2013

Summary of 2013 

Annual Performance 

Reports from NIDRR 

Grantees 

January 10, 2014

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

U.S. Department of Education
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-OSE-10-O-0072 with New Editions 

Consulting, Inc. Maggie Hatton served as the contracting officer’s technical representative. The views expressed 

herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official 

endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in 

this publication is intended or should be inferred.

U.S. Department of Education

Arne Duncan

Secretary

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)

Michael Yudin

Acting Assistant Secretary

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research

Charlie Lakin 

Director

January 2014

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to 

reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Summary of 

2012 Annual Performance Reports from NIDRR Grantees, Washington, D.C. 2013.

This report is available on the Department’s website at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/nidrr/2013aprreportsummaries.pdf 

Availability of Alternate Formats 

Request for alternate format documents such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the Alternate Format 

Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via email at om_eeos@ed.gov. 

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons

If you have difficulty understanding English you may request language assistance services for Department 

information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available free of charge. If you 

need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-

5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us at: Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of 

Education, Information Resource Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20202.

Content contact:

Timothy Muzzio

Phone: 202-245-7458; Email: Timothy.Muzzio@ed.gov

i 
Contents

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1

SECTION 1. NIDRR FUNDS RECEIVED BY GRANTEES ............................................................................3

Exhibit 1. Percentage of total NIDRR funding received by grantees, by program mechanism: 

2013 ............................................................................................................................................... 3

Exhibit 2. Number of grants, projects and funding, by program mechanism: 2013............................. 4

Exhibit 3. Funding received by grantees: 2009–2013 ........................................................................... 5

Exhibit 4. Distribution of grant funds, by program mechanism and year: 2009–2013......................... 6

Exhibit 5. Average funding received per grant (in thousands of dollars), by program 

mechanism: 2013 ..................................................................................................................................... 7

Exhibit 6. Percentage of grants expected to produce select types of changes: 2009–2013 ................ 8

SECTION 2. PROJECT INFORMATION ..................................................................................................9

Exhibit 7. Number of projects, by program mechanism and type of project: 2013 ............................. 9

SECTION 3. RESEARCH PROJECTS .....................................................................................................11

Exhibit 8. Number of research projects, by program mechanism and domain: 2013 ........................ 11

Exhibit 9. Number of research projects, by domain and year: 2009–2013 ........................................ 12

Exhibit 10. Number of research projects with Cross-cutting focus, by specified domains and 

year: 2009–2013..................................................................................................................................... 13

Exhibit 11. Number of research projects, by program mechanism and time dimension: 2013 ........... 14

Exhibit 12. Number of research projects using particular research methods: 2013 ............................ 15

Exhibit 13. Number of research projects using particular research methods, by year: 2009–

2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 16

SECTION 4. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS..............................................................................................17

Exhibit 14. Number of development projects, by program mechanism and domain: 2013................. 17

Exhibit 15. Number of development projects, by domain and year: 2009–2013................................. 18

Exhibit 16. Number of development projects with Cross-cutting focus, by specified domains 

and year: 2009–2013.............................................................................................................................. 19

Exhibit 17. Number of development projects, by development stage: 2013 ....................................... 20

Exhibit 18. Number of development projects, by development stage and year: 2009–2013.............. 21

SECTION 5. TRAINING PROJECTS......................................................................................................22

Exhibit 19. Number of training projects conducted, by type of activity: 2013 ..................................... 22

Exhibit 20. Number of training projects targeting specific audiences: 2013 ........................................ 23

Exhibit 21. Percentage of training projects, by top four audiences and year: 2009–2013................... 24

ii
SECTION 6. MODEL SYSTEMS DATA SETS..........................................................................................25

Exhibit 22. Number of model systems patients enrolled or provided follow-up: 2009–2013.............. 25

SECTION 7. PRODUCTS ....................................................................................................................26

Exhibit 23. Number of peer-reviewed publications, by program mechanism and year: 2009–

2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 26

Exhibit 24. Number of non-peer-reviewed publications, by program mechanism and year: 

2009–2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 27

Exhibit 25. Number of most important tools, measures, and intervention protocols (type 2 

outputs), by type of output and year: 2009–2013................................................................................. 28

Exhibit 26. Number of most important technology products and devices (type 3 outputs), by 

type of output and year: 2009–2013...................................................................................................... 29

Exhibit 27. Number of most important informational products (type 4 outputs), by type of 

output and year: 2009–2013.................................................................................................................. 30

SECTION 8. FELLOWS AND GRADUATE STUDENTS ............................................................................ 32

Exhibit 28. Number of fellows supported by NIDRR grants, by program mechanism and year: 

2009–2013 ............................................................................................................................................. 32

Exhibit 29. Number of graduate students supported by NIDRR grants, by program mechanism 

and year: 2009–2013.............................................................................................................................. 33

Exhibit 30. Number of peer-reviewed publications authored by fellows, by program 

mechanism and year: 2009–2013 .......................................................................................................... 34

Exhibit 31. Number of peer-reviewed publications authored by graduate students, by 

program mechanism and year: 2009–2013 ........................................................................................... 35

APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................36

Project Types.......................................................................................................................................... 36

Program Mechanisms as Used in This Report........................................................................................ 36

Domains ............................................................................................................................................. 37

Research Methods.................................................................................................................................. 38

Development Stages............................................................................................................................... 39

iii
Introduction 

The purpose of this report is to present selected key data from the National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) 2013 grantee Annual Performance Report (APR). Grant funding 

presented in this report is for the APR reporting period June 1, 2012 through May 31, 2013. The report 

also compares data for 2009 through 2013 on some variables. 

Mission

NIDRR’s mission is to generate new knowledge and promote its effective use to improve the abilities of 

people with disabilities to perform activities of their choice in the community, and also to expand 

society's capacity to provide full opportunities and accommodations for its citizens with disabilities. 

Statutory Mandate

NIDRR was established by the 1978 amendments to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. NIDRR’s purpose is 

to 

... provide for research, demonstration projects, training, and related activities to 

maximize the full inclusion and integration into society, employment, independent 

living, family support, and economic and social self-sufficiency of individuals with 

disabilities of all ages ...; promote the transfer of rehabilitation technology to individuals 

with disabilities through research and demonstration projects ...; ensure the widespread 

distribution, in usable formats, of practical scientific and technological information ...;

identify effective strategies that enhance the opportunities of individuals with 

disabilities to engage in employment ...; and increase opportunities for researchers who 

are members of traditionally underserved populations, including researchers who are 

members of minority groups and researchers who are individuals with disabilities (29 

USC §760). 

Funding Mechanisms

NIDRR uses eight grant funding mechanisms defined by Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) 

numbers: 

Advanced Rehabilitation Research Training (ARRT) grants provide funding to institutions of higher 

education to recruit qualified post-doctoral candidates with clinical, management, basic or engineering 

research experience and prepare them to conduct independent research on disability and rehabilitation 

issues [CFDA 84.133P]. 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRP) emphasize research and development projects, 

training, and knowledge translation on rehabilitation topics. DRRP subcategories are: Americans with 

Disabilities Act National Network (ADA), Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems Centers, Burn Model 

Systems Centers, Knowledge Translation (KT) and general DRRPs [CFDA 84.133A]. 

Field Initiated Projects (FIP) address rehabilitation issues in promising and innovative ways. As the name 

implies, topics for these projects are chosen by the applicants. Awards are based upon merit and 

potential impact on the field of rehabilitation [CFDA 84.133G]. 

1 
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERC) conduct programs of advanced engineering and 

technical research designed to apply technology, scientific achievement, and psychological and social 

knowledge to solve rehabilitation problems and remove environmental barriers. RERCs are affiliated 

with institutions of higher education or non-profit organizations [CFDA 84.133E]. 

Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTC) conduct coordinated and integrated advanced 

research to alleviate or stabilize disabling conditions, promote maximum social and economic 

independence of people with disabilities, or improve rehabilitation methodology or service delivery 

systems. RRTCs operate in collaboration with institutions of higher education and providers of 

rehabilitation services and serve as national centers of excellence in rehabilitation research [CFDA 

84.133B]. 

Research Fellowships Program (RFP), also known as the Mary E. Switzer Fellowship, gives individual 

researchers an opportunity to develop new ideas and gain research experience. Fellows design and work 

for one year on an independent research project [CFDA 84.133F]. 

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants, as administered by NIDRR as a part of the larger 

mandatory SBIR program, help support the production of new assistive and rehabilitation technology. 

This two-phase program takes a rehabilitation-related product from development to market readiness 

[CFDA 84.133S]. 

Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems Centers (SCIMS) study the course of recovery and outcomes following 

the delivery of a coordinated system of care for individuals with SCI. Under this program, SCIMS centers 

provide comprehensive rehabilitation services to individuals with SCI and conduct spinal cord research, 

including clinical research [CFDA 84.133N]. 

NIDRR also funds contracts to provide technical support related to NIDRR’s internal management and 

knowledge translation activities. 

Annual Performance Reporting System

In 2000, NIDRR launched its web-based grants performance system called the Annual Performance 

Reporting system. Grantees use this system to provide data about goals and objectives; staffing; budget; 

research issues such as sample size and method; progress; outputs; and accomplishments. For a new 

grantee, the first reporting period begins on the start date of the award and extends until May 31 of the 

following year. Subsequent reporting periods begin June 1 and end May 31. Grantees report data 

annually in the APR on July 1. Because grants and their associated projects are in various stages of 

completion, these data provide a snapshot look at grant status as of May 31 in a given year.

Data Categories Used in This Report

In this report, data are reported under program mechanism categories that differ from the CFDA 

categories. The DRRP subcategories of KT, ADA, TBI model system, and burn model system are excluded 

from the general DRRP category; KT and ADA are presented as separate categories. TBI and burn model 

systems are combined with SCI model systems under the category MS. Please see the Appendix for a full 

description of program mechanisms as used in this report. The Appendix also contains definitions of 

project type, domain, and research method as used in this report. 

2 
Section 1. NIDRR Funds Received by Grantees

Information on funding comes from the following APR item: The total amount (exclusive of supplements) 

of funds that you received from NIDRR for this budget period for this award. Budget period is not 

synonymous with reporting period. A budget period is a specific interval of time for which federal funds 

are being provided from a particular fiscal year to fund approved activities and budget. Budget period is 

defined as 365 days from the start date of the grant. For multiyear awards, consecutive budget periods 

proceed immediately from the end of the previous budget period and are 365 days in duration. The 

amount of funding grantees reported receiving from NIDRR on the 2013 APR refers to the budget year. 

All other data in this report refer to the 2013 APR reporting period which is from June 1 through May 31. 

How much NIDRR funding did grantees receive in the budget period covered by 

the 2013 APR? 

Exhibit 1. Percentage of total NIDRR funding received by grantees, by program mechanism: 

2013 

NOTE: SBIR Phase I grants not included. DRRP includes three grants under Section 21. The DRRP subcategories of KT, ADA, TBI 

model system, and burn model system are excluded from the DRRP category; KT and ADA are presented as separate categories. 

TBI and burn model systems are combined with SCI model systems under the category MS. These data are not collected from 

RFP grantees in the APR. 

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013. 

The table below shows the dollar amount and percentage of total NIDRR funding received by grantees 

by program mechanism in 2013: 

RRTC

21.9%

MS

16.4%

RERC

15.8%

FIP

13.8%

DRRP

12.0%

ADA

12.0%

ARRT

3.3%

KT

2.5%

SBIR

2.3%

3 
Program 

mechanism

NIDRR funds

received

Percent of total 

funding received

RRTC $22,842,122 21.9

MS 17,096,099 16.4

RERC 16,498,837 15.8

FIP 14,385,274 13.8

DRRP 12,551,249 12.0

ADA 12,531,295 12.0

ARRT 3,440,787 3.3

KT 2,549,995 2.5

SBIR 2,364,309 2.3

Total 104,259,967 100

 Exhibit 1 shows the distribution of $104 million in grant funding among nine program 

mechanisms based on budget period reporting in the 2013 APR. RRTCs reported 

receiving 21.9 percent of the $104 million in grant funding, followed by MS and RERC 

with about 16 percent each. The smallest program mechanisms were KT and SBIR with 

about 2 percent of total funding each. 

Exhibit 2. Number of grants, projects and funding, by program mechanism: 2013 

Program 

mechanism

Number of 

grants

Number of 

projects

Average number of 

projects per grant

Number of grants 

receiving funding 

this budget period1

1Excludes grants with no-cost extensions.

NIDRR funds received

RRTC 28 383 14 26 $22,842,122 

MS 50 266 5 37 17,096,099 

RERC 20 236 12 17 16,498,837 

FIP 92 139 2 74 14,385,274 

DRRP 28 208 7 25 12,551,249 

ADA 12 179 15 12 12,531,295 

ARRT 22 84 4 19 3,440,787 

KT 3 24 8 3 2,549,995 

SBIR 12 22 2 10 2,364,309 

Total 267 1541 6 223 104,259,967 

NOTE: SBIR Phase I grants not included. DRRP includes three grants under Section 21. The DRRP subcategories of KT, ADA, TBI 

model system, and burn model system are excluded from the DRRP category; KT and ADA are presented as separate categories. 

TBI and burn model systems are combined with SCI model systems under the category MS. These data are not collected from 

RFP grantees in the APR. 

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

4 
 Exhibit 2 shows the dollar amount reported by grantees in each program mechanism and 

the number of grants and associated projects. In 2013, there were 267 grants: 223 which 

received funds during the associated budget period and 44 with no-cost extensions. 

 There were 1,541 projects associated with the grants. Across all program mechanisms, the 

average number of projects per grant was six. The ADA and RRTC mechanisms had the 

largest number of average projects per grant with 15 and 14, respectively. 

How did the amount of NIDRR grant funding received by grantees change from 

2009 through 2013? 

Exhibit 3. Funding received by grantees: 2009–2013 

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Exhibit 3 shows how the amount of NIDRR grant funding received by grantees changed 

from 2009 through 2013. 

 As reported by grantees in the 2013 APR, grantees received $104 million in funding from 

NIDRR in 2013. 

 Overall funding received from NIDRR rose by $7,499,124 from 2009 through 2013, an 

increase of about 7.7 percent. 

$96,760,843 $96,407,048

$99,582,740 $99,286,506

$104,259,967

$90,000,000

$92,000,000

$94,000,000

$96,000,000

$98,000,000

$100,000,000

$102,000,000

$104,000,000

$106,000,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

5 
How did the amount of NIDRR grant funding received by program mechanisms 

change from 2009 through 2013?

