RESEARCH ON ADULT AND FAMILY LITERACY
Release Date: October 26, 2001
RFA: RFA-HD-02-004
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
(http://www.nichd.nih.gov/)
National Institute on Aging
(http://www.nia.nih.gov/)
National Institute for Literacy
(http://www.nifl.gov/)
Letter of Intent Receipt Date: April 15, 2002
Application Receipt Date: May 15, 2002
THIS RFA USES "MODULAR GRANT" AND "JUST-IN-TIME" CONCEPTS. MODULAR
INSTRUCTIONS MUST BE USED FOR RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS UP TO $250,000 PER
YEAR. MODULAR BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS ARE PROVIDED IN SECTION C OF THE PHS 398
(REVISION 5/2001) AVAILABLE AT
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html.
PURPOSE
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), National
Institute on Aging (NIA), and National Institute for Literacy (NIFL), in
partnership with the Department of Education, Offices of Vocational and Adult
Education (OVAE), Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS),
Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), and Office of Educational Research
and Improvement (OERI), invite research grant applications to develop new
knowledge on adult literacy learning and new knowledge relevant to the
critical factors that influence the instruction and development of literacy
(reading and writing) competencies in adults and in young children (birth
through kindergarten entrance) through adult and family literacy program
activities, to identify or design the most effective program structures and
models of service delivery.
This RFA seeks to stimulate systematic, programmatic, multidisciplinary
research to determine the most effective instructional methods and program
organizational approaches for both adult literacy programs and family literacy
programs. Specifically, the co-sponsoring agencies seek research to increase
understanding of the specific cognitive, sociocultural, and instructional
factors, and the complex interactions among these factors, that promote or
impede the acquisition of English reading and writing abilities within adult
and family literacy programs and activities. It is expected that the research
studies and programs stimulated by this initiative will contribute scientific
data that bear directly on a number of public policy issues and instructional
practices.
HEALTHY PEOPLE 2010
The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion
and disease prevention objectives of "Healthy People 2010," a PHS-led national
activity for setting priority areas. This Request for Applications (RFA) is
related to one or more of the priority areas. Potential applicants may obtain
"Healthy People 2010" at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople/.
ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
Applications may be submitted by domestic and foreign, for-profit and non-
profit organizations, public and private, such as universities, colleges,
hospitals, laboratories, units of State and local governments, and eligible
agencies of the Federal government. Racial/ethnic minority individuals,
women, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply as Principal
Investigators.
MECHANISM OF SUPPORT
This RFA will use the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Project
Grant (R01) and Small Grant (R03) award mechanisms. Responsibility for the
planning, direction, and execution of the proposed project will be solely that
of the applicant. The total project period for an application submitted in
response to this RFA may not exceed five years for the R01 and may not exceed
two years for the R03. The Small Grant (R03) mechanism should be used when a
full-scale study is premature, for example, when there is a need for
feasibility or pilot data. Further information on R03 application procedures
is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-99-126.html.
This RFA is a one-time solicitation. Future unsolicited competing
continuation applications will compete with all investigator-initiated
applications and be reviewed according to the customary peer review
procedures. The anticipated award date is September 2002.
Specific application instructions have been modified to reflect "MODULAR
GRANT" and "JUST-IN-TIME" streamlining efforts that have been adopted by the
NIH. Complete and detailed instructions and information on Modular Grant
applications have been incorporated into the PHS 398 (rev. 5/2001).
Additional information on Modular Grants can be found at
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm.
