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 Table 2: Survey response rate University Surveys Response rate Distributed Completed 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% Total 57,929 14,886 25.7% 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. 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 Table 2: Survey response rate University Surveys Response rate Distributed Completed 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. Table 2 shows the response rates by university, which ranged from 15.7% to 61.8%, with an overall response rate of 31.5%. This yielded 18,144 students who completed the survey.1 Table 2: Survey response rate University Surveys Response rate Distributed Completed Xxxxx University 3,071 941 30.6% Carleton University 3,000 1030 34.3% Concordia University 4,624 1037 22.4% Concordia University College of Alberta 263 88 33.5% Dalhousie University 1,750 795 45.4% Lakehead University 1,000 418 41.8% MacEwan University 2,788 507 18.2% XxXxxx University 3,475 564 16.2% Memorial University of Newfoundland 1,785 449 25.2% Mount Royal University 1,477 573 38.8% Nipissing University 956 408 42.7% Redeemer University College 168 83 49.4% Ryerson University 5,259 1785 33.9% Saint Mary's University 888 339 38.2% Xxxxx Xxxxxx University 1,000 606 60.6% St. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx University 860 484 56.3% St. Xxxxxx University 371 214 57.7% The King's University College 110 68 61.8% Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx University 792 261 33.0% Trinity Western University 287 136 47.4% Université de Moncton 807 377 46.7% Université de Sherbrooke 1,492 376 25.2% University of Lethbridge 1,322 392 29.7% University of Manitoba 2,125 607 28.6% University of New Brunswick (Fredericton) 1,000 331 33.1% University of New Brunswick (Saint Xxxx) 496 157 31.7% University of Ontario Institute of Technology 2,328 850 36.5% University of Ottawa 1,000 357 35.7% University of Xxxxxx 1,000 461 46.1% University of Saskatchewan 1,500 431 28.7% University of the Fraser Valley 1,085 434 40.0% University of Victoria 1,000 454 45.4% University of Waterloo 2,000 314 15.7% University of Winnipeg 1,761 638 36.2% Vancouver Island University 1,295 241 18.6% Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx University 3,413 938 27.5% Total 57,548 18,144 31.5% 1 PRA defined a completed survey as student who 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
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. Response rates of the various sectors were more than adequate to arrive at valid conclusions.
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. Seller shall provide to Buyer response rates greater than those set forth in Schedule [A] for AGC when the relevant control systems of the Unit and/or the Facility are technically sufficient for such faster response rates, consistent with Accepted Electrical Practices.]