Exhibit 4. Distribution of grant funds, by program mechanism and year: 2009–2013 

RRTC RERC MS FIP DRRP ADA KT SBIR ARRT

2009 20,078,226 18,567,585 16,341,208 11,797,432 11,165,374 9,315,830 4,824,799 2,273,590 2,396,799

2010 20,548,529 16,675,340 16,157,988 12,510,910 10,464,138 10,470,988 4,815,787 2,433,432 2,329,936

2011 22,837,715 17,963,452 16,176,609 12,564,720 12,512,382 10,654,687 2,449,802 1,899,458 2,523,915

2012 23,187,833 18,046,918 17,243,633 12,980,919 8,792,229 11,916,771 2,424,997 2,006,889 2,686,317

2013 22,842,122 16,498,837 17,096,099 14,385,274 12,551,249 12,531,295 2,549,995 2,364,309 3,440,787

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

6 

NOTE: SBIR Phase I grants not included. DRRP includes three grants under Section 21. The DRRP subcategories of KT, ADA, TBI 

model system, and burn model system are excluded from the DRRP category; KT and ADA are presented as separate categories. 

TBI and burn model systems are combined with SCI model systems under the category MS. These data are not collected from 

RFP grantees in the APR.

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Exhibit 4 shows how grant funds were distributed among program mechanisms for the 

5-year period of 2009 through 2013. 

 In 2013, RRTCs received nearly $23 million in grant funding, the highest figure among 

the program mechanisms. This pattern held constant through the five years. 

 The RRTC, MS, FIP, DRRP, ADA, SBIR, and ARRT program mechanisms reported increased 

funding between 2009 and 2013. The RERC and KT program mechanisms had reduced 

funding when comparing 2009 and 2013. In addition, FIP and ADA were the only 

mechanisms that exhibited a constant upward trend throughout the five years. 
What was the average funding received per grant for each program 

mechanism? 

Exhibit 5. Average funding received per grant (in thousands of dollars), by program 

mechanism: 2013 

NOTE: SBIR Phase I grants not included. DRRP includes three grants under Section 21. The DRRP subcategories of KT, ADA, TBI 

model system, and burn model system are excluded from the DRRP category; KT and ADA are presented as separate categories. 

TBI and burn model systems are combined with SCI model systems under the category MS. These data are not collected from 

RFP grantees in the APR.

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 In 2013, the average NIDRR grant received $468,000. 

 ADA and RERC grants had the highest average funding per grant, at $1 million and 

$971,000 respectively. In addition, the average RRTC, KT, and DRRP grants were higher 

than the overall average, while the MS, SBIR, FIP, and ARRT grants were below the 

overall average. 

$1,044

$971

$879 $850

$502 $462

$236

$194 $181

$468

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

ADA RERC RRTC KT DRRP MS SBIR FIP ARRT All grants

Average funding per 

grant (in thousands)

Program mechanism

7 
What types of changes did grantees expect to produce? 

Exhibit 6. Percentage of grants expected to produce select types of changes: 2009–2013 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Advances in knowledge 53 52 52 52 52

Changes in policy, practice,

behavior or systems capacity 28 26 27 27 26

Increased capacity to conduct

or use research 19 21 21 21 22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percent of grants

8 

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Grants funded by NIDRR are expected to produce contributions to the field of disability 

and rehabilitation. In the APR, grantees were asked to select the type of change or 

improvement that will occur as a result of the grant. Exhibit 6 compares the three types 

of change over five years. 

 In all years, most grants expected to achieve Advances in knowledge. This pattern has 

remained fairly constant from year to year. There was a slight shift toward changes that 

produce Increased capacity to conduct or use research. In 2009, 19 percent of grants 

expected to contribute to increased capacity compared with 22 percent in 2013. At the 

same time, there was a very slight decrease in the percentage of grants that expected to 

produce Changes in policy, practice, behavior, or systems capacity. 
Section 2. Project Information

What types of projects were conducted in the various program mechanisms in 

2013? 

Exhibit 7. Number of projects, by program mechanism and type of project: 2013 

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP ADA KT SBIR ARRT RFP

Research (n=777) 89 198 240 73 114 11 9 9 24 10

Development (n=215) 79 8 4 55 27 27 2 12 0 1

Training (n=549) 68 177 22 9 67 141 13 1 51 0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Number of projects

9 

NOTE: SBIR Phase I grants not included. DRRP includes three grants under Section 21. The DRRP subcategories of KT, ADA, TBI 

model system, and burn model system are excluded from the DRRP category; KT and ADA are presented as separate categories. 

TBI and burn model systems are combined with SCI model systems under the category MS. RFP grantees are asked to 

characterize the fellowship as a research or development project.

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Exhibit 7 shows how many research, development, and training projects were 

conducted under each program mechanism in 2013. Grantees conducted 1,541 projects 

during 2013. The most common type of project was research (777), followed by training 

(549), and development (215). 

 MS and RRTC mechanisms conducted the most research projects, with 240 and 198 

projects respectively. These two program mechanisms accounted for 56 percent of all 

research projects. 

 RERCs conducted the most development projects with 79, followed by FIPs with 55. 
 RRTCs and ADAs conducted the most training projects, with 177 and 141 respectively. 

 Looking within program mechanisms, RERC projects were almost evenly divided among

research, development, and training. RRTC projects were evenly divided between 

research and training. MS projects focused primarily on research (240 of 266 projects), 

while ADA center projects were primarily focused on training (141 of 179 projects). 

10
Section 3. Research Projects

A research project is defined as “an intensive systematic study, based on a clear hypothesis or research 

question that is directed toward producing new scientific knowledge about the subject or problem being 

studied.” This definition was derived from the regulations governing the DRRP program (34 CFR 350.13).

How were research projects distributed among program mechanisms and 

domains in 2013? 

Exhibit 8. Number of research projects, by program mechanism and domain: 2013 

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP ADA KT SBIR ARRT RFP

Health and function (n=237) 18 32 118 21 23 0 0 0 19 6

Employment (n=114) 1 55 1 8 44 4 0 0 0 1

Participation and community living (n=81) 12 33 20 6 7 1 0 0 0 2

Technology (n=16) 8 0 0 2 3 0 0 3 0 0

Demographics (n=6) 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0

Knowledge translation (n=17) 1 0 0 0 7 1 8 0 0 0

Cross-cutting (two or more domains) (n=306) 49 77 100 36 28 5 1 6 3 1

89

198

240

73

114

11 9 9

24

10

0

50

100

150

200

250

Number of research projects

11

NOTE: SBIR Phase I grants not included. DRRP includes three grants under Section 21. The DRRP subcategories of KT, ADA, TBI 

model system, and burn model system are excluded from the DRRP category; KT and ADA are presented as separate categories. 

TBI and burn model systems are combined with SCI model systems under the category MS. RFP grantees are asked to 

characterize the fellowship as a research or development project.

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013. 
 In the APR, grantees were asked: “Based on the objectives listed, what one NIDRR LongRange Plan Domain does this project best fit in?” Exhibit 8 shows the number of 

research projects in each program mechanism and domain in 2013. 

 Overall, Cross-cutting (contributing to two or more domains) was the most commonly 

identified domain, with 306 of the 777 research projects. Health and function was the 

next most common domain with 237 projects, followed by Employment (114 projects) 

and Participation and community living (81 projects). 

 Over half of RERC research projects were in the Cross-cutting domain, while MS and FIP 

projects focused on the Health and function and Cross-cutting domains. ARRT projects 

focused almost exclusively on Health and function. Employment projects were 

concentrated in the RRTC and DRRP program mechanisms. 

How did the distribution of research projects among domains change from 2009 

through 2013? 

Exhibit 9. Number of research projects, by domain and year: 2009–2013 

Health and

function Employment

Participation

and

community

living

Technology Demographics Knowledge

translation Cross-cutting

2009 234 119 115 33 17 7 260

2010 200 129 95 31 17 9 274

2011 186 149 87 24 8 14 290

2012 219 101 88 21 7 17 296

2013 237 114 81 16 6 17 306

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

Number of research projects

12

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013. 
 In the APR, grantees were asked: “Based on the objectives listed, what one NIDRR LongRange Plan Domain does this project best fit in?” Exhibit 9 shows the number of 

research projects in each domain for 2009–2013. 