FUNDS AVAILABLE
The NICHD intends to commit approximately $1 million and the other cosponsors
intend to commit approximately $2.3 for a total of $3.3 million in total costs
[Direct plus Facilities and Administrative (F & A) costs] in FY 2002 to fund
eight to ten new grants in response to this RFA. An applicant may request a
project period of up to five years and a budget for direct costs of up to
$500,000 per year for the R01 and up to two years and $50,000 per year for the
R03. Because the nature and scope of the research proposed may vary, it is
anticipated that the size of each award will also vary. Although the
financial plans of the co-sponsors provide support for this program, awards
pursuant to this RFA are contingent upon the availability of funds and the
receipt of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Background
In November 2000, the National Institute for Literacy and the National Center
for the Study of Adult Literacy and Learning co-sponsored a meeting in
Cambridge, MA, to review the current state of research and instruction in
adult literacy, and to identify gaps and research needs in the field. This
was followed by a practitioners meeting on adult literacy, held by NIFL and
the NICHD in Rockville, MD, to review and discuss the draft document that was
the outcome of the earlier Cambridge meeting. The research priorities
presented in this RFA and related documents draw in part from the draft
document summarizing those two meetings. In addition, NICHD, NIFL, OVAE,
OESE, and OERI brought together leading researchers and practitioners from
various fields to forge a joint research agenda in adult and family literacy.
This meeting was held August 21-22, 2001, in Rockville, MD, and a summary
document is available from the individual program representatives listed under
INQUIRIES, below, and at http://www.nichd.nih.gov/crmc/cdb/reading.htm.
The combined conclusions and recommendations of these meetings are summarized
as follows:
Literacy, and specifically English language literacy, is a complex learning
process that everyone living in the United States must negotiate successfully
in order to compete effectively in this country. There are a compelling
rationale and need for the development of a comprehensive program of research
that can identify the full range of linguistic, cognitive, cultural, familial,
socioeconomic, regional, and instructional factors, and the interactions among
these factors, that are directly relevant to the development of reading and
writing abilities in adults. In addition, the unique value of family literacy
programs, as compared to adult programs that encourage parent-child
interactions around literacy and as compared to preschool programs that
include emergent literacy activities and a focus on parent involvement, has
yet to be clearly elucidated. Therefore, there is a need to document the
effectiveness of adult and family literacy programs in terms of specific
literacy outcomes for adults and young children and to develop and test new
innovative interventions.
The complexity of understanding how language, cultural, and instructional
factors influence literacy development in adults and in their children is
compounded because these factors also interact in varying degrees with
geographic and regional (urban vs. rural) location and, in many cases,
immigrant status, migrant status, socioeconomic status, generation status of
both young children and parents, the quality of the child’s oral language
development, motivational factors, and for those whose native language is not
English, the type, quality, and amount of each language spoken in the home and
reinforced in the neighborhood and community, the linguistic and cultural
characteristics of the instructor, the nature of previous literacy
instruction, and individual differences in cognitive, linguistic, and
neurobiological development. Such complexity requires the development of a
collaborative multidisciplinary, multi-level, and multi-contextual program of
research. More specifically, this program of research should foster the
application of diverse research methodologies across varied contexts to
develop models of adult and family literacy programs and instructional methods
and to delineate the influences, and pathways of influence, on English-
language literacy development in both adults and their children at the
individual level, the home/family level, and the classroom level.
In addition, while many adults who are not literate may simply not have
learned or not have been adequately taught to read and write, or may be
literate in another language but in need of literacy instruction in English,
there are also many adults who are not literate in any language due to
learning difficulties. There is very little high quality, well-controlled
research on the optimal methods of teaching and supporting the development of
first or second language literacy in adults. An in-depth understanding of the
factors and conditions that hinder this learning process is also crucially
important, and the development and testing of interventions to identify and
remediate reading difficulties in adults is strongly encouraged.
Research in Adult and Family Literacy: An Overview:
The NICHD and the Department of Education have had a long-standing interest in
the study of reading development, reading disorders, and reading instruction.
Over the past 30 years, studies supported by the NICHD, OERI, and other
agencies and sources have obtained substantial data that converge on the
following findings with children for whom English is the primary language:
Good readers have developed phonemic awareness and an understanding of the
alphabetic principle, and can apply this knowledge in a fluent and automatic
manner when reading words and text. Given the ability to rapidly and
accurately decode and recognize words, good readers bring strong vocabularies
and well-developed syntactical and grammatical skills to the reading
comprehension process, and actively relate what is being read to their
background knowledge. Evidence has also accrued that indicates learning to
read is a relatively lengthy process that begins very early in development,
before children enter formal schooling. Children who are provided with
stimulating oral language and literacy experiences from birth onward have an
advantage in developing vocabulary, understanding the goals of reading, and
acquiring an awareness of print and literacy concepts. The data also suggest
that children who are read to frequently at very young ages are exposed to the
sounds of the language and to vocabulary which will serve as the building
blocks for the development of the alphabetic principle. The data converge in
demonstrating that ultimately, children’s ability to comprehend what they read
is inextricably linked to their skill in reading words accurately and rapidly,
to the development of vocabulary and language comprehension abilities, and to
their background knowledge. In contrast, converging evidence indicates that
reading failure is significantly related to deficits in phoneme awareness and
the development of the alphabetic principle, difficulties in the rapid
application of phoneme awareness, decoding, and word recognition skills when
reading connected text, a non-strategic approach to reading comprehension, and
the failure to develop and maintain motivation to learn and practice reading
skills.
