Skip main navigation.
 U.S. Department of Education: Promoting Educational Excellence for all Americans - Link to ED.gov Home Page
RA: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research - FY 2005


CFDA Number: 84.133 - National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research

Program Goal: To conduct high-quality research that leads to high-quality research products

Objective 1 of 3: Advance knowledge through capacity building: Increase capacity to conduct and use high-quality and relevant disability and rehabilitation research and related activities designed to guide decision-making, change practice and improve the lives of individuals with disabilities.
Indicator 1.1 of 2: Percentage of NIDRR-supported fellows, postdoctoral trainees, and doctoral students who publish results of NIDRR-sponsored research in refereed journals.
 
Measure 1.1.1 of 1: The percentage of NIDRR-supported fellows, post-doctoral trainees, and doctoral students who publish results of NIDRR-sponsored research in refereed journals.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
 
Fellows Post-doctoral trainees Doctoral students
Fellows Post-doctoral trainees Doctoral students
2005
     
999 999 999

Source: Contractor Performance Report, Annual Performance Reporting Forms for NIDRR Grantees (RERCs, RRTCs, Model Systems, DRRPs, and ARRTs), Research Triangle Institute, North Carolina

Frequency: Annually.

Next Data Available: October 2006

Data Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.
NIDRR is planning to work with other ED staff to conduct an audit of publications entered into the web-based reporting system to verify grantees' self-reports of peer-reviewed journal articles.
 
Explanation: This is an output-oriented annual performance measure. The FY 2005 target is to set a baseline.
 
Indicator 1.2 of 2: By 2015, at least 10 percent of all projects will be multisite, collaborative controlled trials of interventions and programs.
 
Measure 1.2.1 of 1: The percentage of active projects conducting multisite, collaborative controlled trials. (Long-term Measure)
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2005
 
999

Source: Contractor Performance Report, Annual Performance Reporting Forms for NIDRR Grantees (RERCs, RRTCs, Model Systems, and DRRPs), Research Triangle Institute, North Carolina

Frequency: Other.

Next Data Available: September 2007
 
Explanation: The FY 2005 target is to establish a baseline. This is a long-term measure. The first three-year cycle will include data from 2005, 2006, and 2007.
 
Objective 2 of 3: Advance knowledge through research and related activities: Generate scientific-based knowledge, technologies, and applications to inform policy, change practice, and improve outcomes.
Indicator 2.1 of 3: The average number of publications per award based on NIDRR-funded research and development activities in refereed journals.
 
Measure 2.1.1 of 1: The average number of publications per award based on NIDRR-funded research and development activities in refereed journals. (Annual Measure)
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2002
2.74
 
2003
2.84
8
2004
2.71
5
2005
 
5

Source: Contractor Performance Report, Annual Performance Reporting Forms for NIDRR Grantees (RERCs, RRTCs, DBTACs, Model Systems, DRRPs, FIP, and SBIRs), Research Triangle Institute, North Carolina

Frequency: Annually.

Next Data Available: September 2006
NIDRR is planning to work with other ED staff to conduct an audit of publications entered into the Web-based project performance reporting systems to verify grantees' self-reports of publications.

Limitations: Data on 2002 and 2003 peer-reviewed publications are limited to only the three NIDRR program funding mechanisms (i.e., RERCs, RRTCs, SCI, TBI and Burn Model Systems) that were required to provide citations in the existing APPR. In addition, data for these two years may underrepresent the number of refereed publications due to terminating centers with no-cost extensions of 6 months or longer, which would delay the submission of final reports beyond the data collection period for the 2002 and 2003 measures. Another possible limitation involves reliance on a single aggregate measure of scientific productivity regardless of amount of award or nature of research conducted. Refereed journal articles may be a better indicator of scientific productivity for awards in medical rehabilitation research than they are for other areas of NIDRR's portfolio related to community integration and product development.

Improvements: NIDRR plans to correct these limitations through the redesigned APPR, which will collect publication data from four additional program funding mechanisms (DBTACs, DRRPs, FIPs, and KDU projects), and additional analyses of variations in publication rates across program mechanisms with the aim of creating sub-measures.
 
