[Federal Register: September 12, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 57929-57934]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12se02-136]
[[Page 57929]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRP) Program; Notices
[[Page 57930]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRP) Program
AGENCY: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
(NIDRR), Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final priorities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services announces final priorities on Health Services
Research; Mental Health Service Delivery to Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and
Deaf-Blind Individuals from Diverse Racial, Ethnic, and Linguistic
Backgrounds; and Developing Models To Promote the Use of NIDRR Research
under the Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRP)
Program of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research (NIDRR). The Assistant Secretary may use these priorities for
competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2003 and later years. We take this
action to focus research attention on an identified national need. We
intend these priorities to improve rehabilitation services and outcomes
for individuals with disabilities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: These priorities are effective October 15, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Nangle, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3412, Switzer Building,
Washington, DC 20202-2645. Telephone: (202) 205-5880 or via the
Internet: donna.nangle@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the TDD number at (202) 205-4475.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects (DRRP) Program
The purpose of the DRRP Program is to plan and conduct research,
demonstration projects, training, and related activities that help to
maximize the full inclusion and integration of individuals with
disabilities into society and to improve the effectiveness of services
authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (the Act).
New Freedom Initiative and The NIDRR Long-Range Plan
This priority reflects issues discussed in the New Freedom
Initiative (NFI) and NIDRR's Long-Range Plan (the Plan). The NFI can be
accessed on the Internet at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/freedominitiative/freedominiative.html.
The Plan can be accessed on the Internet at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/NIDRR/Products.
Supplementary Information: General
We published a notice of proposed priority (NPP) for Health
Services Research projects in the Federal Register on May 29, 2002 (67
FR 37655). We also published separate NPPs for Mental Health Service
Delivery to Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and Deaf-Blind Individuals from
Diverse Racial, Ethnic, and Linguistic Backgrounds in the Federal
Register on May 29, 2002 (67 FR 37653) and for Developing Models To
Promote the Use of NIDRR Research under the Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects in the Federal Register on May 29,
2002 (67 FR 37647). We have combined in this notice of final priorities
(NFP) three priorities. This NFP contains several significant changes
from the NPPs. Specifically, for the Mental Health Service Delivery to
Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and Deaf-Blind Individuals from Diverse Racial,
Ethnic, and Linguistic Backgrounds, we have made changes to include a
question pertaining to the criminal justice system; an additional
requirement that family members, as well as deaf, hard-of-hearing, and
deaf-blind mental health consumers from diverse backgrounds be included
in all stages of research; and that question (2) regarding model
psychological testing instruments and mental health outcome measures be
split into two separate research questions. For the Developing Models
To Promote the Use of NIDRR Research under the Disability and
Rehabilitation Research Projects, we have made three changes. We have
added the words ``principally'', ``alternative'', and ``rehabilitation
researchers'' and ``family members'' to the priority.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to our invitation in the NPPs, several parties
submitted comments on the proposed priorities (three parties for the
Health Services Research, twenty parties for the Mental Health Service
Delivery to Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and Deaf-Blind Individuals from
Diverse Racial, Ethnic, and Linguistic Backgrounds, and two parties for
the Developing Models To Promote the Use of NIDRR Research under the
Disability and Rehabilitation Research Projects). We fully discuss
these comments as well as changes made in the Analysis of Comments and
Changes published as an appendix to this notice.
The backgrounds for the priorities were published in the NPPs.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes and
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the
applicable statutory authority.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register. When inviting
applications we designate the priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational. The effect of each type of priority
follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by either
(1) awarding additional points, depending on how well or the extent to
which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or
(2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an
application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the invitational
priority. However, an application that meets the invitational priority
does not receive competitive or absolute preference over other
applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Priorities
Priority 1--Health Services Research Projects
This priority is intended to improve delivery of health services to
individuals with disabilities. An applicant must propose research
projects under one of the following specific topic areas:
(1) Availability and Access to Community-Based Health Services. To
be funded under the priority, a project must:
(a) Investigate the availability and accessibility of community-
based health services for individuals with disabilities who move from
institutional care to community living or who are at risk for
institutional care;
(b) Document the extent to which access to appropriate health
services, including home-health, is a component of State task force
recommendations
[[Page 57931]]
regarding transitioning of individuals from institutional to community
settings; and
(c) Evaluate the role of accessible community-based mental health
services in the successful integration of individuals with long-term
mental illness into community settings.
