U.S. Department of Education 

NCES 2007-157 

Institutional Policies 

and Practices 

Regarding 

Postsecondary 

Faculty: Fall 2003 

First Look 

October 2006 

Stephanie C. Nevill 

Ellen M. Bradburn 

MPR Associates, Inc. 

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. Unless specifically noted, all information contained herein is 

in the public domain. 

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 

October 2006 

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

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

This publication is only available online. To download, view, and print the report as a PDF file, go to the NCES 

World Wide Web Electronic Catalog address shown above. 

Suggested Citation 

Nevill, S.C., and Bradburn, E.M. (2006). Institutional Policies and Practices Regarding Postsecondary Faculty: 

Fall 2003 (NCES 2007-157). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics. Retrieved [date] from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch. 

Content Contact 

Aurora D’Amico 

(202) 502-7334 

aurora.d’amico@ed.gov
iii 

Foreword 

This report presents information collected from 2- and 4-year degree-granting 

postsecondary institutions that were sampled for the 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04). NSOPF:04 surveyed institutions as well as faculty and instructional staff 

who were employed in these institutions in the United States in fall 2003. This report describes 

recent hiring and retirement patterns as well as tenure-related changes and actions taken by 

institutions. 

NSOPF:04 is the fourth in a series of data collections on postsecondary faculty conducted 

by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The first was conducted in 1987–88, the 

second in 1992–93, and the third in 1998–99. Readers should consult appendix B of this report 

for more technical information about NSOPF:04. 

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NCES Data Analysis 

System (DAS), a web-based table-generating application that provides the public with direct, 

free access to NSOPF data as well as other postsecondary datasets collected by NCES. The DAS 

produces the design-adjusted standard errors necessary for testing the statistical significance of 

differences in the estimates (all differences reported in the text are statistically significant at the 

.05 level). Public-access data files and descriptive reports for this and other postsecondary 

datasets collected by NCES are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das. 
iv 

Acknowledgments 

We acknowledge and greatly appreciate all who contributed to the 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) and this report. NSOPF:04 was conducted for the National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) by RTI International and MPR Associates. At RTI 

International, Margaret Cahalan, who was succeeded by Patricia Green, served as project 

director for NSOPF:04. Brian Kuhr’s efforts at institutional contacting and response were 

particularly invaluable to the institution survey results. We also appreciate the hard work of the 

rest of the RTI team as well as the coordinators at sampled institutions who took the time to 

complete the institution survey for NSOPF:04. 

At MPR, Vicky Dingler and Joanna Wu prepared the data files, and John Vavricka oversaw 

creation of the Data Analysis System for the institution data from NSOPF:04. Barbara Kridl, 

Patti Gildersleeve, and Annabelle Yang prepared this report for publication. 

At NCES, Linda Zimbler oversaw NSOPF:04 operations and guided this report through the 

publication process. Additional substantive and technical reviews of this report were conducted 

by Paula Knepper, Marilyn Seastrom, Dennis Carroll, James Griffith, and Tracy Hunt-White at 

NCES. The final report was also reviewed by Duc-Le To, Bruce Taylor, Heather Kelly, Dick 

Richardson, and Valerie Martin Conley. 
v 

Contents 

Page 

Foreword.................................................................................................................................... iii 

Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................... iv 

List of Tables.............................................................................................................................. vi 

List of Figures............................................................................................................................ viii 

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 1

Selected Results ......................................................................................................................... 3

References.................................................................................................................................. 5 

Figures and Tables.................................................................................................................... 7

Appendix A—Glossary ............................................................................................................. 15

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology .................................................................. 21

Overview ............................................................................................................................... 21 

Sample Design....................................................................................................................... 21 

Data Quality Procedures........................................................................................................ 23 

Data Analysis System............................................................................................................ 33 

Statistical Procedures ............................................................................................................ 34 
vi 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

1 Percentage distribution of postsecondary education institutions, faculty, and students 

enrolled, by institution type: Fall 2003 ........................................................................... 9 

2 Percentage of newly hired full-time faculty and percentage of new full-time faculty 

who were part-time faculty at that same institution in November 2002, by institution 

type: Fall 2003................................................................................................................. 10 

3 Percentage of full-time faculty who left institutions between fall 2002 and fall 2003 

and percentage distribution by reason for leaving, by institution type: Fall 2003.......... 11 

4 Percentage of institutions with tenure systems, percentage that limit time on tenure 

track, and percentage distribution of the maximum number of years on tenure track 

without tenure, by institution type: Fall 2003 ................................................................. 12 

5 Percentage of institutions that took specific actions related to tenure during the past 5 

years, by institution type: Fall 2003................................................................................ 13 

Appendix B 

B-1 Distribution of NSOPF:04 institution universe and sample, by control and Carnegie 

Classification................................................................................................................... 22 

B-2 Counts of eligible and responding institutions, and response rates, by institution type: 

2004................................................................................................................................. 23 

B-3 Summary of weight components for NSOPF:04 ............................................................ 25 

B-4 Summary of institution nonresponse bias analysis for institution types with 

nonresponse rates of 15 percent or higher: 2004............................................................. 29 

B-5 Institution item response rates for items with less than 85 percent response rate for 

any institution type before weight adjustments, overall and by institution type: 2004... 31 

B-6 Summary of institution item nonresponse bias analysis, overall and by institution 

type: 2004........................................................................................................................ 32
List of Tables 

vii 

Table Page 

B-7 Standard errors for table 2: Percentage of newly hired full-time faculty and 

percentage of new full-time faculty who were part-time faculty at that same 

institution in November 2002, by institution type: Fall 2003 ......................................... 34 
viii 

List of Figures 

Figure Page 

1 Percentage of institutions with full- or part-time faculty represented by a union, by 

institution type: Fall 2003 ............................................................................................... 8
1 

Introduction 

This report describes selected polices and practices at public and private not-for-profit 

postsecondary institutions that offered an associate’s or higher degree in fall 2003 and 

participated in federal Title IV student aid programs. The 2004 National Study of Postsecondary 

Faculty (NSOPF:04) included a survey of postsecondary faculty and instructional staff as well as 

a survey about postsecondary institutions completed by a survey coordinator at each sampled 

institution. The data in this report are from the institution component of NSOPF:04. The tables 

present data on institutional policies and practices such as faculty attrition and recent tenurerelated changes and actions, with selected results described in the next section.1 A glossary of 

variables in appendix A provides details about institution type, which is derived from the 2000 

Carnegie Classification, and other variables used in this report. All comparisons made in the text 

were tested using Student’s t statistic, and all differences cited were statistically significant at the 

.05 level. Standard errors for estimates in this report are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. The technical notes in appendix B supply additional 

information about the methodology of the data collection, file preparation, and analysis. 

