Return to: Annual Performance Assessment Expert Review Table of Contents

Section 3: Appendices

Appendix D: Evaluation Results for 2006 Health and Function APAER

Thank you very much for serving on the APAER panel.  Your panel is the first to use this new assessment procedure, so your opinion is very important. 

  1. How would you describe the amount of material you received before the meeting?

    Too much....... 2
    Too little......... 2
    Just right......... 5

    Comments:

    • Could be a lot more comprehensive, to reflect areas that need to be evaluated on.
    • Little bit on heavy side but relevant to meeting agenda.
    • Organization not so helpful.
    • Would like articles, info on accruals, more description of contributions.
    • Not necessarily too much, but not the right kind.
    • But not all valuable.
    • Too much given non-focus.
    • Sort of OK.
  2. Did the material you received in advance adequately prepare you for the meeting?

    Yes................. 3
    No.................. 6

    Comments:

    • But some questions could not be addressed by the data.
    • Somewhat – needed previous review or focus on questions.
    • Additional sorts would have been more helpful.
  3. Was there enough relevant information available to make informed decisions about NIDRR health and function research?

    Yes................. 3
    No.................. 6
    Comments:

    • Nature and quality of information highly variable relevant to making decisions.
    • Yes to qualitative; no to quantitative/documented.
  4. Please rate the usefulness of the APAER Web site:
    • I did not use the Web site............ 7
    • Excellent.....................................
    • Very good.................................. 3
    • Good..........................................
    • Poor............................................
  5. The APAER process is designed to assess the relevance of NIDRR research to its mission. How well does APAER fulfill this purpose?

    Very well designed................................................................. 1
    Fairly well designed, but needs some improvement................. 7
    Needs major improvement...................................................... 2

    Suggestions:

    • Improve nature of information (evidence) available for review.
    • It’d be helpful to provide info on “justification or rationale” as unique and special opportunity for NIDRR (versus other federal funding agencies) to support a specific area of research, even though they may be relevant to NIDRR’s mission. 
    • Qualitative responses from panel.
    • Not concept, but how material presented.
  6. The APAER process is designed to assess the quality of NIDRR research, including award decisions and strengths and weaknesses of the health and function portfolio. How well does APAER fulfill this purpose?

    Very well designed................................................................. 2
    Fairly well designed, but needs some improvement................. 5
    Needs major improvement...................................................... 3

    Suggestions:

    • Materials provided could be more informative that reflect the area to be assessed.

  7. The APAER process is designed to assess the extent to which research outputs and outcomes are contributing to NIDRR’s performance goals. How well does APAER fulfill this purpose?

    Very well designed......................................... 1
    Fairly well designed, but needs some improvement................. 8
    Needs major improvement...................................................... 1

    Suggestions:

    • Need more organized info and materials to make the assessment.

    Please rate the following:

    Excellent

    Very Good

    Good

    Poor

    Meeting facilities

    9

    1

     

     

    Food and beverage service

    8

    2

     

     

    On-site support by New Editions Consulting staff 

    8

    2

     

     

    Out of town panelists:  Please rate the hotel accommodations

    5

    1

     

     

    Any other comments or suggestions?

    • NIDRR is doing a great job and is a unique fed agency for supporting disability-related research. With a more focused programmatic effort, NIDRR can get more accomplished.
    • Beginning process that is a good start.  Needs to mature with time.
    • Coordination well done! Very interesting and worthwhile (!!) process.  Keep at it. 
    • The APAER mechanism is well suited for the purpose of reviewing the health and function research program of NIDRR.  Its ability to assess relevance, quality and outputs/outcomes was not as efficient as possible given variable quality of information.

Appendix E: Results of Accomplishments Ratings

This Appendix presents the ratings of the 2006 accomplishments in the health and function domain. The accomplishments were reported by NIDRR grantees in the 2006 Annual Performance Report.

