R-10 Survey of ATP Applicants 2002: Methodology and Respondent Characteristics

This information sheet summarizes the methodology for the Survey of ATP Applicants 2002. Information is presented on survey development, data collection procedures, survey response rates, and characteristics of respondents. The 2002 survey provides a valuable update on similar data that was collected in the Survey of ATP Applicants 2000.

Survey Development

The survey used a mixed-mode methodology that included web and mail surveys, followed up by telephone interviews with companies that did not respond by web or mail.1 ATP and Westat staff collaborated in developing the survey. Virtually all companies applying for funding in the year 2002 award competition were included in the survey. A limited number of applicants were considered ineligible (e.g., companies that submitted incomplete proposals, companies that withdrew from awarded projects, and those whose funding awards were delayed until May 2004). Altogether, 891 applicants were eligible to respond to the survey, including 144 companies that were selected for an ATP award and 747 companies that were not selected for funding. The number of company applicants exceeds the number of project proposals submitted to ATP (826) because some ATP projects are joint ventures.

Proposals for the 2002 competition were accepted in three batches (June, August, and September). Proposals that did not meet the criteria for funding in the first two batches could be resubmitted in a later batch. In addition, some applicants submitted proposals for more than one project. Since we did not want to burden applicants by asking them to respond for multiple proposals, we developed the following rules for these situations:

• Awardees submitting more than one proposal (either due to resubmission or multiple projects) were asked to respond to the survey questions based on the proposal awarded funding.
• Nonawardees who submitted a proposal in more than one batch were asked to respond based on their most recent proposal.
• Nonawardees who submitted proposals for more than one project were asked to respond based on one proposal that was randomly selected.

Data Collection

Data collection was carried out from January 2004 through July 2004. Following standard survey procedures, multiple contact attempts were made in order to maximize survey response rates. Advance letters describing the purpose of the survey were mailed to company contact persons who were responsible for the 2002 ATP project proposal. For the web survey, emails containing a link to the survey web site and unique login credentials were sent about 1 week after the advance letter. Additional emails were sent to nonresponding applicants about 1 and 3 weeks after the initial email. For the mail survey, questionnaires were mailed about 1 week after the advance letter, with a second mailing of the questionnaire to nonresponding applicants 3 weeks after the initial questionnaire mailing. For both modes, Westat eventually tried to contact nonresponding applicants by telephone to collect the survey data.

Survey Response Rates

Of 891 applicants eligible to respond, a total of 587 responses were received for an overall response rate of 66%. Among the 144 ATP awardees invited to respond, 129 responses were received (117 by web, 12 by phone interview), yielding a response rate of 90%. Of the 747 nonawardees, 458 responses were received (195 by web, 64 by mail, and 199 by phone interview), yielding a response rate of 61%. Figure 1 shows the number of eligible sample applicants and the number of survey respondents.

Figure 1 - Number of ATP Applicants: Eligible Sample and Survey Respondents

Response Rate Comparisons

If companies that responded to the survey differed in some way from those that did not respond, these differences might create misleading survey results. To evaluate the possibility of nonresponse bias, response rates were compared for applicants in terms of the following characteristics:

• Single company versus Joint Venture
• Company size (small, medium, large)
• Technology area (materials/chemistry, biotechnology, electronics, information technology)

These comparisons showed only small differences in response rates, suggesting little or no nonresponse bias in survey results related to the above characteristics.

Characteristics of Survey Respondents: Single Company versus Joint Venture

Figure 2 shows the distribution of survey respondents, for Awardees and Nonawardees, by Single Company versus Joint Venture applicant.

• Among Awardees, almost two-thirds were Single Company applicants and just over one-third were Joint Venture applicants. This distribution is fairly similar to Awardee respondents in the Survey of ATP Applicants 2000.
• Among Nonawardees, 9 out of 10 are Single Company applicants and only 1 in 10 is a Joint Venture applicant. For the year 2000 survey, Single Company applicants made up about three-quarters of the Nonawardee respondents.

Figure 2 - Distribution of Survey Respondents: Single Company versus Joint Venture Applicants

Characteristics of Survey Respondents: Company Size

Figure 3 shows the distribution of survey respondents, for Awardees and Nonawardees, by company size of applicant.

• 3 out of 4 Awardees are Small Company applicants and 1 in 4 is a Medium or Large Company applicant. This distribution is fairly similar to the Awardees in the year 2000 survey.
• 9 out of 10 Nonawardees are Small Company applicants, and 1 in 10 is a Medium or Large Company applicant. This distribution is fairly similar to the Nonawardees in the year 2000 survey.

Figure 3 - Distribution of Survey Respondents: Applicants by Company Size

Characteristics of Survey Respondents: ATP Technology Area

Figure 4 shows the distribution of survey respondents, for Awardees and Nonawardees, by technology area of applicant.

• About one-third of Awardees (43 companies) were in Electronics, one-third (41 companies) in Information Technology, one-fifth (27 companies) in Materials and Chemistry, and one-tenth (18 companies) in Biotechnology. The percentage of Awardee respondents in Information Technology is greater than it was for the year 2000 survey (12%), The percentage of Awardees in Materials and Chemistry is lower than it was for 2000 (34%).
• Among Nonawardees, one-third (136 companies) were in Materials and Chemistry, one-quarter (110 companies) in Electronics, one-quarter (110 companies) in Information Technology, and just under one-quarter (102 companies) in Biotechnology. The percentage of Nonawardee respondents in Information Technology is greater than it was for the Survey of ATP Applicants 2000.

Figure 4 - Distribution of Survey Respondents: Applicants by Technology Area

Companies seeking to partner with the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) submit proposals to the ATP. Proposals must be for the development of innovative technologies that could not obtain private funding due to the high technical risk and that have the potential to produce widespread benefits to the economy and society. Proposals are evaluated for technical and economic merit in a rigorous competitive review process.

Return to Table of Contents.

Date created: July 24, 2005
Last updated: August 11, 2005

ATP website comments: webmaster-atp@nist.gov  / Technical ATP inquiries: InfoCoord.ATP@nist.gov.

NIST is an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department
Privacy policy / Security Notice / Accessibility Statement / Disclaimer / Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) /
No Fear Act Policy / NIST Information Quallity Standards / ExpectMore.gov (performance of federal programs)