NSOPF:04 is the fourth in a series of data collections describing postsecondary faculty and 

instructional staff at 2- and 4-year degree-granting institutions. Previous administrations of 

NSOPF, including the institution survey, took place in 1987–88, 1992–93, and 1998–99. The 

responses represent approximately 3,380 public and private not-for-profit, Title IV-participating, 

degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.2 Information about 

institutions in NSOPF:04 is based on survey data from a nationally representative sample of 

about 1,070 eligible institutions, using a web-based questionnaire that was either selfadministered or conducted via telephone with a trained interviewer. About 920 institutions 

completed the survey, resulting in a weighted response rate of 84 percent.3 

 

1 These data are similar to those presented in Institutional Policies and Practices: Results From the 1999 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty, Institution Survey (Berger, Kirshstein, and Rowe 2001) for fall 1998, except that report uses the 1994 

Carnegie Classification; whereas the tables presented here use the 2000 Carnegie Classification. 

2 Throughout this report, institution counts are rounded to the nearest 10 to protect the confidentiality of responding institutions. 

Percentages cited are based on the original unrounded numbers. 

3 See technical notes for more information on response rates and nonresponse bias analysis. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
3 

Selected Results 

• Thirty-two percent of postsecondary institutions had unions that represented at least some 

of their faculty in fall 2003 (figure 1). Public institutions were more likely than private 

institutions to have their faculty represented by a union. This is consistent with some 

legal developments that may limit collective bargaining by faculty in private institutions 

(Smallwood 2005).4

• In fall 2003, public institutions granting doctoral, master’s, and associate’s degrees 

employed two-thirds (25, 12, and 31 percent, respectively) of the nation’s faculty and 

enrolled three-quarters (23, 15, and 39 percent, respectively) of the nation’s 

postsecondary students (table 1). 

• Institutions reported that in fall 2003, some 8 percent of all full-time faculty were hired 

the previous year from outside the institution (table 2). Fourteen percent of all new fulltime faculty were previously employed in part-time positions at the institution. Public 

associate’s institutions were particularly likely to hire part-time faculty into full-time 

positions at the institution. About one-fifth (21 percent) of all new full-time hires at 

public associate’s institutions had previously been employed as part-time faculty at the 

institution, compared with 7–9 percent at public and private master’s and doctoral 

institutions. 

• Institutions reported that in fall 2003, some 7 percent of all full-time faculty had left their 

institutions during the previous year (table 3). Thirty-six percent of those who left retired, 

and the remaining 64 percent left for a variety of other reasons. Some of these departures 

may have been related to actions taken by the institutions. 

• At least 90 percent of all doctoral or master’s institutions had tenure systems (table 4). 

They were less common at public associate’s (64 percent) institutions. Most institutions 

(71 percent) had tenure systems in place in fall 2003. 

• The majority (82 percent) of institutions that had tenure systems in fall 2003 limited the 

number of years that a faculty member could remain on tenure track without receiving 

tenure (table 4). About 64 percent of institutions limit time on tenure track to 6 or 7 years. 

Fifty-three percent of public associate’s institutions with tenure systems limited the 

maximum time that faculty could be on tenure track without receiving tenure to less than 

5 years. 

• Between 1998 and 2003, two-thirds (67 percent) of all institutions took at least one action 

related to tenure (table 5). The most common action taken was to offer early or phased 

retirement to tenured faculty members. This action was taken by a larger proportion of 

institutions (52 percent) than other tenure-related actions (10–15 percent) during the past 

 

4 The Yeshiva Decision of the United States Supreme Court in 1980 limited the ability of faculty in the private sector to unionize. 

This decision applies only to private sector schools and not to public institutions. 
Selected Results 

4 

5 years. Other tenure-related actions include replacing some tenured faculty with fulltime faculty on fixed-term contracts, changing policy for granting tenure, making 

standards more stringent for granting tenure, and downsizing tenured faculty. 
5 

References 

Berger, A., Kirshstein, R., and Rowe, E. (2001). Institutional Policies and Practices: Results 

From the 1999 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, Institution Survey (NCES 2001-

201). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education 

Statistics. 

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2001). The Carnegie Classification 

of Institutions of Higher Education. Menlo Park, CA: Author.

Chromy, J.R. (1979). Sequential Sample Selection Methods. In Proceedings of the American 

Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research (pp. 401–406). Alexandria, VA: 

American Statistical Association. 

Folsom, R.E., and Singh, A.C. (2000). The Generalized Exponential Model for Sampling Weight 

Calibration for Extreme Values, Nonresponse, and Poststratification. In Proceedings of 

the American Statistical Association, Section on Survey Research (pp. 598–603). 

Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association. 

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

(2006). 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. 

Kaufman, S. (2004). Using the Bootstrap in a Two-Stage Design When Some Second-Stage 

Strata Have Only One Unit Allocated. In Proceedings of the American Statistical 

Association, Section on Survey Research Methods (pp. 2766–2773). Alexandria, VA: 

American Statistical Association. 

RTI International (RTI). (2004). SUDAAN User’s Manual, Release 9.0. Research Triangle Park, 

NC: Author. 

Smallwood, S. (2005, May 27). Wisconsin College Argues Union Would Infringe on Its 

Religious Freedom. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved August 16, 2006, from 

http://chronicle.com/weekly/v51/i38/38a01001.htm. 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
7 

Figures and Tables 
Figures and Tables 

8 

Figure 1.—Percentage of institutions with full- or part-time faculty represented by a union, by institution

Figure 1.—type: Fall 2003 

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Includes public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions except medical schools and

medical centers.