To date, there have not been comprehensive programmatic research efforts of
this kind to address issues and questions relevant to (1) the learning of
literacy in adulthood, including literacy learning by individuals for whom
English is not their native language, (2) difficulties/disabilities
encountered by this population in learning to read and write, and (3) the
development of effective prevention, remediation, and reading and writing
programs and instructional approaches and strategies for low-literate adults,
(4) the value added by the integrative approach that underlies family literacy
programs, both for adults and their young children, in terms of specific
literacy outcomes, as compared to high quality adult literacy and child
intervention programs. To address these critical research needs, studies that
contribute effectively to the research focus described below are encouraged.
Research Scope
Against this background, a major goal of this research initiative is to obtain
converging scientific evidence that ultimately can inform the development and
application of assessment and instructional approaches and strategies to
develop robust literacy skills and to prevent or remediate reading and writing
difficulties and disabilities among adults who, for whatever reason, have
reached adulthood without these vital skills.
Another major goal is to determine the effectiveness of family literacy
programs in providing unique services to families where adults have limited
literacy skills that impede their providing nurturance and support of literacy
skills in their young children. Within family literacy, there is a specific
need to address the more fundamental issue of whether rigorous evidence can be
obtained in support of the primary assumption, as yet untested, that underlies
the family literacy approach namely, that greater benefits to both adult and
child learners will be attained by taking an integrated family literacy
approach than by independently addressing adult and child needs through
separate high quality adult literacy and child intervention programs.
Through this initiative, the funding partner agencies hope to gain convergent
evidence with which to address these overarching questions:
o What are the most effective instructional methods and program
organizations/structures for which groups/subgroups of adults and under what
conditions are these most efficiently implemented? That is, what are the
optimal instructional content, instructor qualifications and preparation, and
timing, duration, and methods of delivery of instruction, for specific
groups/subgroups of participants in adult literacy and family literacy
programs in terms of specific literacy (reading and writing) outcomes, and
which approaches, methods, and types of programs are most cost-effective for
which participants?
o What are the optimal instructional methods, contexts, and instructor
characteristics that ensure the development of literacy in adults who are
native speakers of English and adults who are not native speakers of English?
What differences in these approaches may be required at different stages of
adult development (i.e., young adulthood, midlife, and old age)? How should
instructional approaches differ for adults who are literate at some level in
their own language but seeking to develop literacy in English and adults whose
native language does not have a written form?
o What are the most effective methods for identifying and remediating adults
with literacy (reading and writing) difficulties? That is, what factors and
measures are most useful in identifying adults with reading disabilities, and
what instructional methods, types of instructors, and types of programs (in
terms of structure, organization, and other characteristics) are most
effective in achieving useful literacy outcomes for which participants? In
addition, what factors and measures are most useful in assessing and planning
intervention for adults whose first language is not English? To adequately
address these questions, it will be important to indicate what are the most
important literacy outcomes for specific participants, and how these might be
measured.
o What are the best remedial procedures for circumventing the cognitive
limitations of older adults that may otherwise interfere with the acquisition
of literacy skills? That is, what methods can be used for enhancing reading
and writing skills that either avoid or compensate for the text- processing
problems typically experienced by older adults? For example, what
compensatory strategies would aid these individuals in overcoming potential
difficulties with reading comprehension that may occur as a result of declines
in working memory capacity or decreased speed of information processing?
