‫الموقع‬

psyctests.com
AmoebaWeb
Psychology on the Web!

Queendom.com
Encyclopedia of Psychology
Psychology Tests
FINDING PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASURES
Employees Tests
http://www.radhielkobaisi.jeeran.com/database.htm

‫ بين الحياء الذى هو شعبة من اليمان وبين‬- ‫ أيما فارق‬- ‫هناك فارق‬
‫ فى أبسط‬-‫الخجل الذى هو مظهر ضعف فى الشخصية أما الحياء‬
Increasing the Validity of Adapted Tests: Myths to be Avoided and Guidelines for
Improving Test Adaptation Practices1,2

Ronald K. Hambleton and Liane Patsula

University of Massachusetts at Amherst

Adapting or translating achievement, ability, and personality tests and questionnaires

prepared in one language and culture into other languages and cultures has had a long
history in educational and psychological testing though this fact is not well-known
among educational researchers and measurement specialists. At least five reasons can be
found in the literature for adapting tests:

1. very often adapting a test is considerably cheaper and faster than constructing a
new test in a second language,
2. when the purpose for the adapted test is cross-cultural or cross-national
assessment (such as with many credentialing exams), an adapted test is the most
effective way to produce an equivalent test in a second language,
3. there may be a lack of expertise for developing a new test in a second language,
4. there is a sense of security that is associated with an adapted test more so than a
newly constructed test especially when the original test is well-known, and
5. fairness to examinees often results from the presence of multiple language
versions of a test (see Hambleton & Patsula, 1998).

Unfortunately, though the practice of adapting or (simply) translating tests can be traced
to the intelligence tests of the French psychologist Alfred Binet at the beginning of this
century, there is substantial evidence to suggest that improved methods for adapting or
translating tests from one language and culture to others are needed, and that
considerably more attention should be given to this important task than it is typically
given by researchers and/or test developers. Too often in practice the test adaptation
process seems to be viewed as a routine task that can be completed by anyone who
knows the relevant languages. One consequence is adapted tests in the target languages
of interest with only superficial equivalence to the tests in the source language.

The purposes of this paper are two-fold: First, a set of myths or problems which need to
be discarded/overcome about the test adaptation process will be presented. These myths
are widespread and undermine effective test adaptation initiatives. Second, steps for
adapting tests will be offered along with a discussion of the importance of each step in
the test adaptation process.

Myths About Adapting Tests

There are a number of myths associated with adapting tests which appear in
measurement practice and should be discarded as quickly as possible:

Myth 1. The preferable strategy is always to adapt an existing test rather than develop
a new test for a second language group.

There are many good reasons for adapting a test, but there are reasons for not
proceeding with a test adaptation as well. Especially when cross-cultural comparisons
are not of interest, it may be substantially easier and more relevant to construct a new
test for a second language group. This avoids any complications with copyright, insures
that the format will be suitable, and any desired modifications in the definition of the
construct of interest can be made at the outset of the test development process.

Sometimes, too, it may be desirable not to adapt a test but rather to require all
examinees to take a test in a single language. For example, in the United States, there
has been interest in some states in making high school graduation tests available in both
English and Spanish. Technically this is possible, but the question of whether or not to
make two language versions of a test available depends on many factors including the
definition of the construct being measured. Is the language in which performance is to
be demonstrated a part of the construct definition or not? In the case of reading, reading
in the language of English is almost always part of the construct of interest. Producing a
Spanish equivalent version of a reading test in English makes very little sense because
inferences of English reading proficiency cannot be made from a test administered in
Spanish.

The situation with a mathematics test may be very different. The construct of interest
may be focused on computation skills, concepts, and problem-solving skills and here,
the purpose of the test is to look for a demonstration of the skills, and the language in
which the performance is assessed and demonstrated may be of little or no interest. Of
course, if the desired inference is mastery of mathematics skills when the test questions
are presented in English, then a Spanish version of the test would be inappropriate in
this situation too.

Myth 2. Anyone who knows the two languages can produce an acceptable translation
of a test.