(1) Impact of the Prospective Payment System for Medical
Rehabilitation. To be funded under the priority, a project must:
(a) Evaluate the impact of the prospective payment system for
medical rehabilitation on access to medical rehabilitation services by
individuals with disabilities, examining the impact on settings,
services, and length of stay; and
(b) Identify the impact of multiple, health-related conditions,
commonly called co-morbidities, on classification and reimbursement in
the medical rehabilitation prospective payment system.
(3) Analysis of Quality Indicators for Assessing Health Services
Provided to Individuals with Disabilities. To be funded under the
priority, a project must:
(a) Conduct an assessment of the use of quality indicators in both
the private and public sectors to determine the extent to which the
needs of individuals with disabilities are reflected in these
indicators;
(b) Examine the relationship of function and disability in defining
the population of individuals with disabilities to whom the indicators
are applied; and
(c) Determine how individuals with disabilities, payers, and
providers use information from quality assessment of medical
rehabilitation services.
In addition, each project must:
[sbull] Consult with the NIDRR-funded National Center for the
Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR) to develop and implement,
in the first year of the grant, a plan to disseminate the DRRP's
research results to: disability organizations, individuals with
disabilities or their family members or both, researchers, providers,
and policymakers; and
[sbull] Ensure the participation of individuals with disabilities
in all phases of the research and dissemination activities.
Priority 2--Mental Health Service Delivery to Deaf, Hard of Hearing,
and Deaf-Blind Individuals From Diverse Racial, Ethnic, and Linguistic
Backgrounds
This priority is intended to enhance the quality of the delivery of
mental health services for deaf, hard-of-hearing, or deaf-blind
individuals from diverse racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds.
For purposes of this priority, ``individuals from diverse linguistic
backgrounds'' includes not only individuals who are fluent in languages
other than English, but also individuals with minimal language skills
who are not fluent in any language.
To be funded under this priority, a project must choose at least
one, but no more than four, of the following research activities:
(1) Investigate, compare, and evaluate the effectiveness of mental
health services provided by mental health providers using qualified
sign language interpreters as opposed to services provided by mental
health providers fluent in sign language. The research project must
consider the educational, clinical, and professional credentials of
each provider.
(2) Investigate, evaluate, and develop, as needed, model
psychological testing instruments for deaf, hard-of-hearing, or deaf-
blind individuals from diverse racial, ethnic, and linguistic
backgrounds.
(3) Identify, evaluate, and develop, as needed, for use in mental
health settings, model communication strategies for individuals with
minimal language skills who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, or deaf-blind.
(4) Identify and evaluate factors that assist or hinder entrance
into the delivery system of mental health services for deaf, hard-of-
hearing, or deaf-blind individuals from diverse racial, ethnic, and
linguistic backgrounds.
(5) Identify and evaluate factors that have an impact on the
effectiveness of the delivery of mental health services to deaf, hard-
of-hearing, or deaf-blind individuals from diverse racial, ethnic, and
linguistic backgrounds.
(6) Investigate and evaluate factors that have an impact on mental
health service provision in the criminal justice system to deaf, hard-
of-hearing, and deaf-blind individuals from diverse racial, ethnic, and
linguistic backgrounds, including individuals with minimal language
skills.
(7) Investigate, evaluate, and develop, as needed, mental health
outcome measures for deaf, hard-of-hearing, or deaf-blind individuals
from diverse racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds.