 In 2013, the Cross-cutting domain accounted for 306 research projects, while the next 

most frequently reported domain was Health and function with 237 projects. In all five 

years, the Cross-cutting domain was the most frequently chosen domain for research 

projects. 

 Across the 5-year period, the number of projects in the Participation and community 

living, Technology, and Demographics domains declined. The number of research 

projects in the Knowledge translation and Cross-cutting domains increased. 

How did the specified domains for Cross-cutting research projects change from 

2009 through 2013? 

Exhibit 10. Number of research projects with Cross-cutting focus, by specified domains and 

year: 2009–2013 

Health and

function Employment

Participation

and community

living

Technology Demographics Knowledge

translation

2009 179 99 182 96 56 43

2010 183 114 190 107 57 41

2011 196 142 183 115 62 39

2012 217 117 192 111 57 37

2013 232 125 210 113 66 34

0

50

100

150

200

250

Number of research projects

13

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013. 

 Grantees that identified their research projects as Cross-cutting were asked to specify 

which two or more domains applied. Exhibit 10 shows the domains associated with 

research projects identified as Cross-cutting for 2009 through 2013. 
 In every year from 2009 through 2013, Health and function and Participation and 

community living were specified as domains for the Cross-cutting research projects 

more often than the other domains. 

What was the distribution of research projects by program mechanism and time 

dimension (cross-sectional and longitudinal) in 2013? 

Exhibit 11. Number of research projects, by program mechanism and time dimension: 2013 

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP ADA KT SBIR ARRT RFP

Longitudinal (n=351) 22 83 159 44 31 0 1 1 8 2

Cross-sectional (n=353) 61 94 73 27 59 10 3 6 13 7

Other (n=73) 6 21 8 2 24 1 5 2 3 1

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

Number of research projects

14

NOTE: SBIR Phase I grants not included. DRRP includes three grants under Section 21. The DRRP subcategories of KT, ADA, TBI 

model system, and burn model system are excluded from the DRRP category; KT and ADA are presented as separate categories. 

TBI and burn model systems are combined with SCI model systems under the category MS. RFP grantees are asked to 

characterize the fellowship as either a research or a development project. 

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Grantees were asked to designate the time dimension associated with each research 

project. Longitudinal is defined as repeated measurements taken over many time 

points. Cross-sectional is defined as measurement taken at one point in time. Exhibit 11 

shows the time dimension for the 777 research projects in each program mechanism in 

2013. 
 The 777 research projects consisted of 353 Cross-sectional studies, 351 Longitudinal

studies and 73 reported as Other.

 Longitudinal and Cross-sectional design studies are concentrated in the RRTC and MS

program mechanisms.

What methods or designs did research projects use?

Exhibit 12. Number of research projects using particular research methods: 2013 

NOTE: Grantees may select more than one research method for each project. See the Appendix for definitions of the research 

methods.

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Grantees were asked to specify the method or design associated with each research

project. Exhibit 12 displays the various methods used in research projects in 2013. Note

that grantees may select more than one research method for each project.

143

11

17

54

66

80

88

134

148

187

359

0 100 200 300 400

Other

Meta-analysis

Intervention study–Single-subject design

Case studies

Intervention study–Quasi-experimental design

Focus groups

Qualitative interview

Observation

Secondary analysis

Intervention study–Experimental or 

randomized control design

Survey

Number of research projects

Research method

15
 The most common research method used was a Survey, occurring in 359 of the 777

research projects. The next most common method was Intervention studies–

Experimental or randomized control design with 187 projects.

How did the use of research methods change from 2009 through 2013? 

Exhibit 13. Number of research projects using particular research methods, by year: 2009–2013

Survey Observation Case studies Focus

groups

Secondary

analysis

Metaanalysis

Intervention

studyExperimental or

randomized

controlled

design

Intervention

studyQuasiexperimental

design

Intervention

study-Single

subject

design

Qualitative

interview Other

2009 366 187 81 115 162 17 193 66 29 - 190

2010 343 161 68 111 161 18 178 63 27 - 182

2011 335 152 61 98 168 19 173 61 20 50 162

2012 330 144 54 89 144 12 174 62 22 68 146

2013 359 134 54 80 148 11 187 66 17 88 143

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Number of research projects

16

- Qualitative interview was collected as a separate category beginning in 2011. In 2009 and 2010, Other included methods such 

as literature reviews and qualitative interviews. 

NOTE: Grantees may select more than one research method for each project. 

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Grantees were asked to specify the method or design associated with each research

project. Exhibit 13 shows the number of research projects that used a particular

research method for 2009–2013. Note that grantees may select more than one research

method for each project.

 Survey was the most frequently used research method in all five years. The number of

research projects using this method decreased slightly from 366 projects in 2009 to 359

projects in 2013.

 By 2013, the use of Observation, Case studies, and Focus groups decreased notably over

this time period. Intervention study-Experimental or randomized controlled design and

Intervention study-Quasi-experimental design both remained fairly constant over the

five years.
Section 4. Development Projects 

A development project is defined as “use of knowledge and understanding gained from research to 

create materials, devices, systems, or methods beneficial to the target population, including design and 

development of prototypes and processes.” This definition was derived from the regulations governing 

the DRRP program (34 CFR 350.16). 

How were development projects distributed among program mechanisms and 

domains in 2013? 

Exhibit 14. Number of development projects, by program mechanism and domain: 2013 

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP ADA KT SBIR RFP

Health and function (n=10) 3 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0

Employment (n=15) 3 3 0 4 2 3 0 0 0

Participation and community living (n=25) 4 1 0 9 6 4 0 1 0

Technology (n=27) 13 0 1 6 2 0 0 5 0

Knowledge translation (n=11) 0 0 1 2 4 2 2 0 0

Cross-cutting (two or more domains)

(n=127) 56 4 2 27 13 18 0 6 1

79

8

4

55

27 27

2

12

1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Number of development projects

17

NOTE: SBIR Phase I grants not included. DRRP includes three grants under Section 21. The DRRP subcategories of KT, ADA, TBI 

model system, and burn model system are excluded from the DRRP category; KT and ADA are presented as separate categories. 

TBI and burn model systems are combined with SCI model systems under the category MS. RFP grantees are asked to 

characterize the fellowship as a research or development project.

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 In the APR, grantees were asked: “Based on the objectives listed, what one NIDRR LongRange Plan Domain does this project best fit in?” Exhibit 14 shows the number of 

development projects in each domain in 2013. 
 Overall, Cross-cutting (contributing to two or more domains) was by far the most 

commonly identified domain, with 127 of the 215 development projects. Technology

was the next most common domain with 27 projects, followed closely by Participation 

and community living at 25 projects. There were no development projects in the 

Demographics domain in 2013. 

 The Cross-cutting domain accounted for about half the development projects in each 

program mechanism, with the exception of KT, which reported no Cross-cutting

projects, and RFP which reported one Cross-cutting project. Technology domain projects 

were concentrated in the RERC program mechanism.

How did the distribution of development projects among domains change from 

2009 through 2013? 

Exhibit 15. Number of development projects, by domain and year: 2009–2013 

Health and

function Employment

Participation

and community

living

Technology Knowledge

translation Cross-cutting

2009 34 11 18 56 14 126

2010 23 10 10 49 16 134

2011 14 12 16 36 15 133

2012 8 15 31 36 18 152

2013 10 15 25 27 11 127

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Number of development projects

18

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 In the APR, grantees were asked: “Based on the objectives listed, what one NIDRR LongRange Plan Domain does this project best fit in?” Exhibit 15 displays the distribution of 

development projects by domain for 2009 through 2013. 
 In each year from 2009 through 2013, Cross-cutting, i.e., contributing to two or more 

domains, was by far the most dominant domain for development projects. There were 

no development projects in the Demographics domain during this period. 