This is one of the most troublesome myths because it results in unqualified persons
adapting tests. There is considerable evidence suggesting that test translators need to be
familiar with both source and target languages and the cultures, and they need to be
generally familiar with the construct being assessed, and the principles of good test
development practices. How, for example, can someone translate a high school physics
test from English into Spanish without some knowledge of the content? Would a
translator with little knowledge of test development principles be aware to preserve the
relevant features of the original test in an adapted test such as clearly written item
stems, a single correct or best answer, answer choices of approximately the same length,
etc.?

Myth 3. A well-translated test guarantees that the test scores will be valid in a second
language or culture for cross-language comparative purposes.

Van de Vijver and Poortinga (1997) make the point that not only should the meaning of
a test be consistent across persons within a language group and culture but, that
meaning, whatever it is, must be consistent across language groups and cultures. For
example, if a test is more speeded in a second language version because of the nature of
that language, then the two language versions of the test are not equally valid. We have
encountered just such a problem in some German test translations we are currently
working on. Quite simply, the German words are longer than English words and take
correspondingly longer to read. The result is a slightly more speeded German version of
the test. In this instance, the test may be equally valid in each language group and
culture, but still not be suitable for cross-cultural comparisons.

Many other examples could be introduced. For one, the non-equivalent familiarity of
students in different cultures with certain item formats, e.g., the multiple-choice format,
places examinees from this second cultural group at a serious disadvantage. The
translation could be excellent, but the scores from the two language versions are not
equally valid.

Myth 4. Constructs are universal, and therefore all tests can be translated into other
languages and cultures.

One of the best counter examples of this myth concerns intelligence tests. The Western
notion of intelligence places considerable emphasis on speed of response. In some
cultures, speed of response is of minor importance as a operating characteristic for life,
and members of these cultural groups often score lower on Westernized intelligence
tests because of a failure to perform quickly. But, it only in this limited sense of the
Western definition of the construct of intelligence that these cultural groups appear of
less intelligence. By another definition, perhaps one that devalues speed of response and
emphasizes other human attributes of intelligence (see Sternberg and Gardner (1983) for
broader definitions of intelligence which incorporate, for example, social and artistic
skills) the results would be opposite.

There is currently considerable interest in cross-cultural comparisons of quality of life.

It is interesting to discover that the construct associated with quality of life in this
country is often very different in other countries and this makes cross-cultural
comparisons very different. Televisions, portable telephones, personal computers, the
great outdoors, and college sports are of no importance and do not affect the quality of
life for persons in many other cultures. Cross-cultural comparisons of quality of life are
difficult to carry out because the construct may have very different meanings across
cultures.

Myth 5. Translators are capable of finding flaws in a test adaptation. Field testing is
not usually necessary.

This is another of the major myths about adapting tests. There are literally thousands of
examples of poorly adapted test items in the literature, and many of the items in these
tests were approved by translators. The fact is translators are not able to anticipate all of
the problems encountered by examinees taking a test in a second language.

One of the best examples because it was discovered on an international comparative

study of reading achievement (and a study where the American students were about the
middle of 20 countries) is the following:

Determine whether these two words are similar or different--

pessimistic sanguine

In the English version of the test item, only about 54% of the American students were
able to determine the correct response (a performance level slightly above chance)
which is that the two words have a different meaning. In a second language version, the
item was adapted as follows--

pessimistic optimistic

In the foreign language version of the test item, almost 100% of the examinees
answered the item correctly. Clearly, a poor translation had made the test item
considerably easier. The reason given was that the word "sanguine" had no equivalent
word in the second language and therefore another word was chosen which too, had a
different meaning to pessimistic. Interestingly, this easier version of the test item was
used in the country which finished number one among the 20 countries. One wonders
what role this item and other improperly adapted test items played in the final rankings
of the 20 countries.

In summary, all of the myths can seriously compromise the validity of a test in a second
language or cultural group, or negatively influence the validity of adapted tests for use
in cross-language comparison studies. Fortunately, each myth is straightforward to
address in practice. What follows are steps for adapting tests which should eliminate all
of the myths and other shortcomings in test adaptation methodology.

