Alternative Supporting Statement for Information Collections Designed for
Research, Public Health Surveillance, and Program Evaluation Purposes
Supporting and Strengthening the Home Visiting Workforce (SAS-HV): Testing and Validation of a Draft Measure of Reflective Supervision for Home Visiting
Pre-testing of Evaluation Data Collection Activities
0970 – 0355
Supporting Statement
Part A
January 2024
Submitted By:
Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation
Administration for Children and Families
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
4th Floor, Mary E. Switzer Building
330 C Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20201
Project Officers:
Nicole Denmark
Shirley Adelstein
Part A
Executive Summary
Type of Request: This Information Collection Request is for a generic information collection under the umbrella generic, Pre-testing of Evaluation Data Collection Activities (0970-0355).
Progress to Date: A concept mapping study design with home visiting practitioners and researchers was conducted to inform the development of a measure of reflective supervision for home visiting. The data collected from a survey and group interpretation meeting identified what end users of the measure view as key elements of reflective supervision in the home visiting context. The Study Team used these results to assemble a pool of items and conduct a preliminary pretest in the previous information collection. These previous data collection activities were approved through two different requests under this umbrella generic for pretesting activities (approvals received 8/19/2022 and 6/12/2023, respectively).
Description of Request: This is a request to conduct a mixed methods testing and validation study of the current draft of the reflective supervision measure. The data collected from this study will help assess the extent to which the measure is valid and reliable for use in home visiting contexts. The Study Team will conduct qualitative focus groups with a racially and ethnically diverse group of up to 45 home visiting supervisors to explore the measure’s relevance across subgroups. The Study Team will also recruit a developmental sample of approximately 500 home visiting supervisors to complete the measure, using the results to assess item performance, factor structure, internal consistency, validity, and reliability. A repeated measures subsample of approximately 40 home visiting supervisors will provide quantitative data for examining variability in scores on the measure across sessions and supervisees. Up to 120 home visitors who are supervised by participants in the repeated measures subsample will complete a one-time package of related measures that will allow us to examine associations between supervisor and supervisee reports of reflective supervision as part of our measure validation efforts. A subsample of approximately 15 supervisors from the repeated measures subsample will also be invited to participate in qualitative follow-up focus groups to review and interpret the results. Results of this phase will be used to refine the measure of reflective supervision for dissemination.
We do not intend for this information to be used as the principal basis for public policy decisions.
A1. Necessity for Collection
The Maternal Infant Early Childhood Home Visiting (MIECHV) legislation mandates federally funded home visiting programs maintain high-quality supervision practices, and reflective supervision is endorsed in the most recent MIECHV formula funding guidance. This refers to reflective supervision for home visitors to support their work with families. Reflective supervision is a specific type of professional development that is intended to help home visitors (1) develop knowledge, skills, and key competencies to carry out their roles and (2) support and help restore home visitor professional well-being.1 Despite strong theoretical support for reflective supervision, there is limited understanding of how it is implemented in practice and limited evidence of effectiveness. This is due, in part, to a lack of valid, reliable measures of reflective supervision. Valid, reliable measures of reflective supervision are important for advancing research on the role of reflective supervision in supporting home visitors’ work with families.
The purpose of the Supporting and Strengthening the Home Visiting Workforce (SAS-HV) project is to advance understanding of how to support and strengthen the early childhood home visiting workforce. A prior phase of the SAS-HV project developed a conceptual model of reflective supervision and reviewed current research, measures, and practice to identify gaps in knowledge. A second phase of the project elicited key elements of reflective supervision from practitioners and researchers using a concept mapping study design2. Results from the most recent phase, a preliminary pretest of the reflective supervision measure, were used to further refine the measure3. This current phase will address key measurement questions related to the measure’s reliability and validity in home visiting contexts and populations. This collection is a necessary step to develop a measure of reflective supervision for home visiting that will be primarily used for research and informed by practitioner experience and perspectives, with promising secondary use for practice.
There are no legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is undertaking the collection at the discretion of the agency.
A2. Purpose
Purpose and Use
The purpose of this information collection is to conduct a larger-scale testing and validation study of the reflective supervision measure. In the current phase of the measure development process, the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) is seeking approval to conduct focus groups to explore the measure’s relevance across diverse groups of home visiting supervisors and to then field a larger-scale test of the measure with a developmental sample4. Secondary investigations using subsamples from the developmental sample will quantitatively investigate variability when used as a repeated measure and quantitatively explore associations between supervisor and supervisee reports. These results will be shared and interpreted with a subsample of supervisors in virtual focus groups. Our process for recruiting potential participants using multiple strategies will help ensure participants reflect the characteristics of potential end users of the measure.
