2012

Summary of 2012 

Annual Performance 

Reports from NIDRR 

Grantees

September 30, 2013

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

September 2013

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/2012aprreportsummaries.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: 

2012 .................................................................................................................................... 3

Exhibit 2. Number of grants, projects and funding, by program mechanism: 2012 ........................... 4

Exhibit 3. Funding received by grantees: 2008–2012...................................................................... 5

Exhibit 4. Distribution of grant funds, by program mechanism: 2008–2012 ..................................... 6

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

mechanism: 2012 ........................................................................................................................... 7

Exhibit 6. Percentage of grants expected to produce select types of changes: 2008–2012................ 8

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

Exhibit 7. Number of projects, by program mechanism and type of project: 2012............................ 9

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

Exhibit 8. Number of research projects, by program mechanism and domain: 2012....................... 11

Exhibit 9. Number of research projects, by domain: 2008–2012 ................................................... 12

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

2008–2012 .................................................................................................................................. 13

Exhibit 11. Number of research projects, by program mechanism and time dimension: 2012........... 14

Exhibit 12. Number of research projects using particular research methods: 2012 .......................... 15

Exhibit 13. Number of research projects using particular research methods: 2008–2012 ................. 16

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

Exhibit 14. Number of development projects, by program mechanism and domain: 2012................ 17

Exhibit 15. Number of development projects, by domain: 2008–2012 ............................................ 18

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

2008–2012 .................................................................................................................................. 19

Exhibit 17. Number of development projects, by development stage: 2012 .................................... 20

Exhibit 18. Number of development projects, by development stage: 2008–2012 ........................... 21

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

Exhibit 19. Number of training projects conducted, by type of activity: 2012................................... 22

Exhibit 20. Number of training projects targeting specific audiences: 2012 ..................................... 23

Exhibit 21. Percentage of training projects, by top four audiences and year: 2008–2012.................. 24

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

Exhibit 22. Number of model systems patients enrolled or provided follow-up: 2008–2012............. 25

ii
SECTION 8. PRODUCTS .................................................................................................................... 26

Exhibit 23. Number of peer-reviewed publications, by program mechanism and year: 2008–

2012 .................................................................................................................................. 26

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

2008–2012 .................................................................................................................................. 27

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

outputs), by type of output and year: 2008–2012........................................................................... 28

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

type of output and year: 2008–2012.............................................................................................. 29

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

output and year: 2008–2012 ......................................................................................................... 30

SECTION 9. FELLOWS AND GRADUATE STUDENTS ............................................................................ 31

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

2008–2012 .................................................................................................................................. 31

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

and year: 2008–2012 .................................................................................................................... 32

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

mechanism and year: 2008–2012 .................................................................................................. 33

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

program mechanism: 2012............................................................................................................ 34

APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................ 35

Project Types................................................................................................................................ 35

Program Mechanisms as Used in This Report................................................................................. 35

Domains .................................................................................................................................. 36

Research Methods........................................................................................................................ 37

Development Stages..................................................................................................................... 38

iii
Introduction

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

Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) 2012 grantee Annual Performance Report (APR). Grant funding 

presented in this report is for the APR reporting period June 1, 2011 through May 31, 2012. The report 

also compares data for 2008 through 2012 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 activitiesto 

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 Catalogof 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, BurnModel 

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 Appendixfor a 

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

project type, domain, and research method as used in this report. The source tables cited in the exhibit 

footnotes refer to the Program Performance Report tables generated from the APR data.

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 2012 APR refers to the budget year. 

All other data in this report refer to the 2012 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 2012 APR? 

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

2012 

RERC, 18.1%

RRTC, 23.3%

MS, 17.5%

FIP, 13.1%

DRRP, 8.8%

ADA, 12.0%

KT, 2.4%

SBIR, 2.0% ARRT, 2.0%

3 

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 underthe category MS. These data are not collected from 

RFP grantees in the APR. 

SOURCE: NIDRR 2012 Annual Performance Reports, Program Performance Report Table 1.

