3145-0182 Part A

Draft IGERT OMB
Submission

October 4, 2011

Prepared for:
National Sciences Foundation
4201 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22230

Prepared by:
Beth Gamse, Project Director
Kristen Neishi
Amanda Parsad
Radha Roy

Table of Contents
Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Submission...............................................................1
A Descriptive Study of the National Science Foundation’s Integrative Graduate Education and
Research Traineeship Program ...........................................................................................................1
Section A ....................................................................................................................................... 1
A.1. Circumstances Requiring the Collection of Data............................................................ 1
A.2. Purposes and Uses of the Data ..................................................................................... 4
A.3. Use of Information Technology to Reduce Burden........................................................ 6
A.4. Efforts to Identify Duplication....................................................................................... 6
A.6. Consequences of Not Collecting the Information .......................................................... 7
A.7. Special Circumstances Justifying Inconsistencies with Guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6......... 7
A.8. Consultation Outside the Agency.................................................................................. 7
A.9. Payments or Gifts to Respondents................................................................................ 8
A.10. Assurance of Confidentiality ....................................................................................... 8
A.11. Questions of a Sensitive Nature.................................................................................. 9
A.12 Estimates of Response Burden..................................................................................... 9
A.13. Estimate of Total Capital and Startup Costs/Operation and Maintenance Costs to
Respondents or Record Keepers ........................................................................................ 10
A.14. Estimates of Costs to the Federal Government ......................................................... 10
A.15. Changes in Burden.................................................................................................... 10
A.16. Plans for Publication, Analysis, and Schedule............................................................ 10
A.17. Approval to Not Display Expiration Date ................................................................... 11
A.18. Exceptions to Item 19 of OMB Form 83-I .................................................................. 11
Section B: Statistical Methods ..................................................................................................... 12
B.1. Respondent Universe and Sampling Methods............................................................. 12
B.2. Information Collection Procedures/Limitations of the Study ....................................... 13
B.3. Estimation Procedure ................................................................................................. 14
B.4. Methods for Maximizing the Response Rate and Addressing Issues of Nonresponse... 15

2011 DRAFT IGERT Evaluation OMB Submission

i

B.5. Tests of Procedures or Methods ................................................................................. 16
B.6. Names and Telephone Numbers of Individuals Consulted........................................... 17
References.......................................................................................................................................18
Appendix A: Trainee Survey .............................................................................................................20
Appendix B: PI Interview Protocol ....................................................................................................40
Appendix C: Crosswalk of Survey/Interview Items to Study Outcomes ..............................................45
Appendix D: Federal Register Notice.................................................................................................53

2011 DRAFT IGERT Evaluation OMB Submission

ii

Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction
Submission
A Descriptive Study of the National Science Foundation’s
Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship
Program
Section A
A.1. Circumstances Requiring the Collection of Data
Since 1998, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has supported interdisciplinary training of
doctoral students across the nation through the Integrative Graduate Education and Research
Traineeships (IGERT) Program. The IGERT program, now in its second decade of operation,
represents a significant investment by the federal government in graduate education and in
developing America’s research workforce through support of students in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields who participate in university-developed
interdisciplinary graduate training experiences. NSF competitively awards five-year IGERT
grants to institutions that plan to develop innovative, interdisciplinary doctoral training
programs in STEM disciplines.
Each IGERT project is headed by one or more Principal Investigators (PIs) who are faculty
members from various departments and/or disciplines both within and across institutions. The
faculty members from each IGERT project develop a series of education and research activities
in which students and faculty from multiple departments participate. These activities are
organized to support an interdisciplinary theme, and include a combination of multidisciplinary
research collaborations, cross-departmental lab rotations, interdisciplinary seminars, teamtaught courses, and/or off-campus internships, among others. Students from multiple
disciplines/departments related to the project’s interdisciplinary theme are recruited by faculty
members to participate in the program. Generally, IGERT trainees complete all the
requirements of a specific department (or discipline within a department) as well as the
requirements of the interdisciplinary IGERT project. Most IGERT trainees are enrolled in a
single-discipline Ph.D. program and participate in IGERT activities in addition to their regular
department activities; however some projects develop a new, interdisciplinary degree program
for students. Trainees receive a graduate stipend of $30,000 and a cost of education allowance
of $10,500 per year (12 months). On average, trainees participate in the program for two
years. Since 1998, the IGERT program has made 260 awards to over 100 lead universities,
providing funding for more than 5,800 graduate students.
The IGERT program has three strategic goals: (1) to educate Ph.D.-level scientists with the
depth and breadth of knowledge and skills to become leaders in their fields; (2) to catalyze
2011 DRAFT IGERT Evaluation OMB Submission