This proposed information collection meets the primary goal of ACF’s generic clearance for pre-testing (0970-0355): to develop and test information collection instruments and procedures.
The information collected is meant to contribute to the body of knowledge on ACF programs. It is not intended to be used as the principal basis for a decision by a federal decision-maker and is not expected to meet the threshold of influential or highly influential scientific information.
Research Questions
We plan to seek input from a broad, diverse array of home visiting supervisors to guide further measure refinement. The research questions we are seeking to address, according to each study sample, are as follows:
Focus group discussions with home visiting supervisors (N=45) exploring the measure’s relevance across different racial and ethnic subgroups:
How, if at all, do home visiting supervisors feel their racial and ethnic identity influences reflective supervision practices?
What are perceptions of the utility and relevance of the measure among home visiting supervisors that identify as Black, Hispanic/Latine, or American Indian and Alaska Native?
Surveys including the reflective supervision measure with a developmental sample of home visiting supervisors (N=500):
How do items perform in a sample of home visiting supervisors?
Is the measure’s dimensionality/factor structure the same across two independent samples of home visiting supervisors?
Do the items for each dimension(s) demonstrate a sufficient level of internal consistency reliability?
Does the measure demonstrate evidence of concurrent and convergent validity?
Repeated measures surveys with a subsample of supervisors from the quantitative developmental sample (N=40) and a one-time survey with their supervisees (N =120):
To what extent does the measure capture within-supervisor variability in the use of specific supervisory practices? What are the sources of variability?
Do supervisor reports using the reflective supervision measure predict supervisee reports of the nature and quality of their supervision?
Focus groups with a subsample (N=15, 3 focus groups) of supervisors from the repeated measures sample to review and interpret results:
What are supervisors’ experiences and perspectives on completing the measure at multiple time points (i.e. length, feasibility)?
What do the results suggest about reflective supervision practices, from the perspectives of supervisors and supervisees?
Do home visiting supervisors believe the results accurately capture the nature of their reflective supervision sessions?
What are the implications and next steps for the measure?
Study Design
The previous phases of the work have resulted in a draft measure of reflective supervision that is ready for larger scale testing and validation. This testing and validation study utilizes six data collection activities.. Table 1 provides a summary overview of these activities.
Participant and Contextual Characteristics Questionnaire: Items will ask about respondents race, ethnicity, primary language, years of experience with home visiting supervision, experience providing reflective supervision, location of the home visiting program in which they work, number of families served by the home visiting program, race and ethnicity of families served, primary language of families served, whether they work in a tribal home visiting program, and program model(s) implemented. This questionnaire was developed and used in the prior phase small pretest (see Instrument 1). Collecting demographic information is necessary to ensure that participants from certain populations and participants that work with certain populations, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved and marginalized, are included in study activities. The study team will use these results to identify participants to recruit for the focus groups.
Focus Group Protocol for Exploring Relevance Among Racial and Ethnic Subgroups: The semi-structured focus group guide will include questions related to a) if supervisors feel their racial or ethnic identity influences reflective supervision practices, b) the relative importance of items included in the measure in relation to the racial/ethnic identity of supervisors, c) perspectives on whether the language and terms used in the measure are relevant across racial and ethnic subgroups and d) if items capture racially or ethnically salient practices and techniques in relation to reflective supervision (see Instrument 2).
Surveys for Testing and Validation of Reflective Supervision Measure with Developmental Sample: This web-based survey will include four questionnaires administered electronically via Qualtrics.
Participant and Contextual Characteristics Questionnaire: See description above and Instrument 1.
Reflective Supervision Measure: The intended purpose of the measure is to document the use of reflective supervision practices in a single session as self-reported by the supervisor. Some items may also assess the supervisor’s overall perspectives of the session, such as whether the session was “typical” or unusual in any way. This developmental test will use the refined measure produced in the prior phase and may contain up to 60 items (see Instrument 3).
Participant Perspectives of the Reflective Supervision Measure: Items assess participant perspectives of the reflective supervision measure. Participants complete the 10-item measure immediately after finishing the reflective supervision measure. Item topics include ease of completing, clarity of instructions, whether these are good questions to ask, whether the length of the measure is just about right, and whether the questions seemed redundant. This questionnaire was developed and used in the prior phase small pretest (see Instrument 4).
