Response rates. Table 2 shows the response rates by university, which ranged from 11.7% to 53.6%, with an overall response rate of 25.7%. This yielded 14,886 students who completed the survey.1 Xxxxxxx University 579 133 23.0% Xxxxx University 2,916 542 18.6% Carleton University 4,069 1,017 25.0% Concordia University 5,669 1,250 22.0% Concordia University of Edmonton 396 154 38.9% Dalhousie University 2,329 752 32.3% Lakehead University 917 346 37.7% XxXxxx University 5,396 764 14.2% McMaster University 4,940 675 13.7% Mount Royal University 1,037 379 36.5% Nipissing University 597 231 38.7% Redeemer University College 144 75 52.1% Ryerson University 1,000 205 20.5% Saint Mary's University 894 298 33.3% Xxxxx Xxxxxx University 1,000 499 49.9% The King's University 181 97 53.6% Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx University 623 275 44.1% Trent University 1,437 308 21.4% Trinity Western University 345 124 35.9% Université de Moncton 616 281 45.6% Université de Sherbrooke 2,138 695 32.5% University of King's College 230 84 36.5% University of Lethbridge 1,000 357 35.7% University of Manitoba 4,048 885 21.9% University of New Brunswick (Fredericton) 920 252 27.4% University of New Brunswick (Saint Xxxx) 400 149 37.3% University of Northern British Columbia 347 153 44.1% University of Xxxxxx 1,500 657 43.8% University of Saskatchewan 1,944 553 28.4% University of the Fraser Valley 2,059 241 11.7% University of Victoria 1,000 287 28.7% University of Waterloo 2,000 711 35.6% University of Winnipeg 1,119 353 31.5% Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx University 4,139 1,104 26.7% 1 PRA defined a completed survey as one on which a student answered up to the Living Arrangements section (approximately 80% of the questions).
Response rates. In order for the CHKS data to be representative of the students in your district, minimally meet standards A through C and either standard D or E as listed below.
Response rates. Table 2 shows the response rates by university, which ranged from 17.2% to 63.9%, with an overall response rate of 34.1%. This yielded 18,092 students who completed the survey.1 Acadia University (Nova Scotia) 744 278 37.4% Xxxxxxx University (Alberta) 112 65 58.0% Athabasca University (Alberta) 20 9 45.0% Xxxxxxx University (Manitoba) 561 160 28.5% Xxxxx University (Ontario) 1000 213 21.3% Xxxxxx University (Alberta) 84 36 42.9% Cape Breton University (Nova Scotia) 384 226 58.9% Capilano University (British Columbia) 262 45 17.2% Carleton University (Ontario) 4209 1264 30.0% Concordia University (Quebec) 4482 880 19.6% Concordia University of Edmonton (Alberta) 360 138 38.3% Dalhousie University (Nova Scotia) 2262 767 33.9% Lakehead University (Ontario) 801 394 49.2% MacEwan University (Alberta) 2076 907 43.7% Mount Xxxxxxx University (New Brunswick) 624 187 30.0% Mount Royal University (Alberta) 1329 643 48.4% Mount Saint Xxxxxxx University (Nova Scotia) 296 86 29.1% Nipissing University (Ontario) 444 133 30.0% Redeemer University College (Ontario) 119 76 63.9% Ryerson University (Ontario) 2000 651 32.6% Saint Mary's University (Nova Scotia) 879 262 29.8% Xxxxx Xxxxxx University (British Columbia) 1000 622 62.2% St. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx University (Nova Scotia) 865 255 29.5% St. Mary's University (Alberta) 137 45 32.8% St. Xxxxxx University (New Brunswick) 393 205 52.2% The King's University (Alberta) 188 84 44.7% Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx University (British Columbia) 810 376 46.4% Trent University (Ontario) 1351 376 27.8% Trinity Western University (British Columbia) 343 127 37.0% Xxxxxxxxxx xx Xxxxxxx (Xxx Xxxxxxxxx) 000 000 57.4% University of Calgary (Alberta) 3580 1378 38.5% University of King's College (Nova Scotia) 197 112 56.9% University of Lethbridge (Alberta) 1033 588 56.9% University of Manitoba (Manitoba) 1000 230 23.0% University of New Brunswick (New Brunswick) 1151 426 37.0% University of Northern British Columbia (British Columbia) 405 204 50.4% University of Ottawa (Ontario) 5000 1477 29.5% University of Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Island (Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Island) 725 300 41.4% University of Regina (Saskatchewan) 1500 444 29.6% University of Saskatchewan (Saskatchewan) 1000 313 31.3% University of the Fraser Valley (British Columbia) 743 168 22.6% University of Victoria (British Columbia) 1000 378 37.8% University of Waterloo (Ontario) 2000 905 45.3% University of Winnipeg (Manitoba) 1072 494 46.1% Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx University (Ontario) 3761 748 19.9% For historical com...