NOTE: Standard error tables are available at http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

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

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

57.4

13.5

12.8

39.7

5.9

31.1

31.9

21.9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Other

Public associate’s

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate

Private not-for-profit master’s

Public master’s

Private not-for-profit doctoral

Public doctoral

 All institutions

Percent

1

2

3

2
Figures and Tables 

9 

Table 1.—Percentage distribution of postsecondary education institutions, faculty, and students enrolled, 

Table 1.—by institution type: Fall 2003 

Students

Institution type Institutions Total Full-time Part-time enrolled

 All institutions1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Public doctoral2 6.3 24.8 36.1 12.0 22.9

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 3.6 11.3 14.3 8.0 6.5

Public master’s 8.9 12.1 13.9 10.1 15.1

Private not-for-profit master’s 10.3 9.3 6.8 12.0 7.3

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 15.7 6.0 6.5 5.6 4.6

Public associate’s 32.3 31.1 17.7 46.2 39.1

Other3 22.9 5.4 4.7 6.2 4.5

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Includes public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions except medical schools and

medical centers.

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. 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), 2004. 

Faculty
Figures and Tables 

10 

Table 2.—Percentage of newly hired full-time faculty and percentage of new full-time faculty who were 

Table 2.—part-time faculty at that same institution in November 2002, by institution type: Fall 2003

Percent of full-time faculty Percent of new full-time

hired within the past faculty who were

year from outside previously part time

Institution type the institution at the same institution

 All institutions1 8.4 14.3

Public doctoral2 8.5 9.2

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 8.9 7.7

Public master’s 8.6 6.7

Private not-for-profit master’s 8.3 7.4

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 9.2 12.5

Public associate’s 6.4 21.3

Other3 10.4 13.8

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Includes public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions except medical schools and

medical centers.

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

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

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Figures and Tables 

11 

Table 3.—Percentage of full-time faculty who left institutions between fall 2002 and fall 2003 and percentage

Table 3.—distribution by reason for leaving, by institution type: Fall 2003

Full-time faculty

Institution type who left Retired Other reason

 All institutions1 6.9 35.6 64.4

Public doctoral2 8.0 29.9 70.1

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 7.5 24.0 76.0

Public master’s 8.0 43.2 56.8

Private not-for-profit master’s 6.0 31.0 69.0

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 7.8 16.8 83.3

Public associate’s 6.4 46.1 53.9

Other3 6.8 36.9 63.1

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Includes public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions except medical schools and

medical centers.

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

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

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Of those who left, reason for leaving
Figures and Tables 

12 

Table 4.—Percentage of institutions with tenure systems, percentage that limit time on tenure track, and

Table 4.—percentage distribution of the maximum number of years on tenure track without tenure, by

Table 4.—institution type: Fall 2003

Institutions

that limit

Institutions time on Less More

with tenure tenure than 5 than 7

Institution type systems track years 5 years 6 years 7 years years

 All institutions1 71.5 82.5 21.4 10.3 32.6 31.4 4.4

Public doctoral2 100.0 92.7 # 1.2 40.9 48.2 9.8

Private not-for-profit doctoral2 92.1 89.3 # 3.6 36.1 38.6 21.7

Public master’s 97.9 98.7 # 22.2 37.2 40.2 0.4

Private not-for-profit master’s 92.8 83.3 # 8.5 48.2 33.5 9.8

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 83.8 89.8 0.6 # 59.2 36.0 4.2

Public associate’s 63.9 84.5 52.6 19.9 9.8 16.5 1.2

Other3 50.3 58.1 46.8 3.2 18.0 31.6 0.4

# Rounds to zero.

1 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 2

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000

Carnegie Classification.

3

 Includes public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions except medical schools and

medical centers.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

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

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Maximum number of years on tenure track
Figures and Tables 

13 

Table 5.—Percentage of institutions that took specific actions related to tenure during the past 5 years, by

Table 5.—institution type: Fall 2003

Replaced

some

Offered tenured Made

Took at early or faculty with standards

least one phased full-time Changed more

action retirement faculty on policy for stringent Downsized

related to to tenured fixed-term granting for granting tenured

Institution type tenure faculty contracts tenure tenure faculty2

 All institutions3 66.6 51.8 14.2 12.0 10.4 14.6

Public doctoral4 72.3 55.4 28.3 14.7 17.0 17.0

Private not-for-profit doctoral4 77.4 59.1 14.0 17.2 23.7 6.5

Public master’s 73.0 53.6 29.5 6.3 6.3 9.3

Private not-for-profit master’s 62.5 25.3 21.6 17.1 14.1 0.4

Private not-for-profit 

 baccalaureate 66.0 55.3 4.6 14.6 14.3 12.1

Public associate’s 69.4 63.1 9.1 3.9 4.4 12.6

Other5 57.4 45.8 10.7 18.6 9.5 32.1

1

 Institutions also reported whether they discontinued the tenure system. Overall, less than 1 percent of institutions discontinued

their tenure system during the past 5 years.

2

 Institutions that have downsized may have laid off faculty, replaced departing tenured faculty with nontenure track faculty, 

or not hired new faculty to replace departing faculty.

3 All public and private not-for-profit Title IV degree-granting institutions in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 4

 Doctoral includes research/doctoral institutions and specialized medical schools and medical centers as classified by the 2000

Carnegie Classification.

5

 Public baccalaureate, private not-for-profit associate’s, and other specialized institutions except medical schools and medical 

centers.

NOTE: Faculty includes all faculty and instructional staff. Standard error tables are available at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp.

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

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 

Actions related to tenure1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
15 

Appendix A—Glossary 

This glossary includes descriptions of the variables that were used in the tables of this report. The 2004 National 

Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) Institution Data Analysis System (DAS) and the 2004 Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS:04) DAS were used to generate the tables in this report. Readers may 

refer to appendix B for more information on the DAS application. 