Measures to Examine Convergent and Concurrent Validity: The Study Team selected measures of concurrent and convergent validity by reviewing relevant literature and soliciting recommendations from a subset of Technical Workgroup (TWG) members. Three scales from published literature were selected and include a total of 68 items (see Instrument 5).
Supervisor Survey for Repeated Measures Subsample: For the repeated measures data collection, supervisor participants will complete the reflective supervision measure as well as a brief questionnaire about the nature of the specific supervision sessions on which they are reporting and the home visitors they supervise in those sessions. For example, the questionnaire asks if the supervision session was a typical or atypical session, how long they have been supervising the home visitor participating in the session, and the race and ethnicity of the home visitor participating in the session (see Instrument 6).
Home Visitor Survey for Supervisees of Repeated Measures Supervisors: These supervisees will complete a one-time package of questionnaires assessing the nature of their supervision sessions, the quality of the supervisory relationship, and techniques or practices used in reflective supervision sessions. Supervisees will also be asked questions about themselves (primary language, race, ethnicity) and their experience as a home visitor (see Instrument 7).
Focus Groups for Results Review and Interpretation: Focus groups will include a review of selected results from the developmental, supervisor repeated measures, and home visitor supervisee samples and discussion of a) perspectives on item coverage, length of measure, burden, and usefulness, b) the extent to which the measure reflects supervisory practice, d) concordance between supervisor and supervisee perspectives, and c) implications and next steps. (see Instrument 8).
Table 1. Data Collection Activities
Other Data Sources and Uses of Information
Prior project work informed the development of a list of reflective supervision elements that were used in concept mapping activities5. An item pool was subsequently developed from the concept mapping, a review of literature and existing measures, and cross-walk with home visiting model guidelines and MIECHV and Tribal MIECHV program guidance. The Study Team then pretested the measure by surveying a small sample of home visiting supervisors and used these results to revise the measure6. For the current phase, the Study Team is now preparing to conduct a larger pretest and validation study to produce a revised measure and instruction guide for dissemination.
A3. Use of Information Technology to Reduce Burden
Participants will be recruited via existing workgroups and announcements sent through the Home Visiting Applied Research Collaborative listserv, an email list management software, and through existing email communications channels (i.e. from state awardees or model leads to local program supervisors). Optional webinars for the developmental sample recruitment and the repeated measures subsample will be conducted to introduce and describe the study and answer questions from potential participants. Surveys will be completed using a secure web platform (Qualtrics) and all focus groups will be conducted virtually (Zoom/WebEx) to reduce participant burden.
A4. Use of Existing Data: Efforts to reduce duplication, minimize burden, and increase utility and government efficiency
Information to achieve the purposes stated in A.2 does not exist for the field of home visiting. There currently is no information available to evaluate the current item pool measuring the key elements of reflective supervision. This pretesting data is needed to develop a relevant, feasible, acceptable, culturally responsive, and useful measure for home visiting.
A5. Impact on Small Businesses
The focus groups and web-based surveys will include individual staff at state and territory local implementing agencies (LIAs) and Tribal Home Visiting programs, which may be small businesses. The requested information is the absolute minimum necessary for the intended use of the data. The Study Team will minimize the burden on individuals by keeping each data collection activity as brief as possible and by conducting focus groups virtually.
A6. Consequences of Less Frequent Collection
This is a one-time data collection for the participants in the focus groups exploring the measure’s relevance among racial and ethnic subgroups. This is also a one-time data collection for the testing and validation survey for the developmental sample. The subsamples invited to participate in a subsequent focus group will participate in two data collections, one quantitative and one qualitative. Similarly, the repeated measures subgroup participants will complete up to nine data collections total. The qualitative and repeated measures subsamples are necessary to address the study questions.
A7. Now subsumed under 2(b) above and 10 (below)
A8. Consultation
The Study Team consulted with a small group of research and evaluation experts, home visitors, and those who support home visitors (program managers and supervisors) on the initial list of reflective supervision elements7. This consultation helped refine and reduce the list of elements that were used to develop the item list used in these pretesting activities, thus reducing burden to study participants.
