# Abstract ---- #### Specific Application Congressional offices working on issue areas broadly related to children and families. #### Source for This Method Long, E.C., Smith, R.L., Scott, J.T., Gay, B., Giray, C., Storace, R., Guillot-Wright, S. and Crowley, D.M. (2021) A new measure to understand the role of science in US Congress: lessons learned from the Legislative Use of Research Survey (LURS), Evidence & Policy, DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16134931606126. Available online March 12, 2021. #### URE Questions Addressed - Can we quantitatively measure congressional staff’s attitudes and behaviors regarding URE? - What are the best ways to establish connections with - and obtain quality evidence from - sources at the highest levels of government? #### Instrument Origins Survey items were adapted from the Staff Assessment of enGagement with Evidence interview protocol (SAGE); Seeking, Engaging with, and Evaluating Research protocol (SEER); the Standard Interview for Evidence Use (SIEU) protocol; and structured interviews assessing policymakers’ frequency of interactions with researchers. #### Scales/Domains The validated 35-item survey can be found attached to the [Legislative Use of Research - Survey Survey Instrument project][1], also linked via the component section of this project. Researchers wishing to adapt or modify the LURS should fork the Instrument project. The survey consists of five scales (constructs): - reported use of research evidence; - value of research evidence for policy work; - interactions with researchers; - general information sources; - research information sources. #### Target Respondents National policymakers in the US and their office staff. Although not tested with other populations, this survey could serve as a template for work in other countries and with other legislative bodies. #### Participant Selection Participants included staff in congressional offices working on issue areas broadly related to children and families (e.g., child welfare, human trafficking, prevention, substance use, and poverty) who agreed to meet with study personnel. #### Administration The initial administration of the survey consisted of a face-to-face meeting, approximately 30 minutes in length, in which 68 items were used. The trimmed, 35-item set was used in the administration of two follow-ups. #### Analysis of Survey Technical Characteristics Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of 68 items was used to examine hypothesized structure of the five constructs through the use of multiple model fit statistics (Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), and Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual (SRMR). Items were eliminated on the basis of poor model fit and/or evidence of difficulty in responding by participants. A second CFA analysis was conducted on the trimmed survey (35 items). #### Number and Format of Items The final, trimmed survey consists of 35 Likert-scale items and two additional items that ask about the scientific training of staff in the office. #### Analytic Methods Descriptive statistics (mean, SD, and SE, factor loadings). #### Author Contact The study’s corresponding author, Elizabeth Long, can be contacted for more information via email at ecl5218@psu.edu. The study’s Primary Investigator, Max Crowley, may also be contacted at dmc397@psu.edu. [1]: https://osf.io/h3nc6/