Variables are listed in the glossary index below by general topic area and in the order in which they appear in the 

tables. The glossary that follows is organized alphabetically by variable name (displayed in capital letters to the right 

of the variable label). 

GLOSSARY INDEX

NATIONAL STUDY OF POSTSECONDARY 

FACULTY INSTITUTION DATA 

INSTITUTION SURVEY: 2004 

Institution type..................................................X121Q0 

Faculty represented by a union ...........................X01I12 

Full-time faculty hired in past year.......................X03I2 

New full-time faculty who were part time ............ X04I2 

Full-time faculty who left ..................................... X05I2 

Of those who left, percent who retired.................. X09I2 

Of those who left, percent who left for other 

 reason................................................................. X10I2 

Has tenure system ........................................................I3 

Maximum years on tenure track ..................................I6 

Taken action related to tenure............................... X01I7 

Offered early retirement............................................ I7E 

Replaced tenured faculty with fixed-term faculty..... I7D 

Changed tenure policy .............................................. I7A 

Adapted more stringent tenure policy....................... I7B 

Downsized tenured faculty ....................................... I7C 

INTEGRATED POSTSECONDARY 

EDUCATION DATA SYSTEM 

INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND STUDENT 

CHARGES: 2004 

Degree-granting status .............................. DEGGRANT 

Postsecondary and Title IV institution 

 indicator.....................................................PSET4FLG 

Carnegie Classification Code...................... CARNEGIE 

Control of institution.....................................CONTROL 

Total enrollment...............................................ENRTOT 

EMPLOYEES BY ASSIGNED POSITION: 2004 

Total employees ..............................................EAPTOT 

Primary function and intensity of 

 employee .................................................. EAPRECTP 
Appendix A—Glossary 

Variable Name

16 

Carnegie Classification code CARNEGIE 

Indicates the 2000 Carnegie classification code of an institution 

 Doctoral Includes doctoral/research universities—extensive, doctoral/research 

universities—intensive, medical schools and medical centers 

 Master’s Includes masters colleges and universities I, masters colleges and 

universities II 

 Baccalaureate Includes baccalaureate colleges—liberal arts, baccalaureate colleges—

general, baccalaureate/associates colleges 

 Associate’s Includes associates colleges 

 Other Includes theological seminaries and other specialized faith-related 

institutions, other separate health profession schools, schools of 

engineering and technology, schools of business and management, 

schools of art, music, and design, schools of law, teachers colleges, 

other specialized institutions, tribal colleges 

Control of institution CONTROL 

A classification of whether an institution is operated by publicly elected or appointed officials or by privately elected 

or appointed officials and derives its major source of funds from private sources. 

Public 

 Private not-for-profit 

 Private for-profit

Degree-granting status DEGGRANT 

A code indicating the degree-granting status of the institution. Degree-granting institutions offer an associate’s, 

bachelor’s, master’s, doctor’s or a first-professional degree. Non-degree-granting offers certificates or other formal 

awards. 

Primary function and intensity of employee EAPRECTP 

Primary function of the employee at the institution: includes counts of employees by full- and part-time status; by 

function or occupational category; and by faculty status and tenure status. This report cites all full-time employees 

with faculty status (2101), all part-time employees with faculty status (3101), all full-time employees, primarily 

instruction, without faculty status (2115), all part-time employees, primarily instruction, without faculty status 

(3115), all full-time employees, instruction combined with research/public service, without faculty status (2125), 

and all part-time employees, instruction combined with research/public service, without faculty status (3125). 

Total employees EAPTOT 

Total number of employees whose function type is determined by EAPRECTP on the institution’s payroll as of 

November 2004.
Appendix A—Glossary 

Variable Name

17 

Total enrollment ENRTOT 

Total men and women enrolled for credit in the fall of the academic year.

Has tenure system I3 

Indicates whether the institution had a tenure system for full-time faculty. 

Maximum years on tenure track I6 

Indicates whether an institution limits the amount of time nontenured full-time faculty and instructional staff can 

spend on a tenure track (i.e., the maximum number of years staff can be on tenure track and not receive tenure). 

 

 No maximum 

 Less than 5 years 

 5 years 

 6 years 

 7 years 

 More than 7 years 

 

Changed tenure policy I7A 

Indicates whether an institution changed its tenure policy for full-time faculty between 1998 and 2003. 

 

Adapted more stringent tenure policy I7B 

Indicates whether an institution adapted a more stringent tenure policy for full-time faculty between 1998 and 2003. 

Downsized tenured faculty I7C 

Indicates whether an institution downsized full-time tenured faculty between 1998 and 2003. 

Replaced tenured faculty with fixed-term faculty I7D

Indicates whether an institution replaced tenured faculty with fixed-term faculty between 1998 and 2003. 

Offered early retirement I7E

Indicates whether an institution offered early retirement to full-time faculty between 1998 and 2003. 

Postsecondary and Title IV institution indicator PSET4FLG 

Identifies institutions who participate in the Title IV financial aid program.
Appendix A—Glossary 

Variable Name

18 

Taken action related to tenure X01I7

Indicates whether the institution has taken any action related to tenure between 1998 and 2003. 

Faculty represented by a union X01I12

Indicates if any full-time or part-time faculty or instructional staff employed at the institution were legally 

represented by a union.

Full-time faculty hired in past year X03I2

Indicates the percentage of full-time faculty who were newly hired during the 2002–03 academic year. This variable 

was calculated by dividing the number of new hires during the 2002–03 academic year by the total number of fulltime faculty as of November 2003.

New full-time faculty who were part time X04I2

Indicates the percentage of new full-time faculty who were previously part time at the institution. This variable was 

calculated by dividing the number of faculty who changed from part time to full time by the total number of new 

full-time faculty hired during the 2002–03 academic year.

Full-time faculty who left X05I2

Indicates the percentage of full-time faculty who left between November 2002 and November 2003. This variable 

was calculated by dividing the number of full-time faculty who left by the total number of faculty in November 

2002.

Of those who left, percent who retired X09I2

Indicates the percentage of full-time faculty who retired out of all faculty who left the institution. This variable was 

calculated by dividing the number of faculty who retired by the total number of faculty who left the institution.