Practitioner workgroup members include:
Heather Smith
Tiara Smith
Stephanie Massey
Carri Chischilly
Sierra Guches
Lindsey Hackney
Kehaulani Fernandez
Sanquinita Martin
Amanda Ray
Technical workgroup members include:
Sherryl Scott Heller
Jon Korfmacher
Dawn Nixon
David Schultz
Angela Tomlin
Edward Watkins
Maria Elena Oliveri
A9. Tokens of Appreciation
Honoraria will be provided for participants to share their expertise and experiences in the area of home visiting. See section A13 for additional information.
A10. Privacy: Procedures to protect privacy of information, while maximizing data sharing
Personally Identifiable Information
For the purposes of study recruitment, we will collect participant name, physical location they work in, telephone number, and email. For enrolled participants we will retain records of participant name, physical location, and email. The study team will not maintain information in a paper or electronic system that retrieves data by using an individual’s personally identifiable information (PII) in the way that could trigger the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a).
Assurances of Privacy
Information collected will be kept private to the extent permitted by law. Respondents will be informed of all planned uses of data, that their participation is voluntary, and that their information will be kept private to the extent permitted by law. As specified in the contract, the Contractor will comply with all Federal and Departmental regulations for private information.
As specified in the contract for this project, the Study Team will protect respondent privacy to the extent permitted by law and will comply with all Federal and Departmental regulations for private information. The Study Team will ensure that all its employees, subcontractors (at all tiers), and employees of each subcontractor, who perform work under this contract/subcontract, are trained on data privacy issues and comply with the above requirements.
Data Security and Monitoring
The Study Team has developed a Data Security Plan that assesses all protections of respondents’ personally identifiable information. The Study Team will ensure that all its employees, subcontractors (at all tiers), and employees of each subcontractor, who perform work under this contract/subcontract, are trained on data privacy issues and comply with the above requirements.
As specified in the evaluator’s contract, the Study Team will use Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) compliant encryption ((FIPS 140-3 Security Requirements for Cryptographic Module, as amended) to protect all instances of sensitive information during storage and transmission. The Study Team will securely generate and manage encryption keys to prevent unauthorized decryption of information, in accordance with the Federal Processing Standard. The Study Team will: ensure that this standard is incorporated into the Study Team’s property management/control system; establish a procedure to account for all laptop computers, desktop computers, and other mobile devices and portable media that store or process sensitive information. Any data stored electronically will be secured in accordance with the most current National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) requirements and other applicable Federal and Departmental regulations.
A11. Sensitive Information 8
In support of OPRE’s commitment to incorporating racially equitable approaches into research9 and the Executive Order Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (January 21, 2021), the project needs to collect race, ethnicity, and language data. Instrument 1 (Participant and Contextual Characteristics Questionnaire) and Instrument 7 asks respondents to provide this information about themselves and the families they work with. We will use this information to ensure that participants from certain populations and participants that work with certain populations, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved and marginalized, are included in study activities.
Some questions in Instrument 2 are potentially sensitive for respondents. For example, respondents are asked whether their racial and ethnic identity influences their reflective supervision practices and perceptions of the measure. For respondents who have experienced discrimination based on some aspect of their identity, these questions may cause psychological discomfort and distress. To minimize this risk, every effort will be made to establish a supportive and respectful relationship with respondents, and respondents will be informed of the sensitive questions during consent process and reminded that they are free to refrain from answering questions or excuse themselves from participating at any time. These questions are being asked to better understand how race and ethnicity may impact delivery of reflective supervision and subsequently the relevance of the reflective supervision measure.
There are no other sensitive questions in this data collection.
A12. Burden
Explanation of Burden Estimates
Participant and contextual characteristics questionnaire to recruit focus group participants. We anticipate up to 120 participants will complete a questionnaire to express interest in participating in a focus group. It will take approximately 5 minutes to complete the questionnaire.
Focus groups for exploring relevance among racial and ethnic subgroups: We anticipate that up to 45 participants will participate in these focus groups (approximately nine focus groups, 5 participants in each). The focus groups will last one hour. We do not anticipate variance in response time by respondent type.
Web-based survey with developmental sample: Up to 500 participants will be asked to complete the testing and validation activities, which includes completing the participant characteristics questions, reflective supervision measure, feedback questions, and convergent and concurrent measures for validity. The survey will take about 60 minutes to complete. We do not anticipate variance in response time by respondent type.
