculty was selected using the overall sampling rate for the institution. For hard copy lists, the 

resulting sample was then keyed to create an electronic file. The following table 4 provides a 

summary of the required sample sizes, which were determined based on the cost/variance 

optimization process and the resulting completed interviews by faculty stratum. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

13 

Table 4. Distribution of NSOPF:04 faculty sample sizes and completed interviews by faculty 

stratum: 2004 

Faculty stratum Required sample size Completed interviews 

 Total 24,500 26,100 

 

Non-Hispanic Black 1,600 2,060 

Hispanic 1,300 1,700 

Asian and Pacific Islander 900 1,610 

Other full-time female 4,600 5,850 

Other full-time male 8,300 8,500 

Other part-time 7,800 6,380 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

The information supplied for each sampled faculty member (e.g., name, academic field, 

residence) was checked against that of faculty previously selected from other institutions to 

identify and eliminate respondents sampled twice. Duplicates were eliminated from the sample 

of the current institution. Once the de-duplication process was complete and the institution’s 

final sample file was created, the institution’s final sample file was added to the master dataset. 

The master dataset contained all sampled faculty members and their relevant sampling 

information. 

2.2 Instrumentation 

This section describes the institution and faculty instruments that were developed for the 

NSOPF:04 full-scale study conducted during the 2003–04 academic year with a national sample 

of postsecondary institutions and faculty and instructional staff. Data collection for the study was 

by self-administered questionnaires on the Internet or computer-assisted telephone interviews 

(CATIs) with web nonrespondents. In contrast to the data collection approach for NSOPF:99, no 

paper-and-pencil questionnaire options were provided.9 Facsimiles of the electronic instruments, 

which provide item wording, response options, and information on respondent groups, are 

included in appendix C. 

2.2.1 Development of Instrumentation 

Project staff from RTI and MPR Associates were responsible, respectively, for 

developing and implementing study instrumentation for NSOPF:04 and for ensuring that the 

instruments, where possible, retained analytic comparability with earlier data collection rounds 

of the study. Revisions to the institution and faculty/instructional staff instruments built upon the 

NSOPF:99 instruments, and included the comments and suggestions of the Technical Review 

Panel (TRP), sample respondents contacted after the study for additional information, and other 

government officials and postsecondary researchers. (Copies of the NSOPF:99 data collection 

instruments for postsecondary institutions and faculty/instructional staff are included as 

appendixes A and B, respectively, in Abraham et al. 2002.) In May 2002, meetings with the TRP 

were conducted to review the relevance of policy issues examined in NSOPF:99, the importance 

of emerging issues (such as increased use of the Internet and distance education) not included in 

 

9

 A “facsimile” of the institution questionnaire—what the electronic instrument might have looked like if it was 

rendered as a hard-copy document—was included with the binder materials distributed to Institution Coordinators. 

However, this 12-page document was marked “informational copy only” and was not used for data collection. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

14 

the 1999 instruments, and the consequences of adding, revising, or deleting items from the 

NSOPF:99 instruments.10

Following contract award for NSOPF:04, project staff developed and tested multiple 

versions of the institution and faculty/instructional staff instruments. A field test version of the 

instrumentation was developed at the start of the 2002–03 academic year and closely reviewed 

by members of the study TRP, government officials, postsecondary researchers, and other 

interested individuals. Then during the fall and spring terms of 2002–03, field test data collection 

for NSOPF:04 permitted the evaluation of the revised institution and faculty/staff 

instrumentation under conditions comparable to those to be employed during the NSOPF:04 fullscale study.11

Several policy, methodological, and practical concerns guided the development of 

instrumentation for NSOPF:04. To ensure the comparability of data elements from earlier rounds 

of the postsecondary faculty study in 1988, 1993, and 1999, one of the primary objectives of 

instrumentation was to maintain the trend analyses for this national, cross-sectional study. 

However, this goal was balanced by the importance of adequately considering emerging issues, 

while at the same time developing instruments that could be completed quickly and efficiently by 

sample members. For example, almost 70 percent of the institution responses for the 1999 study 

were obtained via paper-and-pencil questionnaire, and the average time to complete the 

institution questionnaire was 90 minutes. For the NSOPF:99 faculty questionnaire, over one-half 

(54 percent) of the respondents completed hardcopy instruments, with an average web and paper 

questionnaire completion time of 51 minutes; the average CATI completion time was 55 

minutes. 

Based on these considerations, the goals for the NSOPF:04 instrumentation included 

several elements: 

• All data collection would be completed electronically, using web-based selfadministered questionnaires, with telephone interviews for those who did not respond 

to the web self-administered questionnaires. No paper and pencil instruments would 

be received. 

• All data collection instruments for the study would be shorter than the NSOPF:99 

instruments, thus simultaneously increasing response rates while reducing the 

potential for bias and the need for costly refusal conversion efforts. The targets for 

average time to complete the instruments were set at 45 minutes for the institution 

questionnaire and 30 minutes for the faculty/instructional staff questionnaire. 

• Consistent with the transition to all-electronic data collection, the NSOPF:04 

instrumentation was designed to be easier for sample members to complete, to be 

easier for the study team to process, and to provide higher quality data. 

• Finally, the instrumentation team sought to address emerging issues as well as to 

maintain comparability with earlier rounds of the study. 

 

10 One important element in this process was a consideration of recent literature in the field; for example, Developing 

the 2004 Faculty Survey: Themes from the Literature on Postsecondary Education, developed by the American 

Institutes for Research (Berger et al. 2002). 

11 Field test data collection for the institution questionnaire took place from September 2002 through June 2003; 

faculty/instructional staff field test data collection lasted from January 2003 through June 2003. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

15 

With these goals established, planning and design for the NSOPF:04 institution and 

faculty/instructional staff questionnaires began. Specification for both instruments was in RTI’s 

Instrument Development and Documentation System (IDADS), a tool developed specifically for 

the design of complex electronic data collection instruments (see also section 2.5.1). Using 

IDADS, instrument designers entered information about each instrument item, including the 

variable data definition, formatting, and the desired on-screen presentation.12 For each of the 

NSOPF:04 instruments, designers specified the variable names and labels, values and value 

labels, “applies to” fields, and variable definitions (e.g., numeric, continuous, maximum and 

minimum values, field size, etc.). 

2.2.2 Instrument Programming 

Despite the different data collection modes for NSOPF:04, the self-administered web 

instruments for the institution and faculty/instructional staff respondents were identical to their 

corresponding CATI instruments. Both instruments were web-based products, located on U.S. 

Department of Education servers. The instruments were developed using Microsoft 

Corporation’s Active Server Pages (ASP) web programming language.13 This approach resulted 

in a computer-assisted data collection program that facilitated the preloading of full-screen data 

entry and editing of “matrix-type” responses. The web and CATI system presented interviewers 

with screens of questions to be completed, with the software guiding the respondent through the 

interview. Inapplicable questions were skipped automatically based on prior response patterns. 

On-screen clarification was available for all items.14 The instrument also provided real-time error 

checking for inconsistent or out-of-range responses and minimized the potential for inadvertently 

skipped items. 

2.2.3 Institution Questionnaire 

Instrumentation activities for the NSOPF:04 institution questionnaire began in May 2002 

with revisions to the NSOPF:99 instrument. Project staff began working with a revised version 

of the NSOPF:99 instrument that incorporated the lessons learned from the NSOPF:99 data 

collection, including the comments and suggestions for instrumentation provided by both the 

NSOPF TRP and a small number of study respondents who were contacted for additional 

information after the completion of NSOPF:99 data collection. 

This information formed the input for the NSOPF:04 field test institution questionnaire 

that was administered to a purposive sample of 150 postsecondary institutions during the 2002–

03 academic year. The interpretation of responses from the field sample members that completed 

the instrument (77 percent of the sample of institutions that were eligible to participate), results 

 

12 In addition to instrument development, IDADS also provides a reference system for instrument reviewers and 

testers and serves as the data documentation system for the data products developed. 13 Active Server Pages (ASP) dynamically produce hypertext markup language (html) pages designed to facilitate 

information retrieval across the Internet. ASP code includes small embedded programs or scripts that are processed 

on a web server when accessed by users employing browser programs such as Netscape or Internet Explorer. 

Before responses are returned to a user, the request typically accesses databases and develops a customized 

response. 

14 Each data collection screen or form for the NSOPF:04 field test faculty instrumentation included a link to a page of 

“help text” prepared specifically for the item and including key definitions, descriptions of respondents to whom the 

item applied, and other useful information. In an attempt to shorten the administration time for the full-scale 

instrument, the help text was shortened and appeared on the same form as the question wording and response 

options. This reduced the need for loading a separate web page for help. A separate help text web page was 

available for the institution questionnaire for both the field test and full-scale versions of the instrument. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

16 

of debriefing sessions with institution contact personnel for the field test who were responsible 

for encouraging response from the institutions, and data collection timing information for the 

field test also served to inform revisions to the full-scale study institution questionnaire. 

After careful consideration of this input and examination of the data collected during the 

1998–99 academic year—including the patterns of responses and missing data, as well as time to 

complete estimates—instrument revisions were implemented. Like the NSOPF:99 institution 

questionnaire, the NSOPF:04 instrument was divided into major sections that collected 

information on the number of faculty and instructional staff employed at the target institution; 

the policies and practices that affected, respectively, full-time and part-time faculty and 

instructional staff; and the percentage of undergraduate instruction assigned to various 

instructional personnel. Descriptions of the information included in these sections follow (see 

also the instrument facsimile in appendix C): 

• The first section (items 1A and 1B) collected information on the number of faculty 

and instructional staff employed either full time or part time at the target 

postsecondary institution during the fall term of the target academic year (2003–04). 

For NSOPF:04, institution personnel were requested to provide these counts “as of 

November 1, 2003 (or during the fall term of the 2003–04 academic year when your 

faculty lists are considered complete).” 

• Institution instrument items 2 through 13 defined the second section of the 

questionnaire and collected information on the employment of the target institution’s 

full-time faculty and instructional staff. After first collecting information on the 

numbers of these personnel who entered or exited full-time employment during the 

previous academic year (2002–03 school year), this section examined the 

characteristics and policies of the target institution’s tenure system, employee 

benefits, union representation (if any), and personnel evaluation, as applied to fulltime faculty and instructional staff. 

• The third section of the institution questionnaire (items 14 through 18) examined the 

employment of the target institution’s part-time faculty and instructional staff. This 

section used items similar to those for full-time faculty and instructional staff in the 

previous section. These items included the availability of retirement plans to part-time 

faculty, the availability of and institution-level support for various types of employee 

benefits, and the characteristics of the institution’s personnel evaluation system. 

• The fourth instrument section included a single question (19) that collected 

information on the percentage of the target institution’s undergraduate instructional 

activities assigned to various instructional groups, including full-time faculty and 

instructional staff, part-time faculty and instructional staff, teaching assistants such as 

graduate students, and others individuals. 

• The last section of the NSOPF:04 institution questionnaire (item 20) collected 

respondent contact information and feedback on data collection. This section 

attributed the item responses for the entire institution questionnaire to individual 

respondents at the institution, which allowed data collection staff to recontact 

respondents for clarification of responses. These data elements—respondent name, 

job title, telephone number, and e-mail address—were not maintained after data 

collection was completed. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

17 

Appendix D provides a crosswalk of NSOPF:04 institution questionnaire items to the 

institution questionnaires from NSOPF:88, NSOPF:93, and NSOPF:99. Table 5 notes how the 

NSOPF:04 questionnaire differs from the NSOPF:99 questionnaire. As noted in this table, nine 

items from the NSOPF:99 questionnaire were eliminated from the NSOPF:04 institution 

questionnaire, 14 items were revised, and three items for NSOPF:99 were repeated without 

change. 

Table 5. Content and formatting changes to the NSOPF:99 institution questionnaire in 

preparation for the NSOPF:04 instrument: 2004 

NSOPF:99 NSOPF:04 

Item Content Action Item Changes 

1 Numbers full/part-time faculty and 

instructional staff 

Revised 1 Slight wording and instruction changes 

2 Change in total number of full-time faculty and 

instruction staff over the past 5 years 

Deleted 

3 Policies to decrease the number of full-time 

faculty and instructional staff 

Deleted 

4 Availability of tenure system Unchanged 3 

5 Changes in full-time faculty and instructional 

staff between fall terms 

Revised 2 One response option added (item 2f), 

slight wording change throughout, 

distinction among tenured, tenure track, 

and not tenure track eliminated 

6 Number of staff considered for/granted tenure Revised 4/5 Asked as two questions with first as gate 

item. 

7 Maximum number of years on tenure track Unchanged 6 

8 Changes in tenure policy in past 5 years Revised 7/8/ 

7sp 

Broken into three items; response options 

revised (Option E, discontinued tenure, 

asked only of respondents who answered 

“no” to tenure availability) 

9 Other actions to reduce tenured faculty Deleted 

10 Number of full-time positions sought to hire Unchanged 9 

11 Retirement plans available to full-time staff Deleted 

12 Employee benefits available to full-time 

faculty and instructional staff 

Revised 

10A

10B 

Broken into two items, part 10A serves as 

gate question 

Response categories for benefits were 

changed to All, Some, None, Don’t know 

Fully and partially subsidized categories 

combined 

13 Additional employee benefits available to fulltime faculty and instructional staff Revised 11 Response categories for benefits changed 

to All, Some, None, and Don’t know; Slight 

wording change 

14 Percentage of salary contributed by institution 

to benefits 

Deleted 

15 Collective bargaining for full-time faculty and 

instructional staff 

Revised 12 Percentage of faculty represented by 

union eliminated 

16 Teacher assessment with full-time faculty and 

instructional staff 

Revised 13 Response options changed to Yes, No, 

Don’t Know; “Other, specify” option was 

eliminated 

17 Availability of retirement plans for part-time 

faculty and instructional staff 

Revised 14 Item wording revised for web data 

collection 

18 Types of retirement plans available for parttime faculty and instructional staff Deleted 

19 Criteria for eligibility for retirement plans for 

part-time faculty and instructional staff 

Deleted 

See notes at end of table. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

18 

Table 5. Content and formatting changes to the NSOPF:99 institution questionnaire in 

preparation for the NSOPF:04 instrument: 2004—Continued 

NSOPF:99 NSOPF:04 

Item Content Action Item Changes 

20 Employee benefits available to part-time 

faculty and instructional staff 

Revised 

15A

15B

Broken into two items, part 15A serves as 

gate question 

Response categories for benefits were 

changed to All, Some, None, Don’t know 

Fully and partially subsidized categories 

combined 

21 Additional employee benefits available to parttime faculty and staff Revised 16 Response categories for benefits changed 

to All, Some, None, and Don’t know; Slight 

wording change 

22 Benefit eligibility criteria for part-time faculty 

and instructional staff 

Deleted 

23 Percentage of salary contributed by institution 

to benefits 

Deleted 

24 Collective bargaining for part-time faculty and 

instructional staff 

Revised 17 Percentage of faculty represented by 

union eliminated 

25 Teacher assessment with part-time faculty 

and instructional staff 

Revised 18 Response options changed to Yes, No, 

Don’t Know; “Other, specify” option was 

eliminated 

26 Undergraduate instruction by instructional 

staff type 

Revised 19 Response options changed 

NOTE: Numbers in table correspond with the question number in the instrument. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

2.2.4 Faculty Questionnaire 

The NSOPF:04 questionnaire for faculty and instructional staff was divided into several 

sections that described the study and respondents’ rights (informed consent); nature of 

employment; academic and professional background; instructional responsibilities and workload; 

scholarly activities; job satisfaction; compensation; background characteristics; and opinions. 

Included within the final section, where applicable, were items that collected address information 

for sample members who were eligible for response incentives. (See section 3.2.5 for additional 

information about the early-response and refusal conversion incentives.) Table 6 describes the 

instrument sections, including the number of forms (or screens) and data elements in each. Like 

the instrumentation for the study waves in 1988, 1993, and 1999, the NSOPF:04 faculty and 

instructional staff questionnaire emphasized descriptive and behavioral attributes rather than 

attitudinal measures. 

The design of the faculty and instructional staff questionnaire included input from 

members of the NSOPF:99 TRP and representatives of offices of the U.S. Department of 

Education, as well as an analysis of the data collected during the 1999 study. Because the 

NSOPF:99 instrument took 55 minutes to complete, designers made a concerted effort to shorten 

the instrument and make it more efficient.15 Several questions were eliminated, and other 

questions were shortened or otherwise simplified. The instrument was then evaluated in a field 

 

15 Efficiency for the NSOPF:04 instrument was gained by developing a shorter, tighter, and more focused interview 

that used state-of-the-art technology and design techniques. The sections and items were rearranged, coding 

procedures revised considerably to be interactive, skip patterns were employed, range checks were inserted, and 

other changes were implemented to make the instrument operate more efficiently. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

19 

test carried out during the 2002–03 academic year under conditions similar to those employed 

during the full-scale study in 2003–04. 

Table 6. Overview of the NSOPF:04 questionnaire for faculty and instructional staff: 2004 

Section Forms/items1 Examples of content 

 Total 81/1832 

Informed consent 6/0 Description of the NSOPF:04 study and respondents’ rights as 

participants. 

A. Nature of employment 17/18 Does the respondent have instructional responsibilities during the 

Fall 2003 term? Does the respondent have faculty status? When did 

the person begin working? What are the respondent’s rank, tenure 

status, and teaching field? 

B. Academic and 

professional 

background 

16/23 What is the respondent’s highest degree? Where, when, and in what 

area was it earned? Is this the respondent’s first academic job? 

Where else did the person work? Does the respondent teach? How 

long has the person been teaching? 

C. Instructional 

responsibilities and 

workload 

13/66 How many hours during an average week does the sample member 

spend on instruction, research, and other activities? How many 

classes are taught, and what are their characteristics (e.g., duration, 

number/type of students, evaluation type)? What level of advising 

and individual instruction is offered? 

D. Scholarly activities 7/20 What scholarly activities have sample members completed in their 

lifetime and during past 2 years? What is their principal scholarly 

field? Are scholarly activities funded? 

E. Job satisfaction 2/10 How satisfied is the respondent with instructional duties and 

employment at the target school? What are the person’s retirement 

plans? 

F. Compensation 7/12 What is the respondent’s compensation from the target institution 

and all other sources? What is the structure of the employment 

contract? What is the household income? 

G. Sociodemographic 

characteristics 

8/13 What is the respondent’s sex, date of birth, race/ethnicity, marital 

status, citizenship, and disability status? Does the person support 

dependents? 

H. Opinions 2/5 What are the respondent’s opinions about the faculty reward system 

at the target institution? Would the sample member seek an 

academic career again? 

I. Incentive information 3/16 Where applicable, these forms also collected address information 

from sample members qualified for nonresponse incentives. 1 The faculty/instructional staff questionnaire was divided into forms (screens) and items. Each form was structured to 

include related items. The first number is the number of forms in the section, and the second number is the number of 

items included on those forms. Forms and items were often skipped based on the responses to earlier forms and 

items. 

2 The number of items in the faculty questionnaire (183) differs from the number of faculty items reported elsewhere in 

this document (e.g., 162 analysis variables and 144 stochastically imputed variables) because some items were for 

internal use only (e.g., verbatim text strings used to code field of teaching [see section 4.3.3], school name and city to 

code IPEDS [see section 4.3.4], and contact information for sending incentives). 

NOTE: IPEDS = Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Following the field test, additional items were modified and eliminated to reach the 

desired 30-minute interview. The average CATI and web interview for the NSOPF:04 field test 

took 42 minutes, considerably longer than anticipated. The results of the NSOPF:04 field test 

reliability reinterview (Heuer et al. 2004), the policy relevance of each instrument item, and the 

input received from responding sample members, telephone interviewers/help desk staff, and 

members of the NSOPF:04 TRP were used to identify 27 forms from the full-scale study for 

elimination. Table 7 describes the NSOPF:04 field test items on these forms that were eliminated 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

20 

following the field test. The table also provides the average time to complete each item during 

the field test.16 After adjusting this average time to complete by the proportion of the overall 

respondent population that reached the item (i.e., complicated and time-consuming items will 

have little impact on the average time to complete the entire interview if most respondents do not 

attempt the item), these item reductions were expected to reduce the average time to complete 

the full-scale instrument by approximately 7 minutes. 

Table 7. Items removed from the NSOPF:04 faculty/instructional staff questionnaire following 

the NSOPF:04 field test and estimated time savings: 2004 

Instrument change Estimated time savings (in minutes) 

 Total 7.483 

Q7: Part-time faculty: years employed part-time 0.163 

Q17B: Holds Ph.D. in addition to professional degree 0.005 

Q17C: Year received doctoral degree < 0.001 

Q17C2VS: Doctoral field: verbatim < 0.001 

Q17C2CD: Online coding: doctoral field < 0.001 

Q17C3: Online coding: doctoral degree institution 0.003 

Q17D2: Online coding: bachelor’s degree institution 0.642 

Q19C: Number classes taught at other postsecondary institution 0.065 

Q20: Non-postsecondary education jobs related to teaching field 0.102 

Q22: Total number of postsecondary institutions employed as faculty 0.222 

Q25: First postsecondary faculty position—academic rank 0.115 

Q29: Previous job related to teaching field 0.178 

Q30: Years teaching in postsecondary institutions 0.152 

Q34A–Q34D: Percent allotment of other time 1.273 

Q40A–Q40G: Uses of website 0.410 

Q43A–Q43D: Plan/develop instruction/employment opportunities 0.865 

Q44A–Q44F: Training opportunities 0.933 

Q45: Hours professional training in 2003 0.452 

Q52Aicat: Categorical items for Q52AA–AG nonrespondents 0.105 

Q58: Primary funding source 0.115 

Q59: Number of grants/contracts 0.130 

Q60A: Total funding grants/contracts 0.058 

Q60B: Range total funding grants/contracts 0.012 

Q63: Age expecting to stop working at postsecondary institution 0.338 

Q76A–Q76E: Type of disability 0.015 

Q78: Number of dependents 0.235 

Q84: Respondent comments and suggestions 0.895 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

It should be noted that approximately 7 minutes of the overall time to complete the field 

test interview were associated with “transit” time—in other words, the time involved to transmit 

information to each respondent, to “write” the form and related text onto each sample member’s 

screen, to transmit the responses back for storage, and to begin the transmission of the next item. 

Interview transit times are dependent on many factors such as server bandwidth, processing 

 

16 The average time to complete each item is based on the time each respondent took to answer each item, as well 

as the time required to transmit the data collection image to the respondent and to transmit and write the information 

when the response was completed. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

21 

efficiency, and instrument content (e.g., other things being equal, the transit time for a form with 

little text and graphic information will be less than another form with more text and graphics). 

Notably, transit times are often dependent on factors beyond the control of instrument designers. 

For example, the type of internet connection used by the sample member (telephone dial-up 

modem versus direct Ethernet connection with fiber optic lines) and the number of other users on 

the respondent’s internet service provider at the time will affect transit time. Section 3.3.1 

describes the interview completion time and transit times for the NSOPF:04 full-scale faculty 

and instructional staff questionnaire. 

To reduce transmission time from that experienced in the NSOPF:04 field test, project 

staff carefully reviewed the code efficiency of the web applications. The project also utilized an 

outside and independent review of the study procedures and programs. TechSages LLP, a 

computer consulting firm located in Durham, NC, reviewed the NSOPF:04 field test computer 

code. The group offered several recommendations for optimizing the code to improve execution 

speed including changes to database connectivity implementation, code structure, and variable 

scoping. 

In addition to the changes in data processing and the reduction in the number of items 

included in the questionnaire noted above, instrument designers also implemented several other 

content related changes for the full-scale study. These included the following: 

• Instrument designers eliminated the faculty/instructional staff questionnaire’s online 

help and replaced it with more targeted information placed directly on the form 

containing the question. For the field test, a callable help screen was available for 

each form of the faculty interview. By selecting a help button at the bottom of each 

form, the respondent could review a screen of related definitions, examples, and other 

information about the item. While these help screens provided useful information, 

accessing them did require the transmission of an additional form and, consequently, 

an increase in the interview completion time. While adding text, such as definitions or 

examples, does increase the transit time of a screen, the increase is negligible relative 

to the increases in interview time that would be obtained by accessing and 

transmitting a second web page of help text for the item. Adding definitions and 

examples to the original form of the interview reduced the need for help screens. 

• For the full-scale study’s questionnaire, project staff also developed an online 

assisted-coding routine for respondent’s academic area or discipline. Assisted coding 

provided significant time savings over the online coding in the field test, which used 

two pull-down boxes for each academic discipline. The assisted-coding procedure 

developed for the full-scale study eliminated pull-down boxes for common disciplines 

(e.g., mathematics or English), considerably reducing the time each respondent took 

to code academic field. The pull-down boxes were available for unusual disciplines or 

when the sample member was not satisfied with the result of the assisted-coding 

activity. To use the assisted-coding routing, the sample member entered the name of 

the relevant academic field, and then confirmed or discarded the results of the 

matches with an assisted-coding dictionary developed from the Classification of 

Instructional Programs (U.S. Department of Education 2002). 

• Instrument developers also improved item wording, and especially screen fills to 

reduce item wording. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

22 

• Finally, the full-scale study instrument combined a number of instrument screens, 

thus reducing the number of overall forms and the number of data transmissions. (For 

example, forms Q65 and Q80 in the full-scale study instrument combined previously 

independent forms.) 

Table 8 compares and contrasts the faculty and instructional staff instruments used for the 

NSOPF:04 and NSOPF:99 full-scale studies. As noted in this table, 39 items were eliminated 

from the 1999 instrument, 51 items were simplified or otherwise revised, 1 item was added, and 

3 items were unchanged. 

Table 8. Content and formatting changes to the NSOPF:99 faculty questionnaire in preparation 

for the NSOPF:04 instrument: 2004 

NSOPF:99 NSOPF:04 

Item Content Action Item Changes 

1 Instructional duties Revised 1 Wording change to highlight that teaching includes 

credit and noncredit courses; on screen 

descriptions of instruction duties 

2 Credit status of instructional duties Revised 2 Response options for instructional duties item 

changed to Yes/No for credits awarded for classes 

3 Principal activity Revised 4 Pubic service option added; other specify for 

administration removed 

4 Faculty status Revised 3 Faculty status “defined” as at target institution 

5 Full- and part-time status Revised 5 Response category order changed 

 New 6 For part-time faculty/instructional staff, is position 

your primary employment 

6 Reason working in part-time position Revised 8 Wording for response option modified; reason for 

holding PT position eliminated 

7 Year began job Revised 9 Stem wording revised 

8 Rank Revised 10 Open-ended specify field eliminated; examples 

given for “other” response option 

9 Year achieved rank Revised 11 Stem modified to specify at “any institution”; 

response population subset to professors or 

associate professors only 

10 Tenure status/date of tenure Revised 12/13 Stem modified to specify tenure at “any institution” 

11 Duration of contract Deleted 

12 Type of appointment Deleted 

13 Chair of department Deleted 

14 Principal field of teaching Revised 16 Assisted coding of teaching field discipline using 

Classification of Instructional Programs added 

15 Principal field of research Revised 54 Stem wording changed to field of “scholarly 

activities”; assisted coding of discipline using 

Classification of Instructional Programs added; 

response population subset to respondents without 

specified teaching field 

16 Degrees obtained (year received, field, 

and name, city, state of institution 

awarding) 

Revised Formatted for web data collection, stem wording 

changed 

 17A1 Highest degree only collected 

 17A1B If highest degree reported is professional degree, 

does respondent also have PhD 

 17A2 Year received highest degree 

 17A3 Assisted coding of discipline using Classification of 

Instructional Programs added 

See notes at end of table. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

23 

Table 8. Content and formatting changes to the NSOPF:99 faculty questionnaire in preparation 

for the NSOPF:04 instrument: 2004—Continued 

NSOPF:99 NSOPF:04 

Item Content Action Item Changes 

 17A4 Name, city, and state of institution awarding highest 

degree collected; respondent assisted online 

coding of institution using Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System added 

 17D Year bachelor’s degree awarded (if highest degree 

above bachelor’s); 

17 Working toward a degree Deleted 

18 Degree working toward Deleted 

19 Primary employment Deleted 

20 Outside consulting Deleted 

21 Other professional employment Revised 18 Stem changed to include “all” positions outside of 

target institution 

22 Number of other professional jobs 

during fall term 

Revised 19A 

19B 

Formatted to include gate question; number of jobs 

expanded to include information on “full-time jobs” 

at other postsecondary institutions 

23 Total jobs held in postsecondary 

education 

Deleted 

24 First and most recent jobs in higher 

education: years held, institution type, 

primary responsibility, employment 

status and title 

Revised 21/23/ 

24/26 

NSOPF:04 simplified this question from 18 to 4 

data elements. Item for 2004 asks if current job 

was first postsecondary education position, when 

position began, employment status, and tenure 

status of the position 

25 Years teaching in higher education Deleted 

26 Number of positions ever held outside 

of higher education 

Revised 27 Changed to positions ever held outside 

postsecondary education since highest degree 

27 Job status of those positions Deleted 

28 First and most recent jobs outside of 

higher ed: Type of employer, and 

primary responsibility 

Revised 28 Item simplified from 10 to 1 data elements. Item 

now collects only the employment sector of most 

recent job: first profession position outside higher 

education eliminated 

29 Scholarly activities during career; 

scholarly activities during past 2 years 

Revised 52A/52B Formatted for web instrument; joint/sole 

responsibility eliminated; stem wording and item 

strings revised 

30 Average time spent in activities per 

week 

Revised 31 Item strings reworded and revised to include more 

examples’ open-ended specify field eliminated 

31 Allocation of working time, preferred 

allocation of working time 

Revised 32 Preferred allocation eliminated; item reformatted for 

web instrument; response categories combined, 

reworded, and simplified (e.g., asked only about 

time at target institution, focus changed to 

instructional activities, professional growth/ 

administration/service combined 

32 Committee assignments Revised 48 Reformatted for web; stem wording revised to 

eliminate student level and number of committees 

chaired and served 

33 Number of classes taught Revised 35A Reformatted for web; item expanded to include the 

number of “classes/sections” taught for credit and 

not for credit, wording revised to include “taught for 

credit toward degree” 

34 Number of different courses taught Deleted 

35/36 Number of remedial classes taught; 

number of remedial classes not 

creditable towards degree 

Revised 35B Item wording revised to include “remedial or 

developmental classes”; second item on distance 

education added 

37 Number of continuing education 

classes taught 

Deleted 

38 Number of noncredit continuing 

education classes taught 

Deleted 

See notes at end of table. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

24 

Table 8. Content and formatting changes to the NSOPF:99 faculty questionnaire in preparation 

for the NSOPF:04 instrument: 2004—Continued 

NSOPF:99 NSOPF:04 

Item Content Action Item Changes 

39 Number of students in all noncredit 

classes 

Deleted 

40 Number of classes taught for credit Revised See question 35A above 

41 Details on up to five credit classes, 

including discipline; description (weeks 

class met, credit hours, hours class 

met/week, number teaching assistants, 

number students, class team taught, 

hours per week respondent taught, 

and remedial and/or distance 

education); level of students, 

instructional method; and instructional 

medium 

Revised 36/37 Reformatted for web; gate item of teaching/lab 

assistants added; class description matrix 

simplified; information collected included number of 

weeks and hours per week respondent taught 

class, credits for the class, number of students, and 

level of students 

42 Undergraduate evaluation methods Revised 38 Stem wording revised, response options added, 

deleted, and revised; response values reworded 

43 Websites Revised 39 Stem wording changed to include all instructional 

duties; response population subset to persons with 

instructional duties 

44 How websites used Deleted 

45 E-mail Deleted 

46 Student percentage using e-mail Deleted 

47 Hours spent responding to student 

e-mail 

Revised 41 Stem wording revised to include “communicating 

with students”; response population subset to 

persons with instructional duties 

48 Internet access available Deleted 

49 Individual instruction Revised 46/47/ 

47B 

Gate question added; stem wording changed; item 

reformatted for web 

50 Contact hours with advisees Revised 50 Reformatted for web; stem wording revised 

51 Office hours Revised 51 Stem wording expanded to include in-person and 

online office hours 

52 Engaged in research Revised 53 Stem wording revised; reference period the entire 

academic year 

53 Type of primary research Revised 56 Stem wording revised to include “principal scholarly 

activity”; reference period the academic year; openended specify field eliminated 

54 Engaged in funded research Revised 55 Stem wording revised to include “scholarly activities 

at target school” and exclude funding from basic 

salary; reference period the academic year 

55 Principal/co-principal investigator on 

funded research 

Deleted 

56 Number supported by grants Deleted 

57 Sources of funding Deleted 

58 Total number of grants Deleted 

59a Total funds Deleted 

59b How received funds were used Deleted 

60 Evaluation of facilities and resources Deleted 

61 Use of institutional funds Deleted 

62 Number and type of administrative 

committees 

Deleted 

63 Hours spent on administrative 

committee work 

Revised 49 Reformatted for web, stem wording revised to 

include examples 

64 Union membership Revised 14/15 Item reformatted for web; gate question added 

65 Satisfaction with instructional duties Revised 61 Number of response options reduced; new options 

added 

66 Job satisfaction Revised 62 Number of response options reduced 

67 Likelihood of leaving job Deleted 

See notes at end of table. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

25 

Table 8. Content and formatting changes to the NSOPF:99 faculty questionnaire in preparation 

for the NSOPF:04 instrument: 2004—Continued 

NSOPF:99 NSOPF:04 

Item Content Action Item Changes 

68 Age to stop working at postsecondary 

institution 

Deleted 

69 Factors influencing possible decision 

to leave 

Deleted 

70 Most important factor regarding 

decision 

Deleted 

71 Option to draw on retirement Deleted 

72 Retired previously Unchanged 64 

73 Early retirement option Deleted 

74 Age planning to retire Unchanged 65 

75a/76 Basic salary for academic year/

Compensation for calendar year 

Revised 66/66B Reformatted for web with follow-up screen for 

nonrespondents; stem wording revised to stress 

confidentiality; item wording revised to simplify 

response categories and provide examples 

75b Basis of basic salary Revised 67/68/69 Reformatted for web into separate items; item 

wording revised to collect contract length and 

other pay arrangements; open-ended specify field 

eliminated 

77 Income of spouse/significant other Deleted 

78 Number of persons in household Deleted 

79 Household income Revised 70A/70B Reformatted for web with follow-up screen for 

nonrespondents; stem wording revised to include 

respondent’s salary reported earlier and onscreen 

definition of household income; follow-up screen 

for item nonrespondents added 

80 Number of dependents Revised 79 Item changed to number of dependent children 

81 Gender Unchanged 71 

82 Month and year of birth Revised 72 Birth month eliminated 

83 Ethnicity Revised 73 Reformatted for web instrument 

84 Race Revised 74 Response options reordered to match current 

federal standards for collecting racial information 

85 Disability Revised 75 Stem wording revised to include additional onscreen definitions 

86 Type of disability Deleted 

87 Marital status Revised 77 Wording and order of response options modified 

88 Employment of spouse/significant 

other 

Deleted 

89 Country of birth Revised 80 Revised to ask if born in U.S. 

90 Citizenship status Revised 81 Visa status and distinction between 

native/naturalized citizenship eliminated 

91 Parent and spouse education level Deleted 

92 Opinions about target institution Revised 82/83 Number of response options reduced; new 

options added 

— Open-ended comments Deleted 

NOTE: Numbers in table correspond with the question number in the instruments. Question numbers 7, 20, 22, 25, 29, 30, 33, 34, 

40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 76, and 78 in the NSOPF:04 faculty questionnaire were eliminated before data collection, and 

the instrument was not renumbered. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:04). 

2.3 Institution Data Collection 

The goals of the institution data collection for the NSOPF:04 study were to collect a list 

of full- and part-time faculty and instructional staff (referred to as a “faculty list”) from each 

sampled institution and to obtain a completed questionnaire from each sampled institution. As 

described in section 2.1.4, the faculty list was used for selecting the faculty sample and also 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

26 

provided the contact information used for faculty data collection activities. The institution 

questionnaire, detailed in section 2.2.3, collected information on the policies and practices 

affecting full- and part-time faculty and instructional staff. To facilitate the process of obtaining 

faculty lists and completing the institution questionnaire, an institution website was developed, 

and for each sampled institution, the Chief Administrator (CA) was asked to appoint an 

Institution Coordinator (IC). 

2.3.1 Institution Website 

The NSoFaS:04 website served a number of functions for both the NSOPF:04 and 

NPSAS:04 studies. For institutions, it was a central repository for all study documents and 

instructions. It allowed for the uploading of electronic lists of faculty and instructional staff. In 

addition, it housed the institution questionnaire for the Institution Coordinator to complete 

online. Figure 1 presents the home page of the NSoFaS:04 website. 

Figure 1. The 2004 National Study of Faculty and Students institution website home page 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Faculty 

and Students (NSoFaS:04) website. 

Visitors to the website were provided with the following links (see navigation bar on the 

left side of the screen): 

• Early Contacting provided information about the early institution contacting process 

for NSoFaS:04 for the initial stage. Section 2.3.2 provides details of early institution 

contacting.
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

27 

• About NSOPF (faculty) provided information on the study’s mandate and research 

objectives, with a link to National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports 

from previous study cycles. 

• About NPSAS (student) provided comparable information (as noted above) for the 

student component of NSoFaS:04. 

• Instructions provided links that allowed institution staff to view and print copies of 

various NSOPF:04 and NPSAS:04 forms (in pdf format). 

• Endorsements listed the 25 national organizations that endorsed both studies. (The 24 

NSOPF:04 endorsements are listed in appendix E; one endorsement was applicable 

only to proprietary schools that were eligible for NPSAS:04 but ineligible for 

NSOPF:04). 

• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) included questions and answers concerning all 

stages of data collection for both components of NSoFaS:04. 

• Help provided the help desk toll-free number and e-mail address for contacting 

project staff, along with instructions for logging in. 

• Contact Us contained address information for RTI International. 

• Other NCES Sites links to three NCES websites that provided more information about 

NCES programs and how to order publications. 

All data entry applications were protected by Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) encryption. 

Further security was provided by an automatic “time out” feature, through which a user was 

automatically logged out of the NSOPF:04 institution questionnaire if the system was idle for 30 

minutes or longer. The system did not use any persistent “cookies,”17 thus adhering to the 

Department of Education’s privacy policy. 

A status screen, shown in figure 2, indicated which stages of institution data collection 

were completed (denoted by a check mark) and allowed institutions to select those stages that 

were not yet completed. Once a stage was completed, it was no longer accessible via the Web. 

 

17 A persistent cookie is a piece of information, such as an IPEDS ID, that can be stored in a file on the user’s 

computer. This information could then be used to identify a computer without the user even logging into the 

application. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

28 

Figure 2. The 2004 National Study of Faculty and Students institution website status screen 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Faculty 

and Students (NSoFaS:04) website. 

2.3.2 Institution Contacting 

The eligible institution sample for the NSoFaS:04 consisted of 1,630 institutions, of 

which 1,070 were sampled for NSOPF:04 as well as NPSAS:04. These 1,070 institutions were 

recruited to participate in both components of NSoFaS:04 (NSOPF:04 and NPSAS:04). The 

fielding of NSOPF:04 and NPSAS:04 together as the National Study of Faculty and Students 

was one of three changes made in the institution contacting procedures for this cycle of NSOPF. 

The second change was to administer the institution questionnaire as a web or CATI 

instrument, with no hardcopy equivalent. 

The third change was to begin recruiting institutions and initiating coordinator contacts in 

March 2003—a full 8 months prior to the November reference date for the fall term, and roughly 

5 to 6 months earlier than the September start dates of previous cycles. This change was 

prompted by the need to draw a faculty sample and subsequently contact sampled faculty for 

participation prior to the 2004 summer break. It was hoped that the additional lead time would 

allow schools to better plan for the staffing and resources required for participation within the 

study’s schedule constraints, allow institutions additional time to initiate and complete any 

internal review procedures they felt necessary, and also allow the contractor time to work with 

institutions to resolve any potential roadblocks to their participation. This advance notification 

was intended both to speed up receipt of faculty lists, and to positively impact the institution 

response rate. By sampling and contacting faculty earlier in the academic year, it was hoped that 

a higher faculty response rate could be achieved. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

29 

Prior to the field test, endorsements from organizations that had previously endorsed 

NSOPF and/or NPSAS were renewed and extended, as appropriate, to both NSoFaS:04 

component studies. An effort was also made to solicit new endorsements from other 

organizations as well. In all, 25 organizations endorsed both components of NSoFaS:04; 24 of 

these were relevant to NSOPF:04.18 These endorsements were featured on all project letterhead 

and pamphlets and on the NSoFaS website. In addition, several of these organizations continued 

to promote the study throughout the data collection period in newsletters and other 

communications with their member institutions. See appendix E for a list of the 24 organizations 

that endorsed NSOPF:04. 

For NSOPF:04, data collection proceeded in four stages: 

• verification; 

• institution recruitment; 

• advance notification of the coordinator; and 

• faculty list and institution questionnaire data collection procedures. 

Procedures for each stage of data collection are outlined below. 

Verification 

Verification began on January 23, 2003, and was completed prior to the start of 

institution recruitment on March 10, 2003. Institution contactors were trained to contact the 

institution at their main number, verify address information and confirm the name and contact 

information for the CA at the institution. They also confirmed that the school was Title IV 

eligible and open to the general public during the fall 2003 term. 

Institutions flagged as potentially ineligible—including closed institutions and 

institutions that indicated they were not Title IV eligible or open to the general public—were 

forwarded to project staff for review. Project staff also reviewed instances of sampled institutions 

merging with other institutions (sampled or unsampled), possible changes in mission that could 

affect the institution’s sampling strata, and changes in name or address, to confirm the institution 

was eligible and correctly identified. 

Institution recruitment and advance notification of the coordinator 

Institution recruitment began on March 10, 2003. The Chief Administrator (CA) at each 

institution sampled for NSoFaS:04 was sent the following materials (see appendix F for copies of 

these letters and pamphlets): 

• a cover letter, printed on NCES letterhead, providing background information on 

NSOPF:04 and NPSAS:04; 

• an NSoFaS:04 pamphlet summarizing the objectives of both NPSAS:04 and 

NSOPF:04, and providing background information and selected findings for each 

component; 

 

18 One of the 25 organizations, associated with for-profit schools ineligible for NSOPF, was asked only for an 

endorsement for NPSAS. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

30 

• an NSOPF:04 pamphlet, included to show what had been prepared for mailing to the 

sampled faculty; 

• a NPSAS:04 pamphlet, included to show what had been prepared for mailing to 

sampled students; and 

• a project timeline outlining the flow of activities for both component studies of 

NSoFaS:04 , and the projected schedule for each. 

A team of institution contactors followed up with the CA by telephone. The CA was 

asked to name an Institution Coordinator (IC) by completing the Designation of Coordinator 

form online, or providing the information over the telephone. Once the IC was identified, they 

were mailed an identical packet, with a cover letter informing them that they would be mailed 

complete instructions for their participation in each component in September. 

During this advance notification stage of data collection, ICs were asked to complete an 

online Coordinator Response Form (CRF) which could also be administered by CATI (see 

appendix F). This instrument confirmed that the institution could supply the items requested for 

the faculty and student lists within the stated schedule constraints. It also contained items 

designed to expedite collection of student record information for the student component. 

ICs who indicated that a formal review process (such as an Institutional Review Board 

[IRB] review) was necessary before their institution would agree to participate were forwarded 

additional project materials as appropriate. A complete IRB approval packet was prepared for 

this purpose and mailed to the IC upon request. This packet included copies of instruments, as 

well as complete descriptions of relevant survey procedures (e.g., confidentiality and informed 

consent). 

Faculty list collection procedures 

Complete instructions for participation in both NSOPF:04 and NPSAS:04 were sent to all 

designated ICs on September 29, 2003. Binders continued to be mailed to ICs on a flow basis as 

they were designated. The mailing, which was packaged in a three-ring binder, included the 

following materials: 

• a cover letter describing the study, the institution’s password, IPEDS unit ID,19 and 

URL (web address) necessary to access the NSoFaS:04 website (a separate letter was 

created for NPSAS:04-only sampled institutions); 

• a copy of the letter that went to the CA, and a facsimile of the Designation of 

Coordinator form; 

• a complete list of endorsements; 

• a project timeline outlining the flow of activities for both component studies of 

NSoFaS:04 , and the projected schedule for each; 

• instructions for preparing the list of faculty and instructional staff, including a list of 

data elements requested, and a suggested file layout; 

 

19 Chief Administrators and Institution Coordinators used their institution IPEDS unit ID and a password to 

authenticate to the institution website. Faculty and instructional staff were assigned a study ID and password to 

authenticate to the faculty website. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

31 

• complete instructions for participation in each phase of NSoFaS:04; and 

• a list of transmittal options for sending faculty lists, by mail, e-mail, and direct upload 

to the NSoFaS:04 website, together with an express courier packet and label for 

mailing the lists if required. 

The instructions directed the ICs to provide a list of full- and part-time faculty and 

instructional staff, including all personnel who had faculty status or any instructional 

responsibilities during the fall 2003 term. Institutions were encouraged to submit an electronic 

list by uploading it to the secure website. The data items requested for each listed faculty or 

instructional staff member were 

• full name; 

• academic discipline; 

• department/program affiliation; 

• full-time/part-time status; 

• gender; 

• race/ethnicity; 

• employee ID number (to eliminate duplicates from sample); and 

• contact information (institution and home mailing address, institution and home 

e-mail address [if available], and home and campus telephone numbers). 

Follow-up with ICs was conducted by telephone, mail, and e-mail. Telephone prompts to 

the ICs were made for institutions that had not provided lists. To minimize the number of 

contacts made to an IC, prompting for NSOPF:04 was combined with prompting for NPSAS:04. 

E-mail prompts to ICs, keyed to pending project deadlines, were regularly utilized. E-mail 

prompts focused on timely completion of requested materials and encouraged review of the 

instructions for participation. As faculty lists were received, they were reviewed for 

completeness, readability, and accuracy. Additional follow-up to clarify the information 

provided or retrieve missing information was conducted by the institution contactors as 

necessary. 

Counts of full- and part-time faculty were collected in both the institution questionnaire 

and in the faculty lists. For each institution, the counts of full- and part-time faculty were 

checked against those provided in the institution questionnaire and against 2001 IPEDS Fall 

Staff Survey data. IPEDS data were used for discrepancy checks whenever institution 

questionnaire data were unavailable but also served as an additional check to catch inaccuracies 

in matching questionnaire/list data that otherwise would not have been discovered. For further 

details regarding quality control checks, see section 4.1.2. 

Reimbursement for the time and staff involved in providing the faculty list was offered to 

institutions indicating a difficulty in complying with the request within schedule constraints. A 

refusal conversion letter was mailed to institutions that had not responded by November 21, 

2003. The letter underscored the offer of reimbursement. Beginning in May 2004 a flat $500 

reimbursement was offered to institutions for providing the outstanding faculty and student lists 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

32 

by the end of June. This offer was extended both to explicit refusals and schools which indicated 

cooperation but had yet to comply. 

For institutions lacking the resources to provide a complete list of full- and part-time 

faculty despite the offer of reimbursement, list information was, if possible, abstracted from 

course catalogs, faculty directories, and other publicly available sources. Those institutions for 

which usable lists were identified were notified of this sampling procedure; institutions which 

indicated that they did not want their faculty included in the sample were excluded. Faculty lists 

abstracted in this fashion were reviewed for completeness against IPEDS before being approved 

for sampling. Faculty list collection continued through July 11. 

Institution questionnaire data collection procedures 

Institution Coordinators were asked to complete the institution questionnaire (described 

in section 2.2.3) using the study’s institution website. Institution questionnaire follow-up was 

conducted simultaneously with follow-up for lists of faculty. If an institution was unable to 

complete the questionnaire online, efforts were made to collect the information over the 

telephone. This often involved contacting multiple offices within the institution, as questions 

about benefits and tenure policies could most frequently be completed by human resources 

and/or the academic affairs office, while questions about faculty counts and turnover were 

typically answered by institutional research staff. 

To expedite data collection, missing questionnaire data was, in some instances, abstracted 

directly from benefits and policy documentation supplied by the institution, or publicly available 

on the institution’s website. In addition, several large multi-campus systems provided data for 

their campuses at a system level or indicated that specific policy and benefits information was 

the same for all related campuses. 

Refusal conversion efforts for the institution questionnaire were conducted with 

institutions regardless of whether they supplied a list of faculty. After August, institutions which 

had not completed the questionnaire were offered a reimbursement of $50 for providing the 

questionnaire within schedule constraints. Data collection for the institution questionnaire closed 

on October 22, 2004. 

Administrative systems and procedures 

To efficiently track all mail and telephone follow-up (both incoming and outgoing) and 

processing and sampling activities, the study utilized an Institution Contacting System (ICS) 

specifically designed to meet the needs of the NSoFaS:04 project. The ICS was accessible to 

contactors, Call Center20 supervisors, and project staff. The NSoFaS:04 ICS was designed so that 

a change in status (e.g., a completed Designation of Coordinator form) automatically generated 

the next step (e.g., a mailout to the IC and an automatic appointment for telephone follow-up). 

Electronic call notes documented the outcome of every conversation. The system allowed 

interviewers to set appointments for future follow-up. Through the ICS, the interviewer had the 

ability to designate an IC, provide contact information, and access the institution questionnaire 

and other data collection instruments. The ICS gave interviewers the ability to generate an 

automatic e-mail to ICs containing the password and IPEDS unit ID required for access. The 

 

20 RTI’s Call Center Services provides telephone, web, and tracing services for a wide variety of projects, and 

operates two call centers: one in Raleigh, NC, and one in Greenville, NC. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

33 

problem report form feature of the ICS allowed institution contactors to immediately forward 

specific call notes to an e-mail box monitored by project staff. This ensured that refusals, 

requests for remails, and calls requiring follow-up by project staff were handled promptly. 

Quality Circle meetings, attended by interviewers, supervisors, team leaders, and project 

staff, were held on a weekly basis to share ideas for gaining institutional cooperation and 

suggestions for improving procedures. Project staff solicited feedback from call center personnel 

on the ICS, scripts, and handling problems reported by respondents (e.g., difficulties accessing 

the website). 

2.4 Faculty Data Collection 

The NSOPF:04 utilized a mixed-mode data collection methodology that allowed sample 

members to participate either by web-based self-administered questionnaire or via an 

interviewer-administered telephone interview. At the start of faculty data collection, introductory 

materials were sent to sample members via first class mail as well as electronic mail (if an e-mail 

address was available). The initial letter included instructions for completing the selfadministered questionnaire on the Internet or by calling a toll-free number to complete a 

telephone interview. After an initial 4-week period, telephone interviewers began calling sample 

members. The self-administered web instrument remained available to respondents throughout 

data collection. An early-response incentive, designed to encourage sample members to complete 

the self-administered questionnaire prior to outgoing CATI calls, was offered to sample members 

who completed the questionnaire within 4 weeks of the initial mailing. Incentives were also 

offered to selected sample members as necessary (i.e., those who refused and other 

nonrespondents). 

2.4.1 Faculty Website 

The website for the NSOPF:04 served a dual purpose. The primary function was to 

provide access to the web questionnaire for the sampled faculty and instructional staff. The 

secondary function was to provide information about the study, the selected sample, the sponsor, 

the contractor, and confidentiality. In addition to the information available on the site, links were 

provided to other relevant sites (e.g., NCES). The home page of the NSOPF:04 faculty website is 

depicted in figure 3. 

The initial login page provided access to the self-administered questionnaire. The login 

process involved entering a specific study ID and password, which were provided to the 

respondent in every letter and e-mail message. Respondents could also obtain their study ID and 

password by sending an e-mail to the project, or by contacting a help desk agent at the 

NSOPF:04 toll-free number. 

As with the institution application, the web instrument was protected by SSL encryption, 

an automatic time out feature, and omission of any persistent cookies. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

34 

Figure 3. The NSOPF:04 faculty website home page 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

2.4.2 Locating and Interviewing Procedures 

The NSOPF:04 faculty data collection design involved locating sample members, 

providing an opportunity for the faculty or instructional staff to complete the self-administered 

questionnaire, and following up with web nonrespondents after 4 weeks to conduct a computerassisted telephone interview. The data collection period lasted approximately 9 months (January 

15 through October 6, 2004). Data collection activities for faculty are shown in figure 4. 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

35 

Figure 4. NSOPF:04 faculty data collection overview 

Load database with faculty contact 

information on flow basis as lists are 

available from schools

Good locating 

information provided 

by school?

Advance tracing for cases with 

missing or non-unique telephone 

numbers or fewer than 75 percent 

e-mail addresses for selected 

faculty members

Lead letter 

mailing1

Begin web data 

collection

Web 

questionnaire 

complete?2

Completed survey

CATI follow-up 

begins after 4 weeks3

no

yes

yes

no

Good phone 

number?

CATI 

interview 

complete?

Final nonrespondent

Intensive tracing

New 

telephone 

number?

Unable to locate

no

no

yes

yes

yes

no

1

 If a home address was available for the sample member, the lead letter package was mailed to the home. If there was no home 

address, the package was mailed to the school address. If there was no specific school address available, the package was mailed 

to the main address on file for the school. Sending packages to the home address resulted in a higher response rate compared to

sending packages to the school address (78 percent versus 67 percent; χ2 = 565.6, p < .0001). 2

 The web interview option was available throughout data collection, even after telephone follow-up began. 

3

 The sample member’s office and home telephone numbers were called by computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) 

interviewers. If no specific telephone number was available for the sample member, the school’s main telephone number was used.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:04). 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

36 

Mailouts 

Faculty and instructional staff were sent a lead letter, instructions for accessing the web 

instrument via the Internet or with the assistance of a telephone interviewer, and a study 

pamphlet. (Examples of these materials are included in appendix F.) The lead letter introduced 

the study and listed the organizations that endorsed the study. If an e-mail address was available 

for a sample member, the introduction to the study was also sent via e-mail. 

Periodically throughout the data collection period, reminder letters and e-mail messages 

were sent to nonrespondents to encourage their participation and to notify them of the incentive, 

if applicable. Examples of these follow-up contacts are included in appendix F. 

Locating 

Identifying a valid mailing address and telephone number for all selected faculty and 

instructional staff sampled from known institutions was critical to the success of the NSOPF:04. 

Locating activities were conducted in two stages: advance tracing, which took place before data 

collection began, and intensive tracing conducted during data collection. 

Advance tracing. Upon receipt of faculty lists from participating institutions, contact 

information for the sampled faculty and instructional staff was reviewed and assessed for 

completeness. Schools for which fewer than 75 percent of the sampled cases had e-mail 

addresses (n = 430) were selected for tracing before being sent a lead letter. Prior to CATI 

operations, home contact information was sent to Telematch to obtain the latest telephone 

numbers. 

Initial tracing efforts included searches on the school’s website for contact information. 

When this was not an option, more extensive database searches were employed during intensive 

tracing. In some cases, the searches confirmed or updated the contact information provided by 

the institution; in other cases, the searches resulted in new contact information. All locating 

information obtained as a result of these searches was loaded into the NSOPF:04 database. 

Intensive tracing. Intensive tracing was performed on a case if advance tracing did not 

yield a telephone number for loading in CATI, or if the case was designated as a dead end in 

CATI (i.e., there were no more telephone numbers to call for the case). The following steps were 

performed by the tracing unit to locate sample members. 

• Check the preloaded information using an online directory assistance search. This 

step was intended to identify the easy-to-locate cases (e.g., cases with the correct 

telephone number but the wrong area code). 

• Conduct credit bureau database searches. The tracing staff had access to various 

proprietary databases (TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian) containing current address 

and phone listings for the majority of consumers with a credit history. 

• Conduct additional intensive tracing. This step included (but was not limited to) 

searches using Lexis-Nexis and FastData, directory assistance calls, and searches of 

institution websites for campus directories. 

Tracing staff checked all new leads procured during their tracing efforts to confirm the 

addresses and telephone numbers that were obtained. When a telephone number for a sample 

member was confirmed, telephone interviewing resumed for that case. Cases with new address 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

37 

information were mailed a lead-letter packet. If the tracing staff located a new e-mail address for 

a sample member, the information was loaded into the database for future e-mail reminders and 

other mailings to nonrespondents. 

Staff training 

The mixed-mode design of the NSOPF:04 data collection required the development of 

three separate training programs for data collectors: help desk training, CATI interviewer 

training, and tracing. In addition, separate training sessions were conducted for supervisors and 

monitors. 

Detailed NSOPF:04 interviewer manuals were distributed at the outset of each training 

session. These manuals served as both an instruction guide for the training lectures, discussions, 

and practical exercises and as a reference guide for use after completion of training. 

Supplemental chapters that covered additional duties were provided for supervisors, monitors, 

and help desk agents. The manual’s table of contents and an agenda for telephone interviewer 

training are included in appendix G. 

All training sessions included a study overview, a review of the confidentiality 

requirements, a demonstration interview, an in-depth review of the instrument, hands-on practice 

exercises with the instrument, and open-ended coding modules. In addition, the help desk and 

telephone interviewer training sessions included the following additional topics: 

• Help desk agents reviewed the “frequently asked questions” in detail, with a focus on 

responses to technical issues as well as instrument-specific questions, and instructions 

for documenting each call to the study hotline.

• Telephone interviewers were trained in techniques for gaining cooperation of sample 

members, and of other contacts, as well as techniques for addressing the concerns of 

reluctant participants and for avoiding refusals. 

Self-administered questionnaires 

The first phase of data collection, lasting 4 weeks after the lead letters were mailed, 

provided an opportunity for respondents to complete the self-administered questionnaire via the 

Internet before the telephone follow-up calls began. The web interview site remained available 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, thereby giving sample members the option to complete the 

questionnaire online during the entire 9 months of data collection. 

Help desk operations 

The NSOPF:04 help desk opened on January 15, 2004, in anticipation of the first 

respondent calls after the lead-letter mailing. The help desk staff were available to assist sample 

members who had questions or problems accessing and completing the self-administered 

questionnaire. A toll-free hotline was set up to accept incoming help desk calls. If technical 

difficulties prevented a sample member from completing the self-administered questionnaire, a 

help desk staff member, also trained to conduct telephone interviews, would encourage the caller 

to complete a telephone interview rather than to attempt the self-administered questionnaire. 

All incoming calls from sample members were documented using the help desk software. 

In addition to this primary documentation function, the software provided information needed to 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

38 

verify a sample member’s identity, login information (study ID and password) for the web 

questionnaire, and a means for tracking calls that could not be resolved immediately. 

The help desk software also provided project staff with reports on the types and 

frequency of problems experienced by sample members, as well as a way to monitor the 

resolution status of all help desk inquiries. 

Telephone interviewing 

Telephone prompts to nonrespondents began on February 12, 2004, at the end of the 

early-response incentive period. CATI procedures included attempts to locate, gain cooperation 

from, and interview study sample members who had not completed the questionnaire online. 

Interviewers encouraged respondents to complete the interview by telephone as soon as they 

made contact. However, if the sample member expressed a preference for completing the selfadministered questionnaire via the Internet, a callback was scheduled for 1 week later. During 

these callbacks, interviewers again prompted the faculty members to complete the questionnaire 

by telephone. 

Refusal conversion procedures were used to gain cooperation from individuals who 

refused to complete the questionnaire. When a refusal was first encountered, either because the 

sample member refused or because a “gatekeeper” (secretary or spouse) refused on behalf of the 

sample member, the case was referred to a refusal conversion specialist. Refusal conversion 

specialists were selected from among those interviewers most skilled at obtaining cooperation 

and were given training in refusal conversion techniques tailored to NSOPF:04. The refusal 

training emphasized ways to gain cooperation, overcome objections, address the concerns of 

gatekeepers, and encourage participation. 

2.5 Data Collection Systems 

2.5.1 Instrument Development and Documentation System 

The Instrument Development and Documentation System (IDADS) is a controlled web 

environment in which project staff developed, reviewed, modified, and communicated changes 

to specifications, code, and documentation for the NSOPF:04 instrument. All information 

relating to the NSOPF:04 instrument was stored in a Structured Query Language (SQL) Server 

database and was made accessible through Windows and web interfaces. There are three 

modules within IDADS: specification, programming, and documentation. 

Initial specifications were generated within the IDADS specification module. This 

module enabled access for searching, reviewing, commenting on, updating, exporting, and 

importing information associated with instrument development. All records were maintained 

individually for each item, which provided a historical account of all changes requested by both 

project staff and NCES. 

Once specifications were finalized, the programming module within IDADS produced 

hypertext transfer markup language (html), Active Server Pages (ASP), and JavaScript template 

program code for each screen based on the contents of the SQL Server database. This output 

included screen wording, response options, and code to write the responses to a database, as well 

as code to automatically handle such web instrument functions as backing up and moving 

forward, and recording timer data. For questions that had changed significantly since the field 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

39 

test, the programming staff edited the automatically generated code to customize screen 

appearance and program response-based routing. For questions with minor changes, the 

programming staff simply modified the program code used in the field test. 

The documentation module contained the finalized version of all instrument items, their 

screen wording, and variable and value labels. Also included were the more technical 

descriptions of items such as variable types (alpha or numeric), information regarding to whom 

the item was administered, and frequency distributions for response categories. The 

documentation module was used to generate the instrument facsimiles and the Electronic 

Codebook (ECB) input files. 

2.5.2 Integrated Management System 

All aspects of the study were under the control of an Integrated Management System 

(IMS). The IMS was a comprehensive set of desktop tools designed to give project staff and 

NCES access to a centralized, easily accessible repository for project data and documents. The 

NSOPF:04 IMS consisted of three components: the management module, the Receipt Control 

System (RCS), and the Case Management System (CMS). 

The management module of the IMS contained tools and strategies to assist project staff 

and the NCES project officer in managing the study. All information pertinent to the study was 

located there, accessible via the Internet, in a secure desktop environment. Available on the IMS 

website were the project schedule, monthly progress reports, daily data collection reports and 

status reports (available through the RCS described below), project plans and specifications, 

project information and deliverables, instrument specifications, staff contacts, the project 

bibliography, a document archive, and frequencies for the faculty and institution data. The IMS 

management module also had a download area from which the client and subcontractors 

retrieved large files when necessary. 

The Receipt Control System (RCS) was an integrated set of systems that monitored all 

activities related to data collection, including tracing and locating. Through the RCS, project 

staff were able to perform stage-specific activities, track case statuses, identify problems early, 

and implement solutions effectively. RCS locator data were used for a number of daily tasks 

related to sample maintenance. Specifically, the mailout program produced mailings to sample 

members, the query system enabled administrators to review the locator information and status 

for a particular case, and the mail return system enabled project staff to update the locator 

database. The RCS also interacted with the Case Management System and tracing unit databases, 

sending locator data among the three systems as necessary. 

The Case Management System (CMS) was the technological infrastructure that connected 

the various components of the CATI system, including the questionnaire, utility screens, 

databases, call scheduler, report modules, links to outside systems, and other system 

components. The call scheduler assigned cases to interviewers in a predefined priority order. In 

addition to delivering appointments to interviewers at the appropriate time, the call scheduler 

also calculated the priority scores (the order in which cases need to be called based on 

preprogrammed rules), sorted cases in non-appointment queues, and computed time zone 

adjustments to ensure that the sampled respondents were not phoned outside the specified calling 
Chapter 2. Design and Implementation of NSOPF:04 

40 

hours.21 The call scheduler also allowed callbacks to be set and assigned status codes to the case. 

Using an algorithm based on the previous call results, the call scheduler determined which 

telephone number (e.g., home or work) associated with the case should be called next. 

 

21 Call Center hours were 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturday, 1:30 p.m. 

to 9:30 p.m. Sunday, Eastern Standard Time. The CMS was programmed to account for time zones such that 

respondents would not be called after 9:00 p.m. local time. Work numbers were only called 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, local time. 
41 

Chapter 3 

Data Collection Outcomes 

The success of the 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) was 

dependent upon achieving high levels of cooperation at all stages of the data collection process. 

The data collection results—namely the institution and faculty response rates, along with the 

results of the efforts that contributed to those rates—are the focus of this chapter. 

3.1 Institution Data Collection Results 

3.1.1 Institution Participation 

Of the 1,080 institutions selected to participate in NSOPF:04, 1,070 were eligible 

institutions.22 Of the eligible institutions, 97 percent (unweighted) appointed an Institution 

Coordinator (IC) to assist with study requirements and 85 percent completed the Coordinator 

Response Form (CRF), indicating their initial intent to participate in both components of the 

study and adhere to project timelines. Ultimately, 91 (unweighted) percent of the eligible 

institutions provided a list of faculty and 86 percent completed institution questionnaires. 

Fifty-seven institutions indicated having policies that required the 2004 National Study of 

Faculty and Students (NSoFaS:04) survey request be submitted to their Institutional Review 

Board (IRB) for formal approval. One advantage of the advance notification period is that it 

allowed the contractor sufficient time to prepare customized IRB approval packages for 

submission to each of these institutions. This procedure expedited the approval process and 

alleviated the burden on the IC. Of the 60 institutions that were sent IRB approval packages, all 

but three approved participation in NSOPF:04. 

Faculty lists 

Two key changes in data collection procedures had the potential to impact faculty list 

participation rates for NSOPF:04; namely the advance notification initiative begun in March 

2003, and the decision to combine the data collection efforts for NSOPF:04 with the 2004 

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:04) under the NSoFaS:04. Table 9 compares 

the participation rate achieved in NSOPF:04 with previous cycles. 

 

22 Ineligible institutions included institutions treated as mergers and reported for by other institutions, closed 

institutions, and institutions that did not meet eligibility requirements. Numbers of institutions are rounded to the 

nearest 10. 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

42 

Table 9. Number and percentage of institutions providing faculty lists, by cycle of National 

Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF): 1988 to 2004 

NSOPF cycle 

Number of eligible 

institutions 

Number of institutions 

providing list 

Unweighted percent 

participation rate1

NSOPF:88 field test 110 100 91.4 

NSOPF:88 full-scale study 480 450 93.5 

NSOPF:93 field test 140 120 89.0 

NSOPF:93 full-scale study 960 820 84.9 

NSOPF:99 field test 160 150 90.1 

NSOPF:99 full-scale study 960 820 85.4 

NSOPF:04 field test 150 130 89.9 

NSOPF:04 full-scale study 1,070 980 91.3 

1 Percentages are based on the number of eligible institutions within the row under consideration, and are based on 

original unrounded numbers. 

NOTE: Numbers of eligible institutions and numbers of institutions providing lists are rounded to the nearest 10. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

A total of 980 (91 percent, unweighted and weighted) of eligible institutions provided a 

faculty list, with all institutional strata exceeding a weighted participation rate of 85 percent. The 

breakdown of institutions providing faculty lists, by institution type, is presented in table 10. 

Table 10. Number and percentage of institutions providing faculty lists, by type of institution: 

2004 

Number of institutions Percent participation rate1

Institution type Eligible Participating Unweighted Weighted 

 Total 1,070 980 

 

Public doctoral 190 180 92.7 93.2 

Public master’s 120 100 89.7 89.1 

Public bachelor’s 30 30 92.9 88.4 

Public associate’s 330 290 89.1 87.4 

Public other 10 10 100.0 100.0 

Private not-for-profit doctoral 110 100 92.0 95.6 

Private not-for-profit master’s 80 80 92.6 86.8 

Private not-for-profit bachelor’s 130 120 94.6 93.1 

Private not-for-profit associate’s 10 10 75.0 96.0 

Private not-for-profit other 60 60 93.3 91.8 1 Percentages are based on the number of eligible institutions within the row under consideration, and are based on 

original unrounded numbers. 

NOTE: Number of eligible and participating institutions are rounded to the nearest 10. Detail may not sum to totals 

because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Institution questionnaire 

A total of 920 institutions, representing 84 percent of eligible institutions, completed the 

institution questionnaire. Table 11 provides a breakdown of institution participation by strata. 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

43 

Table 11. Number and percentage of institutions providing institution questionnaires, by type of 

institution: 2004 

Number of institutions Participation rate percent1

Institution type Eligible Participating Unweighted Weighted 

 Total 1,070 920 86.1 84.2 

 

Public doctoral 190 170 86.5 84.7 

Public master’s 120 110 90.5 89.6 

Public bachelor’s 30 30 100.0 100.0 

Public associate’s 330 290 89.1 83.6 

Public other 10 10 87.5 98.9 

Private not-for-profit doctoral 110 90 80.4 83.7 

Private not-for-profit master’s 80 70 81.5 79.8 

Private not-for-profit bachelor’s 130 110 83.8 77.7 

Private not-for-profit associate’s 10 10 75.0 86.0 

Private not-for-profit other 60 50 76.7 76.2 1 Percentages are based on the number of eligible institutions within the row under consideration, and are based on 

original unrounded numbers. 

NOTE: Number of eligible and participating institutions are rounded to the nearest 10. Detail may not sum to totals 

because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Table 12 shows the breakdown of completed institution questionnaires by mode of 

administration. Those completed in computer assisted telephone interview (CATI) mode include 

instances where the questionnaire was finalized with interviewer assistance (e.g., questionnaires 

wholly or partially data-entered by project staff from information supplied on hardcopy by the 

institution) and questionnaires completed, wholly or partly, by CATI. Web completions are 

defined as those questionnaires transmitted as complete by the institution, although some 

institutions may have provided some responses in CATI. Nearly 81 percent of institutions 

completed the institution questionnaire using the Web, and 19 percent completed it with the help 

of an interviewer. By comparison, in 1999, the only previous cycle in which a web questionnaire 

was used, 69 percent of the questionnaires were done on paper, and 31 percent were done on the 

Web. The percentage of interviews completed at least in part by CATI is fairly consistent with 

the number of questionnaires completed with interviewer assistance in previous cycles. 

Table 12. Number and percentage of institutions providing institution questionnaires, by mode of 

administration: 2004 

Mode Number of participating institutions Unweighted response rate1

 Total 920 100.0 

 

Web 740 80.5 

CATI 180 19.5 

1

 Percentages are based on the total number of participating institutions, and are based on original unrounded 

numbers. 

NOTE: Number of participating institutions are rounded to the nearest 10. Detail may not sum to totals because of 

rounding. CATI = computer assisted telephone interview. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

44 

3.1.2 Institution Survey Completion Timing 

The timing analysis was conducted by embedding time stamps in the programming code 

for each form (screen) in the survey. From these time stamps, the number of seconds spent on 

each screen (on-screen time) and the transit time between screens (i.e., the time required to 

transmit data to the server, for the server to store the data and assemble the next page, and for the 

page to be transmitted and loaded on the computer) were calculated. A cumulative on-screen 

time and a cumulative transit time for the institution survey also were calculated from the time 

stamps. The sum of the cumulative on-screen and transit times was the total instrument time (i.e., 

the number of minutes it took to administer the institution questionnaire). 

Unlike most questionnaires, which require the respondent to complete the survey in 

sequential order, the institution questionnaire included a status screen that allowed respondents 

to jump to particular questions they could answer, and skip over ones they could not answer. For 

most institutions, the questionnaire was completed in multiple internet sessions and, in some 

cases, by multiple people at the institution.

The target time to complete the institution questionnaire was 45 minutes. Based on the 

time stamps for each form, the actual time to complete the questionnaire ranged from less than 

1 minute to 4 hours and 9 minutes, with an average of 35 minutes.23 Of these 35 minutes, 

approximately 31 minutes, on average, were spent answering questions (on-screen time) and 5 

minutes, on average, were spent in transit. These numbers may be misleading because some 

institutions may have completed the sample hardcopy version of the questionnaire in advance, so 

their time to complete the web questionnaire simply reflected the time it took to key in their 

responses. 

Table 13 reports the average and maximum times (in seconds) to complete each form in 

the institution instrument. Ten forms (screens) of the institution survey took more than 1 minute 

to complete, on average. Each of these forms required the respondent to look up information 

and/or requested several pieces of information, which accounts for the longer times on these 

screens. 

 

23 The average time excludes 28 cases with unexplained negative transit times. Some very short survey completion 

times may be attributed to institutions who answered a small subset of items in the questionnaire. Very long survey 

times may be the result of the respondent timing out repeatedly while in the questionnaire (e.g., answering the 

phone). 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

45 

Table 13. Average and maximum completion time, in seconds, for forms in the institution 

questionnaire: 2004 

Time in seconds 

Form Description Average Maximum 

Number of 

cases 

I1 Number full-/part-time faculty, fall 2003 211 1,319 920 

I1B Have full-/part-time faculty, fall 2003 25 166 200 

I2 Changes in number of full-time faculty 252 1,585 920 

I2A Reason for discrepancy, I1A and I2G 84 538 240 

I3 Full-time tenure: has tenure system 26 434 920 

I4 Full-time tenure: number considered for tenure, 2002-03 62 620 750 

I5 Full-time tenure: number granted tenure, 2002-03 16 164 650 

I6 Full-time tenure: maximum years on tenure track 39 399 740 

I7 Full-time tenure: institution actions, last 5 years 55 436 740 

I7SP Full-time tenure: number early retirees, last 5 years 53 586 400 

I8 Full-time tenure: discontinued tenure system, last 5 years 15 125 190 

I9 Full-time faculty: positions sought to fill, fall 2003 45 403 910 

I10A Full-time faculty: benefits available 111 1,091 910 

I10B Full-time faculty: benefits subsidized 58 443 900 

I11 Full-time faculty: other benefits available 80 427 910 

I12 Full-time faculty: union representation 20 408 910 

I13 Full-time faculty: teaching assessment 64 457 910 

I14 Part-time benefit: retirement plan 38 435 910 

I15A Part-time faculty: benefits available 61 479 910 

I15B Part-time faculty: benefits subsidized 35 319 530 

I16 Part-time faculty: other benefits available 52 327 910 

I17 Part-time faculty: union representation 14 200 910 

I18 Part-time faculty: teaching assessment 41 320 910 

I19 Undergraduate instruction: percent assignment 126 941 920 

I20 Comments/suggestions 143 785 920 

NOTE: The number of cases per form varies due to the interview skip logic. Outliers for each form were top coded 

(mean + 3 standard deviations). Numbers of cases are rounded to the nearest 10. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

3.2 Faculty Data Collection Results 

Faculty data collection efforts for NSOPF:04 consisted of three essential steps: locating 

(identifying telephone numbers and addresses for sample members), contacting (carrying out the 

necessary steps to reach the faculty member), and encouraging survey completion by web-based 

self-administration or CATI. This section describes the results of the NSOPF:04 data collection 

effort and evaluates the effectiveness of the data collection procedures used in locating, 

contacting, and interviewing sample members. 

3.2.1 Response Rate 

Overall contacting and survey completion results for the faculty contact phase of 

NSOPF:04 are presented in figure 5. Of the 35,630 cases in the original sample, 1,300 

(4 percent) were excluded because they were ineligible for the study or deceased. Of the 34,330 

eligible sample members, 29,820 (87 percent) were contacted and 26,110 completed the survey, 

for an unweighted and weighted response rate of 76 percent achieved in the 9-month period from 

January 15 to October 6, 2004. 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

46 

Figure 5. Contacting and survey completion outcomes: 2004 

Respondent

n = 26,110

Sample

n = 35,630

Contacted

n = 29,820

Not Contacted

n = 4,500

Exclusions

n = 1,300

Nonrespondent

n = 3,720 Deceased = 50

Ineligibles = 1,250

Completed survey = 24,360

Partial survey = 140

Abbreviated survey = 1,610

Refusals = 2,400

Time ran out = 1,320

NOTE: Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Table 14 shows the response rates of faculty by institution type. Response rates range 

from 67 percent (weighted) of faculty at public bachelor’s degree-granting institutions to 91 

percent (weighted) of faculty at private not-for-profit associate’s degree-granting institutions. 