o To what extent can interventions for enhancing literacy skills in older
adults yield improvements in cognitively-demanding, instrumental activities of
daily living? That is, what kinds of instructional methods may be required
for ensuring the transfer of literacy competencies to the management of
everyday problem-solving activities that are highly dependent on adequate
reading and writing skills, such as grocery shopping, meal preparation,
financial management, medication adherence, and health care management?
o Are greater benefits to both adult and child learners attained by taking an
integrated family literacy approach than by independently addressing adult and
child needs through separate high quality adult literacy and parenting
education/child intervention programs? That is, can it be demonstrated that
there is "value added" (in literacy gains, in reduced costs, or in
recruitment/retention levels) from bundling services to families in which both
adults and young children require intervention and, if so, why? This will
require addressing the issue of measurement of adult-child interaction, as
well as careful measurement of other constructs and outcomes.
o What are the optimal conditions under which family literacy programs can
facilitate the development of literacy in adults and/or young children? What
factors should be considered in selecting the language of first literacy in
cases where the home language of a family is not English, and whether there
are specific linguistic and cultural advantages that accrue with instructional
approaches that develop oral language and literacy skills in two languages
simultaneously (dual language-literacy approaches) for parents and/or young
children within family literacy programs. What are the most effective
intervention methods for parents with reading or other disabilities that
impede their own literacy development and the most effective methods of
helping these parents foster literacy development in their children?
o To the extent that it is not already known, who are the adults/families in
this country requiring literacy instruction, and how can they be best
identified, recruited, and served? That is, what specific groups or subgroups
of adults/families (in terms of racial/ethnic, cultural, linguistic,
socioeconomic and geographic characteristics, as well as age and educational
attainment) in the US are currently found in the various programs providing
literacy instruction and, specifically, how can these populations be
characterized to enable service providers to best identify them, to recruit
and retain them, and to tailor the organization and structure of programs and
specific instructional methods to optimally achieve defined literacy outcomes?
Are there adults/families who can be identified who are not being served but
would potentially benefit from such services?
Research Focus
The major focus of this RFA is to identify the conditions under which reading
and writing skills are most efficiently and productively developed in low-
literate adults, including adults with learning disabilities and adults who
are English language learners, and to address the fundamental issue of the
value added by the integrative approach used in family literacy programs in
contributing to both adult and child literacy. Within this context, this
collaborative, inter-agency research program seeks to increase understanding
of the specific learner, instructional, linguistic, cognitive, sociocultural
and socioenvironmental factors, and the interactions among these factors, that
promote or impede the acquisition of literacy (reading and writing) skills of
adults participating in adult education programs and/or family literacy
programs. An additional important focus of this RFA is the identification
and/or development of reliable and valid measurement strategies and assessment
instruments for all domains under study. Descriptive and experimental studies
employing quantitative and qualitative research methodologies are encouraged,
and studies that combine methodologies are particularly sought. While
longitudinal designs will be critical in addressing many of the research
questions, cross-sectional studies and combinations of longitudinal and cross-
sectional studies are likewise encouraged. It is not expected that each
application will address the entire range of issues discussed in this RFA.
However, applications must address issues that will contribute to the ultimate
goal of answering the overarching questions under Research Scope, above, which
place significant emphasis on the effects of different prevention,
intervention, and instructional approaches and strategies, and of program
models and organizational structures.
Application Considerations
Each applicant should take care to ensure that the application addresses in
depth the following methodological and organizational issues:
o Research Population
The selection of the research population should be based on the scope of the
study, the methodological requirements of the study, the specific research
questions posed, and the nature and degree of integrated multidisciplinary
effort. Especially for the R01 funding mechanism, applicants are encouraged
to select a core research population that provides the opportunity to conduct
integrated, prospective, longitudinal as well as cross-sectional
investigations of reading and writing development with an emphasis on the
conditions under which literacy skills are best acquired and on the
instructional, linguistic, cognitive, sociocultural, socioenvironmental, and
familial factors that influence learning.
