2012/14 BEGINNING POSTSECONDARY STUDENTS

LONGITUDINAL STUDY: (BPS:12/14) FIELD TEST

Supporting Statement Parts B and C

Request for OMB Review

OMB # 1850-0631 v.7

Submitted by

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

October 11, 2012
III

Contents

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. iii

List of Exhibits ............................................................................................................................................iv

B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods.................................................................1

1. Respondent Universe and Sampling................................................................................................................1

a. NPSAS:12 Field Test Institution Universe and Sample............................................................................1

b. NPSAS:12 Field Test Student Universe and Sample................................................................................3

c. Identification of FTBs in NPSAS:12 ........................................................................................................4

d. BPS:12/14 Field Test Sample ...................................................................................................................5

2. Procedures for the Collection of Information..................................................................................................6

a. Statistical methodology for stratification and sample selection................................................................6

b. Estimation procedure ................................................................................................................................6

c. Degree of accuracy needed for the purpose described in the justification................................................6

d. Unusual problems requiring specialized sample procedures ....................................................................7

e. Any use of periodic (less frequent than annual) data collection cycles to reduce the burden...................7

3. Methods for Maximizing Response Rates.......................................................................................................7

a. Locating.....................................................................................................................................................7

b. Interviewing Procedures............................................................................................................................8

c. Quality Control........................................................................................................................................10

4. Tests of Procedures and Methods..................................................................................................................10

a. NPSAS:12 ...............................................................................................................................................10

b. B&B:08/12 ..............................................................................................................................................11

c. ELS:2002/12 ...........................................................................................................................................13

d. BPS:12/14 Field Test ..............................................................................................................................15

5. Reviewing Statisticians and Individuals Responsible for Designing and Conducting the Study..................22

a. Other Contractors’ Staff Responsible for Conducting the Study............................................................22

C. Overview of Analysis Topics and Survey Items................................................................................22

References...................................................................................................................................................22

List of Tables

Table 1. BPS:12/14 Sample Size by institution characteristics: 2011 ....................................................6

Table 2. Start dates for BPS:12/14 field test interviewing, by institution sector....................................9

Table 3. Summary of Field Test and Full-Scale Data Collection Designs, by Study...........................14

Table 4. Distribution of the BPS:12/14 field test sample, by sector and base year response 

status and mode....................................................................................................................16

Table 5. Detectable differences for experimental hypotheses............................................................20
IV

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Design of the BPS:12/14 field test data collection experiment.................................21
1

B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

1. Respondent Universe and Sampling

The target population for the 2012/14 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study

(BPS:12/14) field test consists of all students who began their postsecondary education for the first time 

during the 2010–11 academic year at any Title IV-eligible postsecondary institution in the United States. 

The sample students were the first-time beginners (FTBs) from the 2011-12 National Postsecondary 

Student Aid Study (NPSAS:12) field test. Because the students in the BPS:12/14 field test sample come 

from the NPSAS:12 field test sample, this section also describes the NPSAS:12 field test sample design, 

which was a two-stage sample consisting of a sample of institutions at the first stage, and a sample of 

students from within sampled institutions at the second stage. The BPS:12/14 field test sample is 

comprised of students from the NPSAS:12 field test sample who were determined to be FTBs, or were 

potential FTBs as indicated by the NPSAS institution. 

a. NPSAS:12 Field Test Institution Universe and Sample 

To be eligible for the NPSAS:12 field test, students must have been enrolled in a NPSAS eligible 

institution in a term or course of instruction at any time during the 2010–11 academic year. Institutions 

must have also met the following requirements:

 offer an educational program designed for persons who have completed secondary education; 

 offer at least one academic, occupational, or vocational program of study lasting at least 3 

months or 300 clock hours;

 offer courses that were open to more than the employees or members of the company or group 

(e.g. union) that administers the institution;

 be located in the 50 states or the District of Columbia;

 not be a U.S. service academy institution; and

 have signed the Title IV participation agreement with the U.S. Department of Education.

1

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

for their own employees or members were excluded. U.S. service academies were excluded because of 

their unique funding/tuition base.

The institution samples for the NPSAS field test and full-scale studies were selected 

simultaneously, prior to the field test study, using stratified random sampling with probabilities 

proportional to a composite measure of size (Folsom, Potter, and Williams 1987). Institution measure of 

size was determined using annual enrollment data from the most recent IPEDS 12-Month Enrollment 

Component and first time beginner (FTB) enrollment data from the most recent IPEDS Fall Enrollment 

Component. Composite measure of size sampling was used to ensure that target sample sizes were 

achieved within institution and student sampling strata, while also achieving approximately equal student 

weights across institutions. The institution sampling frame for NPSAS:12 field test was constructed using 

the 2009 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) header, Institution Characteristics 

 

1 A Title IV eligible institution is an institution that has a written agreement (program participation agreement) with the U.S. Secretary of Education that allows 

the institution to participate in any of the Title IV federal student financial assistance programs other than the State Student Incentive Grant (SSIG) and the 

National Early Intervention Scholarship and Partnership (NEISP) programs.
2

(IC), Fall and 12-Month Enrollment, and Completions files. All eligible students from sampled 

institutions comprised the student sampling frame

The field test institution sample for NPSAS:12 was selected using statistical procedures rather 

than purposively as had been done in past NPSAS cycles. This provided more control to ensure that the 

field test and the full-scale institution samples had similar characteristics. It also allowed inferences to be 

made to the target population, supporting the analytic needs of the field test experiments and instrument. 

This ability to make analytic inferences extends to the BPS:12/14 field test sample.

From the stratified frame, a total of 1,970 institutions was selected to participate in either the fullscale or field test study. From the 1,970 institutions selected, a subsample of 300 institutions was selected 

using simple random sampling within institution strata to comprise the field test sample. The remaining 

1,670 institutions comprised the sample for the full-scale study. This sampling process eliminated the 

possibility that an institution would be burdened with participation in both the field test and full-scale 

samples, and maintained the representativeness of the full-scale sample. All institutions in the NPSAS:12 

sample were eligible for either the full-scale or field test studies. 

The institution strata used for the sampling design were based on institution level, control, and 

highest level of offering and are the following:

1. public less-than-2-year,

2. public 2-year,

3. public 4-year non-doctorate-granting,

4. public 4-year doctorate-granting,

5. private nonprofit less-than-4-year,

6. private nonprofit 4-year non-doctorate-granting,

7. private nonprofit 4-year doctorate-granting,

8. private for-profit less-than-2-year,

9. private for-profit 2-year, and

10. private for-profit 4-year.

Due to the growth of the for-profit sector, private for-profit 4-year and private for-profit 2-year 

institutions were separated into their own strata unlike in previous administrations of NPSAS. 