Table 14. Number of sampled, eligible, and responding faculty and response rates, by institution 

type: 2004 

Faculty Percent response rate2

Institution type Sampled Eligible1

 Responding1 Unweighted Weighted 

 Total 35,629 34,330 26,110 76.1 75.6 

Institution level 

 2-year 9,188 8,830 6,440 73.0 73.7 

 4-year non-doctorate-granting 8,747 8,430 6,720 79.7 78.6 

 4-year doctorate-granting 17,694 17,070 12,950 75.8 75.0 

Institution control 

 Public 23,280 22,450 17,120 76.2 76.0 

 Private not-for-profit 12,349 11,880 8,990 75.7 74.7 

Institution type 

 Public doctoral 9,827 9,500 7,460 78.6 78.1 

 Public master’s 3,485 3,350 2,620 78.1 78.5 

 Public bachelor’s 693 680 510 75.4 67.4 

 Public associate’s 9,129 8,770 6,420 73.1 73.7 

 Public other 146 140 110 73.6 73.3 

 Private not-for-profit doctoral 4,652 4,470 3,160 70.7 68.2 

 Private not-for-profit master’s 3,020 2,890 2,270 78.6 78.5 

 Private not-for-profit bachelor’s 3,218 3,120 2,520 80.8 78.7 

 Private not-for-profit associate’s 242 240 190 79.8 91.0 

 Private not-for-profit other 1,217 1,160 850 73.1 70.6 1

 Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. 

2

 Percentages are based on the number of eligible faculty within the row under consideration. Percentages are based on 

original unrounded numbers. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04).
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

47 

Table 15 presents faculty response rates by when the lead letter package was mailed. 

Response rates range from 56 percent for one of the later mailings to 80 percent for the first 

mailing. 

Table 15. Faculty response rates, by date lead letter package was mailed: 2004 

Date mailed 

Number

eligible1 Percentresponse rate2

 Total 34,330 76.1 

January 14-February 13, 2004 18,690 80.3 

February 14-March 13, 2004 7,910 76.3 

March 14-April 13, 2004 1,230 74.6 

April 14-May 13, 2004 3,330 67.1 

May 14-June13, 2004 1,520 55.9 

June 14-July 13, 2004 1,260 62.7 

July 14-July 21, 2004 390 67.5 

1

 Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. 

2

 Percentages are based on the number of eligible faculty within the row under consideration. Percentages are based 

on original unrounded numbers. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

3.2.2 Locating and Survey Completion 

Most of the faculty lists provided by the institutions contained contact information for 

sample members, including the sample member’s name, office telephone number, school name, 

school address, and department. For some cases, home addresses also were provided. In addition, 

a number of approaches were used to locate faculty and instructional staff, including advance 

tracing, the initial mailing to all sample members, follow-up letters and e-mails to 

nonrespondents, telephone tracing (interviewers calling telephone numbers provided on the 

faculty lists as well as any additional numbers obtained during the course of making those calls), 

and intensive tracing (i.e., using consumer databases, internet searches, and criss-cross 

directories). 

Before the start of data collection, schools’ faculty lists were assessed for completeness 

of contact information. As necessary, advance tracing, described in section 2.4.2, was conducted. 

As shown in table 16, the contact information provided by the school proved effective in 

contacting faculty and instructional staff; 83 percent of sample members required no intensive 

tracing, while the remaining 17 percent required intensive tracing. Intensive tracing was required 

when a case did not have a telephone number associated with it or the CATI calls had exhausted 

all numbers for the case without reaching the sampled individual. Approximately 52 percent of 

cases sent to intensive tracing were located, compared to 90 percent of cases not sent to intensive 

tracing. Further, only 40 percent of cases sent to intensive tracing completed an interview 

compared with 80 percent of cases not sent to intensive tracing. 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

48 

Table 16. Locate and interview rates, by intensive tracing efforts: 2004 

Located Completed survey 

Intensive tracing status Total Number1

 Percent2 Number1

 Percent3

 Total 35,629 29,820 83.7 26,110 73.3 

Intensive tracing required 5,943 3,080 51.8 2,360 39.7 

No intensive tracing required 29,686 26,750 90.1 23,750 80.0 1

 Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. 

2

 Percentages are based on the total within the row under consideration. 3

 Percentages are based on the number of eligible faculty within the row under consideration. Percentages are based 

on original unrounded numbers. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Table 17 provides an overview of the primary sources used by tracers during the 

intensive tracing process. Tracers generally used multiple sources when tracing a case, so no one 

source can be pinpointed as the one that resulted in the “locate.” Among the sources used most 

frequently for intensive tracing were internet searches, directory assistance, and various 

consumer database searches. 

Table 17. Locate rates, by intensive tracing source: 2004 

Located 

Tracing source Total Number Percent1

Internet search 3,726 1,739 46.7 

Directory assistance 3,529 1,730 49.0 

Consumer database search—Lexis-Nexis 2,911 1,251 43.0 

Reverse phone lookup—FastData 2,238 1,105 49.4 

Name search—FastData 3,276 1,531 46.7 

Address search—FastData 2,279 997 43.7 

Neighbor search—FastData 14 4 28.6 

Directory Assistance Plus—FastData 526 216 41.1 

Consumer database search—TransUnion 2,374 1,131 47.6 

Consumer database search—Experian search on Social Security number 1,394 723 51.9 

Consumer database search—Experian address search 1,690 762 45.1 

Other collateral source 1,714 768 44.8 

1

 Percentages are based on the total within the row under consideration. 

NOTE: Most cases were traced using multiple sources; therefore, row totals and percents are not mutually exclusive. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

The breakdown of faculty and instructional staff requiring intensive tracing, by faculty 

status and institution type, is presented in table 18. Thirty-two percent of part-time faculty 

required intensive tracing, compared to 7 percent for full-time faculty (χ

2 = 3806.9, p < .0001). 

Seventeen percent of faculty at public institutions required intensive tracing compared to 16 

percent at private not-for-profit institutions (χ

2 = 16.5, p < .0001). 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

49 

Table 18. Faculty and instructional staff requiring intensive tracing procedures, by employment 

status and institution type: 2004

Intensive tracing 

Employment status and institution type Total Number Percent1

 Total 35,629 5,943 16.7 

Employment status 

 Full-time 21,891 1,544 7.1 

 Part-time 13,008 4,210 32.4 

 Unknown employment status 730 189 25.9 

Institution control 

 Public 23,280 4,019 17.3 

 Private not-for-profit 12,349 1,924 15.6 

Institution type 

 Public doctoral 9,827 951 9.7 

 Public master’s 3,485 455 13.1 

 Public bachelor’s 693 134 19.3 

 Public associate’s 9,129 2,465 27.0 

 Public other 146 14 9.6 

 Private not-for-profit doctoral 4,652 733 15.8 

 Private not-for-profit master’s 3,020 473 15.7 

 Private not-for-profit bachelor’s 3,218 462 14.4 

 Private not-for-profit associate’s 242 27 11.2 

 Private not-for-profit other 1,217 229 18.8 1

 Percentages are based on the number of sample members within the row under consideration. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

The results of faculty and instructional staff locating and survey completion, by faculty 

status and institution type, are shown in table 19. Ninety percent of full-time faculty members 

were located, compared with 75 percent of part-time faculty (χ

2 = 1414.6, p < .0001). Eighty-one 

percent of full-time faculty completed the survey, compared with 69 percent of part-time faculty 

(χ

2 = 903.8, p < .0001). When examined by institution type, locate rates ranged from 80 to 88 

percent. Survey completion rates ranged from 71 percent for faculty at private not-for-profit 

doctorate-granting institutions to 81 percent at private not-for-profit baccalaureate-granting 

institutions. 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

50 

Table 19. Faculty locating and survey completion results, by employment status and institution 

type: 2004 

Located Completed survey 

Employment status and institution type 

Total 

sample Number1

 Percent2

Number 

eligible1 Number1

 Percent3

 Total 35,629 29,820 83.7 34,330 26,110 76.1 

Employment status 

 Full-time 21,891 19,580 89.5 21,390 17,250 80.6 

 Part-time 13,008 9,740 74.9 12,270 8,430 68.7 

 Unknown employment status 730 500 68.8 660 420 64.3 

Institution control 

 Public 23,280 19,520 83.9 22,450 17,120 76.2 

 Private not-for-profit 12,349 10,300 83.4 11,880 8,990 75.7 

Institution type 

 Public doctoral 9,827 8,600 87.5 9,500 7,460 78.6 

 Public master’s 3,485 2,950 84.5 3,350 2,620 78.1 

 Public bachelor’s 693 560 81.7 680 510 75.4 

 Public associate’s 9,129 7,280 79.8 8,770 6,420 73.1 

 Public other 146 130 85.6 140 110 73.6 

 Private not-for-profit doctoral 4,652 3,770 81.1 4,470 3,160 70.7 

 Private not-for-profit master’s 3,020 2,540 84.0 2,890 2,270 78.6 

 Private not-for-profit bachelor’s 3,218 2,800 87.0 3,120 2,520 80.8 

 Private not-for-profit associate’s 242 200 84.3 240 190 79.8 

 Private not-for-profit other 1,217 990 80.9 1,160 850 73.1 1

 Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. 

2

 Percentages are based on the number of sample members within the row under consideration. Percentages are 

based on original unrounded numbers. 

3

 Percentages are based on the number of eligible sample members within the row under consideration. Percentages 

are based on original unrounded numbers. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

The results of faculty and instructional staff survey completion by mode of data 

collection are presented in table 20. A total of 19,780 respondents (76 percent) completed the 

self-administered questionnaire and 6,330 respondents (24 percent) completed the CATI 

interview. (It should be noted that 59.2 percent completed the survey during the early phase, 

without telephone followup). While NSOPF:04 exceeded the goal of having 50 percent of 

completes by web, a substantial portion of these web surveys were completed only after having 

been called by a CATI interviewer. 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

51 

Table 20. Response rates and mode of completion, by employment status and institution type: 

2004 

Mode of completion 

Employment status and Total complete Self-administered CATI 

institution type 

Number 

eligible1 Number1

 Percent2 Number1 Percent3 Number1 Percent3

 Total 34,330 26,110 76.1 19,780 75.8 6,330 24.3 

Employment status 

 Full-time 21,390 17,250 80.6 13,980 81.0 3,280 19.0 

 Part-time 12,270 8,430 68.7 5,500 65.2 2,940 34.8 

 Unknown employment status 660 420 64.3 300 71.9 120 28.1 

Institution control 

 Public 22,450 17,120 76.2 12,850 75.1 4,270 24.9 

 Private not-for-profit 11,880 8,990 75.7 6,930 77.1 2,060 22.9 

Institution type 

 Public doctoral 9,500 7,460 78.6 6,090 81.6 1,370 18.4 

 Public master’s 3,350 2,620 78.1 1,980 75.6 640 24.4 

 Public bachelor’s 680 510 75.4 360 69.6 160 30.4 

 Public associate’s 8,770 6,420 73.1 4,350 67.7 2,070 32.3 

 Public other 140 110 73.6 70 68.9 30 31.1 

 Private not-for-profit doctoral 4,470 3,160 70.7 2,520 79.9 640 20.2 

 Private not-for-profit master’s 2,890 2,270 78.6 1,700 74.8 570 25.2 

 Private not-for-profit 

bachelor’s 3,120 2,520 80.8 1,950 77.4 570 22.6 

 Private not-for-profit 

associate’s 240 190 79.8 160 83.7 30 16.3 

 Private not-for-profit other 1,160 850 73.1 600 70.6 250 29.5 1

 Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. 

2

 Percentages are based on the number of eligible sample members within the row under consideration. Percentages 

are based on original unrounded numbers. 

3 Percentages are based on the number of completed interviews within the row under consideration. Percentages are 

based on original unrounded numbers. 

NOTE: All percents are unweighted. Reporting excludes 1,300 cases determined to be ineligible for study. CATI = 

computer assisted telephone interview. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Eighty-one percent of full-time faculty completed the self-administered survey, compared 

to 65 percent of part-time faculty (χ

2 = 776.6, p < .0001). Seventy-seven percent of faculty and 

instructional staff at private not-for-profit institutions completed the self-administered survey, 

compared to 75 percent of faculty at public institutions (χ

2 = 13.6, p < .0002). Self-administered 

web survey completion rates by institution type ranged from 68 percent for public associate’s 

degree-granting schools to 84 percent for private not-for-profit associate’s degree-granting 

schools. The cumulative response rate, overall and by mode, is shown in figure 6. 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

52 

Figure 6. Cumulative response rates, by mode of completion: 2004 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 

Overall

Web

CATI

Percent

Month of Data Collection

NOTE: Mode of completion for respondents who switched modes was determined by the mode at the time of survey 

completion. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

3.2.3 E-mail Contacting Efforts 

E-mail addresses of faculty and instructional staff were requested in the faculty lists. 

Where e-mail addresses were not provided by the institution, efforts were made through an 

advance search of the institution’s online directory for e-mail addresses of sample members as 

well as other database searches. In addition, some sample members provided e-mail addresses 

when contacted by a telephone interviewer. E-mail addresses were available for 27,980 

(82 percent) of the 34,330 eligible sample members. 

Periodically throughout the data collection period, e-mail messages were sent to 

nonrespondents to encourage their participation (see appendix F). Sample members who received 

e-mails were more likely to complete the survey (78 percent) compared to sample members to 

whom no e-mail reminders were sent (53 percent; χ

2 = 1867.2, p < .0001). Respondents with 

e-mail addresses were more likely to complete the self-administered web questionnaire 

(79 percent) than were respondents who were not sent e-mail reminders (55 percent; χ

2 = 976.1, 

p < 0.0001). 

3.2.4 Refusal Conversion Efforts 

Refusal conversion measures were used to gain cooperation from individuals who refused 

to participate when contacted by telephone interviewers. Refusals came not only from sample 

members, but also occasionally from other household members or other contacts (such as 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

53 

secretaries).24 Whenever a refusal was encountered, unless it was deemed hostile, the case was 

referred to a specialist trained in refusal conversion techniques. Refusal conversion specialists 

were chosen based on their performance as interviewers, with those who were the most skilled in 

obtaining cooperation given additional training in converting refusals. This training was tailored 

to the concerns of faculty members and gatekeepers regarding participation, and focused on 

gaining cooperation and encouraging participation. 

Ten percent of contacted cases refused to participate at some point during data collection. 

However, 18 percent of these cases were successfully converted and eventually completed the 

survey. Fifty-nine percent of the converted cases completed the web self-administered 

questionnaire, and 41 percent completed a telephone interview. An abbreviated instrument, 

consisting of sections A (nature of employment), B (academic/professional background), and G 

(sociodemographic characteristics) from the faculty instrument, was developed to convert 

nonrespondents by offering a shorter (10 minute) interview. The abbreviated instrument, used 

only in the final 3 weeks of data collection, yielded 1,610 interviews. 

3.2.5 Incentives 

For the NSOPF:04 full-scale data collection, three types of incentives were offered to 

eligible sample members. In accordance with findings from the NSOPF:04 field test incentive 

experiment25 (Heuer et al. 2004), incentives were offered during two phases of data collection: 

an initial early-response incentive period and a nonresponse incentive period. In addition to those 

periods, refusal incentives were made available following initial refusals. During each incentive 

phase, respondents were offered the choice of a $30 check or a $30 gift certificate to 

Amazon.com. 

The initial early-response incentive was offered to all sample members for completion of 

the questionnaire within the first 4 weeks of data collection. The early-response incentive was 

designed to increase the response rate during the initial phase of data collection and promote a 

higher rate of web self-administered responses and reduce costs associated with telephone 

interviewing. Following the initial 4-week period, CATI telephone prompting began. During this 

second phase of the study, no incentive was offered to respondents for completing the interview. 

All nonrespondents from the first phase were contacted by telephone and asked to complete the 

survey, either on the phone or via the Web at their convenience. 

Any sample member who refused to participate in the study was flagged for the refusal 

incentive. A refusal conversion letter was sent out to explain the study and request that the 

sample member reconsider the decision not to participate and to announce the reinstitution of the 

$30 incentive for participating. 

 

24 Nearly 77 percent of all refusals were made by sample members, while the remaining 23 percent were made by 

other household members or other contacts. Of the sample members who initially refused, 17 percent eventually 

completed an interview. 

25 The field test experimental design consisted of three randomly assigned early-response incentive groups who were 

offered $0, $20, or $30 to complete the self-administered questionnaire over the Internet within 3 weeks of the initial 

mailing and two nonresponse incentive groups of $0 and $30 for those who had not completed the survey by a 

certain date during data collection. The early-response incentive yielded 31 and 34 percent response rates for the 

$20 and $30 incentives, respectively, compared with a 16 percent response rate for the control group. The 

nonresponse incentive yielded a 47 percent response rate for those offered $30 and a 34 percent response rate for 

the control group. The differences between the treatment and the control groups were statistically significant for both 

phases of the experiment; however, the apparent difference in amounts ($20 versus $30) for the early-response 

incentive period, while in the expected direction, was not statistically significant. 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

54 

Nonresponse incentives were introduced after 8 weeks of CATI prompting of all 

nonrespondents who had not already been offered the refusal incentive. Letters and e-mail 

prompts were sent periodically to nonrespondents throughout the data collection period. All 

correspondence mentioned the incentive when it was available to sample members. Table 21 

provides a breakdown of the types of incentives offered and the results of each incentive period. 

Table 21. Faculty response rates, by incentive period: 2004 

Number1 Percent2

Incentive offered Eligible Responded Eligible3

 Responded4 Response rate5

 Total 34,330 26,110 76.1 100.0 76.1 

Early-response incentive 34,330 15,010 43.7 57.5 43.7 

Period of no incentive 19,320 5,250 27.2 20.1 15.3 

Refusal incentive 2,410 570 23.6 2.2 1.7 

Nonresponse incentive 11,660 5,280 45.3 20.2 15.4 1 Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. 

2 Percentages are based on original unrounded numbers. 

3 Percentages are based on the number of eligible sample members within the row under consideration. 4 Percentages are based on the total number of respondents. 

5 Percentages are based on the total number of eligible sample members. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

These results indicate that the combination of early-response incentive and other later 

incentives was required to reach the targeted response rate within the data collection schedule. 

While the early-response incentive was effective in getting 44 percent of the eligible sample 

members to complete the survey within the initial 4 weeks of the study, and an additional 15 

percent of the sample members completed within 8 weeks after the initial incentive period, the 

cumulative response rate after 12 weeks was only 59 percent. The refusal and nonresponse 

incentives were undoubtedly helpful in attaining the additional 17 percent needed to reach the 76 

percent response rate. 

3.3 Burden and Effort 

3.3.1 Faculty Survey Completion Timing 

Like the institution timing analysis, the faculty timing analysis was conducted by 

embedding time stamps in the programming code for each form (screen) in the survey. From 

these time stamps, the number of seconds spent on each screen (on-screen time) and the transit 

time between screens (i.e., the time required to transmit data to the server, the time for the server 

to store the data and assemble the next page, and the time for the page to be transmitted and 

loaded on the computer) were calculated. A cumulative on-screen time and a cumulative transit 

time for the faculty survey also were calculated from the time stamps. The sum of the cumulative 

on-screen and transit times was the total instrument time (i.e., the number of minutes it took to 

administer the faculty questionnaire). 

Following the 1999 cycle of NSOPF—which averaged over 50 minutes—the faculty 

questionnaire was shortened substantially, with a goal of achieving a 30-minute survey. The 

NSOPF:04 field test averaged 42 minutes. Based on the time stamps for each form in the fullscale instrument, the time to complete the entire survey ranged from 8 minutes to 3 hours and 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

55 

6 minutes,26 with an average time of 30 minutes. Of these 30 minutes, approximately 26 minutes, 

on average, were spent answering questions (on-screen time) and 3 minutes, on average, were 

spent saving data and loading forms (transit time). 

Table 22 presents the overall timing data by mode for completed surveys (excluding 

partial and abbreviated interviews). Average on-screen time was significantly longer for CATI 

respondents than for web respondents (27 and 26 minutes, respectively; t = –4.46, p < .0001), 

while the average transit time was significantly shorter for CATI respondents than for web 

respondents (1 and 4 minutes, respectively; t = 34.94, p < .0001). Presumably, the longer onscreen time for CATI respondents is due to the time it takes to read text out loud, and to the fact 

that the respondent may ask questions. The shorter transit time for CATI is likely due to the use 

of a high-speed internet connection by interviewers. Some web respondents may have used 

slower dial-up connections, which increase transit time. Overall, the interview took less time for 

CATI respondents than for web respondents (29 minutes and 30 minutes, respectively; t = 7.80, 

p < .0001). 

Table 22. Average on-screen, transit, and total survey completion time, in minutes, for the faculty 

questionnaire, by mode: 2004 

All respondents Web respondents CATI respondents 

Portion of interview 

Average 

time 

Number of 

 cases1 Average time 

Number of 

cases1 Average time 

Number of 

 cases1

 Total 29.7 24,360 30.1 18,630 28.5 5,730 

Onscreen 26.5 24,360 26.3 18,630 27.1 5,730 

Transit 3.2 24,360 3.8 18,630 1.4 5,730 1

 Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. Abbreviated and partial interviews excluded. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. CATI = computer assisted telephone interview. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

The onscreen, transit, and total times were significantly shorter for surveys that were 

completed during business hours (Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) compared to 

those completed during evening and weekend hours (onscreen: 26 and 27 minutes, respectively; 

t = 4.79, p < .0001; transit: 3 and 4 minutes, respectively; t = 17.71, p < .0001; total: 29 and 31 

minutes, respectively; t = 10.29, p < .0001), as shown in table 23. This may be due to faster 

internet connections for web respondents at their offices compared to their homes or time 

pressures during the workday. 

 

26 Excludes the two highest outliers, both with transit times greater than 4 hours. 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

56 

Table 23. Average on-screen, transit, and total completion time, in minutes, by time of day and 

mode: 2004 

Web respondents CATI respondents 

Weekdays 9am–6pm Evenings/weekends Weekdays 9am–6pm Evenings/weekends 

Portion of 

interview 

Average 

time 

Number 

of cases1 

Average 

time 

Number 

of cases1

Average 

time 

Number of 

cases1

Average 

time 

Number of 

cases1

 Total 29.2 11,620 31.4 7,010 28.5 3,710 28.6 2,020 

Onscreen 26.0 11,620 26.9 7,010 27.0 3,710 27.2 2,020 

Transit 3.3 11,620 4.6 7,010 1.5 3,710 1.4 2,020 1 Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. 

NOTE: Abbreviated and partial interviews excluded, as well as two outliers. Detail may not sum to totals because of 

rounding. CATI = computer assisted telephone interview. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Table 24 provides the average and maximum times (in seconds) to complete each form in 

the faculty instrument. Seven forms (screens) in the faculty survey took more than 1 minute to 

administer, on average. These tended to be the more complicated forms and those that collected 

multiple pieces of information on a single screen. These forms are described in greater detail 

below. 

Table 24. Average and maximum completion time, in seconds, for forms in the faculty instrument: 

2004 

Questionnaire Time in seconds 

form Description Average Maximum 

Number of 

 cases1 

Q1 Instructional duties, any 19 102 26,110 

Q2 Instructional duties related to credit courses/activities 12 64 24,310 

Q3 Faculty status 10 97 26,110 

Q4 Principal activity 16 87 26,110 

Q5 Employed full or part time at this institution 7 56 26,110 

Q6 Part-time employment is primary employment 8 46 8,370 

Q8 Part-time but preferred full-time position 8 63 8,340 

Q9 Year began current job 21 131 26,110 

Q10 Rank 14 85 26,110 

Q11 Rank, year attained professor or associate professor 27 194 9,500 

Q12 Tenure status 12 100 26,110 

Q13 Tenure, year attained at any postsecondary institution 19 160 8,440 

Q14 Union status 9 74 26,110 

Q15 Union status, reason not a member 12 82 20,850 

Q16VS Principal field of teaching-verbatim 24 134 26,110 

Q16AC Principal field of teaching-autocode 30 143 23,590 

Q16CD Principal field of teaching-manual code 54 230 7,480 

Q17A1 Highest degree 18 131 26,110 

Q17A1B Hold PhD and professional degree 5 27 2,120 

Q17A2 Highest degree date awarded 12 94 25,870 

Q17A3VS Highest degree field-verbatim 16 96 25,860 

Q17A3AC Highest degree field-autocode 16 104 24,710 

Q17A3CD Highest degree field-manual code 30 189 6,570 

Q17A4 Highest degree institution-code 51 245 25,850 

See notes at end of table. 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

57 

Table 24. Average and maximum completion time, in seconds, for forms in the faculty instrument: 

2004—Continued 

Questionnaire Time in seconds 

form Description Average Maximum 

Number of 

 cases1 

Q17A4A Highest degree institution-info for later coding 27 87 1,270 

Q17D Bachelor’s degree date awarded 13 96 23,460 

Q18 Other current jobs, number of jobs 15 82 26,110 

Q19A Other current jobs, full-time employment 7 66 8,290 

Q19B Other current jobs, number in postsecondary instruction 10 75 8,130 

Q21 First postsecondary job, current job is first 17 86 26,110 

Q23 First postsecondary job, year began 18 99 14,310 

Q24 First postsecondary job, part or full time 8 55 26,110 

Q26 First postsecondary job, tenure status 11 68 14,780 

Q27 Other jobs, any outside postsecondary since degree 11 75 26,110 

Q28 Other jobs, sector of previous job 24 123 26,110 

Q31 Hours worked per week 94 338 24,580 

Q32 Percent distribution of work activities 78 311 24,330 

Q35A Number of classes taught, credit and noncredit 44 205 23,600 

Q35B Number of classes taught, remedial and distance education 22 127 21,240 

Q36 Teaching assistant in any credit class 9 66 20,230 

Q37 Number and types of classes taught (up to five classes) 99 402 20,220 

Q38 Tools instructor used to evaluate undergraduate students 68 234 16,430 

Q39 Website for any instructional duties 14 140 23,020 

Q41 Hours per week, e-mailing students 16 87 23,020 

Q46 Individual instruction, any 15 94 24,550 

Q47 Individual instruction, number of students 20 124 8,230 

Q47B Individual instruction, number of hours 22 131 7,880 

Q48 Hours per week, committees/advisees/office hours 61 251 24,530 

Q52A Career publications/presentations 100 427 24,490 

Q52B Recent publications/presentations 47 275 21,190 

Q53 Scholarly activity, any 13 93 24,470 

Q54VS Scholarly activity, principal field-verbatim 25 203 540 

Q54AC Scholarly activity, principal field-autocode 14 53 410 

Q54CD Principal research field-manual code 29 139 270 

Q56 Scholarly activity, description 17 86 14,000 

Q55 Scholarly activity, any funded 12 76 13,930 

Q61 Satisfaction, authority/resources/salary/benefits 60 212 24,450 

Q65 Retirement plans/history 18 91 24,440 

Q66 Income, from institution/other sources 111 403 24,420 

Q66B Amount of total individual income (range) 25 194 2,730 

Q67 Type of contract, length of unit 18 190 24,410 

Q68 Income paid per course/credit unit or term 11 75 6,260 

Q69 Amount of income paid per course/credit unit or term 20 184 5,170 

Q70A Amount of total household income 33 171 24,400 

Q70B Amount of total household income (range) 13 80 3,400 

Q71 Gender 9 152 25,990 

Q72 Age, year of birth 6 47 25,990 

Q73 Race/ethnicity, Hispanic/Latino 4 45 25,980 

Q74 Race 9 65 25,980 

See notes at end of table. 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

58 

Table 24. Average and maximum completion time, in seconds, for forms in the faculty instrument: 

2004—Continued 

Questionnaire Time in seconds 

form Description Average Maximum 

Number of 

cases1 

Q75 Disability, any 10 70 25,980 

Q77 Marital status, fall 2003 7 49 25,980 

Q79 Dependent children, number 8 48 25,980 

Q80 United States birth/citizenship status 7 55 25,970 

Q82 Opinion, institution fairness 32 125 24,360 

Q83 Opinion about choosing an academic career again 8 57 24,360 1 Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. 

NOTE: The number of cases per form varies due to the interview skip logic. Outliers for each form were topcoded 

(mean + 3 standard deviations). 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Q31 and Q32. The questions that asked for the number of hours per week spent on work 

activities, Q31 (by paid and unpaid activities at the target institution and outside that institution), 

and the percent distribution of work activities, Q32, took 94 and 78 seconds, respectively, to 

administer. Each of these forms took longer when administered by telephone interviewers than 

when self-administered via the web instrument. Q31 averaged 91 seconds for web respondents 

compared with 103 seconds for CATI respondents (t = –13.64, p < .0001). Web respondents 

averaged 76 seconds on Q32 compared with an average time of 83 seconds for CATI 

respondents (t = –7.59, p < .0001). The complexity of these questions may have led to the longer 

times for CATI administration, as respondents often asked interviewers to repeat the question 

and examples, and asked questions about the appropriate category for certain types of activities. 

Q37 and Q38. Two consecutive forms, Q37 and Q38, asked for a great deal of 

information on a single screen. Q37 was a matrix-style question that asked six questions about 

each of the credit classes (up to five) the respondent taught. This form took 99 seconds, on 

average, to administer, with CATI respondents taking significantly less time than web 

respondents (94 and 100 seconds, respectively, t = 4.26, p < .0001). The matrix of items on Q37, 

visually different from the rest of the forms in the questionnaire, likely took web respondents 

extra time to make sense of and answer. 

Q38 asked respondents to identify which of 10 different types of student evaluation tools 

were used in their classes and whether they were used in all, some, or none of the classes. This 

form took an average of 68 seconds to administer, with CATI respondents taking significantly 

longer than web respondents (93 and 60 seconds, respectively, t = –49.69, p < .0001). 

Q48. This form asked for the number of hours per week the respondent spent on four 

activities (thesis/dissertation committees, administrative committees, with advisees, and office 

hours). On average, respondents took 61 seconds to complete this form, with CATI respondents 

taking significantly longer than web respondents (72 and 57 seconds, respectively, t = –24.37, 

p < .0001). 

Q52A. Q52A, which asked for the number of career publications or presentations in 

seven categories, took an average of 100 seconds to complete. This may have required 

respondents to locate their curricula vitae and count the number of publications. CATI 

respondents spent significantly more time on this item than web respondents (106 and 98 

seconds, respectively, t = –5.88, p < .0001). 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

59 

Q66. The form asking about respondents’ compensation from the target institution and 

from other sources, Q66, took 111 seconds to complete, on average. This form consisted of six 

income questions, which were considered to be among the most sensitive items in the 

questionnaire. Average time to complete this form was shorter for web respondents (109 

seconds) than for CATI respondents (118 seconds; t = –7.60, p < .0001). 

3.3.2 Help Desk 

To gain a better understanding of the problems encountered by faculty members 

attempting to complete the web self-administered questionnaire, software was developed to 

record each help desk incident that occurred during data collection. For each occurrence, help 

desk staff confirmed contact information for the sample member, recorded the type of problem, 

described the problem and resolution, noted its status (pending or resolved), and recorded the 

approximate time it took to assist the faculty member. Help desk staff were trained not only to 

answer any calls received from the help desk hotline, but also to conduct telephone interviews 

when needed. Help desk staff members assisted sample members with questions about the web 

instrument and provided technical assistance to sample members who experienced problems 

while completing the self-administered web survey. Help desk agents also responded to voice 

mail messages left by respondents when the call center was closed. 

Help desk staff assisted 3,860 faculty members (11 percent of the sample). Eighty-one 

percent of these cases called the help desk only once, 12 percent called twice, 4 percent called 

three times, and 3 percent called four or more times. Of the 3,860 faculty members who called 

the help desk, 2,940 (76 percent) eventually completed the survey. 

Twenty-nine percent of the problems reported by faculty members who called the help 

desk were for miscellaneous issues. The miscellaneous issues were first coded into specific 

issues and then these issues were coded into five broader categories as shown in table 25. First 

time calls included setting an appointment for the CATI interview, providing a new phone 

number or e-mail address, promising to complete by phone at a later date, or promising to 

complete the survey on the Web. Nearly 7 percent of help desk contacts were faculty members 

calling in to refuse. Follow-up calls to the help desk (6 percent) included faculty members 

checking on the incentive, or verifying that they had completed the survey. Other miscellaneous 

issues were less than 2 percent of all contacts. Slightly more than 1 percent of help desk calls 

reported that the faculty member was not at the phone number, e-mail address, or college that 

was contacted. 

Other specific issues handled by the help desk included requests to complete the survey 

by telephone (21 percent), questions about the study (19 percent), browser setting and computer 

problems (14 percent), requests for study ID and/or password (12 percent), errors in 

questionnaire programming (3 percent), questions about questionnaire content (2 percent), 

website being down or unavailable (1 percent), and routing/skip problems (less than 1 percent). 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

60 

Table 25. Response pattern, by help desk problem type: 2004 

Type of problem Number Percent 

 Total 5,151 100.0 

Miscellaneous 1,491 29.0 

 First time calls (set call back date/time, etc.) 698 13.6 

 SM called in to refuse 352 6.8 

 Follow-up calls (checking on incentive, verifying complete) 284 5.5 

 Other 94 1.8 

 SM not at this number/college 63 1.2 

Called in to complete by phone 1,078 20.9 

Question about study 964 18.7 

Browser settings/computer problems 694 13.5 

Study identification (ID) code/password 626 12.2 

Program error 130 2.5 

Questionnaire content 114 2.2 

Website unavailable 47 .9 

Routing/skip problems 7 .1 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SM = sample member. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

3.3.3 Interviewer Hours 

A total of 17,639 telephone interviewing staff hours (including help desk staffing, 

telephone follow-up calls, and CATI interview hours) were expended during faculty data 

collection. These hours do not include supervision, monitoring, administration, and Quality 

Circle meetings. The average time spent per completed CATI interview was 2.7 hours and per 

completed interview overall (including web completes) was 0.7 hours. The average time to 

administer the CATI was 29 minutes, which shows that a majority of interviewer time was spent 

on other activities. These other activities focused on contacting and locating the sample member, 

with a small portion of time devoted to bringing up a case, reviewing its history, and closing the 

case (with the appropriate reschedule, comment, and disposition). A significant proportion of the 

web completes occurred after the period of telephone follow-up began and were completed only 

after several CATI follow-up calls had been made to the respondent. 

3.3.4 Number of Calls 

Telephone interviewers made 226,777 call attempts to faculty members during the 

NSOPF:04 data collection period (see table 26). The number of calls per case ranged from 0 to 

152. On average, six calls27 were made to each sample member. Those who were not interviewed 

received the highest average number of calls. An average of four call attempts were required for 

respondents compared to an average of 13 call attempts for nonrespondents (t = 60.9, p < .0001). 

Faculty members who completed the web self-administered questionnaire were called 

significantly fewer times, with an average of three call attempts per completed survey, compared 

to an average of eight calls to CATI respondents (t = 41.5, p < .0001). 

 

27 This figure includes cases where no call attempts were made, either because the respondent completed the 

questionnaire via the Web before CATI calling began, or the individual could not be located. 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

61 

Table 26. Total and average number of calls, by completion status and mode of completion: 2004 

Completion status/mode 

Number of 

cases1 Number of calls 

Average 

calls per case 

 Total 35,630 226,777 6.4 

Interviewed 26,110 102,946 3.9 

Not interviewed 9,520 123,831 13.0 

By mode 26,110 102,946 3.9 

 Web complete 19,780 53,621 2.7 

 CATI complete 6,330 49,325 7.8 

1 Number of respondents rounded to nearest 10. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. CATI = computer assisted telephone interview. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Call screening is a growing problem for studies that rely on the telephone as a mode of 

contact. Devices such as telephone answering machines can be used to screen unwanted calls. Of 

the 19,394 cases called by telephone interviewers, 15,183 cases (78 percent) reached an 

answering machine at least once (see table 27). Interviewers made significantly more calls to 

cases where an answering machine had been reached at least once (mean attempts = 13) than 

they did to cases where no answering machine was reached (mean attempts = 5; t = –46.81, 

p < .0001). Likewise, cases where an answering machine had been reached at least once were 

less likely to have completed the interview (54 percent) than cases where no answering machine 

was reached (63 percent; χ

2 = 92.4, p < .0001). 

Table 27. Average call attempts, by reached answering machine: 2004 

Cases called in CATI Completed cases 

Result of call attempt 

Number of 

cases 

Average 

number of calls 

Number of 

cases1 Average

number of calls 

Reached answering machine at least once 15,183 13.4 8,230 11.2 

Never reached an answering machine 4,211 5.4 2,630 4.0 

1

 Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. 

NOTE: Excludes 16,240 completed cases that were never called by telephone interviewers because they completed 

the self-administered questionnaire during or soon after the early-response period of data collection. Some of the 

cases called by telephone interviewers actually completed the web self-administered questionnaire. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Looking only at completed cases, significantly fewer calls were required to obtain a 

completed interview when no answering machine was reached (mean attempts = 4) compared to 

cases in which an answering machine was reached at least once (mean attempts = 11, t = -40.69, 

p < .0001). Those who possessed answering machines were included in the survey definition of 

“accessible”; however, it took considerable persistence and resources (in the form of repeated 

call attempts) to reach these faculty members. This finding demonstrates that answering 

machines and other call screening devices are increasing the effort that must be expended to 

reach these cases, thereby driving up interviewing costs. 

In addition, cases where an answering machine was reached on more than one-half of the 

call attempts required significantly more effort to contact and interview. The mean number of 

attempts for cases that reached an answering machine less than one-half of the time was 10 

compared to 13 (t = -15.3, p < .0001) for cases that reached an answering machine more than 

one-half of the time. Similarly, among completed cases, significantly fewer calls were needed to 
Chapter 3. Data Collection Outcomes 

62 

complete an interview with cases where an answering machine was reached less than one-half of 

the time (mean attempts = 8) compared with those where an answering machine was reached 

more than one-half of the time (mean attempts = 11; t = -12.9, p < .0001). 

3.4 Conclusions 

Of the 1,070 eligible institutions, 980 (91 percent, unweighted and weighted) provided 

faculty lists and 920 (86 percent) completed the institution questionnaire. A total of 26,110 

faculty and instructional staff completed the faculty survey for a 76 percent response rate. 

Approximately three-quarters (76 percent) of respondents completed the web self-administered 

questionnaire rather than the CATI (24 percent). Strategies that helped attain this response rate 

included tracing, e-mail contacting, and refusal conversion efforts, along with targeted 

incentives. 
63 

Chapter 4 

Evaluation of Data Quality 

Evaluations of data quality serve to identify problems with the data collection processes 

and instruments in order to remedy them for the next cycle of the study. Project staff evaluated 

faculty list quality, item nonresponse, item mode effects, breakoffs, coding, quality control 

monitoring of interviewers, and interviewer feedback. The results of these evaluations are 

presented in this chapter. 

4.1 List Quality 

4.1.1 List Types 

Faculty lists may be characterized both by type of media—whether they are electronic or 

hardcopy—and method of transmission (e.g., fax or mail, e-mail, electronic upload). For the 

2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04), institutions were asked to provide a 

single, unduplicated (i.e., duplicate entries of names removed) electronic list of faculty in any 

commonly-used and easily processed format (e.g., ASCII fixed field, comma delimited, 

spreadsheet format). These preferred electronic file formats are far less labor intensive to process 

than paper lists and more easily unduplicated by ID number. However, as in previous cycles, 

paper lists were accepted, as were multiple files (e.g., separate files of full- and part-time faculty) 

and lists in electronic formats that did not lend themselves to electronic processing (such as word 

processing formats). 

For the first time, institutions were given the option to transmit their electronic faculty 

lists via a secure upload to the National Study of Faculty and Students (NSoFaS:04 ) website and 

were encouraged to do so. (In previous cycles, direct upload was available only by file-transfer 

protocols, an option that few institutions utilized). Institutions were also given the option of 

sending a CD-ROM, diskette, or paper list containing the list data or sending the list via e-mail 

(as an encrypted file, if necessary). 

As shown in table 28, the vast majority of lists received were in electronic formats. Of 

980 participating institutions, 830 (85 percent) supplied an electronic list by upload, e-mail, CDROM, or diskette. Institutions showed a clear preference for uploading their list by direct upload; 

590 institutions (60 percent of lists overall and 71 percent of electronic lists) delivered their data 

in this manner. 

NSOPF:04 clearly benefited from the increased capability and willingness of institutions 

to supply lists in electronic formats, compared to previous cycles. As table 29 shows, 65 percent 

of institutions supplied an electronic list for NSOPF:99, with a majority of them in CD-ROM or 

diskette formats sent by mail. 
Chapter 4. Evaluation of Data Quality 

64 

Table 28. Number of submitted faculty lists, by type of institution and transmittal mode: 2004 

Number of institutions providing lists via six transmittal modes 

Institution type 

Number of 

sample

institutions1 Total Upload

Electronic 

& paper Diskette Paper 

Abstracted 

from web 

directory E-mail

 Total 1,080 980 590 # 40 # 140 200

Public doctoral 190 180 120 # # # 30 30

Public master’s 120 100 60 # 10 # 10 30

Public bachelor’s 30 30 20 # # # 10 #

Public associate’s 340 290 170 # 30 # 30 60

Public other 10 10 10 # # # # #

Private not-for-profit doctoral 110 100 70 # # # 20 20

Private not-for-profit master’s 80 80 50 # # # 10 10

Private not-for-profit 

bachelor’s 130 120 70 # # # 20 30

Private not-for-profit 

associate’s 10 10 10 # # # # #

Private not-for-profit other 60 60 30 # # # 20 10

# Rounds to zero. 

1 Number of institutions rounded to nearest 10. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding and because of 

duplicative forms of list transmittal modes. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Table 29. Faculty list types, by NSOPF cycle: 1999 and 2004 

NSOPF:99 NSOPF:04 

Type of list 

Number of 

institutions 

Unweighted 

percent1

Number of 

institutions 

Unweighted 

percent1

 Total 820 100 980 100.0 

Paper 290 35.0 10 0.6 

Electronic (ftp or upload) 2

 10 1.1 590 60.4 

Electronic (E-mail) 220 26.6 200 20.7 

CD-ROM or diskette 310 37.2 40 4.0 

Abstracted from web resource3

 — — 140 14.2 

— Not available. 

1

 Percentages are based on original unrounded numbers. 

2

 FTP was utilized only in 1999; upload was utilized only in 2004. 

3 In 1999, lists abstracted from web resources were processed as, and included with paper lists. 

NOTE: Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. FTP = file transfer 

protocol. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

For institutions that indicated they lacked the staff or resources to compile a list of faculty 

on their own within schedule constraints, it was sometimes possible to abstract a list from 

employee directories, course schedules, or course catalog listings available on the institution’s 

website or through other web resources. As in past cycles (where course catalogs or directories 

were used as lists of last resort), all such lists were reviewed to ensure they were sufficiently 

complete for sampling (i.e., included both full- and part-time faculty, did not systematically 

exclude any subset of faculty and instructional staff). It should be noted that in past cycles, 

course catalogs and directories comprised a large percentage of lists supplied on (or processed 
Chapter 4. Evaluation of Data Quality 

65 

as) paper. While the web listings utilized for NSOPF:04 required more processing than electronic 

lists (including reformatting into a spreadsheet or re-keying), they proved, overall, to be far less 

problematic for processing and sampling than an equivalent paper list. Only 15 percent of 

institutions submitted paper lists or had lists abstracted from web resources for NSOPF:04; this 

compares to 35 percent of institutions who submitted paper lists (including lists abstracted from 

web resources) in NSOPF:99. 

4.1.2 List Data Quality 

As in prior administrations of this study, secured faculty lists were evaluated for accuracy 

and completeness of information before they were processed for sampling. To facilitate quality 

control, faculty list counts were compared against counts obtained from the following 

supplementary sources: 

• the institution questionnaire and/or the file layout form, if a questionnaire was not 

completed but an overall faculty count was supplied; 

• the 2001 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Fall Staff Survey; 

• the Contact Information and File Layout (CIFL) form (which included faculty counts, 

and used when questionnaire data was unavailable); and 

• NSOPF:99: frame data from the 1999 survey. 

Discrepancies in counts of full- and part-time faculty between the faculty list and other 

sources that were outside the expected range were investigated. All institutions with submitted 

lists that failed any checks were recontacted to resolve the observed discrepancies. 

Because of time and definitional differences between NSOPF and IPEDS, it was 

expected that the faculty counts obtained from the institutions and IPEDS would include 

discrepancies. Consequently, quality control checks against IPEDS were less stringent than those 

against the institution questionnaire. However, list count comparisons against IPEDS and 

NSOPF:99 data were useful in identifying systematic errors, particularly those related to 

miscoding of the employment status of faculty members. Table 30 shows the types of 

discrepancies encountered by type of institution. 
Chapter 4. Evaluation of Data Quality 

66 

Table 30. Type of discrepancies encountered, by type of institution: 2004 

Discrepant with Insufficient data 

Institution type 

Sampled 

institutions IPEDS QUEX Unreadable 

Needed for 

sampling CIFL 

Total 1,080 300 280 10 180 190 

Public doctoral 190 70 50 # 40 30 

Public master’s 120 30 30 # 10 20 

Public bachelor’s 30 10 10 # 10 10 

Public associate’s 340 80 90 # 30 60 

Public other 10 # # # # # 

Private not-for-profit doctoral 110 40 30 # 20 20 

Private not-for-profit master’s 80 20 20 # 20 10 

Private not-for-profit bachelor’s 130 30 40 # 30 20 

Private not-for-profit associate’s 10 # # # # # 

Private not-for-profit other 60 20 20 # 20 10 

# Rounds to zero. 

NOTE: IPEDS is the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System; QUEX refers to the institution questionnaire; CIFL refers to the contact information and file layout forms. 

Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Table 31 shows the percent differences between the three sources of data for all cycles of 

NSOPF (1988, 1993, 1999, and 2004). The discrepancies between the faculty lists and institution 

questionnaire counts have declined over time. Also, table 32 shows mean differences between 

sources of data across all cycles of NSOPF. More details regarding the quality of faculty lists 

secured for NSOPF:04 are provided in appendix H. 

Table 31. Percentage differences between sources of data across all cycles of NSOPF: 1988 to 

2004 

Percent difference in faculty counts 

Comparison Year 

Number of 

institutions <-50 -50 to -31 -30 to -11 -10 to 10 11 to 30 31 to 50 >50 

LIST-IPEDS 1988 

1993 

1999 

2004 

410 

660 

770 

980 

8.0 

5.0 

6.4 

2.4 

5.6 

5.2 

6.5 

4.1 

14.9 

11.3 

13.6 

12.2 

35.4 

25.4 

33.7 

32.4 

16.6 

23.8 

23.0 

23.1 

7.6 

13.3 

6.8 

9.3 

12.0 

16.0 

9.9 

16.6 

QUEX-LIST 1988 

1993 

1999 

2004 

410 

750 

770 

900 

1.9 

3.7 

1.4 

1.2 

3.9 

6.5 

2.7 

1.3 

16.6 

13.2 

7.0 

3.8 

51.2 

41.7 

72.3 

82.6 

15.1 

12.3 

5.6 

4.9 

2.4 

6.1 

3.2 

2.0 

8.8 

16.5 

7.8 

4.1 

QUEX-IPEDS 1988 

1993 

1999 

2004 

410 

690 

790 

900 

3.9 

2.3 

3.3 

1.6 

6.8 

4.5 

6.6 

2.1 

15.9 

9.2 

11.4 

9.2 

34.6 

26.6 

40.7 

37.1 

20.0 

25.4 

22.0 

24.6 

7.8 

12.6 

6.7 

9.5 

11.0 

19.3 

9.5 

16.1 

NOTE: LIST refers to the faculty list provided by sampled institutions; IPEDS is the National Center for Education 

Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System; QUEX refers to the institution questionnaire. Numbers 

rounded to the nearest 10. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Chapter 4. Evaluation of Data Quality 

67 

Table 32. Mean differences between sources of data across all cycles of NSOPF: 1988 to 2004 

Standard error1

Comparison Year 

Number of 

institutions Mean difference 

Mean percent difference 

in faculty counts 

LIST-IPEDS 1988 

1993 

1999 

2004 

410 

660 

770 

980 

 3.0 (17.3) 

 88.4*

 (22.6) 

 24.8 (13.8) 

 57.5*

 (13.1) 

 14.1*

 (3.8) 

 24.8*

 (3.1) 

 9.8*

 (2.1) 

 29.0*

 (3.2) 

QUEX-LIST 1988 

1993 

1999 

2004 

410 

750 

770 

900 

 8.5 (16.1) 

 23.5 (16.7) 

 16.1 (11.2) 

 7.6 (8.8) 

 11.4* (3.2) 

 142.4 (106.8) 

 14.9*

 (2.7) 

 5.1* (1.2) 

QUEX-IPEDS 1988 

1993 

1999 

2004 

410 

690 

810 

900 

 11.6 (14.7) 

 96.3*

 (21.5) 

 53.5*

 (12.8) 

 69.0*

 (9.4) 

 15.8*

 (3.6) 

 36.4*

 (5.2) 

 18.5*

 (2.7) 

 30.2*

 (3.3) 

LIST-IPEDS2 1988 

1993 

1999 

2004 

330 

520 

640 

790 

 -12.3 (10.9) 

 34.2* (9.4) 

 9.8 (9.8) 

 10.0 (9.3) 

 1.2 (1.1) 

 7.4* (1.0) 

 2.7*

 (0.8) 

 5.7*

 (0.7) 

QUEX-LIST2 1988 

1993 

1999 

2004 

370 

600 

700 

850 

 -12.1 (8.4) 

 -22.0 (7.9) 

 -18.5*

 (6.0) 

 2.0 (2.4) 

 -1.1*

 (0.8) 

 -0.1* (0.8) 

 -0.1*

 (0.9) 

 0.6 (0.3) 

QUEX-IPEDS2 1988 

1993 

1999 

2004 

350 

540 

690 

740 

 1.5 (9.1) 

 35.2*

 (8.2) 

 6.7 (8.5) 

 29.9*

 (8.9) 

 1.4 (1.1) 

 8.6*

 (0.9) 

 2.7* (0.7) 

 7.8*

 (0.7) 

* Statistically significant at alpha = .05, based on paired t-test. 1 Standard errors assume simple random sampling. 

2

 Observations with percent differences greater than 50 in absolute value were excluded. 

NOTE: LIST refers to the faculty list provided by sampled institutions; IPEDS is the National Center for Education 

Statistics’ Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System; QUEX refers to the institution questionnaire. Numbers 

rounded to the nearest 10. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

4.2 Item Nonresponse 

Recent studies (for example, DeRouvray and Couper 2002) using web self-administered 

questionnaires have shown higher than usual rates of missing data when the “refuse” and “don’t 

know” options are presented on the screen. To limit the rate of nonresponse in the institution and 

faculty instruments, the refusal option was unavailable to respondents and the “don’t know” 

option was limited to selected screens where the respondent might not know the answer (e.g., 

expected age at retirement). On the information page at the start of the questionnaire, 

respondents were instructed to click the “continue” button to proceed to the next question if they 

wished to decline to answer a question. 

For the institution questionnaire, items with a high rate of missing responses are often 

those that required lookup by an office on campus other than the Institution Coordinator’s (e.g., 

Human Resources or Academic Affairs) and might reflect a lack of cooperation from those other 

offices. Two of the 90 items in the questionnaire had more than 15 percent of the data missing. 
Chapter 4. Evaluation of Data Quality 

68 

Details of institution item nonresponse, including the nonresponse bias analysis, are presented in 

appendix I. 

Thirty-four of the 162 items in the faculty questionnaire had more than 15 percent of the 

data missing.28 With the exception of the income items, which were expected to have higher 

rates of refusal due to their sensitive nature, the primary reason item nonresponse exceeded 15 

percent for these items is that each applies to a relatively small subset of respondents (i.e., small 

denominator) and these items were not included in the abbreviated instrument. The nonresponse 

bias analysis and details of faculty item nonresponse are presented in appendix I. 

4.3 Faculty Data Quality 

4.3.1 Item Mode Effects 

The NSOPF:04 faculty instrument was designed to minimize potential mode effects by 

using a single instrument for both self-administration and CATI. However, whenever multiple 

modes are used for data collection, the possibility of mode effects is inherent. Because 

respondents were offered the option of completing the interview by themselves on the Web or 

with an interviewer, there was the potential for bias due to self-selection or other factors which 

cannot be accounted for. Therefore, these results should be interpreted as how respondents in 

different modes of administration answered the survey questions and not as true mode 

differences. 

Due to the large sample size, nearly all test statistics used to measure differences between 

self-administered and CATI respondents were significant. Reporting all of these statistically 

significant differences is not substantively meaningful; therefore, only differences of five 

percentage points or greater are reported.29,30

For this analysis, 47 variables were selected, covering the following topic areas: 

demographic variables, descriptive items, factual items, and opinion-based questions. Criteria for 

selection of items included importance to the content of this study. Items for which project staff 

had concerns that there might be mode effects (e.g., complex matrix items) were also selected. 

Although not presented in tables, the following discussion on item mode effects is based on 

special tabulations from the 2004 NSOPF faculty data. 

Demographics 

Compared to their CATI counterparts, web respondents were more likely to be White 

(Q74E: 87 percent versus 81 percent, z = 11.65, p < .001). Conversely, CATI respondents were 

 

28 The items included in this analysis are listed in appendix K (Q1 through Q83). The number of items differs from the 

number of faculty items reported elsewhere in this document. For example, the difference between the number of 

analysis variables (162) and the number of items in the faculty questionnaire (183) occurs because some items in the 

faculty questionnaire were for internal use; similarly, there are fewer stochastically imputed variables (144) than 

analysis variables (162) because some variables had no missing data after logical imputations were performed. 29 For questions where means were used, the unit of measurement, range of answers, and standard deviation was 

evaluated to determine which statistically significant differences to report. 

30 Footnotes are used to report differences in the 3 to 4 percent range since these could be seen as indicative of a 

substantively important difference. 
Chapter 4. Evaluation of Data Quality 

69 

more likely to be Black or African American (Q74C: 14 percent versus 7 percent, z = -16.98, 

p < .001) than their web counterparts. No mode differences were observed for gender or age.31

Descriptors 

Web respondents were more likely than CATI respondents to report research as their 

primary activity (Q4: 11 percent versus 6 percent, z = 11.62, p < .001), be employed full-time 

(Q5: 73 percent versus 53 percent, z = 29.72, p < .001), be an assistant professor (Q10: 19 

percent versus 12 percent, z = 17.81, p < .001), be tenured (Q12: 34 percent versus 28 percent, 

z = 8.79, p < .001) or be on the tenure track (Q12: 16 percent versus 10 percent, z = 11.68, 

p < .001), and not be employed outside the target institution (Q18: 72 percent versus 59 percent, 

z = 61.15, p < .001). CATI respondents were more likely than web respondents to report teaching 

as their principal activity (Q4: 77 percent versus 70 percent, z = -10.73, p < .001), be an 

instructor (Q10: 27 percent versus 17 percent, z = -17.49, p < .001), not be on the tenure track 

(Q12: 51 percent versus 41 percent, z = 28.58, p < .001), and be employed outside the target 

institution (Q18: 31 percent versus 22 percent, z = -14.54, p < .001).32

Factual items 

Twenty-four factual items were chosen, based on their importance to the study objectives. 

These factual items were expected to show few, if any, mode differences. These questions 

centered on eight main topic areas: number of classes taught, year began first postsecondary job, 

employment sector of previous job, hours per week spent on various tasks, percent time spent on 

various tasks, use of various methods in the classroom, other activities, and publications. 

Classes taught. There were no significant differences observed in mean number of credit 

and noncredit classes taught at the target postsecondary institution (Q35A1 and Q35A2). 

Year began first postsecondary job. There was no significant difference in the mean 

year web respondents began their first postsecondary job (Q23) compared to their CATI 

counterparts. 

Employment sector of previous job. Web respondents were more likely to have no 

other job prior to their current position (Q28: 10 percent versus 5 percent, z = 12.21, p < .001) 

than were CATI respondents.33 

Hours per week spent on various tasks. Web respondents reported spending more time 

on paid tasks at the target institution (Q31A), on average, than their CATI counterparts (37 hours 

versus 31 hours, t = 22.70, p < .001), while CATI respondents reported spending more time on 

paid tasks outside the institution (Q31C) than web respondents (12 hours versus 7 hours, 

t = -20.37, p < .001). No significant differences were found on hours spent on unpaid tasks at the 

 

31 Two measures showed differences at the 3 and 4 percent level. Web respondents (57 percent) were more likely to 

be male (Q71) than their CATI counterparts (53 percent, z = 5.58, p < 0.001), and web respondents (7 percent) were 

more likely to be Asian (Q74B) than their CATI counterparts (4 percent, z = 8.44, p < 0.001). 32 Three measures showed differences at the 3 and 4 percent level. Web respondents were more likely to report 

administration as their primary activity (Q4: 9 percent versus 6 percent, z = 7.52, p < 0.001) and be an associate 

professor (Q10: 17 percent versus 13 percent, z = 7.54, p < 0.001). CATI respondents were more likely than web 

respondents to not report an academic title (or use the “other” category) (Q10: 23 percent versus 19 percent, 

z = -6.92, p < 0.001). 33 CATI respondents were more likely to have been employed in an elementary or secondary school prior to their 

current position (Q28: 20 percent versus 16 percent, z = -7.37, p < 0.001). 
Chapter 4. Evaluation of Data Quality 

70 

institution (Q31B), unpaid tasks outside the institution (Q31D), or hours spent e-mailing students 

each week (Q41). 

Percentage of time spent on various tasks. Respondents were asked to provide the 

percentage of time they spent on undergraduate instructional activities (Q32A), graduate 

instructional activities (Q32B), research activities (Q32C), and other activities (Q32D). CATI 

respondents reported spending a greater percentage of their time each week on instructional 

activities with undergraduates than web respondents (61 percent versus 53 percent, t = -13.71, p

< .001).34 

Use of various methods in the classroom. Of the 11 methods in question, only four 

showed a significant difference by mode. Compared to web respondents, CATI respondents were 

more likely to report using multiple choice exams (Q38A: 61 percent versus 55 percent, 

z = -6.64, p < .001), using essay midterm or final exams (Q38B: 61 percent versus 51 percent, 

z = -10.99, p < .001), and to report using service learning experiences (Q38J: 33 percent versus 

26 percent, z = 25.23, p < .001). Web respondents were more likely to report using a website for 

instructional duties (Q39) compared to CATI respondents (45 percent versus 35 percent, z = 

13.47, p < .01).35

Publications. The average number of articles published in refereed journals in their 

careers (Q52AA) was no different for web and CATI respondents. 

Opinion 

Thirteen opinion-based questions were evaluated for mode differences. Eight of these 

questions asked how satisfied respondents were with various aspects of their job, including: 

authority to make decisions, technology-based activities, equipment/facilities, institutional 

support for teaching improvement, workload, salary, benefits, and job overall (Q61 and Q62). As 

shown in table 33, CATI respondents were significantly more likely to report being either 

somewhat or very satisfied with five of the eight items—including equipment/facilities, 

institutional support for teaching improvements, workload, salary, and job overall—compared to 

web respondents.36 These differences may be due to the effect of social desirability on responses 

when an interviewer is involved. 

 

34 Web respondents reported spending a greater percentage of their time each week on research (Q32C) compared 

to CATI respondents (15 percent versus 12 percent, t = 11.63, p < 0.001). 35 Three items showed differences at the 4 percent level. Compared to web respondents, CATI respondents were 

more likely to report using multiple drafts of written work (Q38E: 43 percent versus 39 percent, z = -4.48, p < 0.001), 

oral presentations by students (Q38F: 65 percent versus 61 percent, z = -4.52, p < 0.001), and student evaluations of 

each other’s work (Q38H: 41 percent versus 37 percent, z = -4.52, p < 0.001). 36 Two additional questions showed significant differences at the 3 and 4 percent level. CATI respondents were more 

likely than web respondents to report being somewhat or very satisfied with institutional support for technology based 

instructional activities (Q61B: 89 percent versus 85 percent, z = -6.96, p < 0.001) and the benefits available to them 

(Q62C: 74 percent versus 71 percent, z = -4.15, p < 0.001). 
Chapter 4. Evaluation of Data Quality 

71 

Table 33. Satisfaction with various aspects of job, by mode of administration: 2004 

Percent 

Item Description Web CATI 

Q61C Satisfaction with equipment/facilities 77.5 83.9 

Q61D Satisfaction with institutional support for teaching improvement 68.8 82.7 

Q62A Satisfaction with workload 77.0 83.6 

Q62B Satisfaction with salary 60.7 70.2 

Q62D Satisfaction with job overall 87.3 92.4 

NOTE: Percentages are based on those indicating they were somewhat or very satisfied with that aspect of their job. 

CATI = computer assisted telephone interview. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

The remaining five opinion-based questions asked respondents to indicate whether they 

agreed or disagreed that teaching was rewarded, part-time faculty were treated fairly, female 

faculty were treated fairly, and racial minorities were treated fairly (Q82); and whether they 

would choose an academic career again (Q83). CATI respondents were more likely than web 

respondents to somewhat or strongly agree that good teaching was rewarded (82 percent versus 

76 percent, z = -9.35, p < .001) and part-time faculty were treated fairly (75 percent versus 

65 percent, z = -13.62, p < .001).37 

4.3.2 Breakoffs 

A total of 27,350 sample members started the faculty interview. Of these, 800 were 

deemed ineligible. Of the 26,550 eligible sample members who started the interview, 26,110 

completed either a full, abbreviated,38 or partial interview.39 An additional 10 cases either refused 

to be included as respondents or provided insufficient data to be useful. The remaining 430 broke 

off before completing the workload section (C) and were not considered to be partial completes. 

Table 34 lists the forms (screens) that had more than 15 breakoffs. In most cases, the 

forms with the highest number of breakoffs required detailed recall or requested sensitive 

information. 

 

37 One additional question showed a significant difference at the 3 percent level. CATI respondents were more likely 

than web respondents to either somewhat or strongly agree that female faculty members are treated fairly (Q82: 91 

percent versus 88 percent, z = -6.04, p < 0.001). 38 The abbreviated interview consisted of sections A (nature of employment), B (academic/professional background) 

and G (sociodemographic characteristics) of the faculty interview. 39 Interviews that broke off after completing section C (workload) were considered partial completes. Of the 140 

respondents who did so, 48 percent broke off in the scholarly activities section (D), 9 percent in the job satisfaction 

section (E), 29 percent in the compensation section (F), 11 percent in the characteristics section (G), and 4 percent in 

the opinions section (H). 
Chapter 4. Evaluation of Data Quality 

72 

Table 34. Faculty instrument forms where more than 15 sample members terminated the 

interview: 2004 

Forms1 Description 

Number of 

breakoffs 

Q2 Instructional duties related to credit courses/activities 30 

Q3 Faculty status 30 

Q4 Principal activity 20 

Q17A4 Highest degree school coding 30 

Q31 Hours per week, paid and unpaid tasks at institution and elsewhere 40 

Q32 Percent of time spent on instruction, research, and other activities 40 

Q37 Description of each class taught (number of weeks, credits, students, etc.) 30 

Q52A Career publications/presentations 30 

Q66 Income, from institution/other sources 20 

1 The faculty/instructional staff questionnaire was divided into forms (screens) and items. Each form was structured to 

include related items. 

NOTE: Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

4.3.3 Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) Coding 

The assisted coding system was designed for the NSOPF:04 full-scale study to decrease 

respondent burden by reducing the time and effort needed to code responses. The assisted coding 

system was used to code field of teaching, highest degree field, and principal field of scholarly 

activity. The codes for each of these fields were identical (see appendix J for a list of codes). 

Respondents were asked to provide a verbatim string. The assisted coding system parsed the 

string, looking for key words or phrases that matched categories in the database. If a match was 

located, a list of possible fields was provided for the respondent to choose from. In the event a 

match was not located or the respondent rejected the fields provided by the system, the 

respondent could manually code the field. This involved choosing a general category from the 32 

categories provided in a drop-down box, and then selecting the specific category within the 

general category. There were a total of 136 specific categories, but within a general category 

there were never more than 19 specific categories to choose from. 

The anticipated benefit to performing this coding in the interview for web respondents is 

obvious; the sample member can see the categories and select the appropriate general and 

specific categories. For telephone-administered interviews, this real-time coding may also 

improve data quality by capitalizing on the availability of the respondent to clarify coding 

choices at the time the coding was performed; interviewers were trained to use probing 

techniques to assist in the coding process. 

The assisted coding system coded 75 percent of field of teaching strings, 79 percent of 

highest degree strings, and 50 percent of field of research strings. The assisted coding matches 

were accepted more readily by CATI interviewers than by web respondents for field of teaching 

and highest degree (teaching: 86 percent versus 69 percent, χ

2 = 703.7, p < .0001; highest degree: 

90 percent versus 74 percent, χ

2 = 711.8, p < .0001) but the difference was not significant for 

field of scholarly activity (57 percent versus 48 percent, χ

2 = 2.0, p < 0.16). 

As part of the data evaluation activities, a random sample of 10 percent of the results for 

each of the three Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) codings (teaching, research, and 

highest degree) was selected. An expert coder evaluated the verbatim strings for completeness 
Chapter 4. Evaluation of Data Quality 

73 

and for the appropriateness of the assigned codes, determining whether a string was too vague to 

code or whether a different code should be assigned. 

Overall, 71 percent of those sampled for recoding were coded correctly, 13 percent were 

incorrectly coded, and 15 percent of the strings were too vague to determine whether they were 

correctly coded. Table 35 shows the results of the 10 percent recode, by mode. The expert coder 

agreed with the coding performed by the web respondent more often than that done by the CATI 

interviewer (χ

2 = 9.69, p = 0.002). 

Table 35. Summary of coding results for fields of teaching, research, and highest degree, by 

mode of administration: 2004 

Web respondents CATI respondents 

Classification of 

Instructional Programs 

(CIP) field item 

Coding 

attempts 

sampled 

Percent 

coded 

correctly 

Percent 

recoded 

Percent 

too vague 

to code 

Coding 

attempts 

sampled 

Percent 

coded 

correctly 

Percent 

recoded 

Percent 

too vague 

to code 

 Total 3786 72.3 14.0 13.7 1184 67.7 11.6 20.8 

 

Teaching 1949 72.3 14.4 13.2 651 67.4 12.4 20.1 

Research 39 53.8 28.2 17.9 5 60.0 20.0 20.0 

Highest degree 1798 72.7 13.2 14.1 528 68.0 10.4 21.6 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. CATI = computer assisted telephone interview. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

In addition to the 10 percent recode, all strings that were not coded, were partially coded 

(into a general area but not a specific discipline), or were coded “other” were evaluated by the 

expert coder and upcoded into the appropriate CIP categories, where possible. Of the 52,018 

verbatim strings provided, a total of 1,506 strings (3 percent) qualified for this upcoding; 79 

percent of these were web respondents and 21 percent were CATI respondents. Of these 1506 

strings for which upcoding was attempted, 82 percent were upcoded, 18 percent were too vague 

to code, and less than 1 percent were correctly coded as “other.” 

4.3.4 IPEDS Coding 

The faculty instrument included a coding system that assisted web respondents and 

interviewers in collecting postsecondary institution information. This system was designed to 

improve data quality by allowing respondents to clarify coding choices at the time coding was 

performed. To assist in the coding process, web respondents were given detailed instructions on 

screen that enabled them to locate the postsecondary institution. In addition to these on-screen 

instructions, interviewers were given additional supervised training on how to effectively probe 

and code respondents’ answers. 

The institution coding system assigned a six-digit IPEDS identifier for the postsecondary 

institution that awarded the respondent’s highest degree. To facilitate coding, the coding system 

requested the state and city in which the school was located; from that information, a list of 

possible schools was displayed, allowing the respondent to select the correct school. The system 

relied on a look-up table of institutions constructed from the IPEDS institution database.

Of the approximately 25,760 institutions coded over the course of data collection, 1,130 

were initially deemed uncodeable. However, based on the information collected (institution 

name, location, level, and control), 1,025 institutions were positively identified and recoded 
Chapter 4. Evaluation of Data Quality 

74 

during the data file editing stage of the project. Of the remaining 105 uncodeable institutions, 65 

provided insufficient data, 20 were identified as closed, 10 were identified as foreign, and 10 

were online institutions for which no IPEDS ID was available. 

4.3.5 Monitoring 

Regular monitoring of telephone data collection serves a number of goals, all aimed at 

maintaining a high level of data quality. These objectives are to identify problem items; to 

improve interviewer performance by reinforcing good interviewing behavior and discouraging 

poor behavior; to detect and prevent deliberate breaches of procedure, such as data falsification; 

and to assess the quality of the data collected. 

Two types of monitoring were performed during the NSOPF:04 data collection. The first 

type was monitoring by project staff, which involved listening to the interview and 

simultaneously viewing the progress of the interview on screen, using remote monitoring 

telephone and computer equipment. Project staff evaluated such things as whether the 

interviewer sounded professional, probed for complete answers, and handled refusal cases 

appropriately. Interviewers received feedback on their skills, and additional training was 

provided, if necessary. When monitoring interviews, project staff also evaluated whether the 

interview was functioning properly and identified questions in the interview that were difficult to 

administer so that those items could be revised in future studies. 

The second type of monitoring, quality assurance monitoring, was conducted by specially 

trained monitoring staff within the call center. Similar to project staff monitoring, the monitoring 

system provided for simultaneous listening and viewing of the interview. Monitors evaluated the 

interviewer-respondent interchange on whether the interviewer (1) delivered the question 

correctly and (2) keyed the appropriate response. Each of these measures was quantified and 

daily, weekly, and cumulative reports were produced. Monitoring took place throughout data 

collection, although monitoring efforts were scaled back around the 19th week due to lighter 

caseloads corresponding with the end of the academic year for many schools. 

Of the 3,221 items monitored, a total of 28 question delivery errors and 14 data entry 

errors were observed.40 This yielded an average error rate of 0.9 percent for question delivery 

and 0.4 percent for data entry. 

4.3.6 Interviewer Feedback 

Quality Circle meetings 

Quality Circle meetings provided opportunities for interviewers, supervisors, and project 

staff to discuss data collection issues. These meetings were scheduled regularly throughout the 

data collection period to ensure that CATI interviews were being conducted in the most effective 

manner. Interviewer representation was determined by a supervisor so that all staff would have 

the opportunity to attend these meetings. Project staff updated interviewers and supervisors on 

the progress of data collection and gathered information to solve problems encountered by 

interviewers while conducting interviews. The minutes from these meetings were prepared by 

project staff and were distributed to all interviewers and supervisors. Meeting minutes were 

 

40 The data for one monitoring session on April 20, 2004 (61 items observed) were removed from the analysis 

because the monitor did not follow proper procedure. 
Chapter 4. Evaluation of Data Quality 

75 

available in hardcopy and online. Examples of issues raised in Quality Circle meetings included 

the following. 

Progress of data collection. Project staff provided updates regarding the interviews 

completed to date and goals for the upcoming week. This information benefited both the 

interviewers and technical staff by recognizing interviewers’ efforts and encouraging continued 

professionalism.

CATI Case Management System (CMS) issues. Interviewers had an opportunity to 

report CMS issues that required project staff review and discussion. Using the information 

provided by interviewers, project staff resolved these issues throughout data collection. 

Data collection reminders. Several issues were stressed throughout data collection: 

reminders to verify address information for cases that needed to be remailed and for addresses 

for incentive checks, how to handle eligibility questions, and tips for locating sample members 

who are part-time employees. Interviewers were also reminded to complete problem sheets (see 

later section in this chapter) for any cases that needed attention. 

Instrument issues. During the Quality Circle meetings, project staff clarified specific 

items in the instrument for the interviewers. These items were brought to the attention of project 

staff in problem sheets, project staff monitoring, or during the Quality Circle meetings 

themselves. Discussions focused on how to properly code responses (e.g., for Q10, adjunct 

faculty should be coded as “other,” for questions expecting a numeric response, answers between 

zero and one should be rounded up to one). 

Coding. The majority of online coding during data collection was accurate, based on 

evaluation of verbatim strings and the codes assigned (see earlier section in this chapter on CIP 

coding), although in some cases the verbatim string was too vague to code. Interviewers were 

reminded to ask the sample member for the necessary level of detail while entering the verbatim 

string.

Web issues. A number of web-related issues were raised during Quality Circle meetings. 

Some sample members reported problems connecting to the website so interviewers were asked 

to first try to collect the data via CATI or to have someone from the help desk assist the sample 

member to get connected. Interviewers were reminded to clearly state the study web address 

(URL) to sample members. 

Problem sheets 

When interviewers encountered problems during an interview, a description of the issue 

was documented in the form of an electronic problem sheet. Project and interviewer supervisory 

staff regularly reviewed these problem sheets and worked on resolving problems, as appropriate. 

Approximately 1,169 problem sheets were submitted during the data collection period. 

Problem sheets were used as follows: 

• To address technical CMS issues. Interviewers documented details of the front-end 

issues so that a programmer could resolve them. 

• To report system and web delays or access problems. 

• To document sample member contact information as a workaround for front-end 

issues. 
Chapter 4. Evaluation of Data Quality 

76 

• To alert project staff to questions about sample member eligibility, contact 

information, and refusals. 

• To record incorrect data that were entered (but not corrected) for a case. Interviewers 

noted cases where project staff needed to take specific action. Project and interviewer 

supervisory staff ensured that issues pertinent to data collection were resolved as soon 

as possible. 

Interviewer debriefing 

A debriefing meeting was held at the end of data collection. The purpose of this meeting 

was to elicit feedback from the interviewers on various aspects of the data collection process, 

particularly the administration of the faculty questionnaire. In attendance were telephone 

interviewers, help desk operators and their supervisors, selected project staff, and the study 

project officer. The debriefing session was highly informative and gave project staff a wealth of 

information that will inform instrumentation and data collection activities for future studies. 

Project staff asked interviewers which items in the instrument were problematic. 

Interviewers responded with general comments as well as item-specific ones, based on their 

interviewing experience. 

General comments. Interviewers reported that sample members repeatedly indicated that 

parts of the questionnaire did not apply to them. Typically these respondents were part-time 

faculty or those who taught at community colleges, medical, or other specialty schools. 

Interviewers felt that that the pop-up boxes used to confirm out-of-range values were 

intrusive, and slowed the pace of the interview unnecessarily. They recommended that pop-up 

boxes be used sparingly in future web questionnaires. 

Question 1. Interviewers felt that the first question in the interview, which asked whether 

the respondent had instructional duties, was too long and “wordy.” They recommended that the 

question be shortened or broken into parts. 

Question 3. Interviewers reported that adjunct faculty did not know what was meant by 

faculty status. 

Question 9. The second sentence in the wording of this item (“consider promotions in 

rank as part of the same job”) was confusing for respondents. Interviewers suggested 

restructuring the question to include that information before the respondent attempts to answer 

the question. 

Question 15. Q15 (reason for not being a member of a union) had a high rate of don’t 

know responses. Interviewers said this was because adjunct faculty often did not know whether 

unions were available. 

Questions 16, 17, and 54. Interviewers were quite pleased with the new assisted coding 

system for field of teaching, highest degree, and scholarly activity. It proved to be less 

burdensome for them, although they indicated some difficulties finding the exact categories that 

the respondent wanted. 

Question 17. Interviewers reported that IPEDS coding screens (Q17A4) were easy to use. 

One concern was that some schools were listed in the wrong city. 
Chapter 4. Evaluation of Data Quality 

77 

Question 31. Sample members had difficulty distinguishing between paid and unpaid 

activities, and their ideas of each often differed from the examples provided in the instrument. 

