Study Metrics Clause Samples

Study Metrics a. Phase Pivotal b. Maximum # of Sites *** c. Maximum # of Patients *** d. Maximum # of Unique CRFs 40 e. Maximum # of Total CRFs 65
View SourceView Similar (2)
Study Metrics. Sections 19.3, 19.4 and 19.10(i) require a Transmission Provider to use due diligence to meet study completion deadlines for System Impact Studies, Facilities Studies, and Cluster Studies. For the purposes of calculating the percentage of non- Affiliates’ System Impact Studies and Facilities Studies processed outside of the study completion deadlines, the Transmission Provider shall consider all System Impact Studies, Facilities Studies, and Cluster Studies that it completes for non- Affiliates during the calendar quarter. The percentage should be calculated by dividing the number of those studies which are completed on time by the total number of completed studies.
View Source

Related to Study Metrics

  • Study Population ‌ Infants who underwent creation of an enterostomy receiving postoperative care and awaiting enterostomy closure: to be assessed for eligibility: n = 201 to be assigned to the study: n = 106 to be analysed: n = 106 Duration of intervention per patient of the intervention group: 6 weeks between enterostomy creation and enterostomy closure Follow-up per patient: 3 months, 6 months and 12 months post enterostomy closure, following enterostomy closure (12-month follow-up only applicable for patients that are recruited early enough to complete this follow-up within the 48 month of overall study duration).

  • Metrics Institutional Metrics System-Wide Metrics

  • Study An application for leave of absence for professional study must be supported by a written statement indicating what study or research is to be undertaken, or, if applicable, what subjects are to be studied and at what institutions.

  • STATEWIDE ACHIEVEMENT TESTING When CONTRACTOR is a NPS, per implementation of Senate Bill 484, CONTRACTOR shall administer all Statewide assessments within the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (“CAASPP”), Desired Results Developmental Profile (“DRDP”), California Alternative Assessment (“CAA”), achievement and abilities tests (using LEA-authorized assessment instruments), the Fitness Gram, , the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (“ELPAC”), and as appropriate to the student, and mandated by LEA pursuant to LEA and state and federal guidelines. CONTRACTOR is subject to the alternative accountability system developed pursuant to Education Code section 52052, in the same manner as public schools. Each LEA student placed with CONTRACTOR by the LEA shall be tested by qualified staff of CONTRACTOR in accordance with that accountability program. ▇▇▇ shall provide test administration training to CONTRACTOR’S qualified staff. CONTRACTOR shall attend LEA test training and comply with completion of all coding requirements as required by ▇▇▇.

  • Targets and Milestones For the purposes of this Access Agreement, the University of Bristol will assess progress in widening participation against a combination of progress measures which, between them, are designed to assess: • The specific impact of a number of key outreach initiatives. • Year on year progress in diversifying our applicant and student population. • Year on year progress in improving conversion of under-represented applicants. Bearing in mind the range of outreach activities which we plan to offer, we intend to measure year on year progress in attracting a wider pool of applicants by focusing particularly on each of the following categories (although additional measures included in our 2012 Agreement have also been retained for continuity of monitoring): • Applicants from low performing schools • Applicants from socio-economic groups 4-7 • Local applicants Progress measures for each of these are provided at Appendix Four. In each case, we have included new measures, to assess improvements in application to intake conversion. As far as possible, measures have been calculated taking account of the expected impact of a number of specific outreach initiatives (the Access to Bristol scheme, summer school programme and personal adviser scheme), each of which also has more detailed performance targets associated with them (also detailed at Appendix Four). Measurement of the University’s intake profile will be focused on the low school performance category, reflecting the role which this plays in our contextual approach to admissions. Measures relating to mature student intake have been included for continuity. The recent decision to grow our undergraduate numbers substantially means that continuing to measure progress in diversifying intake by looking at under-represented groups as a percentage of total intake is no longer meaningful. For each intake-related measure, we have therefore added the number of students which the original percentages might have been expected to deliver. Monitoring against these numbers will give a more accurate picture of progress. All progress measures have been informed by more detailed analysis of progress against the institutional milestones detailed in Appendix Two and will be re-calculated annually to reflect assessment of our progress to date. In addition, it should be noted that we intend to carry out further research, for example, to better understand the impact of educational standards in the Bristol area on our ability to progress at the specified rates; we may need to adjust the progress measures contained in this agreement for future years to reflect the findings.