In addition, each project must:
[sbull] Involve deaf, hard-of-hearing, and deaf-blind mental health
consumers from diverse racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds in
all phases of research, as appropriate.
[sbull] Involve family members of deaf, hard-of-hearing, and deaf-
blind mental health consumers from diverse racial, ethnic, and
linguistic backgrounds in all phases of research, as appropriate.
[sbull] Involve individuals with disabilities and individuals from
diverse racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds in all phases of
research, as appropriate.
[sbull] As directed by the NIDRR project officer for these
programs, collaborate with other NIDRR projects and the National Center
for the Dissemination of Disability Research.
Priority 3--Developing Models To Promote the Use of NIDRR Research
This priority is intended to establish a project that will develop
and test models for increasing the effective use of NIDRR research
results.
To be funded under this priority a project must--
(1) Analyze research information principally produced by NIDRR
grantees to determine the extent to which any of the information has
not been disseminated or has been disseminated but not effectively
used.
(2) Develop models for particular kinds of information, such as
engineering, health, employment, education, and independent living, and
for particular intended groups such as professionals, individuals with
disabilities, their family members, and researchers.
(3) Describe the models and prepare training materials in
accessible and alternative formats to assist others to use the models.
(4) Test each model.
(5) Evaluate the success of each model.
In carrying out these activities, the project must:
[sbull] Provide training for NIDRR research projects and centers;
[sbull] Ensure the relevance of all activities to rehabilitation
researchers, individuals with disabilities, and their family members;
[sbull] Include techniques to reach individuals from diverse
racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds; and
[sbull] Collaborate with NIDRR-funded projects and centers.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 350.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may review this document, as well as all other Department of
[[Page 57932]]
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO access at: http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.133A, Disability
and Rehabilitation Research Projects)
Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 762(g) and 764(b).
Dated: September 9, 2002.
Robert H. Pasternack,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
Appendix
Analysis of Comments and Changes
Priority 1--Health Services Research
Comment: Two commenters suggested that NIDRR add depression or
other psychological conditions to the study of prospective payment
in medical rehabilitation.
Discussion: Applicants could choose to propose a study
pertaining to depression or other psychological conditions and the
prospective payment system in medical rehabilitation; however, NIDRR
has no basis to determine that all applicants should be required to
focus on these issues. The peer review process will evaluate the
merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked for clarification of whether the
priority focuses exclusively on acute rehabilitation and not other
levels and settings of care.
Discussion: Applicants could choose to propose a study that
examines the range of rehabilitation settings; however, the peer
review process will evaluate the merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked whether the priority should focus
on longer intervals of care, rather than a single inpatient
rehabilitation admission.
Discussion: Applicants could choose to propose a study that
focuses on longer intervals of care; however, NIDRR has no basis to
determine that all applicants should be required to focus on this
issue. The peer review process will evaluate the merits of the
proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked whether NIDDR would allow
applicants to propose related projects within a single proposal.
This commenter was concerned because relevant Medicare data for
examining the impact of Prospective Payment System (PPS) will not be
available until later in the time period for the proposed grant
award(s).
Discussion: Applicants could choose to propose related projects
during the course of the study; the peer review process will
evaluate the merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked whether priority (2)(b) duplicates
work that the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) plans
to perform to recalculate medical rehabilitation prospective payment
adjustments and asked if there were specific issues about this
process of concern to NIDRR, such as ``omitted comorbidity codes in
the IRF-PAI, inconsistent coding of comorbidities, or comorbidities
that develop or become apparent after an inpatient rehabilitation
hospitalization.''
Discussion: NIDRR is not specifying that applicants duplicate
work being undertaken by CMS. It is anticipated that NIDRR's
research will build on and support research being done at CMS by
focusing on issues specifically affecting provision of and access to
medical rehabilitation services for persons with disabilities. To
the extent that the topic examples provided in the comment meet this
expectation, applicants could choose to propose research on one of
these areas. The peer review process will evaluate the merits of the
proposals.