Purpose of the Ratings

The accomplishments needed to be rated by external experts so that NIDRR could report on its annual performance requirements under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).  The performance measure is:

(8.2.1) The number of accomplishments (e.g., new or improved tools, methods, discoveries, standards, interventions, programs or devices) developed or tested with NIDRR funding that have been judged by expert panels to be of high quality and to advance the field

Description of Accomplishments

Evidence of NIDRR performance in the health and function domain was presented in the grantee accomplishments. NIDRR asked its current health and function grantees to submit up to five outputs or outcomes that the grantee considered to be the most important that occurred or matured during the current reporting period (July 1, 2005 through May 31, 2006).  The accomplishments were collected as part of a new automated Annual Performance Report. NIDRR defined accomplishments as outputs or outcomes:

Outputs are the direct results of center or project activities. In order to qualify as an output, the direct results of project activities must have been disseminated or delivered to external audiences, and this dissemination must have occurred within the current reporting period. Outputs consist of:

Outcomes are the indirect results or effects of project activities on external audiences or systems outside of the boundaries of the project or study.

How the Review was Conducted

The Annual Performance Assessment Expert Review (APAER) for the health and function domain was held October 18–19, 2006.  While recruiting experts to serve on the APAER panel, New Editions asked panel members if they would also be willing to review selected accomplishments in their areas of expertise. Of the 13 experts who served on the APAER panel, 10 agreed to rate accomplishments by mail in advance of the October meeting.  The participation of 79% of APAER panel members met the Office of Management and Budget requirement that 50–75% of APAER panelists also score individual accomplishments.  We recruited two additional reviewers to round out the expertise needed, for a total of 12 reviewers.

We sorted the 188 accomplishments into these topic areas: aging and health promotion (8); assistive technology (10); burn (10); children (9); multiple sclerosis (7); neuromuscular (11); prosthetic (8); psychology (4); rehabilitation services and payment (8); researcher training (9); spinal cord injury—clinical (20); spinal cord injury—consumer (20); stroke (17); and traumatic brain injury (47).

We sent each reviewer a package of accomplishments in their respective areas of expertise. The package included instructions for completing the rating.  Each accomplishment included a rating form. Reviewers were asked to complete each rating form and return them within three weeks. Contact information for the NIDRR Project Director who vetted the accomplishment was included, in case the reviewer needed copies of any of the evidence cited in the accomplishment.

Instructions to Reviewers

Instructions to Expert Reviewers for NIDRR Health and Function Accomplishments

On behalf of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), thank you for agreeing to review selected accomplishments from the NIDRR Health and Function grants. Attached are the accomplishments for your review.

How accomplishments were collected.  NIDRR asked its current Health and Function grantees to submit up to five outputs or outcomes that the grantee considered to be the most important that occurred during the current reporting period (July 1, 2005 through May 31, 2006).  The accomplishments were collected as part of a new automated Annual Performance Report.  NIDRR Project Officers reviewed the accomplishments for appropriateness and completeness, and the grantees revised their submissions as needed.

Purpose of the ratings.  The accomplishments need to be rated by an expert in the field so that NIDRR can report on its annual performance requirements under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The performance measure is:

(8.2.1) The number of accomplishments (e.g., new or improved tools, methods, discoveries, standards, interventions, programs or devices) developed or tested with NIDRR funding that have been judged by expert panels to be of high quality and to advance the field.

Rating scale.  Please rate each accomplishment on the 4-point scale that appears at the end of each accomplishment and return the package using the enclosed FedEx envelope. Below are the response options and guidance for determining your choice.

Response Options

3:  Outstanding contribution to the field

Guidance: Evidence presented indicates that the NIDRR-funded research on which the accomplishment is based meets high standards of methodological or technical rigor and the nominated:

  • Output represents a groundbreaking intellectual or creative advance that is helping to form a new conceptual framework or theoretical analysis or presents theories or important new findings with wider implications.
  • Short-term outcome is making a major contribution to the advancement of knowledge in a particular field with wide-spread recognition as reflected in one or more of the following:
    1. A significant or consistent record of favorable citations and/or positive reviews of specific research outputs,
    2. The quality of publications in which the published research output is cited;
  • Intermediate Outcome is fundamentally or significantly altering policy or practice in a particular field, or is contributing to a major identifiable social, economic, industrial or environmental change in system capacity, locally or nation-wide, and the researcher(s) are recognized in the scientific community or industry for this change. Examples: changes in legislation, amendments to regulat­ory arrangements, wide take-up of a product, service, process or way of thinking derived from the research.