Of those who left, percent who left for other reason X10I2

Indicates the percentage of full-time faculty who left for reasons other than retirement out of all faculty who left the 

institution. This variable was calculated by dividing the number of faculty who left for other reasons by the total 

number of faculty who left the institution.

Institution type X121Q0

This derived variable identifies the type of institution in which the respondent was employed. It was derived using 

the 2000 Carnegie Classification combined with the control (public or private not-for-profit) of the institution. The 

numeric Carnegie code is listed in parentheses after each category name. The 2000 Carnegie Classification included 

a number of changes, including a new category called “Baccalaureate/Associate’s Colleges” created to reflect the 

emergence of bachelor’s degrees being granted at 2-year institutions. These institutions are defined as colleges at 

which most of the degrees awarded are subbaccalaureate, but at least 10 percent of degrees awarded were bachelor’s 

degrees. This category includes 0.6 percent of faculty in NSOPF:04. For more information about the Carnegie 
Appendix A—Glossary 

Variable Name

19 

Institution type—continued X121Q0

Classification system adopted in 2000, see The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (The 

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 2001). Public baccalaureate and private not-for-profit 

associate’s institutions are not in separate categories because there are too few institutions of these types to yield 

reliable estimates. 

Public doctoral Includes public institutions in the following categories: 

 Doctoral/Research Universities–Extensive (15) 

Doctoral/Research Universities–Intensive (16) 

Medical schools and medical centers (52) 

Private not-for-profit doctoral Includes private not-for-profit institutions in the following categories: 

Doctoral/Research Universities–Extensive (15) 

Doctoral/Research Universities–Intensive (16) 

Medical schools and medical centers (52) 

Public master’s Includes public institutions in the following categories: 

 Master’s Colleges and Universities I (21) 

Master’s Colleges and Universities II (22) 

Private not-for-profit master’s Includes private not-for-profit institutions in the following categories: 

 Master’s Colleges and Universities I (21) 

Master’s Colleges and Universities II (22) 

Private not-for-profit 

baccalaureate Includes private not-for-profit institutions in the following categories: 

Baccalaureate Colleges–Liberal Arts (31) 

Baccalaureate Colleges–General (32) 

Baccalaureate/Associate’s Colleges (33) 

Public associate’s Includes public institutions in the following category: 

Associate’s Colleges (40) 

Other Includes institutions in the following categories: 

Public baccalaureate (31, 32, and 33)

Private not-for-profit associate’s (40) 

Theological seminaries and other specialized faith-related institutions 

(51) 

Other separate health profession schools (53) 

Schools of engineering and technology (54) 

Schools of business and management (55) 

Schools of art, music, and design (56) 

Schools of law (57) 

Teachers colleges (58) 

Other specialized institutions (59) 

Tribal colleges (60) 
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
21 

Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

Overview 

This report uses data from the fourth cycle of the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty 

(NSOPF) institution survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center 

for Education Statistics (NCES) in 2003–04. NSOPF was designed to provide a national profile 

of faculty and instructional staff: their professional backgrounds, responsibilities, workloads, 

salaries, benefits, and attitudes. The institution survey of NSOPF:04 provides contextual 

information (e.g., faculty tenure policies, union representation, faculty attrition) about the 

policies and practices of institutions that pertain to faculty at the institution. Previous cycles were 

conducted in 1987–88, 1992–93, and 1998–99. Additional information concerning the first three 

cycles of NSOPF is available at the NSOPF web page (http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/nsopf/). For 

more information on data collection procedures for NSOPF:04, please see the 2004 National 

Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) Methodology Report (Heuer et al. 2006). 

Sample Design 

The NSOPF:04 institution sample consisted of 1,070 eligible institutions1 in the 50 states 

and the District of Columbia. This section provides information about the sample design for the 

2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). The NSOPF:04 methodology report 

provides more detailed information. 

Institution Sample and Selection 

A single sampling stage for institutions was used for the administration of NSOPF:04. The 

institutions eligible for NSOPF:04 included those in the traditional sector of postsecondary 

education: degree-granting institutions that were eligible to participate in the federal financial aid 

programs included in Title IV of the Higher Education Act, that provide formal instructional 

degree programs of at least 2 years’ duration, that are public or private not-for-profit, and that are 

designed primarily for students who have completed the requirements for a high school diploma 

or its equivalent. NSOPF:04 does not include private for-profit or less-than-2-year institutions. 

 

1 Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10 to protect the confidentiality of responding institutions. Percentages cited are based on 

the original unrounded numbers. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

22 

The institution frame for NSOPF:04 was taken from the 2001–02 Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS) Institutional Characteristics (IPEDS-IC) file. In order to allow 

precise survey estimates for institutional sectors of interest, this universe of institutions was 

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

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

2000 Carnegie Classification system. Table B-1 summarizes the number of eligible institutions 

for each of the resulting 10 primary institutional strata, based on the IPEDS-IC file. 

The institution sampling frame for NSOPF:04 was constructed from the IPEDS-IC files. 

The institutions on the sampling frame were partitioned into 10 institutional strata based on 

institutional control, highest level of offering, and Carnegie Classification. Ultimately, a sample 

of 1,080 institutions2 was selected using probability proportional to size (PPS) based on the 

number of faculty and students at each institution, using Chromy’s sampling algorithm (1979). 

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 B-1 summarizes the distribution of the resulting sample of institutions for NSOPF:04. 

Table B-2 shows the distribution of eligible sampled institutions by institutional characteristics, 

as well as their corresponding weighted response rates.3

 

2 In order to account for the institutions that became eligible for NSOPF:04 after construction of the institution sampling frame 

from the Winter:02 IPEDS, some institutions were added to the sample. 

3 Some institutions either merged or closed after sample selection, and therefore were ineligible for NSOPF:04. 

Table B-1.—Distribution of NSOPF:04 institution universe and sample, by control and Carnegie 

Table B-1.—Classification

Carnegie

Classification 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

Baccalaureate 570 160 90 30 480 130

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

Other 730 70 110 10 620 60

NOTE: Universe and sample 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).