Some respondents were upset at having to account for their time. Interviewers reported that 

respondents found this set of questions (Q31, Q32) difficult to answer as it was a lot of 

information to account for and difficult to break it down precisely. 

Questions 31, 41, 47B, 48. Interviewers pointed out that sample members had a hard time 

providing answers to the hours per week questions when it is something they only do a couple of 

weeks out of the term (e.g., advising students). They thought some other unit of time might make 

it easier to collect this information. 

Questions 32, 37, 47. Project staff questioned whether there was any confusion over 

“first-professional students.” Interviewers indicated that some faculty at technical schools did not 

know what was meant by first-professional students. 

Question 35. Interviewers reported that sample members often were unclear what was 

meant by the term “distance education” in Q35C and suggested including the words “Internet 

courses” in the question wording. 

Question 37. Interviewers indicated that the screen takes a lot of time to complete and 

those who teach unstructured courses found these items difficult to answer. 

Question 50. Advising of students (Q50) was a difficult concept for some sample 

members in the field test and the wording was changed in the full-scale instrument to clarify the 

meaning. Interviewers indicated this was still a problem and suggested changing the definition 

provided on-screen. Respondents also wanted clarification of whether this was designated 

advisees only or whether it included other advising. 

Question 52. Interviewers reported that Q52 (number of scholarly works) was 

administered fairly smoothly; most respondents had a general idea of the number of publications 

and presentations although a few consulted their resumes. A small number of respondents had 

numbers of publications that exceeded the maximum allowed and became upset that their 

volume of scholarly activity was not properly reflected. Interviewers reported that respondents 

seemed to get tired around this point in the instrument and felt that combining screens for Q52A 

and Q52B would improve the flow and reduce burden on the respondents. 

Question 53. In the field test, respondents sometimes reported confusion over what was 

meant by scholarly activity. The question text was revised, and this problem was not reported in 

the full-scale questionnaire. However, some respondents were unsure whether to report only 

scholarly activities associated with the target institution or all scholarly activities. 

Question 62. In the field test, Q62C (satisfaction with benefits) was not answered by 

many respondents (mostly part-timers) because they did not receive benefits. The wording was 

slightly altered for the full-scale questionnaire; however, interviewers reported that many parttime and adjunct faculty still could not answer this question. In particular, some respondents 

were unsure whether the question was asking about medical benefits or other benefits. 

Questions 66 and 70. Sample members complained that Q66 and Q70 (income) items 

were intrusive. Interviewers suggested that having scripted text for why this question is asked 

would be helpful. Interviewers felt that income questions were unnecessarily repetitive.
Chapter 4. Evaluation of Data Quality 

78 

Question 74. Respondents insisted that “Caucasian” be listed among the response options 

(in parentheses after “White”). Interviewers suggested adding scripted text to explain why race is 

asked about on this form. 

Question 82. Q82D (racial minorities treated fairly) had more than 10 percent missing 

when administered in CATI. Interviewers explained that some part-time and adjunct faculty did 

not have an opinion on this set of items. They suggested adding a “no opinion” option for each 

item on this form. 

Interviewers who worked on the field test requested that Q84 (feedback textbox) be put 

back in the instrument as many sample members wanted to provide feedback. 

4.3.7 Instrument Feedback 

Two issues with the faculty instrument became apparent in the data editing process. The 

first issue had to do with Q1, whether the respondent had any instructional duties. Despite 

question wording intended to get the respondent to think beyond classroom teaching, half of the 

respondents who said they did not have any instructional duties provided responses indicating 

they did have instructional duties on other items in the instrument (i.e., taught one or more credit 

or noncredit classes [Q35A1>0 or Q35A2>0], provided any individual instruction [Q46=1], 

spent time on thesis or dissertation committees, comprehensive exams or orals committees 

[Q48>0], indicated that teaching was their principal activity [Q4=1], or spent time on 

undergraduate or graduate instructional activities [Q32A>0 or Q32B>0]). Items Q32A and Q32B 

contradicted Q1 most often. Rather than reconciling in the data editing phase, future cycles of 

NSOPF would benefit from asking follow-up questions immediately after Q1 for those 

respondents who said they did not have instructional duties. 

The other issue concerned items asking about first-professional students (Q32B, Q37E, 

Q47A, and Q47B). This term, first-professional student, was apparently misunderstood by many 

faculty and instructional staff at 2-year institutions who indicated they taught first-professional 

students at that institution. While on-screen examples of first-professional programs were 

available on some of these forms, in the future it is advised that a check against level of target 

institution be inserted into the instrument logic for questions concerning first-professional 

students. 

4.4 Comparisons with NSOPF:99 

To assess the consistency of survey estimates between the current and prior 

administrations of NSOPF, weighted estimates were obtained from the 1999 and 2004 survey 

data for a series of key analytical variables. The results of these assessments are summarized in 

table 36. 
Chapter 4. Evaluation of Data Quality 

79 

Table 36. Weighted estimates obtained based on the 1999 and 2004 survey data for a series of 

key analytical variables: 2004 

Weighted estimates 

Variable 1999 2004 

Percent of full-time faculty who were tenured 53.1 47.3 

Percent of part-time faculty who were not on tenure track 78.3 86.2 

Percent of faculty who were part time 42.6 43.7 

Percent of part-time faculty who had retired from another position 15.4 19.6 

Percent of full-time faculty whose principal activity was teaching 64.5 62.5 

Percent of full-time faculty whose principal activity was research 11.3 14.2 

Average percent of time that full-time faculty taught undergraduates 41.3 43.2 

Percent of full-time faculty with a doctorate 57.7 59.6 

Average number of hours full-time instructional faculty taught per week 11.0 11.1 

Average number of hours part-time instructional faculty taught per week 7.3 7.7 

Average number of recent refereed publications, full-time faculty 3.9 2.2 

Average number of recent refereed publications, part-time faculty 1.2 0.5 

Average number of career refereed publications, full-time faculty 16.0 16.0 

Average number of career refereed publications, part-time faculty 4.4 4.1 

Average basic income of full-time faculty $56,841 $67,239 

Average basic income of part-time faculty 11,613 11,010 

Average consulting income of full-time faculty who consulted 8,221 7,379 

Average consulting income of part-time faculty who consulted 10,579 10,908 

Average household income, full-time faculty 163,127 117,702 

Average household income, part-time faculty 125,693 92,636 

Percent of full-time faculty who were Asian 5.5 9.0 

Percent of part-time faculty who were Asian 2.9 3.8 

Percent of full-time faculty who were Black 4.9 5.8 

Percent of part-time faculty who were Black 4.3 5.7 

Percent of full-time faculty who were Hispanic 3.4 3.5 

Percent of part-time faculty who were Hispanic 3.9 3.5 

Percent of full-time faculty who were White 85.1 81.7 

Percent of part-time faculty who were White 87.6 86.9 

Percent of full-time faculty who were female 36.3 38.6 

Percent of full-time faculty in agriculture and home economics 0.6 2.5 

Percent of full-time faculty in business 7.4 6.4 

Percent of full-time faculty in education 8.7 7.6 

Percent of full-time faculty in engineering 2.4 4.9 

Percent of full-time faculty in fine arts 9.3 6.4 

Percent of full-time faculty in health sciences 12.2 13.9 

Percent of full-time faculty in first-professional health science1

 4.3 6.6 

Percent of full-time faculty in humanities 18.1 13.5 

Percent of full-time faculty in natural sciences 16.1 22.4 

Percent of full-time faculty in social sciences 9.6 10.5 

Percent of full-time faculty in all other programs 15.7 12.1 1 First-professional health science is a subset of health sciences (previous row). 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. Differences in estimates between NSOPF:99 and NSOPF:04 

may be due to a number of factors, including actual changes over time, differences in how an item was asked 

between the two years (see table 8), and data editing and imputation procedures (see chapter 5). 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Chapter 4. Evaluation of Data Quality 

80 
81 

Chapter 5 

Data File Development and Imputation 

This chapter provides an overview of all procedures used in the development of data 

files, including descriptions of data editing processes, data swapping, statistical imputations, and 

derived variable creation. 

5.1 Overview of the NSOPF:04 Data Files 

Data obtained from the 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) 

faculty and institution questionnaires are contained in two restricted data files (faculty and 

institution), which are available on a CD-ROM to researchers who have applied for and received 

authorization from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to access restricted 

research files. The restricted data files are documented by an Electronic Codebook (ECB), a 

Windows-based interface that allows users to view descriptive information and statistics about 

variables and to select variables for extraction into SAS or SPSS data files. The faculty and 

institution data files can be merged together for joint analysis. The following files were 

produced: 

Faculty data file. Provides faculty-level questionnaire data collected from 26,110 

respondents. These data have been edited, swapped, and imputed. The file contains 

survey variables (variables that start with Q), derived variables (variables that start with 

X), and study weights for the faculty file (WTA00) and for the combined faculty and 

institution files (WTC00—or contextual weight). It also contains replicate weights for 

variance estimation for the faculty file (WTA01-WTA64) and for the combined faculty 

and institution files (WTC01-WTC64), the imputation flags (variables that start with F), 

and INSTID (the IPEDS ID) that will allow faculty file data to be merged with institution 

file data. 

Institution data file. Provides institution-level data collected from 920 institutions. These 

data have been edited, perturbed, and imputed. The file contains the institution survey 

variables (variables that start with the letter I), derived variables (variables that start with 

the letter X), study weight for the institution file (WTB00), replicate weights for variance 

estimation for the institution file (WTB01-WTB64), imputation flags (variables that start 

with the letter FI), and INSTID (the IPEDS ID) that will allow data on the institution file 

to be merged with data on the faculty file. 

The faculty and institution files can be merged together for joint analysis by performing a 

match merge using the variable INSTID. Please note that not all institutions that completed the 

institution questionnaire have responding faculty, and not all faculty have associated institution 

questionnaire data. For this reason, when analyzing the faculty and institution data together, 

responses should be weighted using the contextual weight variables on the faculty file. 

The NSOPF:04 institution and faculty analysis variables are presented in appendix K. 
Chapter 5. Data File Development and Imputation 

82 

5.2 Data Coding and Editing 

The NSOPF:04 data were coded and edited using procedures developed and implemented 

for previous NCES-sponsored studies. These coding and editing procedures were refined during 

the field test for use in the processing of NSOPF:04 full-scale data. 

A large part of the data editing and coding was performed in the data collection 

instruments, including range edits; across-item consistency edits; and coding of fields of 

teaching, scholarly activities, and highest degree. During and following data collection, the data 

were reviewed to confirm that the data collected reflected the intended skip-pattern relationships. 

At the conclusion of data collection, special codes were inserted in the database to reflect the 

different types of missing data. There are a number of explanations for missing data; for 

example, the item may not have been applicable to certain respondents or a respondent may not 

have known the answer to the question. Table 37 lists the set of consistency codes used to assist 

analysts in understanding the nature of missing data associated with the NSOPF:04 data 

elements. With the exception of the not applicable codes, missing data were stochastically 

imputed (see section 5.4). Moreover, for hierarchical analyses and developing survey estimates 

for faculty members corresponding to sample institutions that provided faculty lists and 

responded to the institution survey, contextual weights were produced for such subsets of the 

responding faculty members. These weights, which aggregate to a number less than the weighted 

total for all responding faculty and instructional staff, are named WTC00 and can be found in 

weights.dat on the ECB file. 

Table 37. Description of missing data codes: 2004 

Missing data code Description 

-1 Don’t know; later set to missing and imputed 

-3 Not applicable (item was intentionally skipped) 

-5 Not applicable (item was asked but respondent indicated it was not applicable) 

-7 Item was not administered (abbreviated interview) or reached (partial interview); later imputed 

-9 Respondent did not provide an answer; later imputed 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

The data cleaning and editing process for NSOPF:04 consisted of the following steps: 

Step 1. Review of one-way frequencies for every variable to confirm no missing or blank 

values and to check for reasonableness of values. This involved replacing blank 

or missing data with -9 for all variables in the instrument database and examining 

frequencies for reasonableness of data values. 

Step 2. Review of two-way cross-tabulations between each gate-nest41 combination of 

variables to check data consistency. Legitimate skips were identified using the 

interview programming code as specifications to define all gate-nest relationships 

and replace -9 (missing values that were blank because of legitimate skips) with 

-3 (legitimate skip code). Additional checks ensured that the legitimate skip code 

 

41 Gate variables are items that determine subsequent instrument routing. Nest variables are items that are asked or 

not asked, depending on the response to the gate question. For example, in the faculty questionnaire, Q1 (which 

asks whether the respondent had instructional duties) determines whether Q2 (which asks whether the respondent’s 

instructional duties were related to credit courses/activities) is asked. Q1 is a gate item and Q2 is a nested item. Q2 is 

only asked if the response to Q1 was “yes.” 
Chapter 5. Data File Development and Imputation 

83 

was not overwriting valid data and that no skip logic was missed. In addition, if a 

gate variable was missing (-9), then the -9 was carried through the nested items. 

Step 3. Identify and code items that were not administered due to a partial or 

abbreviated interview. This code replaced -9 values with -7 (item not 

administered) based on the section completion and abbreviated interview 

indicators. 

Step 4. Recode “don’t know” responses to missing. This code replaced -1 (don’t know) 

values with -9 (missing) for later stochastic imputation. For selected items for 

which “don’t know” seemed like a reasonable response, variables were created 

both with and without the “don’t know” category. 

Step 5. Identify items requiring recoding. During this stage, previously uncodeable 

values (e.g., text strings) collected in the various coding systems were upcoded, if 

possible (see sections 4.3.3 CIP coding and 4.3.4 IPEDS coding). 

Step 6. Identify items requiring range edits, logical imputations, and data corrections.

Descriptive statistics for all continuous variables were examined. Values 

determined to be out-of-range were either coded to the maximum (or minimum) 

reasonable value or set to missing for later imputation. Logical imputations were 

implemented to assign values to legitimately skipped items whose values could be 

implicitly determined from other information provided. Data corrections were 

performed where there were inconsistencies between responses given by the 

sample member. 

Concurrent with the data cleaning process, detailed documentation was developed to describe 

question text, response options, recoding, range edits, logical imputations, data corrections, and 

the “applies to” text for each delivered variable. 

5.3 Data Perturbation 

A restricted faculty-level data file was created for release to individuals who apply for 

and meet standards for such data releases. While this file does not include personally identifying 

information (i.e., name and Social Security number), other data (i.e., institution, Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System [IPEDS] ID, demographic information, and salary data) 

may be manipulated in such a way to seem to identify data records corresponding to a particular 

faculty member. To protect further against such situations, some of the variable values were 

swapped between faculty respondents. This procedure perturbed and added additional 

uncertainty to the data. Thus, associations made among variable values to identify a faculty 

respondent may be based on the original or edited, imputed and/or swapped data. For the same 

reasons, the data from the institution questionnaire were also swapped to avoid data disclosure. 

5.4 Imputation Methodology 

The NSOPF:04 data files include institution-level and faculty-level data obtained from 

the institution and faculty surveys. All non-verbatim and non-text variables on the NSOPF:04 

that had missing variables have been imputed. Specifically, a total of 144 variables were 

stochastically imputed for the faculty data, and 87 variables were stochastically imputed for the 

institution data. All remaining missing data were deemed not suitable for imputation, such as the 

postsecondary institution that awarded the highest degree of a faculty respondent. Most of these 
Chapter 5. Data File Development and Imputation 

84 

variables were imputed using a weighted sequential hot-deck imputation procedure. A number of 

variables, including gender and race/ethnicity, were imputed using a combination of cold-deck 

and logical imputation during the data editing process before the data file was considered ready 

for stochastic imputation. The specific imputation method used for each variable is specified in 

the imputation flags on the final restricted datasets. 

Table 38 shows the number of variables that were imputed based on the percent missing 

(imputed) for faculty and institution survey data. Accordingly, data for 26 of the 144 faculty 

variables were imputed for less than 1 percent of all faculty respondents, whereas data for 7 of 

the faculty variables were imputed for more than 15 percent of the faculty respondents. 

Table 38. Prevalence of missing/imputed data for the faculty and institution surveys: 2004 

Percent imputed Faculty variables Institution variables 

 Total 144 87 

Less than 1 percent 26 0 

Between 1 and 5 11 58 

Between 5 and 10 93 15 

Between 10 and 15 7 11 

Over 15 7 3 

NOTE: There are fewer stochastically imputed variables for the faculty and institution questionnaires than their 

corresponding analysis variables, since a subset of such items had no missing values after application of logical 

imputation. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

5.4.1 Imputation Methods 

In broad terms, there are three methods of imputation: logical, cold-deck, and hot-deck 

imputation. Logical imputation is a process that aims to infer or deduce the missing values from 

answers to other questions. Cold-deck imputation involves replacing the missing values with 

data from sources such as data used for sampling frame construction. While resource intensive, 

these methods often obtain the actual value that is missing. Consequently, attempts were made to 

fill in the missing values of data using these two methodologies, to the extent possible. In 

contrast, stochastic imputation methods, such as sequential hot-deck imputation, rely on the 

observed data to provide replacing values (donors) for records with missing values. 

Sequential hot-deck imputation involves defining imputation classes, which generally 

consist of a cross-classification of covariates, and then replacing missing values sequentially 

from a single pass through the survey data within the imputation classes. When this form of 

imputation is performed using the sampling weights, the procedure is called weighted sequential 

hot-deck imputation. This procedure takes into account the unequal probabilities of selection in 

the original sample to specify the expected number of times a particular respondent’s answer will 

be used as a donor. These expected selection frequencies are specified so that, over repeated 

applications of the algorithm, the weighted distribution of all values for that variable—imputed 

and observed—will resemble that of the target universe. Under this methodology, while each 

respondent record has a chance to be selected for use as a hot-deck donor, the number of times a 

respondent record can be used for imputation will be controlled 

To implement the weighted sequential hot-deck procedure, imputation classes and sorting 

variables that are relevant (strong predictor) for each item being imputed were defined. For this 

study, imputation classes were developed by using a Chi-squared Automatic Interaction 
Chapter 5. Data File Development and Imputation 

85 

Detection (CHAID) analysis. The CHAID segmentation process divides the data into groups 

based on the most significant predictor of the item being imputed. Subsequently, this procedure 

will be repeated using the remaining predictor variables to split each of the emerging groups into 

smaller subgroups. In this process, a number of subgroups created during a previous iteration 

might get merged back to form new subgroups. This splitting and merging process continues 

until no more statistically significant predictors are found, at which point imputation classes are 

defined from the resulting segments. When dealing with categorical variables, the CHAID 

process may merge certain categories of such variables that are found not to be significantly 

different. Similarly, continuous variables are categorized to create the strongest categorical 

predictors of the item in question. 

Using RTI’s sequential hot-deck method of imputation, once imputation classes are 

constructed, items within each class are sorted before the process of donor selection begins. If 

more than one sorting variable is chosen, a serpentine sort will be 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 respondent’s characteristics every time one of the 

variables changes its value. 

It should be noted that, for this study, distinction was made between legitimate and nonlegitimate missing items for imputation. All responses that were left missing as a result of refusal 

were set to missing and then imputed. Additionally, if the interview was terminated early and 

some questions were not asked of the respondent, then the value of missing was assigned in 

those cases as well. However, respondents could legitimately skip questions that did not apply to 

them. In these cases, the missing responses were coded as legitimate skips (-3) and were not 

imputed. 

5.4.2 Imputation of Faculty Data 

Item imputation for the faculty questionnaire was performed in several steps. In the first 

step, the missing values of gender, race, and ethnicity were filled—using cold-deck imputation—

based on the sampling frame information or institution record data. These three key demographic 

variables were imputed prior to any other variables since they were used as key predictors for all 

other variables on the data file. 

After all logical and cold-deck imputation procedures were performed, the remaining 

variables were imputed using the weighted sequential hot-deck method. Initially, variables were 

separated into two groups: unconditional and conditional variables. The first group 

(unconditional) consisted of variables that applied to all respondents, while the second group 

(conditional) consisted of variables that applied to only a subset of the respondents. That is, 

conditional variables were subject to “gate” questions. After this initial grouping, these groups 

were divided into finer subgroups as detailed next. 

The unconditional group was divided into two subgroups based on the percent of missing 

values: less than 1 percent versus greater than 1 percent missing. The conditional variables were 

divided into three subgroups based on the level of conditionality where this level was essentially 

determined by the sequence of the questionnaire. For variables in the conditional group, the 

questionnaire skip patterns were reviewed and variables were grouped according to which 

variables determine the values of other variables. After these subgroups were constructed, 

missing values of the variables were imputed in order from lowest percent missing to highest 
Chapter 5. Data File Development and Imputation 

86 

percent missing within each subgroup, first for the unconditional variables and then for the 

conditional variables in an ascending level of their conditionality. 

All unconditional variables that had less than one percent missing were imputed using 

imputation classes defined by a combination of gender, race, and ethnicity. Moreover, institution 

type,42 institution size, and faculty type43 were used as sort variables to place like records in 

closer proximity to improve the donor selection process. The imputation classes for the 

remaining unconditional variables (that had more than one percent missing) and all conditional 

variables were determined by a CHAID analysis based on key demographic variables that were 

logically imputed and all imputed variables that had less than one percent missing. After all 

variables were imputed, consistency checks were applied to the entire faculty data file to ensure 

that the imputed values did not conflict with other questionnaire items, observed or imputed. 

This process involved reviewing all of the logical imputation and editing rules as well. 

5.4.3 Imputation of Institution Data 

The imputation process for the missing data from the institution questionnaire involved 

similar steps to those used for imputation of the faculty data. The missing data for variables were 

imputed using the weighted sequential hot-deck method. Analogous to the imputation process for 

the faculty data, the variables were partitioned into conditional and unconditional groups. The 

unconditional variables were sorted by percent missing and then imputed in the order from the 

lowest percent missing to the highest. The conditional group was partitioned into three subgroups 

based on the level of conditionality for each variable, and then imputed in that order. The 

imputation class for both unconditional and conditional variables consisted of the institution 

sampling stratum, and the sorting variables included the number of full-time and part-time 

faculty members. 

5.4.4 Evaluation of Imputations 

A common measure for determining whether an imputation method produces acceptable 

results (donors) is based on the similarity of the before and after imputation distributions within 

imputation classes. For evaluation of the imputation results, distributions were considered to be 

similar when absolute differences were less than 5 percent, where the absolute difference was 

calculated by comparing the before and after imputation weighted frequencies. If absolute 

differences were greater than 5 percent, the unweighted distributions were examined to see if the 

large differences were due to small imputation cells. When possible, such cases were evaluated 

and resolved by collapsing neighboring imputation classes. The before and after imputation 

distributions of several key variables are presented in table 39 for the faculty data and table 40 

for the institution data. For more information regarding the bias due to item nonresponse, refer to 

appendix I. 

 

42 Institutional type consisted of a cross-classification of control (public verses private not-for-profit) and degree type 

(doctoral, master’s, baccalaureate, associate’s, and other). 43 Faculty type (stratum) is based on faculty demographics, such as gender, race/ethnicity, and employment status. 
Chapter 5. Data File Development and Imputation 

87 

Table 39. Before and after imputation distributions of key faculty questionnaire variables: 2004 

Before imputation After imputation 

Variable description Variable category Number Percent Number Percent 

Total 26,050 100.0 26,110 100.0 

No faculty status 1,670 7.1 1,680 7.2 

Had faculty status 24,390 92.9 24,430 92.8 

Faculty status 

Total 26,030 100.0 26,110 100.0 

Teaching 18,660 73.2 18,710 73.2 

Research 2,470 8.9 2,470 8.9 

Public service 260 1.0 260 1.0 

Clinical service 1,260 4.6 1,270 4.7 

Administration 2,070 7.2 2,070 7.3 

On sabbatical 380 1.4 380 1.4 

Other activity 940 3.7 950 3.7 

Principal activity 

Total 26,100 100.0 26,110 100.0 

Full time 17,750 62.4 17,750 62.4 

Part time 8,350 37.6 8,360 37.6 

Employed full or part time at this 

institution 

Total 26,090 100.0 26,110 100.0 

Not applicable 640 2.7 640 2.7 

Professor 5,220 18.9 5,220 18.9 

Associate professor 4,210 14.8 4,210 14.8 

Assistant professor 4,620 16.1 4,620 16.1 

Instructor 5,050 20.5 5,050 20.5 

Lecturer 1,230 5.3 1,230 5.3 

Other title 5,140 21.7 5,140 21.7 

Rank 

Total 25,930 100.0 26,110 100.0 

Tenured 8,390 30.5 8,420 30.5 

On tenure track but not tenured 3,840 13.4 3,860 13.4 

Not on tenure track 11,330 47.5 11,430 47.6 

Not tenured-no tenure system 2,380 8.6 2,390 8.6 

Tenure status 

Total 26,090 100.0 26,110 100.0 

No degree 250 1.1 250 1.1 

Doctorate degree 12,180 44.5 12,180 44.5 

First-professional degree 2,010 7.4 2,010 7.4 

Master of fine arts/social work 1,190 4.6 1,190 4.6 

Other master’s degree 8,080 32.5 8,090 32.5 

Bachelor’s degree 1,870 7.8 1,870 7.8 

Associate’s degree or equivalent 390 1.6 390 1.6 

Highest degree 

Certificate/diploma-undergrad program 140 0.5 140 0.5 

 

Total 21,500 100.0 26,110 100.0 

$1-24,999 460 2.4 560 2.3 

25,000-49,999 2,520 11.6 2,990 11.4 

50,000-74,999 4,690 22.1 5,630 21.8 

75,000-99,999 4,500 20.6 5,520 20.9 

100,000-149,999 5,460 25.2 6,690 25.5 

150,000-199,999 2,110 9.9 2,590 10.0 

200,000-300,000 1,330 6.3 1,600 6.1 

More than 300,000 430 2.0 530 2.0 

Household income (range) 

 

See notes at end of table. 
Chapter 5. Data File Development and Imputation 

88 

Table 39. Before and after imputation distributions of key faculty questionnaire variables: 2004—

Continued 

Before imputation After imputation 

Variable description Variable category Number Percent Number Percent 

Total 26,030 100.0 26,110 100.0 

Not Hispanic/Latino 24,320 95.9 24,400 95.9 

Hispanic/Latino 1,700 4.1 1,700 4.1 

Race/ethnicity, Hispanic/Latino 

 

Total 25,590 100.0 26,110 100.0 

Not American Indian/Alaska Native 25,060 98.2 25,570 98.2 

American Indian/Alaska Native 530 1.8 540 1.9 

Race, American Indian or Alaska 

Native 

 

Total 25,590 100.0 26,110 100.0 

Not Asian 24,030 94.0 24,480 93.8 

Race, Asian 

Asian 1,560 6.0 1,630 6.2 

 

Total 25,590 100.0 26,110 100.0 

Not Black/African American 23,450 93.7 23,940 93.8 

Race, Black or African American 

Black/African American 2,140 6.3 2,170 6.2 

 

Total 25,590 100.0 26,110 100.0 

Not Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 25,500 99.7 26,020 99.7 

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 90 0.3 90 0.3 

Race, Native Hawaiian or other 

Pacific Islander 

 

Total 25,590 100.0 26,110 100.0 

Not White 3,670 12.2 3,780 12.3 

Race, White 

White 21,920 87.9 22,330 87.7 

NOTE: Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:04). 

5.5 Derived Variables 

For NSOPF:04, a total of 45 institution-level and 130 faculty-level derived variables were 

constructed to simplify access to standard queries useful to analysts, as well as to enhance 

substantive analysis. Since research questions often require independent or control variables, this 

set of derived variables was added to the faculty data files. The 45 institution-level derived 

variables were also added to the institution data files. Multiple sources of data were used to 

create institution-derived variables, including selected 2000–01 and 1997–98 IPEDS surveys, the 

Carnegie classification system, and NSOPF:04 sampling information. 
Chapter 5. Data File Development and Imputation 

89 

Table 40. Before and after imputation distributions of key institution questionnaire variables: 

2004 

Before imputation After imputation 

Variable description Variable category Number Percent Number Percent 

Total 900 100.0 920 100.0 

Not Applicable # 0.4 # 0.4 

All 860 95.8 880 95.9 

Some 40 3.7 40 3.7 

None # 0.1 # 0.1 

Full-time benefit: medical insurance 

 

Total 900 100.0 920 100.0 

Not Applicable # 0.4 # 0.4 

All 820 88.1 830 88.2 

Some 40 4.3 40 4.2 

None 40 7.2 40 7.1 

Full-time benefit: dental insurance 

 

Total 890 100.0 920 100.0 

Not Applicable # 0.4 # 0.4 

All 790 86.8 810 86.7 

Some 60 6.8 60 6.8 

None 40 5.9 40 6.2 

Full-time benefit: disability insurance 

 

Total 900 100.0 920 100.0 

Not Applicable # 0.4 # 0.4 

All 810 92.2 840 92.3 

Some 50 4.4 50 4.4 

None 30 2.9 30 2.9 

Full-time benefit: life insurance 

 

Total 880 100.0 920 100.0 

Not Applicable # 0.4 # 0.4 

All 200 16.2 210 16.2 

Some 50 3.1 60 3.2 

None 620 80.3 650 80.2 

Full-time benefit: child care 

 

Total 860 100.0 920 100.0 

Not Applicable # 0.5 # 0.4 

All 470 50.6 520 50.4 

Some 210 21.6 220 21.0 

None 180 27.4 190 28.2 

Full-time benefit: retiree medical insurance 

 

Total 880 100.0 920 100.0 

Not Applicable # 0.4 # 0.4 

All 260 29.4 270 29.1 

Some 20 1.8 20 1.8 

Full-time benefit: cafeteria-style plan 

None 600 68.4 630 68.7 

 

Total 880 100.0 920 100.0 

Not Applicable # 0.4 10 0.4 

All 570 65.2 600 65.2 

Some 30 3.8 30 3.9 

None 270 30.6 290 30.6 

Full-time benefit: wellness program 

 

Total 900 100.0 920 100.0 

Not Applicable 10 0.4 10 0.4 

All 80 8.1 80 8.1 

Some 390 34.4 400 34.4 

None 420 57.1 430 57.2 

Part-time benefit: medical insurance 

 

Total 900 100.0 920 100.0 

Not Applicable 10 0.4 10 0.4 

All 70 7.9 70 7.8 

Some 330 30.0 340 29.8 

Part-time benefit: dental insurance 

None 490 61.8 500 62.1 

# Rounds to zero. 

NOTE: Institution counts are rounded to the nearest 10 to protect the confidentiality of faculty and institutions. However, 

percentages cited are based on the original unrounded numbers. Detail may not sum to totals due to rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:04). 
Chapter 5. Data File Development and Imputation 

90 
91 

Chapter 6 

Weighting and Variance Estimation 

Three sets of analysis weights were calculated for this administration of the 2004 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04), details of which are provided in this 

section. First, a set of analysis weights was calculated for institutions responding to the 

institution survey. Next, analysis weights were constructed for responding faculty, which 

reflected the selection probabilities of institutions providing faculty lists and selection of faculty 

members within sample institutions. In addition, a set of contextual weights was calculated to use 

when linking faculty and institution survey data. These analysis weights were constructed as the 

product of corresponding sampling weights and adjustment factors for frame multiplicity, 

nonresponse, and poststratification to known control totals. As detailed in the following 

sections, each component of the final analysis weights represents either the inverse of a selection 

probability or a weight adjustment to reduce bias. 

The institution analysis weights were computed as the product of the following five 

weight components and adjustment factors: 

(1) institution sampling weight (WT1); 

(2) institution multiplicity adjustment factor (WT2); 

(3) institution nonresponse adjustment factor (WT3); 

(4) institution poststratification adjustment factor (WT4); and 

(5) institution ratio adjustment factor (WT5). 

In order to compute the analysis weights for faculty, first a set of primary sampling unit 

(PSU) weights were created for institutions providing faculty lists. These interim weights, which 

are of no analytical utility, were only used as component weights for construction of the final 

analysis weights for faculty members. Ultimately, the faculty analysis weights were computed as 

the product of the following nine weight components and adjustment factors: 

(1) institution sampling weight (WT1); 

(2) institution multiplicity adjustment factor (WT2); 

(3) institution nonresponse adjustment (WT3)44; 

(4) institution poststratification adjustment factor (WT4); 

(5) faculty sampling weight (WT5); 

(6) faculty multiplicity adjustment factor (WT6); 

(7) faculty unknown eligibility adjustment factor (WT7); 

(8) faculty nonresponse adjustment factor (WT8); and 

(9) faculty poststratification adjustment factor (WT9). 

 

44 Note that here separate sets of nonresponse and poststratification adjustment factors (WT3 and WT4) were 

constructed for each institution as compared to those calculated above, since the set of institutions providing faculty 

lists was not the same as that responding to the institution questionnaire. 
Chapter 6. Weighting and Variance Estimation 

92 

Analogous to the calculation of analysis weights for the faculty, a set of contextual 

weights was constructed for the subset of faculty for whom their corresponding institutions had 

responded to the institution survey. Table 41 summarizes the distribution of institutions 

providing faculty lists and responding to the institution questionnaire by sampling strata. 

Table 41. Counts of sampled, eligible, and participating institutions, by institution type: 2004 

Responded 

Institution type 

Sampled

institutions

Eligible

institutions Faculty list Questionnaire 

 Total 1,080 1,070 980 920 

Public doctoral 190 190 180 170 

Public master’s 120 120 100 110 

Public bachelor’s 30 30 30 30 

Public associate’s 340 330 290 290 

Public other 10 10 10 10 

Private not-for-profit doctoral 110 110 100 90 

Private not-for-profit master’s 80 80 80 70 

Private not-for-profit bachelor’s 130 130 120 110 

Private not-for-profit associate’s 10 10 10 10 

Private not-for-profit other 60 60 60 50 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) 

RTI’s weighting software GEM (Generalized Exponential Modeling) (Folsom and Singh 

2000) has been used for calculation of all weight adjustment factors. Taking advantage of an 

iterative proportional fitting algorithm and the logit method, GEM provides a comprehensive 

weighting program that can utilize a large number of predictor variables for creating a more 

balanced set of weights while automatically curtailing extreme weights that can reduce the 

efficiency of weighted estimates. For more details on the GEM adjustment procedure, see 

appendix L. This section provides details of steps taken to construct the resulting weights. 

6.1 Institution Weights 

The institution sampling frame for the NSOPF:04 included a total of 3,380 eligible units, 

detailed composition of which is provided in section 2.1.1. Reflecting the probability 

proportional to size scheme of sample selection, the probability of selection for institution i in 

stratum r was calculated by: 

⎪

⎩

⎪

⎨

⎧

= +

1, for certainty selections

, for non - certainty selections

r

r ri

ri S

n S

π

where: 

nr = sample size for stratum r, 

Sri = composite measure of size for institution i in stratum r, and 

Sr+ = composite measure of size for all institutions in stratum r. 
Chapter 6. Weighting and Variance Estimation

93 

The initial sample consisted of 1,220 institutions. However, this sample was reduced to a 

subsample of institutions, since a smaller sample was deemed adequate to secure all precision 

requirements of NSOPF:04. Therefore, the sampling weight for institution i in stratum r was 

calculated as a function of its initial and subsequent selection probabilities. With Rr representing 

the subsampling rate in stratum r, the sampling weight for the i-th institution in that stratum was 

calculated by: 

ri r

ri R

WT 1 1 1 = ×

π

It should be noted that during the sample refreshing step, institutions were added to the 

sample of institutions, resulting in total sample of 1,080 institutions for NSOPF:04. 

6.1.1 Adjustment for Institution Multiplicity 

During the institution recruitment and faculty list sampling stages, a number of 

institutions were identified that had two or more records listed on the Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS). In some cases this was caused by institutions that had recently 

merged, while in other cases the sample institution had sent a single faculty list covering multiple 

campuses. For sampling purposes, combined faculty lists that could not be separated were treated 

as merged institutions and identified under a single IPEDS ID for purposes of tracking survey 

results.

For institutions with more than one chance of selection, a multiplicity adjustment factor 

was calculated by estimating, as if the selections were independent, the probability that each 

record could be selected. Consequently, when an institution had n chances of selection, its 

probability of selection was calculated by: 

∏( ) =

− −

n

i

ri

1

1 1 π

Next, a multiplicity adjustment factor for the i-th sample institution was calculated by: 

( ) i

n

i

ri

i

WT

WT

1 1 1

1 2

1

×⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ − −

=

∏=

π

If the given institution did not require such adjustment, its multiplicity adjustment factor 

was set to unity. This way, the product of WT1 and WT2 equals the reciprocal of the resulting 

multiple chance of selection for the institutions with positive multiplicity, and equals WT1 for all 

other institutions. 

6.1.2 Nonresponse Adjustment 

For calculating the analysis weights for institutions responding to the institution 

questionnaire, an institution (questionnaire) level nonresponse adjustment factor (WT3) was 

constructed using the product of the institution sampling weights (adjusted for multiplicity) and 
Chapter 6. Weighting and Variance Estimation 

94 

the faculty counts from the frame.45 For this purpose, the institutional respondent definition 

provided in section 3.1.1 was used to identify the institution subset belonging to the denominator 

of this adjustment factor. The resulting adjustment factors, which were calculated using GEM 

within cells defined by the 10 sampling strata and region, aimed to reduce or eliminate 

nonresponse bias in survey estimates. Construction of the nonresponse adjustment cells was 

based on variables that were deemed to be predictive of response status and available for both 

respondents and nonrespondents. 

6.1.3 Poststratification Adjustment 

A set of poststratification adjustment factors (WT4) was calculated for the 920 institutions 

responding to the questionnaire using the GEM program. Specifically, nonresponse-adjusted 

weights for these institutions were ratio-adjusted to the counts of institutions obtained from the 

sampling frame. Moreover, an additional adjustment factor was calculated to ensure that 

weighted counts of faculty obtained from the institution survey data would coincide with those 

obtained from the faculty survey data. As detailed in the next section, the final analysis weights 

for faculty included ratio adjustments to counts of faculty obtained from the Employees by 

Assigned Position Survey (EAP) conducted in the Winter 2003–04 IPEDS data collection cycle. 

In order to achieve the needed concurrence between the weighted estimates obtained from the 

institution and faculty surveys, the poststratified weights of the 920 institutions were ratio 

adjusted to the corresponding weighted totals from the faculty data. With this last adjustment 

factor computed (WT5), the final analysis weight for each responding institution (WTB00) was 

calculated by: 

WTB00 = WT1 × WT2 × WT3 × WT4 × WT5 

6.2 Faculty Weights 

The final analysis weights for faculty were constructed as the product of the final 

institution weights for the 980 institutions that provided faculty lists (PSU weights), inverse of 

selection probabilities for faculty, and a series of adjustment factors at the faculty level. The 

needed PSU level weights, which are different from those calculated above for the 920 

institutions responding to the institution questionnaire, were calculated by calibrating the product 

of the institution sampling weights (adjusted for multiplicity) and the faculty frame counts to the 

institution counts within each of the sampling strata. Note that since a minimum weighted 

response rate of 85 percent was secured overall and within each of the sampling strata for 

institutions providing faculty lists, a nonresponse adjustment factor was not calculated for these 

institution. Operationally, these institutions were assigned a nonresponse adjustment factor of 

unity, i.e., WT3 = 1. 

6.2.1 Selection Probability for Faculty 

The overall faculty sampling strata were defined as the institution sampling strata crossed 

with the faculty strata within institutions. The sample faculty members were systematically 

 

45 The NSOPF:04 sample of institutions was selected using probabilities proportional to the number of faculty and 

instructional staff in each institution. Consequently, calculation of the analysis weights included multiplication of 

sampling weights (adjusted for multiplicity) by the faculty counts within each of the sampling strata. This means that a 

subset of institutions—particularly those that had small sampling weights, such as certainty institutions, could end up 

with weights that are less than one. 
Chapter 6. Weighting and Variance Estimation

95 

selected from the faculty lists at institution-specific rates that were inversely proportional to the 

institution’s probability of selection, as dictated by the sample design. That is, the overall stratum 

sampling rate divided by the institution’s probability of selection: 

ri

s

si

f f

π | =

where fs represented the overall faculty sampling rate, and πri represented the institution’s 

probability of selection. The sampling weights (WT5) for each of the 35,630 sample faculty 

members were calculated as the reciprocal of the above institution-specific faculty sampling 

rates. 

6.2.2 Adjustment for Faculty Multiplicity 

Faculty members who worked at more than one eligible institution during the 2003–04 

academic year had multiple chances of being selected, since they could have been selected from 

any of the eligible institutions they attended. When this was the case, the resulting multiplicity 

was adjusted for by dividing the sampling weight of the given faculty by the number of 

institutions he/she worked at that were eligible for sample selection. Specifically, the faculty 

multiplicity weight adjustment factor was defined as WT6 = 1/M, where M is the multiplicity or 

number of institutions attended by sample faculty, based on the interview data. 

6.2.3 Adjustment for Unknown Eligibility Status 

For nonresponding faculty members whom project staff were unable to contact, the final 

eligibility status could not be determined. These faculty members were treated as eligible, and 

their weights were adjusted to compensate for the small portion of faculty members who were 

actually ineligible. These weight adjustment factors (WT7), which were calculated within cells 

defined by a cross-classification of institution and faculty types, represented the estimated 

eligibility rates among faculty members with known eligibility status. For faculty members 

known to be eligible the weight adjustment factor was set to one. 

6.2.4 Nonresponse Adjustments 

As reported earlier, faculty-level response rates were less than 85 percent, both overall 

and within a number of sampling strata. Subsequent to a nonresponse bias analysis, details of 

which are provided in appendix I, adjustment factors were calculated within cells indexed by a 

cross-classification of the faculty and institution strata and length of time to respond. Again, the 

weighting program, GEM, was used to create the needed nonresponse adjustment factor (WT8) 

for each of the 26,110 responding faculty members. 

6.2.5 Poststratification/Raking Adjustment 

To ensure population coverage, nonresponse adjusted weights were further adjusted to 

match published faculty totals. Specifically, these weights were raked along two dimensions to 

control totals that were constructed using the Winter 2003-04 Employees by Assigned Position 

Survey (EAP:03). This source was used to obtain the total number of full- and part-time faculty 

members by institution type. Moreover, the NSOPF:04 sampling frame was used to generate the 

distribution of faculty members by race/ethnicity and gender, detailed construction of which is 
Chapter 6. Weighting and Variance Estimation 

96 

provided in section 2.1.4 and appendix A. The resulting two raking dimensions are summarized 

in tables 42 and 43. The raking adjustment factors (WT9) were calculated using GEM. 

Table 42. Faculty counts obtained from EAP:03, by institution type and employment status 

Employment Institution type 

status Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

 Total 1,185,661 306,119 143,540 20,459 355,577 13,473 138,161 99,021 66,803 7,392 35,116 

Full-time 662,407 238,168 90,183 11,213 116,491 6,514 94,688 44,198 41,709 3,881 15,362 

Part-time 523,254 67,951 53,357 9,246 239,086 6,959 43,473 54,823 25,094 3,511 19,754 

NOTE: Institution types are defined as follows: 1 = public doctoral, 2 = public master’s, 3 = public bachelor’s, 4 = public associate’s, 

5 = public other, 6 = private not-for-profit doctoral, 7 = private not-for-profit master’s, 8 = private not-for-profit bachelor’s, 9 = private 

not-for-profit associate’s, 10 = private not-for-profit other. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System (IPEDS), 2003 Employee by Assigned Position (EAP). 

Table 43. Faculty counts obtained from EAP:03 and NSOPF:04 sampling frame, by institution 

type, race/ethnicity, and gender 

Institution type 

Race/gender Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 

Asian 80,704 35,993 8,804 980 11,968 567 14,203 3,583 2,430 184 1,992 

Asian male 53,201 25,463 5,843 627 6,123 371 9,772 2,241 1,373 97 1,291 

Asian female 27,503 10,530 2,961 353 5,845 196 4,431 1,342 1,057 87 701 

Black 68,790 11,908 10,974 1,920 25,133 882 6,621 4,430 4,614 426 1,883 

Black male 33,699 6,126 5,557 990 11,164 396 3,625 2,205 2,371 197 1,068 

Black female 35,091 5,782 5,416 930 13,969 486 2,996 2,224 2,243 229 816 

Hispanic 41,833 9,564 5,118 557 17,405 255 4,124 2,414 1,397 173 825 

Hispanic male 23,177 5,654 2,761 317 9,284 133 2,451 1,243 717 103 513 

Hispanic female 18,656 3,910 2,358 239 8,121 122 1,673 1,171 680 70 312 

Other 994,330 248,656 118,643 17,002 301,071 11,769 113,212 88,594 58,360 6,608 30,416 

Other male 575,155 158,016 66,289 9,751 154,787 6,751 74,456 49,303 33,395 3,450 18,956 

Other female 419,175 90,639 52,354 7,251 146,284 5,018 38,756 39,291 24,966 3,158 11,460 

Faculty 1,185,661 306,119 143,540 20,459 355,577 13,473 138,161 99,021 66,803 7,392 35,116 

Male 685,238 195,259 80,451 11,686 181,358 7,652 90,305 54,994 37,857 3,848 21,828 

Female 500,423 110,860 63,089 8,773 174,219 5,821 47,856 44,027 28,946 3,544 13,288 

NOTE: Institution types are defined as follows: 1 = public doctoral, 2 = public master’s, 3 = public bachelor’s, 4 = public associate’s, 

5 = public other, 6 = private not-for-profit doctoral, 7 = private not-for-profit master’s, 8 = private not-for-profit bachelor’s, 9 = private 

not-for-profit associate’s, 10 = private not-for-profit other. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System (IPEDS), 2003 Employee by Assigned Position (EAP). 

Finally, eligibility definitions for NSOPF:04 include non-faculty who provide instruction 

but do not have teaching as their principal activity. Since there were no published counts for such 

faculty members that could be used for weighting, nonresponse-adjusted weights were used to 

develop an estimate for this small subgroup. For this purpose, all emerging 560 non-faculty 

members retained their nonresponse adjusted weights—totaling to 26,803—as their final weights 

and were not included during the above raking process.46 That is, a value of one was assigned to 

the raking adjustment factor for these respondents when calculating their final analysis weights. 

In general, however, the final analysis weights (WTA00) were computed as the product of the 

institution and the faculty component weights by: 

WTA00 = WT1 × WT2 × WT3 × WT4 × WT5 × WT6 × WT7 × WT8 × WT9 

 

46 This means that the sum of the weights for all 26,110 respondents, which includes the 560 non-faculty members, is 

1,211,744 = 1,185,661 + 26,083. 
Chapter 6. Weighting and Variance Estimation

97 

6.3 Variance Estimation 

The 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) 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 faculty and instructional staff was selected from sample institutions 

providing lists at the second stage. Because of this complex sampling design, statistical analyses 

should be conducted using software packages that properly account for the employed survey 

design through use of survey weights. 

Most commonly used statistical procedures assume that data are obtained from a simple 

random sample; that is, that the observations are independent and identically distributed. When 

the data have been collected using a complex sampling design, the simple random sampling 

assumption usually leads to underestimating the sampling variance, which would lead to 

artificially narrow confidence intervals and liberal hypothesis test results; that is to say, rejecting 

the null hypothesis when it is 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 (Wolter 1985). Software packages that have been developed for analyzing 

complex sample survey data include SUDAAN, WesVar, Stata, and SAS. SUDAAN is a 

commercial product developed by RTI. Further information can be obtained from the website 

http://www.rti.org/sudaan. WesVar is a product of Westat, Inc., for which additional information 

can be obtained from the website http://www.westat.com/wesvar. Stata is a product of StataCorp 

LP; additional information about Stata can be found at the following website: 

http://www.stata.com. SAS information may be found on the SAS corporate website: 

http://www.sas.com. Also, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has developed a 

software tool called the Data Analysis System (DAS) for analysis of complex survey data. 

Information about DAS is available from the website http://nces.ed.gov/das. 

The variance estimation strategy chosen for NSOPF:04 has aimed to satisfy the following 

requirements and design features: 

• variance reduction due to stratification at all stages of sampling; 

• unequal weighting effects due to nonresponse adjustment and poststratification; 

• variance inflation due to clustering; 

• estimation of linear and nonlinear statistics such as quantiles; and 

• variance reduction due to finite population corrections at the PSU (institution) stage 

of sampling and the high sampling rates in certain strata. 

Commonly applied bootstrap variance estimation techniques satisfy the first four 

requirements. To meet the last requirement, however, the methodology developed by Kaufman 

was applied (Kaufman 2004). This methodology incorporates the finite population correction 

factors at both stages of sampling. However, for NSOPF:04, application of this method reflected 

the finite population correction factor at the first stage only where sampling fractions were often 

high. At the second stage, where the sampling fractions were generally low, the finite population 

correction factor was set to 1.00. 
Chapter 6. Weighting and Variance Estimation 

98 

The Kaufman methodology was used to develop a vector of 64 bootstrap sample weights 

that are included on the analysis file, along with the full sample analysis weights. Replicate 

weights were set to zero for units not selected in a particular bootstrap sample while weights for 

other units were inflated for the bootstrap subsampling. Note that analogous to the full sample 

weights, these replicate weights were also poststratified to the same set of control totals for 

calibration. 

The number of replicate weights was set at 64 based on an empirical investigation of the 

behavior of variance estimates as the number of replicates increased. This investigation showed 

that the stability of variance estimates improved with increasing numbers of replicates and 

became fairly stable for most estimates when between 50 and 55 replicate weights were used. 

Also, a similar process of generating replicate weights was used for the institution file except that 

all procedures relating to the second stage of sampling were omitted. 

The vector of B replicate weights allows for computing additional estimates for the sole 

purpose of estimating a variance. With the 64 sets of replicate weights, the variance of any 

statistic,θ

ˆ, can be estimated by separately calculating the statistic of interest from each replicate 

and then using the variability among the resulting estimates to calculate the variance of the given 

statistic by: 

B

b

∑ b

=

−

=

64

1

* 2

) ˆ ˆ (

)ˆ var(

θ θ

θ , 

where ˆ* θ b is the estimate based on the b-th replicate weights. 

Once the replicate weights are provided, this estimate can be produced by survey 

software packages such as SUDAAN, STATA, and WesVar. Here, the analyst should specify the 

full study and replicate weights appropriate for the given analysis. In this case, the analyst should 

specify the full study and replicate weights, which are appropriate for the given analysis. Below 

is an example of a generic SUDAAN code for producing point estimates and their associated 

standard errors using replicate weights that reflect the reduction in variance due to finite 

population correction (fpc) at the institution stage of sampling. The symbols /* and */ in the code 

indicate the beginning and end of a comment. Note that the dataset does not need to be sorted. 

proc descript data=/* insert filename*/ design=brr; 

weight STUDYWEIGHT; 

repWgt BRRWT01–BRRWT64; 

var /*insert variables*/; 

subpopn /* insert domain of interest if analysis domain is a subset of faculty members*/; 

print nsum mean semean / style=nchs; 

run; 

Again, it should be noted that there are three sets of study (analysis) weights and their 

corresponding replicate weights. These weights are: 

1. Institution weights 
Chapter 6. Weighting and Variance Estimation

99 

Analysis: WTB00

Replicate: WTB01 – WTB64 

2. Faculty weights 

Analysis: WTA00

Replicate: WTA01 – WTA64 

3. Contextual weights 

Analysis: WTC00

Replicate: WTC01 – WTC64 

Should analysts decide to use the Taylor Series Linearization method for approximating 

standard errors of estimates, the design structure (level of clustering) should be specified by 

identifying the analysis strata and primary sampling units (PSU). Below is an example of generic 

SUDAAN code to produce estimates and standard errors using Taylor Series approximation. The 

symbols /* and */ in the code indicate the beginning and end of a comment. Note that the dataset 

must be sorted by analysis strata and analysis PSUs.47

proc descript data=/* insert filename*/ design=wr; 

nest analysis stratum analysis PSU; 

weight STUDYWEIGHT; 

var /*insert variables*/; 

subpopn /* insert domain of interest if analysis domain is a subset of faculty members */; 

print nsum mean semean / style=nchs; 

run; 

For each of the three types of analyses—institution, faculty, and contextual (merged)—

specific design variables, which are generically named analysis stratum and analysis PSU in the 

above code, need to be identified. These variables are available on corresponding final datasets 

as described below. 

• Institution design variables 

Analysis PSU: IPSU 

Analysis Stratum: ISTRATUM

• Faculty design variables 

Analysis PSU: FPSU 

Analysis Stratum: FSTRATUM

• Contextual design variables 

Analysis PSU: FPSU 

Analysis Stratum: FSTRATUM

 

47 Please note that DAS uses Taylor linearization approach for variance estimation and calculation of DEFF and 

DEFT. 
Chapter 6. Weighting and Variance Estimation 

100 

6.4 Design Effects and Standard Errors 

Table 44 provides estimates of design effects for selected faculty data. These estimates, 

which consist of the ratio of variance of estimates under the employed design and simple random 

sampling (DEFF)48 and the square root of this ratio (DEFT),49 are typically used as measures for 

the efficiency of a sample design. The larger the design effect, the larger the variance of the 

estimate relative to what would have been obtained under simple random sampling where all 

units have the same chance of selection. 

The standard errors were calculated using SUDAAN with the replicate weights that were 

calculated for these data, details of which are provided section 6.3. The average design effect for 

the listed key faculty estimates in table 44 was 1.88. Briefly, this indicates that due to differential 

sampling and weight adjustments, the resulting sample is 1.88 times less effective as compared 

to a simple random sample with 100 percent response rate. That is, the original sample size 

should be divided by 1.88 to obtain the effective sample size under the employed design. More 

detailed tables are available in appendix M. 

Table 44. Design effects (DEFFs) and root design effects (DEFT) for faculty statistics: 2004 

Standard error 

Item Number1 Percent 

estimate Design SRS DEFF DEFT 

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 26,110 97.0 0.14 0.11 1.69 1.30 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 26,110 90.2 0.32 0.18 2.94 1.71 

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 26,110 92.2 0.26 0.17 2.39 1.54 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 26,110 73.8 0.34 0.27 1.58 1.26 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 26,110 8.8 0.18 0.18 1.06 1.03 

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 8,360 18.0 0.34 0.24 1.99 1.41 

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 8,360 28.0 0.38 0.28 1.83 1.35 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 26,110 21.2 0.31 0.25 1.53 1.24 

Q12: Percent with tenure 26,110 39.8 0.45 0.30 2.24 1.50 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 20,880 11.7 0.27 0.20 1.91 1.38 

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 26,110 11.5 0.25 0.20 1.62 1.27 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 26,110 73.2 0.37 0.27 1.87 1.37 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 21,460 93.7 0.19 0.15 1.66 1.29 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 15,280 27.2 0.34 0.28 1.56 1.25 

Q39: Percent with website for instruction 26,110 84.9 0.30 0.24 1.55 1.24 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 26,110 31.5 0.62 0.38 2.69 1.64 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 26,110 57.6 0.33 0.31 1.20 1.10 

Q68: Percent paid by the course exclude salary 6,740 34.1 0.62 0.52 1.43 1.20 

Q77: Percent marital status single 26,110 34.8 0.58 0.52 1.22 1.11 

Q77: Percent marital status married 26,110 69.0 0.54 0.32 2.88 1.70 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 26,110 36.9 0.97 0.59 2.71 1.65 1 This number reflects the total number of eligible respondents for each item, rounded to the nearest 10. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

 

48 The design effect (DEFF) is the variance estimate of an estimated parameter under the survey design divided by 

the variance estimate of an estimated parameter for a simple random sample of the same size. 49 The root design effect (DEFT) is the square root of the design effect (DEFF). 
101 

References 

Abraham, S.Y., Steiger, D.M., Montgomery, M., Kuhr, B.D., Tourangeau, B., Montgomery, B., 

and Chattopadhyay, M. (2002). 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:99) 

Methodology Report (NCES 2002–154). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 

National Center for Education Statistics. 

Berger, A., Kirshtein, R., Zhang, Y., and Carter, K. (2002). Developing the 2004 Faculty Survey: 

Themes from the Literature on Postsecondary Education. Washington, DC: American 

Institutes for Research. 

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, 

9(4):795-814. 

Chen, P., Penne, M.A., & Singh, A.C. (2000). Experience with the Generalized Exponential 

Model of Weight Calibration for the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. 

American Statistical Association (ASA) Proceedings on Survey Research Methodology 

Section, 604-609. 

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

Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research, pp. 401–406. 

Chromy, J.R. (1987). “Design Optimization with Multiple Objectives.” Proceedings of the

American Statistical Association Section on Social Statistics, pp. 194-199. 

Cohen, S.B. (1997). An Evaluation of Alternative PC-Based Software Packages Developed for 

the Analysis of Complex Survey Data. The American Statistician, 57(13): 285-292. 

Cominole, M., Siegel, P., Dudley, K., Roe, D., and Gilligan, T. (Forthcoming). National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study 2004 (NPSAS:04) Methodology Report (NCES 2006–180). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

DeRouvray, C., and Couper, M.P. (2002). Designing a Strategy for Reducing “No Opinion” 

Responses in Web-Based Surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 20(1):3–9. 

Deville, J.C., & Särndal, C.E. (1992). Calibration Estimators in Survey Sampling. Journal of the 

American Statistical Association (JASA), 87, 376-382. 

Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002. (2002). Public Law 107-279, Title I, Section 153. 

Available: http://www.ed.gov/policy/rschstat/leg/PL107-279.pdf

Folsom, R.E. and Singh, A.C. (2000). The Generalized Exponential Model for Sampling Weight 

Calibration for Extreme Values, Nonresponse, and Poststratification. Proceedings of the 

American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research. 

Folsom, R.E., & Witt, M.B. (1994). Testing a New Attrition Nonresponse Method for SIPP. ASA 

Proceedings on Survey Research Methodology Section, 428-433. 
References 

102 

Heuer, R.E., Cahalan, M., Fahimi, M., Curry-Tucker, J.L., Carley-Baxter, L., Curtin, T.R., 

Hinsdale, M., Jewell, D.M., Kuhr, B.D., and McLean, L. (2004). 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) Field Test Methodology Report (NCES 2004–01). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Kaufman, S. (2004). Using the Bootstrap in a Two-Stage Design when Some Second-Stage 

Strata have only One Unit Allocated. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, 

Section on Survey Research Methods. 

Kojaku, L. and Nuñez, A. (1998). Descriptive Summary of 1995-96 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students, With Profiles of Students Entering 2- and 4-Year Institutions (NCES 1999–030). 

Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Nettles, M.T., Perna, L.W., and Bradburn, E.M. (2000). Salary, Promotion, and Tenure Status of 

Minority and Women Faculty in U.S. Colleges and Universities (NCES 2000–173). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

U.S. Department of Education (2001). National Postsecondary Student Aid Study: Student 

Financial Aid Estimates for 1999–2000 (NCES 2001–209). Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Statistics. 

U.S. Department of Education (2002). Classification of Instructional Programs: 2000 Edition

(NCES 2002–165R). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

Wolter, K. (1985). Introduction to Variance Estimation, Springer-Verlag: New York, NY. 

Zimbler, L.J. (2001). Background Characteristics, Work Activities, and Compensation of Faculty 

and Instructional Staff in Postsecondary Institutions: Fall 1998 (NCES 2001–152). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 
Appendix A 

Sampling Details 

Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-3 

A.1 Institution Frame Construction 

The institution sample selection has been based on a probability proportional to size 

(PPS) selection methodology, where each institution was assigned a composite measure of size 

(MOS) that reflected the number of eligible faculty and instructional staff in each of the 

following six hierarchical strata in the given order of inclusion:1

• Hispanic; 

• non-Hispanic Black; 

• Asian and Pacific Islander; 

• full-time female; 

• full-time male; and 

• all other. 

Faculty counts needed for MOS calculations were initially obtained from the Fall Staff 

Survey Component of the Winter 2001-2002 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System 

(IPEDS) Data Collection (Winter:02 IPEDS). However, this source could not provide all of the 

information necessary to classify faculty members into one of the above sampling strata. For 

instance, faculty counts were not reported in a number of institutions, while for others, reported 

counts were not indexed by race and ethnicity. As a result, the missing information had to be 

imputed in two steps. As detailed in the next section, the first step consisted of imputing 

unreported (missing) faculty counts, while in the second step, faculty reported as having 

unknown race/ethnicity or as nonresident aliens were distributed among the known race 

categories using a special procedure. Subsequent to these two steps, faculty members in each 

institution were classified into one of the six sampling strata. 

A.1.1 Imputation of Missing Faculty Counts 

As summarized in table A-1, starting with the 3,379 eligible institutions in the NSOPF:04 

universe, the Winter:02 IPEDS provided faculty counts for 3,148 institutions, including counts 

of faculty with unknown race/ethnicity and those listed as nonresident aliens.2

 Of these 3,148 

institutions, 59 were main campuses (parents) that reported to IPEDS the total faculty at the main 

campus as well as those for their branch (child) campuses. Among the 231 institutions that had 

no reported faculty counts, 80 were children of the 59 parent campuses and the remaining 151 

were campuses without any reported faculty counts. 

 

1

 It should be noted that since the institution samples for both National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) 

and National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey (NPSAS:04) surveys were selected jointly, the MOS for each 

institution was calculated to reflect the number of students in each institution as well. 2

 Note that the universe count of 3,379 does not reflect the two institutions that were added after sample selection to 

refresh the sample. 
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-4 

Table A-1. Composition of NSOPF:04 institutions based on availability of the Winter:02 IPEDS 

data 

Institution type Frequency 

All eligible institutions 3,379 

With IPEDS faculty counts 3,148 

 Non-parent 3,089 

 Parent 59 

Without IPEDS faculty counts 231 

 Children 80 

 Other 151 

NOTE: Parent refers to main campuses. Children refers to branch campuses. IPEDS = Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

The IPEDS allows institutions to provide combined faculty counts for themselves and 

their branch campuses. The unreported faculty counts for the 80 child campuses were reallocated 

from their parents according to the following steps. Here, all child institutions corresponding to a 

parent institution were included, even if such institutions were not eligible for NSOPF:04. 

• For the 75 child institutions whose parents had a Carnegie code—accredited, degreegranting colleges and universities—the total count of faculty for each faculty group 

was reallocated from the parent institutions such that the parent retained twice as 

many faculty members as each of the children for the given group. This is the 

procedure followed for IPEDS. 

• For the remaining five child institutions whose parents did not have a Carnegie code, 

the total count of faculty for each group was allocated equally between the parent and 

its child. 

There were 151 institutions in the NSOPF universe that were not eligible for IPEDS 

imputation3

 and had no reported faculty counts in the Winter:02 IPEDS. In order to calculate 

MOS for such institutions, missing counts of faculty members were imputed using a 

methodology similar to that used to impute all IPEDS data. Specifically, the following steps 

were taken: 

• If data were available from the Fall Staff Survey (IPEDS-S:97 or -S:99), these data 

were used without any adjustments, with preference given to the more recent data. 

• If data were not available from either the IPEDS-S:97 or -S:99, faculty counts were 

imputed as a function of student counts according to the following steps: 

− Using the IPEDS 2000 Fall Enrollment dataset, for each institution the full-time 

equivalent (FTE) for students was calculated using the following formula: 

FTE = Full-time + 

3

1 Part-time 

 

3

 Institutions not in-scope for imputation for the Fall Staff Survey of IPEDS included those that were child institutions 

or had less than 15 full-time employees. 
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-5 

− Each institution was assigned to an imputation group based on institution type and 

within each group the institution with the closest FTE was selected as the donor 

institution. Subsequently, the missing faculty counts for each subgroup were 

imputed using the following ratio estimator, in which the function “Integer” 

indicates the integer part of the resulting number: 

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ = ×

Donor

Donor FTE

FTE

Faculty Integer Faculty Missing

Missing

A.1.2 Imputation of Missing Faculty Stratification Information 

The majority of the 3,379 NSOPF:04 institutions included faculty members whose race 

and ethnicity were reported as nonresident alien or as unknown. These race/ethnicity categories 

had to be reconciled so that such faculty could be allocated to the six sampling strata. As detailed 

next, this process was carried out separately for faculty with reported unknown race/ethnicity 

and for faculty who are reported as nonresident aliens. 

A large number of institutions included faculty for whom race/ethnicity was reported as 

unknown. These faculty were assigned to known race categories available from IPEDS (nonHispanic Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and White) 

using the following steps. 

• For each institution, the percentage of faculty with known race/ethnicity was obtained 

for groups indexed by gender and employment status (part-time and full-time). 

• When the reported race/ethnicity counts of faculty within a gender/employment group 

were at least 50 percent of the total faculty count for that group (including those with 

unknown race/ethnicity and nonresident aliens), the count of faculty with unknown 

race/ethnicity was distributed to each of the race categories in proportion to the 

reported counts within the gender/employment group. 

• Conversely, when the reported race/ethnicity counts of faculty within a 

gender/employment group were less than 50 percent of the total faculty count, faculty 

with unknown race/ethnicity were distributed to each of the race categories in 

proportion to the average distribution of race for that gender/employment group 

within classes indexed by level of institution (2- and 4-year) and region. Average 

group distributions were constructed from those institutions with more than 50 

percent of race/ethnicity of their faculty reported in the five categories. 

Tables A-2 through A-5 summarize the resulting average distributions and other statistics 

for each of the 16 institution groups within the four gender/employment groups. In addition to 

faculty with unknown race/ethnicity, many institutions included counts of nonresident alien 

faculty for whom race/ethnicity was not reported. In such cases, counts of nonresident alien 

faculty members were distributed among the known race/ethnicity groups within groups indexed 

by gender and employment status. For this purpose, the needed distributions for nonresident 
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-6 

aliens were obtained from the 1990 through 1999 Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) data,4

since the distribution of reported race/ethnicity based on IPEDS is not representative of 

nonresident alien faculty members. 

Table A-2. Race/ethnicity distribution of full-time male faculty and percent unknown race, by 

level and region of institution: 2002 

Class 

Percent of race/ 

ethnicity known 

Percent mean distribution 

of all faculty by race/ethnicity 

Number Institution level 

OBE 

region 0 - 49 50 - 100 Hispanic Black 

Asian/ 

Pacific 

Islander 

American 

Indian/ 

Alaskan 

Native White 

1 4-year or above 1 8 185 1.6 2.7 4.0 0.2 91.5 

2 4-year or above 2 6 436 2.0 5.0 5.0 0.1 88.0 

3 4-year or above 3 15 345 2.0 3.8 4.6 0.2 89.5 

4 4-year or above 4 8 218 1.7 1.6 3.3 0.9 92.5 

5 4-year or above 5 8 461 1.7 10.5 4.5 0.3 83.0 

6 4-year or above 6 2 156 4.6 4.8 5.8 1.3 83.4 

7 4-year or above 7 1 51 2.2 1.0 3.4 1.5 91.9 

8 4-year or above 8 9 259 3.7 3.5 9.3 0.4 83.2 

9 At least 2- but less than 4-year 1 4 45 1.5 4.4 1.9 0.2 92.0 

10 At least 2- but less than 4-year 2 10 124 2.5 5.5 2.6 0.2 89.3 

11 At least 2- but less than 4-year 3 1 156 1.4 5.1 2.6 1.2 89.7 

12 At least 2- but less than 4-year 4 1 133 0.9 1.4 0.9 3.1 93.7 

13 At least 2- but less than 4-year 5 1 366 1.6 8.9 1.2 0.5 87.8 

14 At least 2- but less than 4-year 6 1 129 9.8 3.2 1.8 2.6 82.7 

15 At least 2- but less than 4-year 7 1 43 2.3 1.1 0.7 5.6 90.3 

16 At least 2- but less than 4-year 8 3 193 7.5 4.6 6.7 1.4 79.9 

NOTE: Office of Business Economics (OBE) regions are defined as 1 = New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT); 2 = Mid East (DE, 

DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA); 3 = Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI); 4 = Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD); 5 = Southeast (AL, AR, FL, 

GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV); 6 = Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX); 7 = Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY); 8 = Far 

West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA). 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2002 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System (IPEDS). 

Accordingly, in the first region there are eight 4-year or above institutions at which 

race/ethnicity was known for less than 50 percent of full-time male faculty members, while there 

were 185 institutions at which race/ethnicity was known for more than 50 percent of full-time 

male faculty. The corresponding numbers for at least 2- but less than 4-year institution are 4 and 

45, respectively in region 1. 

 

4

 http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctorates/
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-7 

Table A-3. Race/ethnicity distribution of part-time male faculty and percent unknown race, by 

level and region of institution: 2002 

Class 

Percent of race/ 

ethnicity known 

Percent mean distribution 

of all faculty by race/ethnicity 

Number Institution level 

OBE 

region 0–49 50–100 Hispanic Black 

Asian/ 

Pacific 

Islander 

American 

Indian/ 

Alaskan 

Native White 

1 4-year or above 1 41 152 1.4 3.7 2.1 0.2 92.6 

2 4-year or above 2 70 372 1.8 6.0 2.5 0.1 89.6 

3 4-year or above 3 64 296 1.1 4.6 2.4 0.2 91.7 

4 4-year or above 4 56 170 0.7 3.0 1.1 0.9 94.4 

5 4-year or above 5 85 384 1.5 13.4 2.2 0.3 82.6 

6 4-year or above 6 27 131 6.2 6.6 3.8 1.1 82.4 

7 4-year or above 7 12 40 3.1 1.6 1.7 2.0 91.6 

8 4-year or above 8 66 202 3.6 4.1 9.5 0.6 82.2 

9 At least 2- but less than 4-year 1 18 31 1.9 5.3 1.2 0.1 91.5 

10 At least 2- but less than 4-year 2 16 118 2.9 7.5 2.8 0.2 86.7 

11 At least 2- but less than 4-year 3 13 144 1.8 6.2 1.6 0.8 89.6 

12 At least 2- but less than 4-year 4 28 106 1.7 3.4 0.7 2.3 92.0 

13 At least 2- but less than 4-year 5 55 312 1.6 10.6 0.6 0.5 86.8 

14 At least 2- but less than 4-year 6 26 104 11.5 4.2 1.4 1.9 81.0 

15 At least 2- but less than 4-year 7 10 34 4.9 1.4 0.8 9.6 83.3 

16 At least 2- but less than 4-year 8 17 179 6.6 4.5 6.8 1.4 80.8 

NOTE: Office of Business Economics (OBE) regions are defined as 1 = New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT); 2 = Mid East (DE, 

DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA); 3 = Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI); 4 = Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD); 5 = Southeast (AL, AR, FL, 

GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV); 6 = Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX); 7 = Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY); 8 = Far 

West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA). 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2002 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System (IPEDS). 

Table A-4. Race/ethnicity distribution of full-time female faculty and percent unknown race, by 

level and region of institution: 2002 

Class 

Percent of race/ 

ethnicity known 

Percent mean distribution 

of all faculty by race/ethnicity 

Number Institution level 

OBE 

region 0–49 50–100 Hispanic Black 

Asian/ 

Pacific 

Islander 

American 

Indian/ 

Alaskan 

Native White 

1 4-year or above 1 7 186 1.9 2.8 3.5 0.2 91.6 

2 4-year or above 2 46 396 2.5 6.5 4.1 0.2 86.8 

3 4-year or above 3 15 345 1.9 4.7 3.3 0.4 89.8 

4 4-year or above 4 7 219 1.3 2.4 1.9 1.1 93.3 

5 4-year or above 5 11 458 2.1 13.8 2.3 0.6 81.3 

6 4-year or above 6 5 153 4.9 7.4 4.2 1.7 81.9 

7 4-year or above 7 2 50 2.4 0.8 4.9 1.2 90.8 

8 4-year or above 8 17 251 3.7 3.0 9.3 0.6 83.4 

9 At least 2- but less than 4-year 1 2 47 1.1 3.5 0.9 0.3 94.3 

10 At least 2- but less than 4-year 2 3 131 1.7 6.0 1.9 0.2 90.2 

11 At least 2- but less than 4-year 3 0 157 1.1 6.5 2.0 0.5 89.9 

12 At least 2- but less than 4-year 4 0 134 0.6 1.5 0.9 2.8 94.2 

13 At least 2- but less than 4-year 5 0 367 1.3 13.0 0.7 0.3 84.6 

14 At least 2- but less than 4-year 6 1 129 8.3 5.0 1.7 2.2 82.8 

15 At least 2- but less than 4-year 7 1 43 2.8 0.6 0.3 7.3 89.0 

16 At least 2- but less than 4-year 8 4 192 7.6 5.4 7.9 1.4 77.8 

NOTE: Office of Business Economics (OBE) regions are defined as 1 = New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT); 2 = Mid East (DE, 

DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA); 3 = Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI); 4 = Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD); 5 = Southeast (AL, AR, FL, 

GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV); 6 = Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX); 7 = Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY); 8 = Far 

West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA). 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2002 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System (IPEDS). 
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-8 

Table A-5. Race/ethnicity distribution of part-time female faculty and percent unknown race, by 

level and region of institution: 2002 

Class 

Percent of 

race/ethnicity 

known 

Percent mean distribution 

of all faculty by race/ethnicity 

Number Institution level 

OBE 

region 0–49 50–100 Hispanic Black 

Asian/ 

Pacific 

Islander 

American 

Indian/ 

Alaskan 

Native White 

1 4-year or above 1 40 153 1.4 2.0 2.6 0.1 94.0 

2 4-year or above 2 92 350 2.6 6.6 3.5 0.2 87.1 

3 4-year or above 3 63 297 1.5 5.7 2.9 0.3 89.7 

4 4-year or above 4 52 174 1.2 2.3 1.3 1.1 94.2 

5 4-year or above 5 91 378 1.9 15.0 1.8 0.1 81.3 

6 4-year or above 6 33 125 6.3 8.5 2.6 0.8 81.8 

7 4-year or above 7 11 41 3.0 0.7 2.0 1.6 92.7 

8 4-year or above 8 66 202 5.3 3.2 8.2 0.5 82.8 

9 At least 2- but less than 4-year 1 18 31 1.9 2.7 1.6 0.1 93.6 

10 At least 2- but less than 4-year 2 14 120 3.2 7.0 2.4 0.2 87.3 

11 At least 2- but less than 4-year 3 12 145 1.4 6.9 1.3 0.8 89.7 

12 At least 2- but less than 4-year 4 21 113 0.9 1.6 0.5 1.8 95.2 

13 At least 2- but less than 4-year 5 54 313 1.5 13.8 0.6 0.3 83.8 

14 At least 2- but less than 4-year 6 22 108 12.7 5.1 1.1 1.7 79.4 

15 At least 2- but less than 4-year 7 10 34 2.8 1.0 1.0 5.8 89.4 

16 At least 2- but less than 4-year 8 18 178 6.3 4.9 8.0 1.6 79.2 

NOTE: Office of Business Economics (OBE) regions are defined as 1 = New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT); 2 = Mid East (DE, 

DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA); 3 = Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI); 4 = Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD); 5 = Southeast (AL, AR, FL, 

GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV); 6 = Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX); 7 = Rocky Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY); 8 = Far 

West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA). 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2002 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 

System (IPEDS). 

