Post Tenure Review in the Texas University System Survey Results: Simple Frequency Distribution
(August 18, 2000)
The exact wording used for each of the following items can be seen at AAHE.SURVEY.html
Post Tenure Review in the Texas State University System Survey Results: Simple Frequency Distribution 1999-2000 SECTION 1 The Respondent's View of Tenure 1.1 Tenure amounts to a lifetime job Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 68 14.8 15.1 15.1 Agree 2.00 138 30.1 30.6 45.7 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3.00 84 18.3 18.6 64.3 Disagree 4.00 117 25.5 25.9 90.2 Strongly Disagree 5.00 44 9.6 9.8 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 2 .4 Missing No Response 9.00 6 1.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 451 Missing cases 8 1.2 Tenure is the foundation for academic freedom Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 226 49.2 49.9 49.9 Agree 2.00 141 30.7 31.1 81.0 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3.00 38 8.3 8.4 89.4 Disagree 4.00 34 7.4 7.5 96.9 Strongly Disagree 5.00 14 3.1 3.1 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 4 .9 Missing No Response 9.00 2 .4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 453 Missing cases 6 1.3 Tenure is outmoded and should be replaced with long-term contracts Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 29 6.3 6.5 6.5 Agree 2.00 49 10.7 11.0 17.4 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3.00 59 12.9 13.2 30.6 Disagree 4.00 134 29.2 30.0 60.6 Strongly Disagree 5.00 176 38.3 39.4 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 6 1.3 Missing No Response 9.00 6 1.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 447 Missing cases 12 1.4 PTR adds important element to our department's annual review Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 47 10.2 10.8 10.8 Agree 2.00 130 28.3 30.0 40.8 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3.00 91 19.8 21.0 61.8 Disagree 4.00 88 19.2 20.3 82.0 Strongly Disagree 5.00 78 17.0 18.0 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 22 4.8 Missing No Response 9.00 3 .7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 434 Missing cases 25 1.5 Concerns about tenure and academic freedom with regard to PTR? Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 268 58.4 62.2 62.2 Yes 2.00 163 35.5 37.8 100.0 9.00 28 6.1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 431 Missing cases 28 SECTION 2 Perceptions of the Motives for the Development of PTR 2.1 PTR created due to pressures to increase accountability Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 147 32.0 33.3 33.3 Agree 2.00 241 52.5 54.6 88.0 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3.00 23 5.0 5.2 93.2 Disagree 4.00 16 3.5 3.6 96.8 Strongly Disagree 5.00 14 3.1 3.2 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 13 2.8 Missing No Response 9.00 5 1.1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 441 Missing cases 18 2.2 PTR developed to weed out the "deadwood" Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 78 17.0 17.8 17.8 Agree 2.00 182 39.7 41.6 59.5 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3.00 74 16.1 16.9 76.4 Disagree 4.00 77 16.8 17.6 94.1 Strongly Disagree 5.00 26 5.7 5.9 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 16 3.5 Missing No Response 9.00 6 1.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 437 Missing cases 22 2.3 PTR developed due to financial pressures Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 54 11.8 13.2 13.2 Agree 2.00 128 27.9 31.2 44.4 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3.00 92 20.0 22.4 66.8 Disagree 4.00 100 21.8 24.4 91.2 Strongly Disagree 5.00 36 7.8 8.8 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 40 8.7 Missing No Response 9.00 9 2.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 410 Missing cases 49 2.4 Additional comments in regard to the PTR concept Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 331 72.1 78.8 78.8 Yes 2.00 89 19.4 21.2 100.0 9.00 39 8.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 420 Missing cases 39 SECTION 3 Opinions about an Ideal PTR Process 3.1 PTR should only be used for faculty who fail an annual evaluation Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 128 27.9 28.6 28.6 Agree 2.00 137 29.8 30.6 59.3 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3.00 22 4.8 4.9 64.2 Disagree 4.00 95 20.7 21.3 85.5 Strongly Disagree 5.00 65 14.2 14.5 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 4 .9 Missing No Response 9.00 8 1.