It is expected that individuals within the research population will manifest
different background characteristics and different strengths and weaknesses in
skills critical for success in attaining reading and writing abilities. As
such, applicants should consider research protocols that are capable of
detecting individual differences and well-defined subgroups and subtypes that
may exist within any sample. Applicants should also consider casting the
sampling net wide enough to ensure a representative number of individuals or
programs and contrast groups for study. It is anticipated that the
populations studied will include large numbers of individuals who are from
minorities and/or who are from lower socio-economic levels, so that the
research findings gained from this initiative will be useful in addressing the
educational disparities that exist for these groups.
o Selection Criteria
The samples selected for study must be rigorously defined so that complete
independent replication can be accomplished. Within this context, applicants
should provide clearly documented and operationalized definitions for their
subject or program selection criteria. Specifically, all participants
selected for study should be defined with reference to age, grade level (if
applicable), gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, immigrant/migrant
status, generation status (of children and parents), geographic region,
previous and concurrent educational placements and programs, type and severity
of learning/ language/academic disabilities (if known), neurophysiological/
neuropsychological characteristics (if applicable), levels of academic
achievement in oral language, reading, and writing, and presence of known
learning or attention problems (if applicable). To the extent possible,
comparison groups should be equated on these characteristics.
o Measurement Criteria
Standardized tests, laboratory tasks, observational measures, interview
schedules, and other assessment/observational procedures (e.g., dynamic
assessments, case studies, ethnographic studies) should be selected on the
basis of known reliability, validity, trustworthiness, and appropriateness to
the samples under study. If reliability, validity, and trustworthiness of the
measurement/assessment/observational procedures are initially unknown, the
application must include specific plans for establishing these measurement
properties. The valid measurement of change over time will be critical to
much of the research solicited via this RFA since the study of the change over
time and the documentation of specific literacy outcomes (reading and writing)
under a variety of conditions and across a variety of settings are of
significant interest.
o Instructional Components and Definitions
One important dimension along which reading and writing instructional
approaches and strategies are distributed is the explicitness and detail with
which spoken and written language structures relevant to literacy acquisition
are taught. For the purposes of this RFA, the degree of implicitness-
explicitness inherent in the instruction should be described in detail. For
example, explicit instruction of language and literacy structures can be
characterized by (1) deliberate organization of lesson format and content, (2)
calibration of concept difficulty along both linguistic and educational level
continua, (3) corrective feedback designed to foster linguistic insight and
self-reliance in the student, (4) careful selection of textual reading
material for practice, and (5) conscious interplay between spoken and written
language during instruction.
Another dimension along which reading instruction is distributed is the extent
to which all components of a complete, integrated approach are included in
each lesson, regardless of the student’s reading level. Integration is one of
the most important principles of instruction to emerge from reading research,
yet instructional studies frequently overemphasize one instructional component
to the detriment of others. An example of this lack of integration can be
found in several English-language reading instruction studies where
instruction was provided to develop phonemic awareness and decoding skills
without concomitant attention given to the application of these skills in text
reading. Even when integrated lesson designs are used, applicants should
consider designing studies to demonstrate specifically which instructional
components are most pivotal in learning to read at different phases of reading
development, and to explicate any interactions between response to instruction
and learner characteristics, language of instruction, stage of reading
development, teacher/learner activities, ecological factors, and the like.
These examples of instructional dimensions are neither inclusive nor
exhaustive, and applicants are encouraged to provide and define their
particular frame of instructional reference in detail. The important
consideration is that most instructional characteristics vary dimensionally
from highly explicit to highly implicit, and applicants are encouraged to
define and describe these instructional dimensions in detail. Likewise,
applicants are encouraged to explicitly define and describe the types and
nature of language, literacy, and learning interactions that occur in home and
family settings.
o Research Methodologies
New statistical methodologies are currently emerging to enhance the
information gleaned from longitudinal studies and to bolster the
interpretation of multivariate interactions that are identified in studies of
behavioral/learning changes over time. This is important given that it is
sometimes difficult to interpret why and how gains were achieved in
instructional studies. This interpretation problem is frequently related to
both instructional and non-instructional factors (social, economic, cultural,
environmental, familial, etc.) that can interact to influence response to
intervention. A number of methodologies are now available for studying
quantitative change and for studying the manner in which a variety of
determinants, including instructional and ecological factors, influence rates
and patterns of change over time. Applicants are encouraged to apply
methodologies that can illuminate these types of multivariate interactions.
