This Information Collection Request (ICR) is for renewal of clearance for the data collection instruments to be used in the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) that is funded by the National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER), Institute of Education Sciences (IES). NLTS2 is in its eighth year and has completed four waves of data collection. This submission addresses data collection wave 5 (study year 9). This overview introduces the purposes of NLTS2 and provides a brief summary of its design and data collection instruments to demonstrate the overall value of the study. This package contains fewer instruments than prior submissions because wave 5 of NLTS2 does not include the school data collection component included in earlier data collection waves.
NLTS2 is authorized under Section 664(e) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004, P.L. 108–446). Specifically, this section authorizes the Secretary to support studies that…
“(4) measure educational and transitional services and results for children with disabilities served under this title, including longitudinal studies that--
(A) examine educational and transitional services and results for children with disabilities who are 3 through 17 years of age and are receiving special education and related services under this title, using a national, representative sample of distinct age cohorts and disability categories; and
(B) examine educational results, transition services, postsecondary placement, and employment status for individuals with disabilities, 18 through 21 years of age, who are receiving or have received special education and related services under this title…” (§664(e)(4))
The purpose of NLTS2 is to provide a comprehensive look at the background, experiences, and achievements of students receiving special education who were ages 13 through 16 when selected for the sample in December 2000. Youth are followed through repeated waves of data collection as they make the important transition from secondary school to early adult life. Thus, NLTS2 provides a national picture of the experiences and achievements of youth with disabilities as they move through these crucial years of their secondary school careers and into adult roles. Information generalizes to students receiving special education in this age group as a whole, to students in each of the 12 special education disability categories, and to students in each single-year age cohort. Although NLTS2 provides invaluable information to many audiences, its primary purpose is to provide credible information regarding special education and transition services nationally to support future policy development. A more in-depth understanding of the students being served through special education in secondary school, what they experience in and out of school, their life paths after secondary school, and what their school experiences contribute to their early adult achievements is the essential base from which to make informed public policy.
The purpose of NLTS2 as described above is consistent with the statutory mission of NCSER:
To sponsor research to expand knowledge and understanding of the needs of infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities in order to improve the developmental, educational, and transitional results of such individuals;
To sponsor research to improve services provided under, and support the implementation of, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.); and
To evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in coordination with the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. (20 U.S.C. 9567)
NLTS2 is being conducted by SRI International, with support from the Research Triangle Institute (RTI). NLTS2 is a successor to the original NLTS, conducted from 1987 through 1993 by SRI International.
The research questions posed for the study regarding these focal areas are descriptive, explanatory, and comparative. Specifically, the following questions are the primary focus of NLTS2:
What are the postschool achievements of young adults with disabilities in terms of postsecondary education participation and degree attainment, employment, personal and social adjustment, self-determination, residential independence, family formation, health, involvement in youth risk behaviors, and individual and family satisfaction?
What involvement do youth with disabilities have with adult supports, services, and programs in terms of accommodations provided by employers and postsecondary schools; receipt of vocational training and supports, life skills training, and other related services; family payment for services; satisfaction with services received; barriers to service receipt for young adult children reported by parents; and unmet needs for services as reported by parents?
What are the achievements of students receiving special education during secondary school in terms of academic and functional performance, school completion, personal and social adjustment, self-determination, community contribution and citizenship, responsibility and independence, health and involvement in youth risk behaviors, and individual and family satisfaction?
What are the characteristics of the school programs provided to students receiving special education during secondary school in terms of program participation; classroom characteristics; curriculum and instruction; assessment practices; use of accommodations, adaptations, enrichments, and compensations; individualized education and transition plans; vocational education and work experience; transition planning; family involvement with the school; and personnel?
What are the nonschool experiences of students receiving special education during secondary school in terms of participation in organized group activities; use of accommodations, adaptations, enrichments, and compensations outside of school; family activities in support of students’ education and development; and family expectations for students’ futures?
What are the characteristics of students receiving special education in terms of demographics, their abilities and disabilities, their history with educational programs and other treatments, and their expectations for their futures?
What are the characteristics of households in which youth with disabilities live in terms of household composition and socioeconomic characteristics?
How do the in-school and postschool achievements of youth, their adult service experiences, their school programs and experiences, the characteristics of their schools and households, and their individual characteristics vary for youth classified in different disability categories, for youth of different ages, and over time?
What are the relationships between youths’ individual and household characteristics, their schools and school programs, their extracurricular experiences, and the results they achieve during secondary school? How do secondary school programs, experiences, and achievements and adult services relate to postschool achievements?