Steps for Adapting Tests

The International Test Commission (ITC) guidelines (Hambleton, 1994; van de Vijver
& Hambleton, 1996) provide an excellent framework to guide researchers in the test
adaptation process. Appendix A contains a copy of those guidelines. The following
steps for adapting a test from one culture and/or language for use in another are a
mixture of findings and recommendations from the ITC guidelines and many empirical
studies (e.g., Angoff & Cook, 1988, Prieto, 1992; Hambleton, 1994). Geisinger's (1994)
work in cross-cultural assessment was especially influential in our thinking about the
topic of steps for adapting tests. The steps are still evolving. Through the application of
the steps in different contexts new insights will be gained and certain additions,
deletions, and clarifications may be necessary.

Step 1 – Ensure that construct equivalence exists in the language and cultural groups
of interest.

Assess whether construct equivalence exists between the cultures of interest and if it
does not, either consider "decentering" (that is, revising the definition of the construct to
be equally equivalent in each language and cultural group) or discontinue the project.
The publication by Harkness (1998) is especially helpful in the study of construct
equivalence.

Central questions are as follows: Does the particular construct that a researcher (e.g., the
content domain for a credentialing exam) is interested in measuring exist in both
cultures? Does it make sense to compare these two cultures on this construct? Would
any cross-cultural comparison on this construct be meaningful? Does the construct that
is being measured mean the same thing in all cultures being compared?

Researchers familiar with both languages and cultures are in a strong position to make
judgments about construct equivalence between cultures. One can also judge whether
cross-cultural construct equivalence exists by interviewing or observing people from the
cultures of interest, researching the cultures of interest, asking others who know about
the cultures, or visiting people in the culture.

Suggestions:

1. Through discussions with psychologists and other knowledge persons in each

culture, determine if the construct exists, and if the same definition applies
equally well in both language and cultural groups.

Step 2 – Decide whether to adapt an existing test or develop a new test.

Consider the purpose of the adapted test, and the advantages and disadvantages of
adapting an existing test rather than developing a new test. It is clear too that some tests
will be more amenable to translation into certain languages than others (Ahluwalia,
1990, p. 20). The more similar the target language and/or culture are to the source
language and/or culture, the easier will be the adaptation (thus, English to Spanish
adaptations may make more sense than English to Arabic or English to Chinese
adaptations). With tests intended for cross-cultural comparisons, test adaptation
(possibly with some decentering) may be the only option. But when cross-cultural
comparisons are not of interest, it may be easier to actually produce a new test that
meets the cultural parameters in the second language group, than to adapt an already
existing test which may have a number of shortcomings (e.g., a less than satisfactory
definition of the construct, inappropriate item formats, use of some cultural specific
content, etc.).

The standards with which to evaluate whether to adapt an existing test require some
level of expertise in measurement, some knowledge of the relevant literature of the
original test, and some knowledge of the language and culture to which the test is being
adapted.

Suggestions:

1. Consider the purpose of the adapted test, and carefully consider the advantages
and disadvantages of adapting a test versus constructing a new test.

Step 3 – Select well-qualified translators.

This is often one of the major shortcomings of a test adaptation project. Two points can
be made: First, in selecting translators, search for persons who are fluent in both
languages and who are very familiar with the cultures under study, and who have some
knowledge of test construction and the construct being measured. As knowledge of test
construction practices is not common among translators, this may be addressed with
some training prior to initiating the test adaptation process. Adding a psychometrician to
the mix may be desirable, too.

Second, some researchers have found that panels or committees of people translate the
test better than individuals. Committees produce pooled adaptations that are often more
accurate than translations from a single translator.
Suggestions:

1. Seek out translators with language proficiency, knowledge of the relevant

cultures, and some subject matter knowledge/knowledge of the construct of
interest.
2. Involve more than one translator in the process to provide a mix of perspectives
and to enable checking to be conducted.

Step 4 – Translate and adapt the test.