Within each institution stratum, additional implicit stratification for the full-scale was 

accomplished by sorting the sampling frame within stratum by the following classifications: (1) 

historically Black colleges and universities indicator; (2) Hispanic-serving institutions indicator (3) 

Carnegie classifications of degree-granting postsecondary institutions; (4) 2-digit Classification of 

Instructional Programs (CIP) code for less-than-2-year institutions; (5) the Office of Business Economics 

Region from the IPEDS header file (Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce 

Region); (6) state and system for states with large systems, e.g., the SUNY and CUNY systems in New 

York, the state and technical colleges in Georgia, and the California State University and University of 

California systems in California; and (7) the institution measure of size. The objective of this implicit 

stratification was to approximate proportional representation of institutions on these measures. 

Approximately 300 institutions were sampled for the NPSAS:12 field test. Overall, almost 100 

percent of the sampled institutions met the eligibility requirements; of those, approximately 51 percent (or 

about 150 institutions) provided enrollment lists.
3

b. NPSAS:12 Field Test Student Universe and Sample

The students eligible for the BPS:12/14 field test are those eligible to participate in the NPSAS:12 

field test who were FTBs at NPSAS sample institutions in the 2010-11 academic year. Students eligible 

for the NPSAS:12 field test were those who attended a NPSAS eligible institution during the 2010–11 

academic year and who were

 enrolled in either: (a) an academic program; (b) at least one course for credit that could be 

applied toward fulfilling the requirements for an academic degree; (c) exclusively non-credit 

remedial coursework but determined by the institution to be eligible for Title IV aid; or (d) an 

occupational or vocational program that required at least 3 months or 300 clock hours of 

instruction to receive a degree, certificate, or other formal award;

 not currently enrolled in high school; and

 not solely enrolled in a General Educational Development (GED) or other high school 

completion program.

The NPSAS:12 field test institution sample included all levels (less-than-2-year, 2-year and 4-

year) and controls (public, private nonprofit and private for-profit) of Title IV eligible postsecondary

institutions in the United States. The field test student sample was randomly selected from lists of students 

enrolled at sampled institutions between July, 1 2010 and April 30, 2011.

The NPSAS:12 first test study year covers the time period between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 

2011, to coincide with the federal financial aid award year. To facilitate timely completion of data 

collection and data file preparation, institutions were asked to submit enrollment lists for all eligible 

students enrolled at any time between July 1 and April 30 or, for institutions with continuous enrollment, 

between July 1 and March 31. The March 31 deadline for continuous enrollment institutions was used for 

the field test due to the compressed data collection schedule and was not used in the full-scale.

Because previous cycles of NPSAS have shown that the terms beginning in May and June add 

little to enrollment and aid totals, May-June starters were excluded to allow institutions to provide 

enrollment lists earlier which, in turn, allowed the student interview process to begin earlier. In the fullscale study, post-stratification of survey estimates based on IPEDS records on enrollment and National 

Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) records on financial aid distributed was used to adjust for the survey

year’s inclusion of any terms that begin by April 30 and the consequent exclusion of a small number of 

students newly enrolled in May or June. 

To create the student sampling frame, each participating institution was asked to submit a list of 

eligible students. The requests for student enrollment lists specifically indicated how institutions should 

handle special cases, such as students taking only correspondence or distance learning courses, and 

foreign exchange, continuing education, extension division, and non-matriculated students. The data 

required for each enrollee were the following: 

 student’s name;

 student ID;

 Social Security number; 

 date of birth;

 date of high school graduation (month and year);
4

 degree level during the last term of enrollment (undergraduate, masters, doctoralresearch/scholarship/other, doctoral-professional practice, or other graduate);

 class level if undergraduate (first, second, third, fourth, or fifth year or higher);

 major;

 CIP code;

 indicator of whether the institution received an Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR) 

( an electronic record summarizing the results of the student’s Free Application for Federal 

Student Aid [FAFSA] processing) from the Central Processing System (CPS);

 FTB status; and

 contacting information, such as cell phone number, local telephone number and address, 

permanent telephone number and address, campus e-mail address, and permanent e-mail 

address.

Requesting contact information for eligible students prior to sampling allowed for student record 

abstraction and student interviewing to begin shortly after sample selection which helped to ensure the 

management of the field test schedule for data collection, data processing, and file development. 

Student sample sizes for the field test were formulated to ensure representation of various types of 

students. Specifically, the sample included a large number of potential first-time beginners to provide a 

sufficient sample size to obtain a sample yield of at least 1,000 students for BPS field test. The NPSAS:12 

field test sample included 4,530 students of which 4,130 were potential FTBs, 200 were other 

undergraduate students, and 200 were graduate students. 

Students were sampled at fixed rates according to student education level and institution sampling 

strata. Sample yield was monitored and sampling rates were adjusted when necessary, resulting in a 

statistical sample of the required sample size for the field test. The same approach was to be used for the 

full-scale study. Student enrollment lists provided by the institutions were reviewed to make sure that 

required elements were included, and were also compared for consistency with counts from the 2009 

IPEDS 12 Month Enrollment Component.

c. Identification of FTBs in NPSAS:12

To be eligible for the BPS field test, students must have begun their postsecondary education for 

the first time after completing high school on or after July 1, 2010, and before July 1, 2011. Close 

attention was paid to accurately identify FTBs in the NPSAS field test to avoid unacceptably high rates of 

misclassification (e.g., false positives)2 which can, and have, resulted in (1) excessive cohort loss, (2) 

excessive cost to “replenish” the sample, and (3) an inefficient sample design (excessive oversampling of 

“potential” FTBs) to compensate for anticipated misclassification error. To address this concern, 

participating institutions were asked to provide additional information for all eligible students and 

matching to administrative databases was utilized to further eliminate false positives prior to sample 

selection.

Participating institutions were asked to provide the FTB status and high school graduation date for 

every listed student. High school graduation date was used to remove students from the frame who were 

co-enrolled in high school. FTB status, along with class level and student level, were used to exclude

misclassified FTB students in their third year or higher and/or those who were not an undergraduate 

 

2 A student identified by the institution on the enrollment list as an FTB who turns out to not be an FTB is a false positive.
5

student. FTB status, along with date of birth, were used to identify students older than 18 to send for presampling matching to administrative databases.

If the FTB indicator was not provided for a student on the lists, but the student was 18 years of age 

or younger and did not appear to be dually enrolled in high school, the student was sampled as an FTB. 

Otherwise, if the FTB indicator was not provided for a student on the list and the student was over the age 

of 18, then the student was sampled as an “other undergraduate” but would be included in the BPS cohort 

if identified during the student interview as an FTB.

Prior to sampling, students over the age of 18 listed as potential FTBs were matched to NSLDS 

records to determine if any had a federal financial aid history pre-dating the NPSAS year (earlier than 

July 1, 2010 for the field test). Since NSLDS maintains current records of all Title IV federal grant and 

loan funding, any student with disbursements from the prior year or earlier could be reliably excluded 

from the sampling frame of FTBs. Given that about 60 percent of FTBs receive some form of Title IV aid 

in their first year, this matching process could not exclude all listed FTBs with prior enrollment, but 

significantly improved the accuracy of the list prior to sampling, yielding fewer false positives. After 

undergoing NSLDS matching, students over the age of 18 still listed as potential FTBs were matched to 

the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) for further narrowing of potential FTBs based on evidence of 

earlier enrollment.