Changes: None.
Priority 2--Mental Health Service Delivery to Deaf, Hard of
Hearing, and Deaf-Blind Individuals From Diverse Racial, Ethnic,
and Linguistic Backgrounds
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the priority include
mental health service delivery to deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-
blind individuals in the criminal justice system, including both
prisons and courtrooms. Competency determinations, particularly for
deaf, hard-of-hearing, and deaf-blind persons with limited language
abilities, therapies and psycho-educational programs within the
prison system, communications accessibility and general mental
health service delivery were described as areas in need of research.
Discussion: A review of the literature reveals a paucity of
published information regarding mental health service delivery to
deaf, hard-of-hearing, and deaf-blind individuals in the criminal
justice system. This indeed suggests a need for further study and
research.
Changes: The final priority invites applicants to investigate
and evaluate factors that have an impact on mental health service
provision in the criminal justice system to deaf, hard-of-hearing,
and deaf-blind individuals from diverse racial, ethnic, and
linguistic backgrounds.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the priority include
a focus on mental health service delivery to deaf, hard-of-hearing,
and deaf-blind children.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that a focus on children would be
worthwhile, and applicants may submit applications in this area.
However, NIDRR has no basis to determine that all applicants should
be required to focus on these issues. The peer review process will
evaluate the merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that funding eligibility be
prioritized to State Departments of Mental Health Research
Divisions, with academic institution support and consultation.
Discussion: U.S. Department of Education regulations
implementing the Rehabilitation Act (34 CFR 350.3) stipulate who is
eligible for an award. States and institutions of higher education
are included on that list, as are public or private agencies,
including for-profit agencies, public or private organizations,
including for-profit organizations, and Indian tribes and tribal
organizations. NIDRR will consider applications from any applicant
that meets the statutory requirements under the funding authority.
The peer review process will evaluate the merits of submitted
proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested a focus on mental health
service delivery in rural areas.
Discussion: NIDRR is concerned about mental health service
delivery in rural areas. Applicants may propose to study service
delivery in rural areas under questions (4) or (5); however, NIDRR
has no basis to determine that all applicants should be required to
focus on these issues. The peer review process will evaluate the
merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that the priority require that
deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind mental health consumers from
diverse backgrounds be included in all stages of research.
Discussion: NIDRR is a strong proponent of participatory action
research and encourages consumer involvement in all stages of NIDRR-
sponsored research. The proposed priority requires the involvement
of individuals with disabilities, including deaf, hard-of-hearing,
and deaf-blind individuals and individuals from diverse racial,
ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds. This designation includes mental
health consumers and deaf, hard-of-hearing, and deaf-blind mental
health consumers.
Changes: The final priority specifies that deaf, hard-of-
hearing, and deaf-blind mental health consumers should be included
in all phases of research.
Comment: One commenter suggested that NIDRR require that family
members be included in all stages of research.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that the addition of family members
would be helpful to the research process.
Changes: The priority has been changed to include a requirement
that family members be included in all stages of research.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the research priority
focus on mental health generally, rather than focusing specifically
on mental health and deafness.
Discussion: NIDRR funds (and has funded) a variety of mental
health-related initiatives, of which this is one. The background
statement supporting this priority is available from the person
listed in FOR MORE
[[Page 57933]]
INFORMATION CONTACT or in the application package. It demonstrates a
compelling need for research in this particular area. Therefore,
NIDRR has decided upon this area of focus.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted the growing importance of
interactive video technology in psychological test instruments.
Discussion: Applicants may propose research related to
interactive video technology under question (2), which deals with
model psychological test instruments, or under question (5), which
covers factors that have an impact on the effectiveness of service
delivery. However, NIDRR has no basis to determine that all
applicants should be required to focus on this issue. The peer
review process will evaluate the merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that question (2) be split into
two separate research questions so that psychological test
instruments and mental health outcome measures are listed as two
separate research areas.