1

changes in graduate education by establishing models for collaborative research across
disciplinary boundaries; and (3) to promote diversity among participating students and the
professional science and engineering workforce. These strategies are designed to provide
STEM graduates the interdisciplinary tools needed to understand and address today’s
increasingly complex scientific problems.
The NSF has commissioned a number of external evaluations of various facets of the IGERT
program since shortly after the program’s inception in 1998. Monitoring initially focused on the
characteristics of projects at individual universities, and consisted of analyses of data from the
Distance Monitoring System (DMS) completed annually by the project Principal Investigators
(PIs), funded trainees, and other students participating in the project. The Web-based survey
database provides descriptive information about each IGERT project (e.g., who participates in
the project, how many trainees are funded and for how long, what are the structural elements
of the program). The DMS is operated by ICF Macro, a survey research and information
technology company.
Beginning in 2002, NSF funded a cross-site analysis of the IGERT program, focusing on project
implementation. The evaluation team, which included content area scientists, conducted
monitoring site visits to projects in the first three cohorts (1998-2000). Each project was visited
by a team that included both evaluation specialists and content experts in its third year of
implementation; the team conducted in-person interviews with PIs, trainees, and key faculty, as
well as relevant university administrators. The results led to a series of reports at the individual
project and cohort level and across all sites, such as the NSF Integrative Graduate Education
and Research Traineeships Monitoring Report: Boston University, The Bioinfomatics Project
(Chase and Carney, 2001); the IGERT Annual Cross Site Report: 1998 Cohort (Chase et al., 2002);
and the Contractor Annual Report and Summary of the Cross-Site Monitoring of the NSF
Integrative Graduate and Education Research Traineeship Program (Martinez et al., 2006).
Subsequently, NSF commissioned an Evaluation of the IGERT Program’s Initial Impacts for
participating students, faculty, and institutions, employing a comparison group of non-IGERT
participants (Carney et al., 2006). The Impact Evaluation examined differences between groups
of individuals – for example, the interdisciplinary training of IGERT students compared with
non-IGERT students. Most recently, NSF commissioned a another comparative study of the
program, the “Follow-up Study of IGERT Graduates” (Carney et al., 2010), which focused on
investigating the short-term professional outcomes of IGERT graduates to understand whether
and how the IGERT program prepared its graduate student participants for successful STEMrelated careers and how IGERT graduates fared in their early careers relative to their
counterparts trained through more traditional programs.
Findings from both the annual DMS and the prior evaluation studies have informed program
officers about the activities at each funded project, the numbers of participants (both faculty
and trainees), selected early career outcomes, and observed changes at departmental and
2011 DRAFT IGERT Evaluation OMB Submission