How have the characteristics, experiences, and achievements of youth with disabilities changed in the last decade or more since the original NLTS addressed many of the above questions for youth with disabilities in 1987 and 1990?
The questions posed for NLTS2 have important implications for key features of the study design. The descriptive research questions (question 1 through 7) focus on the national picture of youth with disabilities and the programs and services provided to them. The study must support descriptions of students, programs/services, and achievements that are nationally generalizable. Further, the sample must be sufficiently large to yield estimates that have acceptable precision. In addition, the breadth of the questions suggests that multiple sources of data must be accessed to obtain accurate information on the multiple aspects of youth and their experiences.
Question 1 also speaks to the need for NLTS2 to follow youth long enough for key achievements to have been demonstrated. The NLTS2 Technical Work Group (TWG) considered the issue of study length carefully and recommended that the study continue until at least two single-year age cohorts are 24 years old; this duration is essential if the study is to address adequately postsecondary education and degree attainment and advancement in the labor force.
Question 8 indicates the importance of going beyond an understanding of youth with disabilities as a whole to understanding in detail the widely varying characteristics, experiences, and achievements of youth with different kinds of disabilities and of different ages. The sample of youth in each disability category and in each age cohort must be large enough to yield estimates of characteristics and achievements that have acceptable precision. Question 8 also highlights the need for NLTS2 to be longitudinal. IES is interested in understanding the dynamic quality of youth achievements and experiences as they change over time, particularly at the key transition point between secondary school and early adulthood.
Question 9 highlights that not only must the study describe youth and their achievements and experiences, but it must illuminate the relationships between individual and household characteristics, schools and school programs, and secondary school achievements and then the relationships between secondary school achievements and experiences, adult services, and postschool achievements. It must explore, for example, the relationship of such things as student and household characteristics and school policies and resources with the kinds of programs and placements provided to students. In turn, understanding the relationship between variations in school programs (e.g., placement, access to the general education curriculum) and variations in achievements is crucial to identifying practices and programs that may support improvements in educational performance, school completion, and other student achievements. Focusing on transition planning activities and vocational education, for example, will illuminate the relationship of these factors to postschool transition.
Question 10 points up the comparative purpose of NLTS2. A key issue is understanding the ways in which the secondary school and transition experiences of youth with disabilities have changed in the last decade or more. To achieve this purpose, NLTS2 must include both a sampling approach and data items that permit direct comparisons with the original NLTS.
Reflecting these design requirements, NLTS2 included an initial student sample of 11,270 students that was nationally representative of students ages 13 through 16 and in at least 7th grade on December 1, 2000. They were sampled from 501 local education agencies (LEAs) and approximately 38 state-supported special schools that agreed to participate in the study by providing rosters of students receiving special education in the appropriate age range from which the student sample was drawn. The participating LEAs represented the range of variation in LEA size (student enrollment), geographic region, and a measure of district/community wealth. The sampling approach and age range included in NLTS2 permit comparisons with NLTS, as required by Question 10 above.
By the end of the study, data will have been collected five times over a 9-year period to satisfy the need for longitudinal information on youth who have been out of secondary school long enough to have passed specific milestones, particularly completion of postsecondary degree programs. Data collection waves 1 through 4 have been completed. This package requests clearance for the final wave of data collection, wave 5.
To cover the breadth of issues in the NLTS2 conceptual framework, data have been collected about youth from multiple sources. In wave 1 (year 1), parents or legal guardians were interviewed by telephone to measure student and household characteristics, nonschool factors, and some youth outcomes, including family satisfaction with educational programs. In wave 2 (year 3), telephone interviews, parents were asked a subset of the original items from wave 1 to track change over time; also, a focus on adult services was added. At the conclusion of the first part of the interview, parents were asked whether youth could respond to questions by telephone for themselves. If yes, youth were interviewed. If youth were able to answer questions, but not by telephone (e.g., if a youth had a hearing impairment), s/he was mailed a questionnaire. If youth were not able to respond by phone or mail, parents were asked to complete the second part of the interview.1 Youth interviews assessed experiences with postsecondary education and employment, youth attitudes and expectations, participation in social activities and risk behaviors, and expectations for the future. The parent continuation covered many of the same issues, omitting youth attitudes and expectations and involvement with youth risk behaviors. In waves 3 and 4, decisions about interviewing parents and/or youth mirrored the interview pattern from wave 2, except that parents of youth who were 18 and older and had completed a phone interview in wave 2 were not asked whether youth were capable of completing an interview. Instead, youth interviews were conducted concurrent with the parent interviews. In wave 5, decisions about interviewing parents and/or young adults mirror the interview pattern of waves 3 and 4.