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

by program mechanism in 2012: 
Program 

mechanism

NIDRR funds

received

Percent of total 

funding received

RRTC $23,187,833 23.3

RERC 18,046,939 18.1

MS 17,411,389 17.5

FIP 12,980,919 13.1

ADA 11,916,771 12.0

DRRP 8,792,229 8.8

ARRT 2,686,317 2.7

KT 2,424,997 2.4

SBIR 2,006,889 2.0

Total 99,454,283 100.0

 Exhibit 1 shows the distribution of $99.5 million in grant funding among nine program 

mechanisms based on budget period reporting in the 2012 APR. RRTCs reported 

receiving 23.3 percent of the $99.5 million in grant funding, followed by RERCs and MS 

with about 18 percent each. The smallest programmechanisms were ARRT, KT, and SBIR 

with about 2 percent of total funding each. 

Exhibit 2. Number of grants, projects and funding, by program mechanism: 2012 

Program 

mechanism

Number of 

grants

Number of 

projects

Average number of 

projects per grant

Number of grants 

receiving funding 

this budget period1 NIDRR funds received

RRTC 30 408 14 28 $23,187,833

RERC 20 246 12 19 18,046,939

MS 45 237 5 40 17,411,389

FIP 88 142 2 72 12,980,919

ADA 14 232 17 11 11,916,771

DRRP 24 233 10 18 8,792,229

ARRT 20 69 3 18 2,686,317

KT 4 19 5 3 2,424,997

SBIR 12 21 2 10 2,006,889

Total 257 1,607 6 219 99,454,283

1

Excludes grants with no-cost extensions.

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 modelsystems under the category MS. These data are not collected from 

RFP grantees in the APR. 

SOURCE: NIDRR 2012 Annual Performance Reports, Program Performance Report Table 1.

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

the number of grants and associated projects. In 2012, there were 257 active grants: 219 

which received funds during the associated budget period and 38 with no-cost extensions. 

 There were 1,607 projects associated with the active 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 17 and 14, 

respectively. 

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

2008 through 2012?

Exhibit 3. Funding received by grantees: 2008–2012 

$86,000,000

$88,000,000

$90,000,000

$92,000,000

$94,000,000

$96,000,000

$98,000,000

$100,000,000

$102,000,000

2008

$90,625,071

2009

$96,630,355

2010

$96,432,919

2011

$99,360,799

2012

$99,454,283

5 

SOURCE: NIDRR 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports, Program Performance Report Table 1.

 As reported by grantees in the 2012 APR, overall funding received from NIDRR rose by 

$8,829,212 from 2008 through 2012, an increase of 9.7 percent. 
How did the amount of NIDRR grant funding received by program mechanisms 

change from 2008 through 2012?

Exhibit 4. Distribution of grant funds, by program mechanism: 2008–2012 

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

RRTC RERC MS FIP DRRP ADA KT SBIR ARRT

2008 18,483,450 18,259,253 13,736,505 12,049,125 10,337,336 8,823,555 4,173,767 2,818,510 1,943,570

2009 20,078,226 18,467,585 16,310,697 11,797,432 11,165,374 9,315,830 4,824,822 2,273,590 2,396,799

2010 20,533,029 16,622,695 15,898,871 12,510,910 10,817,271 10,470,988 4,815,787 2,433,432 2,329,936

2011 22,765,991 17,919,640 16,070,204 12,564,720 12,512,382 10,654,687 2,449,802 1,899,458 2,523,915

2012 23,187,833 18,046,939 17,411,389 12,980,919 8,792,229 11,916,771 2,424,997 2,006,889 2,686,317

$0

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 modelsystems under the category MS. These data are not collected from 

RFP grantees in the APR. 

SOURCE: NIDRR 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports, Program Performance Report Table 1.