Matching to NSLDS identified about 19 percent of cases as false positives and matching to NSC 

identified about 14 percent of cases as false positives. In addition to NSLDS and NSC, a subset of 

potential FTBs on the student sampling frame was sent to CPS for matching to evaluate the benefit of the 

CPS match for the full-scale study. Of the 58,690 students sent, CPS identified about 10 percent as false 

positives. Overall, matching to all sources identified about 32 percent of potential FTB students over the 

age of 18 as false positives, with many of the false positives identified by CPS also identified by NSLDS 

or NSC. The matching appeared most effective among public 2-year and private for-profit institutions. 

While public less-than 2-year institutions have a high percent of false positives, they represent a small 

percentage of the total sample. 

Since this pre-sampling matching was new to NPSAS:12, the FTB sample size was set high to 

ensure that a sufficient number of true FTBs would be interviewed. In addition, FTB selection rates were 

set taking into account the error rates observed in NPSAS:04 and BPS:04/06 within each sector

(additional information on NPSAS:04 methodology is available in the study methodology report, 

publication number NCES 2006180, or BPS:04/06 methodology report, publication number NCES 

2008184.). These rates were adjusted to reflect the improvement in the accuracy of the frame from the 

NSLDS and NSC record matching. Sector-level FTB error rates from the field test will be used to help 

determine the rates necessary for full-scale student sampling.

d. BPS:12/14 Field Test Sample

At the conclusion of the NPSAS:12 field test, 2,003 students had been interviewed and confirmed 

to be FTBs, and all will be included in the BPS:12:14 field test. In addition, the field test sample will 

include the 1,493 students who did not respond to the NPSAS:12 field test but were potential FTBs

according to student records or institution lists. The distribution of the BPS:12/14 field test sample is 

shown in table 1, by institution sector.
6

Table 1. BPS:12/14 Sample Size by institution characteristics: 2011

Institution characteristics

Confirmed and Potential FTBs from the NPSAS:12 Field Test

Total Confirmed FTBs Potential FTBs

Total 3,496 2,003 1,493

Institution type

Public

Less-than-2-year 17 6 11

2-year 1,526 827 699

4-year non-doctorate-granting 204 142 62

4-year doctorate-granting 436 321 115

Private nonprofit

Less-than-4-year 37 23 14

4-year non-doctorate-granting 205 155 50

4-year doctorate-granting 139 107 32

Private for-profit

Less-than-2-year 139 71 68

2-year 211 70 141

4-year 582 281 301

# Rounds to zero.

1

Includes master's, doctoral-research/scholarship/other, doctoral-professional practice, and other graduate students.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. FTB = first-time beginner.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2011–12 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:12) Field 

Test

2. Procedures for the Collection of Information

a. Statistical methodology for stratification and sample selection

The BPS:12/14 field test sample will consist of all interviewed and confirmed FTBs from the 

NPSAS:12 field test and also all potential FTBs who did not respond to the NPSAS:12 field test; no 

further sampling or subsampling will be needed. The institution and student sampling strata used in the 

NPSAS:12 field test will be retained for use in analysis. An experiment to test methods for improving 

response rates and reducing bias due to nonresponse is being conducted as a part of the field test, and 

random assignment to treatments will be balanced across the NPSAS:12 strata and response statuses. 

b. Estimation procedure

The students in the BPS:12/14 field test were also in the NPSAS:12 field test. Because the 

NPSAS:12 field test was a probability sample, sampling weights (which are the inverse of the selection 

probability) are available for each of the students in the NPSAS:12 field test and BPS:12/14 field test. 

These base weights can be used in analyses of the results of the field test experiment. In addition, 

response weight adjustments will be applied to these base weights, and the response-adjusted weights will 

be used in the analysis of BPS:12/14 field test interview data.

c. Degree of accuracy needed for the purpose described in the justification

One purpose of the field test experiments described in section 3 is to improve response rates and 

reduce nonresponse bias. The sample will include interviewed FTBs from the NPSAS:12 field test and 

interview nonrespondents who were potential FTBs. Table 5, at the end of this section, shows that the 
7

detectable differences range from 3 percent to 20 percent for the hypotheses being tested using the field 

test data.

d. Unusual problems requiring specialized sample procedures

No special problems requiring specialized sample procedures have been identified. 

e. Any use of periodic (less frequent than annual) data collection cycles to 

reduce the burden

BPS interviews are conducted no more frequently than every two years.

3. Methods for Maximizing Response Rates

a. Locating

The response rate for the BPS:12/14 data collection is a function of success in two basic activities: 

locating the sample members and gaining their cooperation. Several locating methods will be used to find 

and collect up-to-date contact information for the BPS:12/14 sample. During BPS:12/14, batch searches 

of national databases will be conducted prior to the start of data collection. Follow-up locating methods 

will be employed for those sample members not found after the start of data collection. The methods 

chosen to locate sample members are based on the experience gained from the NPSAS:12 field test and 

full-scale studies, the B&B:08/12 field test and full-scale studies, and other recent postsecondary

education studies. 

Many factors will affect the ability to successfully locate and survey sample members for 

BPS:12/14. Among them are the availability, completeness, and accuracy of the locating data collected in 

the NPSAS:12 field test interview and institution records. The locator database includes critical tracing 

information for nearly all sample members, including address information for their previous residences, 

telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses. This database allows telephone interviewers and tracers to have 

ready access to all the contact information available for BPS:12/14 sample members and to new leads 

developed through locating efforts. 

To achieve the desired locating and response rates, RTI will use a multistage locating approach 

that capitalizes on available data for the BPS:12/14 sample. RTI’s proposed locating approach includes 

five basic stages: 

1. Advance Tracing includes batch database searches, contact information updates, and advance 

intensive tracing conducted as necessary.

2. Telephone Locating and Interviewing includes calling all available telephone numbers and 

following up on leads provided by parents and other contacts. 

3. Pre-Intensive Batch Tracing consists of the Premium Phone searches that will be conducted 

between the telephone locating and interviewing stage and the intensive tracing stage.

4. Intensive Tracing consists of tracers checking all telephone numbers and conducting credit 

bureau database searches after all current telephone numbers have been exhausted. 

5. Other Locating Activities will take place as needed and may include use of social networking 

sites and additional tracing resources that are not part of the previous stages.
8

The steps described in the tracing plan are designed to locate the maximum number of sample members

with the least expense. The most cost-effective steps will be taken first so as to minimize the number of 

cases requiring more costly intensive tracing efforts.