Total Public Private not-for-profit
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

23 

Data Quality Procedures 

Perturbation 

To protect the confidentiality of NCES data that contain information about specific 

individual cases, NSOPF:04 data were subject to perturbation procedures to minimize disclosure 

risk. Perturbation procedures, which have been approved by the NCES Disclosure Review 

Board, preserve the central tendency estimates, but may result in slight increases in nonsampling 

errors. 

Imputation of Missing Data 

All NSOPF:04 institution variables with missing data used in this report, as well as those 

included in the related Data Analysis System (DAS) release, have been imputed. 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. For this purpose, variables were partitioned into 

unconditional and conditional groups. The first group (unconditional) consisted of variables that 

apply to all responding institutions, while the second group (conditional) consisted of variables 

that apply to only a subset of the institutions. The unconditional variables were sorted by 

Table B-2.—Counts of eligible and responding institutions, and response rates, by institution type: 2004

Weighted response

Institution type Eligible1 Responding rate (percent)

 Total 1,070 920 84.2

Public doctoral 190 170 84.7

Public master’s 120 110 89.6

Public bachelor’s 30 30 100.0

Public associate’s 330 290 83.6

Public other 10 10 98.9

Private not-for-profit doctoral 110 90 83.7

Private not-for-profit master’s 80 70 79.8

Private not-for-profit bachelor’s 130 110 77.7

Private not-for-profit associate’s 10 10 86.0

Private not-for-profit other 60 50 76.2

1

Some institutions either merged or closed after sample selection and therefore were ineligible for NSOPF:04.

NOTE: Numbers 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 count
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

24 

percentage missing and then imputed in the order from the lowest percentage 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 classes for both 

unconditional and conditional variables were defined in terms of the institution sampling stratum 

with implicit sorting variables based on the number of full-time and part-time faculty members. 

Within each subgroup, variables were imputed in the order from the lowest to the highest 

percentage missing. Overall, 87 variables from the institution questionnaire were imputed, 

including 58 variables with 1 to 5 percent imputed, 15 variables with 5 to 10 percent imputed, 11 

variables with 10 to 15 percent imputed, and 3 variables with more than 15 percent imputed 

(none of these 3 variables are used in this report). 

Weighting 

All estimates in this report are weighted to represent the target population described in the 

sample design section. The weights compensate for the unequal probability of selection of 

institutions in the NSOPF sample. See table B-3 for a complete list of NSOPF:04 weights. The 

weights also adjust for frame multiplicity,4 nonresponse, and poststratification. The steps taken 

to calculate the study weights, WTB00, for the sample institutions data are summarized next. 

Base weights 

The institution sampling frame for NSOPF:04 included a total of 3,380 eligible units, 

detailed composition of which is provided in section 2.1.1 of the 2004 National Study of 

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) Methodology Report (Heuer et al. 2006). 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 

 

4 It was determined after institution sample selection that in some cases, either an institution had merged with another institution, 

or faculty lists for two or more campuses were submitted as one combined faculty list. In these instances, the institution weights 

were adjusted for the joint probability of selection. 
Table B-3.—Summary of weight components for NSOPF:04

Weight name Type of weight Associated file Adjustments PurposeWTB00 Study weight Institution DAS Institution’s probability of selection, adjusted Final weight for comp

and ECB - for institutions with multiple chances of selection from the institution su

WTB01-WTB64 Replicate weights - to match published totals to ensure population population is 2- and 4

 coverage public and private no

 in the 50 states and t

WTA00 Study weight Faculty DAS Faculty’s probability of selection adjusted Final weight for comp

and ECB - for faculty members who taught at more than one from the faculty surve

WTA01-WTA64 Replicate weights institution population is faculty 

 - for nonresponding faculty members with unknown at institution populati

 eligibility No institution survey  - to compensate for nonresponding faculty members analyzed with this we - to match known published totals to ensure  population coverage

WTC00 Contextual weight Faculty ECB Faculty’s probability of selection adjusted Final weight for comp

only - for faculty members who taught at more than one from the faculty surve

WTC01-WTC64 Replicate con- institution population is faculty 

textual weights - for nonresponding faculty members with unknown at institution populati

 eligibility use when institution s - to compensate for nonresponding faculty members merged with the facul - to match known published totals to ensure  population coverage - for whether the respondent was at an institution  with a completed institution survey

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

26 

Sr+ = composite measure of size for all institutions in stratum r. 

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 a total sample of 1,080 institutions for NSOPF:04. 

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

i

n

i

i P I P I

1 1

U 1 1 ( )

Next, a multiplicity adjustment factor for the i-th sample institution was calculated by: 

i

n

i

i

i

P I WT

WT

1

1 2

1

×⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ =

=

U
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

27 

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. 

Nonresponse adjustment 

For calculation of the analysis weights for institutions responding to the institution 

questionnaire, an institution (questionnaire) level nonresponse adjustment factor (WT3) was 

constructed within each of the 10 sampling strata using a Generalized Exponential Model (GEM) 

(Folsom and Singh 2000). 

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. 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 

The sample of institutions from which faculty were selected overlaps with, but is not 

identical to, the sample of institutions that completed the institution survey. With a license to use 

the restricted data, institution survey information can be merged onto the faculty data so that 

faculty outcomes can be compared across institutions according to variables from the institution 

survey. A contextual weight for the faculty data (WTC00) was developed for use in such 

situations—that is, when using institution survey items in analyses of faculty. 

Quality of Estimates 

Survey weights are computed with the goal of removing any bias that might result due to 

differential nonresponse and undercoverage. In order to measure the efficacy of bias-reducing 

adjustments, a series of analyses were conducted at the unit and item levels. In the subsequent 

sections, highlights of these analyses are summarized. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

28 

Unit response rates and bias analysis

The institution (unit) level response rates for NSOPF:04 institutions were reviewed, overall 

and within each sampling stratum. As shown in table B-2, 920 of the 1,070 eligible sample 

institutions were respondents (84.2 weighted percent). The weighted response rates by type of 

institution ranged from 76.2 for private not-for-profit other institutions to 100 percent for public 

bachelor’s institutions. In all, the institution weighted response rate was below 85 percent for six 

of the ten types of institutions: public doctoral, public associate’s, private not-for-profit doctoral, 

private not-for-profit master’s, private not-for-profit bachelor’s, and private not-for-profit other. 