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 447 Missing cases 12 3.2 PTR should focus on all activities Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 147 32.0 33.0 33.0 Agree 2.00 207 45.1 46.4 79.4 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3.00 28 6.1 6.3 85.7 Disagree 4.00 43 9.4 9.6 95.3 Strongly Disagree 5.00 21 4.6 4.7 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 2 .4 Missing No Response 9.00 11 2.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 446 Missing cases 13 3.3 PTR should primarily focus on teaching Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 81 17.6 18.5 18.5 Agree 2.00 112 24.4 25.6 44.2 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3.00 50 10.9 11.4 55.6 Disagree 4.00 117 25.5 26.8 82.4 Strongly Disagree 5.00 77 16.8 17.6 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 3 .7 Missing No Response 9.00 19 4.1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 437 Missing cases 22 3.4 PTR should primarily focus on research Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 9 2.0 2.1 2.1 Agree 2.00 34 7.4 7.9 9.9 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3.00 76 16.6 17.6 27.5 Disagree 4.00 181 39.4 41.8 69.3 Strongly Disagree 5.00 133 29.0 30.7 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 3 .7 Missing No Response 9.00 23 5.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 433 Missing cases 26 3.5 PTR should primarily focus on service Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 9 2.0 2.1 2.1 Agree 2.00 34 7.4 7.8 9.9 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3.00 78 17.0 18.0 27.9 Disagree 4.00 179 39.0 41.2 69.1 Strongly Disagree 5.00 134 29.2 30.9 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 3 .7 Missing No Response 9.00 22 4.8 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 434 Missing cases 25 3.6 Additional comments in regard to PTR operation Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 323 70.4 78.6 78.6 Yes 2.00 88 19.2 21.4 100.0 9.00 48 10.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 411 Missing cases 48 SECTION 4 How Respondents View Their Department's PTR Procedure Questions 1-14 concern possible benefits of PTR 4.1 PTR stimulates improved teaching Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 35 7.6 7.8 7.8 Minor Benefit 2.00 84 18.3 18.7 26.5 No Benefit 3.00 178 38.8 39.6 66.1 Too Soon To Know 4.00 152 33.1 33.9 100.0 No Response 9.00 10 2.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 449 Missing cases 10 4.2 PTR stimulates improved research Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 29 6.3 6.5 6.5 Minor Benefit 2.00 92 20.0 20.5 27.0 No Benefit 3.00 178 38.8 39.7 66.7 Too Soon To Know 4.00 149 32.5 33.3 100.0 No Response 9.00 11 2.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 448 Missing cases 11 4.3 PTR stimulates improved service and outreach Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 23 5.0 5.1 5.1 Minor Benefit 2.00 79 17.2 17.7 22.8 No Benefit 3.00 196 42.7 43.8 66.7 Too Soon To Know 4.00 149 32.5 33.3 100.0 No Response 9.00 12 2.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 447 Missing cases 12 4.4 PTR acts as a safeguard to tenure Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 32 7.0 7.2 7.2 Minor Benefit 2.00 75 16.3 17.0 24.2 No Benefit 3.00 173 37.7 39.1 63.3 Too Soon To Know 4.00 162 35.3 36.7 100.0 No Response 9.00 17 3.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 442 Missing cases 17 4.5 PTR increases faculty accountability Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 55 12.0 12.3 12.3 Minor Benefit 2.00 132 28.8 29.6 41.9 No Benefit 3.00 122 26.6 27.4 69.3 Too Soon To Know 4.00 137 29.8 30.7 100.0 No Response 9.00 13 2.8 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 446 Missing cases 13 4.6 PTR helps sustain senior faculty vitality Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 32 7.0 7.2 7.2 Minor Benefit 2.00 88 19.2 19.7 26.9 No Benefit 3.00 179 39.0 40.1 67.0 Too Soon To Know 4.00 147 32.0 33.0 100.0 No Response 9.00 13 2.8 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 446 Missing cases 13 4.7 PTR increases opportunities for mid/late career planning Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 17 3.7 3.8 3.8 Minor Benefit 2.00 56 12.2 12.6 16.5 No Benefit 3.00 188 41.0 42.4 58.9 Too Soon To Know 4.00 182 39.7 41.1 100.0 No Response 9.00 16 3.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 443 Missing cases 16 4.8 PTR establishes development as expectation for all faculty Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 69 15.0 15.7 15.7 Minor Benefit 2.00 142 30.9 32.3 48.0 No Benefit 3.00 109 23.7 24.8 72.7 Too Soon To Know 4.00 120 26.1 27.3 100.0 No Response 9.00 19 4.1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 440 Missing cases 19 4.9 PTR improves collegiality Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 9 2.0 2.1 2.1 Minor Benefit 2.00 44 9.6 10.1 12.1 No Benefit 3.00 273 59.5 62.5 74.6 Too Soon To Know 4.00 111 24.2 25.4 100.0 No Response 9.00 22 4.8 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 437 Missing cases 22 4.10 PTR increases involvement of peers in department planning Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 27 5.9 6.1 6.1 Minor Benefit 2.00 101 22.0 22.9 29.0 No Benefit 3.00 191 41.6 43.3 72.3 Too Soon To Know 4.00 122 26.6 27.7 100.0 No Response 9.00 18 3.