Response rates. The total responses received will be dependent upon the participation rate of the students at the School. The School is fully responsible for evaluating whether the sample size is sufficient to provide enough statistical power for any desired analysis planned by the School. SoundRocket assumes no responsibility or liability for any problems associated with the response rate, including, but not limited to, low student participation, bad contact information, failure of email delivery, and/or failure of incentives.
Response rates. Table 2 shows the response rates by university, which ranged from 7.8% to 60.0%, with an overall response rate of 27.2%. This yielded 15,248 students who completed the survey.1 Canadian Mennonite University 233 137 58.8% Capilano University 1,754 165 9.4% Carleton University 10,877 3,350 30.8% Concordia University of Edmonton 573 176 30.7% Dalhousie University 5,569 1,616 29.0% XxXxxx University 8,261 642 7.8% Mount Royal University 4,205 1,264 30.1% Nipissing University 1,000 394 39.4% Redeemer University College 282 156 55.3% Xxxxx Xxxxxx University 1,000 600 60.0% The King's University 259 133 51.4% Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx University 1,000 299 29.9% Trinity Western University 859 288 33.5% Université de Moncton 1,862 637 34.2% University of Lethbridge 1,000 387 38.7% University of New Brunswick (Fredericton) 1,000 331 33.1% University of New Brunswick (Saint Xxxx) 883 290 32.8% University of Regina 3,000 1,065 35.5% University of Saskatchewan 1,500 362 24.1% University of the Fraser Valley 2,069 596 28.8% University of Victoria 1,000 295 29.5% University of Winnipeg 2,644 825 31.2% Vancouver Island University 1,682 452 26.9% Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx University 3,522 788 22.4% Total 56,034 15,248 27.2% 1 PRA defined a completed survey as one on which a student answered up to the Living Arrangements section (approximately 80% of the questions).
Response rates. In order to produce annual health care estimates for calendar year 2016 based on the full MEPS sample data from the MEPS Panel 20 and Panel 21, the two panels are combined. More specifically, full calendar year 2016 data collected in Rounds 3 through 5 for the MEPS Panel 20 sample are pooled with data from the first three rounds of data collection for the MEPS Panel 21 sample (the general approach is described below). As mentioned above, all response rates discussed here are unweighted. To understand the calculation of MEPS response rates, some features related to MEPS data collection should be noted. When an RU is visited for a round of data collection, changes in RU membership are identified. Such changes include the formation of student RUs as well as other new RUs created when RU members from a previous round have moved to another location in the U.S. Thus, the number of RUs eligible for MEPS interviewing in a given round is determined after data collection is fully completed. The ratio of the number of RUs completing the MEPS interview in a given round to the number of RUs characterized as eligible to complete the interview for that round represents the “conditional” response rate for that round expressed as a proportion. It is “conditional” in that it pertains to the set of RUs characterized as eligible for MEPS for that round and thus is “conditioned” on prior participation rather than representing the overall response rate through that round. For example, in Table 3.1, for Panel 21 Round 2 the ratio of 7,319 (Row G) to 7,870 (Row F) multiplied by 100 represents the response rate for the round (93.0 percent when computed), conditioned on the set of RUs characterized as eligible for MEPS for that round. Taking the product of the percentage of the NHIS sample eligible for MEPS (Row
A) with the product of the ratios for a consecutive set of MEPS rounds beginning with Round 1 produces the overall response rate through the last MEPS round specified. The overall unweighted response rate for the combined sample of Panel 20 and Panel 21 for 2016 was obtained by computing the products of the relative sample sizes and the corresponding overall panel response rates and then summing the two products. Panel 21 represents about 49.0 percent of the combined sample size while Panel 20 represents the remaining 51.0 percent. Thus, the combined response rate of 46.0 percent was computed as 0.510 times 45.7, the overall Panel 20 response rate through Round 5 plus 0.490...