In addition, data were collected in wave 1 (year 2) and in wave 2 (year 4) from general education teachers who taught students’ first academic class of the week, from school staff who could report on students’ overall school programs, and from school coordinators2 recruited in schools attended by NLTS2 students, who provided information about the school. Students’ academic skills were assessed directly by on-site staff while students were in secondary school. Students ages 16 to 18 in year 2 of the study were assessed then (wave 1); those who were younger than 16 were assessed in year 4 (wave 2) when they were at least 16 years old. Finally, in waves 1 through 4, final transcripts were requested in the year students left secondary school. Transcript information will be used to assess course-taking and grades over students’ high school careers.
The NLTS2 data analysis strategy involves both descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses to examine the types of students receiving special education, the school programs and other services they receive, the in-school and postschool results youth achieve, and the relationships between student and household characteristics, programs and services, and achievements in a variety of domains.
Clearance is being sought in this package for the parent and young adult instruments that will be administered during wave 5 of the study. The various components of the wave 5 parent and youth interview/survey are summarized in Table 1. As noted above, this interview/survey is administered in two parts. Parents/guardians complete Part 1 of the telephone interview. At the end of this part of the interview, the parent/guardian of young adults who were not considered to be capable of completing a phone or mail interview in an earlier wave is asked whether the sample young adult is capable of completing a phone interview at this point. Young adults who can complete a phone interview are contacted to complete Part 2 of the interview. Young adults whose parents had told us in an earlier wave that they were capable of participating, are contacted to complete an interview, concurrent with parents being contacted to complete Part 1. Parents/guardians of sample young adults who are not considered capable of participating in a telephone interview are asked whether the young adult is capable of completing a written survey. Young adults whose parents/guardians answer affirmatively are mailed a self-administered version of Part 2 of the Young Adult Interview. The Young Adult Mail Questionnaire has 14 sections to lessen the burden on young adults receiving this survey; each young adult receives only the sections appropriate to his/her circumstances. Selection of sections to be sent to a young adult is based on parent/guardian responses during Part 1 of the Parent Interview. For example, section H entitled, “2-Year, Junior, or Community College” is included in the Young Adult Mail Questionnaire only if the parent responded that the young adult had attended a 2-year college. If the young adult is not capable of completing a phone interview or mail questionnaire, the parent/guardian is asked to complete Part 2 of the Parent Interview. At the end of the interviewing period, those parents who were not reached by phone are mailed a Parent Questionnaire, which includes a subset of questions from Part 1 and Part 2 of the Parent Interview. Based on debriefing information from parents who had participated in earlier data collection waves, some families prefer responding to mail surveys rather than participate in telephone interviews.
This submission contains copies of all instruments for which clearance is being requested (see listing on Table 1). This Information Collection Request (ICR) submission also includes a matrix of NLTS2 instruments mapped onto the research questions.
Table 1. Summary of Data Collection Instruments for Wave 5
|
|
|
Administration schedule |
Parent Interview Part 1
|
Phone |
Parent/guardian or other adult household member best able to describe sample young adult’s experiences. All respondents receive Part 1 of the Parent Interview. |
Late spring through early fall 2009. |
Parent Interview Part 2
|
Phone |
Parent/guardian who completed Parent Interview Part 1 completes Part 2 if sample young adult is unable to respond to written questionnaire or phone interview him/herself. |
Late spring through early fall 2009. |
Young Adult Interview
|
Phone |
Sample young adult whose parent has identified him/her as being capable of completing a phone interview. |
Late spring through early fall 2009. |
Young Adult Mail Questionnaire – consists of 14 sections. Appropriate sections are selected for each respondent, based on parents’ responses to Part 1 of the Parent Interview |
Sample young adult whose parents identify him/her as being capable of completing a written questionnaire, but not capable of completing a phone interview. |
Late spring through early fall 2009. |
|
Parent Questionnaire |
A subset of questions from Parent Interview parts 1 and 2, mailed to parents not reached by phone. |
Late spring through early fall 2009. |
The items included in the wave 5 parent and young adult instruments were included in prior OMB submissions. The primary difference between the instruments included in this OMB package and those in earlier waves is that these instruments are shorter because they only include a subset of items asked in earlier waves. The following types of items have been deleted in wave 5:
Almost all items focusing on experiences during secondary school, including employment and receipt of services during secondary school have been deleted because most young adults included in wave 5 (they will be ages 21 to 24) are no longer in secondary school;
Demographic and disability-related items such as gender and disability category have been deleted because this information is already in the database since only those who have a completed a prior interview/survey will be included in the wave 5 data collection. Only items focusing on change in functioning (e.g. change in the ability to hear or speak) are included in the wave 5 instrument;
Items in the adult services section C have been streamlined as a result of debriefing interviews conducted with parents who recently completed the wave 4 parent interview.