Discussion: NIDRR recognizes that different areas of expertise
may be needed for research on psychological test instruments and
mental health outcome measures.
Changes: The priority has been changed to include two separate
research activities, one on psychological test instruments and a
separate activity on mental health outcome measures.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the order of the listed
research questions be changed to: (4), (5), (1), (2), (3), to
demonstrate that the questions are interconnected and do not stand
apart from each other.
Discussion: The scope of this grant is small, encouraging depth
of focus. Applicants are instructed to select between one and four
research questions. Applicants may, but are not required to,
conceptualize the research questions as an interconnected whole.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority be specific
as to which population (deaf, hard-of-hearing, or deaf-blind) is
being addressed, since each population has separate needs.
Discussion: Within the scope of the priority, applicants may
choose to focus on any population or grouping of populations. The
peer review process will evaluate the merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters raised the issue of the use of
technology in mental health service delivery for deaf, hard-of-
hearing, and deaf-blind individuals.
Discussion: Technology is an area ripe for research, and NIDRR
encourages those who are interested to submit proposals in this
area. The peer review process will evaluate the merits of the
proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the issue of direct
communication with a therapist who can sign, as opposed to
communication with therapists via interpreters is not relevant given
recent technological developments such as cochlear implants and
voice-to-text computers.
Discussion: Recent technological developments certainly are
relevant to communication in mental health settings. However, they
do not render the question of therapists who sign vs. those who use
interpreters irrelevant. Many deaf, hard-of-hearing, and deaf-blind
individuals do not use voice-to-text computers or do not have
cochlear implants. If applicants wish to propose research on
technology in mental health settings, they are encouraged to do so.
However, NIDRR has no basis to determine that all applicants should
be required to focus on these issues. The peer review process will
evaluate the merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters suggested that the priority include a
focus on deaf, hard-of-hearing, and deaf-blind individuals who
communicate orally as well as those who communicate through sign
language. One suggested a focus on the use of technology with oral
deaf persons.
Discussion: Applicants may propose projects that focus on oral,
manual, or any other type of communication, including technological.
The peer review process will evaluate the merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the term ``late-deafened''
be added to the priority, noting that for individuals who are late-
deafened, deafness may be seen as a loss rather than as a culture
(as it is for many pre-lingually deaf people). This commenter also
noted that late-deafened individuals may have different social,
emotional and vocational experiences than pre-lingually deaf
individuals.
Discussion: Individuals who are late-deafened are subsumed under
the category ``deaf'' and thus are included in the priority. NIDRR
recognizes that the social, emotional, vocational and communicative
experiences of late-deafened individuals may differ from those of
culturally deaf individuals. Applicants may choose to focus research
on the specific needs of late-deafened individuals. The peer review
process will evaluate the merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that research is needed on the use
of interpreters with deaf, hard-of-hearing, and deaf-blind
individuals who have minimal language skills (MLS). This commenter
noted, for example, that specialized training is needed for MLS
interpreters, and that the use and role of deaf interpreters for
deaf, hard-of-hearing, and deaf-blind people with MLS should be
studied.
Discussion: These indeed are important issues, and they can be
proposed under question (3) of the priority. The peer review process
will evaluate the merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested research into the ``one-stop
shop'' concept for purposes of mental health service delivery to
deaf, hard-of-hearing, and deaf-blind individuals.
Discussion: Applicants may propose research into the ``one-stop
shop'' concept under questions (4) or (5) of this priority. However,
NIDRR has no basis to determine that all applicants should be
required to focus on this issue. The peer review process will
evaluate the merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that funds should be directed to
obtaining basic prevalence, demand, and incidence data to define the
scope of a particular study within a particular geographic area.