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

between 2008 and 2012. The RERC, DRRP, KT and SBIR program mechanisms had 

reduced funding when comparing 2008 and 2012. In addition, RRTC 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: 2012 

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

Average funding per 

grant (in thousands)

RRTC

$828

RERC

$950

MS

$435

FIP

$180

DRRP

$488

ADA

$1,083

KT

$808

SBIR

$201

ARRT

$149

All grants

$454

Program mechanism

7 

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 modelsystems under the category MS. These data are not collected from 

RFP grantees in the APR. 

SOURCE: NIDRR 2012 Annual Performance Reports, Program Performance Report Table 1.

 In 2012, the average NIDRR grant received $454,000. 

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

$950,000 respectively. In addition, the average RRTC, DRRP, and KT grants were higher 

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

overall average. 
What types of changes did grantees expect to produce? 

Exhibit 6. Percentage of grants expected to produce select types of changes: 2008–2012 

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percent of grants

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Advances in knowledge 56 53 52 52 52

Changes in policy, practice,

behavior or systems capacity 27 28 26 27 27

Increased capacity to conduct

or use research 17 19 21 21 21

SOURCE: NIDRR 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports database, July 23, 2012.

 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 yearwith a slight shift toward changes that 

produce Increased capacity to conduct or use research. In 2008, 17 percent of those 

responding expected to contribute to increased capacity compared with 21 percent in 

2012. 

0

8 
Section 2. Project Information

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

2012? 

Exhibit 7. Number of projects, by program mechanism and type of project: 2012 

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Number of projects

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP ADA KT SBIR ARRT RFP

Research (n=748) 95 205 193 78 105 19 7 7 27 12

Development (n=260) 88 10 8 58 31 42 8 14 0 1

Training (n=612) 63 193 36 6 97 171 4 0 42 0

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 2012 Annual Performance Reports, Program Performance Report Table 2.

0

9 

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

conducted under each program mechanism in 2012. Grantees conducted 1,620 projects 

during 2012. The most common type of project wasresearch (748), followed by training 

(612), and development (260). 

 RRTC and MS mechanisms conducted the most research projects, with 205 and 193

projects respectively. These two program mechanisms accounted for 53 percent of all 

research projects. 

 RERCs conducted the most development projects with 88, followed by FIPs with 58. 
 RRTCs and ADAs conducted the most training projects, with 193 and 171 respectively. 

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

between research and development. RRTC projects were evenly divided between 

research and training. MS projectsfocused primarily on research (193 projects). DRRPs 

focused on research and training, while ADA center projects were primarily focused on 

training. 

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 problembeing 

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 2012? 

Exhibit 8. Number of research projects, by program mechanism and domain: 2012 Number of research projects

0

95

205

193

78

105

19

7 7 

27

12

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP ADA KT SBIR ARRT RFP

Health and function (n=218) 23 35 90 30 18 0 0 0 17 5

Employment (n=101) 2 53 2 7 29 6 0 0 1 1

Participation and community living (n=88) 13 33 17 5 8 4 0 4 2 2

Technology (n=21) 7 0 1 4 5 0 0 1 3 0

Demographics (n=7) 0 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0

Knowledge translation (n=17) 1 0 0 0 6 3 7 0 0 0

Cross-cutting (two or more domains) (n=296) 49 83 82 32 34 6 0 2 4 4

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 modelsystems under the category MS. RFP grantees are asked to 

characterize the fellowship as a research or development project.

SOURCE: NIDRR 2012 Annual Performance Reports, Program Performance Report Table 9.

11
 In the APR, grantees were asked: "Based on the objectives listed, what one NIDRR LongRange Plan Domain does this project bestfit in?" Exhibit 8 shows the numberof 

research projects in each program mechanism and domain in 2012. 

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

identified domain, with 296of the 748 research projects. Health and function was the 

next most common domain with 218 projects, followed by Employment (101 projects)

and Participation and community living (88 projects).

 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 2008 

through 2012?