Although NLTS2 provides invaluable information to many audiences, its primary purpose is to provide credible information regarding special education and transition services nationally to support future research and policy development. A more in-depth understanding of the students being served through special education in secondary school, what they experience in and out of school, their life paths after secondary school, and how their school experiences relate to their early adult achievements is the essential base from which to guide future research and make informed public policy.
The U.S. Department of Education has a variety of ongoing needs for information about the implementation and outcomes of special education for students with disabilities across the nation, including information requested by Congress in regular reauthorizations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and information to respond to the many questions about children and youth with disabilities, their families, and the programs that serve them that are raised by policy-makers, advocates, practitioners, parents, and researchers.
Potential users of NLTS2 findings include:
Federal policy-makers, who make decisions both regarding special education and adult services for persons with disabilities and regarding the critical interfaces between these programs and other federally funded services and systems that affect youth with disabilities and their families.
State policy-makers who make decisions regarding state implementation of special education, state funding levels for special education, and other issues about programs and services for youth with disabilities.
LEA and school administrators, who are responsible for implementation of programs and services at the local level, where they have the greatest impact on students.
Practitioners and administrators in adult service systems, who will better understand the participation of young adults with disabilities in those systems and the contribution of services to achievements in early adulthood.
Parents of youth with disabilities and youth themselves, who can use information on special education and adult services and achievements to increase their own capacity to advocate effectively for services and supports needed by youth.
Higher education faculty who conduct preservice training of special education teachers and related service personnel, who can use information on service and program characteristics that facilitate positive outcomes for students to improve the capabilities of future educators and practitioners.
NLTS2 is supplying information in a variety of formats. Table 2 summarizes products to date, including reports, fact sheets, data briefs, monographs, numerous presentations, and the data themselves—as searchable data tables on the NLTS2 website (www.nlts2.org) and as datasets with documentatin on CD ROMs.
The Parent and Young Adult Interviews are conducted using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) technology. This technology reduces burden to respondents in a number of ways. First, respondents are asked only questions that are appropriate for them, based on their prior responses. This is accomplished through a computerized skip logic that is embedded in the questionnaires presented in the appendices. Second, the CATI system greatly speeds the transitions in the interview, which results in a substantially smaller time burden being placed on the respondents relative to the time required if the interviews were administered from a printed questionnaire.
To lessen the burden on young adults receiving the Young Adult Mail Questionnaire, the Cardiff TELEform V9.1 data processing system is used to administer these questionnaires. The TELEform process facilitates questionnaire customization by creating individualized scannable data collection forms. Each young adult will receive only the questionnaire sections appropriate to his/her circumstances. Selection of sections to be sent to a young adult will be based on parent/guardian responses during Part 1 of the Parent Interview. For example, the young adult will be sent questions about current employment only if the parent responded that the young adult is currently employed.
No national data currently exist on the characteristics, experiences, or outcomes of youth with disabilities—data that are being provided by NLTS2. The only national data are state-reported counts of the number of students served at a point in time each year, described by their age and disability. No data collection instruments for NLTS2 duplicate any existing data that describe secondary school special education students or young adults or programs nationally. Although some states and local programs may collect information on samples of their own schools or students, state and local data are too diverse in content and quality to be comparable and are an inappropriate base from which to extrapolate to the nation as a whole.
No small businesses will be involved as respondents in this data collection. Therefore, there will be no small business impacts.
Table 2. NLTS2 products through March 2008 |
Reports |
|
Table 2. NLTS2 products through March 2008 (continued) |
Reports (concluded) |
|
Journal Articles |
|
Table 2. NLTS2 products through March 2008 (continued) |
Book Chapters |
|
Fact Sheets |
Minorities Among Children and Youth With Disabilities (August 2002)
|
NLTS2 Data Briefs distributed by the National Center for Secondary Education and Transition |
|
Table 2. NLTS2 products through March 2008 (continued) |
Invited Presentations |
|
Table 2. NLTS2 products through March 2008 (continued) |
Invited Presentations (continued) |
|
Table 2. NLTS2 products through March 2008 (continued) |
Invited Presentations (continued) |
|
Table 2. NLTS2 products through March 2008 (continued) |
Invited Presentations (concluded) |
|
Table 2. NLTS2 products through March 2008 (continued) |
Web-Based Data Reports (Visits to the NLTS2 Web site average 1,508 per month, with 446,236 visits between March 16, 2003 and March 27, 2008. Average visits per month have increased from 955 visits per month in 2003, to 1,783 in 2004, to 2,197 visits per month in 2005, to 5,728 in 2008.) |
|
Publically Available CD Rom with NLTS2 Data |
|
|
|
6. Consequences of Not Collecting Information
In the absence of the data collection for NLTS2, federal policy regarding secondary school special education and transition services will continue to be made without a solid base of information on such fundamental questions as the nature of the students served, the instructional programs and services they are provided, and the achievements of students receiving special education in secondary school and early adulthood.