 Across the 5-year period, the Health and function and Technology domains showed a 

reduction in the number of projects. Employment and Knowledge translation remained 

fairly constant. The number of Cross-cutting projects increased until 2012, but returned 

to 2009 levels in 2013. 

How did the specified domains for Cross-cutting development projects change 

from 2009 through 2013? 

Exhibit 16. Number of development projects with Cross-cutting focus, by specified domains

and year: 2009–2013 

Health and

function Employment Participation and

community living Technology Demographics Knowledge

translation

2009 68 44 69 88 7 39

2010 75 55 81 92 10 42

2011 82 55 76 94 7 42

2012 84 53 93 98 11 47

2013 75 43 69 89 5 39

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Number of development projets

19

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Grantees that identified their development projects as Cross-cutting were asked to 

specify which two or more domains applied. Exhibit 16 shows the domains associated 

with the development projects identified as Cross-cutting for 2009 through 2013. 

 The most commonly specified domain for the Cross-cutting development projects in 

every year was Technology. Interestingly, except for Health and function, the number of 

projects in both 2009 and 2013 were nearly identical for every domain despite increases 

in the intervening years. 
In what stage of the development process were development projects in 2013? 

Exhibit 17. Number of development projects, by development stage: 2013 

NOTE: Grantees may select more than one development stage for each project. See the Appendix for the definition of each 

stage.

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Exhibit 17 shows the development stages for the 215 development projects in 2013. 

Grantees could select more than one development stage for each project. 

 The most frequently cited development stage in 2013 was Implementation of solution, 

while the least common stage was Commercialization activities, which applied to 27 of 

the 215 development projects. 

27

97

118

116

113

114

0 50 100 150

Commercialization activities

Evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency of

solution and redesign as needed

Implementation of solution

Evaluation of solutions and

synthesis of best solution

Analysis of information

to generate solutions

Information gathering on constraints,

specifications, materials, etc.

Number of development projects

Development stage

20
How has development stage status changed from 2009 through 2013? 

Exhibit 18. Number of development projects, by development stage and year: 2009–2013 

Information

gathering on

constraints,

specifications,

materials, etc.

Analysis of

information to

generate solutions

Evaluation of

solutions and

synthesis of best

solution

Implementation of

solution

Evaluation of

effectiveness and

efficiency of

solution and

redesign as

needed

Commercialization

activities

2009 104 103 107 118 90 36

2010 117 109 108 100 76 23

2011 109 104 112 106 74 23

2012 124 123 136 153 108 32

2013 114 113 116 118 97 27

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Number of development projects

21

NOTE: Grantees may select more than one development stage for each project. See the Appendix for the definition of each 

stage. 

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Exhibit 18 displays the number of development projects reported in each development 

stage from 2009 through 2013. Grantees could select more than one development stage 

for each project. 

 Development stages vary annually based on the number of years each development 

project has been funded. For example, when a cohort of grants is in the fourth year, 

there will be more projects that are in the last few stages of development.

 In 2013, the most frequently reported development stage was Implementation of 

solution with 118 projects, a decrease from the 153 projects in 2012. Commercialization 

activities was by far the least common stage in every year. However, the number of 

development projects decreased from 260 in 2012 to 215 in 2013 which may account 

for the decrease in every category of development stage from 2012 to 2013. 
Section 5. Training Projects 

What types of training projects did grantees conduct in 2013? 

Exhibit 19. Number of training projects conducted, by type of activity: 2013 

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Grantees were asked to specify the type of training project conducted. Grantees 

reported 549 training projects in 2013. As shown in Exhibit 19, the most common types 

were Training course (110) and Webcast (84). 

128

10

14

31

37

61

74

84

110

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Other

Distance learning curricula development

Training manual development

Curricula development

Planning, conducting, or sponsoring a conference

Workshop

Presentation

Webcast

Training course

22
What audiences did NIDRR grants reach through training projects? 

Exhibit 20. Number of training projects targeting specific audiences: 2013 

NOTE: Grantees may select up to two target audiences for each training project. This question is not applicable to RFP grants. 

Only ADA grants report the number of training activities targeting State/local government agencies, Business groups, Architects 

and design professionals, Code officials responsible for physical accessibility requirements, and Attorneys or other legal 

professionals. 

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Grantees were asked to select no more than two primary target audiences for each 

training project. As shown in Exhibit 20, the three most common target audiences for 

the 549 training projects in 2013 were Researchers (177 projects), Service providers (166

projects), and Practitioners/clinicians (158 projects). 

51

1

3

11

17

19

26

28

28

35

42

48

49

53

95

158

166

177

0 50 100 150 200

Other

Media

Attorneys or other legal professionals

Code officials responsible for physical accessibility requirements

Industry representatives and product developers

Architects and design experts

Employers

Policy experts

Business groups

Federal and non-federal partners

Educators

Students

Consumer advocates

State/local government agencies

Individuals with disabilities and/or family members

Practitioners/clinicians

Service providers

Researchers

Number of training projects

Target audience

23
How have the top four audiences for training projects changed from 2009 to 

2013? 

Exhibit 21. Percentage of training projects, by top four audiences and year: 2009–2013 

Researchers Service providers Practitioners/

clinicians

Individuals with

disabilities and/or

family members

2009 (695 projects) 20 19 20 20

2010 (729 projects) 21 23 21 24

2011 (731 projects) 19 21 23 23

2012 (612 projects) 18 20 19 18

2013 (549 projects) 21 18 17 15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Percent of training projects

24

NOTE: Grantees may select up to two target audiences for each training project.

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013. 

 Exhibit 21 shows the percentage of training projects for the top four audiences. 

 In 2013 the top four audiences were: Researchers, Service providers,

Practitioners/clinicians, and Individuals with disabilities and/or family members. 

 When comparing 2009 and 2013, the percentage of training projects that targeted the 

top four audiences remained fairly constant from year to year. The largest spread was 

for Individuals with disabilities and/or family members, with a 5 percentage point 

decrease between 2009 and 2013. 
Section 6. Model Systems Data Sets

How many new patients were enrolled or provided follow-up by model systems 

in 2009 through 2013? 

Exhibit 22. Number of model systems patients enrolled or provided follow-up: 2009–2013 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

New patients enrolled 2,321 3,087 2,742 2,132 2,150

Patients followed-up 6,759 8,225 7,996 6,271 5,405

Total 9,080 11,312 10,738 8,403 7,555

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Number of patients

25

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Exhibit 22 displays the number of model systems patients enrolled or provided followup in 2009 through 2013. NIDRR funds three model systems: Spinal Cord Injury, 

Traumatic Brain Injury, and Burn. As part of their research activities, model systems 

collect and contribute data on patient characteristics, diagnoses, causes of injury, 

interventions, outcomes, and costs to a uniform national database. In the APR, each MS 

grantee was asked to provide the following information for the grant: (1) number of 

new patients enrolled and added to the database during the reporting period; and (2) 

number of patients followed up during the reporting period. 

 In 2013 the number of new patients was almost the same as 2012. The number of new 

patients enrolled in the model systems increased from 2009 through 2010, then 

decreased slightly in 2011 and more substantially in 2012. 