Discussion: An exploration of prevalence, demand, and incidence
data within a particular geographic area could be included within an
application for funding. However, NIDRR has no basis to determine
that all applicants should be required to focus on this issue. The
peer review process will evaluate the merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested the development of standards
for clinician sign language competency, and noted that many
clinicians who think they can communicate in sign language in fact
are not competent.
Discussion: Clinician sign language competency could be a
measure of treatment effectiveness for clinicians who sign for
themselves, and could be studied under question (1). The development
of actual standards of competence would need to be done in
conjunction with appropriate sign language agencies and
professionals in the deaf community. An applicant could propose such
a project as part of question (1). The peer review process would
evaluate the merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority focus on
systems of care rather than clinical issues.
Discussion: Applicants who wish to focus on systems of care
issues may do so under questions (4), (5), or (6). The peer review
process will evaluate the merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested a focus on a comprehensive
mental health delivery system for deaf, hard-of-hearing, or deaf-
blind persons. The commenter noted that the system should include a
broad focus of therapeutic options such as: housing, substance abuse
rehabilitation, case management, mental health therapists fluent in
American Sign Language, and sign language interpreters (for when
signing therapists are unavailable).
Discussion: Applicants who wish to focus on systems of care
issues may do so under questions (4), (5), or (6). The peer review
process will evaluate the merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that psychological testing for
hard-of-hearing and late-deafened individuals currently is not a
problem and does not need attention in the priority.
Discussion: All applicants, including those focusing on
psychological test instruments, will need to define and justify
their target population(s). The literature review will be an
important part of that justification. The peer review process will
evaluate the merits of submitted proposals.
Changes: None.
[[Page 57934]]
Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority focus on
deaf, hard-of-hearing, and deaf-blind populations generally, and
include diversity within that focus (rather than focusing
exclusively on diversity).
Discussion: The focus of this priority is on persons from
diverse racial, ethnic, and linguistic backgrounds. However,
individual applicants may devise their own organizational framework,
including target population. The peer review process will evaluate
the merits of submitted proposals.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested educating clinicians on
communication with deaf-blind individuals.
Discussion: An applicant could pursue this issue under question
(3), covering model communication strategies with deaf, hard-of-
hearing, or deaf-blind individuals who have minimal language skills,
or under questions (4) or (5). The peer review process will evaluate
the merits of the proposals.
Changes: None.
Priority 3--Developing Models To Promote the Use of NIDRR Research
Comment: One commenter suggested that the priority be broadened
to include research projects that were not sponsored by NIDRR.
Discussion: NIDRR understands the value of research sponsored by
other entities, and it may be necessary to look at this research to
fully develop topic areas; however, an emphasis on NIDRR-sponsored
research is preferred.
Changes: The priority has been changed to reflect that NIDRR-
sponsored research is preferred.
Comment: One commenter felt that nondisability-focused research
should be included, such as that pertaining to welfare-to-work
projects, in order to infuse disability research with what has been
learned in that area and to promote the transfer of disability
research to the non-disability field.
Discussion: This comment is broader than the proposed priority
area to develop specific models that could be useful for the
utilization of disability research. Just developing a model that
includes other types of research will not achieve the kind of
outcome this commenter seeks. This might lend itself to a broader
priority in the future.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that bullet number 3 be changed
to add the words ``alternate media'' to ensure that training
materials produced would be ready for use with audiences with
disabilities.
Discussion: NIDRR agrees that NIDRR supported programs should
develop products that are accessible to all individuals, including
alternative formats.
Changes: The priority has been changed to add the word
alternative.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the second unnumbered
bullet be amended to include the words ``rehabilitation researchers
and'' individuals with disabilities.
Discussion: NIDRR wants to ensure that this priority is relevant
to rehabilitation researchers and to individuals with disabilities.
In the original priority, we required participation of individuals
with disabilities.
Changes: The priority has been changed to reflect rehabilitation
researchers, as well as family members.
[FR Doc. 02-23270 Filed 9-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P