One approach to increasing the likelihood of a valid test adaptation is to adopt one of
the two (or both) standard designs: forward- and back-translation. Forward translation
designs are the most technically sound because the focus of the review is on both the
source and target language versions of the test. Backward translation designs can also
be revealing of poor translations but without a focus on the target language version of
the test, problems in the adaptation can be missed. For example, with a hard-to-translate
concept like "ice hockey" into Chinese, these English words may be used in the adapted
version. They are very easy to back translate, but they may be quite meaningless in the
target language version of the test.

Suggestions:

1. Use a forward translation design but a backward translation design can be useful
too, but not as the only design.

Step 5 – Review the adapted version of the test and make necessary revisions.

In a forward translation design, another set of translators examine the adapted version of
the test for any errors that may lead to differences in meaning between the two language
versions. The group of translators' focus at this point would be on the quality of the
translation or adaptation of the test. As Geisinger (1994) suggests, this review can be
accomplished in a group meeting, individually, or by some combination of individual
and group work. Geisinger believes that the most effective strategy is to first have the
translators review the items and react in writing and then to have the individuals share
their comments with one another and to reconcile any differences in opinion and make
any changes in the original and/or adapted language versions as necessary.

The National Institute for Testing and Evaluation in Israel is responsible for adapting
college admissions tests into five languages from the original Hebrew-language version.
One special feature in their process is that their translators work from the translated
version first and attempt to determine the validity of the questions: For example, is the
stem clear? Is there a single correct answer? Are there grammatical clues that lead the
test-wise candidate to the correct answer? After it is determined that the test items can
stand on their own merits, then the equivalence of the adapted version and the original
Hebrew version are compared. Translators look at several features of the adapted items:
accuracy of the translation as well as the clarity of the sentences, the level of difficulty
of the words, and the fluency of the translation.

With a backward translation design, translators would take the adapted version of the
test, back translate to the source language, and then judgments would be made about the
equivalence of the original and back-translated versions of the test. Where non-
equivalence is identified, changes in the adapted version of the test are considered. The
idea is that if the adaptation has been effective, the back-adapted version of the test
should look very much like the original. Of course, when the adaptation involves format
changes, time changes, and other changes, the target language version of the test may be
fine, but a back-translated test may not look at all like the original. In general, back-
translation designs seem like an excellent supplement to the forward translation design,
but they are not likely to be able to stand on their own. The information they provide
about the validity of the adapted test is limited.

Based on the comments of the reviewers, changes can be made in the original and/or
adapted version of the test, as necessary. Of course, if many changes are made, there
may be advantages to repeating step 4 and 5.

Suggestions:

1. Review and revision of the adapted test is absolutely necessary, following the
initial translation. In most cases, the adapted test is too important to be
dependent on the insights of a single translator or group of translators.

Step 6 – Conduct a small tryout of the adapted version of the test.

It is at this step that many studies seem to go wrong. Too many researchers and test
developers feel that judgmental review is sufficient evidence to establish the validity of
a test in a second language. But validity evidence for using a test in a second language
depends on stronger evidence than that the test seems to look acceptable to translators
and/or reviewers. Not only is empirical evidence needed to support the validity of
inferences from an adapted version of a test, but perhaps two or more empirical studies
are needed. A good example of what researchers might learn from a tryout of test items
in a second language and culture is clearly highlighted in the paper by Allalouf and
Sireci (1998).

Beginning with a small tryout of the adapted test seems to be prudent before investing
considerable resources in a more ambitious field test. Pilot test the instrument using a
small sample of individuals representative of the eventual target population and
compare the results to results obtained from a source sample. The pilot test should
consist of administering the test, as well as interviewing the individuals to obtain their
criticisms of the test itself, instructions, time limits, etc. These findings form the basis
for revising the test. One good suggestion from Ellis and Mead (1998) might be carried
out at this point. Ellis and Mead suggest that when there are disagreements about the
best adaptation of a test item, these variations might all be field tested, and the results
used to make the final decision about which adaptation is best.

Suggestions:

1. Conduct a pilot test to gain preliminary information about the test, and revise
accordingly.

Step 7 – Carry out a more ambitious field test.