2:  Substantial (although not outstanding) contribution to the field

Guidance: Evidence presented indicates that the NIDRR-funded research on which the accomplishment is based meets high standards and the nominated:

  • Output presents new information or ideas, interpretations or critical findings and makes a valuable contribution to existing practices and demonstrates good research methods and technical skill; or is making a solid incre­mental contribution to knowledge, but not at the leading edge, and demonstrates sound and justifiable methodology.
  • Short-term outcome is making a solid incremental contribution to advancement in knowledge in the field, but not at the leading edge, as reflected in one or more of the following:
    • Positive reviews and citations of published research outputs;
    • Requests for presentations or publications;
    • Other types of recognition among peers of research contribution.
  • Intermediate Outcome is substantially contributing to changes in policy or practice, or in identifiable social, economic, industrial or environmental alterations in system capacity, although the changes are occurring within a limited area, setting or sphere of influence and may also be in an early stage of development.  

1: Little to no contribution to the field

Guidance: Evidence presented indicates that the nominated:

  • Output is of average research quality, but contributes little or marginally to understanding or insight in the field or subfield, or makes no contribution to understanding or insight and suggests questionable application of theory or methodologies or at least does not substantiate use of its theory or methodologies.
  • Short-Term Outcome is associated with little evidence of notable peer esteem or recognition as reflected in questionable or no citations.
  • Intermediate outcome is associated with little or no identifiable change in policy or practice and little or no identifiable social, economic, industrial or environmental alterations in system capacity.

0: Unable to rate because: (Circle One)

a.  Not enough information or evidence on which to base rating.
b.  Nominated accomplishment is too preliminary to rate.
c.  Reviewer is not familiar enough with the topic area to rate.

Results

Two-thirds (124) of the 188 accomplishments were reviewed by APAER panel members. One third (64) of the accomplishments were reviewed by experts not on the APAER panel.  Of the 188 accomplishments reviewed, 126 (67 percent) received a rating of 2 or 3. Ten percent (18) were rated as “unable to rate,” generally because of insufficient information presented.  NIDRR specified that an accomplishment needed to attain a score of  2 or 3 to be counted toward the performance measure. Table 1 shows the distribution of scores.


Table 1.  Distribution of Accomplishments Ratings

Rating

Number

Percent

 3:  Outstanding contribution to the field.

30

16%

 2: Substantial (although not outstanding) contribution to the field. 

96

51%

 1: Little to no contribution to the field. 

44

23%

 0a : Unable to rate because: Not enough information or evidence on which to base rating.

14

7%

 0b: Unable to rate because: Nominated accomplishment is too preliminary to rate.

3

2%

 0c:  Unable to rate because:  Reviewer is not familiar enough with the topic area to rate.

1

1%

Total 

188

100%

Accomplishments Rating Panel Member Biographical Information

*Denotes also served on the APAER panel.

John E. Crews, DPA, is currently the Lead Scientist with the Disability and Health Team in the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities at the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control in Atlanta.  Dr. Crews has over 30 years experience in vision rehabilitation and disability research. He managed a clinical program for older people with visual impairments for 15 years in Michigan until 1992.  He then became the acting director of the Rehabilitation Research and Development Center on Aging at the VA in Atlanta.  Later, he served as the Executive Director of the Georgia Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities.