 The number of patients who were followed up in the model systems increased from 

2009 through 2010, but has decreased substantially since then from 8,225 patients in 

2010 to 5,405 in 2013. 
Section 7. Products 

In the Outputs section of the APR, grantees reported four types of outputs: Type 1, Publications; Type 2, 

Tools, measures, and intervention protocols; Type 3, Technology products and devices; and Type 4, 

Informational products. Grantees were also asked to identify their most important outputs: those that 

contribute the most to achieving the outcome-oriented goals for the award by advancing knowledge; 

increasing capacity for research, training or knowledge translation; or facilitating changes in policy, 

practice or system capacity.

How many publications (type 1 outputs) were produced from 2009 through 

2013? 

Exhibit 23. Number of peer-reviewed publications, by program mechanism and year: 2009–2013

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP ADA KT SBIR ARRT RFP

2009 (n=659) 228 122 66 48 46 3 14 4 124 4

2010 (n=690) 192 84 135 50 45 4 12 2 166 0

2011 (n=813) 196 125 241 63 56 8 36 4 78 6

2012 (n=692) 219 129 135 60 24 5 19 3 97 1

2013 (n=724) 202 160 106 63 20 6 15 1 147 4

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

Number of peer-reviewed publications

26

NOTE: SBIR Phase I grants not included. DRRP includes three grants under Section 21. The DRRP subcategories of KT, ADA, TBI 

model system, and burn model system are excluded from the DRRP category; KT and ADA are presented as separate categories. 

TBI and burn model systems are combined with SCI model systems under the category MS. 

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Grantees reported all peer-reviewed publications produced during the current reporting

period that were directly funded by the grant, excluding documents currently in review,

accepted for publication, in press, or self-published. Publications can be based on

research and related activities conducted in a previous reporting period or NIDRR

funding cycle as long as they are related to the objectives of the current award and are
delivered or disseminated during the current reporting period to external audiences. 

Exhibit 23 shows the distribution of those publications among program mechanisms.

 Grantees reported 724 peer-reviewed publications in 2013, an increase from the 659

reported in 2009, but lower than the 813 publications reported in 2011. 

 Among program mechanisms, RERC grants accounted for the largest number of peerreviewed publications in all years except 2011 when MS grantees reported 241

publications. RRTCs have reported an increasing number of peer-reviewed publications 

beginning in 2010.

Exhibit 24. Number of non-peer-reviewed publications, by program mechanism and year: 

2009–2013 

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP ADA KT SBIR ARRT RFP

2009 (n=339) 66 93 25 30 44 30 13 2 36 0

2010 (n=405) 91 121 33 33 31 29 15 5 46 1

2011 (n=421) 96 105 91 32 22 20 9 0 44 2

2012 (n=347) 64 107 53 20 34 17 8 0 43 1

2013 (n=295) 81 134 12 9 11 5 6 0 34 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Number of non-peer-reviewed publications

27

NOTE: SBIR Phase I grants not included. DRRP includes three grants under Section 21. The DRRP subcategories of KT, ADA, TBI 

model system, and burn model system are excluded from the DRRP category; KT and ADA are presented as separate categories. 

TBI and burn model systems are combined with SCI model systems under the category MS. 

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013. 

 Grantees reported all non-peer-reviewed publications produced during the current 

reporting period that were directly funded by the grant, excluding documents currently 

in review, accepted for publication, in press, or self-published. Publications can be based 

on research and activities conducted in a previous reporting period or NIDRR funding 

cycle as long as they are related to the objectives of the current award and are delivered 

or disseminated during the current reporting period to external audiences. Exhibit 24 

shows the distribution of those publications among program mechanisms.
 Grantees reported 295 non-peer-reviewed publications in 2013, the lowest number in 

the 5-year period. 

 Across all years and program mechanisms, the RRTC grants produced the largest 

number of non-peer-reviewed publications. 

How many tools, measures, and intervention protocols (type 2 outputs) were 

produced from 2009 through 2013? 

Exhibit 25. Number of most important tools, measures, and intervention protocols (type 2 

outputs), by type of output and year: 2009–2013 

Checklist

Survey

questionnaire

or interview

schedule

Diagnosis or

assessment

instrument,

including

physiologic

measure

Outcome

measures

Intervention

protocol or

program

Statistical

technique Database Other

2009 (n=100) 7 29 17 13 17 1 4 12

2010 (n=105) 2 24 18 14 20 0 3 24

2011 (n=106) 9 26 18 11 20 1 3 18

2012 (n=69) 3 11 10 10 12 0 4 19

2013 (n=82) 7 21 8 11 19 0 2 14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Number of type 2 outputs

28

NOTE: Grantees may report a maximum of two most important Type 2 outputs.

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013. 

 Exhibit 25 presents the number of type 2 outputs reported by grantees in 2009 through 

2013. Type 2 outputs focus on the most important tools, measures, or intervention 

protocols directly funded by the grant during the reporting period. Tool is defined as an 

instrument or process created to acquire quantitative or qualitative information, 

knowledge, or data on a specific disability or rehabilitation issue. Tool includes measures 

and intervention protocols. Grantees reported up to two type 2 outputs that represent 

the most important accomplishments for the current reporting period, including an 

explanation of how the tool was validated or tested. Most important tools refer to those 

that contribute the most to achieving the outcome oriented goals for this grant by 
advancing knowledge; increasing capacity for research, training or knowledge 

translation; or facilitating changes in policy, practice, or system capacity. 

 In 2013, Survey questionnaire or interview schedule was the most frequently reported 

type 2 output, followed closely by Intervention protocol or program. 

 The total number of type 2 outputs was fairly constant from 2009 through 2011, but 

declined to 69 in 2012 then increased slightly to 82 in 2013. 

 Most type 2 output categories did not vary much over the 5-year period, but Diagnosis 

or assessment instrument declined from 17 in 2009 to eight in 2013. 

How many technology products and devices (type 3 outputs) were produced 

from 2009 through 2013? 

Exhibit 26. Number of most important technology products and devices (type 3 outputs), by 

type of output and year: 2009–2013 

Industry

standards/

guidelines

Software or

netware

Patent(s),

licenses,

patent

disclosures

Working

prototype

Product(s)

evaluated or

field tested

Product(s)

transferred

to industry

for potential

commercial

-ization

Product(s) in

the

marketplace

Other

2009 (n=67) 3 19 3 22 7 4 6 3

2010 (n=62) 2 19 5 14 7 2 7 6

2011 (n=61) 1 10 4 20 11 3 5 7

2012 (n=48) 2 6 4 13 8 4 6 5

2013 (n=55) 3 14 4 14 9 4 6 1

0

5

10

15

20

25

Number of type 3 outputs

29

NOTE: Grantees may report a maximum of two most important Type 3 outputs. 

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Exhibit 26 presents the number of type 3 outputs reported by grantees in 2009 through 

2013. Grantees reported up to two type 3 outputs that represent the most important

technology products and devices for the current reporting period, including an 

explanation of how the product or device was validated or tested. Most important

technology products and devices refer to those that contribute the most to achieving 
the outcome oriented goals for this grant by advancing knowledge; increasing capacity 

for research, training or knowledge translation; or facilitating changes in policy, practice, 

or system capacity. 

 In 2013, Software or netware and Working prototype were the most frequently reported 

type 3 outputs. 

 The total number of type 3 outputs steadily declined from 67 in 2009 to 48 in 2012, then 

increased slightly in 2013 to 55. 

 Software or netware declined from 2009 through 2012, but then recovered in 2013. All 

other categories remained about the same over the 5-year period. 

How many informational products (type 4 outputs) were produced from 2009 

through 2013? 