Regarding the timing of information collection, the extensive study design process resulted in a determination of the optimal frequency of data collection. Biennial Parent and Youth (now Young Adult) Interviews are considered the minimum number and maximum spacing to obtain accurate information on young adults’ educational and adult outcomes.
Finally, not collecting wave 5 data will contravene the recommendation of the NLTS2 Technical Work Group to continue data until at least two single-year age cohorts are 24 years old; this duration is essential if the study is to address adequately postsecondary education and degree attainment and advancement in the labor force.
The proposed data collection is consistent with 5 CFR 1320.5 and therefore involves no special circumstances.
The 60-day public comment notice was published on June 6, 2008 and no public comments were received.
The study design process involved extensive input from experts in the content areas and methods employed by NLTS2. A stakeholder group that included representatives of many of the audiences that will be keenly interested in NLTS2 was employed to help develop the conceptual framework and define and prioritize the research questions (results of the prioritization process can be found at the NLTS2 Web site, www.nlts2.org). The group met once in person for a day and a half and engaged in a priority-setting exercise for the research questions through an exchange of materials and a voting process.
In addition, a technical work group (TWG) of researchers experienced in student-based and longitudinal studies, transition and assessment issues advised on multiple aspects of the design. The TWG held phone conferences six times and members reviewed all materials produced in the design process. Further, experienced researchers from SRI International and Westat, contractors for the design task, guided the design process. Members of the TWG and the stakeholder group, and senior members of the design contract staff, are listed in Table 3.
In addition to review and advice provided by these groups, the data collection instruments were pilot tested for clarity and appropriateness with a range of respondents. Field test participants were selected who could respond about specific children who differed in the following areas:
Disability category
Geographic area
Grade level and age
Regular school/special school.
A total of 17 interviews were completed during the field test of the Parent and Youth Interview:
During each interview data collection wave, parent and youth comments about specific items and overall process are documented and interviewers are debriefed on their perceptions of parent and youth response to items and the interview process. In addition, prior to the last OMB renewal submission, a total of 8 parent and youth respondents were contacted to obtain feedback on their experiences with Wave 3 interviews and mail surveys. Their responses generated changes made to the Wave 4 data collection instruments included in the prior OMB submission. Finally, recent parent and young adult respondents to the Wave 4 interview and mail survey data collection were contacted to obtain feedback on their experiences of participation, and suggestions for reducing burden, clarifying instruments, or encouraging broader participation. A total of 9 recent respondents were contacted. The criteria for selecting these respondents were the same as those in the initial field test.
Table 3. Technical work group, stakeholder group, and contractor staff members |
|
Name |
Affiliation |
Technical Work Group |
|
Michael Bullis |
University of Oregon |
Lizanne DeStefano |
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign |
Marsha Brauen |
Westat |
William Frey |
Westat |
Paula Kohler |
Western Michigan University |
Andrew Halpern |
University of Oregon |
Kevin McGrew |
St. Cloud State University, APSY Department |
Keith Lenz |
University of Kansas |
Martha Thurlow |
University of Minnesota |
Hugh Berry |
Office of Policy and Planning, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, U.S. Department of Education |
Stakeholder Group |
|
Jane Browning |
President’s Committee on Mental Retardation |
Jim Downing |
U.S. Department of Labor |
Trey Duffey |
McBurney Disability Resource Center |
Kevin Dwyer |
National Association of School Psychologists |
William East |
National Association of State Directors of Special Education |
Richard Leuking |
TransCen (transition services) |
Patricia Morrissey |
U.S. Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions |
Venessa Redd |
Secondary and transition teacher |
Marcie Roth |
National Council on Independent Living |
Shepherd Siegel |
School-to-Work Director, Seattle Public Schools |
Marion White Hood |
Principal, Kettering Middle School |
Design Contractor Staff |
|
Jose Blackorby |
SRI International |
Renee Cameto |
SRI International |
Harold Javitz |
SRI International |
Phyllis Levine |
SRI International |
Lynn Newman |
SRI International |
Mary Wagner |
SRI International |
Hyunshik Lee |
Westat |
Sandra Warren |
Research Triangle Institute |
Table 4 describes the youth/young adults interviewed and about whom the participating parents responded during the field test and recent instrument respondent interviews conducted prior to the last OMB submission and the current submission.