Using data from the prior 10 years of SED, counts of doctorate recipients with temporary 

resident status were obtained to construct surrogate distributions of race/ethnicity for nonresident 

alien faculty members. Specifically, the average race/ethnicity distributions of these individuals 

were calculated within groups indexed by gender, type of institution (public and private), and 

region. The appropriate distribution(s) were applied to the number of nonresident aliens in each 

institution to allocate such counts to one of the known race/ethnicity categories. Tables A-6 and 

A-7 provide a summary of the resulting average distributions and other statistics for nonresident 

aliens for each gender. 
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-9 

Table A-6. Race/ethnicity distribution of full- and part-time male temporary residents 

constructed from the Survey of Earned Doctorates: 1990–1999 

Class Percent distribution of temporary residents by race/ethnicity 

Number Control 

OBE 

region Hispanic Black 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

American Indian/ 

Alaskan Native White 

1 Public 1 4.4 4.9 69.5 0.0 21.2 

2 Public 2 4.0 3.2 71.2 0.0 21.6 

3 Public 3 3.7 4.2 70.2 0.0 21.9 

4 Public 4 5.8 4.5 70.8 0.0 18.9 

5 Public 5 5.0 4.0 69.9 0.0 21.0 

6 Public 6 8.3 3.2 69.0 0.0 19.5 

7 Public 7 6.2 3.3 62.3 0.1 28.2 

8 Public 8 6.3 2.2 63.4 0.0 28.0 

9 Private 1 4.8 2.9 51.4 0.0 40.8 

10 Private 2 5.0 4.0 60.5 0.0 30.6 

11 Private 3 3.8 3.0 65.4 0.0 27.8 

12 Private 4 6.0 4.8 61.2 0.0 28.1 

13 Private 5 7.8 6.0 60.1 0.0 26.2 

14 Private 6 6.7 3.7 60.3 0.0 29.2 

15 Private 7 4.2 7.9 56.6 0.0 31.2 

16 Private 8 3.5 1.8 59.1 0.0 35.6 

NOTE: Office of Business Economics (OBE) regions are defined as 1 = New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT); 2 = 

Mid East (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA); 3 = Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI); 4 = Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD); 

5 = Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV); 6 = Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX); 7 = Rocky 

Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY); 8 = Far West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA). 

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, 1990–1999 Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED:90-99). 

Table A-7. Race/ethnicity distribution of full- and part-time female temporary residents 

constructed from the Survey of Earned Doctorates: 1990–1999 

Class Percent distribution of temporary residents by race/ethnicity 

Number Control 

OBE 

region Hispanic Black 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

American Indian/ 

Alaskan Native White 

1 Public 1 6.9 3.8 60.7 0.2 28.4 

2 Public 2 6.2 2.8 64.1 0.0 26.8 

3 Public 3 5.1 4.1 68.1 0.0 22.7 

4 Public 4 6.8 4.4 69.4 0.1 19.4 

5 Public 5 6.4 4.0 65.4 0.0 24.2 

6 Public 6 9.1 2.7 66.9 0.1 21.2 

7 Public 7 9.4 2.8 56.3 0.0 31.5 

8 Public 8 7.3 2.0 57.9 0.1 32.8 

9 Private 1 5.4 1.8 49.8 0.0 43.0 

10 Private 2 5.9 4.8 52.3 0.0 37.0 

11 Private 3 2.2 2.4 64.8 0.0 30.6 

12 Private 4 4.1 5.7 52.5 0.0 37.7 

13 Private 5 10.1 6.3 49.1 0.0 34.5 

14 Private 6 8.9 1.4 66.5 0.0 23.3 

15 Private 7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

16 Private 8 4.3 2.9 55.6 0.0 37.2 

NOTE: Office of Business Economics (OBE) regions are defined as 1 = New England (CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT); 2 = 

Mid East (DE, DC, MD, NJ, NY, PA); 3 = Great Lakes (IL, IN, MI, OH, WI); 4 = Plains (IA, KS, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD); 

5 = Southeast (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV); 6 = Southwest (AZ, NM, OK, TX); 7 = Rocky 

Mountains (CO, ID, MT, UT, WY); 8 = Far West (AK, CA, HI, NV, OR, WA). 

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, 1990–1999 Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED:90-99). 
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-10 

A.2 Institution Sample Selection 

For sampling purposes, 10 institution strata were defined for the NSOPF:04 based on 

Carnegie classification codes and control. Since the institution sample for the faculty study was 

selected jointly with that for students, the 10 NSOPF sampling strata were collapsed from the 

related student-based 58 strata (STRAT58) for the 2004 National Study of Faculty and Students 

(NSoFaS:04). Table A-8 summarizes the distribution of the resulting sample of institutions by 

stratum for NSOPF:04. Table A-9 provides a crosswalk between the two sets of strata. Institution 

sample sizes and their corresponding sampling rates were established using a customized 

cost/variance optimization procedure, which aimed to identify the allocation that would 

accommodate all analytical objectives of this survey while minimizing data collection costs. 

Table A-8. Distribution of NSOPF:04 full-scale institution sample, by type and Carnegie 

classification: 2004 

Degree granting Total Public Private not-for-profit 

 Total 1,080 680 400 

Doctor’s 300 190 110 

Master’s 200 120 80 

Bachelor’s 160 30 130 

Associate’s 350 340 10 

Other/Unknown 70 10 60 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

A.3 Faculty Frame Construction 

All sampled institutions were contacted to provide lists of faculty and instructional staff 

who were eligible for NSOPF:04. For this purpose, each institution was requested to provide a 

complete list of full- and part-time faculty and instructional staff as of November 1, 2003 (or 

during the fall term of the 2003–04 academic year). 

A.3.1 List Request and Requirements 

Each institution was given several options for providing faculty lists, including uploading 

an electronic copy of the list to a secure website, sending the list as an e-mail attachment, or 

mailing the list on diskette using the provided shipment material. It was requested that files 

containing the faculty lists follow a specific layout. Acceptable file formats included ASCII 

fixed field, ASCII comma-delimited, or Excel spreadsheet. For those institutions not capable of 

providing electronic lists of faculty and instructional staff, paper lists were suggested as a last 

choice of format. In addition to campus and home contact information, institutions were asked to 

provide basic demographic information such as gender, race/ethnicity, academic field, and 

employment status of each faculty member. 

Towards the end of the list collection period, online course catalogs and institution 

websites were used to abstract lists for those sampled institutions that had failed to provide 

faculty lists, yet had online sources that could provide adequate information about their faculty 
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-11 

and instructional staff. In all, a total of 139 such lists were abstracted to supplement the other 

lists that had been supplied by sample institutions. Online resources were approved for 

abstraction based on the completeness and inclusiveness of the information provided. 

A.4 Faculty Sample Selection 

The sample of faculty was selected using stratified systematic sampling within cells 

indexed by institutional and faculty strata as summarized in tables A-9 and A-10. Table A-9 

presents the complete list of institutional strata used for NSoFaS, and indicates their 

correspondence to the strata used for NSOPF. Moreover, institution eligibility rates from the 

prior administrations of NSOPF were available only at a different level of aggregation (sector), a 

listing of which is provided in table A-11. Table A-12 provides a summary of faculty counts by 

NSoFaS institutional and NSOPF faculty strata, which were used for sample allocation based on 

the Winter:02 IPEDS. Stratum counts that are zero correspond to those that are specific to 

NPSAS:04. 

Table A-9. NSoFaS institutional sampling strata: 2004 

NSoFaS institution strata Institution type NSOPF strata 

1 Public less than 2-year NPSAS only 

2 Public 2-year associate’s 4 

3 Public 2-year other – degree-granting 4 

4 Public 2-year other – NPSAS only NPSAS only 

5 Public 4-year master’s 2 

6 Public 4-year bachelor’s 3 

7 Public 4-year non-doctoral other 3,5 

8 Public 4-year doctoral 1 

9 Public 4-year doctoral other 2 

10 Public 4-year NPSAS only NPSAS only 

11 Private not-for-profit less-than-4-year associate’s 9 

12 Private not-for-profit less-than-4-year other – degree-granting 9 

13 Private not-for-profit less-than-4-year other – NPSAS only NPSAS only 

14 Private not-for-profit 4-year master’s 7 

15 Private not-for-profit 4-year bachelor’s 8 

16 Private not-for-profit 4-year other 8,9,10 

17 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral 6 

18 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral master’s 7 

19 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctoral other 7,8,10 

20 Private not-for-profit 4-year NPSAS only NPSAS only 

21 Private for-profit less-than-2-year NPSAS only 

22 Private for-profit 2-year or more NPSAS only 

23 CA Public 2-year 4 

24 CA Public 4-year 1,2,3,5 

25 CA Private not-for-profit 4-year 6,7,8,10 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-12 

Table A-9. NSoFaS institutional sampling strata: 2004—Continued 

NSoFaS institution strata Institution type NSOPF strata 

26 CT Public 2-year 4 

27 CT Public 4-year 1,2,3 

28 CT Private not-for-profit 4-year 6,7,8,9,10 

29 DE Public 2-year NPSAS only 

30 DE Public 4-year 1,2 

31 DE Private not-for-profit 4-year 6,8,10 

32 GA Public 2-year 4 

33 GA Public 4-year 1,2,3,4,5 

34 GA Private not-for-profit 4-year 6,7,8,10 

35 IL Public 2-year 4 

36 IL Public 4-year 12 

37 IL Private not-for-profit 4-year 6,7,8,10 

38 IN Public 2-year 4 

39 IN Public 4-year 1,2,3 

40 IN Private not-for-profit 4-year 6,7,8,10 

41 MN Public 2-year 4 

42 MN Public 4-year 1,2,3 

43 MN Private not-for-profit 4-year 6,7,8,9,10 

44 NE Public 2-year 4 

45 NE Public 4-year 1,2 

46 NE Private not-for-profit 4-year 7,8,10 

47 NY Public 2-year 4 

48 NY Public 4-year 1,2,3,4,5 

49 NY Private not-for-profit 4-year 6,7,8,10 

50 OR Public 2-year 4 

51 OR Public 4-year 1,2,5 

52 OR Private not-for-profit 4-year 7,8,10 

53 TN Public 2-year 4 

54 TN Public 4-year 12 

55 TN Private not-for-profit 4-year 6,7,8,9,10 

56 TX Public 2-year 4 

57 TX Public 4-year 1,2,3 

58 TX Private not-for-profit 4-year 6,7,8,10 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Table A-10. Faculty sampling strata within institution: 2004 

Faculty strata Faculty type 

1 Non-Hispanic Black faculty 

2 Hispanic faculty 

3 Asian faculty 

4 Other full-time female faculty 

5 Other full-time male faculty 

6 Other part-time faculty 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-13 

Table A-11. NSOPF:99 institutional sectors used to obtain institution eligibility rates: 2004 

Sector Sector type 

1 Public 4-year 

2 Private not-for-profit 4-year 

4 Public 2-year 

5 Private not-for-profit 2-year 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Table A-12. Faculty population counts, by NSoFaS institutional and NSOPF faculty strata: 2004 

NSoFaS Faculty strata 

institution strata Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 

 Total 1,074,011 62,578 37,821 73,196 198,179 317,958 384,279 

1 † † † † † † † 

2 177,454 13,073 5,798 3,858 27,718 27,872 99,135 

3 4,469 223 39 58 682 828 2,639 

4 † † † † † † † 

5 41,689 2,991 829 1,833 10,249 15,007 10,780 

6 12,931 899 238 532 2,712 4,236 4,314 

7 6,594 172 94 331 1,395 2,180 2,422 

8 176,687 7,267 4,604 18,439 38,125 75,878 32,374 

9 25,245 3,321 465 1,388 5,305 8,261 6,505 

10 † † † † † † † 

11 3,838 251 106 124 859 938 1,560 

12 700 49 33 25 119 103 371 

13 † † † † † † † 

14 24,427 790 401 876 4,874 6,435 11,051 

15 35,501 2,351 554 1,167 7,981 12,173 11,275 

16 12,773 722 180 400 1,917 3,200 6,354 

17 59,170 3,103 1,743 5,787 10,421 23,490 14,626 

18 23,282 1,237 563 758 4,760 6,850 9,114 

19 8,023 572 145 341 1,476 2,929 2,560 

20 † -† † † † † † 

21 † † † † † † † 

22 † † † † † † † 

23 56,878 3,195 5,282 4,651 7,262 7,852 28,636 

24 49,043 1,496 3,037 8,965 7,716 14,454 13,375 

25 25,263 1,038 1,111 2,584 3,724 7,370 9,436 

26 2,791 163 68 59 436 394 1,671 

27 3,955 164 121 270 830 1,551 1,019 

28 7,350 215 186 828 1,447 2,777 1,897 

29 965 87 16 21 159 106 576 

30 1,250 117 16 112 340 641 24 

31 768 63 9 12 76 91 517 

32 8,627 1,817 97 129 1,394 1,241 3,949 

33 11,110 991 171 801 2,798 4,361 1,988 

34 6,582 1,253 148 476 1,264 2,396 1,045 

35 15,787 1,187 420 453 1,886 2,090 9,751 
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-14 

See notes at end of table. 

Table A-12. Faculty population counts, by NSoFaS institutional and NSOPF faculty strata: 

2004—Continued 

NSoFaS Faculty strata 

institution strata Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 

36 13,634 786 386 1,595 3,144 5,217 2,506 

37 18,990 806 415 1,551 3,652 6,264 6,302 

38 3,601 146 34 46 476 486 2,413 

39 11,839 360 255 935 2,614 4,612 3,063 

40 6,173 257 109 255 1,133 2,193 2,226 

41 6,198 136 65 123 1,257 1,526 3,091 

42 7,227 152 136 597 1,755 3,125 1,462 

43 5,779 116 96 208 1,265 1,800 2,294 

44 2,346 19 41 19 442 593 1,232 

45 4,455 116 98 346 988 1,854 1,053 

46 2,148 39 40 94 474 711 790 

47 16,189 1,152 671 546 2,210 2,390 9,220 

48 26,275 1,972 1,041 2,047 4,046 7,309 9,860 

49 48,793 2,287 1,465 3,691 7,977 14,892 18,481 

50 6,286 113 206 220 1,067 1,054 3,626 

51 6,715 76 158 550 1,509 2,337 2,085 

52 2,556 21 45 79 519 882 1,010 

53 3,827 379 33 34 760 719 1,902 

54 7,560 596 100 540 1,795 3,084 1,445 

55 6,289 474 74 371 1,449 2,665 1,256 

56 26,411 2,242 3,185 831 3,751 4,137 12,265 

57 27,253 1,133 2,136 2,658 5,817 10,547 4,962 

58 10,315 393 558 582 2,154 3,857 2,771 

† Not applicable. 

NOTE: Faculty strata are defined as 1 = Non-Hispanic Black, 2 = Hispanic, 3 = Asian, 4 = Other full-time female, 

5 = Other full-time male, 6 = Other part-time. Blank strata are NPSAS-only and do not apply to NSOPF. NSoFaS = 

2004 National Study of Faculty and Students. 

SOURCES: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04), U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2002 

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). 

A.4.1 Determining Initial Faculty Sample Sizes and Sample Allocation 

This section provides an overview of the faculty sample selection procedure, which 

includes technical details of the cost/variance optimization process for selection of the initial 

sample sizes as well as specifications for calculation of initial and final (adjusted) sampling 

rates. A customized cost/variance optimization program was developed to determine the desired 

allocation of respondents to institution-by-person strata, which aimed to secure at least the same 

level of precision for key estimates as those achieved during the previous administration of the 

survey. This optimization process consisted of the following steps: 

a. establishing precision requirements for key estimates; 

b. constructing a cost model specific to the structure of the sample; 
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-15 

c. developing a relative variance model; and 

d. determining the optimum sample allocation. 

A.4.2 Precision Requirements for Key Estimates 

The precision goals were to secure national-level survey estimates with precisions 

comparable to or better than those of NSOPF:99 for the overall faculty population. For this 

purpose, the following two publications were reviewed to establish 268 key national-level 

estimates: 

• Background Characteristics, Work Activities, and Compensation of Faculty and 

Instructional Staff in Postsecondary Institutions: Fall 1998 (NCES 2001–152)

(Zimbler 2001); and 

• Salary, Promotion, and Tenure Status of Minority and Women Faculty in U.S. 

Colleges and Universities (NCES 2000–173). (Nettles, Perna, and Bradburn 2000). 

A.4.3 Cost/Variance Optimization 

As mentioned earlier, a customized cost/variance optimization program was developed to 

determine the desired allocation of respondents to institution-by-person strata. The cost model 

necessary to support the cost/variance optimization process was the following: 

240 240 14

0

1 11

h h h hk hk

h hk

C C nC nn C = ===+ + ∑ ∑∑

where C represents the total cost of the NSoFaS, C0 represents the “fixed costs” that do not 

depend on the number of sample institutions or person, Ch represents the variable cost per 

participating institution in stratum h, Chk represents the variable cost per respondent in person 

stratum h within institution stratum k, nh represents the number of participating institutions 

selected from stratum h, and nhk represents the number of responding persons selected from the 

given stratum. 

Only the components of variable cost, Ch and Chk, had to be estimated to support the 

cost/variance optimization. For this purpose, they were estimated using the spreadsheet 

developed for the study budget. The cost per participating institution was then estimated by 

holding the numbers of responding persons constant while varying the numbers of participating 

institutions. Likewise, the variable cost per participant was estimated by holding the number of 

participating institutions constant while varying the number of participating persons. 

A.4.4 Relative Variance Model 

The following model was used to represent the relative variance of estimates in different 

domains: 
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-16 

( ) ( )

∑∑

∑ ∑

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

×

×

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

×

+ + +

+

⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡

× × ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ − ×

× + ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

×

+ + + =

h k dhk hk

dhk hk

gd

gd gd gd gd

gd

h k

dhk hk

h h h

gd md

gd gd gd gd

gd

gd

n

W UWE CV

W UWE

n r N

lVar CV CV

σ σ σ σ α

σ

σ σ σ σ

σ

2

2

2

4

2

3

2

2

2

1

2

4

2 2 2

2

4

2

3

2

2

2

1

2

2 1 1 Re 1

where the parameters of this model were defined for each institution stratum h and person 

stratum k as follows: 

• Wdhk = proportion of domain d members who belong to stratum (h,k) 

• UWEhk = unequal weighting effect within stratum (h,k) 

• 2 σ 1gd = the variance between institution strata 

• 2 σ 2 gd = the variance between institutions within strata 

• 2 σ 3gd = the variance between strata 

• 2 σ 4 gd = the variance between participants within person strata 

•

gd

Tgd

gd y

CV

σ

= = coefficient of variation among observations 

• rh = stratum h institution response rate 

• CVmd = coefficient of variation of cluster sizes (m) among domain d members 

• αdhk = proportion of stratum (h,k) members who belong to domain d

The proportion of domain d members who belong to stratum (h,k), Wdhk, and the 

proportion of stratum (h,k) members who belong to domain d, αdh, were estimated using prior 

survey data. The components of variance ( 2 σ 1gd , 2 σ 2gd , 2 σ 3gd , and 2 σ 4gd ) were computed using the 

method of moments procedures in SAS Proc Nested, which resulted in some negative estimates. 

Unequal weighting effects, UWEhk, were computed based on the statistical analysis weights. 

Since these values were highly variable, it was decided that they were not reliable estimates of 

the unequal weighting effects. Consequently, all the UWEs were set to a constant value of 1.05. 

Finally, the coefficient of variation, CVmd, of cluster sizes was computed for the members of each 

analysis domain using the same prior survey data. 

A.4.5 Optimum Sample Allocation 

The technique developed by Chromy (1987) was used to determine the sample allocation 

for each institution and person strata. This technique aimed to satisfy all precision constraints 

while minimizing the cost and relative variance models discussed earlier. The initial results from 

the optimization process were discussed with the National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) and the Technical Review Panel (TPR) in August 2002 before further refinements were 

applied to the resulting samples. 
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-17 

The results of this initial sample optimization exercise were used as the basis for the 

sample of 1,080 institutions for NSOPF:04. As in previous cycles of NSOPF, all institutions with 

a Carnegie classification as public doctoral or private not-for-profit doctoral institutions were 

selected with certainty. After selecting the sample institutions, further refinements were made to 

determine which binding constraints could be relaxed in the optimization procedure. As 

precision constraints were iteratively relaxed during the optimization process, the sample size 

distributions were constrained to achieve approximately the institution- and person-level 

marginal distributions that were requested by NCES following the August 2002 TRP meeting. 

The optimization process was rerun conditional on the sample of institutions that had already 

been selected to determine the optimum allocation of the faculty sample sizes to these 

institutions. The results of this conditional optimization were used to set the final faculty sample 

rates, as discussed below. Note that the corresponding respondent counts are provided in tables 4 

and 14 in the main body of this methodology report. 

Table A-13. Target number of NSOPF:04 respondents, by institution and faculty strata: 2004 

Institution stratum Respondents Faculty stratum Respondents 

 Total 24,500 Total 24,500 

 

Public doctor’s 6,200 Non-Hispanic Black 1,600 

Public master’s 2,700 Hispanic 1,300 

Public bachelor’s 600 Asian 900 

Public associate’s 7,500 Other full-time female 4,600 

Public other 500 Other full-time male 8,300 

Private not-for-profit doctor’s 2,600 Other part-time 7,800 

Private not-for-profit master’s 1,900 

Private not-for-profit bachelor’s 1,700 

Private not-for-profit associate’s 100 

Private not-for-profit other 700 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

A.5 Sampling Rates 

Initial population-level sampling rates were calculated and adjusted in several steps to 

obtain the final institution-level sampling rates, a brief outline of which is listed below. 

a. Calculation of the initial population-level sampling rates 

b. Calculation of the conditional sampling rates, given the sample institutions 

c. Adjustment of the sampling rates for expected rates of faculty ineligibility and 

nonresponse 

d. Adjustment of the sampling rates for expected rates of institution ineligibility and 

nonresponse 

e. Adjustment of the sampling rates (iteratively) to ensure that 
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-18 

− no cell will have a sampling rate larger than 1; 

− minimum sample size for each institution will be 10; and 

− maximum sample size for each institution will be controlled. 

In order to facilitate communication of computational details, the following notations will 

be used throughout this section. 

− i ∈ [1,58] indexes institutional strata (STRAT58); 

− j ∈ [1,6] indexes faculty strata (FACSTR); 

− k ∈ [1,4] indexes institutional sector (SECTOR);

− Nij+ total number of faculty members in the i-j

th institution-faculty 

stratum; and 

− nij+ required sample of faculty respondents in the i-j

th institutionfaculty stratum. 

A.5.1 Calculation of the Initial Sampling rates 

The initial sampling, which are calculated as the ratio of the required sample sizes and 

population counts within cells indexed by the institutional and faculty strata. That is, 

⎩

⎨

⎧

∈

∈ ==

+

+

[1,6]

[1,58] , 0

j

i

N

n

SR

ij

ij

ij

These rates represent the faculty sampling rates that would be used if a census was to be 

conducted of all institutions, with all institutions being eligible and participating in the study. 

A.5.2 Calculation of the Conditional Sampling Rates 

Faculty sampling rates were computed for the institutions in the sample, conditional on 

the institutions that have been selected (as if they will all be participants). The conditional 

sampling rate was calculated for each sample institution as the product of its initial sampling rate 

and institution sampling weight. That is, the initial conditional sampling rate for the j

th faculty 

stratum in the i

th institutional stratum, given the selection of the lth institution was given by: 

il

ij

ij l

SR

CR

π

0

0 =

Here, πil represents the probability of selection of the l

th sample institution in the ith

institutional stratum. 
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-19 

A.5.3 Adjustment of Conditional Sampling Rates for Expected Rates of Faculty 

Ineligibility and Nonresponse 

Initial sampling rates were adjusted to account for anticipated faculty ineligibility and 

nonresponse. Since the only reliable information for this purpose was available at the institution 

sector level based on results from NSOPF:99, this adjustment was carried out at sector level. The 

needed rates for this adjustment are summarized in Table A-14. 

Table A-14. Faculty level adjustment rates, by institutional sector: 2004 

Sector Percent eligibility rate Percent response rate 

Total 95 73 

Public 2-year 95 70 

Public 4-year 95 75 

Private not-for-profit 2-year 95 69 

Private not-for-profit 4-year 95 70 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

With FEk and FRk representing the expected rates of faculty level eligibility and response 

for the k

th sector, respectively, the adjusted sampling rate to account for faculty level attrition for 

the j

th faculty stratum for all institutions in the kth institutional sector is given by: 

k k

ij l ij l FE FR

CR CR0 1 1

|

1

| = × ×

Because of the above adjustment and because some sample institutions were expected to 

be ineligible, application of the resulting sampling rates to the frame counts for the eligible 

sample institutions could produce sample sizes that are far from the proposed total sample of 

35,671 faculty members. Consequently, the adjusted sampling rates were ratio-adjusted to the 

desired total in two steps. First, the revised sample size for the j

th faculty stratum in the ith

institutional stratum was computed as follows, where Nijl represents the l

th institution in the (i-j)th

stratum: 

( ) ⎩

⎨

⎧

∈

∈

× = ×

∑ + + [1,6]

[1,58] , 35,671

1

|

1

j

i

N CR

n n

ijl

ijl ij l

ij ij

Next, verifying that ∑ = ijl

ijl CRij l N x 35,671, 2

| the ratio-adjusted sampling rates were 

calculated for the eligible sample institutions as: 

ij k k il

ij

ij l N FE FR

n

CR

π

1 1 1 1

2

| = × × ×

+

+
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-20 

A.5.4 Adjustment of Sampling Rates for Expected Rates of Institution Ineligibility 

and Nonresponse 

The above rates were further adjusted to account for anticipated institution level 

ineligibility and nonresponse, as summarized in table A-15. With IEk and IRk representing the 

expected rates of institution level eligibility and response for the k

th sector, the revised rates were 

calculated as: 

k k

ij l ij l IE IR

CR CR2 1 1

|

3

| = × ×

These calculations were performed on the data file of all eligible sample institutions 

among the final sample of 1,080 institutions. The eligibility rate, IEk, was set to 1.00 for all 

institutions that were known to be eligible. The eligibility was known for all institutions. 

Table A-15. Institution level adjustment rates by institutional sector (rates based on the revised 

RTI proposal for the 2004 National Study of Faculty and Students): 2004 

Sector Percent eligibility rate Percent response rate 

Total 99 87 

Public 2-year 99 84 

Public 4-year 100 90 

Private not-for-profit 2-year 95 95 

Private not-for-profit 4-year 100 83 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Again, because of the above adjustment, the resulting total sample of faculty members 

was larger than the proposed sample of 35,671. The resulting total count for each institutionfaculty stratum was calculated to be used for further adjustments, by: 

= ∑( × ) +

l

ij Nijl CRij l n 3

|

*

A.5.5 Final Adjustment of Sampling Rates 

The final sampling rates must satisfy a number of design requirements before they could 

be used for selection of sample faculty members. Specifically, all sampling rates should be 

bound by 1 while ensuring that the resulting sample sizes are between 10 and a reasonable 

maximum for each sample institution. Achieving these objectives, starting with the above initial 

conditional sampling rates, entailed an iterative process as described next. 

• Calculate the revised sample size for the j

th faculty stratum of the lth sample 

institution in the i

th institutional stratum by: 

− Let Max =1,000

− 3

|

1 Let ijl Nijl CRij l n = ×
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-21 

− ijl ijl ijl Nijl n > N n = 1 1 If Then 

− 1

1 1 1 1 If Then 

i l

ijl ijl

j

i l ijl n

Max

n n Max n n

+

+ = ∑ > = ×

− 1

1 1 1 10 If 10 Then 

i l

i l ijl ijl n

n n n

+

+ < = ×

− 1

*

1 * 1 1 If Then 

+

+

∑ ≠ + = ×

ij

ij

ij ijl ijl

l

ijl n

n

n n n n

• Review the distribution of the total sample size for each institution, ni+l, to detect 

potential outliers. Subsequently, the value of Max will be set to a new limit, which is 

determined after implementation of the above step. 

• Next, the subsequent conditional sampling rates should be calculated as the ratio of 

the latest sample sizes and their corresponding population counts. That is, 

ijl

ijl

ij l N

n

CR

1

4

| =

• Calculate the next revised sample size for the j

th faculty stratum of the lth sample 

institution in the i

th institutional stratum by: 

− 4

|

2 Let ijl Nijl CRij l n = ×

− ijl ijl ijl Nijl n > N n = 2 2 If Then 

− 2

2 2 2 2 If Then 

i l

ijl ijl

j

i l ijl n

Max

n n Max n n

+

+ = ∑ > = ×

− 2

2 2 2 10 If 10 Then 

i l

i l ijl ijl n

n n n

+

+ < = ×

− 2

*

2 * 2 2 If Then 

+

+

∑ ≠ + = ×

ij

ij

ij ijl ijl

l

ijl n

n

n n n n

The above steps were repeated until no more adjustments were needed. That is, until all 

sampling rates were less than or equal to one, no institution sample size was less than 10 or 

greater than the established maximum number, and the sample size was close to what was 

expected for every institution-faculty stratum. At this point, the final sampling rates were 

calculated by: 

ijl

f

ijl f

ij l N

n

CR | =

A.6 Faculty Sample Selection 

Faculty members were sampled as faculty lists were received for participating 

institutions. Prior to selecting the faculty sample for a given institution, expected sample sizes 
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-22 

for each faculty stratum were calculated using the institution-specific faculty list counts and 

sampling rates. Now that the actual list counts were available these sampling rates were then 

modified, as necessary, for the reasons given below. 

• Rates were increased across all faculty strata to ensure that at least ten faculty 

members were selected from each institution, if possible. 

• Rates were increased within faculty strata to guarantee that at least one faculty 

member was selected per stratum, when the calculated rates called for selection of 

less than one faculty, if possible. 

• The sample yield was monitored throughout the months during which faculty lists 

were received, and the faculty sampling rates were adjusted periodically for 

institutions for which sample selection had not yet been performed to ensure that the 

desired faculty sample sizes were achieved. 

Stratified systematic sampling was used to select faculty members from the faculty lists. 

Using PROC SURVEYSELECT in SAS, lists were sorted in a serpentine fashion by the 

academic field, race/ethnicity, gender, and employment status of the faculty members, and 

individuals were systematically selected within faculty strata. 

These procedures had to be modified for lists that were received on hard copy. Quite 

often, these paper lists contained little information about the faculty members’ race/ethnicity, 

gender, and employment status. When this information was not available, and therefore faculty 

strata could not be identified, a systematic sample of faculty was selected using the overall 

sampling rate for the institution. If this personal data was provided, however, a systematic 

sample was selected using the largest stratum-specific sampling rate. This initial sample (subframe) was then keyed to create an electronic file to avoid data entry for the entire list. 

Subsequently, however, extra faculty members were subsampled out using PROC 

SURVEYSELECT to achieve the needed allocation of faculty from the given institution. 

After the sample of faculty had been selected for an institution, the available information 

of the sample faculty members, including name, academic field, institution, race/ethnicity, and 

residence, was compared to that of faculty who had already been selected from other institutions. 

When duplicates were detected, the duplicate was eliminated from the sample of the current 

institution so that no faculty member would be included in the sample twice. 

Once the de-duplication process was complete and the final sample file was created, the 

final step in sample selection was to add the institution’s final sample file to the master dataset. 

The master dataset contained all sampled faculty members and their relevant sampling 

information. 

A.7 Appendix A References 

Chromy, J.R. (1987). Design Optimization with Multiple Objectives. Proceedings of the

American Statistical Association Section on Social Statistics 194-199. 
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-23 

Kojaku, L. and Nuñez, A. (1998). Descriptive Summary of 1995-96 Beginning Postsecondary 

Students, With Profiles of Students Entering 2- and 4-Year Institutions (NCES 1999–030). 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Nettles, M.T., Perna, L.W., and Bradburn, E.M. (2000). Salary, Promotion, and Tenure Status of 

Minority and Women Faculty in U.S. Colleges and Universities (NCES 2000–173). U.S. 

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington DC: U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2001). National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study: Student Financial Aid Estimates for 1999–2000 (NCES 

2001–209). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Zimbler, L.J. (2001). Background Characteristics, Work Activities, and Compensation of Faculty 

and Instructional Staff in Postsecondary Institutions: Fall 1998 (NCES 2001–152). 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 
Appendix A. Sampling Details 

A-24 
B-1 

Appendix B 

Technical Review Panel 

Appendix B. Technical Review Panel 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) 

Technical Review Panel 

B-3 

Eugene Anderson 

Research Associate 

American Council on Education 

Center for Policy Analysis & 

Office of Minorities in Higher Education 

One Dupont Circle NW 

Washington, DC 20036-1193 

 Telephone: (202) 939-9393 

 Fax: (202) 785-2990 

 E-mail: eugene_anderson@ace.nche.edu

Roger Baldwin 

Professor 

Michigan State University 

429 Erickson Hall 

East Lansing, MI 48824 

 Telephone: (517) 355-6452 

 Fax: (517) 353-6393 

 E-mail: rbaldwin@msu.edu

Ernst Benjamin 

Senior Consultant 

American Association of University Professors 

1012 14th Street NW 

Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20005-3465 

 Telephone: (202) 737-5900 

 E-mail: j1260@earthlink.net

May Chen 

Assistant Vice Chancellor 

Community College of Baltimore County 

800 South Rolling Road 

Baltimore, MD 21228-5317 

 Telephone: (410) 869-1135 

 Fax: (410) 869-1265 

 E-mail: mchen@ccbcmd.edu

Peggye Cohen 

Assistant VP for Institutional Research 

George Washington University 

2122 I Street NW 

Suite 809 

Washington, DC 20052 

 Telephone: (202) 994-6509 

 Fax: (202) 994-0709 

 E-mail: peggye@gwu.edu

Valerie Conley 

Assistant Professor 

Ohio University 

Department of Counseling and Higher Education 

McCracken Hall 388 

Athens, OH 45701 

 Telephone: (740) 593-9426 

 Fax: (740) 593-0477 

 E-mail: conleyv@ohio.edu

John Curtis 

Director of Research 

American Association of University Professors 

1012 14th Street NW 

Suite 500 

Washington, DC 20005-3465 

 Telephone: (202) 737-5900 Ext. 3049 

 Fax: (202) 737-5526 

 E-mail: jcurtis@aaup.org

Eric Dey 

Associate Professor 

University of Michigan 

610 East University 

2117 School of Education Building 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259 

 Telephone: (734) 647-1651 

 Fax: (734) 764-2510 

 E-mail: dey@umich.edu
Appendix B. Technical Review Panel 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) 

Technical Review Panel—Continued 

B-4 

Elaine El-Khawas 

Professor 

George Washington University 

Dept. of Educational Leadership 

2134 G Street NW 

Washington, DC 20052 

 Telephone: (202) 994-2196 

 E-mail: elkhawas@gwu.edu

James Fairweather 

Professor 

Michigan State University 

416 Erickson Hall 

East Lansing, MI 48824 

 Telephone: (517) 353-3387 

 Fax: (517) 353-6393 

 E-mail: fairwea4@msu.edu

Martin Finkelstein 

Professor 

Seton Hall University 

Department of Educational Leadership, 

Management and Policy (ELMP) 

418 Kozlowski Hall 

South Orange, NJ 07079 

 Telephone: (973) 275-2056 

 Fax: (201) 761-9758 

 E-mail: finkelma@shu.edu

Jon Fuller 

Senior Fellow 

National Association of Independent Colleges 

and Universities 

4 Brian Drive 

Carlisle, PA 17013 

 Telephone: (717) 240-0462 

 Fax: (717) 240-0486 

 E-mail: jon@naicu.edu

Rachel Hendrickson 

Coordinator of Higher Education Programs 

National Education Association 

1201 16th Street NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

 Telephone: (202) 822-7115 

 Fax: (202) 822-7624 

 E-mail: Rhendrickso@nea.org

Frederick Jacobs 

Professor 

American University 

School of Education 

4400 Massachusetts Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20016-8030 

 Telephone: (202) 885-1187 

 Fax: (202) 885-2124 

 E-mail: fredj@american.edu

Jacqueline King 

Director, Center for Policy Analysis 

American Council on Education 

One Dupont Circle NW 

Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20036 

 Telephone: (202) 939-9559 

 Fax: (202) 785-2990 

 E-mail: jacqueline_king@ace.nche.edu

David Leslie 

Chancellor 

College of William and Mary 

School of Education 

324 Jones Hall 

P.O. Box 8795 

Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795 

 Telephone: (757) 221-2349 

 Fax: (757) 221-2988 

 E-mail: dwlesl@wm.edu
Appendix B. Technical Review Panel 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) 

Technical Review Panel—Continued 

B-5 

Jennifer Lindholm 

Associate Director CIRP 

Higher Education Research Institute 

UCLA/GSEIS 

3005 Moore Hall 

Box 951521 

Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 

 Telephone: (310) 825-8622 

 Fax: (310) 206-2228 

 E-mail: jlindhol@ucla.edu

Alexander McCormick 

Senior Scholar 

The Carnegie Foundation 

51 Vista Lane 

Stanford, CA 94305 

 Telephone: (650) 566-5149 

 Fax: (650) 326-0278 

 E-mail: mccormick@carnegiefoundation.org

Mike Middaugh 

Assistant VP Office of Institutional Research 

University of Delaware 

325 Hullihen Hall 

Newark, DE 19716 

 Telephone: (302) 831-2021 

 Fax: (302) 831-8530 

 E-mail: middaugh@udel.edu

Michael Nettles 

Executive Director 

Educational Testing Service 

Center for Policy Studies & Research 

Rosedale Road, R028, Mailstop 19-R 

Princeton, NJ 08541 

 Telephone: (609) 734-1236 

 Fax: (609) 734-1755 

 E-mail: mnettles@ets.org

James Palmer 

Professor 

Illinois State University 

Educational Administration and Foundations 

Campus Box 5900 

De Garmo Hall 341 

Normal, IL 61790-5900 

 Telephone: (309) 438-2041 

 Fax: (309) 438-8683 

 E-mail: jcpalmer@ilstu.edu

Kent Phillippe 

Senior Research Associate 

American Association of Community Colleges 

One Dupont Circle NW 

Suite 410 

Washington, DC 20036 

 Telephone: (202) 728-0200 Ext. 222 

 Fax: (202) 833-2467 

 E-mail: kphillippe@aacc.nche.edu

Richard Richardson 

Professor 

New York University 

239 Greene Street 

Suite 300 

New York, NY 10003-6674 

 Telephone: (212) 998-5640 

 Fax: (212) 995-4041 

 E-mail: richard.richardson@nyu.edu

Terrence Russell 

Executive Director 

Association for Institutional Research 

Florida State University 

222 Stone Building 

600 West College Avenue 

Tallahassee, FL 32306-4462 

 Telephone: (850) 644-4470 

 Fax: (850) 644-8824 

 E-mail: trussell@mailer.fsu.edu
Appendix B. Technical Review Panel 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) 

Technical Review Panel—Continued 

B-6 

Jack Schuster 

Professor 

Claremont Graduate University 

School of Educational Studies 

Harper Hall 202 

150 East 10th Street 

Claremont, CA 91711-6160 

 Telephone: (909) 607-3795 

 E-mail: jack.schuster@cgu.edu

Craig Smith 

Assistant Director 

American Federation of Teachers 

555 New Jersey Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

 Telephone: (202) 879-4559 

 Fax: (202) 393-6386 

 E-mail: csmith@aft.org

Peter Syverson 

Vice President for Research 

Council of Graduate Schools 

Suite 430 

One Dupont Circle NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

 Telephone: (202) 223-3791 

 Fax: (202) 331-7157 

 E-mail: psyverson@cgs.nche.edu

Robert Toutkoushian 

Associate Professor 

Indiana University 

Department of Educational Leadership and 

Policy Studies 

201 North Rose Ave 

Education 4220 

Bloomington, IN 47405 

 Telephone: (812) 856-8395 

 E-mail: rtoutkou@indiana.edu

Holly Zanville 

Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs 

University of Oregon Campus 

Oregon State System of Higher Education 

Susan Campbell Hall 

P.O. Box 3175 

Eugene, OR 97403-1075 

 Telephone: (541) 346-5726 

 Fax: (541) 346-5764 

 E-mail: holly_zanville@ous.edu

National Association of Student Financial Aid 

Administrators (NASFAA) 

Mary Ann O’Connor 

Project Director 

National Association of Student Financial Aid 

Administrators (NASFAA) 

1129 20th Street NW 

Suite 400 

Washington, DC 20036 

 Telephone: (202) 785-0453 

 Fax: (202) 785-1487 

 E-mail: oconnorm@nasfaa.org

Kenneth Redd 

Director of Research and Policy Analysis 

National Association of Student Financial Aid 

Administrators (NASFAA) 

1129 20th Street NW 

Suite 400 

Washington, DC 20036-3453 

 Telephone: (202) 785-0453 

 Fax: (202) 785-1487 

 E-mail: reddk@nasfaa.org
Appendix B. Technical Review Panel 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) 

Staff Contact List 

B-7 

U.S. Department of Education/ 

U.S. Government 

Elizabeth Hoover 

Contract Specialist 

U.S. Department of Education 

550 12th Street, SW 

Room 7116 

Washington, DC 20202-4447 

 Telephone: (203) 245-6166 

 E-mail: elizabeth.hoover@ed.gov

Maggie Cahalan 

Team Leader, Secondary/Postsecondary Crosscutting Program 

Policy and Program Studies Service, 

U.S. Department of Education 

400 Maryland Avenue SW 

Room 6W118 

Washington, DC 20202

 Telephone: (202) 401-1679 

 Fax: (202) 401-5943 

 E-mail: margaret.cahalan@ed.gov

C. Dennis Carroll 

Associate Commissioner, Postsecondary Studies 

Division 

National Center for Education Statistics, 

U.S. Department of Education 

1990 K Street NW 

Room 8107 

Washington, DC 20006-5652 

 Telephone: (202) 502-7323 

 Fax: (202) 502-7460 

 E-mail: dennis.carroll@ed.gov

Michael Cohen 

Assistant Director for Survey Programs 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics 

400 7th Street SW 

Room 4432 

Washington, DC 20590 

 Telephone: (202) 366-9949 

 Fax: (202) 366-3385 

 E-mail: michael.cohen@bts.gov

James Griffith 

Program Director, Postsecondary Longitudinal 

and Sample Survey Studies-Postsecondary 

Studies Division 

National Center for Education Statistics 

U.S. Department of Education 

1990 K Street NW 

Room 8005 

Washington, DC 20006 

 Telephone: (202) 502-7387 

 Fax: (202) 502-7460 

 E-mail: James.Griffith@ed.gov

Brian Harris-Kojetin 

Senior Statistician 

Statistical Programs and Standards 

Office of Management and Budget 

725 17th Street NW 

Room 10201 

Washington, DC 20503 

 Telephone: (202) 395-3093 

 Fax: (202) 395-7245 

 E-mail: bharrisk@omb.eop.gov

Gregory Henschel 

Program Analyst 

National Institute on Postsecondary Education, 

Libraries and Lifelong Learning 

Institute of Education Sciences, 

U.S. Department of Education 

555 New Jersey Avenue NW 

Suite 627 

Washington, DC 20208-5531 

 Telephone: (202) 219-2082 

 Fax: (202) 501-3005 

 E-mail: gregory.henschel@ed.gov
Appendix B. Technical Review Panel 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) 

Staff Contact List—Continued 

B-8 

Ricardo Hernandez 

Lead Research Analyst 

Office of Vocational and Adult Education 

(OVAE), U.S. Department of Education 

Organizational Structure and Offices 

Potomac Center Plaza 

550 12th Street SW 

Room 11137 

Washington, DC 20065 

 Telephone: (202) 245-7818 

 Fax: (202) 205-8793 

 E-mail: Ricardo.Hernandez@ed.gov

Lisa Hudson 

Education Statistician 

National Center for Education Statistics, 

U.S. Department of Education 

1990 K Street NW 

Room 9035 

Washington, DC 20006 

 Telephone: (202) 502-7358 

 Fax: (202) 502-7490 

 E-mail: lisa.hudson@ed.gov

Tracy Hunt-White 

Education Statistician 

National Center for Education Statistics, 

U.S. Department of Education 

1990 K Street NW 

Room 8121 

Washington, DC 20006 

 Telephone: (202) 502-7438 

 Fax: (202) 502-7460 

 E-mail: tracy.hunt-white@ed.gov

Paula Knepper 

Senior Technical Advisor, Postsecondary 

Studies Division 

National Center for Education Statistics, 

U.S. Department of Education 

1990 K Street NW 

Room 8104 

Washington, DC 20006-5652 

 Telephone: (202) 502-7367 

 Fax: (202) 502-7372 

 E-mail: paula.knepper@ed.gov

Roslyn Korb 

Program Director 

Postsecondary Cooperative Programs and 

Analysis and Dissemination Program, 

Postsecondary Studies Division, 

National Center for Education Statistics 

U.S. Department of Education, NCES 

1990 K Street NW 

Room 8132 

Washington, DC 20006-5652 

 Telephone: (202) 502-7378 

 Fax: (202) 219-1529 

 E-mail: roslyn.korb@ed.gov

Edith McArthur 

Demographer 

National Center for Education Statistics, 

U.S. Department of Education 

1990 K Street NW 

Room 9115 

Washington, DC 20006-5652 

 Telephone: (202) 502-7393 

 Fax: (202) 502-7490 

 E-mail: edith.mcarthur@ed.gov
Appendix B. Technical Review Panel 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) 

Staff Contact List—Continued 

B-9 

Frank Shaw 

Budget Analyst 

National Endowment for the Humanities 

Office of Planning and Budget 

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Room 403 

Washington, DC 20506 

 Telephone: (202) 606-8428 

 Fax: (202) 606-8619 

 E-mail: fshaw@neh.fed.us

Larry Suter 

National Science Foundation 

Research, Evaluation, and Communications 

4201 Wilson Boulevard 

Suite 855 

Arlington, VA 22230 

 Telephone: (703) 306-1650 

 Fax: (703) 306-0434 

 E-mail: lsuter@nsf.gov

Linda Zimbler 

Project Officer, NSOPF:04 

National Center for Education Statistics, 

U.S. Department of Education, 

1990 K Street NW 

Room 8123 

Washington, DC 20006-5652 

 Telephone: (202) 502-7481 

 E-mail: linda.zimbler@ed.gov

MPR Associates 

Ellen Bradburn 

Senior Research Associate 

MPR Associates 

2150 Shattuck Avenue 

Suite 800 

Berkeley, CA 94704 

 Telephone: (510) 849-4942 

 Fax: (510) 849-0794 

 E-mail: ebradburn@mprinc.com

Susan Choy 

Vice President 

MPR Associates, Inc. 

2150 Shattuck Avenue 

Suite 800 

Berkeley, CA 94704 

 Telephone: (510) 849-4942 

 Fax: (510) 849-0794 

 E-mail: schoy@mprinc.com

Gary Hoachlander 

President 

MPR Associates 

2150 Shattuck Avenue 

Suite 800 

Berkeley, CA 94704 

 Telephone: (510) 849-4942 

 Fax: (510) 849-0794 

 E-mail: ghoachlander@mprinc.com
Appendix B. Technical Review Panel 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) 

Staff Contact List—Continued 

B-10 

Pinkerton Computer Consultants, Inc. 

Daniel Heffron 

Statistician 

Pinkerton Computer Consultants, Inc. 

2750 Prosperity Avenue 

Suite 300 

Fairfax, VA 22031 

 Telephone: (703) 245-7388 

 Fax: (703) 245-7560 

 E-mail: heffrond@pcci.com

RTI International 

Janet Austin 

Technical Staff Assistant/TRP Coordinator 

RTI International 

P.O. Box 12194 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

 Telephone: (919) 541-7101 

 Fax: (919) 541-7014 

 E-mail: jra@rti.org

Lisa Carley-Baxter 

Survey Manager, NSOPF 

RTI International 

P.O. Box 12194 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

 Telephone: (919) 485-2616 

 Fax: (919) 541-1261 

 E-mail: lcbaxter@rti.org

James Chromy 

Senior Statistical Advisor 

RTI International 

P.O. Box 12194 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

 Telephone: (919) 541-7019 

 Fax: (919) 541-6416 

 E-mail: jrc@rti.org

Jayme Curry-Tucker 

Education Analyst 

RTI International 

P.O. Box 12194 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

 Telephone: (919) 485-5592 

 Fax: (919) 541-7014 

 E-mail: jcurry@rti.org

T.R. Curtin 

Instrumentation Task Leader, NSOPF 

RTI International 

P.O. Box 12194 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

 Telephone: (919) 541-6538 

 Fax: (919) 541-7014 

 E-mail: trc@rti.org

Mansour Fahimi 

Statistical Task Leader, NSOPF 

RTI International 

6110 Executive Boulevard 

Suite 420 

Rockville, MD 20852-3907 

 Telephone: (301) 230-4675 

 Fax: (301) 230-4647 

 E-mail: fahimi@rti.org

Patricia Green 

Project Director, NSOPF 

RTI International 

203 North Wabash 

Suite 1900 

Chicago, IL 60601 

 Telephone: (312) 456-5260 

 Fax: (312) 456-5250 

 E-mail: pgreen @rti.org
Appendix B. Technical Review Panel 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) 

Staff Contact List—Continued 

B-11 

Ruth Heuer 

Methodology Report Task Leader, NSOPF 

RTI International 

P.O. Box 12194 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

 Telephone: (919) 541-6457 

 Fax: (919) 541-7014 

 E-mail: heuer@rti.org

Marjorie Hinsdale-Shouse 

Data Collection Task Leader, NSOPF 

RTI International 

P.O. Box 12194 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

 Telephone: (919) 541-7368 

 Fax: (919) 541-7250 

 E-mail: mhs@rti.org

Donna Jewell 

Deputy Project Director, NSOPF 

RTI International 

P.O. Box 12194 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

 Telephone: (919) 541-7266 

 Fax: (919) 541-6178 

 E-mail: dmj@rti.org

Brian Kuhr 

Institutional Coordinator, NSoFaS 

RTI International 

203 North Wabash 

Suite 1900 

Chicago, IL 60601 

 Telephone: (312) 456-5263 

 Fax: (312) 456-5250 

 E-mail: bdk@rti.org

John Riccobono 

Director, Education Surveys Division 

RTI International 

P.O. Box 12194 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

 Telephone: (919) 541-7006 

 Fax: (919) 541-7014 

 E-mail: jar@rti.org

Peter Siegel 

Research Statistician 

RTI International 

P.O. Box 12194 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

 Telephone: (919) 541-6348 

 Fax: (919) 541-6416 

 E-mail: siegel@rti.org
Appendix B. Technical Review Panel 

B-12 
C-1 

Appendix C 

Facsimile Instruments 

Institution Instrument.......................................................................................................C-3 

Faculty Instrument .........................................................................................................C-19

C-3 

Institution Instrument 

Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-5 

NSOPF:04 Institution Instrument 

Full-Scale Study Facsimile 

Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-7 

►Introduction: Number of Faculty and Instructional Staff 

Form: I1 

Name: I1a Label: Number full-time faculty, fall 2003, reported 

Name: I1b Label: Number part-time faculty, fall 2003 

Form Administered To:

All institutions 

StemWording: 

As of November 1, 2003 (or during the Fall Term of the 2003-2004 academic year when your faculty 

lists are considered complete), how many full-time and part-time faculty and instructional staff were 

employed by [FILL INSTNAME]? Please report the total number of persons (i.e., headcount) rather 

than full-time equivalents (FTEs). (Please enter a number in each box; if none, enter "0".)

NOTE: By faculty and instructional staff, we mean any faculty PLUS any other employees 

with instructional responsibilities, regardless of whether or not they have faculty status. 

Please choose "Help" for additional details. 

* a. Full-time faculty and instructional staff. 

* b. Part-time faculty and instructional staff. 

►SECTION A: Full-Time Faculty and Instructional Staff

Form: I2 

Name: I2a Label: Full-time numbers: faculty, fall 2002 

Name: I2b Label: Full-time numbers: changed from part to full time, 2002-03 

Name: I2c Label: Full-time numbers: hired, 2002-03 

Name: I2d Label: Full-time numbers: retired, 2002-03 

Name: I2e Label: Full-time numbers: left for other reasons, 2002-03 

Name: I2f Label: Full-time numbers: changed from full to part time, 2002-03 

Name: I2g Label: Full-time numbers: faculty, fall 2003, calculated 

Form Administered To:

Institutions with full-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording: 

Please provide the following information about changes in the number of full-time faculty and 

instructional staff between the 2002 and 2003 Fall Terms at this institution. (Please enter a 

number in each box; if none, enter "0".) 

* a. Total at start of 2002-2003 academic year (on or about November 1, 2002) 

* b. Number who changed from part-time to full-time status during 2002-2003 academic year 

(between Nov. 1, 2002 and Nov. 1, 2003) 

* c. Number of new hires during 2002-2003 academic year 

* d. Number retired between Nov. 1, 2002 and Nov. 1, 2003 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-8 

* e. Number who left for other reasons during 2002-2003 academic year 

* f. Number changed from full-time to part-time status during the 2002-2003 academic year 

* g. Total number as of Nov. 1, 2003 (or at the start of the 2003-04 academic year) 

Form: I2A Label: Full-time numbers: inconsistent count reason 

Form Administered To:

Institutions with full-time faculty and instructional staff whose provided counts of full-time faculty 

and instructional staff are inconsistent (I1a ≠ I2g) 

StemWording: 

You provided two different counts of the number of full-time faculty as of November 1, 2003: ( I1a 

= [FILL I1a] and I2g = [FILL I2g]) . Please back up and correct the number or provide an 

explanation of this discrepancy. 

Reason for discrepancy: [ ] 

Form: I3 Label: Full-time tenure: has tenure system 

Form Administered To:

Institutions with full-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

Does [FILL INSTNAME] have a tenure system for any full-time faculty and instructional staff? 

1 = Yes, has a tenure system 

2 = Currently no tenure system, but still have tenured staff 

3 = No tenure system 

Form: I4 Label: Full-time tenure: number considered for tenure, 2002-03 

Form Administered To:

Institutions with a tenure system for full-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording: 

During the 2002-2003 academic year (i.e., Fall 2002 through Spring 2003), how many full-time 

faculty and instructional staff at your institution were considered for tenure? 

* (Please enter a number in the box; if none, enter "0".)
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-9 

Form: I5 Label: Full-time tenure: number granted tenure, 2002-03 

Form Administered To:

Institutions with a tenure system for full-time faculty and instructional staff who considered at least 

one faculty member for tenure during the 2002-2003 academic year 

StemWording:

Of the [FILL I4] faculty members considered for tenure during the 2002-2003 academic year, how 

many were granted tenure? 

* (If none, enter "0".)

Form: I6 Label: Full-time tenure: maximum years on tenure track 

Form Administered To:

Institutions with a tenure system for full-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording: 

For those on a tenure track but not tenured, what is the maximum number of years full-time faculty 

and instructional staff can be on a tenure track and not receive tenure at [FILL INSTNAME] ? 

 0 = No maximum 

 1 = 1 

 2 = 2 

 . 

 . 

 . 

15 = 15 

16 = More than 15 years 

Form: I7 

Name: I7a Label: Full-time tenure: changed tenure policy 

Name: I7b Label: Full-time tenure: more stringent tenure standards 

Name: I7c Label: Full-time tenure: downsized tenured faculty 

Name: I7d Label: Full-time tenure: replaced tenured with fixed term 

Name: I7e Label: Full-time tenure: offered early retirement 

Form Administered To:

Institutions with a tenure system for full-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording: 

During the past five years, has your institution done any of the following? 

* a. Changed policy for granting tenure to full-time faculty and instructional staff 

* b. Made the standards more stringent for granting tenure to full-time faculty 

and instructional staff 

* c. Reduced the number of tenured full-time faculty and instructional staff through 

downsizing 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-10 

* d. Replaced some tenured or tenure-track full-time faculty and instructional staff with 

full-time faculty and instructional staff on fixed term contracts 

* e. Offered early or phased retirement to any tenured full-time faculty or 

instructional staff 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

Form: I7SP 

Name: I7e2 Label: Full-time tenure: number early retirees, last 5 years 

Form Administered To:

Institutions offering early or phased retirement to any tenured full-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording: 

You said your institution offered early or phased retirement. How many full-time faculty and 

instructional staff took this during the past five years? 

* (If none, enter "0")

Form: I8 Label: Full-time tenure: discontinued tenure system, last 5 years 

Form Administered To:

Institutions with no tenure system for full-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording: 

Did [FILL INSTNAME] discontinue the tenure system within the last five years? 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

Form: I9 Label: Full-time faculty: positions sought to fill, fall 2003 

Form Administered To:

Institutions with full-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording: 

How many full-time faculty and instructional staff positions was your institution seeking to fill for the 

2003 Fall Term? 

* (If none, enter "0")
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-11 

Form: I10a 

Name: I10aa Label: Full-time benefit: medical insurance 

Name: I10ab Label: Full-time benefit: dental insurance 

Name: I10ac Label: Full-time benefit: disability insurance 

Name: I10ad Label: Full-time benefit: life insurance 

Name: I10ae Label: Full-time benefit: child care 

Name: I10af Label: Full-time benefit: retiree medical insurance 

Name: I10ag Label: Full-time benefit: cafeteria-style plan 

Form Administered To:

Institutions with full-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording: 

Are the following employee benefits available to all, some, or none of the full-time faculty 

and instructional staff at [FILL INSTNAME]? 

* a. Medical insurance or medical care 

* b. Dental insurance or dental care 

* c. Disability insurance program 

* d. Life insurance 

* e. Child care 

* f. Medical insurance for retirees 

* g. "Cafeteria-style" benefits plan (a plan under which staff can trade off 

some benefits for others, following guidelines established by the institution) 

–1 = Don’t know 

 1 = All 

 2 = Some 

 3 = None 

Form: I10b 

Name: I10ba Label: Full-time benefit: medical insurance subsidized 

Name: I10bb Label: Full-time benefit: dental insurance subsidized 

Name: I10bc Label: Full-time benefit: disability insurance subsidized 

Name: I10bd Label: Full-time benefit: life insurance subsidized 

Name: I10be Label: Full-time benefit: child care subsidized 

Name: I10bf Label: Full-time benefit: retiree medical insurance subsidized 

Name: I10bg Label: Full-time benefit: cafeteria-style plan subsidized 

Form Administered To:

Institutions that provide at least one employee benefit to full-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording: 

[IF ONE BENEFIT SELECTED ON FORM I10] Is this employee benefit subsidized by your institution? 

(Subsidized means paid for completely or in part by the institution.) 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-12 

[ELSE IF MORE THAN ONE BENEFIT SECTED ON FORM I10A]Are these employee benefits 

subsidized by your institution? (Subsidized means paid for completely or in part by the institution.) 

[ENDIF] 

* Medical insurance or medical care 

* Dental insurance or dental care 

* Disability insurance program 

* Life insurance 

* Child care 

* Medical insurance for retirees 

* Cafeteria-style benefits plan (a plan under which staff can trade off some benefits 

for others, following guidelines established by the institution) 

0 = Not subsidized 

1 = Fully/partially subsidized 

Form: I11 

Name: I11a Label: Full-time benefit: wellness program 

Name: I11b Label: Full-time benefit: spouse tuition remission 

Name: I11c Label: Full-time benefit: children tuition remission 

Name: I11d Label: Full-time benefit: housing 

Name: I11e Label: Full-time benefit: transportation/parking 

Name: I11f Label: Full-time benefit: paid maternity leave 

Name: I11g Label: Full-time benefit: paid paternity leave 

Name: I11h Label: Full-time benefit: paid sabbatical leave 

Name: I11i Label: Full-time benefit: employee assistance program 

Form Administered To:

Institutions with full-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording: 

Are the following employee benefits available to all, some, or none of the full-time faculty and 

instructional staff at [FILL INSTNAME]? 

* a. Wellness program or health promotion 

* b. Tuition remission/grants for spouse at this or other institutions 

* c. Tuition remission/grants for children at this or other institutions 

* d. Housing/mortgage; rent 

* e. Transportation/parking 

* f. Paid maternity leave 

* g. Paid paternity leave 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-13 

* h. Paid sabbatical leave 

* i. Employee assistance program 

–1 = Don’t know 

 1 = All 

 2 = Some 

 3 = None 

Form: I12 Label: Full-time faculty: union representation 

Form Administered To:

Institutions with full-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording: 

Are any full-time faculty and instructional staff legally represented by a union (or other association) 

for purposes of collective bargaining with [FILL INSTNAME]? 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

Form: I13 

Name: I13a Label: Full-time assessment: student evaluations 

Name: I13b Label: Full-time assessment: student test scores 

Name: I13c Label: Full-time assessment: student career placement 

Name: I13d Label: Full-time assessment: other student performance 

Name: I13e Label: Full-time assessment: department chair evaluations 

Name: I13f Label: Full-time assessment: dean evaluations 

Name: I13g Label: Full-time assessment: peer evaluations 

Name: I13h Label: Full-time assessment: self-evaluations 

Form Administered To:

Institutions with full-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording: 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of full-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? 

Used for Teaching Assessment: 

* a. Student evaluations 

* b. Student test scores 

* c. Student career placement 

* d. Other measures of student performance 

* e. Department/division chair evaluations 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-14 

* f. Dean evaluations 

* g. Peer evaluations 

* h. Self-evaluations 

–1 = Don’t know 

 0 = No 

 1 = Yes 

►SECTION B: Part-Time Faculty and Instructional Staff 

Form: I14 Label: Part-time benefit: retirement plan 

Form Administered To:

Institutions with part-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording: 

In this next section, we will be asking you to consider [FILL INSTNAME]'s part-time faculty and 

instructional staff. 

Are any retirement plans available to part-time faculty or instructional staff at your institution? 

0 = Not available to any part-time faculty and instructional staff 

1 = Yes, available to some part-time faculty and instructional staff 

2 = Yes, available to most part-time faculty and instructional staff 

3 = Yes, available to all part-time faculty and instructional staff 

(Reminder: Part time refers to an individual's employment status at the institution rather than to the 

amount of instruction done by the individual.) 

Form: I15a 

Name: I15aa Label: Part-time benefit: medical insurance 

Name: I15ab Label: Part-time benefit: dental insurance 

Name: I15ac Label: Part-time benefit: disability insurance 

Name: I15ad Label: Part-time benefit: life insurance 

Name: I15ae Label: Part-time benefit: child care 

Name: I15af Label: Part-time benefit: retiree medical insurance 

Name: I15ag Label: Part-time benefit: cafeteria-style plan 

Form Administered To:

Institutions with part-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording: 

Are the following employee benefits available to all, some, or none of the part-time faculty and 

instructional staff at [FILL INSTNAME]? 

* a. Medical insurance or medical care 

* b. Dental insurance or dental care 

* c. Disability insurance program 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-15 

* d. Life insurance 

* e. Child care 

* f. Medical insurance for retirees 

* g. "Cafeteria-style" benefits plan (a plan under which staff can trade off some benefits for others, 

following guidelines established by the institution) 

–1 = Don’t know 

 1 = All 

 2 = Some 

 3 = None 

Form: I15b 

Name: I15ba Label: Part-time benefit: medical insurance subsidized 

Name: I15bb Label: Part-time benefit: dental insurance subsidized 

Name: I15bc Label: Part-time benefit: disability insurance subsidized 

Name: I15bd Label: Part-time benefit: life insurance subsidized 

Name: I15be Label: Part-time benefit: child care subsidized 

Name: I15bf Label: Part-time benefit: retiree medical insurance subsidized 

Name: I15bg Label: Part-time benefit: cafeteria-style plan subsidized 

Form Administered To:

Institutions that provide at least one employee benefit to part-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording: 

Still thinking only of part-time faculty, 

[IF ONE BENEFIT SELECTED ON FORM I15A] 

is this employee benefit subsidized by your institution? 

[ELSE IF MORE THAN ONE BENEFIT SELECTED ON FORM I15A] 

are these employee benefits subsidized by your institution? 

[ENDIF] 

(Subsidized means paid for completely or in part by the institution.) 

*Medical insurance or medical care 

* Dental insurance or dental care 

* Disability insurance program 

* Life insurance 

* Child care 

* Medical insurance for retirees 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-16 

* "Cafeteria-style" benefits plan 

0 = Not subsidized 

1 = Fully/partially subsidized 

Form: I16 

Name: I16a Label: Part-time benefit: wellness program 

Name: I16b Label: Part-time benefit: spouse tuition remission 

Name: I16c Label: Part-time benefit: children tuition remission 

Name: I16d Label: Part-time benefit: housing 

Name: I16e Label: Part-time benefit: transportation/parking 

Name: I16f Label: Part-time benefit: paid maternity leave 

Name: I16g Label: Part-time benefit: paid paternity leave 

Name: I16h Label: Part-time benefit: paid sabbatical leave 

Name: I16i Label: Part-time benefit: employee assistance program

Form Administered To:

Institutions with part-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording: 

Are the following employee benefits available to all, some, or none of the part-time faculty and 

instructional staff at [FILL INSTNAME]? 

* a. Wellness program or health promotion 

* b. Tuition remission/grants for spouse at this or other institutions 

* c. Tuition remission/grants for children at this or other institutions 

* d. Housing/mortgage; rent 

* e. Transportation/parking 

* f. Paid maternity leave 

* g. Paid paternity leave 

* h. Paid sabbatical leave 

* i. Employee assistance program 

–1 = Don't know 

 1 = All 

 2 = Some 

 3 = None 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-17 

Form: I17 Label: Part-time faculty: union representation 

Form Administered To:

Institutions with part-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording: 

Are any part-time faculty and instructional staff legally represented by a union (or other association) 

for purposes of collective bargaining with [FILL INSTNAME]? 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

Form: I18 

Name: I18a Label: Part-time assessment: student evaluations 

Name: I18b Label: Part-time assessment: student test scores 

Name: I18c Label: Part-time assessment: student career placement 

Name: I18d Label: Part-time assessment: other student performance 

Name: I18e Label: Part-time assessment: department chair evaluations 

Name: I18f Label: Part-time assessment: dean evaluations 

Name: I18g Label: Part-time assessment: peer evaluations 

Name: I18h Label: Part-time assessment: self-evaluations 

Form Administered To:

Institutions with part-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording: 

Are any of the following used as part of institution or department/school policy in assessing the 

teaching performance of part-time instructional faculty/staff at this institution? 

Used for Teaching Assessment:

* a. Student evaluations 

* b. Student test scores 

* c. Student career placement 

* d. Other measures of student performance 

* e. Department/division chair evaluations 

* f. Dean evaluations 

* g. Peer evaluations 

* h. Self-evaluations 

–1 = Don't know 

 0 = No 

 1 = Yes 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-18 

►SECTION C: All Faculty and Instructional Staff 

Form: I19 

Name: I19a Label: Undergraduate instruction: percent full-time faculty 

Name: I19b Label: Undergraduate instruction: percent part-time faculty 

Name: I19c Label: Undergraduate instruction: percent teaching assistants 

Name: I19d Label: Undergraduate instruction: percent other 

Form Administered To:

All institutions 

StemWording: 

What percentage of undergraduate student credit hours were assigned to the following staff 

during the 2003 Fall term? Student credit hours are defined as the number of course credits or 

contact hours multiplied by the number of students 

enrolled. 

* Percent of undergraduate instruction assigned to: 

* a. Full-time faculty or instructional staff 

* b. Part-time faculty or instructional staff, including adjuncts 

* c. Teaching assistants such as graduate students who teach classes 

* d. Others 
C-19 

Faculty Instrument 

C-21 

NSOPF:04 Faculty Instrument 

Full-Scale Study Facsimile 

Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-23 

►SECTION A: Nature of Employment 

Form: Q1 Label: Instructional duties, any

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

During the 2003 Fall Term, did you have any instructional duties at [FILL INSTNAME], 

such as teaching students in one or more credit or noncredit courses, or advising 

or supervising students' academic activities? 

(By instructional duties, we mean teaching credit or noncredit courses, advising or 

supervising students' academic activities, serving on undergraduate or graduate thesis 

or dissertation committees, supervising independent study or one-on-one instruction, 

etc., during the 2003 Fall Term.) 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

Form: Q2 Label: Instructional duties related to credit courses/activities

Form Administered To:

Faculty with instructional duties, Fall 2003 

StemWording:

Did any of your instructional duties include teaching students in credit courses, or advising students 

or supervising students' academic activities for which they received credit during the 2003 Fall 

Term? 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

Form: Q3 Label: Faculty status 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

During the 2003 Fall Term at [FILL INSTNAME], did you have faculty status as defined by that 

institution? 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-24 

Form: Q3X Label: Confirm study ineligibility 

Form Administered To:

Sample members without faculty status and with no instructional duties during the 2003 Fall term 

StemWording:

Just to confirm, you did not have faculty status and you did not teach any classes, or advise or 

supervise any students at [FILL INSTNAME] during the 2003 Fall Term? 

1 = Agree: NOT faculty and DID NOT have any instructional duties 

2 = Disagree: Had faculty status and/or had instructional duties 

Form: Q4 Label: Principal activity 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

Was your principal activity at [FILL INSTNAME] during the 2003 Fall Term. . . 

(If you had equal responsibilities, please select one.) 

1 = Teaching 

2 = Research 

3 = Public service 

4 = Clinical service 

5 = Administration (e.g., Dean, Chair, Director, etc.) 

6 = On sabbatical from this institution 

7 = Other activity (e.g., technical activity such as programmer or technician; other institutional 

activities such as library services; subsidized performer, artist-in-residence, etc.) 

Form: Q5 Label: Employed full or part time at this institution 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

During the 2003 Fall Term, did [FILL INSTNAME] consider you to be employed 

full time or part time? 

1 = Full time 

2 = Part time 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-25 

Form: Q6 Label: Part-time employment is primary employment 

Form Administered To:

Part-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

Do you consider your part-time position at [FILL INSTNAME] to be your primary employment? 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

Form: Q8 Label: Part-time but preferred full-time position 

Form Administered To:

Part-time faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

Would you have preferred a full-time position for the 2003 Fall Term at [FILL INSTNAME]? 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

Form: Q9 Label: Year began current job 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

In what year did you start working at the job you held during the 2003 Fall Term at 

[FILL INSTNAME]? Consider promotions in rank as part of the same job. 

* Year: 

Form: Q10 Label: Rank 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

During the 2003 Fall Term, was your academic rank, title, or position at [FILL INSTNAME] . . . 

(If no ranks are designated at your institution, select "Not applicable.") 

0 = Not applicable (No formal ranks are designated at this institution) 

1 = Professor 

2 = Associate professor 

3 = Assistant professor 

4 = Instructor 

5 = Lecturer 

6 = Other title (e.g., Administrative, Adjunct, Emeritus, other) 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-26 

Form: Q11 Label: Rank, year attained professor or associate professor 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who hold the rank of professor or associate professor 

StemWording:

In what year did you first achieve the rank of [FILL Q10] at any institution? 

* Year: 

Form: Q12 Label: Tenure status 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

During the 2003 Fall Term at [FILL INSTNAME], were you . . . 

1 = Tenured 

2 = On tenure track but not tenured 

3 = Not on tenure track 

4 = Not tenured because institution had no tenure system 

Form: Q13 Label: Tenure, year attained at any postsecondary institution 

Form Administered To:

Tenured faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

In what year did you first achieve tenure at any postsecondary institution? 

* Year: 

Form: Q14 Label: Union status 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

Are you a member of a union or other bargaining association that is legally recognized to represent 

the faculty at [FILL INSTNAME]? 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-27 

Form: Q15 Label: Union status, reason not a member 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who are not members of a union 

StemWording:

Is that because a union is not available, you are not eligible to join, or you decided not to join? 

–1 = Don't know 

 1 = Union is not available 

 2 = Union is available, but I am not eligible 

 3 = I am eligible, but I decided not to join 

Form: Q16VS Label: Principal field of teaching-verbatim 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

What is your principal field or discipline of teaching at [FILL INSTNAME]? 

(Enter the name of the principal field or discipline in the box below. This name will be 

used to match against a list of academic fields, so please be specific and do not use 

abbreviations or acronyms. If you have no principal field, select the "Not applicable" 

box.) 

* Name of principal field/discipline of teaching: 

* Not applicable (No principal teaching field or discipline) 

Form: Q16AC Label: Principal field of teaching-autocode 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who provided a verbatim field of teaching 

StemWording:

Please select the code below to confirm your field of teaching: [FILL Q16VS] 

If you do not agree with this code, select "None of these codes" 

to manually code the field. 

Autocoding Explanation: Using the verbatim string of the respondent's teaching field (provided in 

Q16VS), item Q16AC matches the string to selected categories from the Classification of Instructional 

Programs (CIP), the federal statistical standard for classifying instructional program. CIP descriptions 

that match the verbatim string appear on the screen, and the respondent selects the code that best 

describes the teaching field. (See pages C-28 through C-30 for a list of codes and descriptions) 

Strings that do not match the CIP descriptions are routed to Q16CD for manual coding. The 

respondent can also modify the verbatim string and redo the match or manually code the teaching 

field in Q16CD. (Additional information on CIP can be found at 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002165.pdf.) 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-28 

Form: Q16CD 

Name: Q16CD2 Label: Principal field of teaching-general code 

Name: Q16CD4 Label: Principal field of teaching-specific code 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who provided a verbatim field of teaching, but whose results were not 

autocoded 

StemWording:

Please help us to categorize "[FILL Q16VS]" using the drop-down list boxes. 

(Coding Directions: Please select a general area and then the specific discipline within the general 

area. Use the arrow at the right side of the first dropdown box to display the general areas. Click 

to select the desired general area, and then select the desired specific discipline within the area 

from the second dropdown box.) 

