NIST Advanced Technology Program
Return to ATP Home Page
ATP Historical Award Statistics Business Reporting System Surveys EAO Economic Studies and Survey Results ATP Factsheets ATP Completed Projects Status Reports EAO Home Page

NIST GCR 02-829
Universities as Research Partners

Appendix A:
Additional Results Supporting Findings in the Study

Table A1: Determinants of the Probability of Early Termination: Probit Estimates Dependent Variable = 1, Project Were Terminated Early

Variable
(1)
Coefficient (s.e.)
(2)
Coefficient (s.e.)
(3)
Coefficient (s.e.)
D (university involvement)
-0.434
(0.258) *
-0.537
(0.269) **
-0.478
(0.249) *
ATP share of funding
-1.783
(0.943) *
-1.472
(0.957)
-1.374
(0.899)
Time trend
-0.112
(0.082)
-0.112
(0.084)
-0.079
(0.075)
Small lead participant
-0.716
(0.317) **
-0.818
(0.326) **
-0.914
(0.302)
Large lead participant
-0.929
(0.348) ***
-0.943
(0.351)***
-0.848
(0.355)
Non-profit lead participant
-0.401
(0.466)
-0.337
(0.467)
-0.516
(0.419) **
Chi-square for 3 size variables (probability)
8.47
(0.037) **
9.47
(0.024) **
10.50
(0.015) ***
Information technology
0.025
(0.338)
-0.074
(0.347)
 
 
Electronics
-0.488
(0.465)
-0.478
(0.389)
 
 
Biotechnology
-0.533
(0.455)
-0.510
(0.569)
 
 
Chemicals, energy, and environment
-0.039
(0.387)
-0.022
(0.457)
 
 
Chi-square for 4 technical variables (probability)
2.90
(0.575)
2.16
(0.675)
 
 
Intercept
0.738
(0.655)
0.662
(0.664)
0.285 
(0.569) 
Number of observations
313
312
351
Log likelihood
-67.33
-64.42
-67.89
Scaled R-squared
0.126
0.133
0.115
Chi-square (degrees of freedom)
19.38 (10)
19.75 (10)
17.67 (6)
Notes:
        Column 1 includes the full sample excluding projects in other manufacturing (none of which was terminated).
        Columns 2 and 3 delete a single observation for a project that was terminated prior to starting.
        The excluded category is a project in materials with no university participation and where the lead participant is of medium size.
        Coefficient significance levels are denoted by * (10 percent) ** (5 percent) *** (1 percent).
        The scaled R-squared is a measure of goodness of fit relative to a model with only a constant term, computed as a nonlinear transformation of the LR test for zero slopes (see Estrella, 1998).

Table A2: Probit Estimates for the Probability of Survey Response Dependent Variable = 1, if Survey Were Returned

Variable
(1)
Coefficient (s.e.)
(2)
Coefficient (s.e.)
(3)
Coefficient (s.e.)
Joint venture with university as partner
-0.08
(1.05)
 
 
 
 
Joint venture with university as subcontractor
-0.54
(1.23)
 
 
 
 
Joint venture with university as participant and subcontractor
-1.75
(0.95) *
1.36
(0.65) **
-1.21
(0.53)
Small lead participant
0.29
(1.10)
 
 
 
 
Large lead participant
 
 
 
 
 
 
Non-profit lead participant
-0.31
(1.23)
-0.34
(0.60)
-0.96
(0.52) *
Information technology
0.42
(0.90)
 
 
 
 
Manufacturing
1.24
(1.09)
 
 
 
 
Intercept
0.76
(1.34)
1.16 
(0.42) ***
1.78
(0.36) ***
Number of observations
26 (19)
26 (19)
54 (47)
Log likelihood
-10.69
-12.12
-15.50
Scaled R-squared
0.294
0.229
0.213
Chi-square (degrees of freedom)
8.91 (7)
6.05 (2)
10.66 (2)

Notes:
        The sample in columns 1 and 2 is joint ventures with small, medium, or nonprofit lead participants in the information technology, manufacturing, or materials areas. All other technologies predict perfectly.
        The excluded category is a project in materials with no university participant and where the lead participant is of medium size.
        Coefficient significance levels are denoted by * (10 percent) ** (5 percent) *** (1 percent).
        The scaled R-squared is a measure of goodness of fit relative to a model with only a constant term, computed as a nonlinear transformation of the LR test for zero slopes (see Estrella, 1998).