Table 4. Characteristics of parent and young adult/youth respondents to recent interviews who were consulted, and characteristics of parent and youth field test respondents |
||||||
Characteristics |
Respondents consulted prior to current (wave 5) OMB submission |
Respondents consulted prior to wave 4 OMB submission |
Field test respondents |
|||
Parent Interview |
Youth Interview |
Parent Interview |
Youth Interview |
Parent Interview |
Youth |
|
Number of respondents |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
9 |
8 |
Student’s disability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Autism or Asperger Syndrome |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
Emotional disturbance |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
Hearing impairment |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Learning disability |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
Orthopedic impairment |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Mental retardation |
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
Other health impairment |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
Speech impairment |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
Visual impairment |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Youth’s age |
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 to 15 years old |
|
|
|
|
3 |
1 |
16 to 18 years old |
|
|
3 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
19 to 20 years old |
1 |
|
1 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
21 to 22 years old |
2 |
3 |
|
|
1 |
2 |
23 to 24 years old |
2 |
1 |
|
|
|
|
Geographic area |
|
|
|
|
|
|
West |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
South |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
East |
2 |
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
Midwest |
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
Respondents are assured that confidentiality will be maintained, except as required by law. The following statement concerning confidentiality will be included in the letters to respondents,
The collection of information in this study is authorized by Public Law 108-446, Section 664(e). Participation is voluntary. You will receive a check for $20.00 as a thank-you for participating. You may skip questions you do not wish to answer; however, we hope that you will answer as many questions as you can. Your responses are protected from disclosure by federal statute (PL 107-279 Title I, Part C, Sec. 183). All responses that relate to or describe identifiable characteristics of individuals may be used only for statistical purposes and may not be disclosed, or used, in identifiable form for any other purpose, unless otherwise compelled by law. Data will be combined to produce statistical reports. No individual data that links your name, address, telephone number, or identification number with your responses will be included in the statistical reports
The design of the study addresses state and local concerns regarding the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and operates in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, (5 U.S.C. 552a). NLTS2 data are gathered exclusively for statistical and research purposes, without identifying individuals. Specific steps to guarantee confidentiality include the following:
Information gleaned from rosters received from school districts (e.g., respondent name, address, and telephone number) was not entered into the analysis data file, but is kept separate from other data and is password protected. A unique identification number for each respondent is used for building raw data and analysis files.
Information that can be used to identify an individual, including name, contact information, school name, or unique identifier, are not included in data files provided by the contractor to IES, or in files provided to the public.
In public reports, findings are presented in aggregate by type of respondent (e.g., parents’ perceptions of service delivery) or for subgroups of interest (e.g., academic performance of students with learning disabilities). No reports identify individual respondents, local programs, or schools.
Access to the student sample files is limited to authorized study staff only; no others are authorized such access.
All members of the study team are briefed regarding confidentiality of the data. Each person involved in the study on all participating research teams is required to sign a written statement attesting to his/her understanding of the significance of the confidentiality requirement.
All members of the study team have participated the clearance process required to receive Department of Education moderate security clearance.
A control system is in place, which began at sample selection, to monitor the status and whereabouts of all data collection instruments during transfer, processing, coding, and data entry.
All data are stored in secure areas accessible only to authorized staff members. Computer-generated output containing identifiable information are maintained under the same conditions.
There are no questions of a sensitive nature included in the Parent interview. Parents are informed that they can decline to answer any item they choose during the telephone interview.
The Young adult interview and mail questionnaire contain sensitive items. Young adults are asked questions about their involvement in risk behaviors, like smoking, drinking, drug use, gang involvement, and sexual activity. These types of behaviors are problematic for many adolescents and young adults, but very little is known or understood about these issues for youth with disabilities in their formative years. This is a valuable opportunity to provide important insights into the role these issues play for youth and young adults with disabilities. This understanding is particularly important at a time when there is concern that youth are not receiving secondary school education and services targeted at preventing and dealing with these types of risk behaviors. To track the relationship between risk behaviors and education, the NLTS2 school data collection asked whether students with disabilities have been provided with education and services related to risk behaviors, such as drug prevention education, that their peers in the general population may receive.