* General Area: 

01 = Agriculture/natural resources/related 17 = Library science 

02 = Architecture and related services 18 = Mathematics and statistics 

03 = Area/ethnic/cultural/gender studies 19 = Mechanical/repair technologies/techs 

04 = Arts--visual and performing 20 = Multi/interdisciplinary studies 

05 = Biological and biomedical sciences 21 = Parks/recreation/leisure/fitness studies 

06 = Business/management/marketing/ related 22 = Precision production 

07 = Communication/journalism/comm. Tech 23 = Personal and culinary services 

08 = Computer/info sciences/support tech 24 = Philosophy, religion & theology 

09 = Construction trades 25 = Physical sciences 

10 = Education 26 = Psychology 

11 = Engineering technologies/technicians 27 = Public administration/social services 

12 = English language and literature/letters 28 = Science technologies/technicians 

13 = Family/consumer sciences, human sciences 29 = Security & protective services 

14 = Foreign languages/literature/linguistics 30 = Social sciences (except psych) and history 

15 = Health professions/clinical sciences 31 = Transportation & materials moving 

16 = Legal professions and studies 32 = Other 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-29 

* Specific Discipline: 

0101 = Agriculture and related sciences 1102 = Chemical engineering 

0102 = Natural resources and conservation 1103 = Civil engineering 

0201 = Architecture and related services 1104 = Computer engineering 

0301 = Area/ethnic/cultural/gender studies 1105 = Electrical/electronics/comms engineering 

0401 = Art history, criticism & conservation 1106 = Engineering technologies/technicians 

0402 = Design & applied arts 1107 = Environmental/environmental health eng 

0403 = Drama/theatre arts and stagecraft 1108 = Mechanical engineering 

0404 = Fine and studio art 1109 = Engineering, other 

0405 = Music, general 1201 = English language and literature/letters 

0406 = Music history, literature, and theory 1301 = Family/consumer sciences, human sciences 

0407 = Visual and performing arts, other 1401 = Foreign languages/literature/linguistics 

0408 = Commercial and advertising art 1501 = Alternative/complementary medicine/sys 

0409 = Dance 1502 = Chiropractic 

0410 = Film/video and photographic arts 1503 = Clinical/medical lab science/allied 

0501 = Biochem/biophysics/molecular biology 1504 = Dental support services/allied 

0502 = Botany/plant biology 1505 = Dentistry 

0503 = Genetics 1506 = Health & medical administrative services 

0504 = Microbiological sciences & immunology 1507 = Allied health and medical assisting services 

0505 = Physiology, pathology & related sciences 

1508 = Allied health diagnostic, intervention, 

 treatment professions 

0506 = Zoology/animal biology 1509 = Medicine, including psychiatry 

0507 = Biological & biomedical sciences, other 1510 = Mental/social health services and allied 

0601 = Accounting and related services 1511 = Nursing 

0602 = Business admin/management/operations 1512 = Optometry 

0603 = Business operations support/assistance 1513 = Osteopathic medicine/osteopathy 

0604 = Finance/financial management services 1514 = Pharmacy/pharmaceutical sciences/admin 

0605 = Human resources management and svcs 1515 = Podiatric medicine/podiatry 

0606 = Marketing 1516 = Public health 

0607 = Business/mgt/marketing/related, other 1517 = Rehabilitation & therapeutic professions 

0608 = Management information systems/services 1518 = Veterinary medicine 

0701 = Communication/journalism/related pgms 1519 = Health /related clinical services, other 

0702 = Communication technologies/technicians 

 and support services 1601 = Law 

0801 = Computer/info tech administration/mgmt 1602 = Legal support services 

0802 = Computer programming 1603 = Legal professions and studies, other 

0803 = Computer science 1701 = Library science 

0804 = Computer software and media applications 1801 = Mathematics 

0805 = Computer systems analysis 1802 = Statistics 

0806 = Computer systems networking/telecomm 1901 = Mechanical/repair technologies/techs 

0807 = Data entry/microcomputer applications 2001 = Multi/interdisciplinary studies 

0808 = Data processing 2101 = Parks, recreation and leisure studies 

0809 = Information science/studies 2102 = Health and physical education/fitness 

0810 = Computer/info sci/support svcs, other 2201 = Precision production 

0901 = Construction trades 2301 = Culinary arts and related services 

1001 = Curriculum and instruction 2302 = Personal and culinary services 

1002 = Educational administration/supervision 2401 = Philosophy 

1003 = Educational/instructional media design 2402 = Religion/religious studies 

1004 = Special education and teaching 2403 = Theology and religious vocations 

1005 = Student counseling/personnel services 2501 = Astronomy & astrophysics 

1006 = Education, other 2502 = Atmospheric sciences and meteorology 

1007 = Early childhood education and teaching 2503 = Chemistry 

1008 = Elementary education and teaching 2504 = Geological & earth sciences/geosciences 

1009 = Secondary education and teaching 2505 = Physics 

1010 = Adult and continuing education/teaching 2506 = Physical sciences, other 

1011 = Teacher ed: specific levels, other 2601 = Behavioral psychology 

1012 = Teacher ed: specific subject areas 2601 = Behavioral psychology 

1013 = Bilingual & multicultural education 2602 = Clinical psychology 

1014 = Ed assessment 2603 = Education/school psychology 

1015 = Higher education 2604 = Psychology, other 

1101 = Biomedical/medical engineering 2701 = Public administration 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-30 

(Specific discipline continued) 

2702 = Social work 3004 = Demography & population studies 

2703 = Public administration & social svcs other 3005 = Economics 

2801 = Science technologies/technicians 3006 = Geography & cartography 

2901 = Corrections 3007 = History 

2902 = Criminal justice 3008 = International relations & affairs 

2903 = Fire protection 3009 = Political science and government 

2904 = Police science 3010 = Sociology 

2905 = Security and protective services, other 3011 = Urban studies/affairs 

3001 = Anthropology (except psychology) 3012 = Social sciences, other 

3002 = Archeology 3101 = Transportation & materials moving 

3003 = Criminology 3201 = Other 

►SECTION B: Academic/Professional Background

Form: Q17a1 Label: Highest degree 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

What is the highest degree you have completed? Do not include honorary degrees. 

(If you have none of the degrees or awards, select "Not applicable.") 

0 = Not applicable (Do not hold a degree) 

1 = Doctoral degree (Ph.D., Ed.D., etc.) 

2 = First-professional degree (M.D., D.O., D.D.S. or D.M.D., LL.B., J.D., D.C. 

or D.C.M., Pharm.D., Pod.D. or D.P., D.V.M., O.D., M.Div. or H.H.L. or B.D.) 

3 = Master of Fine Arts, Master of Social Work (M.F.A., M.S.W.) 

4 = Other master's degree (M.A., M.S., M.B.A, M.Ed., etc.) 

5 = Bachelor's degree (B.A., A.B., B.S., etc.) 

6 = Associate's degree or equivalent (A.A., A.S., etc.) 

7 = Certificate or diploma for completion of undergraduate program (other than associate's or 

bachelor's) 

Form: Q17a1b Label: Hold PhD in addition to professional degree 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff whose highest degree is a first-professional degree 

StemWording:

Do you also hold a Ph.D. or other doctorate? 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-31 

Form: Q17a2 Label: Highest degree, date awarded 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who hold a degree 

StemWording:

In what year did you receive your [FILL Q17A1 or Q17A1B]? 

(If you have more than one degree at the same level, please select the most recent 

degree.) 

* Year received: 

Form: Q17a3VS Label: Highest degree field-verbatim 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who hold a degree 

StemWording:

In what field or discipline was your [FILL Q17A1 or Q17A1B]? 

(Enter the name of your degree field or discipline. This name will be used to match 

against a list of academic fields, so please be specific and do not use abbreviations or 

acronyms.) 

Form: Q17a3AC Label: Highest degree field-autocode 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who provided a verbatim highest degree field 

StemWording:

Please select the appropriate code for your [FILL Q17A1 or Q17A1B] field: [FILL Q17a3VS]. If 

you do not agree with these codes, select "None of these codes" to manually code the field. 

Autocoding Explanation: Using the verbatim string of the respondent's highest degree field (provided 

in Q17A3VS), item Q17A3AC matches the string to selected CIP categories (see pages C-28 through C30 for a list of codes and descriptions). Descriptions that match the verbatim string appear on the 

screen, and the respondent selects the code that best describes the degree field. Strings that do not 

match the CIP descriptions are routed to Q17A3CD for manual coding. (The respondent can also 

modify the verbatim string and redo the match or manually code the teaching field in Q17A3CD.) 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-32 

Form: Q17a3CD 

Name: Q17a3C2 Label: Highest degree field-general code 

Name: Q17a3C4 Label: Highest degree field-specific code 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who provided a verbatim highest degree field, but whose results were 

not autocoded 

StemWording:

Please help us categorize "[FILL Q17a3VS]" using the drop–down list boxes below. 

[IF Q16CD ≥ 0] 

(Select one from the list of disciplines you've already told us about:) 

[ENDIF] 

(Coding Directions: Please select a general area and then the specific 

discipline within the general area. Use the arrow at the right side of the first dropdown 

box to display the general areas. Click to select the desired general area, and then select 

the desired specific discipline within the area from the second dropdown box.) 

* General Area: 

* Specific Discipline: 

Note: Please refer to the complete list of instructional program codes on pages C-28 through C-30. 

Form: Q17a4 

Name: Q17a4ST Label: Highest degree institution-state 

Name: Q17a4C Label: Highest degree institution-city 

Name: Q17a4N Label: Highest degree institution-name 

Name: Q17a4I Label: Highest degree institution-IPEDS 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who hold a degree 

StemWording:

Please help us code the postsecondary institution that awarded your [FILL Q17A1 or Q17A1B] by 

providing the state and city in which it was located. 

(Steps:

1. Please select the state in which the school was located. If the school was located in another 

country, select "foreign country." 

2. Enter the name of the city in which the institution was located. You can also use the "Browse" 

link to identify the city. 

3. Select the "Continue" button to list the schools located in that state and city. 

4. Select the desired school. 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-33 

Problems? Try searching for the school by state without listing a city. If you still can't find the 

school, select the "Unable To Find School in List" button at the bottom of the search results.) 

* State/Foreign: 

 1 = Alabama 21 = Maryland 41 = South Carolina 

 2 = Alaska 22 = Massachusetts 42 = South Dakota 

 3 = Arizona 23 = Michigan 43 = Tennessee 

 4 = Arkansas 24 = Minnesota 44 = Texas 

 5 = California 25 = Mississippi 45 = Utah 

 6 = Colorado 26 = Missouri 46 = Vermont 

 7 = Connecticut 27 = Montana 47 = Virginia 

 8 = Delaware 28 = Nebraska 48 = Washington 

 9 = District of Columbia 29 = Nevada 49 = West Virginia 

10 = Florida 30 = New Hampshire 50 = Wisconsin 

11 = Georgia 31 = New Jersey 51 = Wyoming 

12 = Hawaii 32 = New Mexico 52 = Puerto Rico 

13 = Idaho 33 = New York 54 = American Samoa 

14 = Illinois 34 = North Carolina 55 = Guam 

15 = Indiana 35 = North Dakota 56 = Federated States of Micronesia 

16 = Iowa 36 = Ohio 57 = Marshall Islands 

17 = Kansas 37 = Oklahoma 58 = Northern Mariana Islands 

18 = Kentucky 38 = Oregon 59 = Palau 

19 = Louisiana 39 = Pennsylvania 60 = U.S. Virgin Islands 

20 = Maine 40 = Rhode Island 63 = Foreign Country 

* City: 

* School Name: 

Form: Q17d1 Label: Bachelor’s degree date awarded 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who reported their highest degree as master’s level or above 

StemWording:

In what year did you receive your bachelor’s degree? 

(If you have more than one degree at this level, please select the first degree.) 

* Year received: 

* Not applicable (Do not hold a bachelor's degree) 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-34 

Form: Q18 Label: Other current jobs, number of jobs 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

While you were employed at [FILL INSTNAME], how many other jobs did you hold during the 2003 

Fall Term? Please do not consider any outside consulting jobs. (If none, select "0.") 

0 = 0 

1 = 1 

2 = 2 

3 = 3 

4 = 4 

5 = 5 or more 

Form: Q19a1 Label: Other current jobs, full-time employment 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff with other employment (excluding consulting) 

StemWording:

[IF Q18>1] 

Were you employed full time at any of these other jobs during the 2003 Fall Term? 

[ELSE] 

Were you employed full time at this other job during the 2003 Fall Term? 

[ENDIF] 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

Form: Q19b1 Label: Other current jobs, number in postsecondary instruction 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff with other employment (excluding consulting) 

StemWording:

How many of these other jobs involved instruction at another postsecondary institution 

during the 2003 Fall Term? (If none, select "0.") 

0 = 0 

1 = 1 

2 = 2 

3 = 3 

4 = 4 

5 = 5 or more 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-35 

Form: Q21 Label: First postsecondary job, current job is first 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

Is the job you held at [FILL INSTNAME] during the 2003 Fall Term the first faculty or instructional 

staff position you have held at a postsecondary institution? Do not include teaching assistant or 

research assistant positions while you were working on your degree. 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

Form: Q23 Label: First postsecondary job, year began 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who have worked at another postsecondary institution 

StemWording:

In what year did you begin your first faculty or instructional staff position at a postsecondary 

institution? 

(Do not include time when you were a teaching or research assistant.) 

* Year: 

Form: Q24 Label: First postsecondary job, part or full time 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

[IF Q21=1] 

When you first started your job at [FILL INSTNAME], were you employed full time or part time? 

[ELSE] 

Were you employed full time or part time at your first faculty or instructional staff position? 

[ENDIF] 

(Do not consider teaching or research assistant positions.) 

1 = Full time 

2 = Part time 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-36 

Form: Q26 Label: First postsecondary job, tenure status 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff whose first job was full-time except if this is their first postsecondary 

institution position and there is no tenure system at this institution 

StemWording:

[IF Q21=1] 

When you began working at [FILL INSTNAME], was your tenure status. . . 

[ELSE] 

When you began working at your first faculty or instructional staff job at a postsecondary 

institution, was your tenure status. . . 

[ENDIF] 

1 = Tenured 

2 = On tenure track but not tenured 

3 = Not on tenure track 

4 = Not tenured because institution had no tenure system 

Form: Q27 Label: Other jobs, any outside postsecondary since degree 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

Since receiving your highest degree, have you held any positions outside of postsecondary 

institutions? 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-37 

Form: Q28 Label: Other jobs, sector of previous job 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

Now we would like to know about the job you held prior to starting your current job at 

[FILL INSTNAME]. Was the job in a . . . 

(By "Current Job" we mean the position you held at [FILL INSTNAME] during the 2003 Fall Term.) 

0 = Not applicable (No job immediately prior to this one) 

1 = 4– or 2–year postsecondary institution 

2 = Other educational institution 

3 = Government (federal, state, local) or military organization 

4 = Foundation or other nonprofit organization 

5 = For profit business or industry 

6 = Other 

►SECTION C: Instructional Responsibilities and Workload

Form: Q31 

Name: Q31a Label: Hours per week on paid tasks at institution

Name: Q31b Label: Hours per week on unpaid tasks at institution

Name: Q31c Label: Hours per week on paid tasks outside of institution

Name: Q31d Label: Hours per week on unpaid tasks outside of institution

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

This next section of the questionnaire relates to your responsibilities on the job and your workload. 

On average, how many hours per week did you spend at each of the following work activities 

during the 2003 Fall Term? 

(Enter average number of hours. If not sure, give your best estimates. If none, enter "0." If less 

than one hour, enter “1.”) 

* a. All paid activities at [FILL INSTNAME] (e.g., teaching, clinical service, class preparation, 

research, administration) 

* b. All unpaid activities at [FILL INSTNAME] (e.g., club assistance, recruiting, attending 

institution events) 

* c. Any other paid activities outside [FILL INSTNAME] including consulting, working at other 

jobs, teaching at other schools 

* d. Unpaid professional service activities outside [FILL INSTNAME] related to your work. (Do 

not include volunteer work unrelated to your profession.) 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-38 

Form: Q32 

Name: Q32a Label: Percent time spent on instruction, undergraduate

Name: Q32b Label: Percent time spent on instruction, graduate/first-professional

Name: Q32c Label: Percent time spent on research activities

Name: Q32d Label: Percent time spent on other unspecified activities

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who worked at least one hour per week at the target institution 

StemWording:

[IF Q31A AND Q31B AND Q31C AND Q31D = BLANK] 

For the hours you worked during the 2003 Fall Term at [FILL INSTNAME], 

[ELSE] 

For the [FILL Q31A + Q31B] hours per week you worked during the 2003 Fall 

Term at [FILL INSTNAME], 

[ENDIF] 

we would like you to allot this time—using percentages—into four broad categories: 

Instruction with undergraduates, Instruction with graduate and first-professional 

students, Research, and Other Activities. (If you are not sure, give your best estimate. 

The percentages should sum to 100%. If none for a category, enter "0".) 

What percentage of your time was spent on. . . 

* a. Instructional Activities with Undergraduates, including teaching and preparing for 

classes, advising, and supervising students at this institution? 

* b. Instructional Activities with Graduate and First Professional students, including 

teaching and preparing for classes, advising, and supervising students at this institution? 

* c. Research Activities, other forms of scholarship, or grants at this institution? 

* d. All Other Activities at this institution like administration, professional growth, service, and 

other activities not related to teaching or research. 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-39 

Form: Q35a 

Name: Q35a1 Label: Number of classes taught, credit

Name: Q35a2 Label: Number of classes taught, noncredit

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff with instructional duties, Fall 2003 

StemWording:

Next, we would like to ask you about the classes or sections you taught during the 2003 Fall Term 

at [FILL INSTNAME]. Please do not include individualized instruction. Questions about 

independent study, intern supervision, and one-on-one instruction in performance, clinical, or 

research settings come later. (If none, select "no classes.") 

How many. . . 

* a. Classes/sections for credit towards degree did you teach? 

* b. Classes/sections not for credit towards degree did you teach? 

(Guidance on Counting Classes 

 Count multiple sections of the same course separately. For example, Sociology 101 taught to 

two different groups of students would count as two classes. 

 Count lab or discussion sections as part of the same class unless they have separate credits 

assigned to them. For example, a biology class with lectures, labs, and discussion sections each 

week counts as one class.) 

 0 = No classes 

 1 = 1 class 

 . 

 . 

 . 

19 = 19 classes 

20 = 20 or more classes 

Form: Q35b 

Name: Q35b Label: Number of classes taught, remedial

Name: Q35c Label: Number of classes taught, distance education

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who taught at least one class 

StemWording:

Of the [FILL Q35A] classes you taught at [FILL INSTNAME] in the 2003 Fall Term, 

(By remedial or developmental classes, we mean courses in reading, writing, math, or other 

courses for students lacking the skills necessary to perform college-level work at the level required 

by your institution. Some institutions refer to these courses as compensatory, basic skills, or 

some other term. 

By distance education, we mean classes where students and instructors are separated primarily 

or exclusively by distance or time.) 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-40 

* a. How many were remedial or developmental classes? 

* b. How many were taught through distance education, either exclusively or primarily? 

 0 = No classes 

 1 = 1 class 

 . 

 . 

 . 

19 = 19 classes 

20 = 20 or more classes 

Form: Q36 Label: Teaching assistant in any credit class

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who taught at least one class for credit 

StemWording:

[IF Q35A1=1] 

Did you have teaching assistants, readers, graders, or lab assistants for the credit class 

you taught during the 2003 Fall Term at [FILL INSTNAME]? 

[ELSE] 

Did you have teaching assistants, readers, graders, or lab assistants for any of the 

credit classes you taught during the 2003 Fall Term at [FILL INSTNAME]? 

[ENDIF] 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

Form: Q37 (loops for up to 5 classes) 

Name: Q37ai (i = 1 to 5) Label: Number of weeks taught, i-th credit class 

Name: Q37bi (i = 1 to 5) Label: Number of credit hours, i-th class 

Name: Q37ci (i = 1 to 5) Label: Number of hours taught per week, i-th class 

Name: Q37di (i = 1 to 5) Label: Number of students, i-th class 

Name: Q37ei (i = 1 to 5) Label: Primary level of students, i-th class 

Name: Q37fi (i = 1 to 5) Label: Teaching assistant, i-th class 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who taught at least one class for credit 

StemWording:

[IF Q35A1>5] 

You reported earlier that you taught [FILL Q35A1] classes for credit during the 2003 Fall Term at 

[FILL INSTNAME]. We have space for you to describe 5 of these classes. Please describe the ones 

you feel are most relevant for your instructional activities. We will call them classes A to E. 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-41 

[IF Q35A1 >1 AND Q35A1 ≤ 5] 

You reported earlier that you taught [FILL Q35A1] classes for credit during the 2003 Fall Term at 

[FILL INSTNAME]. Please answer the following questions for each of these classes, we will call A to 

[FILL B (IF Q35A1=2) OR C (IF Q35A1=3) OR D (IF Q35A1=4) OR E (IF Q35A1=5)]. 

[IF Q35A1=1] 

For the credit class that you reported teaching at [FILL INSTNAME] during the 2003 Fall Term, 

please answer the following questions. 

[ENDIF] 

* a. How many weeks did you teach the class? 

 0 0 weeks 

 1 1 week 

 . . 

 . . 

 . . 

24 24 weeks 

25 25 weeks 

* b. How many credits were attached to the class? 

* c. How many hours did you teach the class per week? 

(Do not include preparation time.) 

* d. How many students were enrolled in the class? 

* e. Were the students in this class primarily undergraduate, graduate, or first 

professional (e.g., dental, medical, law, theology)? 

1 = Undergraduate 

2 = Graduate 

3 = First professional 

* f. Did you have a teaching or lab assistant, reader, or grader assigned 

to this class? 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-42 

Form: Q38 

Name: Q38a Label: Undergrad class, multiple choice midterm/final exams

Name: Q38b Label: Undergrad class, essay midterm/final exams

Name: Q38c Label: Undergrad class, short answer midterm/final exams

Name: Q38d Label: Undergrad class, term/research papers

Name: Q38e Label: Undergrad class, multiple drafts of written work

Name: Q38f Label: Undergrad class, oral presentations

Name: Q38g Label: Undergrad class, group projects

Name: Q38h Label: Undergrad class, student evaluations of each others^ work

Name: Q38i Label: Undergrad class, laboratory/shop/studio assignments

Name: Q38j Label: Undergrad class, service learn/co-op interactions with 

business 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who taught an undergraduate credit class 

StemWording:

[IF Q37EI=1 FOR EXACTLY ONE OF THE Q37Ei, WHERE i=1 TO 5 OR 

(IF Q32A>0 AND Q32B=0 OR BLANK AND Q35A1=1)] 

For the undergraduate class you taught for credit during the 2003 Fall Term at 

[FILL INSTNAME], did you use any of the following? 

[ELSE] 

For the undergraduate classes you taught for credit during the 2003 Fall Term at [FILL 

INSTNAME], did you use any of the following? 

[ENDIF] 

Did you use. . . 

* a. Multiple-choice midterm or final exam? 

* b. Essay midterm or final exam? 

* c. Short-answer midterm or final exam? 

* d. Term/research papers and writing assignments? 

* e. Multiple drafts of written work? 

* f. Oral presentations by students? 

* g. Group and team projects producing a joint product? 

* h. Student evaluations of each other's work? 

* i. Laboratory, shop, or studio assignments? 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-43 

* j. Service learning, co-op experiences or assignments requiring 

interactions with the community or business/industry? 

1 = Used in all classes 

2 = Used in some classes 

3 = Not used 

Form: Q39 Label: Website for any instructional duties 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who had instructional duties 

StemWording:

During the 2003 Fall Term at [FILL INSTNAME], did you have one or more web sites for any of your 

teaching, advising, or other instructional duties? 

(Web sites used for instructional duties might include the syllabus, readings, assignments, and 

practice exams for classes; might enable communication with students via listservs or online forums; 

and might provide real-time computer-based instruction.) 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

Form: Q41 Label: Hours per week, e-mailing students 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who had instructional duties 

StemWording:

During the 2003 Fall Term at [FILL INSTNAME], how many hours per week did you spend 

communicating by e-mail (electronic mail) with your students? (If none, enter "0.") 

* Hours per week: 

Form: Q46 Label: Individual instruction, any

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

During the 2003 Fall Term, did you provide individual instruction for credit to any student at [FILL 

INSTNAME]? By individual instruction, we mean independent study, supervising student teachers or 

interns, and one-on-one instruction like working with students in a clinical or research setting. Do 

not include dissertation or thesis committee work. 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-44 

Form: Q47 

Name: Q47a1 Label: Individual instruction, number undergraduate students 

Name: Q47a2 Label: Individual instruction, number graduate students 

Name: Q47a3 Label: Individual instruction, number first-professional students

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who provided individual instruction to students 

StemWording:

[IF Q32A>0 AND Q32B=0 OR BLANK] 

How many undergraduate students received individual instruction for credit from you during the 

2003 Fall Term? 

[ELSE] 

Of the students who received individual instruction for credit from you during the 2003 Fall Term, 

how many were . . . 

[ENDIF] 

(If none, enter "0.") 

* Undergraduate students 

* Graduate students 

* First-professional students (e.g., dental, medical, law, theology) 

Form: Q47b 

Name: Q47b1 Label: Individual instruction, hours with undergraduates

Name: Q47b2 Label: Individual instruction, hours with graduate students

Name: Q47b3 Label: Individual instruction, hours with first-professional students

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who provided individual instruction to undergraduate, graduate, or 

first-professional students 

StemWording:

Of the students who received individual instruction for credit from you during the 2003 Fall Term, 

what was the total number of hours you spent each week with your. . . 

(If less than one hour, enter “1.”) 

* Undergraduate students 

* Graduate students 

* First-professional students 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-45 

Form: Q48 

Name: Q48 Label: Hours per week, thesis/dissertation committees

Name: Q49 Label: Hours per week, administrative committees

Name: Q50 Label: Hours per week, with advisees

Name: Q51 Label: Hours per week, office hours

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

The next items ask about the average number of hours each week during the 2003 Fall Term at 

[FILL INSTNAME] that you did the following activities. 

(If none, enter "0." If less than one hour, enter "1." If not sure, give your best estimate.) 

How many hours per week did you spend. . . 

* On undergraduate and graduate thesis or dissertation committees, comprehensive exams or orals 

committees, or examination or certification committees? 

* On administrative committee work? Please include curriculum, personnel, governance, and other 

committees at the department, division, institution, and system levels. 

* With students you were assigned to advise? (Do not include hours spent working with students 

on their theses, dissertations, or independent studies.) 

* In regularly scheduled office hours in person or online? 

►SECTION D: Scholarly Activities

Form: Q52a 

Name: Q52aa Label: Career articles, refereed journals 

Name: Q52ab Label: Career articles, nonrefereed journals 

Name: Q52ac Label: Career book reviews, chapters, creative works 

Name: Q52ad Label: Career books, textbooks, reports 

Name: Q52ae Label: Career presentations 

Name: Q52af Label: Career exhibitions, performances 

Name: Q52ag Label: Career patents, computer software 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

Next, we would like to consider your scholarly activities. During your entire career, how many of the 

following have you completed? 

(If not sure, give your best estimates.) 

* Articles published in refereed professional or trade journals; or creative works published in juried 

media? 

* Articles published in nonrefereed professional or trade journals; or creative works published in 

nonjuried media or in-house newsletters? 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-46 

* Published reviews of books, articles, or creative works; or chapters in edited volumes? 

* Textbooks, other books; monographs; research or technical reports disseminated internally or to 

clients? 

* Presentations at conferences, workshops, etc.? 

* Exhibitions or performances in the fine or applied arts? 

* Patents and computer software products? 

(For publications, include only works that have been accepted for publication. Count multiple 

publications/presentations of the same work only once. Include electronic publications that are not 

published elsewhere in the appropriate categories.) 

Form: Q52b 

Name: Q52ba Label: Recent articles, refereed journals

Name: Q52bb Label: Recent articles, nonrefereed journals

Name: Q52bc Label: Recent book reviews, chapters, creative works

Name: Q52bd Label: Recent books, textbooks, reports

Name: Q52be Label: Recent presentations

Name: Q52bf Label: Recent exhibitions, performances

Name: Q52bg Label: Recent patents, computer software

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who have presented or published during their career 

StemWording:

We would like to consider the level of your scholarly activities during the last two years. 

* Of the [FILL Q52aa] articles or creative works published in refereed journals or juried media in 

your career, how many were done in the last two years? 

* Of the [FILL Q52ab] articles or creative works published in nonrefereed journals or nonjuried 

media in your career, how many were done in the last two years? 

* Of the [FILL Q52AC] reviews of books, articles, or creative works; chapters in edited volumes 

published in your career, how many were in the last two years? 

* Of the [FILL Q52AD] textbooks, other books; monographs; and client reports you published 

during your career, how many were done in the last two years? 

* Of the [FILL Q52ae] presentations you made at conferences or workshops in your career, how 

many were made in the last two years? 

* Of your [FILL Q52af] career exhibitions or performances, how many were in the last two years? 

* Of your [FILL Q52ag] career patents, software products, or other works, how many were done in 

the last two years? 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-47 

Form: Q53 Label: Scholarly activity, any

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

Do you have any scholarly activities such as research, proposal development, creative writing, or 

other creative works in the 2003–04 academic year? 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

Form: Q54VS Label: Scholarly activity, principal field-verbatim

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who have scholarly activities and did not provide principal field of 

teaching (Q16VS) 

StemWording:

What is your principal field or discipline of scholarly activity? 

(Enter the name of your principal field/discipline of scholarly activity. This name will be 

used to match against a list of academic fields, so please be specific and do not use 

abbreviations or acronyms.) 

* Name of principal field/discipline of scholarly activity: 

Form: Q54AC Label: Principal field of scholarly activity-autocode 

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who provided a verbatim field of scholarly activity 

StemWording:

Please select the appropriate code for your field of scholarly activity: [FILL Q54VS]. 

If you do not agree with these codes, select "None of these codes" to manually code the field. 

Autocoding Explanation: Using the verbatim string of the respondent's field of scholarly activity 

(provided in Q54VS), item Q54AC matches the string to selected CIP categories (see pages C-28 

through C-30 for a list of codes and descriptions). Descriptions that match the verbatim string appear 

on the screen, and the respondent selects the code that best describes the field. Strings that do not 

match the CIP descriptions are routed to Q54CD for manual coding. (The respondent can also modify 

the verbatim string and redo the match or manually code the scholarly field in Q54CD). 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-48 

Form: Q54CD 

Name: Q54CD2 Label: Principal research field-general code

Name: Q54CD4 Label: Principal research field-specific code

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who provided a verbatim field of scholarly activity, but whose results 

were not autocoded 

StemWording:

Please help us to categorize "[FILL Q54VS]" using the drop-down list boxes below. 

[IF Q17A3AC ≥ 0] 

(Select one from the list of disciplines you've already told us about:) 

[ENDIF] 

Coding Directions: Please select a general area and then the specific discipline within the general 

area. Use the arrow at the right side of the first dropdown box to display the general areas. Click 

to select the desired general area, and then select the desired specific discipline within the area 

from the second dropdown box.) 

* General area: 

* Specific Discipline: 

Note: Please refer to the complete list of instructional program codes on pages C-28 through C-30. 

Form: Q56 Label: Scholarly activity, description

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff engaged in scholarly activity 

StemWording:

How would you describe your principal scholarly activity during the 2003–04 academic 

year? Is it. . . 

1 = Basic research 

2 = Applied or policy-oriented research or analysis 

3 = Literary, performance, or exhibitions 

4 = Program and curriculum design and development 

5 = Other 

Form: Q55 Label: Scholarly activity, any funded

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff engaged in scholarly activity 

StemWording:

During the 2003–04 academic year, are any of your scholarly activities at [FILL INSTNAME] 

funded? Do not include consulting services and research included as part of your basic salary. 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-49 

►SECTION E: Job Satisfaction

Form: Q61 

Name: Q61a Label: Satisfaction with authority to make decisions

Name: Q61b Label: Satisfaction with technology-based activities

Name: Q61c Label: Satisfaction with equipment/facilities

Name: Q61d Label: Satisfaction with institutional support for teaching 

improvement

Name: Q62a Label: Satisfaction with workload

Name: Q62b Label: Satisfaction with salary

Name: Q62c Label: Satisfaction with benefits

Name: Q62d Label: Satisfaction with job overall

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff with instructional responsibilities (Q61a–Q61d); All faculty and 

instructional staff (Q62a–Q62d) 

StemWording:

[IF Q1=1 OR Q46=1 OR Q48>0 OR Q35A1>0 OR Q35A2>0] 

With regard to your job at [FILL INSTNAME] during the 2003 Fall Term, would you say you 

were very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with. . . 

[ELSE] 

With regard to your job at [FILL INSTNAME], would you say you are very satisfied, somewhat 

satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with. . . 

[ENDIF] 

* The authority you had to make decisions about content and methods in your instructional 

activities 

* The institutional support for implementing technology-based instructional activities 

* Quality of equipment and facilities available for classroom instruction 

* Institutional support for teaching improvement (including grants, release time, and professional 

development funds) 

* Your workload 

* Your salary 

* The benefits available to you 

* Your job at this institution, overall 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-50 

Form: Q65 

Name: Q64 Label: Retired from another position

Name: Q65 Label: Retire from all paid employment, planned age

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

* Have you retired from another position? 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

* At what age do you think you are most likely to retire from all paid employment? 

(Enter age or select "Don't know.") 

Years of age/Don't know 

►SECTION F: Compensation

Form: Q66 

Name: Q66a Label: Amount of income from basic salary from institution

Name: Q66b Label: Amount of income from other income from institution

Name: Q66c Label: Amount of income from other academic institution

Name: Q66d Label: Amount of income from consulting or freelance work

Name: Q66e Label: Amount of income from other employment

Name: Q66f Label: Amount of income from other unspecified sources

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

We are almost finished. The next questions will be about your compensation and about your 

background. Your responses to these items—as with all items on this instrument—are voluntary and 

strictly confidential. They will be used only in statistical summaries. 

For the 2003 calendar year, please estimate your gross compensation before taxes. Do not 

include non-monetary compensation. 

(Enter dollar amount. If not sure, give your best estimates. If not applicable, enter "0.") 

First, your compensation from [FILL INSTNAME]:

a. What is your basic salary during the calendar year from this institution? 

b. How much compensation did you receive from other income from this institution not included in 

basic salary (e.g., for summer session, overload courses, administration, research, coaching 

sports, etc.)? 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-51 

Next, your compensation from other sources 

c. How much were you paid for employment at another postsecondary institution? 

d. How much were you paid for outside consulting or freelance work? 

e. How much were you compensated for any other employment besides consulting and another 

postsecondary institution (e.g., speaking fees and honoraria, self-owned business, 

legal/medical/psychological services, professional performances/exhibitions)? 

f. How much income did you receive from any other source (e.g., investment income, 

royalties/commissions, pensions, real estate, loans, alimony, or child support)? 

Form: Q66b Label: Amount of total individual income (range)

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who did not complete all compensation item amounts 

StemWording:

The following ranges may make it easier for you to estimate your total income from 

all sources for the 2003 calendar year. 

(Your responses to these items are strictly confidential. They will be used only in statistical 

summaries.) 

1 = $1–24,999 

2 = $25,000–49,999 

3 = $50,000–74,999 

4 = $75,000–99,999 

5 = $100,000–149,999 

6 = $150,000–199,999 

7 = $200,000–300,000 

8 = More than $300,000 

Form: Q67 Label: Type of contract, length of unit

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

Is your basic salary at [FILL INSTNAME] this academic year based on a 9– or 10–month contract, an 

11– or 12–month contract, or some other arrangement? 

(Please answer based on the length of your contract and how long you work rather than on the 

number of months you are paid.) 

1 = 9– or 10–month contract 

2 = 11– or 12–month contract 

3 = Other, for example, by course or credit hour 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-52 

Form: Q68 Label: Income paid per course/credit unit or term

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff paid on something other than a 

9–, 10–, 11–, or 12–month contract 

StemWording:

What was the basis of your pay? Was it by. . . 

1 = Course 

2 = Credit hour 

3 = Academic term 

4 = Other (e.g., per student, hourly rate)

Form: Q69 Label: Amount of income paid per course/credit unit or term

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff paid by course, credit hour, or academic term 

StemWording:

How much were you paid per [FILL Q68]? 

Form: Q70a Label: Amount of total household income 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

[IF RESPONDED TO ALL PARTS OF Q66AA-Q66AF] 

You told us before that your income from all sources for the 2003 Calendar year was $[FILL 

Q66ASUM]. What was your total household income before taxes for that same year? 

[ELSE IF Q66B ≥ 1 and Q66B ≤ 8] 

You told us before that your income from all sources for the 2003 Calendar year was [FILL Q66B]. 

What was your total household income before taxes for that same year? 

[ELSE] 

For the 2003 calendar year, what was your total household income before taxes? 

[ENDIF] 

(By household income, we mean the total income received by all persons, including yourself, 

residing in the house during the 2003 calendar year, but excluding minors and full-time students. 

Please include income from employment and from other sources including your spouse or partner, 

self-employment, interest earnings, alimony or child support, insurance benefits, and pension 

payments.) 

* Enter amount: 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-53 

Form: Q70b Label: Amount of total household income (range)

Form Administered To:

Faculty and instructional staff who did not provide their household income 

StemWording:

The following ranges may make it easier for you to report your total household income. 

Was your income between. . . 

(Your responses to these items are strictly confidential. They will be used 

only in statistical summaries.) 

–1 = Don't know 

 1 = $1–24,999 

 2 = $25,000–49,999 

 3 = $50,000–74,999 

 4 = $75,000–99,999 

 5 = $100,000–149,999 

 6 = $150,000–199,999 

 7 = $200,000–300,000 

 8 = More than $300,000 

►SECTION G: Sociodemographic Characteristics

Form: Q71 Label: Gender 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

The last few questions ask you to describe yourself and your opinions about your job. 

Are you . . . 

1 = Male 

2 = Female 

Form: Q72 Label: Age, year of birth

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

In what year were you born? 

* Enter year: 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-54 

Form: Q73 Label: Race/ethnicity, Hispanic/Latino

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

Are you Hispanic or Latino? 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

Form: Q74 

Name: Q74a Label: Race, American Indian or Alaska Native

Name: Q74b Label: Race, Asian

Name: Q74c Label: Race, Black or African American

Name: Q74d Label: Race, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

Name: Q74e Label: Race, White

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

Please select one or more of the following choices to best describe your race. Are you. . . 

(Select all that apply.) 

* American Indian or Alaska Native 

* Asian 

* Black or African American 

* Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 

* White 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

Form: Q75 Label: Disability, any

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

Do you have a long-lasting condition that substantially limits one or more of your major life 

activities? 

(By this we mean do you have a physical, visual, auditory, mental, emotional, or other disabling 

condition that limits your ability to see, hear, or speak; to learn, remember, or concentrate; to dress, 

bathe, or get around the house, or to get to school or around campus.) 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-55 

Form: Q77 Label: Marital status, fall 2003 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

On November 1, 2003, were you . . . 

1 = Single and never married

2 = Married 

3 = Living with partner or significant other 

4 = Separated, divorced, or widowed 

Form: Q79 Label: Dependent children, number

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

How many dependent children do you support? 

(A dependent child is a person 24 years old or younger for whom you provide at least half of his/her 

financial support.) 

* Number of dependent children: 

 0 = None 

 1 = 1 

 2 = 2 

 . 

 . 

 . 

 9 = 9 

10 = 10 or more dependents 

Form: Q80 

Name: Q80 Label: Born in United States 

Name: Q81 Label: Citizenship status 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

Were you born in the United States? 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

Are you a United States citizen? 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 
Appendix C. Facsimile Instruments 

C-56 

►SECTION H: Opinions

Form: Q82 

Name: Q82a Label: Opinion: teaching is rewarded 

Name: Q82b Label: Opinion: part-time faculty treated fairly 

Name: Q82c Label: Opinion: female faculty treated fairly 

Name: Q82d Label: Opinion: racial minorities treated fairly 

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that 

at [FILL INSTNAME]. . . 

* a. Good teaching is rewarded 

* b. Part-time faculty are treated fairly 

* c. Female faculty members are treated fairly 

* d. Faculty who are members of racial or ethnic minorities are treated fairly 

1 = Strongly Agree 

2 = Somewhat Agree 

3 = Somewhat Disagree 

4 = Strongly Disagree 

Form: Q83 Label: Opinion about choosing an academic career again

Form Administered To:

All faculty and instructional staff 

StemWording:

Finally, if you had it to do over again, would you still choose an academic career? 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 
D-1 

Appendix D 

Item Crosswalks 

Institution .................................................................................................................................... D-3 

Faculty......................................................................................................................................... D-9 

Appendix D. Item Crosswalks 

D-3 

Institution Crosswalk 

Appendix D. Item Crosswalks 

D-5 

Institution Questionnaire Crosswalk

The crosswalk below links the NSOPF:04 questionnaire items with similar items from the 

three previous NSOPF institution questionnaires: NSOPF:88, NSOPF:93, and NSOPF:99. This 

crosswalk will facilitate analyses of trends among postsecondary institutions. Linked questions 

may be identical in content and format or may differ in one or more ways. The question, item, or 

response wording; the order in which response options were presented; the manner in which the 

data were collected (e.g., categorical response option versus open-ended response fields, 

instructions to mark one versus all that apply); and the population to which the question applies 

may have changed. It is strongly recommended that analysts review documentation to determine 

whether linked questions are equitable for their purpose. 

Table D-1. Institution Questionnaire Crosswalk: 2004 

Variable name 

NSOPF:88 NSOPF:93 NSOPF:99 NSOPF:04 NSOPF:04 variable label 

4 1a 1a 1A Number full-time faculty, fall 2003, reported 

19 1b 1b 1B Number part-time faculty, fall 2003 

6 2f 5aD 2A Full-time numbers: faculty, fall 2002 

 5bD 2B Full-time numbers: changed from part to full time, 2002-03 

6 2b 5cD 2C Full-time numbers: hired, 2002-03 

 

6 2c 5dD 2D Full-time numbers: retired, 2002-03 

6 2e + 2d 5e 2E Full-time numbers: left for other reasons, 2002-03 

 2F Full-time numbers: changed from full to part time, 2002-03 

4 2a 5f 2G Full-time numbers: faculty, fall 2003, calculated 

3 5 4 3 Full-time tenure: has tenure system 

 

7 8a 6a 4 Full-time tenure: number considered for tenure, 2002-03 

7 8b 6b 5 Full-time tenure: number granted tenure, 2002-03 

10 9a 7a 6 Full-time tenure: maximum years on tenure track 

 8a 7A Full-time tenure: changed tenure policy 

12.5 10b 8b 7B Full-time tenure: more stringent tenure standards 

 

 7b 8c 7C Full-time tenure: downsized tenured faculty 

12.4 10a 8d 7D Full-time tenure: replaced tenured with fixed term 

12.1 11 8f 7E Full-time tenure: offered early retirement 

 11a 8g 7E2 Full-time tenure: number early retirees, last 5 years 

8e 8 Full-time tenure: discontinued tenure system, last 5 years 

 

 3 10 9 Full-time faculty: positions sought to fill, fall 2003 

 13b 12a 10AA Full-time benefit: medical insurance 

 13c 12b 10AB Full-time benefit: dental insurance 

 13d 12c 10AC Full-time benefit: disability insurance 

 13e 12d 10AD Full-time benefit: life insurance 

 

 13h 12e 10AE Full-time benefit: child care 

 13n 12f 10AF Full-time benefit: retiree medical insurance 

16 13o 12g 10AG Full-time benefit: cafeteria-style plan 

14.04 13bA 12aa 10BA Full-time benefit: medical insurance subsidized 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix D. Item Crosswalks 

D-6 

Table D-1. Institution Questionnaire Crosswalk: 2004—Continued 

Variable name 

NSOPF:88 NSOPF:93 NSOPF:99 NSOPF:04 NSOPF:04 variable label 

14.05 13cA 12ba 10BB Full-time benefit: dental insurance subsidized 

14.06 13dA 12ca 10BC Full-time benefit: disability insurance subsidized 

14.07 13eA 12da 10BD Full-time benefit: life insurance subsidized 

14.10 13hA 12ea 10BE Full-time benefit: child care subsidized 

 13nA 12fa 10BF Full-time benefit: retiree medical insurance subsidized 

 13oA 12ga 10BG Full-time benefit: cafeteria-style plan subsidized 

 

14.01 13a 13a 11A Full-time benefit: wellness program 

14.08 13f 13b 11B Full-time benefit: spouse tuition remission 

14.09 13g 13c 11C Full-time benefit: children tuition remission 

14.11 13i 13d 11D Full-time benefit: housing 

 13k 13e 11E Full-time benefit: transportation/parking 

 

14.02 13l 13f 11F Full-time benefit: paid maternity leave 

14.03 13m 13g 11G Full-time benefit: paid paternity leave 

 13h 11H Full-time benefit: paid sabbatical leave 

 13i 11I Full-time benefit: employee assistance program 

13 19 15 12 Full-time faculty: union representation 

 

 18a 16a 13A Full-time assessment: student evaluations 

 18b 16b 13B Full-time assessment: student test scores 

 18c 16c 13C Full-time assessment: student career placement 

 18d 16d 13D Full-time assessment: other student performance 

 18e 16e 13E Full-time assessment: department chair evaluations 

 

 18f 16f 13F Full-time assessment: dean evaluations 

 18g 16g 13G Full-time assessment: peer evaluations 

 18h 16h 13H Full-time assessment: self-evaluations 

23 34 17 14 Part-time benefit: retirement plan 

 37b 20a 15AA Part-time benefit: medical insurance 

 

 37c 20b 15AB Part-time benefit: dental insurance 

 37d 20c 15AC Part-time benefit: disability insurance 

 37e 20d 15AD Part-time benefit: life insurance 

 37h 20e 15AE Part-time benefit: child care 

 37n 20f 15AF Part-time benefit: retiree medical insurance 

 

24 37o 20g 15AG Part-time benefit: cafeteria-style plan 

 37bA 20aa 15BA Part-time benefit: medical insurance subsidized 

 37cA 20ba 15BB Part-time benefit: dental insurance subsidized 

 37dA 20ca 15BC Part-time benefit: disability insurance subsidized 

 37eA 20da 15BD Part-time benefit: life insurance subsidized 

 

 37hA 20ea 15BE Part-time benefit: child care subsidized 

 37nA 20fa 15BF Part-time benefit: retiree medical insurance subsidized 

 37oA 20ga 15BG Part-time benefit: cafeteria-style plan subsidized 

 37a 21a 16A Part-time benefit: wellness program 

 37f 21b 16B Part-time benefit: spouse tuition remission 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix D. Item Crosswalks 

D-7 

Table D-1. Institution Questionnaire Crosswalk: 2004—Continued 

Variable name 

NSOPF:88 NSOPF:93 NSOPF:99 NSOPF:04 NSOPF:04 variable label 

 37g 21c 16C Part-time benefit: children tuition remission 

 37i 21d 16D Part-time benefit: housing 

 37k 21e 16E Part-time benefit: transportation/parking 

 37l 21f 16F Part-time benefit: paid maternity leave 

 37m 21g 16G Part-time benefit: paid paternity leave 

 

 21h 16H Part-time benefit: paid sabbatical leave 

 21i 16I Part-time benefit: employee assistance program 

22 43 24 17 Part-time faculty: union representation 

 42a 25a 18A Part-time assessment: student evaluations 

 42b 25b 18B Part-time assessment: student test scores 

 

 42c 25c 18C Part-time assessment: student career placement 

 42d 25d 18D Part-time assessment: other student performance 

 42e 25e 18E Part-time assessment: department chair evaluations 

 42f 25f 18F Part-time assessment: dean evaluations 

 42g 25g 18G Part-time assessment: peer evaluations 

 

 42h 25h 18H Part-time assessment: self-evaluations 

 17 26a 19A Undergraduate instruction: percent full-time faculty 

 41 26b 19B Undergraduate instruction: percent part-time faculty 

 26c 19C Undergraduate instruction: percent teaching assistants 

 26d 19D Undergraduate instruction: percent other 

NOTE: The actual name of each NSOPF:04 institution variable has an “I” as the starting character. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04), 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:99), 1993 National 

Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:93), 1988 National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:88). 

D-9

Faculty Crosswalk

Appendix D. Item Crosswalks 

D-11

Faculty Questionnaire Crosswalk

The crosswalk below links the NSOPF:04 questionnaire items with similar items from the 

three previous NSOPF faculty questionnaires: NSOPF:88, NSOPF:93, and NSOPF:99. This 

crosswalk will facilitate analyses of trends among faculty at postsecondary institutions. Linked 

questions may be identical in content and format or may differ in one or more ways. The 

question, item, or response wording; the order in which response options were presented; the 

manner in which the data were collected (e.g., categorical response option versus open-ended 

response fields, instructions to mark one versus all that apply); and the population to which the 

question applies may have changed. It is strongly recommended that analysts review 

documentation to determine whether linked questions are equitable for their purpose. 

Table D-2. Faculty Questionnaire Crosswalk: 2004 

Variable name 

NSOPF:88 NSOPF:93 NSOPF:99 NSOPF:04 NSOPF:04 variable label 

Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Instructional duties, any 

Q2 Q1A Q2 Q2 Instructional duties related to credit courses/activities 

 Q3 Q4 Q3 Faculty status 

 Q2 Q3 Q4 Principal activity 

Q4 Q4 Q5 Q5 Employed full or part time at this institution 

 

 Q6 Part-time employment is primary employment 

 Q8 Part-time but preferred full-time position 

 Q6 Q7 Q9 Year began current job 

Q12 Q9 Q8 Q10 Rank 

Q13 Q10 Q9 Q11 Rank, year attained professor or associate professor 

 

Q9 Q7 Q10 Q12 Tenure status 

Q10 Q7A Q10 Q13 Tenure, year attained at any postsecondary institution 

Q18 Q38 Q64 Q14 Union status 

 Q38 Q64 Q15 Union status, reason not a member 

 Q12 Q14 Q16VS Principal field of teaching-verbatim 

 

 Q16CD2 Principal field of teaching-general code 

Q16 Q12 Q14 Q16CD4 Principal field of teaching-specific code 

Q26 Q16.1A Q16.1A Q17A1 Highest degree 

Q26 Q16.1B Q16.1B Q17A2 Highest degree, date awarded 

 Q16.1D Q16.1C Q17A3VS Highest degree field-verbatim 

 

 Q17A3C2 Highest degree field-general code 

Q26 Q16.1C Q16.1D Q17A3C4 Highest degree field-specific code 

Q26 Q16.1Eb Q16.1Eb Q17A4ST Highest degree institution-state 

Q26 Q16.1Eb Q16.1Eb Q17A4C Highest degree institution-city 

Q26 Q16.1Ea Q16.1Ea Q17A4N Highest degree institution-name 

 

 Q17A4I Highest degree institution-IPEDS 

 Q17A4LEV Highest degree institution, level 

 Q17A4CN Highest degree institution, control 

Q26 Q16 Q16 Q17D1 Bachelor’s degree date awarded 

Q5 Q17A Q22 Q18 Other current jobs, number of jobs 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix D. Item Crosswalks 

D-12

Table D-2. Faculty Questionnaire Crosswalk: 2004—Continued 

Variable name 

NSOPF:88 NSOPF:93 NSOPF:99 NSOPF:04 NSOPF:04 variable label 

Q6 Q24B + 

Q28B 

Q19A1 Other current jobs, full-time employment 

Q6 Q19B1 Other current jobs, number in postsecondary instruction 

 Q21 First postsecondary job, current job is first 

Q29 Q24.1a Q23 First postsecondary job, year began 

Q29 Q24.3a Q24 First postsecondary job, part or full time 

 

 Q24.6a Q26 First postsecondary job, tenure status 

Q29 Q26 Q27 Other jobs, any outside postsecondary since degree 

Q29 Q19.2 Q28.2b Q28 Other jobs, sector of previous job 

Q36 Q36a Q30a Q31A Hours per week on paid tasks at institution 

Q36 Q36b Q30b Q31B Hours per week on unpaid tasks at institution 

 

Q36 Q36c Q30c Q31C Hours per week on paid tasks outside of institution 

Q36 Q36d Q30d Q31D Hours per week on unpaid tasks outside of institution 

Q37 Q37a Q31aA Q32A Percent time spent on instruction, undergraduate 

Q37 Q37a Q31bA Q32B Percent time spent on instruction, graduate/first-professional 

Q37 Q37b Q31cA Q32C Percent time spent on research activities 

 

Q37 Q37c 

Q37d 

Q37e 

Q37f 

Q31dA 

Q31eA 

Q31fA 

Q32D Percent time spent on other unspecified activities 

 Q22A Q40 Q35A1 Number of classes taught, credit 

 Q35A2 Number of classes taught, noncredit 

 Q35 Q35B Number of classes taught, remedial 

 Q412i Q35C Number of classes taught, distance education 

 

 Q36 Teaching assistant in any credit class 

 Q23.2Aa Q41.2Aa Q37A1 Number of weeks taught, 1st credit class 

 Q23.2Ab Q41.2Ab Q37B1 Number of credit hours, 1st class 

Q32 Q23.2Ac Q41.2Ag Q37C1 Number of hours taught per week, 1st class 

Q32 Q23.2Ae Q41.2Ae Q37D1 Number of students, 1st class 

 

Q32 Q23.3A Q41.3A Q37E1 Primary level of students, 1st class 

Q32 Q23.2Ad Q41.2Ad Q37F1 Teaching assistant, 1st class 

 Q23.2Ba Q41.2Ba Q37A2 Number of weeks taught, 2nd credit class 

 Q23.2Bb Q41.2Bb Q37B2 Number of credit hours, 2nd class 

Q32 Q23.2Bc Q41.2Bg Q37C2 Number of hours taught per week, 2nd class 

 

Q32 Q23.2Be Q41.2Be Q37D2 Number of students, 2nd class 

Q32 Q23.3B Q41.3B Q37E2 Primary level of students, 2nd class 

Q32 Q23.2Bd Q41.2Bd Q37F2 Teaching assistant, 2nd class 

 Q23.2Ca Q41.2Ca Q37A3 Number of weeks taught, 3rd credit class 

 Q23.2Cb Q41.2Cb Q37B3 Number of credit hours, 3rd class 

 

Q32 Q23.2Cc Q41.2Cg Q37C3 Number of hours taught per week, 3rd class 

Q32 Q23.2Ce Q41.2Ce Q37D3 Number of students, 3rd class 

Q32 Q23.3C Q41.3C Q37E3 Primary level of students, 3rd class 

Q32 Q23.2Cd Q41.2Cd Q37F3 Teaching assistant, 3rd class 

 Q23.2Da Q41.2Da Q37A4 Number of weeks taught, 4th credit class 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix D. Item Crosswalks 

D-13

Table D-2. Faculty Questionnaire Crosswalk: 2004—Continued 

Variable name 

NSOPF:88 NSOPF:93 NSOPF:99 NSOPF:04 NSOPF:04 variable label 

 Q23.2Db Q41.2Db Q37B4 Number of credit hours, 4th class 

Q32 Q23.2Dc Q41.2Dg Q37C4 Number of hours taught per week, 4th class 

Q32 Q23.2De Q41.2De Q37D4 Number of students, 4th class 

Q32 Q23.3D Q41.3D Q37E4 Primary level of students, 4th class 

Q32 Q23.2Dd Q41.2Dd Q37F4 Teaching assistant, 4th class 

 

 Q23.2Ea Q41.2Ea Q37A5 Number of weeks taught, 5th credit class 

 Q23.2Eb Q41.2Eb Q37B5 Number of credit hours, 5th class 

Q32 Q23.2Ec Q41.2Eg Q37C5 Number of hours taught per week, 5th class 

Q32 Q23.2Ee Q41.2Ee Q37D5 Number of students, 5th class 

Q32 Q23.3E Q41.3E Q37E5 Primary level of students, 5th class 

 

Q32 Q23.2Ed Q41.2Ed Q37F5 Teaching assistant, 5th class 

 Q24Ae Q42b Q38A Undergrad class, multiple choice midterm/final exams 

 Q24Af Q42c Q38B Undergrad class, essay midterm/final exams 

 Q24Ag Q42d Q38C Undergrad class, short answer midterm/final exams 

 Q24Ah Q42e Q38D Undergrad class, term/research papers 

 

 Q24Ai Q42f Q38E Undergrad class, multiple drafts of written work 

 Q24Ac Q38F Undergrad class, oral presentations 

 Q38G Undergrad class, group projects 

 24Ad 42a Q38H Undergrad class, student evaluations of each others^ work 

 Q38I Undergrad class, laboratory/shop/studio assignments 

 

 Q38J Undergrad class, service learn/co-op interactions with business 

 Q43 Q39 Website for any instructional duties 

 Q47 Q41 Hours per week, e-mailing students 

 Q49a-c Q46 Individual instruction, any 

Q33 Q25.1A + 

Q25.2A 

Q49a Q47A1 Individual instruction, number undergraduate students 

 

Q33 Q25.3A Q49b Q47A2 Individual instruction, number graduate students 

Q33 Q25.3A Q49c Q47A3 Individual instruction, number first-professional students 

Q33 Q25.1B + 

Q25.2B 

Q49a Q47B1 Individual instruction, hours with undergraduates 

Q33 Q25.3B Q49b Q47B2 Individual instruction, hours with graduate students 

Q33 Q25.3B Q49c Q47B3 Individual instruction, hours with first-professional students 

 

 Q32 Q48 Hours per week, thesis/dissertation committees 

 Q63 Q49 Hours per week, administrative committees 

 Q50 Q50 Hours per week, with advisees 

 Q26 Q51 Q51 Hours per week, office hours 

Q30 Q20.1A + 

Q20.3A 

Q29.1 Q52AA Career articles, refereed journals 

 

Q30 Q20.2A + 

Q20.4A 

Q29.2 Q52AB Career articles, nonrefereed journals 

Q30 Q20.5A + 

Q20.6A 

Q29.3 Q52AC Career book reviews, chapters, creative works 

Q30 Q20.8A + 

Q20.7A + 

Q20.9A+ 

Q20.10A 

Q29.4 Q52AD Career books, textbooks, reports 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix D. Item Crosswalks 

D-14

Table D-2. Faculty Questionnaire Crosswalk: 2004—Continued 

Variable name 

NSOPF:88 NSOPF:93 NSOPF:99 NSOPF:04 NSOPF:04 variable label 

Q30 Q20.11A Q29.5 Q52AE Career presentations 

Q30 Q20.12A Q29.5 Q52AF Career exhibitions, performances 

Q30 Q20.13A + 

Q20.14A 

Q29.6 Q52AG Career patents, computer software 

Q30 Q20.1B + 

Q20.3B 

Q29.1 Q52BA Recent articles, refereed journals 

Q30 Q20.2B + 

Q20.4B 

Q29.2 Q52BB Recent articles, nonrefereed journals 

 

Q30 Q20.5B + 

Q20.6B 

Q29.3 Q52BC Recent book reviews, chapters, creative works 

Q30 Q20.8B + 

Q20.7B + 

Q20.9B + 

Q20.10B 

Q29.4 Q52BD Recent books, textbooks, reports 

Q30 Q20.11B Q29.5 Q52BE Recent presentations 

Q30 Q20.12B Q29.5 Q52BF Recent exhibitions, performances 

Q30 Q20.13B + 

Q20.14B 

Q29.6 Q52BG Recent patents, computer software 

 

 Q28 Q52 Q53 Scholarly activity, any 

 Q13 Q15 Q54VS Scholarly activity, principal field-verbatim 

 Q52CD2 Principal research field-general code 

 Q13 Q15 Q54CD4 Principal research field-specific code 

 Q30 Q54 Q55 Scholarly activity, any funded 

 

 Q29 Q53 Q56 Scholarly activity, description 

Q19 Q39a Q65a Q61A Satisfaction with authority to make decisions 

 Q61B Satisfaction with technology-based activities 

 Q61C Satisfaction with equipment/facilities 

 Q61D Satisfaction with institutional support for teaching improvement 

 

Q19 Q40a Q66a Q62A Satisfaction with workload 

Q19 Q40f Q66g Q62B Satisfaction with salary 

Q19 Q40g Q66h Q62C Satisfaction with benefits 

Q19 Q40i Q66j Q62D Satisfaction with job overall 

Q25 Q46 Q72 Q64 Retired from another position 

 

 Q74 Q65 Retire from all paid employment, planned age 

Q40 Q47a Q76a Q66A Amount of income from basic salary from institution 

Q40 Q47c + 

Q47d + 

Q47f 

Q76b Q66B Amount of income from other income from institution 

Q40 Q47g Q76d Q66C Amount of income from other academic institution 

Q40 Q47i Q76g Q66D Amount of income from consulting or freelance work 

 

Q40 Q47n Q76e Q66E Amount of income from other employment 

Q40 Q47h + 

Q47j + 

Q47k + 

Q47l + 

Q47m + 

Q47p + 

Q47q 

Q76f + 

Q76h + 

Q76i + 

Q76j + 

Q76k + 

Q76m + 

Q76n 

Q66F Amount of income from other unspecified sources 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix D. Item Crosswalks 

D-15

Table D-2. Faculty Questionnaire Crosswalk: 2004—Continued 

Variable name 

NSOPF:88 NSOPF:93 NSOPF:99 NSOPF:04 NSOPF:04 variable label 

 Q66B2 Amount of total individual income (range) 

 Q47B Q75b Q67 Type of contract, length of unit 

 Q75b Q68 Income paid per course/credit unit or term 

 Q69 Amount of income paid per course/credit unit or term 

 Q49 Q79 Q70A Amount of total household income 

 

 Q70B Amount of total household income (range) 

Q41 Q51 Q81 Q71 Gender 

Q42 Q52 Q82 Q72 Age, year of birth 

Q43 Q54 Q83 Q73 Race/ethnicity, Hispanic/Latino 

Q44 Q53_1 Q84 Q74A Race, American Indian or Alaska Native 

 

Q44 Q53_2 Q84 Q74B Race, Asian 

Q44 Q53_3 Q84 Q74C Race, Black or African American 

Q44 Q53_2 Q84 Q74D Race, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 

Q44 Q53_4 Q84 Q74E Race, White 

 Q85 Q75 Disability, any 

 

Q45 Q55 Q87 Q77 Marital status, fall 2003 

 Q79 Dependent children, number 

 Q56 Q89 Q80 Born in United States 

Q46 Q57 Q90 Q81 Citizenship status 

 Q82A Opinion: teaching is rewarded 

 

 Q82B Opinion: part-time faculty treated fairly 

Q48 Q59e Q92f Q82C Opinion: female faculty treated fairly 

Q48 Q59f Q92g Q82D Opinion: racial minorities treated fairly 

 Q59g Q92h Q83 Opinion about choosing an academic career again 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:04), 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:99), 1993 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:93), 1988 National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:88). 
Appendix D. Item Crosswalks 

D-16
E-1 

Appendix E 

Endorsements 

E-3 

NSOPF Endorsements 

American Association for Higher Education

American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers

American Association of Community Colleges

American Association of State Colleges and Universities

American Association of University Professors

American Council on Education

American Federation of Teachers

Association for Institutional Research

Association of American Colleges and Universities

Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities

Career College Association 

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

College and University Professional Association for Human Resources

The College Board

The College Fund/UNCF

Council of Graduate Schools

The Council of Independent Colleges 

Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities

National Association of College and University Business Officers

National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education

National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities

National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges

National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators

National Education Association 
Appendix E. Endorsements 

E-4 
F-1 

Appendix F 

Contacting Materials 

Institution Contacting Letters and Inserts 

Chief Administrator Letter ........................................................................................................F-3 

Institution Coordinator Early Contacting Letter .......................................................................F-5 

Institution Coordinator Binder Letter........................................................................................F-7 

Institution Refusal Conversion Letter .......................................................................................F-9

Coordinator Response Form....................................................................................................F-11 

Guidance for Preparing the List of Faculty and Instructional Staff ........................................F-18 

Pamphlets 

NSoFaS Pamphlet....................................................................................................................F-25 

NSOPF Pamphlet.....................................................................................................................F-29 

NPSAS Pamphlet.....................................................................................................................F-31 

Faculty Contacting Letters and E-Mail 

Lead Letter to Faculty .............................................................................................................F-33 

Instructional Insert to Faculty..................................................................................................F-34 

Initial E-Mail ...........................................................................................................................F-35 

Early Response Deadline Reminder Letter .............................................................................F-36 

First Follow-up E-Mail............................................................................................................F-37 

Second Reminder E-Mail ........................................................................................................F-38 

Third Reminder E-Mail ...........................................................................................................F-39 

Nonresponse Letter..................................................................................................................F-40 

Nonresponse E-Mail................................................................................................................F-41 

Second Nonresponse Letter.....................................................................................................F-42 

Second Nonresponse E-Mail ...................................................................................................F-43 

Refusal Nonresponse Letter ....................................................................................................F-44 

Refusal Nonresponse E-Mail...................................................................................................F-45 

Early September Nonrespondents Letter.................................................................................F-46 

Early September Nonrespondents E-Mail...............................................................................F-47 

Final Reminder E-Mail............................................................................................................F-48 

Refusals May Not be Eligible Letter.......................................................................................F-49 

Partials May Not be Eligible Letter.........................................................................................F-50 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-2 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-3 

NSoFaS 

Endorsed by 

American Association for 

Higher Education 

American Association of 

Collegiate Registrars and 

Admissions Officers 

American Association of 

Community Colleges 

American Association of 

State Colleges and 

Universities 

American Association of 

University Professors 

American Council on 

Education 

American Federation of 

Teachers 

Association for Institutional 

Research 

Association of American 

Colleges and Universities 

Association of Catholic 

Colleges and Universities 

Career College Association 

The Carnegie Foundation for 

the Advancement of Teaching 

College and University 

Professional Association for 

Human Resources 

The College Board 

The College Fund/UNCF 

Council of Graduate Schools 

The Council of Independent 

Colleges 

Hispanic Association of 

Colleges and Universities 

National Accrediting 

Commission of Cosmetology 

Arts and Sciences 

National Association of 

College and University 

Business Officers 

National Association for 

Equal Opportunity in Higher 

Education 

National Association of 

Independent Colleges and 

Universities 

National Association of State 

Universities and 

Land-Grant Colleges 

National Association of 

Student Financial Aid 

Administrators 

National Education 

Association

CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR LETTER 

August 12, 2003 

<CHIEF ADMIN NAME> 

<ADDR 1> 

<ADDR 2> 

<CITY STATE ZIP> 

Your IPEDS UNITID: 

Your password: 

Dear <NAME>: 

<INSTITUTION NAME> has been selected to participate in the 2004 National Study 

of Faculty and Students. The Higher Education Act (Sec. 131 (d), as amended in 

1998) authorizes the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES) to periodically gather information from students, faculty, and 

instructional staff on two pivotal areas of national concern: 

• How do students and their families finance education after high school? 

• Who teaches in our colleges and universities, and how do they conduct 

their work? 

In response to the continuing need for these data, information was collected from 

students in 1987, 1990, 1993, 1996, and 2000 as part of the National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS). Data on full- and part-time faculty and instructional 

staff were collected for the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) in 

1988, 1993, and 1999. NCES has contracted with RTI International (RTI) to conduct 

the next data collection cycle for both studies under the 2004 National Study of 

Faculty and Students (NSoFaS:04) in order to minimize the reporting burden to 

postsecondary institutions. Additional information about our plans for NSoFaS:04 is 

provided in the enclosed materials, which include an NSoFaS brochure and copies of 

the brochures that participating students or faculty will receive. 

Your institution’s participation is crucial to the success of NSoFaS:04. I am writing 

to request that you appoint an NSoFaS coordinator to oversee the preparation of 

lists of faculty/instructional staff and students at your institution. The NSoFaS 

coordinator will also complete a brief questionnaire on the Internet about your 

institution’s policies and procedures related to faculty and instructional staff. We will 

use the lists prepared by your institution to draw samples of faculty/instructional staff 

and students for participation in the 2004 NSOPF and NPSAS data collection cycles, 

respectively. Sampled faculty and students will be asked to complete a questionnaire 

on the Internet. 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-4 

The individual whom you designate as coordinator should be someone (such as the Director of 

Institutional Research) who is familiar with data and information sources at your institution. If you 

require assistance with selecting an appropriate coordinator, you may call the NSoFaS Help Desk at 1–

866–NSOFAS4 (1–866–676–3274, toll-free). 

We are aware that you and the staff at your institution are confronted with many competing demands for 

your time. Therefore, we are providing you—and the coordinator you designate—with this advance 

notice of the study to allow you adequate time to plan for this data collection effort and, if needed, to 

contact us for more information prior to the start of data collection in the fall 2003/2004 term. Once 

designated, an RTI representative will contact your coordinator to discuss the study timeline and 

procedures required for your institution. Your coordinator will also be provided with a complete summary 

of our data request for the NPSAS and NSOPF components of NSoFaS. 

All responses that relate to or describe identifiable characteristics of individuals may be used only for 

statistical purposes and may not be disclosed, or used, in identifiable form for any other purpose, unless 

otherwise compelled by law. The enclosed pamphlets detail our data collection procedures and provide a 

full description of the laws and procedures safeguarding the confidentiality of questionnaire responses, 

contact information, and other data. Additional information, including reports based on data from 

previous NSOPF and NPSAS studies, is available on the NSoFaS web site: 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsofas2004

If you have any questions about the study or procedures involved, please contact the RTI Project 

Coordinator, Brian Kuhr, at 1–866–676–3274 or via e-mail at nsofas2004@rti.org. You may also direct 

questions to NCES by contacting James Griffith at 1–202–502–7387 (e-mail address: 

James.Griffith@ed.gov) or Linda Zimbler at 1–202–502–7481 (e-mail address: Linda.Zimbler@ed.gov). 

At your earliest convenience, please complete the NSoFaS Designate a Coordinator form online at the 

NSoFaS web site, using the IPEDS UNITID and password printed on the first page of this letter. 

We look forward to your participation in this important study. Thank you for your cooperation and 

prompt completion of the NSoFaS Designate a Coordinator form. 

 

Sincerely, 

C. Dennis Carroll, Ph.D. 

Associate Commissioner 

Postsecondary Studies Division 

Enclosures The NSoFaS Designate a Coordinator form may be completed online at 

 https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsofas2004

To access the online form, enter the user name (which is your IPEDS 

UNITID) and password printed on the first page of this letter.
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-5 

NSoFaS 

Endorsed by 

American Association for 

Higher Education 

American Association of 

Collegiate Registrars and 

Admissions Officers 

American Association of 

Community Colleges 

American Association of 

State Colleges and 

Universities 

American Association of 

University Professors 

American Council on 

Education 

American Federation of 

Teachers 

Association for Institutional 

Research 

Association of American 

Colleges and Universities 

Association of Catholic 

Colleges and Universities 

Career College Association 

The Carnegie Foundation for 

the Advancement of Teaching 

College and University 

Professional Association for 

Human Resources 

The College Board 

The College Fund/UNCF 

Council of Graduate Schools 

The Council of Independent 

Colleges 

Hispanic Association of 

Colleges and Universities 

National Accrediting 

Commission of Cosmetology 

Arts and Sciences 

National Association of 

College and University 

Business Officers 

National Association for 

Equal Opportunity in Higher 

Education 

National Association of 

Independent Colleges and 

Universities 

National Association of State 

Universities and 

Land-Grant Colleges 

National Association of 

Student Financial Aid 

Administrators 

National Education 

Association

INSTITUTION COORDINATOR EARLY CONTACTING LETTER 

<DATE> 

<COORD NAME> 

<ADDR 1> 

<ADDR 2> 

<CITY STATE ZIP> 

Your IPEDS UNITID: 

Your PASSWORD: 

Dear <NAME> 

<INSTITUTION NAME> has been selected to participate in the 2004 National Study 

of Faculty and Students. The Higher Education Act (Sec. 131 (d), as amended in 1998) 

authorizes the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) to periodically gather information from students, faculty, and instructional 

staff on two pivotal areas of national concern: 

• How do students and their families finance education beyond high school? 

• Who teaches in our colleges and universities, and how do they conduct their 

work? 

In response to the continuing need for these data, information was collected from 

students in 1987, 1990, 1993, 1996, and 2000 as part of the National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS). Data on full- and part-time faculty and instructional staff 

were collected for the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) in 1988, 

1993, and 1999. NCES has contracted with RTI International (RTI) to conduct the 

next data collection cycle for both studies under the 2004 National Study of Faculty 

and Students (NSoFaS:04) in order to minimize the reporting burden to postsecondary 

institutions. Additional information about our plans for NSoFaS:04 is provided in the 

enclosed materials, which include an NSoFaS brochure and copies of the brochures 

that participating students or faculty will receive. 

The chief administrative officer of your institution has selected you as your 

institution’s coordinator for NSoFaS:04. The enclosed materials detail your role and 

the role of your institution in this study and contain a timetable of major project 

activities. You will have four primary responsibilities for NSoFaS:04: 

• Complete the Coordinator Response Form online at the NSoFaS web site, 

within the next few weeks, using the user name and password printed at the 

top of this letter. We will schedule data collection for your institution based on 

the information you provide. A facsimile of the Coordinator Response Form

is included in the attached folder. 

• Oversee the preparation of two data files: (1) a list of faculty and instructional 

staff and (2) an enrollment list of students at your institution. These data files 

will be used to draw samples of faculty/instructional staff and students for 

participation in NSoFaS:04. Sampled faculty and students will be asked to 

complete a questionnaire on the Internet. 

• Complete a separate web-based program requiring institution record information for a sample of 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-6 

students. 

NSoFaS:04 will begin in September 2003. At that time, complete instructions for your institution’s 

participation will be sent directly to you. In the meantime, please review the enclosed materials at your 

earliest convenience. 

We are aware that you and other staff at your institution are confronted with many competing demands 

for your time. We hope that giving you this advance notice of the study will provide you with ample time 

to plan for your school’s participation in NSoFaS:04. A project representative will call you in the next 

few days to ensure that you have received this notification and to answer any questions that you may 

have. You may also call the NSoFaS Help Desk directly at 1–866–NSOFAS4 (1–866–676–3274). 

All responses that relate to or describe identifiable characteristics of individuals may be used only for 

statistical purposes and may not be disclosed, or used, in identifiable form for any other purpose, unless 

otherwise compelled by law. The enclosed materials detail our data collection procedures and provide a 

detailed description of the laws and procedures safeguarding the confidentiality of questionnaire 

responses, contact information, and demographic data. Additional information, including reports based on 

data from previous NSOPF and NPSAS studies, is available on the NSoFaS web site: 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsofas2004

If you have questions about the study or procedures, please contact the RTI Project Coordinator, Brian 

Kuhr, at 1–866–676–3274 or via e-mail at nsofas2004@rti.org. You may also direct questions to NCES 

by contacting James Griffith at 1–202–502–7387 (e-mail address: James.Griffith@ed.gov) or Linda 

Zimbler at 1–202–502–7481 (e-mail address: Linda.Zimbler@ed.gov). 

At your earliest convenience, please complete Coordinator Response Form online at the NSoFaS web 

site, using the IPEDS UNITID and password printed on the first page of this letter. 

We look forward to your participation in this important study. 

Thank you for your cooperation. 

Sincerely,

C. Dennis Carroll, Ph.D. 

Associate Commissioner 

Postsecondary Studies Division 

Enclosures 

The NSoFaS Coordinator Response Form may be completed 

online at 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsofas2004

To access the online form, enter the IPEDS UNITID and 

password printed on the first page of this letter. 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-7 

NSoFaS 

Endorsed by 

American Association for Higher 

Education 

American Association of 

Collegiate Registrars and 

Admissions Officers 

American Association of 

Community Colleges 

American Association of State 

Colleges and Universities 

American Association of University 

Professors 

American Council on Education 

American Federation of Teachers 

Association for Institutional 

Research 

Association of American Colleges 

and Universities 

Association of Catholic Colleges and 

Universities 

Career College Association 

The Carnegie Foundation for the 

Advancement of Teaching 

College and University Professional 

Association for Human Resources 

The College Board 

The College Fund/UNCF 

Council of Graduate Schools 

The Council of Independent Colleges 

Hispanic Association of Colleges and 

Universities 

National Accrediting Commission of 

Cosmetology 

Arts and Sciences 

National Association of College and 

University Business Officers 

National Association for Equal 

Opportunity in Higher Education 

National Association of Independent 

Colleges and Universities 

National Association of State 

Universities and 

Land-Grant Colleges 

National Association of Student 

Financial Aid Administrators 

National Education Association

INSTITUTION COORDINATOR BINDER LETTER 

<DATE> 

<COORD NAME> 

<ADDR 1> 

<ADDR 2> 

<CITY STATE ZIP> 

Your IPEDS UNITID: 

Your PASSWORD: 

Dear <NAME>: 

As the person designated to be the Institution Coordinator for the 2004 National Study of 

Faculty and Students (NSoFaS:04) at your institution, you are receiving detailed 

instructions (see enclosed binder) to ensure your full participation in both the study’s 

faculty and student components. We look forward to working with you on this important 

research effort, and are available to answer any questions you may have on how to carry 

out the coordination activities requested of you. 

As described in materials provided during the early notification period of the study this 

past spring/summer, NSoFaS:04 is being conducted for the U.S. Department of 

Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) by RTI International (RTI). 

This ongoing study, designed to collect data from nationally representative samples of 

postsecondary students and faculty and instruction staff, provides vital information on 

changes over time in two pivotal areas of national concern: 

• How students and their families finance education after high school, and 

• Who teaches in our colleges and universities and how they conduct their work. 

In response to the continuing need for the data provided by NSoFaS, Congress has 

authorized NCES to collect these data periodically. Data on full- and part-time faculty 

and instructional staff were collected through the faculty component—the National Study 

of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF)–in 1988, 1993, and 1999. Information on students 

and student financial aid was previously collected in 1987, 1990, 1993, 1996, and 2000 as 

part of the student component—the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS). 

Your institution has been sampled for participation in both the faculty and student 

components of NSoFaS:04. As the Institution Coordinator, you are asked to oversee the 

completion of the following activities for NSoFaS:04: 

• Completion of the Coordinator Response Form (CRF) online at the NSoFaS 

web site, https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsofas2004/, using the IPEDS UNITID 

and password printed at the top of this letter. If you have already completed 

this document, a copy of the form may be printed from the web site after log in. 