Explanation: The 2004 target was not met. The average number of peer-reviewed journal articles published in 2003 per award varied across program types from a high of 4.95 for Model Systems (183 publications/37 centers) to 1.66 for RRTCs (48/29) and .96 for RERCs (22/23). The same ordering was observed for 2002-refereed publications, although the numbers were different. Average peer-reviewed publications per award increased approximately 1.5 points for Model Systems (from 3.48), whereas RRTCs declined by almost the same amount (from 2.89), and RERCs stayed relatively the same (from 1.1 to .96). Variations in performance by program type are most likely due to differences in the nature of R&D activities conducted (i.e. medical rehabilitation research vs. psychosocial research and engineering design) and differences in publication practices and expectations associated with these disciplines. Variations over time probably have more to do with changes in the number and types of centers reporting in a given year as a result of natural fluctuations in funding cycles.
 
Indicator 2.2 of 3: Percentage of new studies funded by NIDRR that assess the effectiveness of interventions, programs, and devices using rigorous and appropriate methods.
 
Measure 2.2.1 of 1: The percentage of new studies that assess the effectiveness of interventions, programs, and devices using rigorous and appropriate methods.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2002
65
 
2003
59
 
2004
59
 
2005
 
999

Source: Contractor Performance Report, Annual Performance Reporting Forms for NIDRR Grantees (RERCs, RRTCs, Model Systems, DBTACs, DRRPs, and FIPs.), Research Triangle Institute, North Carolina

Frequency: Annually.

Next Data Available: October 2006

Data Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.

Improvements: To reduce the costs and improve the efficiency of collecting qualitative judgments from experts panels in 2004 and 2005, NIDRR will experiment with using Internet-based alternatives to face-to-face program-review-type meetings.
 
Explanation: This is a new activity-oriented annual measure. The FY 2005 target is to establish a baseline. 2005 data will come from the revised Web-based annual project performance reporting system (APPR) and judgments of expert panelists participating in NIDRR's new portfolio assessment system.
 
Indicator 2.3 of 3: The percentage of grantee research and development that has appropriate study design, meets rigorous standards of scientific and/or engineering methods, and builds on and contributes to knowledge in the field.
 
Measure 2.3.1 of 1: The percentage of grantee research and development that has appropriate study design, meets rigorous standards of scientific and/or engineering methods, and builds on and contributes to knowledge in the field.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2002
82
 
2003
96
 
2004
89
 
2005
99
999

Source: Peer Review

Frequency: Annually.

Next Data Available: October 2006

Data Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.
 
Explanation: The FY 2005 target was met, based onthe scores from 77 grantees. The methodology for assessment of quality of funded projects changed in 2004. As of 2005, NIDRR no longer uses a second expert review of peer review of grantee research designs. The current measure is calculated as the Percentage of funded grant applications that received an average peer review score of 85 or higher. The trend data have been recalculated using the new methodology.
 
Objective 3 of 3: Advance knowledge through translation and dissemination: Promote the effective use of scientific-based knowledge, technologies, and applications to inform policy, improve practice, and enhance the lives of individuals with disabilities.
Indicator 3.1 of 1: The number of new or improved assistive and universally designed technologies, products, and devices developed by grantees that are judged by an expert panel to be effective in improving outcomes and have the potential to be transferred to industry for commercialization.
 
Measure 3.1.1 of 1: The number of new or improved assistive and universally designed technologies, products, and devices that are judged by an expert panel to be effective in improving outcomes and have the potential to be transferred to industry for commercialization.
Year Actual Performance Performance Targets
2005
 
999

Source: Grantee Performance Report, 1820-0642 Annual Performance Reporting Forms for NIDRR Grantees (RERCs, RRTCs, DBTACs, DRRPs, Model Systems, Dissemination & Utillization Projects).

Frequency: Annually.

Next Data Available: April 2006

Data Validated By: On-Site Monitoring By ED.
Review by expert panels.

Improvements: To reduce the costs and improve the efficiency of collecting qualitative judgments from experts panels, in 2004 NIDRR will experiment with using Internet-based alternatives to face-to-face program-review-type meetings.
 
Explanation: This measure was revised for 2005 and is an output-oriented annual performance measure. Baseline data were not collected in FY 2004 as expected. The FY 2005 target is to establish a preliminary baseline using the 2005 pilot version of the redesigned Web-based annual project performance reporting (APPR) system and judgments of expert panels.
 

Return to table of contents