Exhibit 27. Number of most important informational products (type 4 outputs), by type of 

output and year: 2009–2013 

Training

manuals/

curricula

Fact sheets Newsletters Audiovisual

materials

Marketing

tools

Educational

aids

Web sites or

other

internet

sites

Other

2009 (n=171) 24 16 28 13 3 9 43 35

2010 (n=171) 23 16 30 8 6 8 49 31

2011 (n=177) 15 31 22 14 2 10 49 34

2012 (n=175) 11 33 24 15 3 7 53 29

2013 (n=172) 10 31 22 10 3 11 49 36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of type 4 outputs

30

NOTE: Grantees may report a maximum of two most important Type 4 outputs. 

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Exhibit 24 presents the number of type 4 outputs reported by grantees in 2009 through 

2013. Grantees reported up to two type 4 outputs that represent the most important

informational products in the current reporting period, including an explanation of how 

the informational product was validated or tested. Most important informational 

products refer to those that contribute the most to achieving the outcome oriented 
goals for this grant by advancing knowledge; increasing capacity for research, training or 

knowledge translation; or facilitating changes in policy, practice, or system capacity. 

 In 2013, grantees reported 49 Web sites or other internet sites, making this category the 

most frequently reported. 

 The total number of type 4 outputs remained remarkably consistent from 2009 through 

2013. Web sites or other Internet sites were by far the most common type of output 

over the 5-year period. Training manuals/curricula have declined since 2009.

31
Section 8. Fellows and Graduate Students 

How many fellows were supported by NIDRR grants from 2009 through 2013? 

Exhibit 28. Number of fellows supported by NIDRR grants, by program mechanism and year: 

2009–2013 

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP SBIR ARRT

2009 (n=196) 27 31 47 13 15 3 60

2010 (n=203) 21 19 65 14 16 2 66

2011 (n=202) 30 21 61 15 8 1 66

2012 (n=178) 27 26 31 9 6 1 78

2013 (n=204) 24 37 32 9 7 0 95

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Number of fellows

32

NOTE: SBIR Phase I grants not included. DRRP includes three grants under Section 21. The DRRP subcategories of KT, ADA, TBI 

model system, and burn model system are excluded from the DRRP category; TBI and burn model systems are combined with 

SCI model system under the category MS. ADA and KT grants do not support fellows. This question is not applicable to RFP 

grants.

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Exhibit 28 shows the number of fellows supported by NIDRR grants in the various

program mechanisms. All grantees, except ADA and KT which do not support fellows,

reported the number of fellows who worked on a grant at any time during the current

reporting period.

 In 2013, NIDRR grants supported 204 research fellows, a number fairly consistent since

2009. 

 In all years, fellows were concentrated in the MS and ARRT program mechanisms.
How many graduate students were supported by NIDRR grants from 2009 

through 2013?

Exhibit 29. Number of graduate students supported by NIDRR grants, by program mechanism 

and year: 2009–2013 

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP SBIR

2009 (n=771) 231 359 35 88 47 11

2010 (n=813) 277 332 48 82 70 4

2011 (n=706) 262 261 46 62 74 1

2012 (n=582) 213 199 32 46 92 0

2013 (n=527) 156 208 34 81 48 0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Number of graduate students

33

NOTE: DRRP includes three grants under Section 21. The DRRP subcategories of KT, ADA, TBI model system, and burn model 

system are excluded from the DRRP category; TBI and burn model systems are combined with SCI model systems under the 

category MS. ADA, KT and ARRT grants do not support graduate students. This question is not applicable to RFP grants.

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Exhibit 29 shows the number of graduate students supported by NIDRR grants in the 

various program mechanisms. All grantees, except ARRT, ADA and KT which do not 

support graduate students, reported the number of graduate students who worked on a 

grant in the current reporting period and who are receiving training or satisfying 

requirements in conjunction with an advanced degree. The reporting does not include 

graduate students working on a grant for pay only. 

 In 2013, NIDRR grants supported 527 graduate students, the lowest number of the five 

years presented and a substantial decrease from the high of 813 graduate students 

supported in 2010.

 In all years, graduate students were concentrated in the RERC and RRTC program 

mechanisms.
How many peer-reviewed publications were authored by fellows? 

Exhibit 30. Number of peer-reviewed publications authored by fellows, by program 

mechanism and year: 2009–2013 

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP ARRT SBIR

2009 (n=93) 5 11 8 1 0 68 0

2010 (n=112) 4 3 13 5 5 81 1

2011 (n=97) 6 1 35 5 4 46 0

2012 (n=99) 17 13 20 10 3 36 0

2013 (n=111) 22 17 1 3 0 68 0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Number of peer-reviewed publications

34

NOTE: DRRP includes three grants under Section 21. The DRRP subcategories of KT, ADA, TBI model system, and burn model 

system are excluded from the DRRP category; TBI and burn model systems are combined with SCI model systems under the 

category MS. ADA and KT grants do not support fellows. This question is not applicable to RFP grants. 

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Exhibit 30 displays the number of peer-reviewed publications that were authored by 

fellows in each program mechanism. All grantees, except ADA and KT which do not 

support fellows, reported the peer-reviewed publications based on NIDRR-funded 

research, published in the current reporting period, that were authored by fellows who 

were part of a grantee’s training program in the current reporting period or had been in 

the past three years. The fellow need not have been the first author, so long as he or 

she was listed among the authors of the publication. 

 In 2013, grantees reported 111 peer-reviewed publications authored by fellows. This 

number has remained fairly constant over the five years. 

 Over the period 2009 through 2013, ARRT fellows produced by far the greatest share of 

peer-reviewed publications. Of the 111 peer-reviewed publications authored by fellows

in 2013, ARRT fellows produced 68 of those publications. The next closest contribution 

came from RERC fellows (22 publications) who showed an increase in publications over 

the 5-year period. 
How many peer-reviewed publications were authored by graduate students?

Exhibit 31. Number of peer-reviewed publications authored by graduate students, by 

program mechanism and year: 2009–2013

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP

2009 (n=76) 58 9 2 6 1

2010 (n=66) 38 14 10 2 2

2011 (n=70) 32 11 9 17 1

2012 (n=57) 28 10 5 14 0

2013 (n=99) 55 24 2 17 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Number of peer-reviewed publications

35

NOTE: TBI and burn model systems are combined with SCI model systems under the category MS. ADA, KT and ARRT grants do 

not support graduate students. This question is not applicable to RFP grants. 

SOURCE: NIDRR Annual Performance Reports database, Oct. 24, 2013.

 Exhibit 31 displays the number of peer-reviewed publications that were authored by 

graduate students in each program mechanism. All grantees, except ARRT, ADA and KT 

which do not support graduate students, reported the peer-reviewed publications based 

on NIDRR-funded research, published in the current reporting period, that were 

authored by graduate students who were part of a grantee’s training program during 

the current reporting period or had been in the past three years. The graduate student 

need not have been the first author, so long as he or she was listed among the authors 

of the publication. 

 In 2013, grantees reported 99 peer-reviewed publications authored by graduate 

students, an increase over the 57 reported in 2012. 

 Of the 99 peer-reviewed publications produced by graduate students in 2013, over half 

originated at RERCs. Since 2009, this program mechanism has been the leading producer 

of the peer-reviewed publications authored by NIDRR-supported graduate students. 
Appendix

Project Types

Research project is defined as "an intensive systematic study, based on a clear hypothesis or 

research question that is directed toward producing new scientific knowledge about the subject 

or problem being studied." This definition was derived from the regulations governing the DRRP 

program (34 CFR 350.13).

Development project is defined as "use of knowledge and understanding gained from research 

to create materials, devices, systems, or methods beneficial to the target population, including 

design and development of prototypes and processes." This definition was derived from the 

regulations governing the DRRP program (34 CFR 350.16). 