Exhibit 9. Number of research projects, by domain: 2008–2012 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Number of research projects

Health and

function Employment

Participation

and

community

living

Technology Demographics Knowledge

translation Cross-cutting

2008 255 106 103 34 15 7 228

2009 227 118 113 33 17 7 259

2010 193 129 92 31 17 9 273

2011 179 149 84 24 8 14 283

2012 218 101 88 21 7 17 296

12

SOURCE: NIDRR 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports, Program Performance Report Table 9.
 Exhibit 9 displays the distribution of research projects by domain for 2008–2012. 

 Across the 5-year period, the number of Health and function projects declined. The 

number of Employment projects steadily increased until 2011 and then declined in 2012. 

The number of research projects in the Cross-cutting and Knowledge translation

domains showed steady increases.

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

2008 through 2012?

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

2008–2012 

50

100

150

200

250

Number of research projects

Health and

function Employment and community

living

Technology Demographics Knowledge

translation

2008 148 78 164 85 41 33

2009 179 99 182 96 56 43

2010 183 114 190 107 57 41

2011 196 142 183 115 62 39

2012 216 116 193 111 57 37

Participation

0

13

SOURCE: NIDRR 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports database, July 23, 2012.

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

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

research projects identified as Cross-cuttingfor 2008 through 2012. 

 Health and function and Participation and community living were specified as domains 

for the Cross-cutting research projects more often than the other domains in every year

from 2008 through 2012. 
What was the distribution of research projects by program mechanism and time 

dimension (cross-sectional and longitudinal) in 2012? 

Exhibit 11. Number of research projects, by program mechanism and time dimension: 2012 

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

Number of research projects

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP ADA KT SBIR ARRT RFP

Longitudinal (n=306) 21 89 109 43 28 2 1 1 9 3

Cross-sectional (n=371) 68 95 73 31 56 15 3 5 16 9

Other (n=71) 6 21 11 4 21 2 3 1 2 0

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 2012 Annual Performance Reports, Program Performance Report Table 10.

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

project. Longitudinalis defined as repeated measurements taken over many time 

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

shows the time dimension for the 748 research projects in each program mechanism in 

2012.

 The 748 research projects conducted 371 Cross-sectionalstudies, 306 Longitudinal

studies and 71 categorized as Other. 

 The MS and RRTC program mechanisms conducted the most research projects using a 

longitudinal design and a cross-sectional design. 

0

14
What methods or designs did research projects use?

Exhibit 12. Number of research projects using particular research methods: 2012 

Research method

Survey 329

Intervention study–Experimental or 

randomized control design 174

Secondary analysis 143

Observation 143

Focus groups 89

Qualitative interview 68

Intervention study–Quasi-experimental design 62

Case studies 54

Intervention study–Single-subject design 22

Meta-analysis 12

Other 146

0 100 200 300 400

Number of research projects

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

SOURCE: NIDRR 2012 Annual Performance Reports, Program Performance Report Table 10.

 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 2012. Note 

that grantees may select more than one researchmethod for each project.

 The most common research method used was a Survey, occurring in 329 of the 748 

research projects. The next most common methods were Intervention studies–

Experimental or randomized control design with 174 projects, followed by the category 

Other. 

15
How did the use of research methods change from 2008 through 2012?

Exhibit 13. Number of research projects using particular research methods: 2008–2012 

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Number of research projects

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

2008 358 198 78 104 143 9 153 63 18 - 183

2009 359 184 80 115 160 17 186 65 29 - 187

2010 335 158 67 111 159 18 172 62 27 - 178

2011 326 146 60 98 166 19 167 60 20 48 154

2012 329 143 54 89 143 12 174 62 22 68 146

- Qualitative interview was collected as a separate category beginning in 2011. In 2008 through 2010, Otherincluded methods 

such as literature reviews and qualitative interviews. 

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

SOURCE: NIDRR 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports, Program Performance Report Table 10.

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

research projects using this method decreased slightly from 358 projects in 2008 to 329 

projects in 2012. 

 By 2011, The use of Observation decreased notably over this time period. In 2008, 

Observation was the second most prevalent method (198 projects), yet in 2012 it was 

less common than Intervention study-Experimental or randomized controlled design

(174 projects). 