A data collection timeline for your institution has been scheduled based on the 

information you provided. If you have not completed the CRF online, please do 

so at your earliest convenience. For reference, a facsimile of the CRF is included 

in the enclosed binder.
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-8 

• Preparation of a complete data file listing all full- and part-time faculty, adjunct faculty, and 

instructional staff (including available contact and demographic information). The file should be current 

as of November 1, 2003, or the date at your institution when faculty rosters for the fall academic term are 

complete. [FOR INST THAT COMPLETED THE CRF AND HAVE INDICATED DATE OTHER THAN 

DEC 6]: <Information provided on the CRF indicates that you will send your faculty list to RTI on 

<DATE>[FOR NULL/DEC 6: The NSoFaS help desk will call to confirm the date at which we can expect your 

institution’s list. It is important that we receive your institution’s list prior to the end of the fall term, if 

possible.] 

• Completion of the Institution Questionnaire online at the NSoFaS web site. The questionnaire may be 

completed in multiple sessions; however, Question 1 (which asks for counts of full- and part-time faculty and 

instructional staff at your institution) should be answered at the time you send your list of faculty. A facsimile 

of the questionnaire is included in your binder. Please complete this questionnaire online by December 5, 2003, 

or by the date you submit your faculty list noted above if different. 

• Preparation of a complete data file listing all students enrolled at your institution at any time between 

July 1, 2003, and April 30, 2004. Please refer to the enclosed NPSAS materials for a complete set of student 

eligibility criteria. Your list of students enrolled should be transmitted to RTI as early as possible. This data file 

will be used to draw a sample of students for participation in NPSAS. Sampled students will be asked to 

complete a questionnaire on our secured web site over the Internet. It is critical that we allow students ample 

time to respond before the end of the academic year. [FOR INST THAT COMPLETED A CRF: <Information 

provided on the CRF indicates that you will send the student list to RTI on <DATE>. [ NO CRF/ UNKNOWN 

AFTER DATE: The NSoFaS help desk will call to confirm the date at which we can expect your institution’s 

list.] 

• Completion of a separate web-based computer-assisted data entry (webCADE) program that requires 

institution record information for those students who are sampled. This includes specific information on 

their enrollment status, financial assistance, and demographic characteristics. More details can be found in the 

enclosed binder. 

All responses that relate to or describe identifiable characteristics of individuals may be used only for statistical 

purposes and may not be disclosed or used, in identifiable form, for any other purpose, unless otherwise compelled 

by law. The enclosed materials detail our data collection procedures and provide a detailed description of the laws 

and procedures safeguarding the confidentiality of individual questionnaire responses, contact information, and 

demographic data. Additional sources of information, including reports based on data from previous NSOPF and 

NPSAS studies, are available on the NSoFaS web site: https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsofas2004/. 

If you have questions about the study purposes or procedures, please contact either of us or Brian Kuhr, Project 

Coordinator, at 1–866–NSOFAS4 (1–866–676–3274) or via e-mail at nsofas2004@rti.org. You may also direct 

questions to NCES by contacting either James Griffith at 1–202–502–7387 (e-mail address: James.Griffith@ed.gov) 

or Linda Zimbler at 1–202–502–7481 (e-mail address: Linda.Zimbler@ed.gov). 

We look forward to your participation in this important study. Thank you for your cooperation. 

Sincerely,

 

John Riccobono, Ph.D. Margaret Cahalan, Ph.D. 

NPSAS Project Director NSOPF Project Director 

Enclosures 

Your institution’s response to the National Study of Faculty and Students may be completed online at

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsofas2004/

To upload lists or other data collection forms, go to the login tab found on the home/login page. 

You will be prompted to enter the IPEDS UNITID and password printed on the first page of this 

letter. 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-9 

NSoFaS 

Endorsed by 

American Association for 

Higher Education 

American Association of 

Collegiate Registrars and 

Admissions Officers 

American Association of 

Community Colleges 

American Association of 

State Colleges and 

Universities 

American Association of 

University Professors 

American Council on 

Education 

American Federation of 

Teachers 

Association for Institutional 

Research 

Association of American 

Colleges and Universities 

Association of Catholic 

Colleges and Universities 

Career College Association 

The Carnegie Foundation for 

the Advancement of Teaching 

College and University 

Professional Association for 

Human Resources 

The College Board 

The College Fund/UNCF 

Council of Graduate Schools 

The Council of Independent 

Colleges 

Hispanic Association of 

Colleges and Universities 

National Accrediting 

Commission of Cosmetology 

Arts and Sciences 

National Association of 

College and University 

Business Officers 

National Association for 

Equal Opportunity in Higher 

Education 

National Association of 

Independent Colleges and 

Universities 

National Association of State 

Universities and 

Land-Grant Colleges 

National Association of 

Student Financial Aid 

Administrators 

National Education 

Association

INSTITUTION REFUSAL CONVERSION LETTER 

November 21, 2003 

<NAME> 

<ADDR 1> 

<ADDR 2> 

<CITY STATE ZIP> 

Your IPEDS UNITID: 

Your password: 

Dear <NAME>: 

I am writing to you again to urge your participation in the 2004 National Study of 

Faculty and Students (NSoFaS:04). Because your participation is so important to 

the success of NSoFaS:04, I have authorized assistance to your institution to 

facilitate its timely participation in NSoFaS:04. 

The Higher Education Act (Sec. 131 (d)), as amended by the United States 

Congress in 1998, provides the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) with the authority and a mandate to periodically gather 

data on the condition of postsecondary education in the United States. NSoFaS:04 

plays an essential role in fulfilling this mandate. 

NSoFaS:04 consists of two very important studies conducted by NCES: the 2004 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) and the 2004 National 

Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:04). The nationally representative 

sample for the two studies is selected from among all Title IV eligible institutions. 

To ensure representation of the entire range of postsecondary institutions in the 

nation, we count on cooperation from each of the sampled institutions. We are 

grateful for the outstanding cooperation that we have received in previous cycles of 

these studies. We urgently request your institution’s participation in NSoFaS:04. 

We are well aware that, especially under difficult economic conditions, 

postsecondary institutions have limited staff and resources to devote to 

participating in research studies, regardless of their importance. That is why we 

have instructed RTI International, NCES’ contractor for NSoFaS:04, to provide 

your institution with the assistance necessary to accomplish the following: 

• Provide a list of faculty and instructional staff employed by your institution 

as of November 1, 2003; 

• Complete a brief Institution Questionnaire concerning your institution’s 

policies and procedures regarding faculty; 

• Provide a list of postsecondary students enrolled at your institution 

between July 1, 2003 and April 30, 2004; and 

• Complete a student record abstraction form for a small number of students 

selected from the enrollment list. 

To assist your institution in participating in the study, NCES has authorized 

RTI International to provide compensation for the staff and resources required 

by your institution to compile lists of faculty and students and associated 

documentation.
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-10 

Moreover, if necessary, RTI will also arrange for one of its specially-trained staff to visit your institution 

and perform the record abstractions for sampled students. 

Data collection for NSoFaS:04 is both authorized and protected by federal confidentiality laws, including 

the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The small number of faculty and students 

sampled from the lists provided by your institution will be asked to participate in NSoFaS:04 by 

completing a questionnaire online or by telephone in a confidential and secure manner. We encourage 

you to review the additional information available about NSoFaS:04 at the following web site: 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsofas2004/

Both the Institution Questionnaire and secure uploads for faculty and student lists may be accessed at this 

site. The user name (IPEDS UNITID) and password required to access the forms and procedures for your 

institution are printed at the top of this letter. 

Over the course of the next 2 weeks, a representative from RTI will be contacting you to discuss your needs 

and the best way to facilitate your institution’s participation in NSoFaS:04. You may also contact Brian 

Kuhr, the Project Coordinator at 1-866-676-3274 or by e-mail at nsofas2004@rti.org to confirm your 

participation in the study and to request any necessary assistance in providing the data requested. You may 

direct questions to NCES by contacting James Griffith at 1-202-502-7387 (e-mail address: 

James.Griffith@ed.gov) or Linda Zimbler at 1-202-502-7481 (e-mail address: Linda.Zimbler@ed.gov). 

Once again, thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

C. Dennis Carroll, Ph.D. 

Associate Commissioner 

Postsecondary Education Division 

The NSoFaS forms may be completed online at 

 https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsofas2004/

To access the online form, enter the user name (which is your IPEDS 

UNITID) and password printed on the first page of this letter.
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-11 

The 2004 National Study of Faculty and Students

(NSoFaS:04)

COORDINATOR RESPONSE FORM (CRF) 

FACSIMILE 

If you completed the CRF in spring/summer 2003, a report can be viewed and/or printed from the web 

site with your responses—specifically, the due dates established for submitting your list of faculty and 

instructional staff and/or list of students enrolled. 

Follow the steps below to connect to the study’s secure web site.

Connect browser to: 

 https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsofas2004/ 

At the Home/Login page: 

 Enter your unique IPEDS UNITID and password.1

 Select the option View Coordinator Response Form Report. (Click on link.) 

If you did not complete the form in spring/summer 2003, please review this facsimile and complete 

the CRF online as soon as possible upon receipt of this binder. 

Follow the steps below to connect to the study’s secure web site.

Connect browser to: 

 https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsofas2004/ 

 At the Home/Login page:

 Enter your unique IPEDS UNITID and password.1

 Select the option Coordinator Response Form. (Click on button.) 

If you are unable to complete the CRF online, you may complete the form by telephone. Please 

call the 2004 National Study of Faculty and Students (NSoFaS:04) Help Desk at 1–866–NSOFAS4 

(1–866–676–3274). Staff members are available Monday through Friday, from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. (Eastern 

Time). You will be able to immediately complete the information with a staff member or schedule an 

appointment to complete it at a more convenient time. 

 

 

1

 Your unique and secure Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) UNITID and password are printed on the letter 

accompanying this material or they may be obtained by contacting the Help Desk at 1–866–NSOFAS4 (1–866–676–3274).
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-12 

The 2004 National Study of Faculty and Students

(NSoFaS:04)

Coordinator Response Form 

Your response to these questions will allow RTI to customize some of the systems on the NSoFaS web 

site with characteristics unique to your institution. This will make it easier for you and your staff to move 

through the various study components. 

1. Institutions use different methods to account for a student’s credits—that is, to track 

completion of required curricula, courses, or programs offered at that institution. 

How are course/programs measured at your institution?

2. Institutions use a variety of structures to quantify the hours that are taken by 

a student during a calendar year or school year. 

What calendar system is used at your institution? 

Semesters 

Quarters 

Trimesters 

4-1-4 

Differs by program 

Continuous/Open Enrollment 

No standard terms 

Clock hours 

Credit hours 

Both 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-13 

The 2004 National Study of Faculty and Students

(NSoFaS:04)

3. Identify the names of each of the terms/enrollment periods (sometimes referred to as payment 

periods) that a student may enroll in between July 1, 2003, and June 30, 2004. Please include all 

terms, even those that may apply to special types of students (e.g., medical or MBA students). 

NOTE: SOME PORTION OF THE TERM MUST OCCUR BETWEEN JULY 1, 2003, AND JUNE 30, 2004, BUT MAY START 

PRIOR TO JULY 1 OR END AFTER JUNE 30. 

After all the terms are added, please press the Continue button. 

Add Term 

Please add a term. 

Please enter the name of the term and the associated start and end dates. 

Term 

Name: 

Start 

date: 

Month Day Year 

January 1 2003

End 

date: 

January 1 2003

 

THIS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW QUESTION 3 MAY BE COMPLETED. 

3. Identify the names of each of the terms/enrollment periods (sometimes referred to as payment 

periods) that a student may enroll in between July 1, 2003, and June 30, 2004. Please include all 

terms, even those that may apply to special types of students (e.g., medical or MBA students). 

NOTE: SOME PORTION OF THE TERM MUST OCCUR BETWEEN JULY 1, 2003, AND JUNE 30, 2004, BUT MAY START 

PRIOR TO JULY 1 OR END AFTER JUNE 30. 

After all the terms are added, please press the Continue button. 

Delete? Term Name Term start date Term end date 

First Summer 6/6/2003 7/15/2003 

Second Summer 7/21/2003 8/8/2003 

Fall 2003 8/28/2003 12/6/2003 

Spring 2004 2/10/2004 5/5/2004 

First Summer 2004 5/6/2004 6/15/2004 

Add Term Delete selected Terms
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-14 

The 2004 National Study of Faculty and Students

(NSoFaS:04)

4. Identify institution grants and scholarships. Include only those institutional grants and 

scholarships paid out of institutional revenue, including restricted funds that originate from 

private donations or endowments. Do not include grants or scholarships funded by state or 

federal sources, even if the award decisions are made by institution staff. State grant program 

funds that are allocated to and awarded by your institution (instead of a centralized state grant 

system that makes awards to students) should not be included as institutional aid. 

Please list up to 12 names of the most prevalent institution grants and scholarships awarded and 

indicate whether “need,” “merit,” or “both” is considered when making these awards. 

Check here if your institution does not award institution grants or scholarships. Then click on the Continue 

button below. 

Add Aw ard 

 

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW QUESTION 4 MAY BE COMPLETED. 

4. Identify institution grants and scholarships. Include only those institutional grants and 

scholarships paid out of institutional revenue, including restricted funds that originate from 

private donations or endowments. Do not include grants or scholarships funded by state or 

federal sources, even if the award decisions are made by institution staff. State grant program 

funds that are allocated to and awarded by your institution (instead of a centralized state grant 

system that makes awards to students) should not be included as institutional aid. 

Please list up to 12 names of the most prevalent institution grants and scholarships awarded and 

indicate whether “need,” “merit,” or “both” is considered when making these awards. 

Delete? Name of Award Basis of Award Decision 

Future Teachers of North Carolina Scholarship BOTH 

Add Aw ard Delete selected Aw ards
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-15 

The 2004 National Study of Faculty and Students

(NSoFaS:04)

 

NPSAS (STUDENT COMPONENT ONLY) INSTITUTIONS 

WILL AUTOMATICALLY SKIP THIS QUESTION WHEN FORM IS COMPLETED ON 

WEB. 

5. We would like to receive a list of faculty and 

instructional staff employed at your institution as of 

November 1, 2003. The table to the right depicts the 

data elements to be included on the list for each faculty 

and instructional staff member. We'd like to receive the 

list of faculty and instructional staff no later than 

December 5, 2003. 

When will you be able to provide the list of faculty and 

instructional staff? 

On or before December 5, 2003 

After December 5, 2003. (A project staff member 

will call to establish a specific date.) 

 

 

Faculty and Instructional Staff Data Elements 

1. First Name 

2. Middle Initial 

3. Last Name 

4. Name Suffix (e.g., Jr., Sr., III, etc.) 

5. Employee ID 

6. Race/Ethnicity 

7. Gender 

8. Employment Status 

9. Academic Field 

10. Campus Address 1 

11. Campus Address 2 

12. Campus City 

13. Campus State 

14. Campus Zip Code 

15. Campus Telephone Number 

16. Campus e-mail 

17. Home Address 1 

18. Home Address 2 

19. Home City 

20. Home State 

21. Home Zip Code 

22. Home Telephone Number 

23. Home e-mail 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-16 

The 2004 National Study of Faculty and Students

(NSoFaS:04)

 

THESE DATES ARE AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THE DATE FILLS IN BASED ON YOUR 

INSTITUTION’S RESPONSE TO QUESTION 4 

( IF ANY TERMS WERE ENTERED) 

6. Please provide a list of all students enrolled at your 

institution. The table to the right depicts the data 

elements to be included on the list for each student. 

We’d like to receive the enrollment list as soon as 

possible. Based on the dates you provided for terms 

during the 2003-04 academic year, February 24, 2004, is 

2 weeks after the beginning of the "Spring 2004" term, 

which is the last term with a start date that is on or 

before April 30, 2004. 

When will you be able to provide the list of all students 

enrolled? 

On or before February 24, 2004 

After February 24, 2004. (A project staff member 

will call to establish a specific date.) 

 

 

Student Data Element 

1. First Name 

2. Middle Initial 

3. Last Name 

4. Name Suffix (e.g., Jr., Sr., III, etc.) 

5. Student ID 

6. Social Security Number 

7. Educational Level 

8. First Time Beginner 

9. Local Address 1 

10. Local Address 2 

11. Local City 

12. Local State 

13. Local ZIP Code 

14. Local Telephone Number 

15. Campus e-mail 

16. Permanent Address 1 

17. Permanent Address 2 

18. Permanent City 

19. Permanent State 

20. Permanent ZIP Code 

21. Permanent Telephone Number 

22. Permanent e-mail 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-17 

The 2004 National Study of Faculty and Students

(NSoFaS:04)

7. When RTI receives your list of students enrolled, a random sample will be selected. During the final stage of the 

study, you will enter specific data from sampled students’ records pertaining to enrollment and financial aid status. 

NPSAS webCADE (a computer-assisted data entry Internet application) is the application developed to assist in your 

completing this stage. It will be available on the study web site once the sample has been selected. You will enter 

student data on this site using either Netscape 4.8 or higher or MS Internet Explorer 5.0 or higher with the 

following: 

· 128-bit encryption. You may need to adjust your browser settings or download an update to activate 128-bit 

encryption. 

· JavaScript enabled. JavaScript is the programming language of the interactive sections of our web site and must 

be enabled for many pages to work properly. 

Will it be possible for you to use this software to provide the requested data? 

Yes 

No 

Would like to discuss options with staff 

 

 

OPTIONS AT END OF CRF 

You have reached the end of this form. Please check the option that best describes how you would like us to 

proceed: 

Close completed form: You have completed all the information, including all terms, awards, and dates 

when we can expect your faculty list and your list of students enrolled. Checking this option means that you are 

submitting this form as final. If you later determine that you need to make modifications, please call 1-866-

NSOFAS4 (1-866-676-3274) or e-mail the changes to nsofas2004@rti.org. 

Keep form open for later completion: You have completed all or most of the information, including some 

terms, some awards, and dates when we can expect your faculty list and your list of students enrolled. Checking 

this option will allow you to continue accessing this form on the web until you are entirely satisfied that all 

information has been entered. NSoFaS staff may call you to offer their assistance. 

Provide assistance: You would like NSoFaS staff to call you to schedule a time to complete the items. 

Checking this option forwards an auto e-mail to nsofas2004@rti.org and a staff person will call to set an 

appointment for completing the Response Form with you over the telephone. A facsimile of the form was provided 

with your early notification packet to assist with preparation of your responses at that time. 

 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-18 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-19 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-20 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-21 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-22 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-23 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-24 

ITEM 1: 

Fill in Date, Sender’s Name, Phone, Company, Address, City, State, and ZIP Code. 

ITEM 2: 

Your Internal Billing Reference Information will be 08xxx.xxx.xxx for the list of faculty and 

instructional staff. 

ITEM 3: 

ON AIRBILL TO BE ENTERED 

Recipient’s Name: Linda Rattelade 

Phone: (919) 541-8984 

Company: RTI International 

Address: 1000 Parliament Ct., Suite 100 

City: Durham 

State: NC 

ZIP Code: 27703-8464 

ITEM 4a: 

Please mark FedEx Priority Overnight. 

ITEM 5: 

Indicate the type of package/letter you are sending. 

ITEM 7: 

Please check Third Party and use FedEx Account No. 15xxxxxxx. 
F-25 
F-26 
F-27 
F-28 
F-29 
F-30 
F-31 
F-32 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-33 

NSOPF:04 

Endorsed by

American Association for 

Higher Education 

American Association of 

Collegiate Registrars and 

Admissions Officers 

American Association of 

Community Colleges 

American Association of 

State Colleges and 

Universities 

American Association of 

University Professors 

American Council on 

Education 

American Federation of 

Teachers 

Association for Institutional 

Research 

Association of American 

Colleges and Universities 

Association of Catholic 

Colleges and Universities 

Career College Association 

The Carnegie Foundation for 

the Advancement of 

Teaching 

College and University 

Professional Association for 

Human Resources 

The College Board 

The College Fund/UNCF 

Council of Graduate Schools 

The Council of Independent 

Colleges 

Hispanic Association of 

Colleges and Universities 

National Association of 

College and University 

Business Officers 

National Association for 

Equal Opportunity in Higher 

Education 

National Association of 

Independent Colleges and 

Universities 

National Association of State 

Universities and 

Land-Grant Colleges 

National Association of 

Student Financial Aid 

Administrators 

National Education 

Association 

LEAD LETTER TO FACULTY 

 <DATE> 

<FACULTY NAME> 

<ADDR 1> 

<ADDR 2> 

<CITY STATE ZIP> 

Dear Colleague, 

I am writing to ask you to participate in an important study about postsecondary faculty 

and instructional staff in the United States. Specifically, I would like you to complete a 

questionnaire over the Internet about your background and work experiences at 

<INSTITUTION NAME>. You were selected as part of a nationally representative sample 

of faculty and instructional staff to take part in the fourth cycle of the National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF). RTI International (RTI) of North Carolina is conducting 

this cycle of the study for the U.S. Department of Education. Your participation, while 

voluntary, is critical to the study’s success. On average, the questionnaire takes about 30 

minutes to complete. 

Your responses will be secured behind firewalls and will be encrypted during Internet 

transmission. All identifying information is maintained in a separate file for follow-up 

purposes only. Your responses may be used only for statistical purposes and may not be 

disclosed, or used, in identifiable form for any other purpose, except as required by law. 

We have enclosed a pamphlet that answers common questions about the study, and 

contains additional information on laws protecting your confidentiality. 

To respond to the questionnaire over the Internet: 

• Go to: https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf/ 

• Type the study ID and password (see below) on the Home/Login page, and 

• Press “Enter” or click “Login” to begin the questionnaire. 

To respond to the questionnaire by telephone with one of our trained interviewers, or ask 

questions about the study: 

• Call 1–866–NSOPF04 (1–866–676–7304). 

If you complete the questionnaire by <DATE>, you may choose to receive either a $30 

check or gift certificate from Amazon.com as a token of our appreciation. 

If you have questions or comments regarding the study, you may contact the RTI Project 

Director, Dr. Maggie Cahalan, at 1–866–676–7304 (e-mail address: nsopf@rti.org) or the 

NCES Project Officer, Linda Zimbler, at 1–202–502–7481 (e-mail address: 

Linda.Zimbler@ed.gov). 

Sincerely, 

C. Dennis Carroll, Ph.D. 

Associate Commissioner 

Postsecondary Studies Division 

Enclosures 

Go to: https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf/ 

Your study ID: 

Your password: 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-34 

HOW TO COMPLETE THE

NSOPF:04 QUESTIONNAIRE

As a thank you from the U.S. Department of Education, if you complete the 

National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 2004 (NSOPF:04) questionnaire by 

<DATE>, you will receive either a $30 check or gift certificate from Amazon.com 

(your choice). Your participation is very important to the success of NSOPF:04. 

To complete the self-directed web questionnaire: 

1. Go to: https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf/

2. At the login and password prompts, enter the study ID and password 

printed in the lower right of the attached letter. 

3. Press “Enter” or click “Login” to begin the questionnaire.

You will need to use Internet Explorer or Netscape as your browser to complete 

the self-directed web version. If you need assistance in completing the web 

questionnaire or would like to complete the questionnaire over the phone, please 

call our Help Desk at 1–866–NSOPF04 (1–866–676–7304) for assistance. 

While you may complete the NSOPF web questionnaire throughout the data 

collection period, we will begin calling sample members to complete the 

interview over the phone starting <DATE>. 

For more information about this study visit the web site at: 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf/

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of 

information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number 

for this information collection is 1850–0608. The time required to complete this information collection is 

estimated to average 30 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing 

data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have 

any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate or suggestions for improving this form, 

please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202-4651. If you have comments or 

concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, write directly to: Linda Zimbler, 

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW, Room 8123, 

Washington, DC 20006-5652. 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-35 

INITIAL E-MAIL 

E-mail Subject line: U.S. Department of Education Study 

Attention: <NAME> 

Dear Colleague, 

You have been randomly selected to participate in the fourth cycle of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:04) that is being conducted on behalf of the United States Department of Education. We are requesting that 

you complete a questionnaire over the Internet using the secure study ID and password listed below. Participation in 

the study is voluntary; however, to ensure that the study represents the range of postsecondary faculty and 

instructional staff in the United States, the participation of each person selected in the sample is critical to the 

study’s success. 

To find out more about the study, click the link below. To respond to the questionnaire over the Internet, log in 

using your study ID and password: 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf/ 

Study ID: 

Password: 

You will need to use Internet Explorer or Netscape as your browser to complete the web version. 

The U.S. Department of Education has contracted with RTI International, an independent non-profit research 

organization, to conduct the study. To respond to the questionnaire by telephone or ask questions about the study, 

please call the RTI help desk at: 

1-866-NSOPF04 (1-866-676-7304) 

As a small token of our appreciation, if you complete the questionnaire by <DATE>, you may choose to receive 

either a $30 check or a $30 gift certificate from Amazon.com. 

Your responses may be used only for statistical purposes and may not be disclosed, or used, in identifiable form for 

any other purpose, except as required by law. Your responses will be secured behind firewalls and will be encrypted 

during Internet transmission. On average, the questionnaire takes about 30 minutes to complete. To learn more 

about the study and the laws protecting your confidentiality, please click on the link above. 

Thank you in advance for your participation in this important study. 

Sincerely, 

Linda Zimbler 

NSOPF Project Officer 

U. S. Department of Education 

 

Margaret Cahalan, Ph.D. 

NSOPF Project Director 

RTI International 

Note: To ensure that as many sample members as possible receive this message, we also have sent printed materials 

to you via U.S. mail. All the information in the printed materials also is available through the web site listed above. 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-36 

NSOPF:04 

Endorsed by

American Association for 

Higher Education 

American Association of 

Collegiate Registrars and 

Admissions Officers 

American Association of 

Community Colleges 

American Association of 

State Colleges and 

Universities 

American Association of 

University Professors 

American Council on 

Education 

American Federation of 

Teachers 

Association for Institutional 

Research 

Association of American 

Colleges and Universities 

Association of Catholic 

Colleges and Universities 

Career College Association 

The Carnegie Foundation for 

the Advancement of 

Teaching 

College and University 

Professional Association for 

Human Resources 

The College Board 

The College Fund/UNCF 

Council of Graduate Schools 

The Council of Independent 

Colleges 

Hispanic Association of 

Colleges and Universities 

National Association of 

College and University 

Business Officers 

National Association for 

Equal Opportunity in Higher 

Education 

National Association of 

Independent Colleges and 

Universities 

National Association of State 

Universities and 

Land-Grant Colleges 

National Association of 

Student Financial Aid 

Administrators 

National Education 

Association

EARLY RESPONSE DEADLINE REMINDER LETTER 

 <DATE> 

<FACULTY NAME> 

<ADDR 1> 

<ADDR 2> 

<CITY STATE ZIP> 

Dear Colleague: 

We are writing to urge your completion of the questionnaire for the National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF), sponsored by the U. S. Department of Education. As indicated 

previously, you were randomly selected for participation in this nationally representative sample 

of faculty and instructional staff. 

At a time of rapid change in postsecondary education, NSOPF will provide critical updated 

information on the characteristics, workload and career paths of faculty and instructional staff in 

the United States. To adequately represent the full range of faculty and instructional staff 

throughout the nation, all persons having any full- or part-time instructional duties, or having 

faculty status in the fall of 2003, are eligible for inclusion. The participation of each individual 

selected is critical to the study’s success. 

To access the questionnaire on the web or to obtain more information about the study, go to 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf and log in using your 

Study ID: 

Password: 

You will need to use Internet Explorer or Netscape as your browser to complete the web version. 

If you need help accessing the web or if you prefer to complete the questionnaire by telephone, 

please call the RTI Help Desk at 1-866-NSOPF04 (1-866-676-7304). If you do not wish to 

receive an additional reminder e-mail message regarding this early-response incentive, you may 

call the number listed above and request to be removed from the mailing list. The U.S. 

Department of Education has contracted with RTI International, an independent non-profit 

research organization, to conduct the study. Whether by web or telephone, we urge you to 

complete the questionnaire promptly. If you complete the questionnaire by <DATE>, you may 

choose to receive either a $30 check or a $30 gift certificate from Amazon.com. 

On average, the questionnaire takes about 30 minutes to complete. Your responses may be used 

only for statistical purposes and may not be disclosed, or used, in identifiable form for any other 

purpose, except as required by law. Your responses will be secured behind firewalls and will be 

encrypted during Internet transmission. To learn more about the study and the laws protecting 

your confidentiality, please go to the web address listed above. 

On behalf of the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, we 

would like to thank you in advance for your participation in this very important study. 

Sincerely, 

Linda Zimbler Margaret Cahalan, Ph.D. 

NSOPF Project Officer NSOPF Project Director 

U.S. Department of Education RTI International
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-37 

FIRST FOLLOW-UP E-MAIL 

E-mail Subject line: U.S. Department of Education Study Reminder 

Attention: <NAME> 

Dear Colleague, 

We are writing to urge your timely completion of the questionnaire for the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF). As indicated in our previous correspondence, you were selected as part of a nationally representative 

sample for this major U.S. Department of Education study. 

We are keenly aware of how busy faculty and instructional staff are, which is why we developed a web version of 

the questionnaire as a convenient way to participate in this important study. If you complete the questionnaire by 

<DATE>, you may elect to receive either a $30 check or a gift certificate from Amazon.com as a token of our 

appreciation. 

To find out more about the study, click the link below. To respond to the questionnaire over the Internet, log in 

using your study ID and password: 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf/

Study ID: 

Password: 

You will need to use Internet Explorer or Netscape as your browser to complete the web version. 

The Department of Education has contracted with an independent non-profit research organization, RTI, 

International, to conduct the study. If you need help completing the survey on the web or you prefer to complete the 

survey by telephone, please call the RTI Help Desk at 1-866-NSOPF04 (1-866-676-7304). Thank you again for 

your participation in this important study. 

Sincerely, 

Linda Zimbler 

NSOPF Project Officer 

U. S. Department of Education 

 

Margaret Cahalan, Ph.D. 

NSOPF Project Director 

RTI International 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-38 

SECOND REMINDER E-MAIL 

Subject: U.S. Department of Education Study Follow-up Reminder 

Attention: <NAME> 

 

Dear Colleague: 

 

We are writing to urge your completion of the questionnaire for the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF), sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education. As indicated previously, you were randomly selected for 

participation in this nationally representative sample of faculty and instructional staff. 

At a time of rapid change in postsecondary education, NSOPF will provide critical updated information on the 

characteristics, workload and career paths of faculty and instructional staff in the United States. To adequately 

represent the full range of faculty and instructional staff throughout the nation, all persons having any full- or parttime instructional duties, or having faculty status in the fall of 2003, are eligible for inclusion. The participation of 

each individual selected is critical to the study’s success. 

To access the questionnaire on the web or to obtain more information about the study, go to 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf and log in using your 

Study ID: 

Password: 

You will need to use Internet Explorer or Netscape as your browser to complete the web version. If you need help 

accessing the web or if you prefer to complete the questionnaire by telephone, please call the RTI Help Desk at 1-

866-NSOPF04 (1-866-676-7304). If you do not wish to receive an additional reminder e-mail message regarding 

this early-response incentive, you may call the number listed above and request to be removed from the mailing list.

The U.S. Department of Education has contracted with RTI International, an independent non-profit research 

organization, to conduct the study. 

Whether by web or telephone, we urge you to complete the questionnaire promptly. If you complete the 

questionnaire by <DATE>, you may choose to receive either a $30 check or a $30 gift certificate from 

Amazon.com. 

On average, the questionnaire takes about 30 minutes to complete. Your responses may be used only for statistical 

purposes and may not be disclosed, or used, in identifiable form for any other purpose, except as required by law. 

Your responses will be secured behind firewalls and will be encrypted during Internet transmission. To learn more 

about the study and the laws protecting your confidentiality, please go to the web address listed above. 

 

On behalf of the U.S. Department of Education, we would like to thank you in advance for your participation in this 

very important study. 

 

Sincerely, 

Linda Zimbler 

NSOPF Project Officer 

U.S. Department of Education 

 

Margaret Cahalan, Ph.D. 

NSOPF Project Director 

RTI International 

 

Note: To ensure that as many sample members as possible receive this message, we also have sent printed materials 

to you via U.S. mail. 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-39 

THIRD REMINDER E-MAIL 

Subject: U.S. Dept. of Ed. Study Early-response Period Ends After <DATE> 

Attention: <NAME> 

 

Dear Colleague: 

 

This message is only intended to be a gentle reminder to you that the early-response period for the National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) is drawing near. We are pleased to report that about 50 percent of faculty and 

instructional staff invited to participate along with you have already completed the questionnaire online. However, 

to adequately represent the entire range of faculty and instructional staff in the nation, we need at least 80 percent of 

the sample to complete the survey. We hope you will find the time to participate in the study soon. As a small token 

of our appreciation, if you complete the questionnaire by <DATE>, you may choose to receive either a $30 check or 

a $30 gift certificate from Amazon.com. 

To access the questionnaire on the web or to obtain more information about the study, go to 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf and log in using your 

Study ID: 

Password: 

You will need to use Internet Explorer or Netscape as your browser to complete the web version. Please be assured 

that your responses will be secured behind firewalls and will be encrypted during Internet transmission. If you need 

help accessing the web or if you prefer to complete the questionnaire by telephone, please call our Help Desk at 1-

866-NSOPF04 (1-866-676-7304). If you do not wish to receive additional reminder e-mail messages, you may call 

the number listed above and request to be removed from the mailing list.

Thank you in advance for your participation in this very important study. Your participation is so very critical to its 

success. 

 

Sincerely, 

Linda Zimbler 

NSOPF Project Officer 

U. S. Department of Education 

 

Margaret Cahalan, Ph.D. 

NSOPF Project Director 

RTI International 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-40 

NSOPF:04 

Endorsed by

American Association for 

Higher Education 

American Association of 

Collegiate Registrars and 

Admissions Officers 

American Association of 

Community Colleges 

American Association of 

State Colleges and 

Universities 

American Association of 

University Professors 

American Council on 

Education 

American Federation of 

Teachers 

Association for Institutional 

Research 

Association of American 

Colleges and Universities 

Association of Catholic 

Colleges and Universities 

Career College Association 

The Carnegie Foundation for 

the Advancement of 

Teaching 

College and University 

Professional Association for 

Human Resources 

The College Board 

The College Fund/UNCF 

Council of Graduate Schools 

The Council of Independent 

Colleges 

Hispanic Association of 

Colleges and Universities 

National Association of 

College and University 

Business Officers 

National Association for 

Equal Opportunity in Higher 

Education 

National Association of 

Independent Colleges and 

Universities 

National Association of State 

Universities and 

Land-Grant Colleges 

National Association of 

Student Financial Aid 

Administrators 

National Education 

Association

NONRESPONSE LETTER

 <DATE> 

<FACULTY NAME> 

<ADDR 1> 

<ADDR 2> 

<CITY STATE ZIP> 

Dear Colleague, 

The National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) needs your help in order to portray an 

accurate picture of the nation’s postsecondary educators. We hope that with the end of the school 

year, your schedule will allow time for you to complete the NSOPF questionnaire. As someone 

who plays a crucial role in education, we are sure you can appreciate the importance of having an 

adequate representation of the diversity of the nation’s faculty and instructional staff. This U.S. 

Department of Education sponsored study will provide critical information on the background 

characteristics, workloads, and career paths of faculty and instructors in postsecondary institutions. 

Your experiences and opinions are very important to the success of this study. 

As a token of our appreciation for completing the questionnaire, we would like to send you either a 

$30 check or gift certificate from Amazon.com. 

Because we are keenly aware of how busy you are, we have developed a web version of the 

questionnaire as a convenient way for you to participate. You will need to use Internet Explorer or 

Netscape as your browser to complete the web version. To access the questionnaire on the web or 

to obtain more information about the study, go to https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf and log in 

using your 

Study ID: 

Password: 

All of your answers will be completely confidential and will not be released in any form that could 

lead to your identification. Your answers will be secured behind firewalls and will be encrypted 

during Internet transmission. All identifying information is maintained in a separate file, and will 

never be linked to answers you provide. 

If you need help completing the questionnaire on the web or if you prefer to participate by 

telephone, we have a staff of professional interviewers available to assist you at 1-866-NSOPF04 

(1-866-676-7304). Your name was randomly selected from a list that <INSTITUTION NAME> 

provided us of its fall 2003 faculty and instructional staff. If you were not employed at this 

institution in the fall, we would greatly appreciate it if you would contact us at the above number 

and let us know this information. 

On behalf of the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, we 

would like to thank you in advance for your participation in this very important study. 

Sincerely, 

Linda Zimbler Margaret Cahalan, Ph.D. 

NSOPF Project Officer NSOPF Project Director 

U.S. Department of Education RTI International
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-41 

NONRESPONSE E-MAIL 

E-mail Subject line: U.S. Department of Education Study – need your response 

Attention: <NAME> 

Dear Colleague, 

The National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) needs your help in order to portray an accurate picture of 

the nation's postsecondary educators. We hope that with the end of the school year, your schedule will allow time 

for you to complete the NSOPF questionnaire. As someone who plays a crucial role in education, we are sure you 

can appreciate the importance of having an adequate representation of the diversity of the nation's faculty and 

instructional staff. This U.S. Department of Education sponsored study will provide critical information on the 

background characteristics, workloads, and career paths of faculty and instructors in postsecondary institutions. 

Your experiences and opinions are very important to the success of this study. 

As a token of our appreciation for completing the questionnaire, we would like to send you either a $30 check or 

gift certificate from Amazon.com. 

Because we are keenly aware of how busy you are, we have developed a web version of the questionnaire as a 

convenient way for you to participate. You will need to use Internet Explorer or Netscape as your browser to 

complete the web version. 

To access the questionnaire on the web or to obtain more information about the study, go to 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf and log in using your 

Study ID: 

Password: 

All of your answers will be completely confidential and will not be released in any form that could lead to your 

identification. Your answers will be secured behind firewalls and will be encrypted during Internet transmission. All 

identifying information is maintained in a separate file, and will never be linked to answers you provide. 

If you need help completing the questionnaire on the web or if you prefer to participate by telephone, we have a 

staff of professional interviewers available to assist you at 1-866-NSOPF04 (1-866-676-7304). Your name was 

randomly selected from a list that <INSTITUTION NAME> provided us of its fall 2003 faculty and instructional 

staff. If you were not employed at this institution in the fall, we would greatly appreciate it if you would contact us 

at the above number and let us know this information. 

On behalf of the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, we would like to thank 

you in advance for your participation in this very important study. 

Sincerely, 

Linda Zimbler 

NSOPF Project Officer 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Cahalan, Ph.D. 

NSOPF Project Director 

RTI International 

Note: To ensure that as many sample members as possible receive this message, we also have sent this to you via 

U.S. mail. 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-42 

NSOPF:04 

Endorsed by

American Association for 

Higher Education 

American Association of 

Collegiate Registrars and 

Admissions Officers 

American Association of 

Community Colleges 

American Association of 

State Colleges and 

Universities 

American Association of 

University Professors 

American Council on 

Education 

American Federation of 

Teachers 

Association for 

Institutional Research 

Association of American 

Colleges and Universities 

Association of Catholic 

Colleges and Universities 

Career College 

Association 

The Carnegie 

Foundation for the 

Advancement of 

Teaching 

College and University 

Professional Association 

for Human Resources 

The College Board 

The College Fund/UNCF 

Council of Graduate 

Schools 

The Council of 

Independent Colleges 

Hispanic Association of 

Colleges and Universities 

National Association of 

College and University 

Business Officers 

National Association for 

Equal Opportunity in 

Higher Education 

National Association of 

Independent Colleges 

and Universities 

National Association of 

State Universities and 

Land-Grant Colleges 

National Association of 

Student Financial Aid 

Administrators 

National Education 

Association

SECOND NONRESPONSE LETTER 

 <DATE> 

<FACULTY NAME> 

<ADDR 1> 

<ADDR 2> 

<CITY STATE ZIP> 

Dear Colleague, 

We are writing again to request your participation in the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:04). We hope that with the end of the school year, your schedule will now allow time for 

you to participate in the study. The U.S. Department of Education needs your help in order to 

portray an accurate picture of the nation’s postsecondary educators. 

Your experiences and opinions are very important to the success of this study, and will provide 

critical information on the background characteristics, workloads, and career paths of faculty and 

instructors in postsecondary institutions. Your name was randomly selected from a list of fall 2003 

faculty and instructional staff at <INSTITUTION NAME>. If you were not employed in this 

capacity at this institution in the fall of 2003, we would greatly appreciate it if you would contact us 

at the number below so that we may correct our database. 

As a token of our appreciation for completing the questionnaire, we would like to send you either a 

$30 check or gift certificate from Amazon.com. The web version of the questionnaire has been 

designed as a convenient way for you to participate in the study as your schedule allows. You will 

need to use Internet Explorer or Netscape as your browser to complete the web version. If you need 

help completing the questionnaire on the web or if you prefer to participate by telephone, we have a 

staff of professional interviewers available to assist you at 1-866-NSOPF04 (1-866-676-7304). 

To access the questionnaire on the web or to obtain more information about the study, go to 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf and log in using your 

Study ID: 

Password: 

All of your answers will be completely confidential and will not be released in any form that could 

lead to your identification. Your answers will be secured behind firewalls and will be encrypted 

during Internet transmission. All identifying information is maintained in a separate file and will 

never be linked to answers you provide. 

On behalf of the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, we would 

like to thank you in advance for your participation in this very important study. 

Sincerely, 

Linda Zimbler Margaret Cahalan, Ph.D. 

NSOPF Project Officer NSOPF Project Director 

U.S. Department of Education RTI International
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-43 

SECOND NONRESPONSE E-MAIL 

E-mail Subject line: U.S. Department of Education Study – picture of postsecondary educators 

Attention: <NAME> 

Dear Colleague, 

We are writing again to request your participation in the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). We 

hope that with the end of the school year, your schedule will now allow time for you to participate in the study. The 

U.S. Department of Education needs your help in order to portray an accurate picture of the nation’s postsecondary 

educators. 

Your experiences and opinions are very important to the success of this study, and will provide critical information 

on the background characteristics, workloads, and career paths of faculty and instructors in postsecondary 

institutions. Your name was randomly selected from a list of fall 2003 faculty and instructional staff at 

<INSTITUTION NAME>. If you were not employed in this capacity at this institution in the fall of 2003, we would 

greatly appreciate it if you would contact us at the number below so that we may correct our database. 

As a token of our appreciation for completing the questionnaire, we would like to send you either a $30 check or 

gift certificate from Amazon.com. The web version of the questionnaire has been designed as a convenient way for 

you to participate in the study as your schedule allows. You will need to use Internet Explorer or Netscape as your 

browser to complete the web version. If you need help completing the questionnaire on the web or if you prefer to 

participate by telephone, we have a staff of professional interviewers available to assist you at 1-866-NSOPF04 (1-

866-676-7304). 

To access the questionnaire on the web or to obtain more information about the study, go to 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf/ and log in using your 

Study ID: 

Password: 

All of your answers will be completely confidential and will not be released in any form that could lead to your 

identification. Your answers will be secured behind firewalls and will be encrypted during Internet transmission. All 

identifying information is maintained in a separate file and will never be linked to answers you provide. 

On behalf of the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, we would like to thank 

you in advance for your participation in this very important study. 

Sincerely, 

Linda Zimbler 

NSOPF Project Officer 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Cahalan, Ph.D. 

NSOPF Project Director 

RTI International 

Note: To ensure that as many sample members as possible receive this message, we also have sent this to you via 

U.S. mail. 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-44 

NSOPF:04 

Endorsed by

American Association 

for Higher Education 

American Association 

of Collegiate Registrars 

and Admissions 

Officers 

American Association 

of Community Colleges 

American Association 

of State Colleges and 

Universities 

American Association 

of University Professors 

American Council on 

Education 

American Federation of 

Teachers 

Association for 

Institutional Research 

Association of 

American Colleges and 

Universities 

Association of Catholic 

Colleges and 

Universities 

Career College 

Association 

The Carnegie 

Foundation for the 

Advancement of 

Teaching 

College and University 

Professional 

Association for Human 

Resources 

The College Board 

The College 

Fund/UNCF 

Council of Graduate 

Schools 

The Council of 

Independent Colleges 

Hispanic Association of 

Colleges and 

Universities 

National Association of 

College and University 

Business Officers 

National Association for 

Equal Opportunity in 

Higher Education 

National Association of 

Independent Colleges 

and Universities 

National Association of 

State Universities and 

Land-Grant Colleges 

National Association of 

Student Financial Aid 

Administrators 

National Education 

Association

REFUSAL NONRESPONSE LETTER

 <DATE> 

<FACULTY NAME> 

<ADDR 1> 

<ADDR 2> 

<CITY STATE ZIP> 

Dear Colleague, 

We are writing to request your participation in the 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF). We understand you may have some reluctance to participate given the many demands 

that are placed on your time. However we would like to share some key information about the study 

in order to ensure that you are aware of the importance of this research effort for the U.S. 

Department of Education and the impact of your participation on the success of the study. 

NSOPF:04 is the third in a series of studies designed to capture the experiences of a wide variety of 

postsecondary faculty and instructional staff by providing critical information on their background 

characteristics, workloads, and career paths. Because you have been scientifically selected to 

represent thousands of other postsecondary staff, your experiences and opinions are key to the 

success of this study. Your answers will help researchers and policy makers respond to issues that 

directly affect the quality of education in postsecondary institutions. 

As a token of our appreciation for completing the questionnaire, we would like to send you either a 

$30 check or gift certificate from Amazon.com. The web version of the questionnaire has been 

designed as a convenient way for you to participate in the study as your schedule allows. You will 

need to use Internet Explorer or Netscape as your browser to complete the web version. If you need 

help completing the questionnaire on the web or if you prefer to participate by telephone, we have a 

staff of professional interviewers available to assist you at 1-866-NSOPF04 (1-866-676-7304). 

To access the questionnaire on the web or to obtain more information about the study, go to 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf and log in using your 

 Study ID: 

 Password: 

All of your answers will be completely confidential and will not be released in any form that could 

lead to your identification. Your answers will be secured behind firewalls and will be encrypted 

during Internet transmission. All identifying information is maintained in a separate file and will 

never be linked to answers you provide. Your name was randomly selected from a list of fall 2003 

faculty and instructional staff at <INSTITUTION NAME>. If you were not employed in this 

capacity at this institution in the fall, we would greatly appreciate it if you would contact us at the 

number above and let us know so that we may correct our database. 

Thank you for considering this very important study. Your participation is critical to its ultimate 

success. 

Sincerely, 

Linda Zimbler Margaret Cahalan, Ph.D. 

NSOPF Project Officer NSOPF Project Director 

U.S. Department of Education RTI International
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-45 

REFUSAL NONRESPONSE E-MAIL 

E-mail Subject line: U.S. Department of Education Study – requests your response 

Attention: <NAME> 

Dear Colleague, 

We are writing to request your participation in the 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF). We 

understand you may have some reluctance to participate given the many demands that are placed on your time. 

However we would like to share some key information about the study in order to ensure that you are aware of the 

importance of this research effort for the U.S. Department of Education and the impact of your participation on the 

success of the study. 

NSOPF:04 is the third in a series of studies designed to capture the experiences of a wide variety of postsecondary 

faculty and instructional staff by providing critical information on their background characteristics, workloads, and 

career paths. Because you have been scientifically selected to represent thousands of other postsecondary staff, your 

experiences and opinions are key to the success of this study. Your answers will help researchers and policy makers 

respond to issues that directly affect the quality of education in postsecondary institutions. 

As a token of our appreciation for completing the questionnaire, we would like to send you either a $30 check or 

gift certificate from Amazon.com. The web version of the questionnaire has been designed as a convenient way for 

you to participate in the study as your schedule allows. You will need to use Internet Explorer or Netscape as your 

browser to complete the web version. If you need help completing the questionnaire on the web or if you prefer to 

participate by telephone, we have a staff of professional interviewers available to assist you at 1-866-NSOPF04 (1-

866-676-7304). 

To access the questionnaire on the web or to obtain more information about the study, go to 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf// and log in using your 

 Study ID: 

 Password: 

All of your answers will be completely confidential and will not be released in any form that could lead to your 

identification. Your answers will be secured behind firewalls and will be encrypted during Internet transmission. All 

identifying information is maintained in a separate file and will never be linked to answers you provide. 

Your name was randomly selected from a list of fall 2003 faculty and instructional staff at <INSTITUTION 

NAME>. If you were not employed in this capacity at this institution in the fall, we would greatly appreciate it if 

you would contact us at the number above and let us know so that we may correct our database. 

Thank you in advance for your participation in this very important study. Your participation is critical to its ultimate 

success. 

Sincerely, 

Linda Zimbler 

NSOPF Project Officer 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Cahalan, Ph.D. 

NSOPF Project Director 

RTI International 

Note: To ensure that as many sample members as possible receive this message, we also have sent this to you via 

U.S. mail. 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-46 

NSOPF:04 

Endorsed by

American Association for 

Higher Education 

American Association of 

Collegiate Registrars and 

Admissions Officers 

American Association of 

Community Colleges 

American Association of 

State Colleges and 

Universities 

American Association of 

University Professors 

American Council on 

Education 

American Federation of 

Teachers 

Association for Institutional 

Research 

Association of American 

Colleges and Universities 

Association of Catholic 

Colleges and Universities 

Career College Association 

The Carnegie Foundation for 

the Advancement of 

Teaching 

College and University 

Professional Association for 

Human Resources 

The College Board 

The College Fund/UNCF 

Council of Graduate Schools 

The Council of Independent 

Colleges 

Hispanic Association of 

Colleges and Universities 

National Association of 

College and University 

Business Officers 

National Association for 

Equal Opportunity in Higher 

Education 

National Association of 

Independent Colleges and 

Universities 

National Association of State 

Universities and 

Land-Grant Colleges 

National Association of 

Student Financial Aid 

Administrators 

National Education 

Association

EARLY SEPTEMBER NONRESPONDENTS LETTER 

 <DATE> 

<FACULTY NAME> 

<ADDR 1> 

<ADDR 2> 

<CITY STATE ZIP> 

Dear Colleague, 

As we approach the end of data collection for the 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF), the U.S. Department of Education wants to ensure 

that all faculty and instructional staff employed in the 2003 Fall Term are well 

represented in the study. It is important that you are counted so that we have an 

accurate representation of the diversity and experience of our nation’s postsecondary 

educators. 

In fact, your participation is so critical to the success of the study that we have created 

an abbreviated version of the questionnaire. The current questionnaire takes about 

10 minutes to complete. We hope that this reduced time requirement will allow those 

of you with more demanding schedules to participate in this important study and 

represent others with similar time constraints. 

We still offer two convenient ways to participate. You can visit our web site to answer 

these questions online in the privacy of your home or office. If you prefer to respond 

by phone, you can call 1-866-NSOPF04, a toll-free number. To participate or to learn 

more about the study, log in with the ID and password provided below. 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf

Study ID: 

Password: 

If you complete the questionnaire by September 30, 2004, we will send you either 

a $30 check or $30 gift certificate from Amazon.com, as a token of our 

appreciation. Your responses will be kept confidential, will be encrypted during 

Internet transmission, and will be secured behind firewalls. All identifying information 

is maintained in a separate file and will never be linked to answers you provide. 

On behalf of the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of 

Education, we would like to thank you for your consideration of this important study. 

Sincerely, 

Linda Zimbler Margaret Cahalan, Ph.D. 

NSOPF Project Officer NSOPF Project Director 

U.S. Department of Education RTI International 

EARLY SEPTEMBER NONRESPONDENTS E-MAIL 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-47 

Subject: Abbreviated version of U.S. Department of Education Study 

Attention: <NAME> 

Dear Colleague, 

As we approach the end of data collection for the 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF), the U.S. 

Department of Education wants to ensure that all faculty and instructional staff employed in the 2003 Fall Term are 

well represented in the study. It is important that you are counted so that we have an accurate representation of the 

diversity and experience of our nation’s postsecondary educators. 

In fact, your participation is so critical to the success of the study that we extended the deadline and have created an 

abbreviated version of the questionnaire. 

The current questionnaire takes about 10 minutes to complete. We hope that this reduced time requirement will 

allow those of you with more demanding schedules to participate in this important study and represent others with 

similar time constraints. 

We still offer two convenient ways to participate. You can visit our web site to answer these questions online in the 

privacy of your home or office. If you prefer to respond by phone, you can call 1-866-NSOPF04, a toll-free number. 

To participate or to learn more about the study, log in with the ID and password provided below. 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf

Study ID: 

Password: 

If you complete the questionnaire by October 5, 2004, we will send you either a $30 check or $30 gift certificate 

from Amazon.com, as a token of our appreciation. Your responses will be kept confidential, will be encrypted 

during Internet transmission, and will be secured behind firewalls. All identifying information is maintained in a 

separate file and will never be linked to answers you provide. 

On behalf of the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, we would like to thank 

you for your consideration of this important study. 

Sincerely, 

Linda Zimbler 

NSOPF Project Officer 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Cahalan, Ph.D. 

NSOPF Project Director 

RTI International 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-48 

FINAL REMINDER E-MAIL 

Subject: Final Reminder and Deadline Extension for U.S. Department of Education Study 

Attention: <NAME> 

Dear Colleague, 

This final communication to you is to let you know that we have extended the deadline for the 2004 National Study 

of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) through Tuesday, October 5, 2004. We are extending data collection to achieve 

a higher response rate. While 75 percent of all eligible sample members have completed the questionnaire, we want 

to make sure that we have the most accurate representation of our nation’s postsecondary educators. Your 

participation is critical in helping us achieve this goal. Please take 10 minutes out of your busy schedule to complete 

the questionnaire. 

As a reminder, we still offer two convenient ways to participate. You can visit our website to answer these questions 

online in the privacy of your home or office. If you prefer to respond by phone, you can call 1-866-NSOPF04, a 

toll-free number. To participate or to learn more about the study, log in with the Study ID and password provided 

below. 

 https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf/

 Study ID: 

 Password: 

If you complete the 10 minute questionnaire, we will send you either a $30 check or $30 gift certificate from 

Amazon.com, as a token of our appreciation. Your responses will be kept confidential, will be encrypted during 

Internet transmission, and will be secured behind firewalls. All identifying information is maintained in a separate 

file and will never be linked to answers you provide. 

On behalf of the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, we would like to thank 

you for your consideration of this important study. 

Linda Zimbler 

NSOPF Project Officer 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Cahalan, Ph.D. 

NSOPF Project Director 

RTI International 
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-49 

NSOPF:04 

Endorsed by

American Association for 

Higher Education 

American Association of 

Collegiate Registrars and 

Admissions Officers 

American Association of 

Community Colleges 

American Association of 

State Colleges and 

Universities 

American Association of 

University Professors 

American Council on 

Education 

American Federation of 

Teachers 

Association for Institutional 

Research 

Association of American 

Colleges and Universities 

Association of Catholic 

Colleges and Universities 

Career College Association 

The Carnegie Foundation for 

the Advancement of 

Teaching 

College and University 

Professional Association for 

Human Resources 

The College Board 

The College Fund/UNCF 

Council of Graduate Schools 

The Council of Independent 

Colleges 

Hispanic Association of 

Colleges and Universities 

National Association of 

College and University 

Business Officers 

National Association for 

Equal Opportunity in Higher 

Education 

National Association of 

Independent Colleges and 

Universities 

National Association of State 

Universities and 

Land-Grant Colleges 

National Association of 

Student Financial Aid 

Administrators 

National Education 

Association

REFUSALS MAY NOT BE ELIGIBLE LETTER

 <DATE> 

<FACULTY NAME> 

<ADDR 1> 

<ADDR 2> 

<CITY STATE ZIP> 

Dear Colleague, 

We recently contacted you about an important study for the U.S. Department of Education called 

the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF). As the end of the study draws near, we 

are writing to request that you take a few minutes to help us accurately document the records for 

<INSTITUTION NAME>. 

While we respect your decision should you ultimately choose not to participate in this study, we 

have found that other faculty who initially decline to complete the interview do so because they 

believe they are not eligible to participate based on the sample design. NSOPF is designed to be 

a comprehensive source of information, encompassing the experiences of many diverse 

postsecondary staff, including part-time and full-time faculty and instructional staff, and even 

adjunct staff who provide instruction to students. In order to ensure that the data for this study 

are as complete and accurate as possible, we would appreciate it if you could help us determine 

your eligibility for this study by answering just three short questions. 

• Were you employed by <INSTITUTION NAME> during the 2003 Fall Term? 

• During the 2003 Fall Term at <INSTITUTION NAME>, did you have faculty status as 

defined by that institution? 

• Did you have any instructional duties at <INSTITUTION NAME> during the 2003 Fall 

Term (such as teaching students in one or more credit or noncredit courses, advising or 

supervising students' academic activities)? 

We understand that faculty and instructional staff lead very busy lives, so we offer two 

convenient ways to participate. You can visit our web site to answer these questions online in the 

privacy of your home or office. If you prefer to respond by phone, you can call 1-866-NSOPF04, 

a toll-free number. For more information about the study, login with the ID and password 

provided below. 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf

Study ID: 

Password: 

If you are eligible for the study and choose to complete the questionnaire, we would like to send 

you either a $30 check or gift certificate from Amazon.com. Your responses are very important 

to the success of this study and will be kept completely confidential. Your answers will be 

secured behind firewalls and will be encrypted during Internet transmission. All identifying 

information is maintained in a separate file and will never be linked to answers you provide. 

On behalf of the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, we 

would like to thank you for your consideration of this important study. 

Sincerely, 

Linda Zimbler Margaret Cahalan, Ph.D. 

NSOPF Project Officer NSOPF Project Director 

U.S. Department of Education RTI International
Appendix F. Contacting Materials 

F-50 

NSOPF:04 

Endorsed by

American Association for 

Higher Education 

American Association of 

Collegiate Registrars and 

Admissions Officers 

American Association of 

Community Colleges 

American Association of 

State Colleges and 

Universities 

American Association of 

University Professors 

American Council on 

Education 

American Federation of 

Teachers 

Association for Institutional 

Research 

Association of American 

Colleges and Universities 

Association of Catholic 

Colleges and Universities 

Career College Association 

The Carnegie Foundation for 

the Advancement of 

Teaching 

College and University 

Professional Association for 

Human Resources 

The College Board 

The College Fund/UNCF 

Council of Graduate Schools 

The Council of Independent 

Colleges 

Hispanic Association of 

Colleges and Universities 

National Association of 

College and University 

Business Officers 

National Association for 

Equal Opportunity in Higher 

Education 

National Association of 

Independent Colleges and 

Universities 

National Association of State 

Universities and 

Land-Grant Colleges 

National Association of 

Student Financial Aid 

Administrators 

National Education 

Association

PARTIALS MAY NOT BE ELIGIBLE LETTER

 <DATE> 

<FACULTY NAME> 

<ADDR 1> 

<ADDR 2> 

<CITY STATE ZIP> 

Dear Colleague, 

In reviewing the data for the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF), we observed 

that some faculty and instructional staff only answered the first one or two questions. We have 

also received reports from sample members who could not participate because they had 

difficulty completing the study on the web or did not complete the study because they believed 

they were not eligible to participate based on the initial questions. 

As the end of the study draws near, we are writing to clarify the eligibility criteria for the study 

and to request that you help us accurately document the records for <INSTITUTION NAME>. 

To that end, we would appreciate it if you would take a few minutes to answer just three short 

questions that will help us determine your eligibility for this study. 

• Were you employed by <INSTITUTION NAME> during the 2003 Fall Term? 

• During the 2003 Fall Term at <INSTITUTION NAME>, did you have faculty status as 

defined by that institution? 

• Did you have any instructional duties at <INSTITUTION NAME> during the 2003 Fall 

Term (such as teaching students in one or more credit or noncredit courses, advising or 

supervising students' academic activities)? 

We understand that faculty and instructional staff lead very busy lives, so we offer two 

convenient ways to participate. You can visit our web site to answer these questions online in 

the privacy of your home or office. If you prefer to respond by phone, you can call 1-866-

NSOPF04, a toll-free number. For more information about the study, login with the ID and 

password provided below. 

https://surveys.nces.ed.gov/nsopf

Study ID: 

Password: 

If you are eligible for the study and choose to complete the questionnaire, we would like to send 

you either a $30 check or gift certificate from Amazon.com, as a token of our appreciation. 

Your responses are very important to the success of this study and will be kept completely 

confidential. Your answers will be secured behind firewalls and will be encrypted during 

Internet transmission. All identifying information is maintained in a separate file and will never 

be linked to answers you provide. 

On behalf of the National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, we 

would like to thank you for your consideration of this important study. 

Sincerely, 

Linda Zimbler Margaret Cahalan, Ph.D. 

NSOPF Project Officer NSOPF Project Director 

U.S. Department of Education RTI International
G-1 

Appendix G 

Training Materials 

Appendix G. Training Materials 

G-3 

NSOPF:04 Telephone Interviewer Training Agenda 

Day 1 – Saturday, February 28, 2004 

9:00a–9:30a Welcome and Introduction (30 min) 

9:30a–9:45a Confidentiality (15 min) 

9:45a–10:25a Demonstration Mock (40 min) 

10:25a–10:40a Small group discussion of survey/FAQs (15 min) 

10:40a–10:55a Break (15 min) 

10:55a–12:25p Q x Q Review (90 min) 

12:25p–1:00p Lunch Break (35 min) 

1:00p–2:00p Round Robin Mock #1 (60 min) 

2:00p–2:30p Open-Ended Coding Practice (30 min) 

2:30p–3:30p Refusal Avoidance/Conversion (60min) 

3:30p–3:45p Break (15 min) 

3:45p–4:45p Contacting/Locating/Front-End (60 min) 

4:45p–5:45p Round Robin Mock #2 (60 min) 

5:45p–6:00p FAQ Review 

Day 2 – Sunday, February 29, 2004 

1:00p–1:15p FAQ Review (Oral Quiz) (15 min) 

1:15p–2:00p Written Exercises (45 min) 

2:00p–2:20p Written Open-Ended Coding Exercise (20 min) 

2:20p-3:05p Additional Contacting/Locating Practice for new TIs (45 min) 

3:05p–3:20p Break (15 min) 

3:20p–3:50p FAQ Certification (30 min) 

3:50p–5:00p Certification Interviews (70 min) 
Appendix G. Training Materials 

G-4 

Additional Training (on interviewers’ first shift after training): 

 Finish coding exercise (20 min) 

 Individual Mock Interview (30 min) 
Appendix G. Training Materials 

G-5 

Interviewer Training Manual 

Table of Contents 

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1 What is the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04)?.................. 1-1 

 1.2 What is the Purpose of NSOPF:04?..................................................................... 1-2 

 1.3 Who Will You Be Interviewing? ......................................................................... 1-3 

 1.4 What is New for NSOPF:04?............................................................................... 1-3 

 1.5 Data Collection Schedule..................................................................................... 1-5 

 1.6 Project Staff ......................................................................................................... 1-6 

2.0 GENERAL INTERVIEWING TECHNIQUES .............................................................. 2-1 

 2.1 Overview.............................................................................................................. 2-1 

 2.2 Best Practices in Conducting the Interview......................................................... 2-2 

 2.2.1 Asking the Questions ................................................................................. 2-2 

 2.2.2 Using Feedback.......................................................................................... 2-5 

 2.2.3 Recording Responses Accurately .............................................................. 2-6 

 2.2.4 Use of Judgment in Coding........................................................................ 2-7 

 2.3 Web-Based Instrumentation/Self-Administered Instrument................................ 2-8 

 2.3.1 Using a Windows-Based System............................................................... 2-8 

 2.3.2 Getting Around: Using a Mouse............................................................... 2-8 

 2.3.3 Sizing/Moving Windows ........................................................................... 2-9 

 2.3.4 Working with Web Questions.................................................................. 2-10 

 2.4 The Web/CATI Instrument................................................................................ 2-11 

 2.5 Sample Members’ Rights................................................................................... 2-12 

 2.6 Confidentiality ................................................................................................... 2-14 

 2.7 Obtaining Cooperation....................................................................................... 2-17 

 2.8 Refusals.............................................................................................................. 2-19

 2.9 Answers to Questions ........................................................................................ 2-19 

3.0 LOCATING AND CONTACTING SAMPLE MEMBERS ........................................... 3-1 

 3.1 Pre-CATI Tracing Activities................................................................................ 3-1 

 3.2 CATI Locating Procedures .................................................................................. 3-1 

 3.3 E-mail Addresses and Dept. Staff........................................................................ 3-2 

 3.4 TOPS Tracing Procedures.................................................................................... 3-3 

 3.5 Use of FTS Lines for Outbound Calling.............................................................. 3-5 

 3.6 Initial Contact....................................................................................................... 3-4 

 3.7 Scheduling a Callback.......................................................................................... 3-5 

 3.8 Telephone Answering Machine Message Protocol.............................................. 3-7 

 3.9 Status Codes......................................................................................................... 3-8 

4.0 QUALITY CONTROL.................................................................................................... 4-1 

 4.1 Assuring Quality in the Interview........................................................................ 4-1 
Appendix G. Training Materials 

G-6 

 4.1.1 Performance Monitoring............................................................................ 4-1 

 4.2 Electronic Problem Reports ................................................................................. 4-8 

 4.3 Quality Circle Meetings..................................................................................... 4-15 

 4.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 4-15 

 

List of Exhibits 

Exhibit 1-2. NSOPF:04 Calendar ............................................................................................... 1-5 

Exhibit 2-1. Glossary of Windows Terms .................................................................................. 2-9 

Exhibit 2-2. Confidentiality Agreement ................................................................................... 2-15 

Exhibit 2-3. Affidavit of Nondisclosure ................................................................................... 2-16

Exhibit 2-4. Answering Questions/Dealing with Reluctant NSOPF:04 Sample Members...... 2-21 

Exhibit 4-1. NSOPF:04 Productivity Report .............................................................................. 4-2 

Exhibit 4-2. NSOPF:04 Monitoring Form.................................................................................. 4-4 

Exhibit 4-3. Problem Reporting System (Opening Screen)...................................................... 4-10 

List of Appendices 

Appendix A – Initial Mailing Materials...................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B – Trace Review Procedures.....................................................................................B-1 

Appendix C – Refusal Conversion Procedures............................................................................C-1 

Appendix D – Event and Status Codes....................................................................................... D-1 

Appendix E – CATI Queues and Menu Options .........................................................................E-1 

Appendix G – Glossary of Terms ............................................................................................... G-1 

Appendix H – List of Acronyms................................................................................................. H-1 

Appendix I – Selected Help Text.................................................................................................I-1 
H-1 

Appendix H 

Quality of Lists 

Appendix H. Quality of Lists 

H-3 

Tables H-1 through H-3 show the comparisons between institution questionnaire counts 

and tallied faculty list counts. Among the 900 institutions that provided faculty lists and 

responded to the questionnaire, 740 (83 percent) had list counts that were less than 10 percent 

discrepant. There were a greater number of discrepancies in part-time faculty counts than fulltime faculty counts. Providing a complete and accurate list of part-time faculty is, for most 

institutions, the most difficult part of the NSOPF data request. 

Table H-1. Relative percentage discrepancy between total faculty counts from the institution 

questionnaire and faculty list: 2004 

Relative percentage discrepancy 

Institution type 

Number of 

institutions < –10 –10 to 10 > 10 

Total 900 60 740 100 

 

Public doctor’s 170 10 130 20 

Public master’s 100 10 90 10 

Public bachelor’s 30 # 20 10 

Public associate’s 280 20 230 40 

Public other 10 # 10 # 

Private not-for-profit doctor’s 90 # 80 10 

Private not-for-profit master’s 70 10 50 10 

Private not-for-profit bachelor’s 110 10 100 10 

Private not-for-profit associate’s 10 # 10 # 

Private not-for-profit other 50 # 40 10 

# Rounds to zero. 

NOTE: Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Table H-2. Relative percentage discrepancy between part-time faculty counts from the institution 

and faculty list: 2004 

Relative percentage discrepancy 

Institution type 

Number of 

institutions < –10 –10 to 10 > 10 

Total 900 90 680 120 

 

Public doctor’s 170 20 120 20 

Public master’s 100 10 80 10 

Public bachelor’s 30 # 20 # 

Public associate’s 280 20 220 40 

Public other 10 # 10 # 

Private not-for-profit doctor’s 90 10 70 10 

Private not-for-profit master’s 70 10 50 10 

Private not-for-profit bachelor’s 110 10 90 20 

Private not-for-profit associate’s 10 # 10 # 

Private not-for-profit other 50 10 30 10 

# Rounds to zero. 

NOTE: Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Appendix H. Quality of Lists 

H-4 

Table H-3. Relative percentage discrepancy between full-time faculty counts from the institution 

questionnaire and faculty list: 2004 

Relative percentage discrepancy 

Institution type 

Number of 

institutions < –10 –10 to 10 > 10 

Total 900 80 770 60 

 

Public doctor’s 170 20 130 20 

Public master’s 100 10 90 # 

Public bachelor’s 30 # 20 # 

Public associate’s 280 20 240 20 

Public other 10 # 10 # 

Private not-for-profit doctor’s 90 10 80 # 

Private not-for-profit master’s 70 10 60 # 

Private not-for-profit bachelor’s 110 10 100 # 

Private not-for-profit associate’s 10 # 10 # 

Private not-for-profit other 50 10 30 # 

# Rounds to zero. 

NOTE: Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
I-1 

Appendix I 

Nonresponse Bias Analysis 

Appendix I. Nonresponse Bias Analysis

I-3 

I.1 Overview 

The bias in an estimated mean based on respondents, R y , is the difference between this 

estimate and the target parameter, μ, which is the mean that would result if a complete census of 

the target population was conducted and all units responded. This bias can be expressed as 

follows: 

B(yR ) = yR − μ

However, for variables that are available from the frame, μ can be estimated by μˆ without 

sampling error, in which case the bias in R y can then be estimated by: 

( ) μˆ Bˆ yR = yR −

Moreover, an estimate of the population mean based on respondents and nonrespondents can be 

obtained by: 

( ) R NR μˆ = 1−ηˆ y +ηˆ y

whereηˆ is the weighted unit nonresponse rate, based on weights prior to nonresponse adjustment. 

Consequently, the bias in R y can then be estimated by: 

( ) R R NR B( y ) = ˆ y − y ˆ η

That is, the estimate of the nonresponse bias is the difference between the mean for respondents 

and nonrespondents multiplied by the weighted nonresponse rate, using the design weights prior 

to nonresponse adjustment. 

I.2 Unit-level Nonresponse Bias Analysis 

A faculty respondent was defined as any sample member who was determined to be 

eligible for the study and had valid data for the selected set of key analytical variables. As shown 

in section 3.2.1 (table 13) of the main body of this report, for the 34,330 eligible sample faculty 

members the unweighted and weighted response rates were both 76 percent. Since the faculty 

weighted response rate was below 85 percent for virtually all institution types, a nonresponse 

bias analysis was conducted for faculty members from all institution types. The nonresponse bias 

was estimated for the variables known for both respondents and nonrespondents within each 

institution type. 

The steps for nonresponse bias analysis included estimating the nonresponse bias and 

testing (adjusting for multiple comparisons) to determine if the bias was significant at the 5 

percent level. Second, nonresponse adjustment factors were computed, as detailed in section 

6.2.3, to significantly reduce or eliminate nonresponse bias for variables included in the 

corresponding models. Third, after the weights were computed, any remaining bias was 

estimated and statistical tests were performed to determine their significance. 

As shown in table I-1, the faculty weighting adjustments have reduced, and in some cases 

eliminated, bias for faculty members for all institution types. Significant bias was reduced for the 

variables known for most respondents and nonrespondents, which are considered key analytical 
Appendix I. Nonresponse Bias Analysis 

I-4 

variables and correlated with many of the other variables where bias is measured as a significant 

difference from zero using the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) recommended 

method detailed in section I.1. 

Table I-1. Summary of faculty nonresponse bias analysis, overall and by type of institution: 2004 

Relative bias 

Before weight adjustments After weight adjustments 

Nonresponse bias statistics 

Nonresponse 

rate Mean Median 

Percent 

significant Mean Median 

Percent 

significant 

 All faculty 24.40 0.09 0.05 26.60 0.07 0.02 8.1 

 

Public doctor’s 21.90 0.04 0.02 73.90 0.02 0.01 30.4 

Public master’s 21.50 0.06 0.06 13.00 0.02 0.01 # 

Public bachelor’s 32.60 0.09 0.07 8.70 0.16 0.10 4.3 

Public associate’s 26.30 0.06 0.05 21.70 0.04 0.01 4.3 

Public other 26.70 0.12 0.04 100.00 0.06 0.02 # 

Private not-for-profit doctor’s 31.80 0.06 0.05 56.50 0.03 0.03 21.7 

Private not-for-profit master’s 21.50 0.07 0.07 17.40 0.04 0.03 8.7 

Private not-for-profit bachelor’s 21.30 0.07 0.06 18.20 0.03 0.03 # 

Private not-for-profit associate’s 9.00 0.25 0.15 35.00 0.12 0.05 5.0 

Private not-for-profit other 29.40 0.08 0.03 18.20 0.14 0.08 4.5 

# Rounds to zero. 

NOTE: The percent significant reflects the ratio of biased estimates to biased and unbiased estimates for the items 

involved in this analysis. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Analogous analyses were conducted for the institution survey where a responding 

institution was one that had responded to the institution questionnaire. The corresponding 

institution level results are summarized in table I-2. Here too, the institution weighting 

adjustments have reduced percent significant bias overall and for all institution types. Note that 

such analyses were not carried out when computing the institution component weights for the 

faculty analysis weights, since the weighted response rate for institutions providing lists of 

faculty and instructional staff exceeded 85 percent. 

Table I-2. Summary of institution nonresponse bias analysis, overall and by type of institution: 

2004 

Relative bias 

Before weight adjustments After weight adjustments 

Nonresponse bias statistics 

Nonresponse 

rate Mean Median 

Percent 

significant Mean Median 

Percent 

significant 

 All faculty 15.80 0.06 0.04 7.69 0.20 0.12 7.69 

 

Public, doctor’s 15.30 0.06 0.05 6.25 0.09 0.07 6.25 

Public, master's 10.40 0.09 0.05 18.75 0.17 0.12 # 

Public, bachelor’s 0.00 0.21 0.21 100.00 0.41 0.38 6.25 

Public, associate’s 16.40 0.12 0.09 18.75 0.18 0.11 12.5 

Public, other/unknown 1.10 0.20 0.00 38.46 0.52 0.22 7.69 

Private not-for-profit doctor’s 16.30 0.08 0.06 12.50 0.15 0.13 6.25 

Private not-for-profit master's 20.20 0.08 0.07 6.25 0.29 0.25 # 

Private not-for-profit bachelor’s 22.30 0.11 0.13 13.33 0.23 0.18 6.67 

Private not-for-profit associate’s 14.00 0.12 0.00 6.67 0.92 0.64 13.33 

Private not-for-profit other/unknown 23.80 0.12 0.09 100.00 0.53 0.42 12.5 

# Rounds to zero. 

NOTE: The percent significant reflects the ratio of biased estimates to biased and unbiased estimates. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Appendix I. Nonresponse Bias Analysis

I-5 

I.3 Item-Level Bias Analysis 

For items with less than 85 percent weighted response rate, respondents and 

nonrespondents are compared on the sampling frame and/or questionnaire variables when data 

on respondents and nonrespondents were available. For this purpose, item response rates (RRI) 

were calculated as the ratio of the number of respondents for whom an in-scope response was 

obtained (I

x

 for item x) to the number of unit level respondents (I) minus the number of 

respondents with a valid skip item for item x (Vx

), or: 

x

x

x

I V

I RRI − =

A faculty member was defined to be an item respondent for an analytic variable if the 

given faculty member had data for that variable, observed or deduced via logical imputation. 