This is one of the most important steps in the total test adaptation process. Good
translators are often capable of identifying and fixing many shortcomings in adapted
tests. But many problems go unidentified until test items are field tested. For example,
in a recent study by Hambleton, Slater, and Yu (in press) in which National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics items were adapted into Chinese, the
NAEP test item went unidentified by the translators. A field test revealed a major
problem with the item which could not be identified by the translators because it was a
curriculum issue. Chinese students at the eighth grade were unfamiliar with the concept
of estimation.

Field test the adapted test using a larger sample of individuals representative of the
eventual target population and conduct preliminary statistical analyses, such as a
reliability analysis and a classical item analysis. In addition, check for construct
equivalence using factor analysis should be carried out.

Suggestions:

1. Design and carry out an ambitious field test to check out test items (using
classical or modern item analysis procedures), test and subtest reliabilities, and
the factor structure of the test (factor analysis or structural equating modeling
are popular for this analysis). Compare findings to those obtained with the
source language version of the test.

Step 8 – Choose a statistical design for connecting scores on the source and target
language versions of the test.

This step is necessary when cross-cultural comparisons are of interest, or the test score
norms or performance standards (i.e., the passing score on a credentialing exam) with
the source language version of the test are of interest with the target language version of
the test. At this step (which might be combined with step 7), a linking design is needed
to place the test scores from the different versions of the test on a common scale. There
are three popular linking designs:

1. bilingual group design,

2. matched monolingual group design, and
3. monolingual group design.

All three designs are popular, though the third design may be the easiest to implement
in practice (see, for example, Angoff & Cook, 1988). For a worked example based on
item response modeling of the data, studies by Angoff and Cook (1988) or Woodcock
and Munoz-Sandoval (1993) would be of special interest.

Suggestions:

1. Choose a linking design to equate scores from the source and target language
versions of the test. Item response modeling is a standard way to proceed. Large
samples are highly desirable at this step to produce a stable linking of scores
from one test to the other.
Step 9 – If cross-cultural comparisons are of interest, ensure equivalence of the
language versions of the test.

This step, too, may be combined with steps 7 and 8. We have highlighted this activity as
a step because of its central importance in the test adaptation process. Administer the
source version of the test to a large sample of the source population and perform
statistical analyses to determine whether or not the items function similarly in both the
adapted and source language versions of the test. This is accomplished through the use
of an item bias study (often called a "differential item functioning" or DIF study). If
there are items that function differently for each group, rewrite or retranslate,
readminister, and reanalyze those items to determine whether they function the same for
both groups. The Muniz, Hambleton, and Xing (1998) study highlights the fact that
even small samples (i.e., 50 candidates per group) can be useful in detecting flaws in the
translation/adaptation process.

Suggestions:

1. Conduct a DIF study using one or more of the standard statistical procedures--
Mantel-Haenszel statistic, logistic regression, IRT-based area procedures, etc.

Step 10 – Perform validation research as appropriate.

Regardless of the interest in cross-cultural comparisons of scores from the two language
versions of the test, and the related research generated by that concern, there is also a
need to ensure that the test scores of the newly adapted test are valid and reliable. Step 1
involved judgmental strategies for collecting evidence of construct equivalence, as there
was no data available with which to conduct statistical analyses. Now that the test has
been administered, there are data available and so evidence of construct-related validity
can be compiled. This may be compiled from factor analytic, experimental, or other
correlational information (e.g., predictive or concurrent validity studies). Again, this
step may be combined with steps 7 to 9.

Suggestions:

1. Conduct empirical studies which address the equivalence of the multilanguage

versions of the test in the populations where the test will be used. Evidence of
construct equivalence as well as the absence of method and item bias are
important.

Step 11 – Document the process and prepare a manual for the users of the adapted
test.

Document results obtained from steps 1 to 10 and prepare a manual for the users of the
adapted test. The manual should include specifics regarding the administration of the
test, as well as how to interpret the test scores. This is a very important step, yet often
overlooked.

Suggestions:
 1. Document the full process of adapting a test. Everything from the persons
involved, and designs used, to the findings and the nature of the changes which
were made needs to be compiled and placed in a technical manual for future
reference.