Response rates. The NCSC report summarizes response rates.17 Briefly, case data forms were returned in 358 of the 401 cases, an 89 percent response rate. Judges com- pleted 366 (91 percent response rate) questionnaires. Although confiden- tiality precludes us from linking the data in a particular case to an individual judge, we are confident that a substantial number of judges are represented in the sample. For example, in Maricopa County, 29 judges sat in the crim- inal division in fiscal year 2000–2001.18 There were 576 total attorney questionnaires (either defense or pros- ecution) completed in 351 cases. At least one attorney responded in 88 percent of the cases and the prosecutor and defense counsel both responded in 64 percent of the cases. At least one defense attorney completed a form in 278 cases (69 percent response rate) and at least one prosecuting attor- ney in 287 cases (72 percent response rate). Overall, 3,626 jurors returned their questionnaires. The response rate for jurors across all sites, with con- sideration for jury size, was 80 percent. For the 12-person juries in Los Angeles, Maricopa, the Bronx, and DC, the average response rate was 11, 10, 8, and 10 jurors, respectively. For the eight-person juries in Maricopa,19 an average of seven jurors responded. The case data form surveys asked factual information about the criminal charges filed and the jury’s decision,20 17Id. at 32. 18Email from Judge X. X. Xxxxxxxx to Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Jan. 26, 2004. See also note 61 infra. 19In California, New York, and DC, felony cases are tried to a 12-person jury. Arizona law pro- vides for eight-person juries in felony trials unless the penalty for the defendant includes death or a potential sentence of 30 years or more, in which case the number of jurors is 12. In Maricopa County, there were 30 cases with 12-member juries. Sixty-nine juries had eight members. In addition, there were six cases with so little information that jury size could not be determined. 20If this key information was missing from the questionnaires, NCSC made follow-up inquiries with the courts. Thirty-one cases without a case data form were salvaged through direct com- munication with the courts to obtain the key information about the case. The courts were unable to recover this missing information in 12 cases, which were not included in the final and led to 382 usable cases. The number of questionnaires included in the final usable database varied slightly for each site and are summarized ...
Response rates. Seller shall provide to ESI response rates greater than those set forth in Schedule [A] for automatic generation control, when the relevant control systems are technically sufficient for such faster response rates, consistent with Accepted Electrical Practices.]
Response rates. Response rates of the various sectors were more than adequate to arrive at valid conclusions.
Response rates. The Contractor will aim to increase the unadjusted response rate – the response rate without adjusting for ineligible addresses – to 65% in the 2010 survey (an increase of two percentage points on the 2008 survey) and will look to improve response rates further in 2011 and 2012 as fieldwork materials and interviewers’ approaches are refined. Table 3 below summarises the proposed sample design and the assumptions behind response rates. The design will be reviewed each year, to take into account any unexpected changes in response rates, rates of non-eligibles, and so on. Exclusions and opt-outs 936 8 Non-contacts 1698 16 Refusals 1910 18 Ineligible 220 2 To maximise response rates, the Contractor will put in place extensive measures to optimise response, addressing particular areas of potential non-response bias (for example more deprived families) including: a comprehensive review of all the materials used in the survey; a review of interviewer contact strategies to encourage people to participate and to maximise the opportunities to make contact at sampled addresses; interviewers will make a minimum of six attempts at each address, on different days and at different times of day. Although a minimum is specified, in practice interviewers will continue to make calls at an address while they are still working in the area and will leave calling cards with their name and telephone contact details. ensuring a minimum period of three weeks between first and last calls to an address – at different times of day and days of the week, including evenings and weekends; monitoring the sample daily (including response rates, sample outcome and number of leads remaining) using a Sample Management System developed specifically for the purpose of the survey; providing a dedicated telephone helpline and e-mail address at the Contractor to answer any initial concerns about the study; re-contacting soft refusals – e.g. those who could not take part because they were too busy at the time; using the most experienced interviewers, who have particular experience in targeting parents; providing a multi-ethnic field-force who can conduct interviews in the main additional languages in the country. Reflecting the approach taken on other large-scale government surveys, the Contractor will use household interpreters where a foreign language interviewer is not available. The Contractor will monitor response rates continually rather than waiting for the end of assignments or fieldwork per...