Table I-3 provides a summary of response rates for variables with a response rate less than 85 

percent—overall or within an institution type. A nonresponse bias analysis was conducted for 

these items, results of which are summarized in table I-4. For these items, the nonresponse bias 

was estimated for variables known for both respondents and nonrespondents and tested 

(adjusting for multiple comparisons) to determine if the bias was significant at the 5 percent 

level. 

With the exception of the income items, which were expected to have higher rates of 

refusal due to their sensitive nature, the primary reason item nonresponse exceeded 15 percent 

for these items is that each applies to a relatively small subset of respondents (i.e., small 

denominator) and none of these items were asked on the abbreviated instrument, which was 

administered to about 1,600 responding faculty members. 

The Q37 items were presented as a matrix that asked 6 questions about each of the 

classes taught by the respondents. The rate of nonresponse increased for each subsequent class 

described, due primarily to the smaller number of respondents to whom the question applied, 

relative to the static number of respondents who completed the abbreviated instrument and were 

not asked this question. 

Income paid per course, credit unit, or term (Q68) was missing for 26 percent of 

respondents to whom this item applied. This item was asked only of those who indicated their 

salary was not based on a 9- or 10-month, or 11- or 12-month contract. Of those who provided 

the basis of their pay (course, credit hour, academic term [Q68]), a follow-up question (Q69) 

asked for the amount of income paid per course, credit unit, or term. This item was missing for 

36 percent of respondents to whom this item applied. 
I-6 

Table I-3. Faculty item response rates for items with < 85 percent response rate for any institution type before w

overall and by institution type: 2004 Public Private, not-for

Variable Overall Doctor’s Master’s Bachelor’s Associate’s Other Doctor’s Master’s BachelorQ31A 88.7 90.5 90.9 81.9 88.3 89.9 87.8 87.8 86Q31B 88.7 90.5 89.9 81.3 88.2 89.9 88.1 88.3 87Q31C 90.0 91.3 90.8 83.4 90.0 93.3 89.3 90.3 87Q31D 90.0 91.2 90.9 81.3 89.8 92.3 89.6 90.4 87Q32A 91.2 92.4 92.2 83.5 91.1 92.5 91.0 92.1 89Q32B 91.2 92.4 92.2 83.5 91.1 92.5 91.1 92.0 89Q32C 91.3 92.4 92.2 83.5 91.2 92.5 91.0 92.0 89Q32D 91.2 92.4 92.2 83.5 91.1 92.5 91.0 92.1 89Q35A1 91.6 92.6 92.5 83.6 91.6 93.5 91.4 92.5 89Q35A2 91.6 92.5 92.5 83.5 91.6 93.5 91.4 92.5 89Q35B 90.4 91.6 91.7 81.9 90.1 93.0 90.4 91.8 88Q35C 90.5 91.5 91.7 82.4 90.0 93.0 90.5 91.4 88Q36 89.9 90.2 91.7 82.4 89.9 93.2 88.3 91.6 88

Q37A1 89.0 89.1 90.9 82.4 89.0 91.6 86.7 91.4 87

Q37A2 84.5 83.5 88.6 78.7 84.6 89.1 78.4 87.6 84Q37A3 78.0 69.9 85.6 72.1 79.5 87.3 61.5 82.6 79Q37A4 67.7 47.6 76.3 64.7 73.5 81.6 33.9 72.2 64Q37A5 51.4 25.5 50.9 35.2 65.0 59.7 14.3 43.8 40Q37B1 87.2 86.2 91.1 81.9 88.3 91.6 79.8 90.3 86Q37B2 83.4 81.2 88.9 78.0 84.2 89.1 74.2 87.2 83Q37B3 77.0 67.3 85.9 72.1 79.1 87.3 57.5 82.0 78Q37B4 66.9 45.1 76.6 64.6 73.0 81.6 30.6 71.9 64Q37B5 50.7 23.9 51.3 35.5 64.4 59.7 13.0 42.3 39Q37C1 89.1 89.1 90.9 81.6 89.2 91.6 87.0 91.3 88Q37C2 84.3 83.3 88.8 77.9 84.5 89.1 77.9 87.6 84Q37C3 77.7 69.5 85.3 71.2 79.4 87.3 61.6 82.5 79Q37C4 67.5 47.2 76.5 63.9 73.3 81.6 34.1 72.4 64Q37C5 51.1 25.3 51.2 35.0 64.3 59.7 14.7 43.0 39Q37D1 88.7 88.6 90.9 81.8 88.9 91.6 86.0 90.9 87Q37D2 84.3 83.2 88.6 77.9 84.3 89.1 77.9 87.2 84Q37D3 77.7 70.0 85.4 71.0 79.4 87.3 61.0 81.9 79Q37D4 67.5 47.4 76.5 63.4 73.3 81.6 33.7 72.3 65Q37D5 51.2 25.3 51.2 35.7 64.4 59.7 14.5 43.6 40

See notes at end of table. 
I-7 

Table I-3. Faculty item response rates for items with < 85 percent response rate for any institution type before w

and by institution type—Continued 

Public Private, not-for

Variable Overall Doctor’s Master’s Bachelor’s Associate’s Other Doctor’s Master’s BachelorQ37E1 89.5 89.5 91.6 82.4 89.9 93.2 87.2 91.6 88Q37E2 84.3 82.4 87.8 77.0 85.8 91.1 77.0 86.8 83Q37E3 78.3 69.7 85.3 71.0 80.8 89.7 62.4 82.3 78Q37E4 68.1 47.6 76.7 63.4 74.5 84.9 34.2 71.9 65Q37E5 52.0 25.4 51.0 35.1 66.3 67.1 15.2 43.4 40Q37F1 89.7 90.0 91.6 82.0 89.8 93.2 87.9 91.5 88Q37F2 85.2 84.2 89.2 78.8 85.7 91.1 78.8 87.6 84Q37F3 78.7 71.5 86.0 72.5 80.3 89.7 62.6 82.2 79Q37F4 68.6 49.7 77.0 64.8 74.0 84.9 35.6 72.7 65Q37F5 52.6 28.4 51.1 35.9 65.6 67.1 17.4 45.0 40Q38A 87.0 84.1 90.3 81.6 89.5 92.8 77.4 89.0 87Q38B 87.0 84.1 90.3 81.6 89.5 92.8 77.4 89.0 87Q38C 87.0 84.1 90.3 81.6 89.5 92.8 77.4 89.0 87Q38D 87.0 84.1 90.3 81.6 89.5 92.8 77.4 89.0 87Q38E 87.0 84.1 90.3 81.6 89.5 92.8 77.4 89.0 87Q38F 87.0 84.1 90.3 81.6 89.5 92.8 77.4 89.0 87Q38G 87.0 84.1 90.3 81.6 89.5 92.8 77.4 89.0 87Q38H 87.0 84.1 90.3 81.6 89.5 92.8 77.4 89.0 87Q38I 87.0 84.1 90.3 81.6 89.5 92.8 77.4 89.0 87Q38J 87.0 84.1 90.3 81.6 89.5 92.8 77.4 89.0 87Q39 92.2 93.5 92.8 84.5 92.0 94.6 92.0 92.9 89

Q41 92.0 93.2 92.5 84.7 91.9 94.6 91.9 92.7 89

Q46 91.6 92.7 92.5 83.9 91.7 93.5 91.5 92.5 88

Q47A1 91.5 92.6 92.4 83.7 91.6 93.5 91.2 92.5 88

Q47A2 91.6 92.6 92.4 83.5 91.7 93.5 91.1 92.6 89Q47A3 91.6 92.5 92.3 83.5 91.7 93.5 91.2 92.5 89Q47B1 91.4 92.5 92.0 83.6 91.5 93.5 91.2 92.4 88Q47B2 91.5 92.4 92.2 83.5 91.7 93.5 90.9 92.5 89Q47B3 91.5 92.4 92.3 83.5 91.7 93.5 91.1 92.5 89Q48 91.2 92.1 92.2 83.4 91.3 93.5 90.6 92.2 88

Q49 91.1 92.0 92.2 83.1 91.3 93.5 90.6 92.2 88

Q50 91.1 92.0 92.2 83.1 91.3 93.5 90.4 92.1 88

Q51 91.1 92.0 92.2 83.1 91.2 93.5 90.5 92.0 88

See notes at end of table. 
I-8 

Table I-3. Faculty item response rates for items with < 85 percent response rate for any institution type before w

and by institution type—Continued Public Private, not-for

Variable Overall Doctor’s Master’s Bachelor’s Associate’s Other Doctor’s Master’s BachelorQ52AA 91.1 91.9 91.9 83.1 91.1 93.5 90.6 91.9 89Q52AB 91.0 91.9 91.8 83.1 91.1 93.5 90.6 91.7 89Q52AC 91.0 91.9 91.8 83.1 91.1 93.5 90.6 91.9 88Q52AD 91.0 91.9 91.8 83.6 91.1 93.5 90.6 91.9 88Q52AE 91.0 91.9 91.9 83.0 91.0 93.5 90.6 91.9 88Q52AF 91.0 91.9 91.9 83.4 91.1 93.5 90.5 91.9 88Q52AG 91.0 91.8 91.8 83.4 91.1 93.5 90.7 91.9 89Q52BA 90.9 91.8 91.7 83.1 91.0 93.5 90.4 91.8 88Q52BB 90.8 91.7 91.5 83.1 91.0 93.5 90.5 91.5 88Q52BC 90.8 91.6 91.6 83.1 91.1 93.5 90.3 91.7 88Q52BD 90.8 91.6 91.7 83.4 91.0 93.5 90.4 91.7 88Q52BE 90.7 91.5 91.7 82.6 90.8 93.5 90.1 91.5 88Q52BF 91.0 91.8 91.7 83.4 91.1 93.5 90.2 91.8 88Q52BG 91.0 91.7 91.8 83.4 91.1 93.5 90.6 91.8 88Q53 91.3 92.2 92.2 83.2 91.5 93.5 90.7 91.8 88

Q55 91.1 92.0 92.1 82.8 91.3 93.5 90.6 91.7 88

Q56 84.6 89.4 88.1 73.9 72.1 89.6 87.4 84.7 82

Q61A 89.2 89.2 91.0 82.0 89.9 94.5 87.0 89.3 87

Q61B 87.4 87.3 89.3 82.0 87.9 93.3 84.3 88.1 86Q61C 88.4 88.0 89.9 81.1 89.3 94.5 85.9 88.9 87Q61D 85.9 85.9 87.8 80.5 86.6 92.7 82.9 85.6 84Q62A 90.8 91.5 92.0 82.8 91.0 91.7 90.3 91.5 88Q62B 90.5 91.4 91.5 82.8 90.8 93.5 89.5 91.3 88Q62C 85.7 89.7 88.3 76.1 83.0 90.1 87.1 83.1 83Q62D 90.7 91.6 92.1 82.8 90.7 93.5 90.0 91.4 88Q64 90.3 91.2 91.4 81.8 90.1 93.3 90.0 91.2 88

Q65 89.8 90.8 91.1 81.2 89.6 88.9 89.6 91.0 87

Q66A 82.0 83.7 84.8 79.3 82.5 84.2 77.6 83.7 79Q66B 84.3 85.8 85.9 80.3 84.6 86.0 81.8 85.7 81Q66C 79.3 81.8 80.2 75.7 78.0 74.0 78.0 80.9 78Q66D 79.4 81.7 80.5 76.0 78.4 74.7 77.7 81.0 78Q66E 79.1 81.6 80.2 75.4 77.9 74.5 77.6 80.5 77Q66F 82.6 84.1 84.0 78.9 82.9 84.7 79.8 83.1 80

See notes at end of table. 
I-9 

Table I-3. Faculty item response rates for items with < 85 percent response rate for any institution type before w

and by institution type—Continued 

Public Private, not-for

Variable Overall Doctor’s Master’s Bachelor’s Associate’s Other Doctor’s Master’s BachelorQ67 90.4 91.5 91.7 82.7 90.6 92.5 89.1 91.4 88Q68 74.3 56.3 71.2 59.7 83.4 76.4 60.0 81.4 64

Q69 64.5 46.1 65.5 45.8 72.2 64.7 47.8 74.9 58

Q70B 83.8 85.5 85.0 77.3 83.6 89.7 80.1 84.3 82Q82A 89.2 89.9 90.1 81.9 89.7 90.9 87.6 89.6 87Q82B 87.2 85.5 88.2 78.9 89.8 93.3 83.1 89.4 85Q82C 86.9 88.2 88.0 78.5 86.9 87.5 85.3 87.0 86Q82D 85.1 86.5 86.1 76.4 85.1 84.5 83.4 85.0 84Q83 89.9 90.8 90.9 82.5 90.3 92.6 88.2 90.7 87

NOTE: None of the items with less than 85 percent response rate were included in the abbreviated questionnaire, which consisted of itemSOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOP
I-10 

Table I-4. Summary of faculty item nonresponse bias analysis before weight adjustments, overall and by institut

Public Private n

Variable Variable label All faculty Doctor's Master's Bachelor's Associate's Other Doctor's Master's BacQ31A Hours per week on paid tasks at institution Mean estimated bias † † † 0.03 † † † † 

Median estimated bias † † † 0.03 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q31B Hours per week on unpaid tasks at institution Mean estimated bias † † † 0.03 † † † † 

Median estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 13.04 † † † † 

Q31C Hours per week on paid tasks outside of institution Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † 

Median estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 13.04 † † † † 

Q31D Hours per week on 

unpaid tasks outside of institution 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 13.04 † † † † 

Q32A Percent time spent on 

instruction, undergraduate 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 8.70 † † † † 

Q32B Percent time spent on 

instruction, graduate/firstprofessional 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 8.70 † † † † 

Q32C Percent time spent on 

research activities 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 8.70 † † † † 

See notes at end of table. 
I-11 

Table I-4. Summary of faculty item nonresponse bias analysis before weight adjustments, overall and by institut

Continued 

Public Private n

Variable Variable label 

All 

faculty Doctor's Master's Bachelor's Associate's Other Doctor's Master's Bac

Q32D Percent time spent on 

other unspecified activities

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 8.70 † † † † 

Q35A1 Number of classes 

taught, credit 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 8.70 † † † † 

Q35A2 Number of classes 

taught, noncredit 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q35B Number of classes 

taught, remedial 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.05 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q35C Number of classes taught, 

distance education 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q36 Teaching assistant in any 

credit class 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q37A1 Number of weeks taught, 

1st credit class 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q37A2 Number of weeks taught, 

2nd credit class 

Mean estimated bias 0.03 0.04 † 0.03 0.10 † 0.11 † Median estimated bias 0.03 0.03 † 0.03 0.06 † 0.08 † Percent significant bias 45.45 43.48 † 13.04 13.04 † 17.39 † 

See notes at end of table. 
I-12 

Table I-4. Summary of faculty item nonresponse bias analysis before weight adjustments, overall and by institut

Continued Public Private n

Variable Variable label All faculty Doctor's Master's Bachelor's Associate's Other Doctor's Master's BacQ37A3 Number of weeks taught, 3rd credit class Mean estimated bias 0.06 0.08 † 0.05 0.14 † 0.18 0.08 

Median estimated bias 0.05 0.05 † 0.04 0.16 † 0.14 0.07 Percent significant bias 57.58 47.83 † 21.74 8.70 † 17.39 43.48 

Q37A4 Number of weeks taught, 4th credit class Mean estimated bias 0.12 0.17 0.18 0.10 0.19 0.09 0.28 0.17 

Median estimated bias 0.10 0.14 0.16 0.08 0.13 0.07 0.25 0.16 Percent significant bias 60.61 52.17 13.04 26.09 13.04 30.43 26.09 17.39 

Q37A5 Number of weeks taught, 5th credit class Mean estimated bias 0.21 0.27 0.24 0.23 0.39 0.13 0.58 0.26 

Median estimated bias 0.19 0.26 0.22 0.20 0.30 0.11 0.60 0.25 Percent significant bias 48.48 30.43 4.35 30.43 8.70 30.43 34.78 17.39 

Q37B1 Number of credit hours, 

1st class 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q37B2 Number of credit hours, 

2nd class 

Mean estimated bias 0.04 0.05 † 0.03 0.10 † 0.12 † Median estimated bias 0.03 0.03 † 0.03 0.06 † 0.09 † Percent significant bias 51.52 47.83 † 13.04 13.04 † 17.39 † 

Q37B3 Number of credit hours, 

3rd class 

Mean estimated bias 0.07 0.09 † 0.05 0.14 † 0.17 0.09 Median estimated bias 0.05 0.07 † 0.04 0.16 † 0.13 0.08 Percent significant bias 57.58 47.83 † 17.39 8.70 † 17.39 47.83 

Q37B4 Number of credit hours, 

4th class 

Mean estimated bias 0.13 0.19 0.17 0.10 0.20 0.09 0.28 0.17 Median estimated bias 0.11 0.16 0.16 0.08 0.13 0.08 0.25 0.15 Percent significant bias 60.61 52.17 13.04 26.09 13.04 34.78 26.09 17.39 

Q37B5 Number of credit hours, 

5th class 

Mean estimated bias 0.21 0.30 0.24 0.23 0.39 0.13 0.58 0.27 Median estimated bias 0.19 0.27 0.22 0.20 0.30 0.10 0.60 0.28 Percent significant bias 51.52 43.48 4.35 30.43 13.04 30.43 34.78 21.74 

See notes at end of table. 
I-13 

Table I-4. Summary of faculty item nonresponse bias analysis before weight adjustments, overall and by institut

Continued 

Public Private n

Variable Variable label 

All 

faculty Doctor's Master's Bachelor's Associate's Other Doctor's Master's Bac

Q37C1 Number of hours taught 

per week, 1st class 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 13.04 † † † † 

Q37C2 Number of hours taught 

per week, 2nd class 

Mean estimated bias 0.03 0.04 † 0.03 0.10 † 0.11 † Median estimated bias 0.03 0.03 † 0.03 0.06 † 0.08 † Percent significant bias 45.45 43.48 † 13.04 13.04 † 17.39 † 

Q37C3 Number of hours taught 

per week, 3rd class 

Mean estimated bias 0.06 0.08 † 0.05 0.14 † 0.17 0.08 Median estimated bias 0.05 0.05 † 0.04 0.16 † 0.13 0.07 Percent significant bias 57.58 47.83 † 21.74 8.70 † 17.39 43.48 

Q37C4 Number of hours taught 

per week, 4th class 

Mean estimated bias 0.12 0.17 0.18 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.27 0.16 Median estimated bias 0.10 0.14 0.17 0.09 0.13 0.08 0.22 0.13 Percent significant bias 60.61 52.17 17.39 26.09 8.70 30.43 26.09 17.39 

Q37C5 Number of hours taught 

per week, 5th class 

Mean estimated bias 0.21 0.27 0.24 0.23 0.37 0.13 0.57 0.25 Median estimated bias 0.19 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.30 0.10 0.60 0.26 Percent significant bias 51.52 34.78 4.35 30.43 13.04 34.78 34.78 26.09 

Q37D1 Number of students, 1st 

class 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.03 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 8.70 † † † † 

Q37D2 Number of students, 2nd 

class 

Mean estimated bias 0.03 0.04 † 0.03 0.10 † 0.12 † Median estimated bias 0.03 0.02 † 0.03 0.06 † 0.09 † Percent significant bias 45.45 43.48 † 13.04 13.04 † 17.39 † 

Q37D3 Number of students, 3rd 

class 

Mean estimated bias 0.06 0.08 † 0.05 0.14 † 0.18 0.08 Median estimated bias 0.05 0.04 † 0.05 0.16 † 0.15 0.06 Percent significant bias 54.55 47.83 † 17.39 13.04 † 17.39 47.83 

See notes at end of table. 
I-14 

Table I-4. Summary of faculty item nonresponse bias analysis before weight adjustments, overall and by institut

Continued Public Private n

Variable Variable label All faculty Doctor's Master's Bachelor's Associate's Other Doctor's Master's BacQ37D4 Number of students, 4th class Mean estimated bias 0.12 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.20 0.09 0.28 0.16 

Median estimated bias 0.10 0.14 0.15 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.25 0.17 Percent significant bias 60.61 52.17 13.04 21.74 13.04 30.43 26.09 17.39 

Q37D5 Number of students, 5th class Mean estimated bias 0.21 0.28 0.24 0.23 0.38 0.13 0.57 0.27 

Median estimated bias 0.19 0.26 0.22 0.20 0.31 0.10 0.60 0.26 Percent significant bias 51.52 39.13 4.35 30.43 13.04 30.43 34.78 21.74 

Q37E1 Primary level of students, 1st class Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † 

Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q37E2 Primary level of students, 

2nd class 

Mean estimated bias 0.03 0.04 † 0.03 † † 0.11 † Median estimated bias 0.02 0.02 † 0.02 † † 0.08 † Percent significant bias 45.45 43.48 † 17.39 † † 39.13 † 

Q37E3 Primary level of students, 

3rd class 

Mean estimated bias 0.06 0.08 † 0.05 0.12 † 0.17 0.09 Median estimated bias 0.04 0.05 † 0.03 0.15 † 0.13 0.08 Percent significant bias 57.58 52.17 † 21.74 8.70 † 34.78 43.48 

Q37E4 Primary level of students, 

4th class 

Mean estimated bias 0.12 0.17 0.16 0.10 0.18 0.09 0.27 0.17 Median estimated bias 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.20 0.18 Percent significant bias 63.64 43.48 8.70 26.09 13.04 34.78 39.13 13.04 

Q37E5 Primary level of students, 

5th class 

Mean estimated bias 0.21 0.26 0.22 0.23 0.35 0.13 0.56 0.29 Median estimated bias 0.19 0.26 0.14 0.21 0.30 0.10 0.60 0.26 Percent significant bias 51.52 34.78 4.35 30.43 8.70 34.78 65.22 26.09 

Q37F1 Teaching assistant, 1st 

class 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 13.04 † † † † 

See notes at end of table. 
I-15 

Table I-4. Summary of faculty item nonresponse bias analysis before weight adjustments, overall and by institut

Continued 

Public Private n

Variable Variable label 

All 

faculty Doctor's Master's Bachelor's Associate's Other Doctor's Master's Bac

Q37F2 Teaching assistant, 2nd 

class 

Mean estimated bias † 0.04 † 0.08 † † 0.04 † Median estimated bias † 0.02 † 0.07 † † 0.04 † Percent significant bias † 43.48 † 17.39 † † 39.13 † 

Q37F3 Teaching assistant, 3rd 

class 

Mean estimated bias 0.06 0.08 † 0.05 0.13 † 0.17 0.09 Median estimated bias 0.04 0.05 † 0.04 0.15 † 0.13 0.07 Percent significant bias 54.55 47.83 † 17.39 8.70 † 34.78 30.43 

Q37F4 Teaching assistant, 4th 

class 

Mean estimated bias 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.19 0.09 0.27 0.16 Median estimated bias 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.13 0.07 0.20 0.15 Percent significant bias 57.58 52.17 13.04 17.39 13.04 34.78 39.13 17.39 

Q37F5 Teaching assistant, 5th 

class 

Mean estimated bias 0.20 0.26 0.20 0.23 0.37 0.13 0.56 0.26 Median estimated bias 0.19 0.21 0.15 0.20 0.32 0.10 0.65 0.20 Percent significant bias 51.52 34.78 8.70 30.43 13.04 30.43 65.22 8.70 

Q38A Undergrad class, multiple 

choice midterm/final exams 

Mean estimated bias † 0.04 † 0.07 † † 0.04 † Median estimated bias † 0.03 † 0.07 † † 0.02 † Percent significant bias † 65.22 † 13.04 † † 47.83 † 

Q38B Undergrad class, essay 

midterm/final exams 

Mean estimated bias † 0.04 † 0.07 † † 0.04 † Median estimated bias † 0.03 † 0.07 † † 0.02 † Percent significant bias † 65.22 † 13.04 † † 47.83 † 

† 

Q38C Undergrad class, short 

answer midterm/final exams 

Mean estimated bias † 0.04 † 0.07 † † 0.04 † Median estimated bias † 0.03 † 0.07 † † 0.02 † Percent significant bias † 65.22 † 13.04 † † 47.83 † 

See notes at end of table. 
I-16 

Table I-4. Summary of faculty item nonresponse bias analysis before weight adjustments, overall and by institut

Continued Public Private n

Variable Variable label All faculty Doctor's Master's Bachelor's Associate's Other Doctor's Master's BacQ38D Undergrad class, term/research papers Mean estimated bias † 0.04 † 0.07 † † 0.04 † 

Median estimated bias † 0.03 † 0.07 † † 0.02 † Percent significant bias † 65.22 † 13.04 † † 47.83 † 

Q38E Undergrad class, multiple drafts of written work Mean estimated bias † 0.04 † 0.07 † † 0.04 † 

Median estimated bias † 0.03 † 0.07 † † 0.02 † Percent significant bias † 65.22 † 13.04 † † 47.83 † 

Q38F Undergrad class, oral presentations Mean estimated bias † 0.04 † 0.07 † † 0.04 † 

Median estimated bias † 0.03 † 0.07 † † 0.02 † Percent significant bias † 65.22 † 13.04 † † 47.83 † 

Q38G Undergrad class, group 

projects 

Mean estimated bias † 0.04 † 0.07 † † 0.04 † Median estimated bias † 0.03 † 0.07 † † 0.02 † Percent significant bias † 65.22 † 13.04 † † 47.83 † 

Q38H Undergrad class, student 

evaluations of each others’ work 

Mean estimated bias † 0.04 † 0.07 † † 0.04 † Median estimated bias † 0.03 † 0.07 † † 0.02 † Percent significant bias † 65.22 † 13.04 † † 47.83 † 

Q38I Undergrad class, 

laboratory/shop/studio assignments 

Mean estimated bias † 0.04 † 0.07 † † 0.04 † Median estimated bias † 0.03 † 0.07 † † 0.02 † Percent significant bias † 65.22 † 13.04 † † 47.83 † 

Q38J Undergrad class, service 

learn/co-op interactions with business 

Mean estimated bias † 0.04 † 0.07 † † 0.04 † Median estimated bias † 0.03 † 0.07 † † 0.02 † Percent significant bias † 65.22 † 13.04 † † 47.83 † 

See notes at end of table. 
I-17 

Table I-4. Summary of faculty item nonresponse bias analysis before weight adjustments, overall and by institut

Continued 

Public Private n

Variable Variable label 

All 

faculty Doctor's Master's Bachelor's Associate's Other Doctor's Master's Bac

Q39 Web site for any 

instructional duties 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.04 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q41 Hours per week, e-mailing 

students 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.05 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 8.70 † † † † 

Q46 Individual instruction, any 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q47A1 Individual instruction, 

number undergraduate students 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q47A2 Individual instruction, 

number graduate students

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q47A3 Individual instruction, 

number first-professional students 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q47B1 Individual instruction, 

hours with undergraduates

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.05 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

See notes at end of table. 
I-18 

Table I-4. Summary of faculty item nonresponse bias analysis before weight adjustments, overall and by institut

Continued Public Private n

Variable Variable label All faculty Doctor's Master's Bachelor's Associate's Other Doctor's Master's BacQ47B2 Individual instruction, hours with graduate students Mean estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † 

Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q47B3 Individual instruction, hours with first- professional students Mean estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † 

Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q48 Hours per week, thesis/ dissertation committees Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † 

Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q49 Hours per week, 

administrative committees

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q50 Hours per week, with 

advisees 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q51 Hours per week, office 

hours 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q52AA Career articles, refereed 

journals 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

See notes at end of table. 
I-19 

Table I-4. Summary of faculty item nonresponse bias analysis before weight adjustments, overall and by institut

Continued 

Public Private n

Variable Variable label 

All 

faculty Doctor's Master's Bachelor's Associate's Other Doctor's Master's Bac

Q52AB Career articles, 

nonrefereed journals 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q52AC Career book reviews, 

chapters, creative works 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q52AD Career books, textbooks, 

reports 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q52AE Career presentations 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q52AF Career exhibitions, 

performances 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q52AG Career patents, 

computer software 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q52BA Recent articles, refereed 

journals 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 8.70 † † † † 

Q52BB Recent articles, 

nonrefereed journals 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 8.70 † † † † 

See notes at end of table. 
I-20 

Table I-4. Summary of faculty item nonresponse bias analysis before weight adjustments, overall and by institut

Continued Public Private n

Variable Variable label All faculty Doctor's Master's Bachelor's Associate's Other Doctor's Master's BacQ52BC Recent book reviews, chapters, creative works Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † 

Median estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 13.04 † † † † 

Q52BD Recent books, textbooks, reports Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † 

Median estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 13.04 † † † † 

Q52BE Recent presentations Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † 

Median estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 8.70 † † † † 

Q52BF Recent exhibitions, 

performances 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 13.04 † † † † 

Q52BG Recent patents, 

computer software 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q53 Scholarly activity, any 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q55 Scholarly activity, any 

funded 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q56 Scholarly activity, 

description 

Mean estimated bias 0.04 † † 0.03 0.11 † † 0.02 Median estimated bias 0.04 † † 0.03 0.07 † † 0.01 Percent significant bias 48.48 † † 17.39 8.70 † † 30.43 

See notes at end of table. 
I-21 

Table I-4. Summary of faculty item nonresponse bias analysis before weight adjustments, overall and by institut

Continued 

Public Private n

Variable Variable label 

All 

faculty Doctor's Master's Bachelor's Associate's Other Doctor's Master's Bac

Q61A Satisfaction with authority 

to make decisions 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 13.04 † † † † 

Q61B Satisfaction with 

technology-based activities 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.08 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.05 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 26.09 † † † † 

Q61C Satisfaction with 

equipment/facilities 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.05 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 21.74 † † † † 

Q61D Satisfaction with 

institutional support for teaching improvement 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † 0.03 † Median estimated bias † † † 0.05 † † 0.02 † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † 34.78 † 

Q62A Satisfaction with 

workload 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q62B Satisfaction with salary 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q62C Satisfaction with benefits 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.09 0.03 † † 0.04 Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 0.02 † † 0.03 Percent significant bias † † † 26.09 17.39 † † 21.74 

Q62D Satisfaction with job 

overall 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

See notes at end of table. 
I-22 

Table I-4. Summary of faculty item nonresponse bias analysis before weight adjustments, overall and by institut

Continued Public Private n

Variable Variable label All faculty Doctor's Master's Bachelor's Associate's Other Doctor's Master's BacQ64 Retired from another position Mean estimated bias † † † 0.08 † † † † 

Median estimated bias † † † 0.04 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 13.04 † † † † 

Q65 Retire from all paid employment, planned age Mean estimated bias 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.07 0.12 0.04 0.18 0.08 

Median estimated bias 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.04 0.14 0.05 Percent significant bias 18.18 34.78 17.39 4.35 8.70 17.39 21.74 13.04 

Q66A Amount of income from basic salary from institution Mean estimated bias 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.03 

Median estimated bias 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.02 Percent significant bias 39.39 47.83 17.39 13.04 8.70 26.09 13.04 34.78 

Q66B Amount of income from 

other income from institution 

Mean estimated bias 0.02 † † 0.03 0.06 † 0.08 † Median estimated bias 0.02 † † 0.02 0.05 † 0.06 † Percent significant bias 42.42 † † 13.04 8.70 † 13.04 † 

Q66C Amount of income from 

other academic institution 

Mean estimated bias 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.09 0.04 Median estimated bias 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.03 Percent significant bias 30.30 39.13 8.70 13.04 13.04 26.09 13.04 17.39 

Q66D Amount of income from 

consulting or freelance work 

Mean estimated bias 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.08 0.04 Median estimated bias 0.02 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.03 Percent significant bias 33.33 34.78 8.70 13.04 13.04 21.74 13.04 17.39 

Q66E Amount of income from 

other employment 

Mean estimated bias 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.08 0.04 Median estimated bias 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.03 Percent significant bias 30.30 34.78 4.35 13.04 8.70 21.74 13.04 17.39 

See notes at end of table. 
I-23 

Table I-4. Summary of faculty item nonresponse bias analysis before weight adjustments, overall and by institut

Continued 

Public Private n

Variable Variable label 

All 

faculty Doctor's Master's Bachelor's Associate's Other Doctor's Master's Bac

Q66F Amount of income from 

other unspecified sources 

Mean estimated bias 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.04 Median estimated bias 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.03 Percent significant bias 48.48 47.83 13.04 8.70 8.70 21.74 13.04 34.78 

Q67 Type of contract, length 

of unit 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.06 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

Q68 Income paid per course/ 

credit unit or term 

Mean estimated bias 0.11 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.35 0.09 0.24 0.18 Median estimated bias 0.07 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.37 0.03 0.20 0.12 Percent significant bias 39.39 43.48 17.39 17.39 8.70 30.43 39.13 43.48 

Q69 Amount of income paid 

per course/credit unit or term 

Mean estimated bias 0.13 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.37 0.11 0.28 0.28 Median estimated bias 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.39 0.05 0.28 0.18 Percent significant bias 42.42 52.17 13.04 26.09 100.00 39.13 30.43 47.83 

Q70B Amount of total household 

income (range) 

Mean estimated bias 0.02 † † 0.03 0.08 † 0.08 0.03 Median estimated bias 0.02 † † 0.03 0.07 † 0.07 0.03 Percent significant bias 42.42 † † 13.04 17.39 † 26.09 17.39 

Q82A Opinion: teaching is 

rewarded 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.05 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 13.04 † † † † 

Q82B Opinion: part-time faculty 

treated fairly 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.08 † † 0.03 † Median estimated bias † † † 0.05 † † 0.03 † Percent significant bias † † † 13.04 † † 39.13 † 

See notes at end of table. 
I-24 

Table I-4. Summary of faculty item nonresponse bias analysis before weight adjustments, overall and by institut

Continued Public Private n

Variable Variable label All faculty Doctor's Master's Bachelor's Associate's Other Doctor's Master's BacQ82C Opinion: female faculty treated fairly Mean estimated bias † † † 0.08 † † † † 

Median estimated bias † † † 0.05 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 13.04 † † † † 

Q82D Opinion: racial minorities treated fairly Mean estimated bias † † † 0.08 † 0.06 0.02 † 

Median estimated bias † † † 0.07 † 0.07 0.02 † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † 4.35 34.78 † 

Q83 Opinion about choosing an academic career again Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † 

Median estimated bias † † † 0.05 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 17.39 † † † † 

† Not applicable. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04).
Appendix I. Nonresponse Bias Analysis

I-25 

Similarly, an institution was defined to be an item respondent for an analytic variable if the 

given institution had data for that variable, observed or deduced via logical imputation. Table I-5 

provides a summary of response rates for all institution items, overall and by institution type. For 

variables with a response rate less than 85 percent—overall or within an institution type—a 

nonresponse bias analysis was conducted, results of which are summarized in table I-6. Analogous 

to the faculty item nonresponse bias analysis, for these items the nonresponse bias was estimated 

for variables known for both respondents and nonrespondents and tested (adjusting for multiple 

comparisons) to determine if the bias was significant at the 5 percent level. 

Two of the 90 items had an overall response rate of less than 85 percent. Item 7E2 of the 

institution questionnaire was asked only if the institution reported having offered early or phased 

retirement to any tenured full-time faculty or instructional staff (item 7E). Apparently, the number 

of full-time faculty and instructional staff who took early or phased retirement in the previous 5 

years was difficult for some institutions to quantify. Asking about a single academic year may 

yield a lower rate of nonresponse. 

Item 15BG was asked if the institution reported having a cafeteria-style plan benefit for all 

or some part-time faculty and instructional staff (item 15AG). Only a small percentage of schools 

offer this benefit to part-time staff, and a relatively high percentage of schools were not sure 

whether this benefit was offered. Hence the high nonresponse on this nested question asking 

whether the benefit was subsidized is due almost entirely to the nonresponse on the gate question, 

coupled with the small number of schools to which the nested item applied.
I-26 

Table I-5. Institution item response rates for items with <85 percent response rate for any institution type before 

overall and by institution type: 2004 Public Private not-for-

Variable All institutions Doctor’s Master's Bachelor’s Associate’s Other Doctor’s Master’s Bachelor’s I2A 96.7 96.0 94.6 67.3 99.3 100.0 94.7 97.5 91.8 I2B 97.2 96.0 94.6 67.3 99.3 100.0 94.7 97.5 95.3 I2C 96.8 96.0 94.6 67.3 99.4 100.0 94.7 97.5 92.1 

I2D 97.3 96.5 94.6 67.3 99.3 100.0 94.7 97.5 95.3 

I2E 97.2 96.0 94.6 67.3 99.3 100.0 94.7 97.5 95.3 I2F 97.2 96.0 94.6 67.3 99.3 100.0 94.7 97.5 95.3 I4 91.5 95.0 88.1 59.6 90.1 100.0 89.1 96.2 88.0 I5 91.6 94.3 88.1 66.8 90.0 100.0 91.2 95.5 90.6 I7A 96.3 97.6 94.8 70.6 95.9 100.0 98.4 98.4 95.9 I7B 96.3 97.6 94.8 70.6 95.9 100.0 98.4 98.4 95.9 I7C 96.3 97.6 94.8 70.6 95.9 100.0 98.4 98.4 95.9 

I7D 96.1 97.6 94.8 70.6 95.9 100.0 98.4 98.4 94.7 

I7E 96.3 97.6 94.8 70.6 95.9 100.0 98.4 98.4 95.9 I7E2 84.5 79.1 76.1 37.5 81.6 82.3 90.0 90.2 92.6 

I9 91.8 82.5 86.0 58.9 94.2 92.3 88.5 97.6 95.1 I15BA 96.7 97.0 100.0 80.1 93.1 100.0 97.7 98.9 97.4 

I15BB 96.4 96.7 100.0 78.6 90.7 100.0 97.5 98.9 99.0 

I15BE 93.5 96.4 96.4 70.1 91.1 100.0 94.0 100.0 96.1 I15BF 95.8 98.6 100.0 78.3 90.8 100.0 96.5 100.0 100.0 I15BG 83.2 81.4 97.5 51.7 69.3 100.0 88.1 96.7 78.8 

I19A 90.8 86.3 81.3 76.9 96.1 100.0 89.0 92.4 94.9 

I19B 90.8 86.3 81.3 76.9 96.1 100.0 89.0 92.4 94.9 

I19C 91.3 86.3 82.0 76.9 96.7 100.0 89.9 93.9 95.2 

I19D 91.1 86.3 82.0 76.9 96.3 100.0 89.9 93.3 95.2 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOP
I-27 

Table I-6. Summary of institution item nonresponse bias analysis before weight adjustments, overall and by inst

Public Private 

Variable Variable label 

All 

faculty Doctor's Master's Bachelor's Associate's Other Doctor's Master's Ba

I2A Full-time numbers: faculty, fall 

2002 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.04 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.03 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 12.50 † † † † 

I2B Full-time numbers: changed 

from part to full time, 2002–03 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.04 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.03 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 12.50 † † † † 

I2C Full-time numbers: hired, 

2002–03 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.04 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.03 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 12.50 † † † † 

I2D Full-time numbers: retired, 

2002–03 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.04 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.03 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 12.50 † † † † 

I2E Full-time numbers: left for other 

reasons, 2002–03 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.04 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.03 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 12.50 † † † † 

I2F Full-time numbers: changed 

from full to part time, 2002–03 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.04 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.03 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 12.50 † † † † 

I4 Full-time tenure: number 

considered for tenure, 2002–03 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 6.25 † † † † 

I5 Full-time tenure: number 

granted tenure, 2002–03 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † 0.07 † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 6.25 † † † † 

See notes at end of table. 
I-28 

Table I-6. Summary of institution item nonresponse bias analysis before weight adjustments, overall and by inst

Continued Public Private 

Variable Variable label All faculty Doctor's Master's Bachelor's Associate's Other Doctor's Master's BaI7A Full-time tenure: changed tenure policy Mean estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † † 

Median estimated bias † † † # † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 25.00 † † † † 

I7B Full-time tenure: more stringent tenure standards Mean estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † † 

Median estimated bias † † † # † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 25.00 † † † † 

I7C Full-time tenure: downsized tenured faculty Mean estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † † 

Median estimated bias † † † # † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 25.00 † † † † 

I7D Full-time tenure: replaced 

tenured with fixed term 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † # † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 25.00 † † † † 

I7E Full-time tenure: offered early 

retirement 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † # † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 25.00 † † † † 

I7E2 Full-time tenure: number early 

retirees, last 5 years 

Mean estimated bias 0.13 0.09 0.01 0.17 0.50 0.14 † † Median estimated bias 0.10 0.07 # 0.22 0.42 0.07 † † Percent significant bias 7.69 6.25 # 6.25 12.50 12.50 † † 

I9 Full-time faculty: positions 

sought to fill, fall 2003 

Mean estimated bias † 0.08 † † † † † † Median estimated bias † 0.05 † † † † † † Percent significant bias † 6.25 † † † † † † 

I15BA Part-time benefit: medical 

insurance subsidized 

Mean estimated bias † † † # † † † † Median estimated bias † † † # † † † † Percent significant bias † † † # † † † † 

See notes at end of table. 
I-29 

Table I-6. Summary of institution item nonresponse bias analysis before weight adjustments, overall and by inst

Continued 

Public Private 

Variable Variable label 

All 

faculty Doctor's Master's Bachelor's Associate's Other Doctor's Master's Ba

I15BB Part-time benefit: dental 

insurance subsidized 

Mean estimated bias † † † # † † † † Median estimated bias † † † # † † † † Percent significant bias † † † # † † † † 

I15BE Part-time benefit: child care 

subsidized 

Mean estimated bias † † † 0.02 † † † † Median estimated bias † † † # † † † † Percent significant bias † † † 56.25 † † † † 

I15BF Part-time benefit: retiree 

medical insurance subsidized 

Mean estimated bias † † † # † † † † Median estimated bias † † † # † † † † Percent significant bias † † † # † † † † 

I15BG Part-time benefit: cafeteriastyle plan subsidized 

Mean estimated bias 0.11 0.09 † 0.08 0.35 † † † Median estimated bias 0.08 0.04 † # # † † † Percent significant bias # 18.75 † 25.00 # † † † 

I19A Undergraduate instruction: 

percent full-time faculty 

Mean estimated bias † † 0.05 0.06 † † † † Median estimated bias † † # 0.03 † † † † Percent significant bias † † 12.50 12.50 † † † † 

I19B Undergraduate instruction: 

percent part-time faculty 

Mean estimated bias † † 0.05 0.06 † † † † Median estimated bias † † # 0.03 † † † † Percent significant bias † † 12.50 12.50 † † † † 

I19C Undergraduate instruction: 

percent teaching assistants 

Mean estimated bias † † 0.05 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † # 0.03 † † † † Percent significant bias † † 12.50 12.50 † † † † 

I19D Undergraduate instruction: 

percent other 

Mean estimated bias † † 0.05 0.07 † † † † Median estimated bias † † # 0.03 † † † † Percent significant bias † † 12.50 12.50 † † † † 

† Not applicable. # Rounds to zero. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04).
Appendix I. Nonresponse Bias Analysis 

I-30 

I.4 Bias Reduction due to Imputation

Bias resulting from missing data can occur at the unit level due to differential 

nonresponse or undercoverage, while bias at the item level is often due to unanswered questions 

or inconsistent responses that are typically set to missing once they fail edit checks. Section I.2 

described measures taken to reduce bias due to unit nonresponse, while this section evaluates 

how well the imputation succeeded in reducing bias for items with a weighted response rate of 

less than 85 percent (using weights prior to nonresponse adjustment) by estimating bias before 

and after imputation. For continuous variables, the estimated bias was calculated as the mean 

before imputation minus the mean after imputation. For categorical variables, the estimated bias 

was computed for each category as the percentage of faculty members in that category before 

imputation minus the corresponding percentage after imputation. The estimated bias was then 

tested (adjusting for multiple comparisons) to determine if the bias was significant at the 5 

percent level. A categorical variable was considered significantly biased if the bias for any of its 

categories was significant. The results for faculty items are shown in table I-7 for continuous 

variables and table I-8 for categorical variables. 

Table I-7. Faculty item nonresponse bias analysis for continuous variables, before and after 

imputation: 2004 

Mean Bias 

Item Before imputation After imputation Estimated Relative Significant 

Q37A2 13.68 13.65 0.03 0.002 N 

Q37A3 13.80 13.73 0.07 0.005 Y 

Q37A4 13.73 13.64 0.10 0.007 Y 

Q37A5 13.68 13.52 0.16 0.012 Y 

Q37B2 3.05 3.06 0.00 -0.001 N 

Q37B3 2.95 2.94 0.01 0.002 N 

Q37B4 2.81 2.80 0.01 0.003 N 

Q37B5 2.70 2.69 0.01 0.004 N 

Q37C2 3.94 3.95 -0.01 -0.003 N 

Q37C3 3.85 3.88 -0.03 -0.008 N 

Q37C4 3.85 3.83 0.02 0.005 N 

Q37C5 3.95 3.99 -0.04 -0.010 N 

Q37D2 25.36 25.42 -0.06 -0.002 N 

Q37D3 23.37 23.32 0.05 0.002 N 

Q37D4 22.65 22.82 -0.17 -0.008 N 

Q37D5 21.40 21.75 -0.36 -0.016 N 

Q65 66.13 66.36 -0.23 -0.004 Y 

Q66A 43,383.00 42,799.04 583.90 0.014 Y 

Q66B 3,210.20 3,220.17 -9.93 -0.003 N 

Q66C 2,631.30 2,819.71 -188.39 -0.067 Y 

Q66D 2,602.80 2,509.66 93.17 0.037 Y 

Q66E 11,247.00 10,760.89 486.00 0.045 Y 

Q66F 6,480.60 6,499.25 -18.68 -0.003 N 

Q69 1,921.30 1,978.28 -56.95 -0.029 N 

NOTE: None of the items with less than 85 percent response rate were included in the abbreviated questionnaire, 

which consisted of items 1-28 and 71-81. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Appendix I. Nonresponse Bias Analysis 

I-31 

Table I-8. Faculty item nonresponse bias analysis for categorical variables, before and after 

imputation: 2004 

Percent distribution Bias 

Item 

Response 

Category1 Before After Estimated Relative Significant 

Q37E2 1 82.09 81.60 0.49 0.01 Y 

Q37E2 2 14.21 14.29 -0.08 -0.01 N 

Q37E2 3 3.70 4.11 -0.41 -0.10 Y 

Q37E3 1 84.51 84.38 0.13 0.00 N 

Q37E3 2 12.58 12.42 0.16 0.01 N 

Q37E3 3 2.91 3.20 -0.29 -0.09 Y 

Q37E4 1 88.25 87.78 0.47 0.01 N 

Q37E4 2 9.27 9.33 -0.06 -0.01 N 

Q37E4 3 2.48 2.89 -0.41 -0.14 Y 

Q37E5 1 91.09 90.09 1.00 0.01 Y 

Q37E5 2 6.30 6.59 -0.29 -0.04 N 

Q37E5 3 2.61 3.32 -0.71 -0.21 Y 

Q37F3 0 91.17 90.83 0.33 0.00 Y 

Q37F3 1 8.83 9.17 -0.33 -0.04 Y 

Q37F4 0 92.03 91.94 0.08 0.00 N 

Q37F4 1 7.97 8.06 -0.08 -0.01 N 

Q37F5 0 92.60 91.98 0.62 0.01 Y 

Q37F5 1 7.40 8.02 -0.62 -0.08 Y 

Q56 1 42.74 42.78 -0.03 0.00 N 

Q56 2 21.82 21.50 0.32 0.01 N 

Q56 3 10.76 10.64 0.13 0.01 N 

Q56 4 15.42 15.56 -0.15 -0.01 N 

Q56 5 9.26 9.52 -0.26 -0.03 N 

Q68 1 37.81 36.87 0.95 0.03 Y 

Q68 2 33.54 33.17 0.38 0.01 N 

Q68 3 8.92 9.36 -0.44 -0.05 Y 

Q68 4 19.73 20.61 -0.89 -0.04 Y 

Q70B 1 3.01 2.71 0.30 0.11 Y 

Q70B 2 11.87 11.21 0.66 0.06 Y 

Q70B 3 22.09 21.54 0.55 0.03 Y 

Q70B 4 20.24 20.61 -0.37 -0.02 N 

Q70B 5 24.91 25.66 -0.75 -0.03 Y 

Q70B 6 9.55 9.91 -0.36 -0.04 Y 

Q70B 7 6.24 6.22 0.02 0.00 N 

Q70B 8 2.10 2.14 -0.04 -0.02 N 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

The above analyses were repeated for institution items as well, the analogous results of 

which are summarize in tables I-9 and I-10. Again, for continuous variables, the estimated bias 

was calculated as the mean before imputation minus the mean after imputation, while for 

categorical variables, the estimated bias was computed for each category as the percentage of 

institutions in that category before imputation minus the corresponding percentage after 
Appendix I. Nonresponse Bias Analysis 

I-32 

imputation. The estimated bias was then tested (adjusting for multiple comparisons) to determine 

if the bias was significant at the 5 percent level. 

Table I-9. Institution item nonresponse bias analysis for continuous variables, before and after 

imputation: 2004 

Mean Bias Significant 

Variable Before Imputation After Imputation Estimated Relative 

Q37A2 13.68 13.65 0.03 0.00 N 

Q37A3 13.80 13.73 0.07 0.01 Y 

Q37A4 13.73 13.64 0.10 0.01 Y 

Q37A5 13.68 13.52 0.16 0.01 Y 

Q37B2 3.05 3.06 0.00 0.00 N 

Q37B3 2.95 2.94 0.01 0.00 N 

Q37B4 2.81 2.80 0.01 0.00 N 

Q37B5 2.70 2.69 0.01 0.00 N 

Q37C2 3.94 3.95 -0.01 0.00 N 

Q37C3 3.85 3.88 -0.03 -0.01 N 

Q37C4 3.85 3.83 0.02 0.01 N 

Q37C5 3.95 3.99 -0.04 -0.01 N 

Q37D2 25.36 25.42 -0.06 0.00 N 

Q37D3 23.37 23.32 0.05 0.00 N 

Q37D4 22.65 22.82 -0.17 -0.01 N 

Q37D5 21.40 21.75 -0.36 -0.02 N 

Q65 66.13 66.36 -0.23 0.00 Y 

Q66A 43383.00 42799.04 583.90 0.01 Y 

Q66B 3210.20 3220.17 -9.93 0.00 N 

Q66C 2631.30 2819.71 -188.39 -0.07 Y 

Q66D 2602.80 2509.66 93.17 0.04 Y 

Q66E 11247.00 10760.89 486.00 0.05 Y 

Q66F 6480.60 6499.25 -18.68 0.00 N 

Q69 1921.30 1978.28 -56.95 -0.03 N 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Appendix I. Nonresponse Bias Analysis 

I-33 

Table I-10. Institution item nonresponse bias analysis for categorical variables, before and after 

imputation: 2004 

Percent distribution Bias 

Variable Category Before Imputation After Imputation Estimated Relative Significant 

Q15 1 70.23 68.96 1.27 0.02 Y 

Q15 2 10.17 11.67 -1.50 -0.13 Y 

Q15 3 19.60 19.37 0.23 0.01 N 

Q37E2 1 82.09 81.60 0.49 0.01 Y 

Q37E2 2 14.21 14.29 -0.08 -0.01 N 

Q37E2 3 3.70 4.11 -0.41 -0.10 Y 

Q37E3 1 84.51 84.38 0.13 0.00 N 

Q37E3 2 12.58 12.42 0.16 0.01 N 

Q37E3 3 2.91 3.20 -0.29 -0.09 Y 

Q37E4 1 88.25 87.78 0.47 0.01 N 

Q37E4 2 9.27 9.33 -0.06 -0.01 N 

Q37E4 3 2.48 2.89 -0.41 -0.14 Y 

Q37E5 1 91.09 90.09 1.00 0.01 Y 

Q37E5 2 6.30 6.59 -0.29 -0.04 N 

Q37E5 3 2.61 3.32 -0.71 -0.21 Y 

Q37F2 0 88.48 88.04 0.44 0.01 Y 

Q37F2 1 11.52 11.96 -0.44 -0.04 Y 

Q37F3 0 91.17 90.83 0.33 0.00 Y 

Q37F3 1 8.83 9.17 -0.33 -0.04 Y 

Q37F4 0 92.03 91.94 0.08 0.00 N 

Q37F4 1 7.97 8.06 -0.08 -0.01 N 

Q37F5 0 92.60 91.98 0.62 0.01 Y 

Q37F5 1 7.40 8.02 -0.62 -0.08 Y 

Q56 1 42.74 42.78 -0.03 0.00 N 

Q56 2 21.82 21.50 0.32 0.01 N 

Q56 3 10.76 10.64 0.13 0.01 N 

Q56 4 15.42 15.56 -0.15 -0.01 N 

Q56 5 9.26 9.52 -0.26 -0.03 N 

Q68 1 37.81 36.87 0.95 0.03 Y 

Q68 2 33.54 33.17 0.38 0.01 N 

Q68 3 8.92 9.36 -0.44 -0.05 Y 

Q68 4 19.73 20.61 -0.89 -0.04 Y 

Q70B 1 3.01 2.71 0.30 0.11 Y 

Q70B 2 11.87 11.21 0.66 0.06 Y 

Q70B 3 22.09 21.54 0.55 0.03 Y 

Q70B 4 20.24 20.61 -0.37 -0.02 N 

Q70B 5 24.91 25.66 -0.75 -0.03 Y 

Q70B 6 9.55 9.91 -0.36 -0.04 Y 

Q70B 7 6.24 6.22 0.02 0.00 N 

Q70B 8 2.10 2.14 -0.04 -0.02 N 

Q82D 1 58.09 57.76 0.33 0.01 N 

Q82D 2 33.87 34.09 -0.22 -0.01 N 

Q82D 3 6.06 6.16 -0.11 -0.02 N 

Q82D 4 1.99 1.99 0.00 0.00 N 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Appendix I. Nonresponse Bias Analysis 

I-34 

I.5 Temporal Analysis

Additionally, potential bias due to nonresponse was assessed by comparing the data 

obtained from those who responded earlier in the field period against late respondents. 

Specifically, the pattern of mean response in reference to the date surveys were secured was 

modeled for various faculty subdomains for each of the following institution sectors: 

• two-year institutions; 

• four-year doctoral institutions; and 

• four-year non-doctoral institutions. 

Moreover, these response patterns were modeled at the overall level regardless of 

institution sector as well. 

For this purpose, the length of the field period was divided into the following mutually 

exclusive and exhaustive nine milestones: 

• before the early response incentive period ended—day 1 to day 28; 

• day 29 to day 60; 

• day 61 to day 90; 

• day 91 to day 120; 

• day 121 to day 150; 

• day 151 to day 180; 

• day 181 to day 210; 

• day 211 to day 240; and 

• beyond day 240—when the abbreviated questionnaire was administered after 

September 14, 2004. 

Subsequently, the pattern of mean response was modeled for subdomains of faculty and 

instructional staff by institution sector and overall including: 

• percentage of full-time faculty whose principal activity is teaching; 

• percentage of full-time faculty whose highest degree is a Ph.D.; 

• percentage of part-time faculty whose highest degree is a Ph.D.; 

• mean age of full-time faculty; 

• percentage of faculty responding via computer assisted telephone interview (CATI); 

• percentage of faculty responding via the Web; 

• percentage of male faculty; and 

• percentage of female faculty. 

The mean response rates remain monotonous across time in virtually all cases. In 

particular, these rates display few or no fluctuations between the early and late field periods. 
Appendix I. Nonresponse Bias Analysis 

I-35 

Table I-11 displays the faculty response over time based on institution type and classification; 

table I-12 displays responses based on mean age and income. 

Since no significant differences were found at the nominal 5 percent level, this suggests 

that no discernible bias has been introduced by securing survey responses late in the field period. 

The only differences that were significant were those comparing percentages of faculty 

responding via CATI or the Web at the beginning to those at the last period of data collection. 

Figures I-1 and I-2 provide a visual summary of the results for CATI and Web responses; on 

each graph the plotted lines reflect the cumulative mean response rates (unweighted) for the 

specific subdomain of faculty members, overall and by institution sector. However, such 

differences are intuitive, as during the first part of the field period (day 1 to 28) faculty members 

were offered incentives to complete the survey via the Web and no outbound calls were made to 

secure responses by CATI. 

Table I-11. Cumulative faculty response rates by faculty and institution characteristics, by date: 

2004 

Response time in days 

Faculty/institution type <=28 <=60 <=90 <=120 <=150 <=180 <=210 <=240 SEP14+ 

Full-time faculty whose principal 

activity is teaching 

 

2-year 82.1 84.8 82.2 83.9 87.5 93.8 92.3 100.0 88.6 

Doctoral 51.8 53.1 50.3 47.9 48.4 39.7 47.6 22.2 52.1 

Nondoctoral 80.0 78.3 78.4 83.5 70.4 61.1 100.0 100.0 82.9 

Overall 63.5 65.4 62.6 62.2 61.1 53.3 71.4 63.2 67.1 

Full-time faculty whose highest 

degree is a Ph.D. 

 

2-year 53.9 44.2 34.5 28.2 26.5 12.9 24.5 20.0 34.9 

Doctoral 83.1 76.3 70.1 67.8 61.5 52.7 53.8 52.9 68.0 

Nondoctoral 74.5 60.9 55.0 55.2 45.4 32.7 34.8 60.0 57.7 

Overall 74.8 63.4 56.0 52.8 45.5 31.8 36.5 40.4 55.6 

Part-time faculty whose highest 

degree is a Ph.D. 

 

2-year 46.1 55.8 65.5 71.8 73.5 87.1 75.5 80.0 65.1 

Doctoral 16.9 23.7 29.9 32.2 38.5 47.3 46.2 47.1 32.0 

Nondoctoral 25.5 39.1 45.0 44.8 54.6 67.3 65.2 40.0 42.3 

Overall 25.2 36.6 44.0 47.2 54.5 68.2 63.5 59.6 44.4 

Full-time faculty who teach 

undergraduates 

 

2-year 97.4 97.0 95.3 99.1 98.2 100.0 100.0 100.0 96.4 

Doctoral 67.7 67.0 65.7 64.9 60.6 62.1 71.4 55.6 74.7 

Nondoctoral 93.9 93.2 95.3 93.7 92.6 88.9 100.0 100.0 85.8 

Overall 78.8 79.2 78.0 77.3 75.1 73.9 85.7 78.9 81.7 

Full-time faculty whose highest 

degree is a Ph.D. 

 

2-year 18.6 18.3 14.2 14.3 16.1 12.5 15.4 25.0 17.5 

Doctoral 71.2 67.6 65.3 65.1 62.6 70.7 57.1 33.3 65.6 

Nondoctoral 64.7 61.7 58.2 62.7 55.6 61.1 87.5 83.3 57.1 

Overall 61.6 56.5 54.3 56.1 51.3 58.7 50.0 47.4 54.4 

Part-time faculty whose highest 

degree is a Ph.D. 

 

2-year 9.8 8.4 6.2 9.8 11.0 13.0 10.0 18.8 9.7 

Doctoral 30.0 31.5 27.4 28.0 21.6 15.4 27.8 25.0 35.1 

Nondoctoral 21.5 19.9 20.7 22.7 24.6 16.2 26.7 75.0 25.6 

Overall 20.1 18.4 16.4 18.3 17.0 14.2 17.8 28.6 21.8 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix I. Nonresponse Bias Analysis 

I-36 

Table I-11. Cumulative faculty response rates by faculty and institution characteristics, by date: 

2004—Continued 

Response time in days 

Faculty/institution type <=28 <=60 <=90 <=120 <=150 <=180 <=210 <=240 SEP14+ 

Full-time faculty who are tenured 

2-year 44.1 52.4 46.2 53.6 42.9 62.5 46.2 75.0 53.0 

Doctoral 45.6 51.8 45.3 45.0 45.8 51.7 52.4 22.2 52.1 

Nondoctoral 42.5 46.4 43.7 42.4 27.8 38.9 75.0 66.7 47.1 

Overall 44.6 50.6 45.1 45.8 41.5 51.1 54.8 47.4 50.9 

Full-time faculty who are Hispanic 

2-year 9.6 12.2 15.4 10.7 14.3 12.5 7.7 9.6 12.2 

Doctoral 5.1 4.6 4.6 7.6 5.8 6.9 0.0 5.1 4.6 

Nondoctoral 4.1 4.8 7.0 6.3 3.7 0.0 0.0 4.1 4.8 

Overall 5.5 6.2 7.2 7.8 7.2 6.5 2.4 5.5 6.2 

Part-time faculty who are Hispanic 

2-year 10.8 12.4 12.8 11.2 5.2 9.3 10.0 10.8 12.4 

Doctoral 6.0 7.6 8.3 8.8 8.2 3.8 5.6 6.0 7.6 

Nondoctoral 4.8 5.4 1.7 3.9 7.7 2.7 6.7 4.8 5.4 

Overall 7.5 9.1 8.7 8.9 6.6 6.6 8.2 7.5 9.1 

Full-time faculty who are Asian 

2-year 5.7 4.9 6.5 3.6 10.7 6.3 7.7 25.0 4.2 

Doctoral 8.0 7.5 8.5 9.6 9.0 10.3 14.3 0.0 11.2 

Nondoctoral 5.6 4.3 4.7 6.3 7.4 0.0 12.5 0.0 5.0 

Overall 7.0 6.3 7.3 7.8 9.1 7.6 11.9 5.3 8.2 

Part-time faculty who are Asian 

2-year 3.4 5.2 5.9 5.6 7.7 3.7 2.5 12.5 3.9 

Doctoral 5.1 5.4 3.9 7.3 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 

Nondoctoral 3.6 2.3 5.7 3.9 6.2 2.7 0.0 0.0 5.1 

Overall 4.1 4.5 5.2 5.8 6.9 2.5 1.4 7.1 5.3 

Full-time faculty who are Black 

2-year 12.9 19.0 23.7 18.8 19.6 25.0 7.7 25.0 17.5 

Doctoral 3.7 6.0 7.8 6.1 6.5 3.4 4.8 0.0 8.4 

Nondoctoral 4.3 9.4 11.3 8.2 5.6 16.7 25.0 0.0 6.7 

Overall 5.3 9.4 11.5 8.7 9.1 9.8 9.5 5.3 9.6 

Part-time faculty who are Black 

2-year 15.9 22.2 16.8 18.6 22.6 25.9 27.5 31.3 24.6 

Doctoral 3.4 7.6 5.2 7.3 4.1 3.8 16.7 12.5 10.0 

Nondoctoral 6.3 10.6 8.6 3.9 10.8 18.9 13.3 0.0 8.5 

Overall 9.0 14.7 11.2 11.9 14.5 18.8 21.9 21.4 15.9 

Full-time faculty holding a position 

outside of a postsecondary 

institution 

 

2-year 18.6 15.7 18.9 27.7 14.3 6.3 7.7 0.0 25.9 

Doctoral 7.5 8.2 9.3 7.1 9.7 15.5 4.8 11.1 9.6 

Nondoctoral 12.2 13.9 15.5 13.9 9.3 33.3 25.0 0.0 14.6 

Overall 10.4 11.1 12.5 12.1 10.6 17.4 9.5 5.3 13.9 

Faculty responding via CATI 

2-year 4.6 60.1 56.0 42.2 24.2 28.2 38.5 47.1 28.9 

Doctoral 6.1 65.0 56.6 44.1 44.5 50.9 47.8 60.0 38.0 

Nondoctoral 6.2 63.4 56.4 43.8 38.3 40.5 48.7 66.0 34.3 

Overall 10.1 67.4 56.7 46.1 51.7 46.8 56.6 85.0 39.2 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix I. Nonresponse Bias Analysis 

I-37 

Table I-11. Cumulative faculty response rates by faculty and institution characteristics, by date: 

2004—Continued 

Response time in days 

Faculty/institution type <=28 <=60 <=90 <=120 <=150 <=180 <=210 <=240 SEP14+ 

Faculty responding via web 

2-year 89.9 32.6 43.3 53.9 48.3 53.2 43.4 15.0 60.8 

Doctoral 95.4 39.9 44.0 57.8 75.8 71.8 61.5 52.9 71.1 

Nondoctoral 93.9 35.0 43.4 55.9 55.5 49.1 52.2 40.0 62.0 

Overall 93.8 36.6 43.6 56.2 61.7 59.5 51.3 34.0 65.7 

Male faculty 

2-year 50.8 50.4 50.0 47.6 48.3 49.2 47.2 60.0 41.9 

Doctoral 59.3 63.5 57.9 56.7 60.7 57.3 35.9 52.9 59.1 

Nondoctoral 54.4 55.8 51.2 53.1 53.8 52.7 43.5 40.0 55.5 

Overall 56.3 57.9 53.9 53.1 54.8 52.9 42.6 53.2 53.1 

Female faculty 

2-year 49.2 49.6 50.0 52.4 51.7 50.8 52.8 40.0 58.1 

Doctoral 40.7 36.5 42.1 43.3 39.3 42.7 64.1 47.1 40.9 

Nondoctoral 45.6 44.2 48.8 46.9 46.2 47.3 56.5 60.0 44.5 

Overall 43.7 42.1 46.1 46.9 45.2 47.1 57.4 46.8 46.9 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:04). 

Table I-12. Mean age and income of faculty response, based on faculty and institution type, by 

date: 2004 

Response time in days 

Faculty/institution type <=28 <=60 <=90 <=120 <=150 <=180 <=210 <=240 SEP14+ 

Mean age of full-time faculty 

2-year 49 51 50 49 49 53 53 51 49 

Doctoral 49 51 50 50 49 48 49 48 51 

Nondoctoral 49 51 50 49 49 53 54 51 51 

Overall 49 51 50 50 49 50 51 50 51 

Mean age of part-time 

faculty 

 

2-year 48 49 48 49 48 48 46 48 48 

Doctoral 49 51 48 49 48 48 51 43 51 

Nondoctoral 49 50 50 50 48 51 48 59 49 

Overall 49 50 49 49 48 49 48 48 49 

Mean income of full-time 

faculty 

 

2-year $50,755 $52,894 $53,010 $50,781 $50,922 $52,252 $59,068 $58,000 $54,615 

Doctoral 73,917 76,051 76,958 79,292 84,715 81,778 77,522 106,238 68,487 

Nondoctoral 51,697 53,476 53,365 51,533 55,477 56,922 57,645 68,975 62,256 

Overall 64,825 66,070 67,107 68,097 71,616 71,780 68,024 84,315 64,253 

Mean income of part-time 

faculty 

 

2-year 9,047 8,539 9,005 10,171 8,107 8,786 10,139 15,681 10,610 

Doctoral 15,800 13,325 15,330 15,484 12,566 7,656 8,196 11,175 13,440 

Nondoctoral 9,493 8,448 9,852 11,472 7,352 9,828 15,847 9,375 12,679 

Overall 11,598 9,961 11,215 12,138 9,316 8,683 10,833 13,493 12,032 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:04). 
Appendix I. Nonresponse Bias Analysis 

I-38 

Figure I-1. Cumulative percentage of faculty responding via CATI, by selected types of 

institutions and response time 

0

20

40

60

80

100

<=28 <=60 <=90 <=120 <=150 <=180 <=210 <=240 SEP14+

Response time in days

2-year

Doctoral

Nondoctoral

Percent

NOTE: The overall percentage is not included in this figure because it is indistinguishable from the nondoctoral percentage. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:04). 