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 441 Missing cases 18 4.11 PTR links department goals with individual professional planning Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 29 6.3 6.6 6.6 Minor Benefit 2.00 101 22.0 22.9 29.5 No Benefit 3.00 184 40.1 41.7 71.2 Too Soon To Know 4.00 127 27.7 28.8 100.0 No Response 9.00 18 3.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 441 Missing cases 18 4.12 PTR focuses attention on annual review procedures Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 35 7.6 8.0 8.0 Minor Benefit 2.00 120 26.1 27.3 35.2 No Benefit 3.00 169 36.8 38.4 73.6 Too Soon To Know 4.00 116 25.3 26.4 100.0 No Response 9.00 19 4.1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 440 Missing cases 19 4.13 PTR increases public confidence in higher education Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 53 11.5 12.0 12.0 Minor Benefit 2.00 84 18.3 19.0 30.9 No Benefit 3.00 129 28.1 29.1 60.0 Too Soon To Know 4.00 177 38.6 40.0 100.0 No Response 9.00 16 3.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 443 Missing cases 16 4.14 PTR forestalls further external interference Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Benefit 1.00 55 12.0 12.5 12.5 Minor Benefit 2.00 86 18.7 19.5 32.0 No Benefit 3.00 116 25.3 26.3 58.3 Too Soon To Know 4.00 184 40.1 41.7 100.0 No Response 9.00 18 3.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 441 Missing cases 18 Questions 15-27 concern possible problems with PTR 4.15 PTR is an invasion of professional autonomy Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 67 14.6 15.2 15.2 Minor Problem 2.00 81 17.6 18.4 33.6 No Problem 3.00 187 40.7 42.5 76.1 Too Soon To Know 4.00 105 22.9 23.9 100.0 No Response 9.00 19 4.1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 440 Missing cases 19 4.16 PTR process viewed as threat to tenure Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 109 23.7 24.5 24.5 Minor Problem 2.00 93 20.3 20.9 45.5 No Problem 3.00 132 28.8 29.7 75.2 Too Soon To Know 4.00 110 24.0 24.8 100.0 No Response 9.00 15 3.3 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 444 Missing cases 15 4.17 PTR produces excessive paperwork Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 145 31.6 32.7 32.7 Minor Problem 2.00 144 31.4 32.5 65.2 No Problem 3.00 77 16.8 17.4 82.6 Too Soon To Know 4.00 77 16.8 17.4 100.0 No Response 9.00 16 3.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 443 Missing cases 16 4.18 PTR takes excessive time Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 142 30.9 32.3 32.3 Minor Problem 2.00 136 29.6 31.0 63.3 No Problem 3.00 85 18.5 19.4 82.7 Too Soon To Know 4.00 76 16.6 17.3 100.0 No Response 9.00 20 4.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 439 Missing cases 20 4.19 PTR produces an erosion of collegiality Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 109 23.7 24.8 24.8 Minor Problem 2.00 88 19.2 20.0 44.9 No Problem 3.00 130 28.3 29.6 74.5 Too Soon To Know 4.00 112 24.4 25.5 100.0 No Response 9.00 20 4.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 439 Missing cases 20 4.20 PTR has negative effect on "risk taking" in scholarly pursuits Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 83 18.1 18.9 18.9 Minor Problem 2.00 73 15.9 16.7 35.6 No Problem 3.00 143 31.2 32.6 68.3 Too Soon To Know 4.00 139 30.3 31.7 100.0 No Response 9.00 21 4.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 438 Missing cases 21 4.21 PTR brings an unevenness in application of criteria and standards Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 126 27.5 28.6 28.6 Minor Problem 2.00 68 14.8 15.4 44.0 No Problem 3.00 100 21.8 22.7 66.7 Too Soon To Know 4.00 147 32.0 33.3 100.0 No Response 9.00 18 3.9 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 441 Missing cases 18 4.22 PTR makes unreasonable demands for faculty development funding Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 42 9.2 9.6 9.6 Minor Problem 2.00 61 13.3 13.9 23.5 No Problem 3.00 156 34.0 35.6 59.1 Too Soon To Know 4.00 179 39.0 40.9 100.0 No Response 9.00 21 4.