Supervisor surveys with repeated measures subsample: We plan to recruit 40 supervisor participants to complete the reflective supervision measure and brief session questionnaire. Each participant will complete this protocol three times each for up to 3 supervisees (9 data collections total). Time estimates are 30 minutes for each, for a total of 4.5 hours. We do not anticipate variance in response time by respondent type, although we do predict that time to complete each survey will go down as participants become familiar with the questions.
Home visitor survey for supervisees of repeated measures supervisors: Up to 120 home visitors who are supervised by participants in the repeated measures subsample will complete a one-time package of related measures about the nature and quality of their reflective supervision and a brief characteristics questionnaire Each participant will complete this survey one time. Time estimate is 30 minutes.
Focus groups with a subsample of supervisors completing the repeated measures: We anticipate that up to 15 individuals will participate in one of three focus groups (up to 5 participants in each group). The focus groups will each last one hour. We do not anticipate variance in response time by respondent type.
Estimated Annualized Cost to Respondents
The estimated total annual cost to respondents is approximately $30,187.85 (see burden table below). This cost to respondents is based on the average wage of social and community services managers (occupation code 11-9151) and the average wage for community and social service specialists (occupation code 21-1099). Estimates come from the 2022 Bureau of Labor Statistics report on Wage Estimates (retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm).
Instrument |
No. of Respondents (total over request period) |
No. of Responses per Respondent (total over request period) |
Avg. Burden per Response (in hours) |
Total/ Annual Burden (in hours) |
Average Hourly Wage Rate |
Total Annual Respondent Cost |
Participant and Contextual Characteristics Questionnaire |
120 |
1 |
0.08 |
9.6 |
$38.13 |
$366.05 |
Focus groups for exploring relevance among racial and ethnic subgroups |
45 |
1 |
1 |
45 |
$38.13 |
$1,715.85 |
Web-based pilot testing of reflective supervision measure |
500 |
1 |
1 |
500 |
$38.13 |
$19,065.00 |
Repeated measures supervisor subsample |
40 |
9 |
0.5 |
180 |
$38.13 |
$6,863.40 |
Home visitor survey (for supervisees of repeated measures supervisors) |
120 |
1 |
0.5 |
60 |
$26.76 |
$1,605.60 |
Focus groups with qualitative subsample |
15 |
1 |
1 |
15 |
$38.13 |
$571.95 |
Total |
785 |
1 - 9 |
|
809.6 |
|
A13. Costs
The Study Team proposes providing honoraria in the form of gift cards according to the time spent providing expert guidance given their professional expertise in reflective supervision.
Activity |
Respondents |
Time Providing Guidance |
Honoraria Amount |
Web-based pilot testing surveys |
Home visiting supervisors |
1 hour |
$35 |
Focus groups |
Home visiting supervisors |
1 hour |
$45 |
Repeated measures surveys |
Home visiting supervisors |
30 minutes each administration (up to 4.5 hours total) |
$20 for first administration, $35 for second administration, $50 for third (final) administration |
Supervisee surveys |
Home visitors (supervisees of repeated measures respondents) |
30 minutes |
$35 |
The Presidential Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policy Making10, as well as the ACF Evaluation Policy11 discuss community engagement and inclusion in research. Consistent with these guidance documents, and to ensure involvement from a variety of people with diverse professional experiences in the home visiting field, we plan to offer all participants an honorarium. The honorarium is intended to offset costs of providing expert guidance on the reflective supervision measure, such as staff time away from other necessary work, or other expenses that might otherwise prevent individuals from participating in the study. In some instances, Federal data collections have found that providing honorarium to respondents increases response rates or reduces nonresponse bias. Previous research also indicates that providing an honorarium improves response rates and decreases nonresponse bias, especially from minority respondents.12 Prior research within home visiting has found that the honorarium amount proposed for this study results in higher response rates.13 We used the average hourly rate above ($38) as our rationale for determining gift card amounts.
A14. Estimated Annualized Costs to the Federal Government
The estimated annualized costs are based upon full-time equivalent time, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and staff support), and other expenses which would not have been incurred without this collection of information.
Activity |
Estimated Cost |
Survey administration and monitoring |
$125,000.00 |
Focus group recruitment and administration |
$50,000.00 |
Analysis |
$125,000.00 |
Dissemination |
$25,000.00 |
Total/Annual costs over the request period |
$325,000.00 |
A15. Reasons for changes in burden
This is for an individual information collection under the umbrella clearance for pre-testing (0970-0355).