Step 12 – Train users.

Where possible, train the users of the test. Although documentation and a manual will
assist users of the adapted instrument, training will further assist them.

Suggestions:

1. Train test administrators to follow the directions and to answer any questions
appropriately which may arise. Especially when cross-cultural comparisons are
being made, or the norms for the target language version of the test are being
used, standardized test administrations are essential across language groups.

Step 13 – Ongoing monitoring of the adapted test.

Often cross-cultural studies are a "one-shot affair." But some tests are adapted for
ongoing use in a second language group. Popular intelligence, credentialing, aptitude,
and personality tests would be ones which are adapted and intended for ongoing use.
Researchers should remain vigilant to potential flaws in their adapted tests, and this
means that ongoing monitoring of adapted tests is needed. Re-investigation and re-
evaluation of the reliability and validity of test scores should be ongoing.

Suggestions:

1. Continue to monitor the evaluation of adapted tests and assess their reliability
and validity on a regular basis. The reliability and validity of all tests can be
expected to change over time due to changes in curriculum, values, experiences,
exposure to the test, etc.

Conclusions

An increasing number of educational, credentialing, and psychological tests are being

adapted for use in other languages and cultures. At the same time, these adapted tests
will have limited value unless they are adapted with a high degree of concern for issues
of usability, reliability and validity. There is a rapidly emerging psychometric literature
on the topic of test adaptation methodology, and more advances can be expected in the
coming years as researchers respond to the expanding need for adapted tests of high
technical quality. Avoiding the five myths and following the 13 steps introduced in this
paper for the test adaptation process should go a long way toward improving current
practices. In addition, the 13 steps provide a framework for incorporating new
methodology into the process as it is developed.
Development Definitions And Measuring Development -
Presentation Transcript