0

16
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 2012? 

Exhibit 14. Number of development projects, by program mechanism and domain: 2012

88

10 8 

58

31

42

8 

14

1 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Number of development projects

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP ADA KT SBIR RFP

Health and function (n=8) 3 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0

Employment (n=15) 3 2 0 3 0 7 0 0 0

Participation and community living (n=31) 3 1 0 9 8 7 0 3 0

Technology (n=36) 22 0 0 8 2 0 0 4 0

Knowledge translation (n=18) 0 1 1 4 5 4 3 0 0

Cross-cutting (two or more domains)

(n=152) 57 6 7 31 15 23 5 7 1

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 2012 Annual Performance Reports, Program Performance Report Table 11. 

 In the APR, grantees were asked: "Based on the objectives listed, what one NIDRR LongRange Plan Domain does this project bestfit in?" Exhibit 14 shows the percentage of 

development projects in each domain in 2012. 

0

17
 Overall, Cross-cutting (contributing to two or more domains) was by far the most 

commonly identified domain, with 152of the 260 development projects. Technology

was the next most common domain with 36 projects, followed closely by Participation 

and community living at 31 projects. There were no development projects in the 

Demographics domain in 2012. 

 The Cross-cutting domain accounted for more than half the development projectsin 

each program mechanism, with the exception of DRRP, with slightly less than half. 

Technology domain projects were concentrated in the RERC program mechanism.

How did the distribution of development projects among domains change from 

2008 through 2012?

Exhibit 15. Number of development projects, by domain: 2008–2012 

25

50

75

100

125

150

Number of development projects

0

Health and

function Employment

Participation

and community

living

Technology Knowledge

translation Cross-cutting

2008 38 12 9 71 13 114

2009 34 11 18 56 14 126

2010 23 10 10 49 16 134

2011 14 12 16 36 15 133

2012 8 15 26 38 18 140

18

SOURCE: NIDRR 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports database, July 23, 2012.

 Exhibit 15 displaysthe distribution of development projects by domain for 2008 through 

2012. In each year from 2008 through 2012, 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 number of development projects in the Cross-cutting 

domain increased, while Health and function and Technology showed a reduction in the 

number of projects. Participation and community living projects gained ground in 2012. 

Employment and Knowledge translation remained fairly constant. 

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

from 2008 through 2012?

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

2008–2012 

20

40

60

80

100

120

Number of development projets

Health and

function Employment Participation andcommunity living Technology Demographics Knowledgetransfer

2008 57 45 68 80 7 33

2009 68 44 69 88 7 39

2010 75 55 81 92 10 42

2011 82 55 76 94 7 42

2012 83 43 82 96 11 47

SOURCE: NIDRR 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports database, July 23, 2012.

 Grantees who 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 2008 through 2012. 

 The most commonly specified domain for the 140 Cross-cutting development projects in 

every year was Technology. In addition, in every year Participation and community living

and Health and function were specified more than were Employment, Demographics, 

and Knowledge translation. 

0

19
0 50 100 150 200

20

In what stage of the development process were development projects in 2012? 

Exhibit 17. Number of development projects, by development stage: 2012 

Development stage

Information gathering on constraints,

specifications, materials, etc. 124

Analysis of information

to generate solutions 123

Evaluation of solutions and

synthesis of best solution 136

Evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency of

solution and redesign as needed

Implementation of solution 153

108

Commercialization activities 32

Number of development projects

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

SOURCE: NIDRR 2012 Annual Performance Reports, Program Performance Report Table 11.

 Exhibit 17 shows the development stages for the 260 development projects in 2012. 

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

 The most frequently cited development stage in 2012 was Implementation of solution, 

while the least common stage was Commercialization activities, which applied to 32 of 

the 260 development projects. 
How has development stage status changed from 2008 through 2012? 