BPS:12/14 will also conduct an address update (panel maintenance) procedure to encourage 

sample members to update their contact information prior to the start of data collection. All cases will be 

offered an incentive of $10 to update their contact information via the study website prior to the start of 

data collection (approximately 2-3 weeks before the 2013 field test data collection begins, upon OMB 

approval). We are also requesting approval to conduct full scale address updates since little time will be 

available to conduct address update activities once OMB clearance is received in 2014, in advance of the 

start of data collection. Receiving approval to conduct full scale panel maintenance in conjunction with 

this field test OMB package will enable the address update activity to take place approximately two 

months before data collection begins. 

b. Interviewing Procedures

Telephone interviewer training procedures. Training for individuals working in survey data 

collection will include critical quality control elements. Contractor staff with experience in training 

interviewers will prepare the BPS:12/14 Telephone Interviewer Manual, which will provide detailed 

coverage of the background and purpose of BPS, sample design, the questionnaire, and procedures for the 

telephone interview. The manual will also serve as a reference throughout data collection. Training staff 

will prepare training exercises, mock interviews (specially constructed to highlight the potential of 

definitional and response problems), and other training aids.

Interviews. Interviews will be conducted using a single web-based survey instrument for selfadministered and telephone data collection. The data collection activities will be accomplished through 

the Case Management System (CMS), which is equipped with the following capabilities:

 online access to locating information and histories of locating efforts for each case;

 questionnaire administration module with input validation capabilities (i.e., editing as 

information is obtained from respondents);

 sample management module for tracking case progress and status; and 

 automated scheduling module, which delivers cases to interviewers and incorporates the 

following features:

– Automatic delivery of appointment and call-back cases at specified times. 

– Sorting of non-appointment cases according to parameters and priorities set by project 

staff. 

– Restriction on allowable interviewers. Complete records of calls and tracking of all 

previous outcomes. Flagging of problem cases for supervisor action or supervisor review. 

Complete reporting capabilities. 

A system such as the CMS that integrates these capabilities reduces the number of discrete stages required 

in data collection and data preparation activities. Overall, the scheduler provides a highly efficient case 

assignment and delivery function, reduces supervisory and clerical time, improves execution on the part 
9

of interviewers and supervisors by automatically monitoring appointments and callbacks, and reduces

variation in implementing survey priorities and objectives. 

CATI Start Dates. As with NPSAS:12 full-scale study, RTI plans to initiate telephone efforts at 

varying times in order to maximize participation for sample members from sectors that have historically

been challenging. Please see Table 2 below for details.

Table 2. Start dates for BPS:12/14 field test interviewing, by institution sector

Sector Institution sector Cases begin CATI...

Base year respondents

1 Public less-than-2-year 5 days after lead letters are sent

2 Public 2-year 5 days after lead letters are sent

3 Public 4-year non-doctorate-granting 3 weeks + 1 day after lead letter 

mailing

4 Public 4-year doctorate-granting 3 weeks + 1 day after lead letter 

mailing

5 Private not-for-profit less-than-4-year 5 days after lead letters are sent

6 Private not-for-profit 4-year non-doctorategranting3 weeks + 1 day after lead letter 

mailing

7 Private not-for-profit 4-year doctorate granting 3 weeks + 1 day after lead letter 

mailing

8 Private for-profit less-than-2-year 5 days after lead letters are sent

9 Private for-profit 2-year 5 days after lead letters are sent

10 Private for-profit 4-year 5 days after lead letters are sent

All base year nonrespondents 5 days after lead letters are sent

Refusal Conversion. Recognizing and avoiding refusals is important to maximize the response 

rate. Supervisors will monitor interviewers intensely during the early data collection and provide 

retraining as necessary. In addition, supervisors will review daily interviewer production reports to 

identify and retrain any interviewers with unacceptable numbers of refusals or other problems.

After encountering a refusal, comments are entered into the CMS record that include all pertinent 

data regarding the refusal situation, including any unusual circumstances and any reasons given by the 

sample member for refusing. Supervisors review these comments to determine what action to take with 

each refusal; no refusal or partial interview will be coded as final without supervisory review and

approval. 

If a follow-up is not appropriate (e.g., there are extenuating circumstances, such as illness or the 

sample member firmly requested no further contact), the case will be coded as final and no additional 

contact will be made. If the case appears to be a “soft” refusal, follow-up will be assigned to an 

interviewer other than the one who received the initial refusal. The case will be assigned to a member of a 

special refusal conversion team made up of interviewers who have proven especially skilled at converting 

refusals.

Refusal conversion efforts will be delayed until at least 1 week after the initial refusal. Attempts at 

refusal conversion will not be made with individuals who become verbally aggressive or who threaten to 

take legal or other action. Project staff sometimes receive refusals via email or calls to the project 
10

director’s direct line. These refusals are included in the CATI record of events and coded as final when 

appropriate. 

c. Quality Control

Interviewer monitoring will be conducted using RTI’s Quality Evaluation System (QUEST) as a 

quality control measure throughout the field test and full scale data collections. QUEST is a system 

developed by a team of RTI researchers, methodologists, and operations staff focused on developing

standardized monitoring protocols, performance measures, evaluation criteria, reports, and appropriate 

systems security controls. It is a comprehensive performance quality monitoring system that includes 

standard systems and procedures for all phases of quality monitoring, including obtaining respondent 

consent for recording, procedures for interviewing respondents who refuse consent and for monitoring 

refusals at the interviewer level; sampling of completed interviews by interviewer, evaluating interviewer 

performance; maintaining an online database of interviewer performance data; and addressing potential 

problems through supplemental training. These systems and procedures are based on “best practices” 

identified by RTI in the course of conducting thousands of survey research projects.

As in previous studies, RTI will use QUEST to monitor approximately 7 percent of all completed 

interviews plus an additional 2.5 percent of recorded refusals. In addition, quality supervisors will conduct 

silent monitoring for 2.5 - 3 percent of budgeted interviewer hours on the project. This will allow realtime evaluation of a variety of call outcomes and interviewer-respondent interactions. Recorded 

interviews will be reviewed by call center supervisors for key elements such as professionalism and 

presentation; case management and refusal conversion; and reading, probing, and keying skills. Any 

problems observed during the interview will be documented on problem reports generated by QUEST. 

Feedback will be provided to interviewers and patterns of poor performance (e.g., failure to use 

conversational interviewing techniques, failure to probe, etc.) will be carefully monitored and noted in the 

feedback form that will be provided to the interviewers. As needed, interviewers will receive 

supplemental training in areas where deficiencies are noted. In all cases, sample members will be notified 

that the interview may be monitored by supervisory staff. 

4. Tests of Procedures and Methods

The design of the BPS:12/14 field test experiment expands on data collection experiments 

designed for three NCES studies which preceded it, including the NPSAS:12 field test which served as 

the base year interview for the current study. Brief summaries of each experiment are provided below, 

and in table 3. Although results are not available for the most recent experiments, the design proposed for 

the BPS:12/14 field test builds on what is known about those experiments and target populations, and how 

they compare to the BPS:12 cohort. 

a. NPSAS:12 

The response propensity experiment conducted during the NPSAS:12 field test data collection 

(March 2011 to June 2011) was designed to reduce nonresponse bias through targeted use of incentives. 