When the weighted response rates were below 85 percent, an evaluation was conducted to assess 

the potential magnitude of nonresponse bias. 

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 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. 

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

whereηˆis 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
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

29 

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 institution-level 

design weight prior to nonresponse adjustment. 

This procedure parallels the one carried out for nonresponse bias analysis of the faculty 

data, but the institution data included a smaller sample size and a smaller number of attributes 

known for both respondents and nonrespondents. For the six institution types with nonresponse 

rates of 15 percent or higher, Table B-4 shows the percent significant nonresponse bias5 before 

weight adjustments (third row in table) and after weight adjustments (final row in table). The 

results show reduced nonresponse bias overall and for all institution types. 

Finally, note that such unit-level bias analyses were not carried out when computing the 

institution component for the faculty analysis weights, since the weighted response rate for 

institutions providing lists of faculty and instructional staff exceeded 85 percent for all sectors. 

 

5 The percent significant bias is calculated as the ratio of the number of estimates with significant bias to the total number of 

estimates involved in the given analysis. That is, 

100

Number of estimatesinvestigated

Number of estimates with significant bias

Percent Significant Bias = ×

Table B-4.—Summary of institution nonresponse bias analysis for institution types with nonresponse rates 

Table B-4.—of 15 percent or higher: 2004

Private

Private Private not-for- Private

Public not-for- not-for- profit not-forAll Public asso- profit profit bach- profit

Nonresponse bias statistics institutions doctoral ciate’s doctoral master’s elor’s other

Before weight adjustments

 Mean estimated relative bias 0.06 0.06 0.12 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.12

 Median estimated relative bias 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.13 0.09

 Percent significant bias 5.26 6.25 18.75 12.50 6.25 13.33 #

After weight adjustments

 Mean estimated relative bias 0.20 0.09 0.18 0.15 0.29 0.23 0.53

 Median estimated relative bias 0.12 0.07 0.11 0.13 0.25 0.18 0.42

 Percent significant bias 2.63 6.25 12.50 6.25 # 6.67 #

# Rounds to zero.

NOTE: The percent significant bias is calculated as the ratio of the number of estimates with significant bias to 

the total number of estimates involved in the given analysis.

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

Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04).
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

30 

See chapter 3 of the 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04) Methodology 

Report for more information on institution list collection (Heuer et al. 2006). 

Item-level bias analysis 

Item response rates (IRR) are 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 respondents who are 

asked to answer that item. The number asked to answer an item is the number of unit level 

respondents (I) minus the number of respondents with a valid skip item for item x (Vx). 

x

x

x

I V

I IRR − =

An institution is defined to be an item respondent for an interview variable if that 

institution has data for that variable, including logical imputation and recoding based on 

information obtained elsewhere. Overall, the rates of missing data were low to moderate: 

nonresponse was less than 15 percent for most items. 

A nonresponse bias analysis was conducted for those variables with a response rate of less 

than 85 percent (nonresponse above 15 percent) overall or for any institutional stratum. Table B5 presents item response rates for items with less than 85 percent response rate for any 

institutional stratum before weight adjustments. Table B-6 summarizes the nonresponse bias 

analysis for qualifying variables used in this report. 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 .05 level. The percentage significant 

reflects the ratio of the number of biased estimates to the number of biased and unbiased 

estimates. Although there was 25 percent significant bias for public bachelor’s institutions, the 

mean estimated bias was small (0.01), and its impact on the accuracy on estimates was judged to 

be minimal. Because there are so few public bachelor’s institutions in the universe, public 

bachelor’s institutions and faculty within them are not shown separately in figure 1 or tables 1–5 

of this report, but are included in the “Other” category for these tables and figure. 

Standard Errors 

In order to facilitate computation of standard errors for both linear and nonlinear statistics, 

a vector of bootstrap sample weights has been added to the analysis file. These weights are zero 

for units not selected in a particular bootstrap sample; weights for other units are inflated for the 

bootstrap subsampling. The initial analytic weights for the complete sample are also included for 

the purposes of computing the desired estimates. The vector of replicate weights allows for 
Table B-5.—Institution item response rates for items with less than 85 percent response rate for any institution type before wei

Table B-5.—overall and by institution type: 2004

All

institu- Bach- Asso- B

Variable tions Doctor’s Master’s elor’s ciate’s Other Doctor’s Master’s e

Full-time tenure: changed tenure policy 96.3 97.6 94.8 70.6 95.9 100.0 98.4 98.4 Full-time tenure: more stringent tenure  standards 96.3 97.6 94.8 70.6 95.9 100.0 98.4 98.4 Full-time tenure: downsized tenured faculty 96.3 97.6 94.8 70.6 95.9 100.0 98.4 98.4 Full-time tenure: replaced tenured with  fixed term 96.1 97.6 94.8 70.6 95.9 100.0 98.4 98.4 

Full-time tenure: offered early retirement 96.3 97.6 94.8 70.6 95.9 100.0 98.4 98.4 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04).

Public Private not
Table B-6.—Summary of institution item nonresponse bias analysis, overall and by institution type: 2004

Bach- Asso- Ba

Variable All faculty Doctor’s Master’s elor’s ciate’s Other Doctor’s Master’s elo

Full-time tenure: changed tenure policy Mean estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † †  Median estimated bias † † † # † † † †  Percent significant bias † † † 25.00 † † † † Full-time tenure: more stringent tenure standards Mean estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † †  Median estimated bias † † † # † † † †  Percent significant bias † † † 25.00 † † † † Full-time tenure: downsized tenured faculty Mean estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † †  Median estimated bias † † † # † † † †  Percent significant bias † † † 25.00 † † † † Full-time tenure: replaced tenured with fixed term

 Mean estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † †  Median estimated bias † † † # † † † †  Percent significant bias † † † 25.00 † † † † Full-time tenure: offered early retirement Mean estimated bias † † † 0.01 † † † †  Median estimated bias † † † # † † † †  Percent significant bias † † † 25.00 † † † † 

† Not applicable.# Rounds to zero.NOTE: The percent significant bias is calculated as the ratio of the number of estimates with significant bias to the total number of estimates involved 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF:04).