At the beginning of the Young Adult Interview, all respondents are informed that their participation in the interview is completely voluntary and confidential, and that they do not have to answer any questions they do not feel comfortable answering. The risk behavior questions section of the interview begins with a reminder that all of their answers will be private and that they do not have to answer any question they do not want to answer. They are told to say, “skip that one” if they prefer not to answer a question. Halfway through this interview section, youth are again reminded that they do not have to answer a question and to just say, “skip that one.”
Estimates of respondent burden for each instrument are provided in Table 5. The total burden for the wave 5 parent/young adult survey is estimated to be 4,269 hours in the 1 year of data collection. Estimates are based on an assumed response rate of 80% of the sample available for the parent/youth data collection.
Respondent costs result from the investment of time in completing questionnaires: e.g., families responding to telephone interviews. No dollar costs have been associated with the time estimates presented in Table 5 because no standard valuation of parent and young adult time is available.
Table 5. Estimates of respondent burden for data collection in wave 5 |
|||||
Instrument |
Respondent |
Number of respondents estimated to complete wave 5 |
Frequency of response
during |
|
|
Parent Interview – Part 1 |
Parent/guardian or other adult household member best able to describe sample young adult’s experiences. |
5762 |
1 |
19 |
109,478 |
Parent Interview– Part 2 |
Parent/guardian who completed Parent Interview Part 1 will complete Part 2 if they consider sample young adult incapable of responding to a written questionnaire or phone interview him/herself. |
1659 |
1 |
15 |
24,885 |
Young Adult Interview |
Sample young adult whose parent has identified him/her as being capable of completing a phone interview. |
2785 |
1 |
35 |
97,475 |
Young Adult Mail Questionnaire |
Sample young adult whose parents identify him/her as being capable of completing a written survey, but not capable of completing a phone interview. |
453 |
1 |
18 |
8,154 |
Parent Mail Questionnaire |
At the end of the interviewing period, parents who were not reached by phone will be mailed a questionnaire that includes a subset of questions from Part 1 and Part 2 of the Parent Interview. |
1078 |
1 |
15 |
16,170 |
|
|
|
|
|
minutes
4,269 hours
|
ANNUAL BURDEN (across 3 years of clearance) |
|
3,912 |
|
102 |
1,423 hours |
There are no startup or annual cost burden to respondents.
Costs for Wave 5 of the study (study years 9 and 10) is $3,283,570 for the period January 2009 through December 2010, for the contract that supports implementation of NLTS2. This amount includes costs for all aspects of data collection; data cleaning, coding, and processing; descriptive, explanatory, and longitudinal analyses; writing of multiple reports; and general project management and coordination with the government project officer.
The original submission requested clearance for NLTS2 wave 1 data collection activities. The two subsequent submissions addressed burden for waves 2, 3 and 4. These prior submissions included burden for school-level data collection activities. This submission addresses the burden for the parent and young adult data collection activities in wave 5. The burden is smaller for this package than for prior submissions because it does not include school data collection instruments.
The NLTS2 sample, research agenda, and data collection schedule make NLTS2 an especially ambitious study. The study must be equally ambitious with regard to analysis so that the generated information will be of maximum use to as many audiences as possible. Specifically, the NLTS2 analysis strategy needs to address the following issues:
Range of audiences. NLTS2 creates a wealth of new information that is of interest to many audiences, including parents, teachers, administrators, transition and related service professionals, adult services practitioners, policy-makers, advocacy organizations, and researchers. NLTS2 considers both the content and presentation of information that suits particular audiences best.
Range of information needs. Related to the variety of audiences, the study addresses a range of information needs to maximize its usefulness. For example, reports documenting the study’s technical details, comprehensive reports, executive summaries, briefing materials, one-page descriptions, and data exhibits for the Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act all play important roles in communicating the study’s results.
Types of analyses. Data generated from NLTS2 will support a range of analytic purposes:
- Descriptive – One of the most important analytic tasks of the study is to describe youth with disabilities at the applicable ages, their background and characteristics, the education they receive, their transition and adult service experiences, and their achievement both in and after secondary school. Although descriptive analyses are not the most sophisticated that will be employed in NLTS2, some of the study’s most powerful findings result from them. These descriptions are weighted to represent the national population of youth with disabilities as a whole and by age and disability group. The precision of these estimates also will need to be reported.
- Relational – Many of the audiences that are interested in NLTS2 data want to know the relationships among variables. Thus, an important analytic purpose is to explore relationships between various contexts, characteristics, practices, and outcomes. These relationships are examined for a variety of subgroups defined by disability, age or grade, gender, ethnicity, or other factors.