Using data from NPSAS:04, RTI identified variables available prior to data collection which were 

predictive of response likelihood, then used the variables to estimate a NPSAS:12 field test sample 

member’s response propensity. Sample members with a low response propensity were sorted at random 
11

into either a control group, which was offered the usual $30 incentive for participation, or an experimental 

group, which was offered $45. High response propensity sample members were sorted at random into a 

control group that was offered $30 or an experimental group that was offered $15. Following data 

collection, RTI evaluated the predictive ability of the response propensity model and determined if bias 

was reduced in the experimental cases.

3

 

The propensity model successfully distinguished between high and low propensity cases in terms 

of response rate. The unweighted low propensity response rate was 57.7% and the unweighted high 

propensity response rate was 67.7%, a statistically significant difference (χ2 = 42.003, p < .0001). 

However, while the primary goal of the response propensity approach was to reduce bias in key estimates, 

the weighted estimates in both the low propensity control and treatment groups were virtually identical, 

suggesting that differential incentives did not have any effect on reducing bias. Although the NPSAS:12 

field test experiment was not designed to increase response rates per se, response rates by incentive 

amount within propensity groups were tested. Within the low propensity group, no statistically significant 

difference between experimental and control groups was noted (χ2 = 2.527, p > .05) while the difference 

observed between high propensity control and treatment groups was statistically significant, with lower 

incentives being associated with lower response rates (χ2 = 13.576, p < .001).

Given the equivocal results of the response propensity experiment, RTI adopted a responsive 

design approach to the NPSAS:12 full-scale data collection (February 2012 to present), dropping pre-data 

collection modeling of either responses or paradata. All sample members are being offered a $30 

incentive. This approach to data collection has been used during the early response phase varied by

institution sector (e.g., public, 2-year) as a substitute for response propensity. For example, students in 

public, 4-year institutions, with historically higher response rates, were handled with the typical data 

collection plan: three weeks of online-only interviewing followed by outbound calling to nonrespondents.

In contrast, students in institutions with historically lower response rates and a lower likelihood of 

responding online, were moved almost immediately to outbound calling, shortening the time to initial 

contact and, when needed, referral to intensive tracing. 

As each wave of the NPSAS:12 sample has moved from the early response to the production 

phase of data collection, the approach taken to encourage response continued to depend on institution 

sector. Other factors about an individual’s experience in data collection were also considered. For 

example, specialized emails are being prepared based on paradata, such as break offs and expressed 

preference to complete the online interview, and USPS Priority Mail is being used to contact cases 

sampled as FTBs. As the data collection period is ending, cases are being offered the abbreviated 

interview depending on their time in data collection and expressed reluctance to commit time to the 

interview. 

b. B&B:08/12 

In the B&B:08/12 field-test (July 2011 to October 2011), RTI targeted cases with a low propensity

to respond and a high likelihood of contributing to nonresponse bias in order to increase the response rate 

and yield less biased survey estimates. To begin, frame data, paradata, and indicators of previous 

 

3

For the NPSAS:12 field test, the institution sample was selected statistically, rather than purposively, as had been done in past NPSAS cycles, in order to 

allow inferences to be made to the target population, supporting the analytic needs of the field test experiments. 
12

response behavior were used to develop a predictive model of a given sample member’s propensity to 

respond. To build the model, RTI estimated logistic regression coefficients using data from the 

NPSAS:08 base year to predict response in the first follow-up (B&B:08/09). The resulting model 

produced odds ratios ranging from 0.99 to 2.65 with an r-squared value of 0.19. 

Before the start of data collection, response propensities for all sample members were calculated 

based on the developed model, then used to divide the sample into low and high response propensity

groups. Approximately one-third of the cases were in the high propensity group, and two-thirds were in 

the low propensity group. The low propensity group was comprised of those less likely to complete and 

most likely to introduce nonresponse bias if they remained nonrespondents. Within each of the propensity

levels, cases were randomly assigned into a control group, which received the same incentive offered in 

the prior field test round ($35 or $55), and an experimental group, whose incentive amounts varied by

response propensity: $20 or $40 was offered to all cases in the high propensity group, and $50 or $70 was 

offered to cases in the low propensity group, depending on the amount they received in the prior field test, 

with those receiving $55 in 2009 receiving $70 in 2011.

Like the NPSAS:12 field test, evaluation of the field test results showed that the propensity model 

was able to accurately predict relative likelihood to respond. The proportion of nonrespondents in the low 

propensity group (39 percent) was more than three times the proportion in the high propensity group (11 

percent; χ2, (1, N=1,588)=139.0; p <.01). Analyses of response rates for the treatment and control groups 

indicated that changes in incentives had the strongest impact on response rates for those individuals in the 

middle of the propensity score range. Observed response rates were higher in the incentive treatment 

group for those individuals with the highest propensity scores within the low propensity classification 

(81.4 and 73.3 percent, t = 2.04, df = 539, p<.05). Those with the lowest propensity scores within the high 

propensity classification showed a numerical difference in response rates between treatment and control 

groups (79 and 89 percent, respectively), but the difference was not statistically significant. However, 

field test results did not show a reduction in bias as a result of the additional response. 

In order to focus on identifying and targeting cases most likely to contribute to nonresponse bias, a 

revised approach is being tried in the B&B:08/12 full-scale data collection that uses a responsive design 

and the Mahalanobis distance measure to identify cases for targeted treatments. For the first three months 

of data collection, which began in August 2012, all sample members are receiving the same treatment in 

data collection – the web, online interview option with “CATI-light,” during which a small number of 

calls is being made, mainly to prompt sample members to complete the online interview. Incentive offers 

during the first three months are determined by a case’s propensity score, calculated prior to the start of 

data collection. Cases with the highest propensity scores are being offered $20, midrange $35, and lowest 

propensity $55. 

The B&B full-scale sample has been split into a treatment and a control group at random and, in 

Month 3 (November 2012), Mahalanobis values of treatment group nonrespondents will be calculated. 

Cases above a threshold value (high-distance) will be offered another $15 in addition to their original 

incentive offer of $20, $35, or $55 (once a case becomes eligible for the additional $15, they will remain 

eligible for the additional $15). All other treatment group and control group members will continue at 

their initial incentive level.
13

After an additional month of data collection (December 2012), Mahalanobis values will be 

reevaluated for the remaining treatment group nonrespondents. Those above a new cut point (determined 

based on the remaining nonrespondents at Month 4) will receive extensive case review in which project 

staff will review the CMS-CATI events log and paradata available for a particular case (e.g., availability

of e-mail address, parent address, etc.) to identify any specific actions that may encourage a sample 

member’s participation. Cases eligible for extensive case review will also be prioritized in the CMS. The 

high-distance nonrespondents in the control group and all low-distance nonrespondents will receive 

extensive case review, but on the regular schedule (i.e., six weeks later). 

In Month 6 (February 2013), Mahalanobis values will be evaluated again for remaining 

nonrespondents, and those above the cut point (determined based on the remaining nonrespondents at 

month 6) will be offered an abbreviated interview. The high-distance nonrespondents in the control group 

and all low-distance nonrespondents will receive an abbreviated interview, but on the regular schedule 

(i.e., 6 weeks later).

c. ELS:2002/12

For the ELS third follow-up field test (July 2011 to September 2011), sample members with the 

lowest response propensities were empirically identified, then targeted with interventions in an attempt to 

encourage participation. A logistic regression model was fitted with the sample member’s ELS:2002 

second follow-up field test response status as the dependent variable. As independent variables, a range 

of information known for all respondents and nonrespondents from each prior wave of the longitudinal 

field test, including information from panel maintenance activities were examined for significance.