*Pamela W. Duncan, Ph.D., a nationally and internationally renowned physical therapist and epidemiologist, is considered one of the world’s leading experts and consultants in the selection of outcome measures for stroke clinical trials. A recognized leader and innovator in stroke rehabilitation, she has dedicated her career to elevating the science of rehabilitation, improving the physical function of the elderly, and enhancing stroke rehabilitation and outcomes.  Dr. Duncan’s extensive contributions to the field of rehabilitation have been supported by almost two decades of continuous research funding from such entities as the National Institute on Aging (NIA), the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research (NCMRR), the American Heart Association (AHA), the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D),  Rehabilitation Research and Development (RR&D), and the pharmaceutical industry. Her experience in leading interdisciplinary research programs and building teams of medical doctors, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, epidemiologists, and biostatisticians to create a “community” of scientists has resulted in some of the most cited work in rehabilitation. Under her leadership as Co-Principal Investigator of the Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Center Grant, the Pepper Center produced a completed randomized clinical trial of therapeutic interventions to improve motor recovery, and Center investigators published more than 100 journal articles. Her work on the Pepper Center project also led to the creation of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), which is now used in multiple National Institutes of Health (NIH) and pharmaceutical trials and has been translated into over 20 languages. In addition, Dr. Duncan was instrumental in the development of the Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guidelines for stroke rehabilitation, and has been a leading force in the implementation of evidence-based practice within the VA.   Dr. Duncan’s current research focus is on the development of a trajectory of recovery for stroke and the effect of delivery of care, interventions, and measurement on stroke recovery. Her most recently funded project, “Locomotor Experience Applied Post-Stroke (LEAPS),” will investigate the effectiveness of locomotor training (body weight-supported treadmill training) as a rehabilitation modality. In addition to her role as a Health Services Researcher, Dr. Duncan is the Co-Director of the University of Florida Institute on Aging, and a Professor in the University of Florida, College of Medicine, Department of Aging and Geriatrics Research. Dr. Duncan also holds an appointment with the Department of Veterans Affairs, where she is a Research Career Scientist, the Director of the VA Rehabilitation Outcomes Research Center of Excellence, and the Research Coordinator for the VA Stroke QUERI Center.

*William Frey, Ph.D., has more than 30 years of experience in research, evaluation, and measurement, focusing primarily on programs and services for people with disabilities. He is principal investigator on a number of projects involving measurement, evaluation of programs and services, and national surveys. Dr. Frey is currently Co-Principal Investigator of the Mental Health Treatment Study, a national randomized trial of 3,000 SSDI beneficiaries with Schizophrenia or Affective Disorder to determine the effectiveness of providing high quality medical treatment and supported employment services in reducing disincentives to work. He is also Principal Investigator of an evaluation of disability employment policy demonstration programs, funded by the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), Department of Labor. Dr. Frey is also the Principal Investigator of a 5-year evaluation of states’ monitoring and improvement practices under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Dr. Frey currently serves on several scientific committees and panels, including the Scientific Advisory Committee for Health Care Delivery and Policy Research (National Multiple Sclerosis Society); Scientific Advisory Panel for the National Pain Survey (American Pain Foundation); Scientific Committee on the Epidemiology of Pain and Development of a Chronic Pain Screening Tool (Pfizer, Inc.); and Peer Reviewer for the National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

Leslie Gonzalez Rothi, Ph.D., is Professor of Neurology, Clinical & Health Psychology, and Communicative Processes and Disorders at the University of Florida, and a University of Florida Research Foundation Professor (2001–2004). She is the Program Director of the Brain Rehabilitation Research Center of Excellence at the North Florida/ South Georgia Veterans Health System. Dr. Gonzalez Rothi has centered her research in two main arenas: (1) the cognitive neuropsychology of human communication, as well as skilled, purposive limb movement planning and performance; and (2) cortical plasticity in the mature CNS associated with new learning, functional recovery after CNS damage or injury, and response to rehabilitation. Currently she is funded by both NIDCD/NIH and the VA Rehabilitation Research and Development Service, with clinical trials in treatment of aphasia, alexia, limb apraxia and aprosodia, the effects of adjunctive drug therapies in association with the previously listed treatment trials, and functional neuroimaging of functional recovery resulting from rehabilitation; health services research including the development of a brief cognitive inventory for use in prediction of treatment candidacy as well as functional outcome and development of a quality of life measure to be used in the context of aphasia after stroke; a large scale study of the interaction of language attributes in the context of aphasia, the impact of social factors such as race and marital status on outcome in aphasia, and the impact of intensity of treatment on outcome in aphasia.  Dr. Gonzalez Rothi serves on the Editorial Board for the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, and Journal of Communicative Disorders. Dr. Gonzalez Rothi has been awarded Fellowship status by the Division of Clinical Neuropsychology of the American Psychological Association as well as the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, and has been given the Outstanding Leader Award as well as Honors of the Association by the Academy of Neurologic Communication Disorders and Sciences. She has served on the Executive Boards of the Academy of Aphasia and the National Aphasia Association, President of the Academy of Neurologic Communication Disorders and Sciences, Coordinator of Special Interest Division 2 (Neurophysiology and neurogenic speech and language disorders) of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, and currently serves as President if the International Neuropsychological Society. She received her Ph.D. in Speech Pathology from the University of Florida in 1978. 