Also of significant interest is the application of qualitative research
methodologies to include open-ended interviews with students, teachers,
parents, and administrators, teacher logs, stimulated recalls, student’s
response journals, analysis of teacher’s daily plans, and videotaping and
coding of instructional interactions. When considering the use of qualitative
methods, applicants must ensure the trustworthiness and credibility of the
data, the transferability of the data, the adequacy of the research process
for testing theory, and the empirical grounding of the research findings.
Applicants are encouraged to combine quantitative and qualitative methods to
optimize the validity and applicability of the findings.
Research Priorities and Examples of Research Questions
The NICHD, NIFL, OVAE, OSERS, OESE and OERI have developed a list of research
priorities and examples of research questions to illuminate areas of
particular interest to these agencies. These examples are illustrative but
not restrictive, nor are they inclusive or exhaustive. The information on
research priorities and examples of research questions may be obtained from
the contact listed under INQUIRIES, below, or at
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/crmc/cdb/reading.htm.
In addition, we encourage potential applicants to examine a Program
Announcement that supports research complementary to this solicitation,
entitled Age-Related Changes in Reading and Oral Language Comprehension
(PA-01-002), available at
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-01-002.html.
Applicants are encouraged to respond to whichever of these two notices that most
closely fits their area of research interest.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
Semi-Annual Meetings for Investigators
Because of the importance of cross-project communication and collaboration in
this research effort, Principal Investigators from projects funded though this
RFA will be expected to attend semi-annual meetings to be organized and
managed by the funding partners, for investigators to share findings, research
approaches, and core instrumentation. The first meeting is expected to take
place in November 2002. Requests for funds for travel to these two meetings
for the Principal Investigator and one research team member (for example, the
team’s research methodologist) should be included in the application budget
and budget justification.
Data Archives
Investigators who will collecting data on large numbers of subjects are
encouraged to include in the application plans to archive data or to prepare
public use files at the end of the project so that data can be shared with
other investigators. While this is not a requirement of this RFA, it is
strongly encouraged.
INCLUSION OF WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS
It is the policy of the NIH that women and members of minority groups and
their sub-populations must be included in all NIH-supported biomedical and
behavioral research projects involving human subjects, unless a clear and
compelling rationale and justification are provided indicating that inclusion
is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of
the research. This policy results from the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993
(Section 492B of Public Law 103-43).
All investigators proposing research involving human subjects should read the
UPDATED "NIH Guidelines for Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in
Clinical Research," published in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts on
August 2, 2000
(http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-048.html),
a complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_update.htm. The
revisions relate to NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials and require: a) all
applications or proposals and/or protocols to provide a description of plans
to conduct analyses, as appropriate, to address differences by sex/gender
and/or racial/ethnic groups, including subgroups if applicable, and b) all
investigators to report accrual, and to conduct and report analyses, as
appropriate, by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group differences.
INCLUSION OF CHILDREN AS PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS
It is the policy of NIH that children (i.e., individuals under the age of 21)
must be included in all human subjects research, conducted or supported by the
NIH, unless there are scientific and ethical reasons not to include them.
This policy applies to all initial (Type 1) applications submitted for receipt
dates after October 1, 1998.
All investigators proposing research involving human subjects should read the
"NIH Policy and Guidelines on the Inclusion of Children as Participants in
Research Involving Human Subjects, published in the NIH Guide for Grants and
Contracts, March 6, 1998, and available at:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-024.html.
Investigators also may obtain copies of these policies from the program staff
listed under INQUIRIES. Program staff may also provide additional relevant
information concerning the policy.
URLS IN NIH GRANT APPLICATIONS OR APPENDICES
All applications and proposals for NIH funding must be self-contained within
specified page limitations. Unless otherwise specified in an NIH
solicitation, Internet addresses (URLs) should not be used to provide
information necessary to the review because reviewers are under no obligation
to view the Internet sites. Reviewers are cautioned that their anonymity may
be compromised when they directly access an Internet site.