2

institutional levels. However, the earlier data collections have not examined a central element
of the program: how interdisciplinarity itself is defined and operationalized across IGERT
projects. Understanding interdisciplinarity, particularly in terms of how to prepare scientists
with the skills needed in an increasingly interdisciplinary research environment, is increasingly
salient. The current study, therefore, is designed to describe how IGERT projects design,
provide, and experience interdisciplinary graduate education.
As interdisciplinary science becomes more common, and the demand grows for scientists who
have the skills to conduct interdisciplinary research, understanding how to prepare
interdisciplinary researchers becomes increasingly salient. Prior research about interdisciplinary
training is limited, however. Some researchers acknowledge the challenges associated with
preparing interdisciplinary researchers within institutions and departments that are disciplinefocused (Coppola, Banaszak Holl, & Karbstein, 2007; Feller, 2006); some researchers have
examined context-specific interdisciplinary research models within specific laboratory or
disciplinary settings (e.g., Lattuca and Knight, 2010; Nersessian, 2009), while others point to a
dearth of empirical research about learning outcomes, methods, or benchmarks for
interdisciplinary learning, especially in science and other technical fields (Aboelela et al., 2007;
Boix Mansilla, 2006; Borrego & Newswander, 2010; Jacobs & Frickel, 2009; Schilling, 2001; Van
Hartesfeldt & Giordan, 2008).
Two recent studies conceptualized likely outcomes of interdisciplinary education. Lattuca and
Knight (2010) reviewed the engineering education and higher education literature, and from
that review, developed a working definition of interdisciplinary competence. Such
interdisciplinary competence is defined as one’s ability to understand and utilize knowledge
and modes of inquiry drawn from disciplines other than one’s own, and that understanding and
use of knowledge includes the following skills: a) an appreciation of various disciplinary
perspectives; b) an ability to incorporate and evaluate multiple disciplinary approaches to
problem-solving; c) an ability to recognize the strengths or weaknesses of one's own
disciplinary perspective; and d) an ability to recognize the shared assumptions, skills, or
knowledge among disciplines. Borrego and Newswander (2010) conducted an analysis of peerreviewed literature from interdisciplinary studies in the humanities and social sciences fields
and reviewed information from 129 funded IGERT proposals, and from that analysis, identified
five similar categories of learning outcomes for interdisciplinary education, including: a)
disciplinary grounding; b) integration; c) teamwork; d) communication; and e) critical
awareness.
Building on the interdisciplinary skills and learning outcomes described above, as well as
feedback from the study’s Evaluation Advisory Committee, we identified the following
knowledge, skills and abilities as important in preparing students to conduct interdisciplinary
research:


Depth of knowledge in one discipline or field of study

2011 DRAFT IGERT Evaluation OMB Submission

3



Ability to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of multiple disciplines



Ability to apply the approaches and tools from multiple disciplines to address a
research problem



Ability to work in a team with individuals trained in different disciplines



Ability to communicate research based in one discipline or field of study to academic
researchers trained in different disciplines



Ability to communicate about interdisciplinary research to non-academic audiences
(laypersons)

This study will examine whether and how IGERT participants (Principal Investigators and
trainees) perceive the above knowledge, skills or abilities as important to conduct
interdisciplinary research, and how IGERT projects develop trainees in these areas. In so doing,
the current study focuses on the program’s first broad goal: to prepare Ph.D. students to
conduct interdisciplinary research.
A.2. Purposes and Uses of the Data
The primary purpose for collection of this information is to examine how interdisciplinary
graduate education in the IGERT context is defined and operationalized, and how IGERT faculty
assess trainees’ interdisciplinary learning.
The study will answer the following questions:
1. Whether and in what ways do IGERT participants (PIs and trainees) perceive the knowledge,
skills or abilities drawn from the literature as important to conducting interdisciplinary
research?
2. What activities do projects implement to develop trainees’ interdisciplinary research
capacity, as characterized by these knowledge, skills or abilities? How do projects assess
trainees’ development as interdisciplinary scientists?
3. How helpful do trainees perceive their IGERT training to be in developing their capacity to
conduct interdisciplinary research as characterized by these six areas?
4. How confident are IGERT trainees of their knowledge, skills, and abilities in these six areas?
5. What challenges do trainees encounter with the IGERT traineeship?

2011 DRAFT IGERT Evaluation OMB Submission

4

Exhibit 1 summarizes the study’s research questions and data collection strategies.
Exhibit 1: Research Questions by Data Sources
Data Sources
Primary Data Collection
Research Question/Topics
IGERT PIs
(Interview)

IGERT Trainees
(Survey)

Secondary
(Extant) Data
Distance
Monitoring
Data

1. Whether and in what ways do IGERT participants (PIs and trainees) perceive the knowledge, skills or abilities
drawn from the literature as important to conducting interdisciplinary research?
IGERT trainees’ perception of the importance of the
knowledge, skills or abilities to conducting
interdisciplinary research



IGERT trainees’ perception of the importance of the
knowledge, skills or abilities to conducting research in
one discipline or field of study



IGERT trainees’ perception of other areas that are
important to conducting interdisciplinary research



IGERT PI's perception of the importance of the
knowledge, skills or abilities to conducting
interdisciplinary research



2. What activities do projects implement to develop trainees’ interdisciplinary research capacity, as
characterized by these knowledge, skills or abilities? How do projects assess trainees’ development as
interdisciplinary scientists?
Role of the different IGERT training activities in
developing trainees' capacity in the six areas





IGERT faculty’s assessment of the development of
trainees' interdisciplinary research capacity