*William Heetderks, M.D., Ph.D., is the Director of Extramural Science Programs at the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), NIH. Before joining NIBIB he was at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). At the NINDS he worked on and later led the Neural Prosthesis Program and was the scientific team leader for the Repair and Plasticity Cluster.  He received undergraduate and masters degrees in Electrical Engineering and received the Ph.D. degree in Bioengineering all from The University of Michigan. He then joined the faculty in Electrical Engineering at Cornell University working in the areas of neural coding of information and digital signal processing. He received the M.D. degree from the University of Miami and is certified in Internal Medicine. He has received several awards including the NINDS Merit Award, the NIH Directors Award, The University of Michigan Distinguished Alumni Award in Bioengineering, and the Alfred Mann Foundation Award for Scientific Achievement. The mission of the NIBIB is to improve human health by leading the development and accelerating the application of biomedical technologies. The extramural program supports approximately 800 research and training grants at universities and research centers throughout the United States.

*Michael Lee, MD, is Professor and Chair of the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.  He also is the program director of the fully accredited residency program in physical medicine and rehabilitation and is the medical director of rehabilitation center at the University of North Carolina Hospitals.  Dr. Lee serves as the Chair of the chair’s council for Association of Academic Physiatrists and has served on the Board of Directors for American Spinal Injury Association and Commission of Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities.  Dr. Lee received the M.D. degree from the University of Illinois, M.H.A. degree from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and completed residency program at Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Northwestern University.
Dr. Lee’s clinical research interests include prevention and management of secondary conditions of spinal cord injured and has been funded by CDC, NIH and private foundations.

*Michael W. O’Dell, M.D., is Acting Chief and site director of the New York Weill Cornell Department of Rehabilitation Medicine and Professor of Clinical Rehabilitation Medicine at Weill Medical College.  Dr. O’Dell served on the faculty of both the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and Long Island Jewish Medical Center before arriving at Weill Cornell in July 2001.  He has published well over 100 scientific articles, abstracts, books and book chapters and serves on the Editorial Boards of the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation.

*Paul F. Pasquina, M.D., is a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army Medical Corps.  He is the Chairman of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation and the Medical Director of the Amputee Program at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.  Dr. Pasquina is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. In addition to being board certified in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, he is also board certified in electrodiagnostic medicine and pain medicine.  He completed a fellowship in sports medicine and remains interested in all aspects of musculoskeletal medicine especially as it applies to individuals with disability.  He serves on the editorial board of the Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development and was recently elected as a Fellow in the American Institute for Medical Biomedical Engineering (AIMBE) as well as a Secretarial appointee on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Advisory Committee for Prosthetics and Special Disabilities Programs.  Dr. Pasquina has authored multiple book chapters, journal articles, and policy papers. He has served as the PM&R Residency Program Director and Medical Advisor to the North Atlantic Regional Medical Command for quality healthcare, and continues to serve as a consultant to the Food and Drug Administration’s Orphan Drug Program. He has received multiple military awards, as well as awards for teaching and mentorship.

*Robert Louis Ruff, M.D., Ph.D., is a neurologist and biophysicist who is interested in Neuro-rehabilitation directed toward stroke.  He received his M.D. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Washington.  He is a Professor of Neurology and Neurosciences at Case Western Reserve University.  He is National Director for Neurology and the acting director of Rehabilitation Research for the Department of Veterans Affairs.  He has been Chief of the Neurology, Rehabilitation and Spinal Cord Injury & Dysfunction Services at the Louis Stokes Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Cleveland.  He is the Medical Director of the FES Center in Cleveland, which is a VA Rehab Research Center of Excellence.  Dr. Ruff was the Associate Editor of the journal Neurology from 1994 through 1996.  He joined the editorial Board of Muscle & Nerve in 2004. He has been on the editorial board of the Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development since 1999 and became Deputy Editor of JRRD in 2004 and Editor-in-Chief in 2005.  His clinical research interests include treatment of people with spinal cord compression due to cancer and stroke rehabilitation. He has twenty years on continually funded research.  His research deals with membrane biophysics, clinical neurology and stroke rehabilitation research and he has published more than 110 peer-reviewed journal publications and more than 40 book chapters or
books. He is Board Certified by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (Neurology, 1982) and the American Board of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (Spinal Cord Medicine, 2002).