Exhibit 18. Number of development projects, by development stage: 2008–2012 

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Number of development projects

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

2008 74 83 95 121 103 30

2009 101 100 102 115 89 36

2010 114 106 103 97 74 23

2011 106 101 107 103 72 23

2012 124 123 136 153 108 32

0

21

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

SOURCE: NIDRR 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports, Program Performance Report Table 11.

 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.

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

stage from 2008 through 2012. The most frequently reported development stage in 

2012 was Implementation of solution with 153 projects, a substantial increase from the 

103 projects in 2011. The number of projects reporting Evaluation of solutions and 

synthesis of best solution has steadily increased since 2008. Commercialization activities

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

projects increased from 221 to 260 between 2011 and 2012 which may account for the 

increase in every category of development stage from 2011 through 2012.
Section 5. Training Projects

What types of training projects did grantees conduct in 2012? 

Exhibit 19. Number of training projects conducted, by type of activity: 2012

Webcast

Workshop

Training course

Presentation

127

132

68

48

Other

Training manual development

Distance learning curricula

Curricula development

Planning, conducting, or sponsoring a conference

28

33

12

14

150

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

22

SOURCE: NIDRR 2012 Annual Performance Reports, Program Performance Report Table 12.

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

reported 612 training projects. The most common types were Presentation (132) and 

Training course (127). 
0 50 100 150 200

23

What audiences didNIDRR grantsreach through training projects? 

Exhibit 20. Number of training projects targeting specific audiences: 2012 

Target audience

Service providers 181

Practitioners/clinicians 179

Researchers 157

Individuals with disabilities and/or family members 111

State/local government agencies 54

Consumer advocates 53

Employers 41

Educators 37

Students 34

Federal and non-federal partners 34

Policy experts 29

Business groups 28

Architects and design professionals 22

Industry representatives and product developers 15

Code officials responsible for physical accessibility requirements 10

Attorneys or other legal professionals 4 

Media 2

Other 100

Number of training projects

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 2012 Annual Performance Reports, Program Performance Report Table 12.

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

training project. The three most common target audiences for the 612 training projects

were Service providers (served by 181 projects), Practitioners/clinicians(179projects), 

and Researchers (157 projects).
How have the top four audiences for training projects changed from 2008 to 

2012? 

Exhibit 21. Percentage of training projects, by top four audiences and year: 2008–2012

Service providers Practitioners/

clinicians Researchers

Individuals with

disabilities and/or

family members

2008 (624 projects) 24 26 26 19

2009 (695 projects) 24 27 25 18

2010 (729 projects) 29 26 25 21

2011 (731 projects) 26 29 23 20

2012 (617 projects) 30 29 25 18

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Percent of training projects

24

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

SOURCE: NIDRR 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports database, July 23, 2012.

 Exhibit 21 shows the percentage of training projects for the top four audiences. In 2012 

the top four were: Service providers; Practitioners/clinicians; Researchers; and 

Individuals with disabilities and/or family members. 

 When comparing 2008 and 2012, the percentage of training projects that targeted the 

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

for Service providers, with a 6 percentage point increase from 2008 through 2012.
Section 6. Model Systems Data Sets

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

in 2008 through 2012? 

Exhibit 22. Number of model systems patients enrolled or provided follow-up: 2008–2012 

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Number of patients

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

New patients enrolled 2,250 2,321 3,087 2,745 2,132

Patients followed-up 4,825 6,759 8,225 8,125 6,271

Total 7,075 9,080 11,312 10,870 8,403

0

25

SOURCE: NIDRR 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports, Program Performance Report Table 17.

 Exhibit 22 displays the number of model systems patients enrolled or provided followup in 2008 through 2012. 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. 

 The number of patients enrolled and the number of patients who were followed up in 

the model systems increased each year from 2008 through 2010, then decreased slightly

in 2011 and more substantially in 2012. 
Section 8. Products

In the Outputssection of the APR, grantees reported on 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 2008 through

2012? 