3. How helpful do trainees perceive their IGERT training to be in developing their capacity to conduct
interdisciplinary research as characterized by these six areas?
Perceived helpfulness of IGERT training in developing
IGERT trainees' capacity in the six areas



Other knowledge, skills or abilities trainees report that
their IGERT training helps to develop



4. How confident are IGERT trainees of their knowledge, skills, and abilities in these six areas?
IGERT trainees’ perceptions of their confidence in these
areas



5. What challenges do trainees encounter with the IGERT traineeship?
Perceived challenges to participating in IGERT
2011 DRAFT IGERT Evaluation OMB Submission







5

This data collection will provide the NSF program staff with an understanding of how projects
provide training to develop trainees’ knowledge, skills and abilities in areas identified in prior
research as important for becoming an interdisciplinary scientist.
A.3. Use of Information Technology to Reduce Burden
The study will reduce survey respondent burden by using an internet-based survey to collect
information from participants. The survey population for this study is doctoral students in
science, engineering, and other technical fields who have routine access to web-based
technologies. The use of web-based systems facilitates accuracy, completeness, and speed of
data entry, and helps reduce respondent burden. Web-based surveys employ user-friendly
features, such as automated tabulation, data entry with custom controls such as checkboxes,
data verification with error messages for easy online correction, standard menus, and
predefined charts and graphics. In addition, survey skip patterns automatically move the
respondent to the next appropriate section, reducing time burden and simplifying the surveytaking experience. This also allows for easy identification of non-respondents and facilitates
follow-up.
Because data entered by participants can be automatically uploaded into standard analysis
software, an additional data entry step can be eliminated, thus increasing the efficiency of the
researcher(s) conducting the study. Finally, email will be used to send respondents their
invitations to complete the survey and to follow up with the non-respondents to encourage
their participation.
Additionally, for the interview respondents, publically available information from project
websites will be reviewed in advance so that interviewers are already familiar with individual
projects’ terminology, requirements, and activities. Further, the study will review prior years’
DMS data to minimize burden on respondents and eliminate the need to ask questions about
project operations about which PIs have already reported.
A.4. Efforts to Identify Duplication
This evaluation does not duplicate other NSF efforts. It is important to acknowledge that annual
progress reports completed by IGERT PIs and trainees provide some information related to the
proposed topics of interest. We plan to use any extant data that inform the study’s research
questions; however, extant data about the specific skills hypothesized as important in
developing interdisciplinary research capacity are limited. IGERT PIs routinely provide
information on some activities, but the structure of the DMS data emphasizes discrete
components of IGERT training, and not the mechanisms or features of interdisciplinary training
identified in the literature as salient to the development of interdisciplinary research skills.
A.5. Small Business
No small businesses will be involved in this study.
2011 DRAFT IGERT Evaluation OMB Submission

6

A.6. Consequences of Not Collecting the Information
The ultimate goal of the IGERT program is to provide students with the tools “to become in
their own careers the leaders and creative agents for change,” yet NSF’s more immediate
charge is for projects to prepare students to work in an interdisciplinary environment. The
current study addresses this goal by describing IGERT training activities and ways in which
IGERT projects are perceived to enhance IGERT trainees’ preparedness to work in
interdisciplinary environments. Consequences of not collecting this information include
inability to answer a question of interest to program staff about how projects develop
interdisciplinary scientists, and therefore limit guidance program staff can provide to current
and future projects about translating interdisciplinary themes into specific activities and
training elements.
A.7. Special Circumstances Justifying Inconsistencies with Guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.6
The project will fully comply with the guidelines of 5 CFR 1320.5. No special circumstances
apply to this data collection.
A.8. Consultation Outside the Agency
Comments on this data collection effort were solicited in the Federal Register on September 10,
2010 (vol. 75, no. 175, p.55359). No outside comments were received.
Abt Associates Inc. was contracted by NSF to design and conduct the study of the IGERT
program. Consultation on the study design was provided by NSF and an External Advisory
Committee (EAC). The study design and instruments have been reviewed by an Evaluation
Advisory Committee (EAC) comprised of experts in graduate STEM education, interdisciplinary
research in science and engineering, and evaluation of higher education STEM programs. The
EAC includes:


Monica Cox – Director, Pedagogical Evaluation Laboratory and Associate Professor of
Engineering Education, Purdue University