Figure I-2. Cumulative percentage of faculty responding via Web, by selected types of 

institutions and response time: 2004 

0

20

40

60

80

100

<=28 <=60 <=90 <=120 <=150 <=180 <=210 <=240 SEP14+

Response time in days

2-year

Doctoral

Nondoctoral

Percent

NOTE: The overall percentage is not included in this figure because it is indistinguishable from the nondoctoral percentage. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:04).
J-1

Appendix J 

CIP Code Mapping 

Appendix J. CIP Code Mapping 

J-3

Table J-1. CIP code mapping

Codes 

2004 

Label1 1988 1993 1999 

General 

code 

Specific 

code CIP 

Agriculture, natural resources and related sciences 

Agriculture and related sciences 

Natural resources and conservation 

001,002

004,003 

101,102

110,103 

101,102

110,103 

1 

101 

102 

01 

03 

 

Architecture and related services 

Architecture and related services 005-009 121-130 121-130 

2 

201 

04 

04 

 

Area, ethnic, cultural, and gender studies 

Area, ethnic, cultural, and gender studies 113 544 544 

3 

301 

05 

05 

 

Arts – visual and performing 

Art history, criticism, and conservation 

Commercial and advertising art 

Dance 

Design and applied arts 

Drama/theatre arts and stagecraft 

Film/video and photographic arts 

Fine and studio art 

Music, general 

Music history, literature, and theory 

Visual and performing arts, other 

010 

012 

013 

014 

015 

016 

017 

018 

011,019 

141 

143 

144 

145 

146 

147 

148 

149 

142,150 

141 

143 

144 

145 

146 

147 

148 

149 

142,150 

4 

401 

408 

409 

402 

403 

410 

404 

405 

406 

407 

50.0 

50.0703 

50.0402 

50.03 

50.04 

50.05 

50.06 

50.0702 

50.0901 

50.0902 

50.99 

 

Biological and biomedical sciences 

Biochemistry, biophysics and molecular biology 

Botany/plant biology 

Genetics 

Microbiological sciences and immunology 

Physiology, pathology, and related sciences 

Zoology/animal biology 

Biological and biomedical sciences, other 

094 

098 

099 

091,093,100 

391 

393 

394 

395,396 

397 

398 

392,400 

391 

393 

394 

395,396 

397 

398 

392,400 

5 

501 

502 

503 

504 

505 

506 

507 

26 

26.02 

26.03 

26.08 

26.05 

26.09 

26.07 

26.99 

 

Business, management, marketing, and related 

support services 

Accounting and related services 

Business administration, management, and 

operations 

Business operations support and assistant 

services 

Finance and financial management services 

Human resources management and services 

Management information systems and services 

Marketing 

Business, management, marketing, and related 

support services, other 

020 

022 

023 

021 

024,025 

026 

027 

161 

163 

164 

162 

165,166 

167 

170 

161 

163 

164 

162 

165,166 

167 

170 

6 

601 

602 

603 

604 

605 

608 

606 

607 

52 

52.03 

52.02 

52.04 

52.08 

52.10 

52.12 

52.14 

52.99 

 

Communication, journalism, communication 

technologies, and related programs 

Communication, journalism, and related 

programs 

Communication technologies/technicians and 

support services 

028-030,032 

031 

181-

183,190 

184 

181-

183,190 

184 

7 

701 

702 

09 

10 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix J. CIP Code Mapping 

J-4

Table J-1. CIP code mapping—Continued

Codes 

2004 

Label1 1988 1993 1999 

General 

code 

Specific 

code CIP 

Computer and information sciences and support 

services 

Computer/information technology administration 

and management 

Computer programming 

Computer science 

Computer software and media applications 

Computer systems analysis 

Computer systems networking and 

telecommunications 

Data entry/microcomputer applications 

Data processing 

Information science/studies 

Computer and information sciences and support 

services, other 

033 

034 

036 

035 

037 

201 

202 

204 

203 

210 

201 

202 

204 

203 

210 

8 

801 

802 

803 

804 

805 

806 

807 

808 

809 

810 

11 

11.10 

11.02 

11.07 

11.08 

11.05 

11.09 

11.06 

11.03 

11.04 

11.99 

 

Construction trades 

Construction trades 122-125 601-610 601-610 

9 

901 

46 

46 

 

Education 

Bilingual, multilingual, and multicultural education 

Curriculum and instruction 

Educational administration and supervision 

Educational assessment, evaluation, and research 

Educational/instructional media design 

Higher education/higher education administration 

Special education and teaching 

Student counseling and personnel services 

Education, other 

Teacher education: Early childhood education and 

teaching 

Teacher education: Elementary education and 

teaching 

Teacher education: Secondary education and 

teaching 

Teacher education: Adult and continuing 

education and teaching 

Teacher education: Specific levels, other 

Teacher education: Specific subject areas 

040 

041 

042 

043 

045 

046 

038,039

044,047 

048 

049 

050 

051 

052 

053 

223 

224 

225 

226 

228 

229 

221,222

227,230 

241 

242 

243 

244 

245 

250 

223 

224 

225 

226 

228 

229 

230 

221,222

227,231 

241 

242 

243 

244 

245 

250 

10 

1013 

1001 

1002 

1014 

1003 

1015 

1004 

1005 

1006 

1007 

1008 

1009 

1010 

1011 

1012 

13 

13.02 

13.03 

13.04 

13.06 

13.05 

13.0406 

13.10 

13.11 

13.99 

13.1210 

13.1202 

13.1205 

13.1201 

13.1299 

13.13 

 

Engineering, engineering technologies/technicians 

Biomedical/medical engineering 

Chemical engineering 

Civil engineering 

Computer engineering 

Electrical, electronics, and communications 

engineering 

Engineering technologies/technicians 

Environmental/environmental health engineering 

Mechanical engineering 

Engineering, other 

055 

056 

059 

507 

054,058 

265 

262 

263 

280 

264 

261,270 

265 

262 

263 

280 

264 

261,270 

11 

1101 

1102 

1103 

1104 

1105 

1106 

1107 

1108 

1109 

14.05 

14.07 

14.08 

14.09 

14.10 

15 

14.14 

14.19 

14.99 

 

English language and literature/letters 

English language and literature/letters 060-067 291-300 291-300 

12 

1201 

23 

23 

 

Family and consumer sciences/human sciences 

Family and consumer sciences/human sciences 087 350 350 

13 

1301 

19 

19 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix J. CIP Code Mapping 

J-5

Table J-1. CIP code mapping—Continued

Codes 

2004 

Label1 1988 1993 1999 

General 

code 

Specific 

code CIP 

Foreign languages, literatures, and linguistics 

Foreign languages, literatures, and linguistics 068-077 311-320 311-320 

14 

1401 

16 

16 

 

Health professions and related clinical sciences 

Alternative and complementary medicine and 

medical systems 

Chiropractic 

Clinical/medical laboratory science and allied 

professions 

Dental support services and allied professions 

Dentistry 

Health and medical administrative services 

Allied health and medical assisting services 

Allied health diagnostic, intervention and 

treatment professions 

Medicine, including psychiatry 

Mental and social health services and allied 

professions 

Nursing 

Optometry 

Osteopathic medicine/osteopathy 

Pharmacy, pharmaceutical sciences, and 

administration 

Podiatric medicine/podiatry 

Public health 

Rehabilitation and therapeutic professions 

Veterinary medicine 

Health professions and related clinical services, 

other 

079 

080 

078 

081 

082 

083 

084 

085 

086 

332 

333 

331 

334 

335 

336 

337 

338 

340 

332 

333 

331 

334 

335 

336 

337 

338 

340 

15 

1501 

1502 

1503 

1504 

1505 

1506 

1507 

1508 

1509 

1510 

1511 

1512 

1513 

1514 

1515 

1516 

1517 

1518 

1519 

51 

51.33 

51.01 

51.10 

51.06 

51.04 

51.07 

51.08 

51.09 

51.12 

51.15 

51.16 

51.17 

51.19 

51.20 

51.21 

51.22 

51.23 

51.24 

51.99 

 

Legal professions and studies 

Law 

Legal support services 

Legal professions and studies, other 

089 370 370 

16 

1601 

1602 

1603 

22 

22.01 

22.03 

22.99 

 

Library science 

Library science 090 380 380 

17 

1701 

25 

25 

 

Mathematics and statistics 

Mathematics 

Statistics 

101 

430 

440 

390 18 

1801 

1802 

27 

27.01 

27.05 

 

Mechanical and repair technologies/technicians 

Mechanical and repair technologies/technicians 128-131 641-644 641-644 

19 

1901 

47 

47 

 

Multi/interdisciplinary studies 

Multi/interdisciplinary studies 103 460 

 20 

2001 

30 

30 

 

Parks, recreation, leisure, and fitness studies 

Parks, recreation and leisure studies 

Health and physical education/fitness 

104 470 

430 

470 

21 

2101 

2102 

31 

31.01 

31.05 

 

Precision production 

Precision production 132-137 661-670 661-670 

22 

2201 

48 

48 

 

Personal and culinary services 

Culinary arts and related services 

Personal services, other 126,127 621,630 621,630 

23 

2301 

2302 

12 

12.05 

12.99 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix J. CIP Code Mapping 

J-6

Table J-1. CIP code mapping—Continued

Codes 

2004 

Label1 1988 1993 1999 

General 

code 

Specific 

code CIP 

Philosophy, religion, and theology 

Philosophy 

Religion/religious studies 

Theology and religious vocations 

105 

480 

480 

490 

440 

441 

442 

24 

2401 

2402 

2403 

38.01 

38.02 

39 

Physical sciences 

Astronomy and astrophysics 

Atmospheric sciences and meteorology 

Chemistry 

Geological and earth sciences/geosciences 

Physics 

Physical sciences, other 

092 

095 

096 

097 

100 

411 

412 

414 

413 

420 

411 

412 

414 

413 

420 

25 

2501 

2502 

2503 

2504 

2505 

2506 

40 

40.02 

40.04 

40.05 

40.06 

40.08 

40.99 

 

Psychology 

Behavioral psychology 

Clinical psychology 

Education/school psychology 

Psychology, other 

106 510 510 26 

2601 

2602 

2603 

2604 

42 

42.17 

42.02 

42.18 

42.99 

 

Public administration and social service professions 

Public administration 

Social work 

Public administration and social service 

professions, other 

108 520 520 27 

2701 

2702 

2703 

44 

44.04 

44.07 

44.99 

 

Science technologies/technicians 

Science technologies/technicians 109 530 530 

28 

2801 

41 

41 

 

Security and Protective services 

Corrections 

Criminal justice 

Fire protection 

Police science 

Security and protective services, other 

107 500 500 29 

2901 

2902 

2903 

2904 

2905 

43 

43.0102 

43.0104 

43.02 

43.0107 

43.99 

 

Social sciences and history (except psychology) 

Anthropology 

Archeology 

Criminology 

Demography and population studies 

Economics 

Geography and cartography 

History 

International relations and affairs 

Political science and government 

Sociology 

Urban studies/affairs 

Social sciences, other (except psychology) 

111 

112 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

119 

120 

110,121 

542 

543 

545 

546 

547 

548 

549 

550 

551 

541,560 

542 

543 

545 

546 

547 

548 

549 

550 

551 

541,560 

30 

3001 

3002 

3003 

3004 

3005 

3006 

3007 

3008 

3009 

3010 

3011 

3012 

45.02 

45.03 

45.04 

45.05 

45.06 

45.07 

54.01 

45.09 

45.10 

45.11 

45.12 

45.99 

 

Transportation and materials moving 

Transportation and materials moving 138-141 681-690 681-690 

31 

3101 

49 

49 

 

Other 

Other 102,999 450,900 900 

32 

3201 99.99 1 The general categories used in the 2004 coding scheme are those on the left margin. The specific disciplines within each general 

category are indented. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF:04). 
K-1 

Appendix K 

Analysis Variables 

Institution ................................................................................................................................... K-3 

Faculty......................................................................................................................................... K-9 

K-3 

Institution 

Appendix K. Analysis Variables 

K-5 

Table K-1. Institution Variables 

Variable name Prefix Label 

I1A Employment_Employer Number full-time faculty, fall 2003, reported 

I1B Employment_Employer Number part-time faculty, fall 2003 

I2A Employment_Employer Full-time numbers: faculty, fall 2002 

I2B Employment_Employer Full-time numbers: changed from part to full time, 2002-03 

I2C Employment_Employer Full-time numbers: hired, 2002-03 

I2D Employment_Employer Full-time numbers: retired, 2002-03 

I2E Employment_Employer Full-time numbers: left for other reasons, 2002-03 

I2F Employment_Employer Full-time numbers: changed from full to part time, 2002-03 

I2G Employment_Employer Full-time numbers: faculty, fall 2003, calculated 

I3 Employment_Employer Full-time tenure: has tenure system 

I4 Employment_Employer Full-time tenure: number considered for tenure, 2002-03 

I5 Employment_Employer Full-time tenure: number granted tenure, 2002-03 

I6 Employment_Employer Full-time tenure: maximum years on tenure track 

I7A Employment_Employer Full-time tenure: changed tenure policy 

I7B Employment_Employer Full-time tenure: more stringent tenure standards 

I7C Employment_Employer Full-time tenure: downsized tenured faculty 

I7D Employment_Employer Full-time tenure: replaced tenured with fixed term 

I7E Employment_Employer Full-time tenure: offered early retirement 

I7E2 Employment_Employer Full-time tenure: number early retirees, last 5 years 

I8 Employment_Employer Full-time tenure: discontinued tenure system, last 5 years 

I9 Employment_Employer Full-time faculty: positions sought to fill, fall 2003 

I10AA Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: medical insurance 

I10AB Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: dental insurance 

I10AC Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: disability insurance 

I10AD Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: life insurance 

I10AE Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: child care 

I10AF Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: retiree medical insurance 

I10AG Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: cafeteria-style plan 

I10BA Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: medical insurance subsidized 

I10BB Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: dental insurance subsidized 

I10BC Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: disability insurance subsidized 

I10BD Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: life insurance subsidized 

I10BE Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: child care subsidized 

I10BF Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: retiree medical insurance subsidized 

I10BG Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: cafeteria-style plan subsidized 

I11A Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: wellness program 

I11B Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: spouse tuition remission 

I11C Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: children tuition remission 

I11D Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: housing 

I11E Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: transportation/parking 

I11F Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: paid maternity leave 

I11G Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: paid paternity leave 

I11H Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: paid sabbatical leave 

I11I Employment_Benefits Full-time benefit: employee assistance program 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix K. Analysis Variables 

K-6 

Table K-1. Institution Variables—Continued 

Variable name Prefix Label 

I12 Employment_Description Full-time faculty: union representation 

I13A Employment_Employer Full-time assessment: student evaluations 

I13B Employment_Employer Full-time assessment: student test scores 

I13C Employment_Employer Full-time assessment: student career placement 

I13D Employment_Employer Full-time assessment: other student performance 

I13E Employment_Employer Full-time assessment: department chair evaluations 

I13F Employment_Employer Full-time assessment: dean evaluations 

I13G Employment_Employer Full-time assessment: peer evaluations 

I13H Employment_Employer Full-time assessment: self-evaluations 

I14 Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: retirement plan 

I15AA Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: medical insurance 

I15AB Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: dental insurance 

I15AC Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: disability insurance 

I15AD Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: life insurance 

I15AE Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: child care 

I15AF Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: retiree medical insurance 

I15AG Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: cafeteria-style plan 

I15BA Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: medical insurance subsidized 

I15BB Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: dental insurance subsidized 

I15BC Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: disability insurance subsidized 

I15BD Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: life insurance subsidized 

I15BE Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: child care subsidized 

I15BF Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: retiree medical insurance subsidized 

I15BG Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: cafeteria-style plan subsidized 

I16A Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: wellness program 

I16B Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: spouse tuition remission 

I16C Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: children tuition remission 

I16D Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: housing 

I16E Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: transportation/parking 

I16F Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: paid maternity leave 

I16G Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: paid paternity leave 

I16H Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: paid sabbatical leave 

I16I Employment_Benefits Part-time benefit: employee assistance program 

I17 Employment_Description Part-time faculty: union representation 

I18A Employment_Employer Part-time assessment: student evaluations 

I18B Employment_Employer Part-time assessment: student test scores 

I18C Employment_Employer Part-time assessment: student career placement 

I18D Employment_Employer Part-time assessment: other student performance 

I18E Employment_Employer Part-time assessment: department chair evaluations 

I18F Employment_Employer Part-time assessment: dean evaluations 

I18G Employment_Employer Part-time assessment: peer evaluations 

I18H Employment_Employer Part-time assessment: self-evaluations 

I19A Employment_Employer Undergraduate instruction: percent full-time faculty 

I19B Employment_Employer Undergraduate instruction: percent part-time faculty 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix K. Analysis Variables 

K-7 

Table K-1. Institution Variables—Continued 

Variable name Prefix Label 

I19C Employment_Employer Undergraduate instruction: percent teaching assistants 

I19D Employment_Employer Undergraduate instruction: percent other 

X01I1 Employment_Employer Number total faculty, fall 2003 

X01I2 Employment_Employer Full-time numbers: total left 2002-03 

X02I2 Employment_Employer Full-time numbers: total new 2002-03 

X01I7 Employment_Employer Full-time tenure: any action taken last 5 years 

X01I12 Employment_Description Any faculty represented by a union 

X01I13 Employment_Employer Full-time assessment: any student measure 

X02I13 Employment_Employer Full-time assessment: any administrative measure 

X03I13 Employment_Employer Full-time assessment, student evaluations, DK with No 

X04I13 Employment_Employer Full-time assessment, student test scores, DK with No 

X05I13 Employment_Employer Full-time assessment, student career placement, DK with No 

X06I13 Employment_Employer Full-time assessment, other measure of stud perf, DK with No 

X07I13 Employment_Employer Full-time assessment, dept/division chair eval, DK with No 

X08I13 Employment_Employer Full-time assessment, dean evaluations, DK with No 

X09I13 Employment_Employer Full-time assessment, peer evaluations, DK with No 

X10I13 Employment_Employer Full-time assessment, self evaluations, DK with No 

X11I13 Employment_Employer Full-time assessment, any student measure, DK with No 

X12I13 Employment_Employer Full-time assessment, any admin measure, DK with No 

X01I18 Employment_Employer Part-time assessment: any student measure 

X02I18 Employment_Employer Part-time assessment: any administrative measure 

X03I18 Employment_Employer Part-time assessment, student evaluations, DK with No 

X04I18 Employment_Employer Part-time assessment, student test scores, DK with No 

X05I18 Employment_Employer Part-time assessment, student career placement, DK with No 

X06I18 Employment_Employer Part-time assessment, other measure of stud perf, DK with No 

X07I18 Employment_Employer Part-time assessment, dept/division chair eval, DK with No 

X08I18 Employment_Employer Part-time assessment, dean evaluations, DK with No 

X09I18 Employment_Employer Part-time assessment, peer evaluations, DK with No 

X10I18 Employment_Employer Part-time assessment, self evaluations, DK with No 

X11I18 Employment_Employer Part-time assessment, any student measure, DK with No 

X12I18 Employment_Employer Part-time assessment, any admin measure, DK with No 

X01Q0 Institution_Type 1994 Carnegie (6 cat, all liberal arts) by control, selected cats 

X02Q0 Institution_Type 1994 Carnegie (6 cat, private liberal arts) by control, selected cats 

X03Q0 Institution_Type 1994 Carnegie (5 category) by control, selected categories 

X04Q0 Institution_Type 1994 Carnegie (8 category) by control 

X05Q0 Institution_Type 1994 Carnegie (10 category), separates I/II 

X06Q0 Institution_Type 1994 Carnegie, 4-year versus 2-year 

X08Q0 Institution_Type 1994 Carnegie, doctoral/nondoctoral/2-yr by control 

X09Q0 Institution_Other Degree of urbanization 

X10Q0 Institution_Other Ratio of FTE enrollment/FTE faculty 

X11Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment, undergraduate 

X12Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment, undergraduate, collapsed 

X13Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment FTE, undergraduate 

X14Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment FTE, undergraduate, collapsed 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix K. Analysis Variables 

K-8 

Table K-1. Institution Variables—Continued 

Variable name Prefix Label 

X15Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment, first-professional 

X16Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment, first-professional, collapsed 

X17Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment FTE, first-professional 

X18Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment FTE, first-professional, collapsed 

X19Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment, graduate 

X20Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment, graduate, collapsed 

X21Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment FTE, graduate 

X22Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment FTE, graduate, collapsed 

X23Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment, total 

X24Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment, total, collapsed 

X25Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment FTE, total 

X26Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment FTE, total, collapsed 

X27Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment minority, American Indian/Alaska Native 

X28Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment minority, Asian/Pacific Islander 

X29Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment minority, Black non-Hispanic 

X30Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment minority, Hispanic 

X31Q0 Institution_Other Core expenses, instruction (in 1000’s) 

X32Q0 Institution_Other Core expenses, instruction, collapsed 

X33Q0 Institution_Other Core expenses, research (in 1000’s) 

X34Q0 Institution_Other Core expenses, research, collapsed 

X35Q0 Institution_Other Core expenses, total (in 1000’s) 

X36Q0 Institution_Other Core expenses, total, collapsed 

X37Q0 Institution_Other Region where institution located 

X38Q0 Institution_Type 1994 Carnegie, doctoral/nondoctoral/2-year 

X50Q0 Institution_Other Percent of full-time faculty covered for retirement 

X51Q0 Institution_Other Average expenditure per faculty member covered for retirement 

X100Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie Code, all categories 

X101Q0 Institution_Type Control, public versus private not-for-profit 

X102Q0 Institution_Type Level 4-year versus 2-year 

X103Q0 Institution_Type Control and level 

X104Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie code, 10 category 

X105Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie code, 9 category 

X106Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie code, 7 category 

X107Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie code, 5 category 

X109Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie, doctoral/nondoctoral 

X110Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie code (10 category) by control 

X111Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie, 2-year versus 4-year 

X112Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie, doctoral/nondoctoral by control 

X113Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie, 2-year/4-year by control 

X120Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie code (5 category) by control 

X121Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie code (5 category) by control, selected categories 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04).
Appendix K. Analysis Variables 

K-9 

Faculty 

Appendix K. Analysis Variables 

K-11 

Table K-2. Faculty Variables 

Variable name Prefix Label 

Q1 Employment_Description Instructional duties, any 

Q2 Employment_Description Instructional duties related to credit courses/activities 

Q3 Employment_Description Faculty status 

Q4 Employment_Description Principal activity 

Q5 Employment_Description Employed full or part time at this institution 

Q6 Employment_Description Part-time employment is primary employment 

Q8 Employment_Description Part-time but preferred full-time position 

Q9 Employment_Description Year began current job 

Q10 Employment_Description Rank 

Q11 Employment_Description Rank, year attained professor or associate professor 

Q12 Employment_Description Tenure status 

Q13 Employment_Description Tenure, year attained at any postsecondary institution 

Q14 Employment_Description Union status 

Q15 Employment_Description Union status, reason not a member 

Q16CD2 Employment_Description Principal field of teaching-general code 

Q16CD4 Employment_Description Principal field of teaching-specific code 

Q17A1 Education_Attainment Highest degree 

Q17A2 Education_Attainment Highest degree, date awarded 

Q17A3C2 Education_Attainment Highest degree field-general code 

Q17A3C4 Education_Attainment Highest degree field-specific code 

Q17A4ST Education_Attainment Highest degree institution-state 

Q17A4I Education_Attainment Highest degree institution-IPEDS 

Q17A4LEV Education_Attainment Highest degree institution, level 

Q17A4CN Education_Attainment Highest degree institution, control 

Q17A4CRN Education_Attainment Highest degree institution, 2000 Carnegie (4 cat) by control, 

selected 

Q17A4CC Education_Attainment Highest degree institution, 2000 Carnegie code, 17 category 

Q17D1 Education_Attainment Bachelor’s degree date awarded 

Q18 Employment_Description Other current jobs, number of jobs 

Q19A1 Employment_Description Other current jobs, full-time employment 

Q19B1 Employment_Description Other current jobs, number in postsecondary instruction 

Q21 Employment_History First postsecondary job, current job is first 

Q23 Employment_History First postsecondary job, year began 

Q24 Employment_History First postsecondary job, part or full time 

Q26 Employment_History First postsecondary job, tenure status 

Q27 Employment_History Other jobs, any outside postsecondary since degree 

Q28 Employment_History Other jobs, sector of previous job 

Q31A Employment_Time Allocation Hours per week on paid tasks at institution 

Q31B Employment_Time Allocation Hours per week on unpaid tasks at institution 

Q31C Employment_Time Allocation Hours per week on paid tasks outside of institution 

Q31D Employment_Time Allocation Hours per week on unpaid tasks outside of institution 

Q32A Employment_Time Allocation Percent time spent on instruction, undergraduate 

Q32B Employment_Time Allocation Percent time spent on instruction, graduate/first-professional 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix K. Analysis Variables 

K-12 

Table K-2. Faculty Variables—Continued 

Variable name Prefix Label 

Q32C Employment_Time Allocation Percent time spent on research activities 

Q32D Employment_Time Allocation Percent time spent on other unspecified activities 

Q35A1 Instruction_Classroom_Classes Number of classes taught, credit 

Q35A2 Instruction_Classroom_Classes Number of classes taught, noncredit 

Q35B Instruction_Classroom_Classes Number of classes taught, remedial 

Q35C Instruction_Classroom_Classes Number of classes taught, distance education 

Q36 Instruction_Classroom_Assistants Teaching assistant in any credit class 

Q37A1 Instruction_Classroom_Weeks Number of weeks taught, 1st credit class 

Q37B1 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Number of credit hours, 1st class 

Q37C1 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Number of hours taught per week, 1st class 

Q37D1 Instruction_Classroom_Students Number of students, 1st class 

Q37E1 Instruction_Level Primary level of students, 1st class 

Q37F1 Instruction_Classroom_Assistants Teaching assistant, 1st class 

Q37A2 Instruction_Classroom_Weeks Number of weeks taught, 2nd credit class 

Q37B2 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Number of credit hours, 2nd class 

Q37C2 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Number of hours taught per week, 2nd class 

Q37D2 Instruction_Classroom_Students Number of students, 2nd class 

Q37E2 Instruction_Level Primary level of students, 2nd class 

Q37F2 Instruction_Classroom_Assistants Teaching assistant, 2nd class 

Q37A3 Instruction_Classroom_Weeks Number of weeks taught, 3rd credit class 

Q37B3 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Number of credit hours, 3rd class 

Q37C3 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Number of hours taught per week, 3rd class 

Q37D3 Instruction_Classroom_Students Number of students, 3rd class 

Q37E3 Instruction_Level Primary level of students, 3rd class 

Q37F3 Instruction_Classroom_Assistants Teaching assistant, 3rd class 

Q37A4 Instruction_Classroom_Weeks Number of weeks taught, 4th credit class 

Q37B4 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Number of credit hours, 4th class 

Q37C4 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Number of hours taught per week, 4th class 

Q37D4 Instruction_Classroom_Students Number of students, 4th class 

Q37E4 Instruction_Level Primary level of students, 4th class 

Q37F4 Instruction_Classroom_Assistants Teaching assistant, 4th class 

Q37A5 Instruction_Classroom_Weeks Number of weeks taught, 5th credit class 

Q37B5 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Number of credit hours, 5th class 

Q37C5 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Number of hours taught per week, 5th class 

Q37D5 Instruction_Classroom_Students Number of students, 5th class 

Q37E5 Instruction_Level Primary level of students, 5th class 

Q37F5 Instruction_Classroom_Assistants Teaching assistant, 5th class 

Q38A Instruction_Methods Undergrad class, multiple choice midterm/final exams 

Q38B Instruction_Methods Undergrad class, essay midterm/final exams 

Q38C Instruction_Methods Undergrad class, short answer midterm/final exams 

Q38D Instruction_Methods Undergrad class, term/research papers 

Q38E Instruction_Methods Undergrad class, multiple drafts of written work 

Q38F Instruction_Methods Undergrad class, oral presentations 

Q38G Instruction_Methods Undergrad class, group projects 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix K. Analysis Variables 

K-13 

Table K-2. Faculty Variables—Continued 

Variable name Prefix Label 

Q38H Instruction_Methods Undergrad class, student evaluations of each others’ work 

Q38I Instruction_Methods Undergrad class, laboratory/shop/studio assignments 

Q38J Instruction_Methods Undergrad class, service learn/co-op interactions with 

business 

Q39 Technology_Use Website for any instructional duties 

Q41 Technology_Use Hours per week, e-mailing students 

Q46 Instruction_Individual Individual instruction, any 

Q47A1 Instruction_Individual Individual instruction, number undergraduate students 

Q47A2 Instruction_Individual Individual instruction, number graduate students 

Q47A3 Instruction_Individual Individual instruction, number first-professional students 

Q47B1 Instruction_Individual Individual instruction, hours with undergraduates 

Q47B2 Instruction_Individual Individual instruction, hours with graduate students 

Q47B3 Instruction_Individual Individual instruction, hours with first-professional students 

Q48 Instruction_Individual Hours per week, thesis/dissertation committees 

Q49 Employment_Time Allocation Hours per week, administrative committees 

Q50 Employment_Time Allocation Hours per week, with advisees 

Q51 Employment_Time Allocation Hours per week, office hours 

Q52AA Scholarship_Publications Career articles, refereed journals 

Q52AB Scholarship_Publications Career articles, nonrefereed journals 

Q52AC Scholarship_Publications Career book reviews, chapters, creative works 

Q52AD Scholarship_Publications Career books, textbooks, reports 

Q52AE Scholarship_Publications Career presentations 

Q52AF Scholarship_Publications Career exhibitions, performances 

Q52AG Scholarship_Publications Career patents, computer software 

Q52BA Scholarship_Publications Recent articles, refereed journals 

Q52BB Scholarship_Publications Recent articles, nonrefereed journals 

Q52BC Scholarship_Publications Recent book reviews, chapters, creative works 

Q52BD Scholarship_Publications Recent books, textbooks, reports 

Q52BE Scholarship_Publications Recent presentations 

Q52BF Scholarship_Publications Recent exhibitions, performances 

Q52BG Scholarship_Publications Recent patents, computer software 

Q53 Scholarship_Research Scholarly activity, any 

Q54CD2 Scholarship_Research Principal research field-general code 

Q54CD4 Scholarship_Research Principal research field-specific code 

Q56 Scholarship_Research Scholarly activity, description 

Q55 Scholarship_Research Scholarly activity, any funded 

Q61A Employment_Satisfaction Satisfaction with authority to make decisions 

Q61B Employment_Satisfaction Satisfaction with technology-based activities 

Q61C Employment_Satisfaction Satisfaction with equipment/facilities 

Q61D Employment_Satisfaction Satisfaction with institutional support for teaching 

improvement 

Q62A Employment_Satisfaction Satisfaction with workload 

Q62B Employment_Satisfaction Satisfaction with salary 

Q62C Employment_Satisfaction Satisfaction with benefits 

Q62D Employment_Satisfaction Satisfaction with job overall 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix K. Analysis Variables 

K-14 

Table K-2. Faculty Variables—Continued 

Variable name Prefix Label 

Q64 Employment_Description Retired from another position 

Q65 Employment_Future Retire from all paid employment, planned age 

Q66A Finances_Income Amount of income from basic salary from institution 

Q66B Finances_Income Amount of income from other income from institution 

Q66C Finances_Income Amount of income from other academic institution 

Q66D Finances_Income Amount of income from consulting or freelance work 

Q66E Finances_Income Amount of income from other employment 

Q66F Finances_Income Amount of income from other unspecified sources 

Q66SUM Finances_Income Amount of total individual income 

Q66B2 Finances_Income Amount of total individual income (range) 

Q67 Finances_Income Type of contract, length of unit 

Q68 Finances_Income Income paid per course/credit unit or term 

Q69 Finances_Income Amount of income paid per course/credit unit or term 

Q70A Finances_Family Amount of total household income 

Q70B Finances_Family Amount of total household income (range) 

Q71 Background_Demographics Gender 

Q72 Background_Demographics Age, year of birth 

Q73 Background_Demographics Race/ethnicity, Hispanic/Latino 

Q74A Background_Demographics Race, American Indian or Alaska Native 

Q74B Background_Demographics Race, Asian 

Q74C Background_Demographics Race, Black or African American 

Q74D Background_Demographics Race, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 

Q74E Background_Demographics Race, White 

Q75 Background_Disabilities Disability, any 

Q77 Background_Demographics Marital status, fall 2003 

Q79 Background_Demographics Dependent children, number 

Q80 Background_Demographics Born in United States 

Q81 Background_Demographics Citizenship status 

Q82A Institution_Climate Opinion: teaching is rewarded 

Q82B Institution_Climate Opinion: part-time faculty treated fairly 

Q82C Institution_Climate Opinion: female faculty treated fairly 

Q82D Institution_Climate Opinion: racial minorities treated fairly 

Q83 Employment_Satisfaction Opinion about choosing an academic career again 

X01Q1 Instruction_Overall Any instructional duties for credit 

X02Q1 Instruction_Overall Faculty status or instruction for credit 

X03Q1 Employment_Description Faculty status and duties 

X04Q1 Employment_Description Faculty status and credit/noncredit 

X05Q1 Employment_Description Credit instruction and teaching as principal activity 

X01Q3 Employment_Description Employment, principal activity, faculty status 

X01Q4 Employment_Description Principal activity, modified 

X01Q5 Employment_Description Only employment is part-time at this institution(exclude 

consulting) 

X02Q5 Employment_Description Other employment and employment status at the institution in 

Fall 2003 

X03Q5 Employment_Description Employment status, gender 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix K. Analysis Variables 

K-15 

Table K-2. Faculty Variables—Continued 

Variable name Prefix Label 

X04Q5 Employment_History Employment status at first PSE job and current job 

X05Q5 Employment_Description Employment status at this institution and other jobs in Fall 

2003 

X06Q5 Employment_Description Part-time faculty this institution with other PSE jobs in Fall 

2003 

X01Q9 Employment_Description Years held current job 

X02Q9 Employment_Description Age when began current job 

X03Q9 Employment_Description Years held current job, collapsed 

X04Q9 Employment_Description Age when began current job, collapsed 

X01Q10 Background_Demographics Rank, gender 

X02Q10 Employment_Description Rank, employment status 

X03Q10 Employment_Description Rank, years since rank achieved 

X04Q10 Employment_Description Rank, age achieved rank of full professor 

X05Q10 Employment_Description Rank, years since full professor achieved 

X06Q10 Employment_Description Rank, years since rank achieved, collapsed 

X07Q10 Employment_Description Rank, age achieved rank of full professor, collapsed 

X08Q10 Employment_Description Rank, years since full professor achieved, collapsed 

X09Q10 Employment_Description Rank, age achieved rank of associate professor 

X10Q10 Employment_Description Rank, age achieved rank of associate professor, collapsed 

X11Q10 Employment_Description Rank, years since associate professor achieved 

X12Q10 Employment_Description Rank, years since associate professor achieved, collapsed 

X01Q12 Employment_Description Tenure status, collapsed further 

X02Q12 Background_Demographics Tenure status, gender 

X03Q12 Employment_Description Tenure status, years since tenure achieved 

X04Q12 Employment_Description Tenure status, age achieved tenure 

X05Q12 Employment_Description Tenure status, years since tenure achieved, collapsed 

X06Q12 Employment_Description Tenure status, age achieved tenure, collapsed 

X01Q14 Employment_Description Union status, combined 

X01Q15 Employment_Description Union status, reason not a member, with don’t know 

X01Q16 Employment_Description Principal field of teaching, NSOPF:88 expanded (26 category) 

X02Q16 Employment_Description Principal field of teaching, NSOPF:88 (10 category) 

X03Q16 Employment_Description Principal field of teaching, vocational included (7 category) 

X04Q16 Employment_Description Principal field of teaching, recoded (11 category) 

X05Q16 Employment_Description Teaching or research field, NSOPF:88 expanded (26 

category) 

X06Q16 Employment_Description Teaching or research field, NSOPF:88 (10 category) 

X07Q16 Employment_Description Teaching or research field, vocational included (7 category) 

X08Q16 Employment_Description Teaching or research field, recoded (11 category) 

X09Q16 Employment_Description Principal field of teaching-specific code (contiguous values) 

X10Q16 Employment_Description Teaching or research field-general code 

X11Q16 Employment_Description Teaching or research field-specific code 

X01Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree collapsed further 

X02Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree collapsed 

X03Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree either doctorate or first-professional 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix K. Analysis Variables 

K-16 

Table K-2. Faculty Variables—Continued 

Variable name Prefix Label 

X04Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree field, NSOPF:88 expanded (26 category) 

X05Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree field, NSOPF:88 (10 category) 

X06Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree, years between bachelors and doctorate 

X07Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree, age received 

X08Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree, age received, collapsed 

X09Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree, years since receiving 

X10Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree, years since receiving collapsed 

X11Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree field, vocational included (7 category) 

X12Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree field, recoded (11 category) 

X13Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree, years between bachelors and doctorate, 

collapsed 

X14Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree institution, 2000 Carnegie (10 cat) by control 

X15Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree institution, 2000 Carnegie (5 cat) by control, 

selected 

X16Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree institution, 2000 Carnegie (7 cat) 

X17Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree institution, 2000 Carnegie (5 cat) 

X18Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree field-specific code (contiguous values) 

X19Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree, 1994 Carnegie I/II 

X20Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree, 1994 Carnegie matches NSOPF88 

X21Q17 Education_Attainment Highest degree, 1994 Carnegie matches NSOPF93 

X01Q18 Employment_Description Other employment in Fall 2003 

X02Q18 Employment_Description Number of non-PSE-instructional jobs held in Fall 2003 

X01Q21 Employment_Description Current PSE job is the first, and only current, PSE job 

X02Q21 Employment_Description Prior employment status, PSE and other 

X01Q23 Employment_History Year began first faculty or instructional staff job 

X02Q23 Employment_History Years since began first faculty or instructional staff job 

X03Q23 Employment_History Age when began first faculty or instructional staff job 

X04Q23 Education_Attainment Had doctorate when began first faculty or instructional staff 

job 

X05Q23 Employment_History Years since began first faculty or instructional staff job, 

collapsed 

X06Q23 Employment_History Age when began first faculty or instructional staff job, 

collapsed 

X01Q31 Employment_Time Allocation Average total hours per week worked 

X02Q31 Employment_Time Allocation Work more than 40 hours per week 

X01Q32 Employment_Time Allocation Percent of time spent on instruction 

X01Q35 Instruction_Overall Any instruction for class, individual, or committees 

X02Q35 Instruction_Overall Any instruction, type 

X03Q35 Instruction_Overall Any instruction, combination 

X04Q35 Instruction_Overall Type of classes taught 

X05Q35 Instruction_Overall Total number of classes taught (for-credit and not-for-credit) 

X01Q36 Employment_Description Rank and teaching assistant for credit classes 

X02Q36 Employment_Description Tenure status and teaching assistant for credit classes 

X01Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Total hours/week teaching credit classes 

X02Q37 Instruction_Overall Total student contact hours/week in credit classes 

X03Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Total classroom credit hours in classes 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix K. Analysis Variables 

K-17 

Table K-2. Faculty Variables—Continued 

Variable name Prefix Label 

X04Q37 Instruction_Overall Total student credit hours in classes 

X05Q37 Instruction_Level Level of students in credit classes 

X06Q37 Instruction_Overall Number of credit classes reported in detail 

X07Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Classes Number of credit classes that were undergraduate 

X08Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Classes Number of credit classes that were graduate/first-professional 

X09Q37 Instruction_Overall Total students taught in credit classes 

X10Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Assistant Reported TA in at least one credit class any level 

X11Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Assistant Reported TA in at least one undergraduate credit class 

X12Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Assistant Reported TA in at least one graduate/first- professional credit 

class 

X13Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Total classroom credit hours in classes, undergraduate 

X14Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Total classroom credit hours in classes, graduate/firstprofessional 

X15Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Total hours/week teaching credit classes, undergrad 

X16Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Total hours/week teaching credit classes, graduate/firstprofessional 

X17Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Total student contact hours/week in credit classes, 

undergraduate 

X18Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Total student contact hours/week in credit classes, 

graduate/first- professional 

X19Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Total student credit hours in classes, undergraduate 

X20Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Hours Total student credit hours in classes, graduate/firstprofessional 

X21Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Students Total students taught in credit classes, undergraduate 

X22Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Students Total students taught in credit classes, graduate/firstprofessional 

X23Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Students Average for-credit class size 

X24Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Students Average undergraduate for-credit class size 

X25Q37 Instruction_Classroom_Students Average graduate/1st professional for-credit class size 

X26Q37 Instruction_Level Taught at least one undergraduate class for credit 

X01Q39 Technology_Use Technology index 

X01Q47 Instruction_Individual Level of student for individual instruction 

X02Q47 Instruction_Individual Individual instruction, number graduate/first-professional 

students 

X03Q47 Instruction_Individual Individual instruction, number total students 

X04Q47 Instruction_Individual Individual instruction, hours with total students 

X05Q47 Instruction_Individual Individual instruction, hours with graduate/first-professional 

students 

X01Q52 Scholarship_Publications Career total publications/scholarly works 

X02Q52 Scholarship_Publications Recent total publications/scholarly works 

X03Q52 Scholarship_Publications Recent total presentations, exhibitions, or performances 

X04Q52 Scholarship_Publications Career total presentations, exhibitions, or performances 

X01Q54 Scholarship_Research Principal research field, NSOPF:88 expanded (26 category) 

X02Q54 Scholarship_Research Principal research field, NSOPF:88 (10 category) 

X03Q54 Scholarship_Research Principal research field, vocational included (7 category) 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix K. Analysis Variables 

K-18 

Table K-2. Faculty Variables—Continued 

Variable name Prefix Label 

X04Q54 Scholarship_Research Principal research field, recoded (11 category) 

X05Q54 Scholarship_Research Principal research field-specific code (contiguous values) 

X01Q61 Employment_Satisfaction Satisfaction, index (sum) of instruction items 

X01Q62 Employment_Satisfaction Satisfaction, index (sum) of employment items 

X01Q65 Employment_Future Retire from all paid employment, planned age, collapsed 

X02Q65 Employment_Future Retire from all paid employment, years until, collapsed 

X03Q65 Employment_Future Retire from all paid employment, planned age, collapsed, with 

DK 

X04Q65 Employment_Future Retire from all paid employment, years until 

X05Q65 Employment_Future Retire from all paid employment, years until, collapsed, with 

DK 

X01Q66 Finances_Income Basic salary from institution, collapsed 

X02Q66 Finances_Income Institution total income except basic salary, collapsed 

X03Q66 Finances_Income Total income from the institution 

X04Q66 Finances_Income Total income from the institution, collapsed 

X05Q66 Finances_Income Outside income, consulting/freelance work, collapsed 

X06Q66 Finances_Income Outside income, total excluding consulting 

X07Q66 Finances_Income Outside income, total excluding consulting, collapsed 

X08Q66 Finances_Income Outside income, total (including consulting) 

X09Q66 Finances_Income Outside income, total (including consulting), collapsed 

X10Q66 Finances_Income Received compensation from outside consulting work 

X11Q66 Finances_Income Outside employment income, excluding consulting 

X12Q66 Finances_Income Outside employment income, excluding consulting, collapsed 

X13Q66 Finances_Income Outside employment income, including consulting 

X14Q66 Finances_Income Outside employment income, including consulting, collapsed 

X01Q70 Finances_Family Amount of total household income, collapsed, with don’t 

knows 

X01Q72 Background_Demographics Age in 2004 

X02Q72 Background_Demographics Age, matches NSOPF:88 distribution 

X03Q72 Background_Demographics Age, matches NSOPF:93 distribution 

X04Q72 Background_Demographics Age, below or above 55 years 

X01Q74 Background_Demographics Race recoded, no more than one race 

X02Q74 Background_Demographics Race including more than one 

X03Q74 Background_Demographics Race/ethnicity recoded 

X04Q74 Background_Demographics Race/ethnicity recoded multiple 

X05Q74 Background_Demographics Race recoded including multiple according to OMB 

X06Q74 Background_Demographics Race/ethnicity including multiple, non-Hispanic 

X01Q77 Background_Demographics Marital status and dependent children 

X02Q77 Background_Demographics Marital status and dependent children, single parent in 2004 

X01Q81 Background_Demographics Citizenship status and birth 

X02Q81 Background_Demographics Citizenship status and minority status 

X03Q81 Background_Demographics Citizenship status and ethnicity 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix K. Analysis Variables 

K-19 

Table K-2. Faculty Variables—Continued 

Variable name Prefix Label 

X01Q0 Institution_Type 1994 Carnegie (6 cat, all liberal arts) by control, selected cats 

X02Q0 Institution_Type 1994 Carnegie (6 cat, private liberal arts) by control, selected 

cats 

X03Q0 Institution_Type 1994 Carnegie (5 category) by control, selected categories 

X04Q0 Institution_Type 1994 Carnegie (8 category) by control 

X05Q0 Institution_Type 1994 Carnegie (10 category), separates I/II 

X06Q0 Institution_Type 1994 Carnegie, 4-year versus 2-year 

X08Q0 Institution_Type 1994 Carnegie, doctoral/nondoctoral/2-yr by control 

X09Q0 Institution_Other Degree of urbanization 

X10Q0 Institution_Other Ratio of FTE enrollment/FTE faculty 

X11Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment, undergraduate 

X12Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment, undergraduate, collapsed 

X13Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment FTE, undergraduate 

X14Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment FTE, undergraduate, collapsed 

X15Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment, first-professional 

X16Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment, first-professional, collapsed 

X17Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment FTE, first-professional 

X18Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment FTE, first-professional, collapsed 

X19Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment, graduate 

X20Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment, graduate, collapsed 

X21Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment FTE, graduate 

X22Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment FTE, graduate, collapsed 

X23Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment, total 

X24Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment, total, collapsed 

X25Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment FTE, total 

X26Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment FTE, total, collapsed 

X27Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment minority, American Indian/Alaska Native 

X28Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment minority, Asian/Pacific Islander 

X29Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment minority, Black non-Hispanic 

X30Q0 Institution_Other Enrollment minority, Hispanic 

X31Q0 Institution_Other Core expenses, instruction (in 1000’s) 

X32Q0 Institution_Other Core expenses, instruction, collapsed 

X33Q0 Institution_Other Core expenses, research (in 1000’s) 

X34Q0 Institution_Other Core expenses, research, collapsed 

X35Q0 Institution_Other Core expenses, total (in 1000’s) 

X36Q0 Institution_Other Core expenses, total, collapsed 

X37Q0 Institution_Other Region where institution located 

X38Q0 Institution_Type 1994 Carnegie, doctoral/nondoctoral/2-year 

X99Q0 Institution_Type Institution state 

X100Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie code, detailed 

X101Q0 Institution_Type Institution control 

X102Q0 Institution_Type Institution level 

X103Q0 Institution_Type Institution control and highest degree awarded, 4 category 

X104Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie code, 10 category 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix K. Analysis Variables 

K-20 

Table K-2. Faculty Variables—Continued 

Variable name Prefix Label 

X105Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie code, 9 category 

X106Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie code, 7 category 

X107Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie code, 5 category 

X108Q0 Institution_Type Institution highest degree awarded, 2 category 

X109Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie, doctoral/nondoctoral 

X110Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie code (10 category) by control 

X111Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie, 2-year versus 4-year 

X112Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie, doctoral/nondoctoral by control 

X113Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie, 2-year/4-year by control 

X120Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie code (5 category) by control 

X121Q0 Institution_Type 2000 Carnegie code (5 category) by control, selected 

categories 

X122Q0 Institution_Type Institution control and highest degree awarded, 6 category 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
L-1 

Appendix L 

GEM Adjustment Procedure 

Appendix L. GEM Adjustment Procedure 

L–3

Generalized Exponential Model (GEM) – an overview 

In survey practice, design weights are adjusted to correct the bias introduced by 

differential nonresponse and undercoverage via nonresponse adjustment and post-stratification. 

Since these adjustments can increase variance of estimates by creating extreme weights, 

oftentimes, extreme weight adjustments are applied to reduce variance inflation due to 

weighting. The Generalized Exponential Model (GEM) program was developed at RTI (Folsom 

and Singh, 2000) to provide a unified method for all weight adjustments. 

GEM is an expansion of the commonly used method of iterative proportional fitting 

(raking) based on a generalization of Deville and Särndal’s (1992) logit method, in that bounds 

on weights are not required to be uniform. For this purpose, GEM has a built-in extreme weight 

control feature that allows for different bounds on the adjusted weights for different sample 

units. This control feature can be used for a separate extreme weight adjustment after 

poststratification such that sample distribution of weights obtained after the initial 

poststratification is preserved. 

The unadjusted initial weights were classified as extreme if they fell outside of the 

interval of median ± 3 × interquartile range (IQR) within specified domains, where domains 

were defined as functions of design strata with a minimum sample size requirement of 30. The 

goal of model fitting was to keep as many variables as possible without unduly increasing the 

unequal weighting effects (UWE) and the extreme weight proportion. A mixture of forward and 

backward selection schemes were used for fitting the GEM model. The model started with the 

main effects and then two-way and higher order interaction effects were added in a forward 

manner. Subsequently, the bounds were successively tightened until the model statistics and 

characteristics were satisfied. 

During the modeling, a number of statistics were closely monitored to uncover any 

unusual impact of weight adjustment on the initial weights. These statistics included UWEs, 

extreme weight proportions, and distribution of large adjustment factors. GEM summary/ 

diagnostic statistics provide information on the distribution of the initial and adjusted weights, 

number of variables in the final model, and the extreme weight proportions. 

Appendix L References 

Chen, P., Penne, M.A., & Singh, A.C. (2000). Experience with the Generalized Exponential 

Model of Weight Calibration for the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. American 

Statistical Association (ASA) Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Section 

on Survey Research.

Deville, J.C., & Särndal, C.E. (1992). Calibration Estimators in Survey Sampling. Journal of the 

American Statistical Association (JASA), 87, 376-382. 

Folsom, R.E., & Witt, M.B. (1994). Testing a New Attrition Nonresponse Method for SIPP. ASA 

Proceedings on Survey Research Methodology Section, 428-433. 

Folsom, R.E. and Singh, A.C. (2000). The Generalized Exponential Model for Sampling Weight 

Calibration for Extreme Values, Nonresponse, and Poststratification. Proceedings of the 

American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research.
Appendix L. GEM Adjustment Procedure 

L–4 
M-1 

 

Appendix M 

Design Effects 

Appendix M. Design Effects 

M-3 

Researchers who do not have access to software packages such as SUDAAN for 

calculation of design-based standard errors can use a relevant estimate of design effect from this 

table to approximate the standard errors of statistics for the 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). For estimates of a proportion, pˆ , a design-based standard 

error can be approximated by: 

DEFT ˆ (1 ˆ) ×

× −

n

p p

Similarly, design-based standard errors for estimates of means can be approximated by the 

following formula, in which S2 represents the sample variance under simple random sampling. 

DEFT

2

×

n

S

For instance as reported in table M-1, it is estimated that among the 7,460 sample faculty 

members at public doctoral institutions, 39.7 percent were with tenure as of fall 2003 (Q12). The 

design based (proper) standard error of this estimate is 0.67 percent, while under the simple 

random sampling assumption the corresponding (improper) standard error is 0.57 percent. 

However, a rough approximation of the designed based standard error of this estimate can be 

produced by multiplying the value of standard error obtained under the simple random estimate 

assumption (0.57 percent) by the estimate of root design effect. This technique is not 

recommended, however; there are many commercially available statistical software packages to 

do this. 
Appendix M. Design Effects 

M-4 

Table M-1. Design effects (DEFFs) and root design effects (DEFT) for faculty statistics, by 

institution type 

Standard error 

Item Number1 Estimate Design SRS DEFF DEFT 

Institution 

Type2

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 7,460 94.15 0.31 0.27 1.32 1.15 1 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 7,460 86.80 0.48 0.39 1.53 1.24 1 

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 7,460 94.29 0.34 0.27 1.60 1.26 1 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 7,460 23.35 0.62 0.49 1.61 1.27 1 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 7,460 51.45 0.54 0.58 0.87 0.93 1 

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 1,130 44.57 1.76 1.48 1.42 1.19 1 

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 1,130 27.44 1.36 1.33 1.05 1.02 1 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 7,460 25.92 0.64 0.51 1.61 1.27 1 

Q12: Percent with tenure 7,460 39.69 0.67 0.57 1.40 1.18 1 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 6,340 69.32 0.61 0.58 1.10 1.05 1 

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 7,460 9.48 0.37 0.34 1.22 1.10 1 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 7,460 27.76 0.54 0.52 1.09 1.04 1 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 3,700 23.29 0.75 0.69 1.16 1.08 1 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 5,590 71.32 0.70 0.61 1.32 1.15 1 

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 7,460 43.53 0.60 0.57 1.08 1.04 1 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 7,460 65.16 0.53 0.55 0.92 0.96 1 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 7,460 6.58 0.37 0.29 1.63 1.28 1 

Q68: Percent paid by the course 760 41.86 1.74 1.79 0.95 0.98 1 

Q77: Percent marital status married 7,460 75.15 0.53 0.50 1.12 1.06 1 

Q77: Percent marital status single 7,460 11.28 0.44 0.37 1.43 1.20 1 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 7,460 88.86 0.42 0.36 1.35 1.16 1 

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 2,620 98.66 0.26 0.22 1.34 1.16 2 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 2,620 96.31 0.43 0.37 1.37 1.17 2 

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 2,620 91.84 0.74 0.54 1.91 1.38 2 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 2,620 1.51 0.30 0.24 1.60 1.26 2 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 2,620 83.40 1.07 0.73 2.18 1.48 2 

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 670 39.61 2.25 1.89 1.41 1.19 2 

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 670 32.77 1.74 1.82 0.92 0.96 2 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 2,620 21.73 1.00 0.81 1.55 1.25 2 

Q12: Percent with tenure 2,620 35.77 1.11 0.94 1.39 1.18 2 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 1,720 62.65 1.75 1.17 2.26 1.50 2 

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 2,620 15.95 0.92 0.72 1.67 1.29 2 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 2,620 20.84 0.86 0.79 1.17 1.08 2 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 1,920 22.06 1.06 0.95 1.25 1.12 2 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 2,370 89.73 0.67 0.62 1.16 1.08 2 

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 2,620 46.02 1.26 0.97 1.67 1.29 2 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 2,620 65.50 1.19 0.93 1.63 1.28 2 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 2,620 11.42 0.83 0.62 1.79 1.34 2 

Q68: Percent paid by the course 490 37.66 3.20 2.19 2.14 1.46 2 

Q77: Percent marital status married 2,620 71.39 1.02 0.88 1.33 1.15 2 

Q77: Percent marital status single 2,620 12.54 0.76 0.65 1.39 1.18 2 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 2,620 94.53 0.49 0.44 1.20 1.10 2 

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 510 98.09 1.54 0.60 6.49 2.55 3 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 510 95.84 1.82 0.88 4.26 2.06 3 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix M. Design Effects 

M-5 

Table M-1. Design effects (DEFFs) and root design effects (DEFT) for faculty statistics, by 

institution type—Continued

Standard error 

Item Number1 Estimate Design SRS DEFF DEFT 

Institution 

Type2

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 510 93.06 1.74 1.12 2.40 1.55 3 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 510 0.48 0.24 0.31 0.61 0.78 3 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 510 86.61 2.32 1.50 2.38 1.54 3 

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 140 33.70 5.85 4.02 2.11 1.45 3 

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 140 45.17 5.43 4.24 1.64 1.28 3 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 510 14.08 3.05 1.54 3.93 1.98 3 

Q12: Percent with tenure 510 29.59 1.98 2.02 0.96 0.98 3 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 340 56.38 8.12 2.68 9.16 3.03 3 

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 510 17.62 2.39 1.68 2.02 1.42 3 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 510 22.41 2.56 1.84 1.93 1.39 3 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 390 24.29 3.10 2.18 2.02 1.42 3 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 470 93.19 1.86 1.16 2.56 1.60 3 

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 510 47.37 4.81 2.20 4.77 2.18 3 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 510 64.03 2.81 2.12 1.76 1.33 3 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 510 11.68 2.62 1.42 3.41 1.85 3 

Q68: Percent paid by the course 110 31.91 10.51 4.42 5.64 2.38 3 

Q77: Percent marital status married 510 69.71 2.52 2.03 1.54 1.24 3 

Q77: Percent marital status single 510 10.76 2.13 1.37 2.43 1.56 3 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 510 95.55 1.49 0.91 2.68 1.64 3 

 

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 6,420 98.94 0.18 0.13 1.96 1.40 4 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 6,420 88.51 0.72 0.40 3.31 1.82 4 

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 6,420 89.74 0.52 0.38 1.87 1.37 4 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 6,420 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.97 0.99 4 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 6,420 89.33 0.53 0.39 1.88 1.37 4 

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 3,500 34.18 0.99 0.80 1.53 1.24 4 

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 3,500 40.24 1.08 0.83 1.70 1.30 4 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 6,420 9.00 0.76 0.36 4.58 2.14 4 

Q12: Percent with tenure 6,420 17.83 0.64 0.48 1.81 1.35 4 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 3,980 50.28 1.46 0.79 3.38 1.84 4 

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 6,420 32.58 0.84 0.59 2.06 1.43 4 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 6,420 27.52 0.69 0.56 1.55 1.25 4 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 3,890 43.75 1.13 0.80 2.02 1.42 4 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 5,390 93.99 0.52 0.32 2.54 1.59 4 

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 6,420 31.59 0.95 0.58 2.67 1.63 4 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 6,420 49.26 0.82 0.62 1.72 1.31 4 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 6,420 16.06 0.70 0.46 2.32 1.52 4 

Q68: Percent paid by the course 3,000 26.74 1.39 0.81 2.97 1.72 4 

Q77: Percent marital status married 6,420 71.69 0.95 0.56 2.87 1.69 4 

Q77: Percent marital status single 6,420 10.71 0.55 0.39 2.06 1.44 4 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 6,420 98.14 0.21 0.17 1.53 1.24 4 

 

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 110 99.15 0.95 0.89 1.12 1.06 5 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 110 92.09 8.46 2.62 10.41 3.23 5 

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 110 79.54 9.38 3.92 5.73 2.39 5 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 110 2.02 1.09 1.37 0.64 0.80 5 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix M. Design Effects 

M-6 

Table M-1. Design effects (DEFFs) and root design effects (DEFT) for faculty statistics, by 

institution type—Continued

Standard error 

Item Number1 Estimate Design SRS DEFF DEFT 

Institution 

Type2

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 110 87.80 4.78 3.18 2.26 1.50 5 

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 50 32.82 5.85 6.85 0.73 0.85 5 

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 50 35.62 8.43 6.99 1.46 1.21 5 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 110 12.05 1.26 3.16 0.16 0.40 5 

Q12: Percent with tenure 110 26.85 1.98 4.30 0.21 0.46 5 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 80 68.09 15.72 5.35 8.65 2.94 5 

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 110 20.84 5.90 3.94 2.24 1.50 5 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 110 31.12 10.61 4.50 5.57 2.36 5 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 60 26.31 8.87 5.59 2.51 1.59 5 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 100 92.51 2.59 2.66 0.95 0.97 5 

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 110 48.35 5.30 4.85 1.19 1.09 5 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 110 55.72 7.05 4.82 2.14 1.46 5 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 110 17.86 11.66 3.72 9.82 3.13 5 

Q68: Percent paid by the course 40 33.77 16.58 7.88 4.42 2.10 5 

Q77: Percent marital status married 110 66.41 5.07 4.59 1.22 1.10 5 

Q77: Percent marital status single 110 11.90 5.80 3.15 3.40 1.84 5 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 110 94.02 4.66 2.30 4.10 2.02 5 

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 3,160 94.56 0.60 0.40 2.22 1.49 6 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 3,160 86.28 0.55 0.61 0.80 0.89 6 

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 3,160 95.71 0.54 0.36 2.27 1.51 6 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 3,160 20.98 0.74 0.72 1.03 1.02 6 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 3,160 52.90 1.08 0.89 1.49 1.22 6 

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 710 31.72 1.84 1.75 1.11 1.05 6 

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 710 30.13 1.71 1.72 0.98 0.99 6 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 3,160 23.77 0.62 0.76 0.68 0.82 6 

Q12: Percent with tenure 3,160 30.51 0.75 0.82 0.84 0.91 6 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 3,040 86.37 0.69 0.62 1.24 1.12 6 

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 3,160 16.26 0.55 0.66 0.70 0.84 6 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 3,160 30.37 0.98 0.82 1.42 1.19 6 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 1,450 28.16 1.42 1.18 1.44 1.20 6 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 2,300 72.08 1.09 0.94 1.37 1.17 6 

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 3,160 40.76 0.81 0.87 0.86 0.92 6 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 3,160 58.08 1.03 0.88 1.37 1.17 6 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 3,160 8.24 0.61 0.49 1.57 1.25 6 

Q68: Percent paid by the course 540 46.27 2.04 2.14 0.91 0.96 6 

Q77: Percent marital status married 3,160 74.67 0.90 0.77 1.34 1.16 6 

Q77: Percent marital status single 3,160 12.20 0.62 0.58 1.13 1.06 6 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 3,160 88.03 0.55 0.58 0.92 0.96 6 

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 2,270 98.40 0.32 0.26 1.46 1.21 7 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 2,270 96.21 0.42 0.40 1.08 1.04 7 

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 2,270 92.58 0.72 0.55 1.70 1.30 7 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 2,270 0.34 0.15 0.12 1.53 1.24 7 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 2,270 86.88 0.86 0.71 1.47 1.21 7 

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 1,000 23.27 2.42 1.34 3.28 1.81 7 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix M. Design Effects 

M-7 

Table M-1. Design effects (DEFFs) and root design effects (DEFT) for faculty statistics, by 

institution type—Continued

Standard error 

Item Number1 Estimate Design SRS DEFF DEFT 

Institution 

Type2

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 1,000 27.91 1.44 1.42 1.03 1.02 7 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 2,270 12.51 0.67 0.69 0.93 0.96 7 

Q12: Percent with tenure 2,270 19.19 1.00 0.83 1.46 1.21 7 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 2,130 81.42 1.41 0.84 2.79 1.67 7 

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 2,270 31.46 1.64 0.97 2.84 1.69 7 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 2,270 29.91 1.29 0.96 1.79 1.34 7 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 1,440 37.87 2.86 1.28 4.99 2.23 7 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 2,040 92.04 1.09 0.60 3.31 1.82 7 

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 2,270 43.29 1.64 1.04 2.47 1.57 7 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 2,270 52.49 1.17 1.05 1.25 1.12 7 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 2,270 15.94 1.27 0.77 2.75 1.66 7 

Q68: Percent paid by the course 860 56.06 2.98 1.70 3.09 1.76 7 

Q77: Percent marital status married 2,270 75.63 1.38 0.90 2.35 1.53 7 

Q77: Percent marital status single 2,270 10.78 1.06 0.65 2.65 1.63 7 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 2,270 96.69 0.53 0.38 2.00 1.41 7 

 

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 2,520 97.52 0.53 0.31 2.90 1.70 8 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 2,520 95.55 0.86 0.41 4.39 2.10 8 

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 2,520 91.72 1.01 0.55 3.39 1.84 8 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 2,520 1.25 0.37 0.22 2.85 1.69 8 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 2,520 83.00 1.20 0.75 2.59 1.61 8 

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 680 30.33 3.25 1.76 3.40 1.84 8 

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 680 27.75 2.20 1.72 1.64 1.28 8 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 2,520 19.86 1.27 0.79 2.56 1.60 8 

Q12: Percent with tenure 2,520 28.09 1.84 0.89 4.22 2.05 8 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 2,300 81.27 2.07 0.81 6.49 2.55 8 

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 2,520 18.46 1.27 0.77 2.71 1.65 8 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 2,520 23.85 1.48 0.85 3.03 1.74 8 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 1,800 28.11 2.06 1.06 3.77 1.94 8 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 2,290 85.87 1.06 0.73 2.12 1.46 8 

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 2,520 42.21 1.69 0.98 2.96 1.72 8 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 2,520 56.44 1.55 0.99 2.46 1.57 8 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 2,520 11.90 0.89 0.64 1.90 1.38 8 

Q68: Percent paid by the course 540 56.68 3.57 2.13 2.81 1.68 8 

Q77: Percent marital status married 2,520 72.43 1.20 0.89 1.80 1.34 8 

Q77: Percent marital status single 2,520 13.69 0.91 0.68 1.75 1.32 8 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 2,520 95.32 0.61 0.42 2.13 1.46 8 

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 190 98.64 1.00 0.84 1.40 1.18 9 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 190 95.07 3.41 1.57 4.71 2.17 9 

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 190 74.61 5.58 3.16 3.12 1.77 9 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 190 79.49 5.71 2.93 3.80 1.95 9 

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 190 57.09 5.42 3.59 2.28 1.51 9 

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 60 40.26 3.59 6.18 0.34 0.58 9 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 190 0.00 0.00 0.00 9 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix M. Design Effects 

M-8 

Table M-1. Design effects (DEFFs) and root design effects (DEFT) for faculty statistics, by 

institution type—Continued

Standard error 

Item Number1 Estimate Design SRS DEFF DEFT 

Institution 

Type2

Q12: Percent with tenure 190 8.93 2.71 2.07 1.72 1.31 9 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 60 39.47 4.22 6.16 0.47 0.69 9 

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 190 25.10 1.15 3.15 0.13 0.36 9 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 190 98.43 1.02 0.90 1.28 1.13 9 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 170 90.02 0.92 2.30 0.16 0.40 9 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 190 21.35 3.31 2.97 1.24 1.11 9 

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 190 13.20 3.17 2.46 1.67 1.29 9 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 140 18.05 4.83 3.31 2.13 1.46 9 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 190 49.08 5.08 3.63 1.96 1.40 9 

Q68: Percent paid by the course 170 92.59 5.46 1.99 7.53 2.74 9 

Q77: Percent marital status married 190 7.48 1.60 1.91 0.70 0.84 9 

Q77: Percent marital status single 190 13.98 4.92 2.52 3.83 1.96 9 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 190 84.06 2.58 2.66 0.94 0.97 9 

 

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 50 27.05 5.70 6.10 0.87 0.93 10 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 850 97.63 0.82 0.52 2.44 1.56 10 

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 850 94.74 1.07 0.77 1.95 1.40 10 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 850 83.12 2.49 1.29 3.75 1.94 10 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 850 94.27 1.13 0.80 2.02 1.42 10 

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 850 55.28 2.30 1.71 1.82 1.35 10 

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 420 22.07 3.06 2.02 2.29 1.51 10 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 850 1.33 0.64 0.39 2.61 1.62 10 

Q12: Percent with tenure 850 19.68 2.15 1.36 2.49 1.58 10 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 420 31.08 4.87 2.26 4.64 2.15 10 

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 850 13.54 2.72 1.17 5.35 2.31 10 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 850 95.19 1.30 0.73 3.11 1.76 10 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 740 88.65 2.36 1.16 4.11 2.03 10 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 850 33.17 3.13 1.62 3.75 1.94 10 

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 850 30.57 2.14 1.58 1.83 1.35 10 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 490 26.40 4.67 1.99 5.50 2.34 10 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 850 35.00 5.48 1.64 11.20 3.35 10 

Q68: Percent paid by the course 780 88.63 2.48 1.14 4.72 2.17 10 

Q77: Percent marital status married 850 14.07 1.96 1.19 2.70 1.64 10 

Q77: Percent marital status single 850 10.49 1.43 1.05 1.84 1.36 10 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 850 69.94 3.04 1.57 3.73 1.93 10 1

 Numbers rounded to the nearest 10.

2

 Institution types are defined as follows: 1 = public doctor’s; 2 = public master’s; 3 = public bachelor’s; 4 = public 

associate’s; 5 = public other; 6 = private not-for-profit doctor’s; 7 = private not-for-profit master’s; 7 = private not-forprofit bachelor’s; 8 = private not-for-profit associate’s; 9 = private not-for-profit associate’s; and 10 = private not-forprofit other. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Appendix M. Design Effects 

M-9 

Table M-2. Design effects (DEFFs) and root design effects (DEFT) for faculty statistics, by 

race/ethnicity 

Standard error 

Item Number1 Estimate Design SRS DEFF DEFT 

Race/

ethnicity2

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 20,390 9712 015 012 162 127 White 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 20,390 9055 031 020 225 150 White 

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 20,390 9204 028 019 218 148 White 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 20,390 7486 036 030 139 118 White 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 20,390 777 018 019 097 099 White 

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 6,260 3459 068 060 126 112 White 

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 6,260 3312 068 059 129 114 White 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 20,390 1865 035 027 162 127 White 

Q12: Percent with tenure 20,390 2836 041 032 171 131 White 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 16,600 6971 059 036 276 166 White 

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 20,390 2162 039 029 179 134 White 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 20,390 2758 041 031 175 132 White 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 16,860 8552 034 027 156 125 White 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 11,990 3171 071 043 283 168 White 

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 20,390 3991 047 034 192 138 White 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 20,390 5638 036 035 107 103 White 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 20,390 1233 033 023 200 142 White 

Q68: Percent paid by the course 5,080 3695 100 068 218 148 White 

Q77: Percent marital status single 20,390 1075 027 022 150 123 White 

Q77: Percent marital status married 20,390 7422 041 031 180 134 White 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 20,390 9610 019 014 200 141 White 

 

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 1,940 9826 033 030 120 109 Black 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 1,940 9108 087 065 182 135 Black 

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 1,940 9107 099 065 232 152 Black 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 1,940 7588 142 097 213 146 Black 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 1,940 538 075 051 212 146 Black 

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 890 2342 216 142 233 153 Black 

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 890 4053 212 164 167 129 Black 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 1,940 1253 117 075 244 156 Black 

Q12: Percent with tenure 1,940 2423 141 097 211 145 Black 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 1,440 6361 207 127 265 163 Black 

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 1,940 2790 106 102 108 104 Black 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 1,940 2565 152 099 235 153 Black 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 1,580 8947 112 077 209 145 Black 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 1,120 3118 183 138 176 133 Black 

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 1,940 3516 137 108 160 127 Black 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 1,940 5879 166 112 221 149 Black 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 1,940 1134 090 072 157 125 Black 

Q68: Percent paid by the course 730 3867 285 180 251 158 Black 

Q77: Percent marital status single 1,940 1879 106 089 144 120 Black 

Q77: Percent marital status married 1,940 5811 140 112 156 125 Black 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 1,940 9272 068 059 135 116 Black 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix M. Design Effects 

M-10 

Table M-2. Design effects (DEFFs) and root design effects (DEFT) for faculty statistics, by 

race/ethnicity—Continued 

Standard error 

Item Number1 Estimate Design SRS DEFF DEFT 

Race/

ethnicity2

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 1,530 93.47 0.78 0.63 1.50 1.23 Asian2

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 1,530 85.75 0.95 0.89 1.13 1.06 Asian2

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 1,530 95.18 0.79 0.55 2.08 1.44 Asian2

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 1,530 54.23 1.22 1.28 0.92 0.96 Asian2

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 1,530 27.06 1.30 1.14 1.31 1.15 Asian2

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 350 43.28 4.10 2.65 2.39 1.54 Asian2

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 350 42.80 3.32 2.65 1.57 1.25 Asian2

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 1,530 17.49 1.22 0.97 1.59 1.26 Asian2

Q12: Percent with tenure 1,530 30.97 1.47 1.18 1.55 1.24 Asian2

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 1,160 69.95 1.83 1.35 1.85 1.36 Asian2

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 1,530 9.60 0.87 0.75 1.32 1.15 Asian2

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 1,530 24.34 1.48 1.10 1.81 1.35 Asian2

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 1,180 72.53 1.67 1.30 1.65 1.28 Asian2

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 830 29.47 1.86 1.58 1.38 1.18 Asian2

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 1,530 41.76 1.29 1.26 1.04 1.02 Asian2

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 1,530 71.18 1.27 1.16 1.21 1.10 Asian2

Q64: Percent retired from another position 1,530 5.02 0.65 0.56 1.37 1.17 Asian2

Q68: Percent paid by the course 260 24.30 3.38 2.66 1.61 1.27 Asian2

Q77: Percent marital status single 1,530 12.58 1.30 0.85 2.34 1.53 Asian2

Q77: Percent marital status married 1,530 79.22 1.47 1.04 2.01 1.42 Asian2

Q81: Percent United States citizen 1,530 66.41 1.41 1.21 1.35 1.16 Asian2

 

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 1,700 97.77 0.43 0.36 1.48 1.21 Hispanic 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 1,700 88.37 1.12 0.78 2.07 1.44 Hispanic 

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 1,700 90.88 0.84 0.70 1.46 1.21 Hispanic 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 1,700 77.18 1.39 1.02 1.87 1.37 Hispanic 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 1,700 7.36 0.58 0.63 0.84 0.92 Hispanic 

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 660 29.53 2.73 1.78 2.37 1.54 Hispanic 

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 660 44.80 2.97 1.94 2.35 1.53 Hispanic 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 1,700 12.43 0.82 0.80 1.06 1.03 Hispanic 

Q12: Percent with tenure 1,700 24.07 1.35 1.04 1.69 1.30 Hispanic 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 1,270 59.94 2.20 1.37 2.56 1.60 Hispanic 

Q19A1: Percent with Hispanic job that is full-time 1,700 24.05 1.74 1.04 2.81 1.68 Hispanic 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 1,700 26.96 1.31 1.08 1.49 1.22 Hispanic 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 1,390 84.79 1.22 0.96 1.60 1.27 Hispanic 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 1,000 30.66 1.96 1.46 1.80 1.34 Hispanic 

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 1,700 37.84 1.77 1.17 2.27 1.51 Hispanic 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 1,700 57.72 1.75 1.20 2.15 1.47 Hispanic 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 1,700 9.47 1.04 0.71 2.14 1.46 Hispanic 

Q68: Percent paid by the course 520 39.54 3.38 2.15 2.46 1.57 Hispanic 

Q77: Percent marital status single 1,700 15.98 1.24 0.89 1.95 1.40 Hispanic 

Q77: Percent marital status married 1,700 66.47 1.70 1.14 2.20 1.48 Hispanic 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 1,700 86.72 0.98 0.82 1.43 1.19 Hispanic 

See notes at end of table. 
Appendix M. Design Effects 

M-11 

Table M-2. Design effects (DEFFs) and root design effects (DEFT) for faculty statistics, by 

race/ethnicity—Continued 

Standard error 

Item Number1 Estimate Design SRS DEFF DEFT 

Race/

ethnicity2

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 550 97.76 1.23 0.63 3.79 1.95 Other 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 550 90.89 2.23 1.23 3.29 1.81 Other 

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 550 93.28 1.17 1.07 1.20 1.10 Other 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 550 78.99 2.38 1.74 1.87 1.37 Other 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 550 4.94 0.97 0.93 1.09 1.05 Other 

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 190 35.23 4.64 3.45 1.81 1.34 Other 

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 190 54.59 4.77 3.59 1.76 1.33 Other 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 550 15.83 1.69 1.56 1.17 1.08 Other 

Q12: Percent with tenure 550 23.00 1.92 1.80 1.13 1.07 Other 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 420 63.68 2.71 2.36 1.32 1.15 Other 

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 550 19.15 1.94 1.68 1.33 1.15 Other 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 550 23.80 2.12 1.82 1.36 1.17 Other 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 450 84.18 2.03 1.71 1.40 1.19 Other 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 340 30.94 2.97 2.51 1.41 1.19 Other 

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 550 42.88 3.47 2.12 2.68 1.64 Other 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 550 60.64 2.97 2.09 2.02 1.42 Other 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 550 10.47 1.61 1.31 1.52 1.23 Other 

Q68: Percent paid by the course 160 43.14 7.04 3.95 3.17 1.78 Other 

Q77: Percent marital status single 550 11.98 1.96 1.39 2.00 1.41 Other 

Q77: Percent marital status married 550 65.51 2.82 2.03 1.92 1.39 Other 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 550 96.35 0.93 0.80 1.33 1.16 Other 1

 Numbers rounded to the nearest 10. 

2

 Black includes African American; Asian/Pacific Islander includes Native Hawaiian; Hispanic includes Latino; and Other 

includes American Indian/Alaska Native and those who selected more than one race. Race categories exclude Hispanic 

origin unless specified. 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Appendix M. Design Effects 

M-12 

Table M-3. Design effects (DEFFs) and root design effects (DEFT) for faculty statistics, by 

gender 

Standard error 

Item Number1 Estimate Design SRS DEFF DEFT Gender 

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 14,600 96.91 0.19 0.14 1.80 1.34 Male 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 14,600 91.12 0.35 0.24 2.26 1.50 Male 

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 14,600 93.46 0.30 0.20 2.09 1.45 Male 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 14,600 11.11 0.28 0.26 1.13 1.06 Male 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 14,600 72.48 0.40 0.37 1.15 1.07 Male 

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 4,150 26.10 0.94 0.68 1.91 1.38 Male 

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 4,150 34.95 0.69 0.74 0.87 0.93 Male 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 14,600 23.66 0.43 0.35 1.52 1.23 Male 

Q12: Percent with tenure 14,600 33.61 0.52 0.39 1.78 1.33 Male 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 11,820 69.35 0.63 0.42 2.24 1.50 Male 

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 14,600 22.85 0.43 0.35 1.52 1.23 Male 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 14,600 27.57 0.44 0.37 1.45 1.20 Male 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 8,720 31.78 0.78 0.50 2.42 1.56 Male 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 12,200 82.12 0.34 0.35 0.98 0.99 Male 

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 14,600 40.84 0.52 0.41 1.65 1.29 Male 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 14,600 57.12 0.48 0.41 1.38 1.17 Male 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 14,600 13.31 0.39 0.28 1.95 1.39 Male 

Q68: Percent paid by the course 3,420 39.11 1.18 0.84 2.00 1.41 Male 

Q77: Percent marital status married 14,600 78.60 0.44 0.34 1.70 1.30 Male 

Q77: Percent marital status single 14,600 10.11 0.30 0.25 1.45 1.20 Male 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 14,600 92.62 0.25 0.22 1.32 1.15 Male 

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 11,510 97.09 0.15 0.16 0.95 0.97 Female 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 11,510 88.96 0.47 0.29 2.54 1.59 Female 

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 11,510 90.43 0.40 0.27 2.08 1.44 Female 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 11,510 5.71 0.20 0.22 0.90 0.95 Female 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 11,510 75.48 0.51 0.40 1.62 1.27 Female 

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 4,210 42.82 1.01 0.76 1.76 1.33 Female 

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 4,210 34.54 0.92 0.73 1.57 1.25 Female 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 11,510 10.28 0.37 0.28 1.67 1.29 Female 

Q12: Percent with tenure 11,510 20.52 0.45 0.38 1.41 1.19 Female 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 9,070 68.43 0.75 0.49 2.35 1.53 Female 

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 11,510 19.04 0.56 0.37 2.37 1.54 Female 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 11,510 26.62 0.53 0.41 1.63 1.28 Female 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 6,560 31.08 0.87 0.57 2.32 1.52 Female 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 9,260 88.90 0.45 0.33 1.86 1.36 Female 

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 11,510 38.29 0.66 0.45 2.10 1.45 Female 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 11,510 58.24 0.51 0.46 1.25 1.12 Female 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 11,510 9.44 0.35 0.27 1.61 1.27 Female 

Q68: Percent paid by the course 3,330 34.33 1.19 0.82 2.10 1.45 Female 

Q77: Percent marital status married 11,510 65.90 0.56 0.44 1.62 1.27 Female 

Q77: Percent marital status single 11,510 13.43 0.36 0.32 1.30 1.14 Female 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 11,510 95.11 0.28 0.20 1.89 1.38 Female 1

 Numbers rounded to the nearest 10.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Appendix M. Design Effects 

M-13 

Table M-4. Design effects (DEFFs) and root design effects (DEFT) for faculty statistics, by 

employment status

Standard error 

Item Number1 Estimate Design SRS DEFF DEFT 

Employment 

status 

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 17,750 96.24 0.19 0.14 1.72 1.31 Full-time 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 17,750 90.91 0.26 0.22 1.50 1.22 Full-time 

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 17,750 96.29 0.25 0.14 3.20 1.79 Full-time 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 17,750 14.33 0.27 0.26 1.06 1.03 Full-time 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 17,750 62.38 0.46 0.36 1.57 1.25 Full-time 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 17,750 28.52 0.53 0.34 2.48 1.58 Full-time 

Q12: Percent with tenure 17,750 47.51 0.66 0.37 3.09 1.76 Full-time 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 13,830 78.71 0.58 0.35 2.76 1.66 Full-time 

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 17,750 1.85 0.12 0.10 1.41 1.19 Full-time 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 17,750 15.84 0.29 0.27 1.13 1.06 Full-time 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 11,940 29.01 0.59 0.42 2.02 1.42 Full-time 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 14,640 79.52 0.45 0.33 1.80 1.34 Full-time 

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 17,750 48.89 0.48 0.38 1.64 1.28 Full-time 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 17,750 67.73 0.44 0.35 1.60 1.26 Full-time 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 17,750 4.93 0.19 0.16 1.37 1.17 Full-time 

Q68: Percent paid by the course 590 12.41 1.75 1.36 1.67 1.29 Full-time 

Q77: Percent marital status married 17,750 73.71 0.41 0.33 1.56 1.25 Full-time 

Q77: Percent marital status single 17,750 11.41 0.29 0.24 1.51 1.23 Full-time 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 17,750 91.17 0.26 0.21 1.52 1.23 Full-time 

 

Q1: Percent with instructional duties 8,360 97.94 0.21 0.16 1.85 1.36 Part-time 

Q2: Percent with some credit instruction 8,360 89.28 0.59 0.34 3.08 1.76 Part-time 

Q3: Percent who had faculty status 8,360 86.88 0.52 0.37 1.95 1.40 Part-time 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was research 8,360 1.71 0.19 0.14 1.75 1.32 Part-time 

Q4: Percent whose principal activity was teaching 8,360 88.39 0.49 0.35 1.97 1.40 Part-time 

Q6: Percent part-time is primary employment 8,360 34.12 0.62 0.52 1.43 1.20 Part-time 

Q8: Percent part-time preferred full-time 8,360 34.75 0.58 0.52 1.22 1.11 Part-time 

Q10: Percent with academic rank of professor 8,360 4.39 0.30 0.22 1.76 1.33 Part-time 

Q12: Percent with tenure 8,360 3.00 0.23 0.19 1.57 1.25 Part-time 

Q15: Percent nonunion union not available 7,050 57.52 0.78 0.59 1.76 1.33 Part-time 

Q19A1: Percent with other job that is full-time 8,360 46.15 0.71 0.55 1.68 1.29 Part-time 

Q35A1: Percent teaching a single credit class 8,360 41.73 0.65 0.54 1.46 1.21 Part-time 

Q37C2: Percent meet > 3 hours for second class 3,340 36.93 1.27 0.83 2.30 1.52 Part-time 

Q37F1: Percent with no TA in first class 6,810 92.00 0.42 0.33 1.67 1.29 Part-time 

Q39: Percent with web site for instruction 8,360 28.00 0.75 0.49 2.34 1.53 Part-time 

Q62A: Percent not “very satisfied” workload 8,360 44.56 0.59 0.54 1.17 1.08 Part-time 

Q64: Percent retired from another position 8,360 20.33 0.57 0.44 1.68 1.30 Part-time 

Q68: Percent paid by the course 6,150 38.52 1.02 0.62 2.72 1.65 Part-time 

Q77: Percent marital status married 8,360 72.54 0.68 0.49 1.95 1.40 Part-time 

Q77: Percent marital status single 8,360 11.66 0.51 0.35 2.13 1.46 Part-time 

Q81: Percent United States citizen 8,360 96.91 0.24 0.19 1.60 1.27 Part-time 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Appendix M. Design Effects 

M-14