Predicted probabilities derived from the logistic regression model were used to get an estimate of a 

case’s response propensity for the field test. Cases were split into two groups of equal size. Field test 

sample members above the median response propensity were classified as high propensity (528 cases), 

and those below the median as low propensity (527 cases). For the implementation of the experiment, the 

low propensity cases were randomly split into experimental and control groups. Low propensity

experimental group cases were offered a higher incentive of $45 at the start of data collection (weeks 1-9),

increasing to $55 starting at week 10. High propensity and low propensity control group cases were 

offered $25 until week 10 of data collection, after which the incentive increased to $35. 

The predictive model developed ahead of the field test data collection effectively predicted the 

eventual response outcome for sample members. The high propensity group’s response rate (67.4%) was 

significantly higher than that of the low propensity control group (45.4%). This difference was 

statistically significant (χ

2

= 34.9; p < .0001). In examining the effect of the higher incentive treatment 

for low propensity cases, a numerical difference in participation (51.6% for treatment cases vs. 45.4%) 

was observed, however, the difference was not statistically significant. The small ELS:2002 field test 

sample size and the brevity of the data collection period may have contributed to the inability to detect a 

significant difference in the results. In reviewing the mean relative bias, it appeared that including low 

propensity cases in the dataset may have helped reduce bias, if only slightly, and the higher incentive for 

the low propensity experimental cases may have lowered the bias relative to the low propensity control 

group. 
14

Table 3. Summary of Field Test and Full-Scale Data Collection Designs, by Study

Study Field Test Full-Scale*

NPSAS:12  Sample sorted by modeled response propensity into 4 groups:

 High propensity: $15 (E) $30 (C)

 Low propensity: $45 (E) $30 (C)

 Modeling successfully differentiated groups by propensity

 Response rate differences observed only in high propensity group

 No effect on bias reduction

 $30 for all sample members

 Institution sector used as proxy for response propensity

 Different data collection strategies applied depending on institution sector

B&B:08/12  Sample sorted by modeled response propensity into 4 groups:

 High propensity: $20/$40 (E) $35/$55 (C)

 Low propensity: $70 (E) $35/$55 (C)

 Modeling successfully differentiated groups by propensity

 Response rate differences observed only in low propensity group 

among highest propensity scores

 No effect on bias reduction

 Calculated response propensities and Mahalanobis distances for all sample 

members. Sorted sample into experimental and control groups within 3 

propensity groups:

 High propensity: $20

 Medium propensity: $35

 Low propensity: $55

 At Time 1, Mahalanobis recalculated for experimental group – greatest 

distance cases offered an additional $15 

 At Time 2, Mahalanobis recalculated for experimental group – greatest 

distance cases to receive intensive case review early

 At Time 3, Mahalanobis recalculated for experimental group – greatest 

distance cases offered abbreviated interview early

ELS:2002/12  Sample sorted by modeled response propensity into 3 groups:

 High propensity: $25 ($35 in Week 10) 

 Low propensity: $45 (E; $55 in Week 10) $25 (C; $35 in Week 10) 

 Modeling successfully differentiated groups by propensity

 Response rate differences observed only in high propensity group

 Slight reduction of bias among low propensity group receiving higher 

incentive

 $25 base incentive offered to all sample members 

 Mahalanobis distance calculated at 3 time points:

 Time 1: Highest distance cases offered additional $30

 Time 2: New “highest distance” cases offered additional $30; all highest 

distance cases will receive intensive tracing and limited field interviewing 

 Time 3: New “highest distance” cases offered additional $30; all highest 

distance cases will receive $5 prepaid incentive

(E) = Experimental Group; (C) = Control Group

*Full-scale data collection is underway for all three studies.
15

An alternative approach, like that being used for the B&B:08/12 full-scale data collection, is being 

implemented for the ELS:2002/12 full scale study (July 2012 to January 2013). Mahalanobis distances

are being calculated to identify those nonrespondent cases which are most unlike existing respondents

and, therefore most likely to contribute to response bias. Substantive data (e.g., enrollment status, 

parent’s education, high school completion status) and paradata (e.g., response status, number of contact 

attempts in the early data collection period) already available from the base year and first and second 

follow-ups are being used to calculate the Mahalanobis distances. 

Distance functions are being measured at three points during data collection: 4 weeks and 9 weeks 

after the start of data collection (Phases 1 and 2, respectively), and at 8 weeks prior to the end of data 

collection (Phase 3). Most cases are being offered an initial incentive of $25. Cases with the largest 

calculated distance scores at each time point will be offered an increased incentive of $55 (once at $55, 

the incentive offer will not decrease). Additional activities will be conducted to locate and interview 

targeted cases including, at Time 2, performing pre-data collection intensive tracing and pursuing the 

cases in person with field locator/interviewers and, at Time 3, including a $5 prepaid incentive with the 

mailing.

d. BPS:12/14 Field Test

The two BPS:12/14 field test experiments were developed out of recent experiences with the 

NPSAS:12 full-scale study and the data collections underway in B&B:08/12 and ELS:2002 third followup. The first experiment emerged from anecdotal reports offered by NPSAS:12 interviewers that sample 

members refused to participate upon hearing the estimated time required to complete the interview 

(average of 25 minutes); they simply did not have the amount of time available to complete the interview. 

For the BPS:12/14 field test, participation rates of base year nonrespondents offered the full length 

interview (35 minutes) will be compared to the participation rates of nonrespondents offered a shorter, 

modified interview (20 minutes) to determine if the expected level of effort reported to sample members 

affects willingness to participate.

The BPS:12/14 responsive design experiment builds on the responsive design work currently 

being conducted in B&B:08/12 and ELS:2002. The basic design will be the same – Mahalanobis 

distances will be calculated at several time points and specific treatments applied to encourage response 

among sample members likely to contribute the most to bias if they do not participate. There is an 

important difference in target populations, however, which warrants examination of the responsive design 

approach for BPS. B&B and ELS follow cohorts of students who are more homogenous than the BPS 

cohort will be. That is, while all B&B sample members will have earned a bachelor’s degree during the 

same academic year and all ELS sample members will be the same age, BPS sample members will not 

have a common postsecondary experience nor will they all be of the same age. The distinctly different 

populations could result in considerably different Mahalanobis calculations and distributions, and data 

collection outcomes. 

1. Early Response Phase (Weeks 1-3). 

All NPSAS:12 base year interview respondents, and all nonrespondents who were potential FTBs, 

will be included in the BPS:12/14 field test data collection experiment. Data collection will occur in two 

main phases, an early response phase, during the first 3 weeks of data collection, followed by the main, 
16

production interviewing phase. The distribution of the NPSAS:12 FTB field test sample is shown in table 

4 by the mode in which they completed the NPSAS:12 field test interview. At the start of the BPS:12/14 

field test interview, the entire field test sample (N=3,496) will be moved to interviewing. Treatment 

during this early phase will depend on a sample member’s base year response status and mode of 

interview completion as described below. 