REQUIRED EDUCATION ON THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECT PARTICIPANTS
NIH policy requires education on the protection of human subject participants
for all investigators submitting NIH proposals for research involving human
subjects. This policy announcement is found in the NIH Guide for Grants and
Contracts Announcement dated June 5, 2000, at:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html.
PUBLIC ACCESS TO RESEARCH DATA THROUGH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to
provide public access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) under some circumstances. Data that are (1) first produced in a
project that is supported in whole or in part with Federal funds and (2) cited
publicly and officially by a Federal agency in support of an action that has
the force and effect of law (i.e., a regulation) may be accessed through FOIA.
It is important for applicants to understand the basic scope of this
amendment. NIH has provided guidance at:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm.
Applicants may wish to place data collected under this RFA in a public
archive, which can provide protections for the data and manage the
distribution for an indefinite period of time. If so, the application should
include a description of the archiving plan in the study design and include
information about this in the budget justification section of the application.
In addition, applicants should think about how to structure informed consent
statements and other human subjects procedures given the potential for wider
use of data collected under this award.
LETTER OF INTENT
Prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes a
descriptive title of the proposed research, the name, address, and telephone
number of the Principal Investigator, the identities of other key personnel
and participating institutions, and the number and title of this RFA.
Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not
enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it
contains allows NICHD staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan
the review.
The letter of intent is to be sent to Peggy McCardle, Ph.D., MPH, at the
address listed under INQUIRIES, below, by April 15, 2002.
APPLICATION PROCEDURES
The PHS 398 research grant application instructions and forms (rev. 5/2001) at
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html must be used in
applying for these grants. This version of the PHS 398 is available in an
interactive, searchable format. For further assistance contact GrantsInfo,
Telephone (301) 710-0267, Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov.
Application Instructions
Application instructions for the NICHD Small Grant (R03) mechanism must be
followed in preparing applications for the R03 in response to this RFA. These
are available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-99-126.html.
Appendices for R01 applications should accompany the grant application. Note
that the R03 application does not allow appendices.
SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR MODULAR GRANT APPLICATIONS
The modular grant concept establishes specific modules in which direct costs
may be requested as well as a maximum level for requested budgets. Only
limited budgetary information is required under this approach. The
just-in-time concept allows applicants to submit certain information only when
there is a possibility for an award. It is anticipated that these changes will
reduce the administrative burden for the applicants, reviewers and NIH staff.
The research grant application form PHS 398 (rev. 5/2001) at
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html is to be used in
applying for these grants, with modular budget instructions provided in
Section C of the application instructions.
Submission Instructions
The RFA label available in the PHS 398 (rev. 5/2001) application form must be
stapled to the bottom of the face page of the application and must display the
RFA number HD-02-004. A sample RFA label is available at
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/label-bk.pdf. Please note this is
in the pdf format. Failure to use this label could result in delayed
processing of the application such that it may not reach the review committee
in time for review. In addition, the RFA title and number must be typed on
line 2 of the face page of the application form and the YES box must be
marked.
Submit a signed, typewritten original of the application, including the
Checklist, and three signed, photocopies, in one package to:
CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
6701 ROCKLEDGE DRIVE, ROOM 1040, MSC 7710
BETHESDA, MD 20892-7710
BETHESDA, MD 20817 (for express/courier service)
At the time of submission, two additional copies of the application should be
sent to:
Director
Division of Scientific Review
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5E-03, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD 20892-7510
Rockville, MD 20852 (for express/courier service)
Applications must be received by May 15, 2002. If an application is received
after that date, it will be returned to the applicant without review.
The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) will not accept any application in
response to this RFA that is essentially the same as one currently pending
initial review, unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. The
CSR will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one
already reviewed. This does not preclude the submission of substantial
revisions of applications already reviewed, but such applications must include
an Introduction addressing the previous critique.
REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS
Upon receipt, applications will be reviewed for completeness by the CSR and
responsiveness by the NICHD. Incomplete and/or non-responsive applications
will be returned to the applicant without further consideration.
