| Technique | Mean | Number of cases | Rank |
| Staff communication | 1.430 | 86 | 1 |
| Member communication | 1.626 | 83 | 2 |
| Oversight hearings | 1.714 | 84 | 4 |
| Program reauthorization hearings' | 1.688 | 61 | 3 |
| Amendment headings | 1.750 | 60 | 5 |
| Review of casework | 2.694 | 72 | 14 |
| Staff investigations and field studies | 1.780 | 82 | 6 |
| Analysis of proposed regulations | 2.279 | 86 | 10 |
| Agency reports | 2.534 | 86 | 12 |
| Congressional support agency program evaluations | 2.000 | 88 | 8 |
| Agency program evaluations | 2.541 | 85 | 13 |
| "Outsiders" program evaluations | 2.523 | 84 | 11 |
| Committee staff program evaluations | 1.891 | 83 | 7 |
| Legislative veto | 2.085 | 35 | 9 |
a. After each technique, respondents whose units used it could check the following effectiveness categories: very effective, 1; moderately effective, 2; not very effective, 3; or ineffective, 4. Techniques are listed in the order presented to the respondents.
1. Joel D. Aberbach "Keeping a Watchful Eye: The Politics of Congressional Oversight" Brookings, 1990, p. 135.