Table A3: Overall Determinants of Sampling Probability: Probit Estimates Dependent Variable = 1, if Project Were Sampled and Responded

Variable
(1)
Coefficient (s.e.)
(2)
Coefficient (s.e.)
(3)
Coefficient (s.e.)
Joint Venture with university partner
2.16
(0.52) ***
1.74
(0.36) ***
1.75
(0.36) ***
Joint Venture with university partner and subcontractor
1.44
(0.46) ***
1.74
(0.36) ***
1.75
(0.36) ***
Joint Venture with no university
0.632
(0.310) **
0.651
(0.210) ***
0.563
(0.200) ***
Joint Venture with university subcontractor
0.647
(0.322) **
0.651
(0.210) ***
0.563
0.200 ***
Single with university
-0.434
(0.253)
 
 
 
 
ATP share of funding
0.570
(0.792)
 
 
 
 
Time trend
-0.071
(0.062)
-0.065
(0.060)
 
 
Small lead participant
-0.118
(0.295)
 
 
 
 
Large lead participant
0.194
(0.304)
 
 
 
 
Non-profit lead participant
-0.838
(0.509)
-0.704 *
(0.410) *
0.693
(0.391) *
Chi-square for 3 size variables (probability)
5.20
(0.158)
 
 
 
 
Information technology
0.064
(0.297)
-0.024
(0.280)
Manufacturing
0.155
(0.366)
0.045
(0.352)
Electronics
-0.293
(0.398)
-0.393
(0.372)
Biotechnology
0.447
(0.323)
0.323
(0.298)
Chemicals, energy, and environment
-0.004
(0.344)
-0.016
(0.338)
Chi-square for 4 technical variables (probability)
4.51
(0.479)
 
4.04
(0.5438)
Intercept
-1.59
(0.60)
-1.25
(0.30) ***
-1.42
(0.12) ***
Number of observations
351 (47)
351 (47)
351 (47)
Log likelihood
-118.82
-120.67
-122.98
Scaled R-squared
0.112
0.101
0.088
Chi-square (degrees of freedom)
38.78 (15)
35.06 (9)
30.44 (3)

Notes:
        A single observation for a project that was terminated prior to starting has not been used.
        In column 1, the excluded category is a single participant project in materials with no university participation and where the lead participant is of medium size.
        Coefficient significance levels are denoted by * (10 percent) ** (5 percent) *** (1 percent).

Table A4: Difficulties Acquiring and Assimilating Basic Knowledge
Variable
Number responding
Degree
1, 2
Somewhat
3, 4, 5
Agree
6, 7
Percent
6, 7
Joint venture
29
19
8
2
6.9
      No university involvement
8
7
0
1
12.5
      Universities involved as
      subcontractor
8
4
4
0
0.0
      Universities involved as
      research partner
8
5
2
1
12.5
      Universities involved as
      both partner and
      subcontractor
5
3
2
0
0.0
Single company applicant
18
9
7
2
11.1
      No university involvement
9
5
2
2
22.2
      Universities involved as
      a subcontractor
9
4
5
0
0.0
Total
47
28
15
4
8.5

Table A5: Conceptual Research Problems Versus Expectations
Variable
Number responding
Less
than
About the
same as
More
than
Percent
more than
Joint venture
28
0
18
10
35.7
      No university involvement
7
0
5
2
28.6
      Universities involved as
      subcontractor
8
0
6
2
25.0
      Universities involved as
      research partner
8
0
3
5
62.5
      Universities involved as
      both partner and
      subcontractor
5
0
4
1
20.0
Single company applicant
18
1
8
9
50.0
      No university involvement
9
1
3
5
55.6
      Universities involved as
      a subcontractor
9
0
5
4
44.4
Total
46
1
26
19
41.3