Applications that are complete and responsive to the RFA will be evaluated for
scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group convened by
the NICHD in accordance with the review criteria stated below. As part of the
initial merit review, all applications will receive a written critique and may
undergo a process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest
scientific merit, generally the top half of the applications under review,
will be discussed, assigned a priority score, and receive a second level
review by the National Advisory Child Health and Human Development Council and
the National Advisory Council on Aging.
Review Criteria
The goals of NIH-supported research are to advance our understanding of
biological systems, improve the control of disease, and enhance health. In
the written comments reviewers will be asked to discuss the following aspects
of the application in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research
will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals. Each of these
criteria will be addressed and considered in assigning the overall score,
weighting them as appropriate for each application. Note that the application
does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major
scientific impact and thus deserve a high priority score. For example, an
investigator may propose to carry out important work that by its nature is not
innovative but is essential to move a field forward.
(1) Significance: Does this study address an important problem? If the aims
of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be advanced?
What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that drive
this field?
(2) Approach: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses
adequately developed, well-integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the
project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider
alternative tactics?
(3) Innovation: Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches or
methods? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the project challenge
existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies?
(4) Investigator: Is the investigator appropriately trained and well suited
to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience
level of the Principal Investigator and other researchers (if any)?
(5) Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be
done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed experiments
take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ
useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional
support?
In addition to the above criteria, in accordance with NIH policy, all
applications will also be reviewed with respect to the following:
o The adequacy of plans to include both genders, minorities and their
subgroups, and children as appropriate for the scientific goals of the
research. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also be
evaluated.
o The reasonableness of the proposed budget and duration in relation to the
proposed research.
o The adequacy of the proposed protection for humans, animals or the
environment, to the extent they may be adversely affected by the project
proposed in the application.
o The adequacy of the proposed plan to share data, if appropriate.
SCHEDULE
Letter of Intent Receipt Date: April 15, 2002
Application Receipt Date: May 15, 2002
Peer Review Date: July 2002
Council Review: September 2002
Earliest Anticipated Start Date: September 2002
AWARD CRITERIA
Criteria that will be used to make award decisions include:
o scientific merit (as determined by peer review)
o availability of funds
o programmatic priorities.
INQUIRIES
Inquiries concerning this RFA are encouraged. The opportunity to clarify any
issues or answer questions from potential applicants is welcome.
Direct inquiries regarding programmatic issues to:
Peggy McCardle, Ph.D., MPH
Child Development and Behavior Branch
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
6100 Executive Boulevard, Suite 4B05, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD 20892-7510
Telephone: (301) 435-6863
FAX: (301) 480-7773
Email: pm43q@nih.gov
Daniel B. Berch, Ph.D.
Chief, Section on Cognitive Aging
Individual Behavioral Processes Branch
Behavioral and Social Research Program
National Institute on Aging
7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 533
Bethesda, MD 20892-9205
Telephone: (301) 594-5942
FAX: (301) 402-0051
Email: Daniel_Berch@nih.gov
Sandra Baxter, Ed.D.
National Institute for Literacy
1775 I Street, NW
Suite 730
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 233-2054
FAX: (202) 233-2050
Email: sbaxter@nifl.gov
Direct inquiries regarding review issues to:
Robert Stretch, Ph.D.
Division of Scientific Review
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5E03, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD 20892-7510
Telephone: (301) 496-1485
FAX: (301) 402-4104
Email: rs365f@nih.gov
Direct inquiries regarding fiscal matters to:
Mary Daley
Grants Management Branch
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 8A17, MSC 7510
Bethesda, MD 20892-7510
Telephone: (301) 496-1305
FAX: (301) 402-0915
Email: md74u@nih.gov
AUTHORITY AND REGULATIONS
This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Nos.
93.865 (NICHD), 93.866 (NIA), and 84.257 (NIFL). Awards are made under
authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as
amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and administered under NIH grants policies and
Federal Regulations 42 CFR 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92. This program is not
subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372
or Health Systems Agency review.
The PHS strongly encourages all grant recipients to provide a smoke-free
workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition,
Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain
facilities (or in some cases, any portion of a facility) in which regular or
routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood
development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the
PHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the
American people.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
|
|
|
|
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
|
|
|
|
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health®
|