1. What is development? How can we measure development?

2. Definition of development Economic growth – Increase in total value of goods
and services produced. (measured by GDP ) Development – Improvement in
human welfare, quality of life, social well being. Satisfying the population’s
needs and wants. (measured using a range of socio-economic indicators )
Sustainable development – “Sustainable development is development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs." (Measured using indicators of environmental
quality ) Our Common Future (Brundtland Report) United Nations World
Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) 1987 recognized that
environmental problems were global in nature and determined that it was in the
common interest of all nations to establish policies for sustainable development.
Norwegian Prime Minister Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland. Pop,Res,Dev p. 6 - 11
3. “ A country should be judged on how it provides for its most vulnerable
inhabitants”. That’s just my opinion!
4. Measuring Economic Development Gross Domestic Product GDP – total value
of goods and services produced in a country (US$) Gross National Product GNP
– Including income from investments abroad (US$) Purchasing Power Parity
PPP – Takes into account local cost of living and is usually expressed per capita
(US$) GDP/GNP per capita Total value divided by the total population
5.
o Problems of using economic indicators such as GDP/GNP/PPP to
measure development
o Currency fluctuations
o Prices of goods and services (PPP)
o Distribution of Wealth
o Dependency on one industry (skills, location, fluctuations)
o Tax and govt spending on public goods
o Informal economy and unpaid work eg child care and subsistence
farming, bartering
o Monetary value of goods traded can fluctuate, especially agriculture
o Accurate info difficult to obtain, high informal sector, rural economy,
ineffective governance
o % of public and private sector
o Remittances from migrant workers are not included
6.
o Problems of using economic indicators such as GDP/GNP/PPP to
measure development
o Negative externalities of economic growth are not included (eg pollution,
environmental damage)
 o Environmental services such as the benefits derived from standing forest
are not included.
o Basically it is only a measure of the economic value of what is produced
and paid for. Does not take into account what was produced, the
environmental and social costs, how the wealth is distributed, who
spends it and what it is spent on.
7. “ There are three kinds of lies – lies, damned lies and statistics” Benjamin
Disraeli – Prime Minister of UK 1874-80
8. Social indices Demographic statistics on mortality and fertility can be used to
measure development. See Population Slideshare links on Fertility and Mortality
Infant mortality Life expectancy Fertility rate Why should care be taken with
using Death Rate as an indicator of development? Is there any correlation
between pop density and development? Pop growth rate can indicate what stage
on the DTM the country is at, which can be linked to development. Also %
urban population shows levels of urbanisation which could be linked to
development. Remember Zelinsky’s model? (Pop, res, dev p.62)
9.
10. Other social indices There are a whole range of indicators which give us some
idea about people’s quality of life. These can be broadly described as social
indices although they could be linked to the economy, environment and politics.
Access to safe water Crime levels Access to broadband internet connection
Subjective life satisfaction Male and female literacy rates Obesity Number of
people per car Corruption perception index Pop per doc Number in higher
education Food consumption Energy consumption Mortality rates for diseases
Pollution levels air/water Education and development - Nagle 436-437 Health
and development - Nagle 438-440
11. Multiple component indices (composite indicators) All the indices so far have
been single component indices. There are also multiple component indices.
These combine a number of single component indices to give a combined score.
Human Development Index (0-1) HDI – PPP, life expectancy, adult literacy,
average number of years schooling Human Poverty Index 1 (for developing
countries) HPI-1 - % of pop with life expectancy of <40, % of adult illiteracy, %
without safe water, % without access to health services, % of under fives who
are underweight Human Poverty Index 2 (for developed countries) HPI-2 - % of
pop with life expectancy of <60, % of adult illiteracy, % of people below the
poverty line (50% of medium income), rate of long term employment >12
months
12. Relative / absolute poverty The two different Human Poverty Indices reflect
there are different definitions of poverty. Absolute Poverty – Those living in
absolute poverty are unable to satisfy their basic needs for survival; water,
clothing, food, shelter and basic medicine. World Bank figure of $1.25 per day.
Relative Poverty – A level of poverty relative to the rest of the population of the
country. For example below 50% of average earning.
13. Other multiple component indices (composite indicators) Gender Empowerment
Measure (GEM) and Gender-related Development Index (GDI) measure gender
inequality. Other quality of life indicators could measure a variety of
social/economic/political and environmental indicators.
14.
o Multiple component indices v single component indices
o Any ideas?
 o MCI allow for easy comparison of countries across a range of indicators.
o Sometimes difficult to interpret what an MCI means. (Vietnam HDI
0.709)
o MCI only indicates the aggregate score not the relative performance in
each of its components.
o All tend to use averages and do not reflect inequalities in wealth and
income distribution
15. Development Diamonds By illustrating multiple component indices
diagrammatically it is possible to compare the relative performance in each of
the separate indicators.
16. Clarke’s sector model – Nagle 441 Measuring development by employment
structure or GDP contribution of different sectors of the economy Is a country’s
economy an agricultural economy, newly industrialising, industrialised, or a post
industrial economy? Could be measured by % employed in each sector or %
contribution to GDP of each sector.
17. Is a country industrialised? Sutcliffe’s model of industrialisation – Nagle 441 36
57.7 30.5 Poland 16 60.2 26.4 Bangladesh 10 63.7 20.4 Cote d Ivoire 23 35.1 39
Iran 25 55.4 30.3 Morocco 14 60.6 43.9 Indonesia 27 30.9 46.3 Venezuela 15
69.3 51.1 China 16 58.8 26.2 India 34 67.9 30.2 Japan 25 71.3 28.9 Canada 29
60.8 27.3 UK % industrial employment % of Industry which is manufacturing
%of GDP from industry Country
18. Measuring inequality It is possible to measure the inequality of distribution of
income, land or many other indicators using the Gini coefficient. This measures
the extent to which distribution varies from completely even distribution. Could
be measured across the population or across different regions of the country. 0 =
Complete equality (everybody has the same amount) 100 = Complete inequality
(one person has all the income)
19. Gini Coefficient World Human Development Report 2007-2008
20.
21. Design you own development diamond based on 4 single component indices
which you feel together give a clear picture of development. You will use this to
compare your country case studies. To what extent do you think it is possible to
accurately measure development and make comparisons between countries