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 438 Missing cases 21 4.23 PTR produces no positive change over long term Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 68 14.8 15.5 15.5 Minor Problem 2.00 44 9.6 10.0 25.5 No Problem 3.00 64 13.9 14.5 40.0 Too Soon To Know 4.00 264 57.5 60.0 100.0 No Response 9.00 19 4.1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 440 Missing cases 19 4.24 There will not be sufficient development funds for PTR Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 154 33.6 35.2 35.2 Minor Problem 2.00 94 20.5 21.5 56.6 No Problem 3.00 52 11.3 11.9 68.5 Too Soon To Know 4.00 138 30.1 31.5 100.0 No Response 9.00 21 4.6 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 438 Missing cases 21 4.25 There is insufficient training for peers, chairs, and deans Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 118 25.7 27.0 27.0 Minor Problem 2.00 94 20.5 21.5 48.5 No Problem 3.00 87 19.0 19.9 68.4 Too Soon To Know 4.00 138 30.1 31.6 100.0 No Response 9.00 22 4.8 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 437 Missing cases 22 4.26 PTR leads to a reduction of academic professionalism Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 74 16.1 16.8 16.8 Minor Problem 2.00 70 15.3 15.9 32.7 No Problem 3.00 166 36.2 37.7 70.5 Too Soon To Know 4.00 130 28.3 29.5 100.0 No Response 9.00 19 4.1 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 440 Missing cases 19 4.27 PTR forces early retirement Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Major Problem 1.00 45 9.8 10.3 10.3 Minor Problem 2.00 39 8.5 8.9 19.1 No Problem 3.00 156 34.0 35.5 54.7 Too Soon To Know 4.00 199 43.4 45.3 100.0 No Response 9.00 20 4.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 439 Missing cases 20 4.28 Additional comments in regard to PTR consequences Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 338 73.6 83.9 83.9 Yes 2.00 65 14.2 16.1 100.0 9.00 56 12.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 403 Missing cases 56 SECTION 5 Respondents’ Experiences with the PTR Process 5.1 Have you contemplated retirement rather than going through PTR? Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 429 93.5 95.3 95.3 Yes 2.00 21 4.6 4.7 100.0 9.00 9 2.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 450 Missing cases 9 5.2 Have you contemplated other employment rather than going through PTR? Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 418 91.1 93.1 93.1 Yes 2.00 31 6.8 6.9 100.0 No Response 9.00 10 2.2 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 449 Missing cases 10 5.3 Has PTR changed your habits as a professor? Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent No 1.00 414 90.2 92.4 92.4 Yes 2.00 34 7.4 7.6 100.0 9.00 11 2.4 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 448 Missing cases 11 5.3.1 Has PTR changed the attention given to teaching activities Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Not altered 1.00 18 3.9 47.4 47.4 Increased 2.00 11 2.4 28.9 76.3 Decreased 3.00 9 2.0 23.7 100.0 NA/No Response 9.00 421 91.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 38 Missing cases 421 5.3.2 Has PTR changed the attention given to research activities Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Not altered 1.00 13 2.8 34.2 34.2 Increased 2.00 20 4.4 52.6 86.8 Decreased 3.00 5 1.1 13.2 100.0 No Response 9.00 421 91.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 38 Missing cases 421 5.3.3 Has PTR changed the attention given to service activities Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Not altered 1.00 19 4.1 50.0 50.0 Increased 2.00 12 2.6 31.6 81.6 Decreased 3.00 7 1.5 18.4 100.0 No Response 9.00 421 91.7 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 38 Missing cases 421 5.3.4 Has PTR changed the attention given to other activities Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Not altered 1.00 19 4.1 57.6 57.6 Increased 2.00 10 2.2 30.3 87.9 Decreased 3.00 4 .9 12.1 100.0 No Response 9.00 426 92.8 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 33 Missing cases 426 5.4 How active were you in development of PTR standards Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Very active 1.00 86 18.7 19.0 19.0 Moderately active 2.00 110 24.0 24.3 43.4 Passive participant 3.00 71 15.5 15.7 59.1 Did not participate 4.00 185 40.3 40.9 100.0 No Response 9.00 7 1.5 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 452 Missing cases 7 5.5 Did your department have a thoughtful discussion of tenure Valid Cum Value Label Value Frequency Percent Percent Percent Strongly Agree 1.00 41 8.9 14.1 14.1 Agree 2.00 97 21.1 33.4 47.6 Neither Agree nor Disagree 3.00 55 12.0 19.0 66.6 Disagree 4.00 53 11.5 18.3 84.8 Strongly Disagree 5.00 44 9.6 15.2 100.0 Don't Know 8.00 22 4.8 Missing No Response 9.00 147 32.0 Missing ------- ------- ------- Total 459 100.0 100.0 Valid cases 290 Missing cases 169 Subsection 5.6 Questions for those who have been subject of PTR 5.6 Have you been evaluated by PTR &nb