Exhibit 23. Number of peer-reviewed publications, by program mechanism and year: 2008–

2012 

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

Number of peer-reviewed publications

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP ADA KT SBIR ARRT

2008 (n=564) 124 175 110 35 54 8 18 1 39

2009 (n=488) 190 88 44 34 39 1 13 3 76

2010 (n=498) 158 73 107 27 29 4 10 2 88

2011 (n=711) 180 111 208 50 52 8 30 4 68

2012 (n=555) 196 121 90 38 16 1 16 0 77

0

26

SOURCE: NIDRR 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports database, July 23, 2012.

 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. Exhibit 23shows the distribution of 

those publications among program mechanisms.

 Among program mechanisms, RERC grants accounted for the largest number of peerreviewed publicationsin all years, except 2008 and 2011. RRTCs reported the most 

peer-reviewed publications (175) in 2008 and MS grantees reported 208 peer-reviewed 

publicationsin 2011. 
Exhibit 24. Number of non-peer-reviewed publications, by program mechanism and year: 

2008–2012 

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Number of non-peer-reviewed publications

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP ADA KT SBIR ARRT

2008 (n=289) 83 83 26 47 11 16 7 0 16

2009 (n=281) 54 87 18 23 30 30 10 2 27

2010 (n=376) 83 116 25 29 30 29 15 5 44

2011 (n=378) 79 96 84 31 21 20 9 0 38

2012 (n=321) 63 105 44 20 25 15 8 0 41

0

27

SOURCE: NIDRR 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports database, July 23, 2012.

 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. Exhibit 24 shows the 

distribution of those publications among program mechanisms.

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

number of non-peer-reviewed publications. The only exception was in 2008 when RRTC 

and RERC grants both reported 83 publications. 
How many tools, measures, and intervention protocols (Type 2 outputs) were 

produced from 2008 through 2012? 

Type 2 outputs focus on the most importanttools, measures, or intervention protocols directly funded 

by the grant during the reporting period. Toolis 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 importanttools 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. 

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

outputs), by type of output and year: 2008–2012

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Number of type 2 outputs

28

Checklist

Survey

questionnaire

or interview

schedule

Diagnosis or

assessment

instrument,

including

physiologic

measure

Outcome

measures

Intervention

protocol or

program

Statistical

technique Database Other

2008 (n=109) 9 17 15 14 27 1 5 21

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=67) 3 10 11 10 10 0 4 19

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

SOURCE: NIDRR 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports database, July 23, 2012.

 The total number of type 2 outputs was fairly constant from 2008 through 2011, but 

declined to 67 in 2012. 

 Intervention protocol or programdeclined the most over the 5-year period, while 

Diagnosis or assessment instrument and Outcome measures did not vary much over the 

same period. 
How many technology products and devices (Type 3 outputs) were produced 

from 2008 through 2012? 

Technology products and devices are: industry standards and guidelines; software or netware, 

inventions; patents, licenses, and patent disclosures; working prototypes; products evaluated or field 

tested; products transferred to industry for potential commercialization; and products in the market 

place. Grantees reported up to two Type 3 outputs that represent the most important accomplishments 

for the current reporting period, including an explanation of how the product or device was validated or 

tested. Most importanttechnology 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.

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

type of output and year: 2008–2012

0

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

commercialization

Product(s) in

the

marketplace

Other

2008 (n=73) 5 21 4 16 11 5 9 2

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

29

5

10

15

20

25

Number of type 3 outputs

NOTE:Grantees may report a maximum of twomostimportant Type 3 outputs. 

SOURCE: NIDRR 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports database, July 23, 2012.

 The total number of type 3 outputs has steadily declined from 2008 through 2012. 

 Software or netware declined the most over the 5-year period, while Patent(s), licenses, 

patent disclosures and Product(s) transferred to industry for potential commercialization 

remained fairly constant over the same period. 
How many informational products (Type 4 outputs) were produced from 2008 

through 2012? 

Informational products include training manuals or curricula; fact sheets; newsletters; audiovisual 

materials; marketing tools; educational aids; and Web sites or other Internet sites that were produced in 

conjunction with research and development, training, dissemination, knowledge translation, or 

consumer involvement activities. Grantees reported up to two Type 4 outputs that represent the most 

important accomplishments 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. 