Irwin Feller – Professor Emeritus of Economics, Pennsylvania State University



Lisa Lattuca – Professor of Higher Education, University of Michigan



Nancy Nersessian – Regents’ Professor of Cognitive Science, Georgia Institute of
Technology

Abt solicited feedback from the EAC to ensure that the overall study design is appropriate for
the research questions, that the instruments have face and construct validity, and that data
collection procedures are designed to enhance the reliability of study findings. Specifically, the
EAC reviewed the overall design as well the draft instruments and individual items to ensure
that individual items are designed to measure underlying constructs (construct validity) and
that the items (and overall instruments) have adequate face validity for respondents who
participate in IGERT projects. The EAC members also reviewed the study’s data collection plan
2011 DRAFT IGERT Evaluation OMB Submission

7

and strategies to ensure high response rates. Taken together, the EAC comments have
informed the study’s overall design, instruments, data collection and analysis plans, and
therefore serve to enhance the ultimate reliability of study findings. Additionally, both the PI
interview and the survey have been and will continue to be pilot tested with respondents from
the target populations who are not part of the study’s sampling frame to ensure clarity of
language and concepts, logical sequencing of questions and items, appropriate skip patterns,
and ease of navigation (for online surveys). Respondents are being asked to comment on the
clarity, content, and flow of items, as well as duration of data collection, to ensure that
questions/items are clear, that directions are understood, that the sequence of items (and skip
patterns where applicable) is logical, and to provide an accurate estimation of time burden. The
draft instruments reflect feedback from the EAC and information obtained from pilot testing.
A.9. Payments or Gifts to Respondents
No payments or gifts will be provided to respondents.
A.10. Assurance of Confidentiality
Data collected will be available to the study contractors, contractors hired to manage data and
data collection software, and at the aggregate level to NSF staff. Data will be processed in
accordance to Federal and State privacy statutes. Detailed procedures for making information
available to various categories of users are specified in the Education and Training System of
Records (63 Fed, Reg. 264, 272 January 5, 1998). The system limits access to personally
identifiable information to authorized users. Data submitted will be used in accordance with
criteria established by NSF for monitoring research and education grants, and in response to
Public Law 99-383 and 42 USC 1885c. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified
contractors in order to coordinate programs and to a Federal agency, court or party in court, or
Federal administrative proceeding, if the government is a party.
Individuals surveyed will be assured that the information they provide will not be released in
any form that identifies them, and that their responses will be kept confidential to the extent
provided by law. The contractor will be expected to maintain the confidentiality, security, and
integrity of the survey data. The web-based survey data and notes from the PI and trainee
interviews will be maintained on a secure server with appropriate levels of password and other
types of protection. Proposed procedures for protecting the data and privacy of respondents
have been reviewed by the contractor’s Institutional Review Board prior to data collection.

2011 DRAFT IGERT Evaluation OMB Submission

8

A.11. Questions of a Sensitive Nature
The proposed trainee survey and PI interview protocol do not ask any questions of a sensitive
nature. All survey questions will be reviewed by the contractor’s Institutional Review Board
prior to fielding. Copies of the survey and interview protocol- can be found in Appendix A and B.
A.12 Estimates of Response Burden
The total number of respondents targeted for this study is estimated at 790, which represents
the following:
1. 750 IGERT Trainees
2. 40 IGERT PIs
We assume a target response rate of 80 percent for both the survey and interviews, reflecting
standard social science practice about response rates; additionally, prior experience with
similar populations indicates that an 80 percent response rate is reasonable. The total number
of respondents is estimated to be 632, resulting in an estimated response burden for the
surveys of 340 hours over one year. Details on these calculations are provided in A.12.1 and
A.12.2.
A.12.1. Number of Respondents, Frequency of Response, and Annual Hour Burden

Table A.12.1 below indicates the number of respondents, expected number of responses for
each category of respondent type, and the time demand these instruments will place on
individual respondents and on all respondents in aggregate.
Table A.12.1: Number of Respondents, Frequency of Response, and Annual Hour Burden
Respondent Type

IGERT Trainees
IGERT PIs
Total

Targeted
group
750
40
790

Number of
respondents
600
32
632

Instrument
type
Survey
Interview
N/A

Time per
response
(hours)
0.5
1.25
N/A

Total time
burden
(hours)
300
40
340

#

The above estimates for the number of responses for each type of respondent assume an 80
percent response rate, which is comparable to response rates obtained on other studies of a
similar scope and with similar respondent types.