A16. Timeline
Data collection activities will occur within an 18-month period after OMB approval. Data analysis will occur immediately after each data collection activity.
A17. Exceptions
No exceptions are necessary for this information collection.
Appendices: Recruitment Materials
Appendix A: Recruitment Announcement for Focus Groups to Explore Relevance of Reflective Supervision Measure Across Subgroups
Appendix B: Confirmation and Preparation Participant Email for Focus Groups to Explore Relevance of Reflective Supervision Measure Across Subgroups
Appendix C: Recruitment Email for Web-based Developmental Test of Reflective Supervision Measure
Appendix D: Recruitment Email for Supervisors for the Repeated Measures Subsample
Appendix E: Recruitment Email for Home Visitor Survey (for Supervisees of Repeated Measures Supervisors)
Appendix F: Recruitment Email for Focus Groups with Repeated Measures Supervisors
Appendix G: Confirmation and Preparation Email for Focus Groups with Repeated Measures Supervisors
Appendix H: Study FAQs
Attachments: Study Instruments
Instrument 1: Participant and Contextual Characteristics Questionnaire
Instrument 2: Focus Group Protocol Exploring Relevance Among Racial and Ethnic Subgroups
Instrument 3: Reflective Supervision Measure
Instrument 4: Participant Perspectives of the Reflective Supervision Measure
Instrument 5: Measures to Examine Convergent and Concurrent Validity
Instrument 6: Supervisor Survey for Repeated Administration of the Reflective Supervision Measure
Instrument 7: Home Visitor Survey (for Supervisees of Repeated Measures Supervisors)
Instrument 8: Focus Group Protocol for Repeated Measures Supervisor Subsample
1 West, A., & Madariaga, P. (2022). Reflective supervision: A planning tool for home visiting supervisors (OPRE Report No. 2022-138). Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation; Administration for Children and Families; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
2 Information collection activities were approved by OMB under OMB #0970-0355 on August 19, 2022, with the title Supporting and Strengthening the Home Visiting Workforce (SAS-HV).
3 Information collection activities were approved by OMB under OMB #0970-0355 on June 12, 2023, with the title Supporting and Strengthening the Home Visiting Workforce (SAS-HV): Online Pretest of Draft Reflective Supervision Measure.
4 In measure development, a larger sample of participants recruited to complete a draft instrument for reliability and validity is called a developmental or development sample. See DeVellis, R.F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications. 4th Edition. Los Angeles: Sage.
5 Information collection activities were approved by OMB under OMB #0970-0355 on August 19, 2022, with the title Supporting and Strengthening the Home Visiting Workforce (SAS-HV).
6 Information collection activities were approved by OMB under OMB #0970-0355 on June 12, 2023, with the title Supporting and Strengthening the Home Visiting Workforce (SAS-HV): Online Pretest of Draft Reflective Supervision Measure.
7 Since input was collected from fewer than ten individuals and different questions were asked of practitioner workgroup members and technical workgroup members, these activities were not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
8 Examples of sensitive topics include (but not limited to): social security number; sex behavior and attitudes; illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and demeaning behavior; critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close relationships, e.g., family, pupil-teacher, employee-supervisor; mental and psychological problems potentially embarrassing to respondents; religion and indicators of religion; community activities which indicate political affiliation and attitudes; legally recognized privileged and analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians and ministers; records describing how an individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment; receipt of economic assistance from the government (e.g., unemployment or WIC or SNAP); immigration/citizenship status.
9 OPRE's Commitment to Incorporating Racially Equitable Approaches into its Research, Evaluation, Evaluation Technical Assistance, and Related Data Practices | The Administration for Children and Families (hhs.gov)
10 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/memorandum-on-restoring-trust-in-government-through-scientific-integrity-and-evidence-based-policymaking/
11 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/report/acf-evaluation-policy
12 Singer, E., & Ye, C. (2013). The Use and Effects of Incentives in Surveys. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645(1), 112–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212458082
13 Geyelin Margie, N. & Nerenberg, L. (2019). MIHOPE incentive experiment results: 15-month follow-up. Memo submitted to Josh Brammer and Margo Schwab, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB). https://omb.report/icr/201907-0970-010/doc/93761901.pdf
| File Type | application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document |
| Author | Mariel Sparr |
| File Modified | 0000-00-00 |
| File Created | 2024-10-31 |