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

output and year: 2008–2012 

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of type 4 outputs

0

Web sites

or other

Internet

sites

Training

manuals/

curricula

Audiovisual

materials

Marketing

tools

Educational

aids Fact sheets Newsletters Other

2008 (n=166) 22 15 25 18 4 11 37 34

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=173) 11 33 24 15 3 7 52 28

30

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

SOURCE: NIDRR 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports database, July 23, 2012.

 The total number of type 4 outputs increased slightly from 166 in 2008 to 173 in 2012. 

 Fact sheets and Web sites or other Internet sites increased the most over the 5-year 

period, while Training manuals/curricula have declined since 2009. 
Section 9. Fellows and Graduate Students

How many fellows and graduate students were supported by NIDRR grants from 

2008 through 2012? 

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

2008–2012

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Number of fellows

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP SBIR ARRT

2008 (n=181) 27 40 42 12 9 2 49

2009 (n=182) 27 31 47 13 15 3 46

2010 (n=185) 21 19 65 14 16 2 48

2011 (n=180) 30 21 61 15 8 1 44

2012 (n=141) 27 25 31 9 6 1 42

0

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 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports database, July 23, 2012.

 In 2012, NIDRR grants supported 141 research fellows, a decline from the fairly 

consistent number in 2008 through 2011. Most fellows were concentrated in the MS 

and ARRT program mechanisms.

31
Exhibit 29. Number of graduate students supported by NIDRR grants, by program mechanism

and year: 2008–2012

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Number of graduate students

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP SBIR

2008 (n=570) 196 223 31 67 43 10

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=587) 213 202 32 48 92 0

0

32

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 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports database, July 23, 2012.

 In 2012, NIDRR grants supported 587 graduate students, about the same as in 2008, 

despite gains in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Most graduate students were concentrated in 

the RERC and RRTC program mechanisms. 
How many peer-reviewed publications were produced by fellows and graduate 

students? 

Grantees were asked to list the peer-reviewed publications based on NIDRR-funded research, published 

in the current reporting period, that were authored by fellows or graduate students who are currently 

part of a grantee’s training program or had been in the past 3 years. The fellow or graduate student 

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

publication. Exhibits 30 and 31 display the number of peer-reviewed publications that were authored by 

fellows and graduate students in each program mechanism.

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

mechanism and year: 2008–2012

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of peer-reviewed publications

0

33

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP ARRT SBIR

2008 (n=60) 5 6 17 0 0 32 0

2009 (n=81) 5 11 8 1 0 56 0

2010 (n=72) 4 3 13 5 5 41 1

2011 (n=80) 6 1 35 5 4 29 0

2012 (n=89) 17 13 20 10 3 26 0

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 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports database, July 23, 2012.

 Of the 89 peer-reviewed publications authored by fellows in 2012, ARRT fellows 

produced 26 of those publications. However, the number of publications from this 

group has been declining from a high of 56 in 2009. The next closest contribution came 

from MS fellows with 20 publications. RERC and FIP fellows showed a sizable increase in 

publications in 2012 compared with previous years. 
Exhibit 31. Number of peer-reviewed publications authored by graduate students, by 

program mechanism: 2012 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Number of peer-reviewed publications

34

0

RERC RRTC MS FIP DRRP

2008 (n=89) 28 27 5 22 7

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=56) 28 10 5 13 0

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

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

SOURCE: NIDRR 2008–2012 Annual Performance Reports database, July 23, 2012.

 Of the 56 peer-reviewed publications produced by graduate studentsin 2012, half 

originated at RERCs. Since 2008, this program mechanismhas been the leading producer 

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

Project Types

Research projectis 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. 

35
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 functionencompasses 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.

Employmentrepresents 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. 

36
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, 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 studies. A case study is an analytic description of an event, a process, an institution, or a 

program. 

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 analysisis 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-analysisis 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.

37
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. 

38