A.12.2. Hour Burden Estimates by Each Form and Aggregate Hour Burdens

As each respondent will complete the survey or interview once, the annual burden and the
aggregate burden will be the same as shown in Table A.12.1.

2011 DRAFT IGERT Evaluation OMB Submission

9

A.12.3. Estimates of Annualized Cost to Respondents for the Hour Burdens

The overall annualized cost to respondents is $12220. The following chart shows the estimated
total annual costs to each group of respondents over one year for the surveys.

Table A.12.3: Estimated Annual Costs to Each Group of Respondents
Respondent
Type

IGERT
Trainees
IGERT PIs
Total

Targeted
Group

750
40
790

Number of
Respondents#

600
32
632

Time Per
Response
(hours)

0.5
1.25
N/A

Total
Time
Burden
(hours)
300
40
340

Hourly
salary
estimate

$35
$43
N/A

Estimated
cost per
respondent

$17.50
$21.50
N/A

Estimated
overall
cost

$10500
$1720
$12220

#

Assumes an 80 percent response rate.
Figures are rounded to the nearest whole dollar. Based on an average salary estimates for Ph.D.s in Science and
Engineering as reported in National Science Foundation's, Science and Engineering Indicators - 2006. National Science
Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. Arlington, VA (NSB 06-01) [February 2006], Figure 3-22.
Url: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/figures.htm
(Used estimates for faculty with 5-9 years of experience @$70,000 and 15-19 years of experience @ $85,000)

A.13. Estimate of Total Capital and Startup Costs/Operation and Maintenance Costs to
Respondents or Record Keepers
There is no overall annual cost burden regarding capital, operation, or maintenance costs to
respondents that results from this study, other than the time spent responding to the survey.
A.14. Estimates of Costs to the Federal Government
The estimated cost to the Federal Government for the data collection activities included in this
request for approval is $12,220. This cost estimate includes instrument development and
pretesting; recruitment; data collection; and data processing.
A.15. Changes in Burden
This is a new collection of information.
A.16. Plans for Publication, Analysis, and Schedule
The contractor, Abt Associates, will prepare a set of research briefs (between 4-10 pages) on
selected topics, as well as a more comprehensive report with appropriate detail describing the
sampling, methodology, and analysis. The comprehensive report will also present short
summaries of findings from each of the research questions backed by annotated data tables

2011 DRAFT IGERT Evaluation OMB Submission

10

that form the basis for the findings. Note that these findings will apply only to the projects
included in the study. Possible topics for the research briefs include:



Developing interdisciplinary capability among IGERT trainees
How IGERT projects assess or monitor trainees’ development as interdisciplinary
researchers

The full study report will include an overview of the literature on the definition of
interdisciplinarity as well as findings from analyses of survey data from trainees and interview
data from PIs. Analyses of survey data will include a detailed summary that utilizes appropriate
descriptive statistics. For survey items using continuous scales, the study will calculate means
and standard deviations to describe both central tendency and variability. Frequency
distributions and percentages will be used to summarize answers given on ordinal scales. In
addition, if feasible, simple correlational models will be estimated to examine whether and how
program and student characteristics are associated with trainees’ perceptions of how helpful
training activities have been. Together, these analyses will provide an overview of the activities
the IGERT projects provide to develop trainees as interdisciplinary researchers, and trainees’
perceptions of their confidence in the six areas hypothesized as central to conducting
interdisciplinary research.
The project schedule is shown in Table A.16. Surveys are planned to begin in Fall 2011/Spring
2012.
Table A.16: Project Data Collection Schedule
Activity
Recruit survey respondents
Conduct PI interviews
Conduct IGERT trainee survey
Analyze data
Report findings

Timeframe
Immediately after OMB
clearance
1 month after OMB clearance
1 month after OMB clearance
3-6 months (interviews and
survey) after OMB clearance
8 months after OMB
clearance

A.17. Approval to Not Display Expiration Date
The data collection instruments will display the OMB clearance number and expiration date.
A.18. Exceptions to Item 19 of OMB Form 83-I
No exceptions are sought.

2011 DRAFT IGERT Evaluation OMB Submission

11