*Rune J. Simeonsson, Ph.D., M.S.P.H. is Professor of Education, Research Professor of Psychology, and a Fellow at the FPG Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He also holds an appointment as Adjunct Professor, Department of Psychiatry at Duke University. He is coordinator of the School Psychology Program and teaches graduate courses in psychological assessment and intervention, child development and disability and research design and analysis. His research interests reflect the intersection of child development, special education and public health focusing on issues in assessment and classification of childhood disability and the promotion of child health and development. Areas of academic work include (a) analyses of children’s environments, (b) longitudinal follow-up of young children in the National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study, and (c) interdisciplinary training in a joint European Union-US consortium on early childhood intervention. He is actively engaged in research and scholarship on human functioning and disability and is currently serving as chair of a work group for the World Health Organization to develop a version of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for Children and Youth.

*Lynn Solem, M.D., a native of Minnesota, attended college and medical school at the University of Minnesota from 1962–1969. Following medical school, he did a rotating medicine internship at St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center in St. Paul, MN, followed by 9 months of an internal medicine residency at the University of Minnesota affiliated hospitals. He was in the United States Navy from 1971–1973, where his duty stations included Davisville and Newport, Rhode Island; South Pole Station in Antarctica; and Christchurch, New Zealand. Dr. Solem returned to St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center in 1973 and completed his surgical residency in 1977. Upon completion of his residency, he became a staff member of St. Paul Ramsey Hospital (now Regions Hospital) and became Burn Director in 1980. Dr. Solem was Chief of Surgery at Regions Hospital and Health Partners Medical Group from 1999–2003. He recently retired and plans to spend significant time in International Outreach. Dr. Solem is an associate professor of surgery at the University of Minnesota. He has been active in the American Burn Association since 1976 and has been a member of or chaired multiple committees of the American Burn Association, including the Education Committee, the subcommittee of the Ad Hoc Committee on Burn Center Verification, the Committee on Regionalization, the Burn Center Verification Committee, and chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Quality. One of his proudest accomplishments is to have developed an International Outreach Committee with an affiliation with Health Volunteers Overseas. They presently have developed working relationships with hospitals in India and Vellore and are pursuing a relationship in Central America. Dr. Solem was the 36th President of the American Burn Association in 2003–2004. He is also on the Board of the Phoenix Society.

*Thomas E. Stripling has served as Paralyzed Veterans of America’s Director of Research, Education and Practice Guidelines program since 2001.  This program includes management of PVA’s Spinal Cord Research Foundation, PVA’s Spinal Cord Injury Education and Training Foundation, and the Consortium for Spinal Cord Medicine for Clinical Practice Guidelines.  The foundations are both 501(C)(3) not-for-profit corporations awarding 1- or 2-year projects in either research or education dedicated to spinal cord injury or disease.  The Consortium represents 20 medical, nursing, therapeutic, and advocacy organizations focused on spinal cord injury that publish evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.  Mr. Stripling joined PVA in 1981 as a health policy researcher.  He has conducted and/or managed studies for PVA on the economic consequences of SCI and multiple sclerosis, membership needs and services, bladder cancer, sports and recreation, and various health services questions, ranging from managed care to assisted living to psycho-demographic statistics.  Mr. Stripling graduated from Providence College in 1972 with a bachelor’s degree in sociology.   Prior to joining PVA, he was involved in the developmental disabilities field as a program manager, researcher, community liaison, and advocate.


Return to:
Annual Performance Assessment Expert Review
Table of Contents


Top

Return to:

NIDRR Announcements
or


NIDRR's Web site
or

National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research Home page