Program Mechanisms as Used in This Report

Advanced Rehabilitation Research Training Projects (ARRT) provide funding to institutions of 

higher education to recruit qualified post-doctoral candidates with clinical, management, basic 

or engineering research experience and prepare them to conduct independent research on 

disability and rehabilitation issues.

Americans with Disabilities Act National Network (ADA) is a subcategory of DRRP, but is 

presented as a separate category in this report. The ADA network was formerly known as 

Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers (DBTAC). 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRP) emphasize research and development 

projects, training, and knowledge translation on rehabilitation topics. DRRP subcategories are: 

Knowledge Translation (KT), Americans with Disabilities Act National Network (ADA), Traumatic 

Brain Injury Model Systems Centers (TBI), Burn Model Systems Centers, and “general” DRRPs. In 

this report, the DRRP subcategories of KT, ADA, TBI model system, and burn model system are 

excluded from the DRRP category; KT and ADA are presented as separate categories. TBI and 

burn model systems are combined with SCI model systems under the category MS.

Field-Initiated Projects (FIP) address rehabilitation issues in promising and innovative ways. As 

the name implies, topics for these projects are chosen by the applicants. Awards are based upon 

merit and potential impact on the field of rehabilitation. 

Knowledge Translation (KT) Projects are a subcategory of DRRP, but are presented as a 

separate category in this report. 

Model Systems (MS) study the course of recovery and outcomes following the delivery of a 

coordinated system of care. MS centers provide comprehensive rehabilitation services and 

conduct research, including clinical research. There are three model systems: Spinal Cord Injury 

(SCI), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and Burn. The TBI and Burn model systems are funded as a 

subcategory of DRRP, but are combined with SCI for this report. 

36
Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERC) conduct programs of advanced engineering 

and technical research designed to apply technology, scientific achievement, and psychological 

and social knowledge to solve rehabilitation problems and remove environmental barriers. 

RERCs are affiliated with institutions of higher education or non-profit organizations.

Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers (RRTC) conduct coordinated and integrated 

advanced research to alleviate or stabilize disabling conditions, promote maximum social and 

economic independence of people with disabilities, or improve rehabilitation methodology or 

service delivery systems. RRTCs operate in collaboration with institutions of higher education 

and providers of rehabilitation services and serve as national centers of excellence in 

rehabilitation research.

Research Fellows Program (RFP), also known as the Mary E. Switzer Fellowship, gives individual 

researchers an opportunity to develop new ideas and gain research experience. Fellows design 

and work for one year on an independent research project. RFP grants began reporting through 

the APR in 2009. These grants are also known as Mary E. Switzer Fellowships.

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants, as administered by NIDRR as a part of the 

larger mandatory SBIR program, help support the production of new assistive and rehabilitation 

technology. This two-phase program takes a rehabilitation-related product from development 

to market readiness. SBIR Phase I grants do not report through the APR. 

Domains

Domains come from the NIDRR Long-range Plan, 2005-2009. 

Health and function encompasses research to achieve outcomes at the individual level—

improved functioning, fitness, and health, including mental health. This domain also addresses 

goals at the system level, such as more effective service delivery systems, better access 

(financial and logistical) to healthcare services, and the assessment of rehabilitation 

effectiveness.

Employment represents research on employment-related activities and strategies to improve 

employment outcomes and labor force participation. 

Participation and community living represents the interaction with the social and built 

environment in a way that maximizes full inclusion and integration of people with disabilities. 

This domain focuses on direct supports that increase the availability of acceptable options and 

opportunities to make choices and enhance participation in everyday activities.

Technology for access and function is essential to community integration, employment, and 

health and function, and plays a major role in enabling a good fit between individuals with 

disabilities and the environment. 

Demographics emphasizes describing and characterizing people with disabilities to provide a 

better understanding of the phenomenon of disability. 

Cross-cutting, while not a Long-range Plan domain, is used in the APR when two or more 

domains apply to a project. 

37
Research Methods

These are the definitions contained in the APR instructions. 

Survey. In a sample survey, data are collected from a sample of a population to determine the 

incidence, distribution, and interrelation of naturally occurring events and conditions. The 

overriding concern in the sample survey strategy is to collect information in such a way that 

conclusions can be drawn about elements of the population that are not in the sample as well as 

about elements that are in the sample. 

Observation. Observation, or naturalistic study, is a study where no explicit intervention is given 

but organizations or groups or individuals are observed naturally carrying out their business or 

practices and this is documented in a detailed way.

Case study. A case study is an analytic description of an event, a process, an institution, or a 

program. 

Focus groups. Focus groups combine both interviewing and observation skills and allow the 

observation of a large amount of interaction on a topic in a short time. 

Secondary analysis. This is an approach rather than a design because the data that are involved 

have already been acquired under an original design for data collection, using some technique 

such as self-administered questionnaires.

Meta-analysis. This is a way of averaging “effect sizes” from several studies. Effect size is 

proportional to the difference in outcome between a treatment group and a comparison group.

Intervention study–Experimental design or randomized control design. Some units of study are 

randomly assigned to a treatment group and some are assigned to one or more comparison 

groups. Random assignment means that every unit available to the experiment has a known 

probability of being assigned to each group and that the assignment is made by chance, as in the 

flip of a coin. The program’s or intervention’s effects are estimated by comparing outcomes for 

the treatment group with outcomes for each comparison group. 

Intervention study–Quasi-experimental design. Similar to a true experimental 

design/randomized control trial in that both designs consist of a treatment group and one or 

more comparison groups. However, with a quasi-experimental design, membership in a 

treatment group or comparison group is not randomly assigned. This difference is important 

because it implies that, since the groups will not be equivalent, causal statements about 

treatment effects may be substantially weakened. 

Intervention study–Single-subject design. May involve only one participant but typically include 

multiple participants (e.g., 3 to 8) in a single study. Each participant serves as his or her own 

control. Performance prior to intervention is compared to performance during and/or after 

intervention. In most cases, a research participant is an individual, but it is possible for each 

participant to be a group whose performance generates a single score per measurement period, 

i.e., the rate of problem behavior performed by all children within a classroom during a 20-

minute period. 

Qualitative Interview. Structured or unstructured interviews where the goal is understand 

something from the respondent’s point of view and to understand the meaning of their 

experiences. This category was added to the APR in 2011. 

Other. Select ‘other’ only if none of the listed categories apply.

38
Development Stages

Information gathering on constraints, specifications, materials, etc. Searching for pertinent information 

and facts and developing reasonable forecasts or making assumptions where information is not possible 

or reliable. All the measurable factors, constraints, and features that might be of importance to filter out 

the best solution must be localized and analyzed.

Analysis of information to generate solutions. Separating the problem from the general problem 

solution, clarifying the real problem from the apparent ones, and stating the independent-to-dependent 

relationships.

Evaluation of solutions and synthesis of best solution. Combining elementary components to build up 

multiple families of alternatives before yielding a detailed solution. This phase also requires detailed 

analysis, which involves defining and setting up criteria to test results, verifying and validating a system, 

and optimizing component features.

Implementation of solution. Implementation encompasses all the processes involved in getting a new 

product operating properly in its environment, including installation, configuration, running, testing, and 

making necessary changes.

Evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency of solution and redesign as needed. New tools, methods, 

and procedures, which were previously unknown or develop over time.

Commercialization activities. The product or device has been built, evaluated, and field-tested. Grantee 

has identified an industry partner (e.g., company or organization) and is engaged in discussions about 

the feasibility of producing and marketing the product or device for distribution to customers. 

39