Table A6: Equipment-Related Research Problems Versus Expectations

Variable
Number
responding
Less
than
About the
same as
More
than
Percent
more than
Joint venture
27
1
13
13
48.1
      No university involvement
6
0
2
4
66.7
      Universities involved as
      subcontractor
8
0
5
3
37.5
      Universities involved as
      research partner
8
1
2
5
62.5
      Universities involved as
      both partner and
      subcontractor
5
0
4
1
20.0
Single company applicant
18
1
14
3
16.7
      No university involvement
9
0
7
2
22.2
      Universities involved as
      a subcontractor
9
1
7
1
11.1
Total
45
2
27
16
35.6

Table A7: Personnel-Related Research Problems Versus Expectations

Variable
Number responding
Less
than
About the
same as
More
than
Percent
more than
Joint venture
27
3
14
10
37.0
      No university involvement
6
1
5
0
0.0
      Universities involved as
      subcontractor
8
1
1
6
75.0
      Universities involved as
      research partner
8
1
3
4
50.0
      Universities involved as
      both partner and
      subcontractor
5
0
5
0
0.0
Single company applicant
17
0
9
8
47.1
      No university involvement
8
0
4
4
50.0
      Universities involved as
      a subcontractor
9
0
5
4
44.4
Total
44
3
23
18
40.9

Table A8: Percent Unproductive Research Time on Project

Variable
Number responding
<10%
10-19%
>19%
Percent
>19%
Joint venture
25
4
13
8
32.0
      No university involvement
6
2
2
2
33.3
      Universities involved as
      subcontractor
8
0
5
3
37.5
      Universities involved as
      research partner
6
1
3
2
33.3
      Universities involved as
      both partner and
      subcontractor
5
1
3
1
20.0
Single company applicant
17
6
7
4
23.5
      No university involvement
8
3
2
3
37.5
      Universities involved as
      a subcontractor
9
3
5
1
11.1
Total
42
10
20
12
28.6

Table A9: Percent Unproductive Financial Resources for Project

Variable
Number responding
<10%
10-19%
>19%
Percent
>19%
Joint venture
25
7
12
6
24.0
      No university involvement
6
2
3
1
16.7
      Universities involved as
      subcontractor
8
1
5
2
25.0
      Universities involved as
      research partner
6
3
1
2
33.3
      Universities involved as
      both partner and
      subcontractor
5
1
3
1
20.0
Single company applicant
17
7
9
1
5.9
      No university involvement
8
5
2
1
12.5
      Universities involved as
      a subcontractor
9
2
7
0
0.0
Total
42
14
21
7
16.7

Table A10: Potential New Applications of the Technology Have Been Recognized

Variable
Number responding
Degree
1, 2
Somewhat
3, 4, 5
Agree
6, 7
Percent
6, 7
Joint venture
29
3
9
17
58.6
      No university involvement
8
0
5
3
37.5
      Universities involved as
      subcontractor
8
3
2
3
37.5
      Universities involved as
      research partner
8
0
2
6
75.0
      Universities involved as
      both partner and
      subcontractor
5
0
0
5
100.0
Single company applicant
18
1
2
15
83.3
      No university involvement
9
0
1
8
88.9
      Universities involved as
      a subcontractor
9
1
1
7
77.8
Total
47
4
11
32
68.1

Table A11: Technology to be Commercialized Sooner Than Expected

Variable
Number responding
Degree
1, 2
Somewhat
3, 4, 5
Agree
6, 7
Percent
6, 7
Joint venture
27
12
12
3
11.1
      No university involvement
7
3
4
0
0.0
      Universities involved as
      subcontractor
8
4
2
2
25.0
      Universities involved as
      research partner
7
3
3
1
14.3
      Universities involved as
      both partner and
      subcontractor
5
2
3
0
0.0
Single company applicant
18
2
12
4
22.2
      No university involvement
9
2
3
4
44.4
      Universities involved as
      a subcontractor
9
0
9
0
0.00
Total
45
14
24
7
15.6

Return to Contents or go to next section.

Date created: October 18, 2002
Last updated: August 2, 2005

Return to ATP Home Page

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)

 Return to NIST Home Page
Return to ATP Home Page Return to NIST Home Page Go to the NIST Home Page