Base Year Respondents

Among the 2,003 NPSAS:12 field test base year respondents, there were 725 sample members 

whose NPSAS institution was a public 4-year or a private, nonprofit 4-year institution. Most of these

sample members completed the base year interview online, and will be encouraged to complete the full, 

35-minute BPS:12/14 interview online during the first 3 weeks of data collection. If a sample member

from those institutions contacts the study help desk for any reason, he/she will be offered the option of 

completing a telephone interview at that time, but may still complete the interview online if preferred.

Table 4. Distribution of the BPS:12/14 field test sample, by sector and base year response status and mode

Nonrespondents

(Potential FTBs)

Respondents (Confirmed FTBs)

Web Telephone Partial

Type of institution Sample Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total 3,496 1,493 42.7 1,535 79.0 409 21.0 59 2.9

Public less-than-2-year 17 11 64.7 1 16.7 5 83.3 0 0.0

Public 2-year 1,526 699 45.8 603 75.1 200 24.9 24 2.9

Public 4-year nondoctorate-granting

204 62 30.4 121 85.8 20 14.2 1 0.7

Public 4-year 

doctorate-granting

436 115 26.4 270 87.1 40 12.9 11 3.4

Private nonprofit lessthan-4-year

37 14 37.8 19 82.6 4 17.4 0 0.0

Private 4-year nondoctorate-granting

205 50 24.4 140 90.9 14 9.1 1 0.6

Private 4-year 

doctorate-granting

139 32 23.0 100 93.5 7 6.5 0 0.0

Private for-profit lessthan-2-year

139 68 48.9 43 63.2 25 36.8 3 4.2

Private for-profit 2-

year

211 141 66.8 38 58.5 27 41.5 5 7.1

Private for-profit 4-

year

582 301 51.7 200 74.9 67 25.1 14 5.0

The remaining base year respondents – those whose first institution was a public, less-than 2-year 

or 2-year institution; a private, not-for-profit less-than-4-year institution; or any of the 3 levels of forprofit institution – had comparatively low online completion rates. Those who did complete the 

NPSAS:12 field test interview online (N=904) will be given time to complete it online again during the 

first 3 weeks of data collection, or by telephone if they contact the Help Desk. However, those who 

completed a telephone interview (N=374) during the base year will be moved to outbound calling within 

5 days of the initial data collection mailing, allowing only enough time for the initial contact materials to 

reach them by regular mail. Calls from interviewers are primarily intended to prompt sample members to 

complete the online interview, although any willing to complete the interview by telephone will be 
17

encouraged to do so. During the early response phase, base year respondents completing the first followup interview, either online or by telephone, will receive a check in the amount of $30. 

Base Year Nonrespondents

At the completion of the NPSAS:12 field test there were 1,493 interview nonrespondents with 

unknown eligibility for BPS. For Experiment 1, these nonrespondents will be randomly assigned into one 

of two groups. Half of the nonrespondents will be invited to complete the full BPS:12/14 field test 

interview requiring, on average, approximately 35 minutes of their time (Full Interview group). The other 

half will be invited to complete a modified BPS:12/14 field test interview, containing just the enrollment, 

employment, and locating sections, of about 20 minutes’ duration (Modified Interview group). All base 

year nonrespondents will be able to complete the BPS interview online at any time, once the initial 

notification is received by email. Their cases also will be moved to outbound calling 5 days after the 

initial data collection mailing, allowing time for initial contact materials to reach them by regular mail. 

The early response phase will continue for 3 weeks, with all base year nonrespondents receiving a $30 

check for a completed interview. Throughout the BPS:12/14 field test, the assignment of base year 

nonrespondents to either the full or modified interview will not change. 

2. Production Interviewing Phase (Weeks 4 – end of data collection). 

Following the 3-week early response phase, all sample members who did not respond will be 

made available to RTI’s Call Center Services (CCS) for outbound calling. While some sample members 

will have already received calls from CCS during the Early Response Phase, the frequency of calls will 

increase to the level of routine production interviewing. 

At the end of the first two weeks of the production phase, remaining nonrespondents will be 

divided into a control and experimental group. Each group will have an equal number of base year 

respondents, base year nonrespondents offered the full interview, and base year nonrespondents offered 

the modified interview from the early phase. 

Time 1 Mahalanobis Calculation. At the end of the first two weeks of production interviewing, a 

Mahalanobis distance will be calculated across all sample members in the control and experimental 

groups. Cases with the highest Mahalanobis values will be identified as Time 1 high distance cases, 

irrespective of group assignment. Those sample members assigned to the control group will be tracked as 

either Control-High Distance or Control-Normal Distance but, otherwise, data collection will continue as 

in the production interviewing phase, with sample members able to complete the interview online or by

telephone. Those in the control group who complete the interview will receive a $30 check.

In the Experimental group, Experimental-Normal Distance cases will be treated like the control 

group in that they will be able to complete the interview online or by telephone, and will receive a $30 

check for a completed interview. The Experimental-High Distance cases will, like the other three groups, 

be able to complete the interview online or by telephone, and the frequency with which they are contacted 

will be the same. However, those Experimental-High Distance cases completing the interview will 

receive a check for $55, instead of $30.

Mailings to the four groups will follow what is considered a standard schedule of contacts, in both 

conventional mail and electronic mail forms. Production interviewing following the Time 1 Mahalanobis 

calculation will continue for 3 weeks. 
18

Time 2 Mahalanobis Calculation. After the 3 weeks of outbound calling, Mahalanobis values for 

all remaining BPS interview nonrespondents will be recalculated. From the Control-Normal Distance and 

Experimental-Normal Distance groups, a subsample of new high-distance nonrespondent cases will be 

identified. Sample members in the Control-High Distance group will still receive $30 for a completed 

interview; sample members in the Experimental-High Distance group will have their incentive offer 

increased to $55. Cases already offered the higher $55 incentive at Time 1 will continue at that incentive 

level while all others will continue to be offered $30 for a completed interview whether in the ControlHigh Distance or Normal Distance group. Production interviewing following the Time 2 Mahalanobis 

calculation will continue for another 3 weeks.

Mahalanobis Calculations, Time X3-4. Mahalanobis values for all remaining interview 

nonrespondents will be recalculated after two additional 3-week periods of outbound calling, for a total of 

4 calculations covering 12 weeks of data collection. As in prior weeks, nonrespondents with the highest 

Mahalanobis distances will be assigned to either the Control- High Distance or the Experimental-High 

Distance group ($55). The field test design is summarized in exhibit 1.