Public Private not-f
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

33 

computing additional estimates for the sole purpose of estimating a variance. Assuming B sets of 

replicate weights, the variance of any estimate, θ

ˆ, can be estimated by replicating the estimation 

procedure for each replicate and computing a simple variance of the replicate estimates; i.e., 

B

Var

B

b

b

2

1

) ˆ ˆ (

)ˆ (

θ θ

θ

−

=

∑−

where θ b

ˆ is the estimate based on the bth replicate weight and B is the number of replicates. Once 

the replicate weights are provided, this estimate can be produced by most survey software 

packages (e.g., SUDAAN [RTI 2004]). 

The replicate weights were produced using a methodology and computer software 

developed by Kaufman (2004). This methodology allows for finite population correction factors 

at two stages of sampling. Application of this method incorporated the finite population 

correction factor at the first stage only where sampling fractions were generally high. At the 

second stage, where the sampling fraction was generally low, the finite population correction 

factor was set to 1.0. 

Data Analysis System 

The estimates presented in this report were produced using the NSOPF:04 Institution Data 

Analysis System (DAS). The DAS application on the Web makes it possible for users to specify 

and generate their own tables. With the DAS, users can replicate or expand upon the tables 

presented in this report. In addition to the table estimates, the DAS calculates proper standard 

errors6 and weighted sample sizes for these estimates. For example, table B-7 contains standard 

errors that correspond to estimates in table 2 of the report. If the number of valid cases is too 

small to produce a reliable estimate (fewer than 30 cases), the DAS prints the message “low n” 

instead of the estimate. All standard errors for estimates presented in this report can be viewed at 

http://nces.ed.gov/das/library/reports.asp. In addition to tables, the DAS will also produce a 

correlation matrix of selected variables to be used for linear regression models. Included in the 

output with the correlation matrix are the design effects (DEFTs) for each variable in the matrix. 

Since statistical procedures generally compute regression coefficients based on simple random 

sample assumptions, the standard errors must be adjusted with the design effects to take into 

account the stratified sampling method used in the survey. 

 

6 The NSOPF:04 sample is not a simple random sample, and therefore, simple random sample techniques for estimating 

sampling error cannot be applied to these data. The DAS takes into account the complexity of the sampling procedures and 

calculates standard errors appropriate for such samples. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

34 

The DAS can be accessed electronically at http://nces.ed.gov/das/. For more information 

about the NSOPF:04 Data Analysis System, contact: 

Aurora D’Amico, Postsecondary Studies Division 

National Center for Education Statistics 

1990 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006-5652 

(202) 502-7334, Aurora.D’Amico@ed.gov

Statistical Procedures 

The descriptive comparisons were tested in this report using Student’s t statistic. 

Differences between estimates are tested against the probability of a Type I error,7 or 

significance level. The significance levels were determined by calculating the Student’s t values 

for the differences between each pair of means or proportions and comparing these with 

published tables of significance levels for two-tailed hypothesis testing. 

Student’s t values may be computed to test the difference between estimates with the 

following formula: 

 

7 A Type I error occurs when one concludes that a difference observed in a sample reflects a true difference in the population 

from which the sample was drawn, when no such difference is present. 

Table B-7.—Standard errors for table 2: Percentage of newly hired full-time faculty and percentage of new 

Table B-7.—full-time faculty who were part-time faculty at that same institution in November 2002, by

Table B-7.—institution type: Fall 2003

Percent of full-time faculty Percent of new full-time

hired within the past faculty who were

year from outside previously part time

Institution type the institution at the same institution

 All institutions 0.21 0.61

Public doctoral # #

Private not-for-profit doctoral 0.07 0.07

Public master’s 0.73 1.35

Private not-for-profit master’s 0.70 1.95

Private not-for-profit baccalaureate 1.66 2.92

Public associate’s 0.69 2.25

Other 1.21 2.29

# Rounds to zero.

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

Faculty (NSOPF:04). 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

35 

2

2

2

1

1 2

se se

E E

t

+

− = 

where E1 and E2 are the estimates to be compared and se1 and se2 are their corresponding 

standard errors. This formula is valid only for independent estimates. When estimates are not 

independent, a covariance term must be added to the formula: 

 t =

1 2

2

2

2

1

1 2

se +se - 2(r)se se

E - E 

where r is the correlation between the two estimates.8 This formula is used when comparing two 

percentages from a distribution that adds to 100. If the comparison is between the mean of a 

subgroup and the mean of the total group, the following formula is used: 

t =

2 2 2

sub tot 2 sub

sub tot

se se p se

E E

+ −

− 

where p is the proportion of the total group contained in the subgroup. The estimates, standard 

errors, and correlations can all be obtained from the DAS. 

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons 

based on large t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading since the 

magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to the observed differences in means or percentages 

but also to the number of respondents in the specific categories used for comparison. Hence, a 

small difference compared across a large number of respondents would produce a large t

statistic. 

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests is the possibility that one can report a “false 

positive” or Type I error. In the case of a t statistic, this false positive would result when a 

difference measured with a particular sample showed a statistically significant difference when 

there is no difference in the underlying population. Statistical tests are designed to control this 

type of error, denoted by alpha. The alpha level of .05 selected for findings in this report 

indicates that a difference of a certain magnitude or larger would be produced no more than one 

time out of twenty when there was no actual difference in the quantities in the underlying 

population. When we test hypotheses that show t values at the .05 level or smaller, we treat this 

 

8 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, A Note from the Chief Statistician, no. 2, 1993. 
Appendix B—Technical Notes and Methodology 

36 

finding as rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two quantities. 

Failing to detect a difference, however, does not necessarily imply the values are the same or 

equivalent.