- Comparative – Many findings are most powerfully understood when placed in the appropriate comparative context. Important NLTS2 constructs, such as academic achievement, social adjustment, instructional approaches, employment, and postsecondary education, vary by disability category, ethnicity, family SES, etc. It is a natural consequence of this variation to compare the effects of these differences. Some NLTS2 data, such as school completion or postsecondary education participation, will be compared with similar data for the general population; adjustments to comparative databases may be needed to increase their comparability. In other cases, such as the types of accommodations provided to youth in school or on the job, data will be compared across disability category or age. Making such comparisons is an important part of the NLTS2 analysis process. Another crucial comparison will entail comparing NLTS2 youth with their peers more than a decade ago, as they were measured through the original NLTS. Through such comparisons, the field will have a better understanding of the ways in which changes in IDEA and other changes have played out for secondary school students in transition to early adulthood. The NLTS2 analysis strategy specifies adjustments to both the NLTS and NLTS2 databases in terms of such factors as age and disability classification, which are needed to maximize the comparability of the databases.
- Longitudinal – Repeated measures over time offer the opportunity to examine changes in youth behaviors and achievements as well as changes in factors that could influence them, such as school programs, transition services and supports, and family and community contexts.
The formats of these analyses are tailored to different audiences and dissemination vehicles.
Range of media. The variety of ways in which people access information has increased exponentially over the last decade. This development represents a great opportunity for NLTS2 to communicate both progress on study activities and study findings. The study maintains an interactive web presence to make a variety of products available electronically.
NLTS2 employs a variety of statistical and analytic methods to meet its analytic purposes. Methods used include:
Weighted frequencies, cross-tabulations, and summary statistics – These tools provide descriptive information in conjunction with standard errors to estimate their degree of precision.
Exploratory data analyses – The graphical tools used in EDA are especially useful for uncovering patterns in datasets and among subsamples of the data.
Correlational analyses – Simple and multiple correlation coefficients for continuous, dichotomous, and ordinal data allow investigation of relationships among variables in comparison with both statistical standards and the relative strength of specific relationships within and across subgroups.
Multiple regression – This approach specifies a linear combination of variables to predict and explain variation in a continuous dependent variable, such as wages earned by employed youth.
Logistic regression – This method involves a linear combination of variables to predict and explain variation in the log of the odds of a dichotomous dependent variable. This approach enables the identification of the contribution of predictor variables to explaining variation in a dependent variable.
Hierarchical linear modeling – Multi-level HLM allows the construction of models that sort factors in conceptually logical strata. HLM was originally developed for the analysis of multilevel data with differing units of analysis. In NLTS2, multiple levels include the youth, classroom, and school levels. HLM allows for the simultaneous assessment of the contribution of each of these factors to chosen outcome measures.
Table 6 presents illustrative topics for NLTS2 products that would use data from the instruments for which clearance is requested here, as well as from data collection instruments included in prior OMB packages. In addition to these contractual products, professional journal articles that report segments of analyses from the larger reports also will be produced.
Table 6. Illustrative data analysis and reporting topics for wave 5 |
|
Potential topic areas |
Data sources† |
Wave 5 – 2009 and 2010 |
|
|
P/YI general population databases |
|
P/YI, general population databases |
|
P/YI, general population databases |
|
P/YI |
|
P/YI |
|
Trans, SPS |
A comparison of complete high school course taking and performance, comparing NLTS and NLTS2. |
Trans, NLTS |
|
P/YI, Trans., SPS, SCS, GETS, DA |
|
P/YI, Trans., SPS, SCS, GETS, DA |
|
P/YI |
|
P/YI |
|
P/YI |
|
P/YI |
|
P/YI |
|
P/YI |
† P/YI = parent-guardian/young adult interview, GETS = general education teacher survey; SPS = school program survey; SCS = school characteristics (principal) survey; DA = direct assessment; Trans = transcripts, NLTS = original NLTS database, multiple sources.
Not applicable.
No exceptions are taken.
1 This strategy was employed in NLTS. Instrumentation contained a subset of items that were asked of both parents and their young adult children to identify whether similar answers would be obtained from the two respondent groups. Correlations were very high, suggesting that answers reported by the two groups could be combined (e.g., a report by either the youth or the parent in the continuation of the interview could be treated as the same).
2 School coordinators were school staff recruited to manage the data collection process in each school. They were reimbursed on a sliding scale that reflected the relative burden of having different numbers of NLTS2 students in the school.
| File Type | application/msword |
| File Title | OVERVIEW |
| Author | Mary Wagner |
| Last Modified By | david.malouf |
| File Modified | 2008-09-23 |
| File Created | 2008-09-23 |