Responsive Design Research Questions

With the assumption that increasing the rate of response among high-distance cases will reduce 

nonresponse bias, the BPS:12/14 responsive design experiment will explore the following research 

questions: 

1. Do response rates differ between high-distance cases in the treatment and control groups? 

2. Do estimates of key variables differ between high-distance and low-distance cases?

3. Does treatment of high-distance cases reduce nonresponse bias? 

Methods and Null Hypotheses

Research question 1: do response rates differ between high-distance cases in the treatment and control 

groups? 

Because of the assumption that yielding a greater number of high-distance cases will reduce 

nonresponse bias, response rates for the high-distance control and treatment groups will be compared to 

determine whether the overall response rates for the treatment and control groups differ significantly.

Specifically:

 H0: There will be no difference in response rates between the high-distance treatment and control 

groups 

Research question 2: do estimates on key variables differ between high-distance and low-distance cases?

Using administrative record data available for the entire sample, such as indicators of federal aid data 

from NSLDS, RTI will compare estimates of key variables between high- and low-distance sample 

members. They will also compare interview outcome measures between all high-distance respondents and 

all low-distance respondents. Specifically:

 H0: There will be no difference in estimates for key variables known for all cases (e.g., enrollment 

beyond year 1, federal financial aid applications, federal loan amount) between the high- and lowdistance sample members
19

 H0: There will be no difference in survey estimates between the high- and low-distance survey

respondents

 H0: There will be no difference in survey estimates between all respondents, excluding the highdistance treatment group, and all respondents, including the high-distance control group

Research question 3: does treatment of high-distance cases reduce nonresponse bias? 

In addition to calculating nonresponse bias statistics for the whole sample, RTI will measure the effect of 

the responsive design approach on nonresponse bias by comparing estimates between the control and 

treatment groups. Specifically:

 H0: There will be no difference in unit nonresponse bias between the treatment and control groups.

The analysis will rely upon the variables listed below, typically used in BPS to evaluate bias, and will 

identify significant bias at the p<.05 level, if any:

 Type of base year institution

 Region

 Central Processing match during base year

 Federal aid applicant

 Pell Grant recipient

 Total Pell Grant amount received

 Stafford Loan recipient

 Total Stafford Loan amount received

 Base year institution undergraduate enrollment

 Age at base year

 High school graduation year

 Dependency status at base year

 Income level at base year

 Race/ethnicity

 Gender

 Marital status at base year

 Citizenship status at base year

As part of the planning process for developing the experiment design, the differences necessary to 

detect statistically significant differences have been estimated. That is, how large of a difference between 

the control and treatment groups is necessary to determine whether the response rates are different in 

hypothesis 1 or how large of a difference between the comparison groups is necessary to determine 

whether the estimates are different in hypotheses 2 through 5.

Table 5 shows the expected sample sizes and statistically significant detectable difference for the 

hypotheses to be tested. Several assumptions were made regarding response rates and sample sizes. In 

general, the closer a rate is to 50 percent (either less than or greater than), the larger the detectable 

difference. Likewise, smaller sample sizes require larger detectable differences.
20

Assumptions:

1. Detectable differences with 95 percent confidence were calculated with a two-tailed test for all 

hypotheses. 

2. Initially, the sample will be equally distributed across experimental cells. 

3. All sample members will be included in the analyses of hypotheses 1 and 2a.

4. All eligible sample members will be included in the analysis of hypothesis 3.

5. Only respondents will be included in the analyses of hypotheses 2b and 2c because outcome 

measure data will only be known for respondents.

6. The top 30 percent will be used for determining the cut point for high and normal distance 

cases.

7. The response rate for the control group for hypothesis 1 will be 30 percent.

8. Unit nonresponse bias for the control group for hypothesis 3 will be ten percent.4

9. The statistical tests will have 80 percent power with an alpha of 0.05.

10. The statistical tests will use weighted data.

11. A design effect of 2.0 is assumed.

Table 5. Detectable differences for experimental hypotheses 

Hypothesis

Control Group Experimental Group Detectable 

difference with 

95 percent 

Definition confidence

Sample 

size Definition

Sample 

size

1

High-distance cases that did not 

receive treatment

315 High distance cases that ever 

received treatment 

294 11.3

2a Normal distance cases 1,692 High distance cases 609 9.0

2b Normal distance respondents 792 High distance respondents 101 20.1

2c All respondents, excluding highdistance cases, that ever 

received treatment, and 

including high distance cases 

that never received treatment

2,490 All respondents, excluding highdistance cases, that never 

received treatment and 

including high distance cases 

that never received treatment

2,505 5.0

3 Eligible cases, excluding highdistance cases, that ever 

received treatment and 

including high distance cases 

that never received treatment

2,656 Eligible cases, excluding highdistance cases, that never 

received treatment and 

including high distance cases 

that ever received treatment

2,638 2.9

 

4 Ten percent is generally considered the maximum acceptable value for unit nonresponse bias analysis. 
Exhibit 1. Design of the BPS:12/14 field test data collection experiment

22
22

5. Reviewing Statisticians and Individuals Responsible for Designing and 

Conducting the Study

Names of individuals consulted on statistical aspects of study design, along with their affiliation and 

telephone numbers are:

Name Affiliation Telephone

Dr. John Riccobono RTI (919) 541-7006

Dr. Jennifer Wine RTI (919) 541-6870

Dr. James Chromy RTI (919) 541-7019

Dr. Natasha Janson RTI (919) 316-3394

Mr. Peter Siegel RTI (919) 541-6348

Dr. Sara Wheeless RTI (919) 541-5891

Dr. Alexandria Radford MPR (202) 478-1027

In addition to these statisticians and survey design experts, the following statisticians at NCES have also 

reviewed and approved the statistical aspects of the study: Dr. Tracy Hunt-White, Ted Socha, Dr. Matt 

Soldner, Dr. Sean Simone, and Dr. Sarah Crissey.

a. Other Contractors’ Staff Responsible for Conducting the Study

The study is being conducted by the Postsecondary, Adult, and Career Education (PACE) division of the 

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), U.S. Department of Education. NCES’s prime 

contractor is RTI. RTI is being assisted through subcontracted activities by MPR Associates. Principal 

professional staff of the contractors, not listed above, who are assigned to the study are provided below:

Name Affiliation Telephone

Dr. Bryan Shepherd RTI (919) 316-3482

Ms. Donna Anderson RTI (919) 990-8399

Mr. Jeff Franklin RTI (919) 485-2614

Ms. Chris Rasmussen RTI (919) 541-6775

Mr. Michael Bryan RTI (919) 541-7498

Dr. Jennie Woo MPR (510) 849-4942

Ms. Shirley He Chan MPR (510) 849-4942

C. Overview of Analysis Topics and Survey Items

The BPS:12/14 field test data collection instrument is presented in Appendix H. Many of the data 

elements to be used in BPS:12/14 appeared in the previously approved NPSAS:12 and BPS:04/09 

interviews. New items, as well as items that are to be included in the re-interview and in the modified 

interview used in the experiment, are identified in Appendix H.

References

Folsom, R.E., Potter, F.J., & Williams, S.R. (1987). Notes on a Composite Size Measure for SelfWeighting Samples in Multiple Domains. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods of 

the American Statistical Association, 792-796.