Conclusion 1: The concept and definition of hunger as measured in the Food Security Supplement, and how they relate to food insecurity, are not clear. In addition, it is not clear whether hunger is appropriately identified as the extreme end of the scale.

Conclusion 2: Food insecurity is important to measure. It is a multifaceted concept, each facet of which is appropriate to consider as latent and continuous. It is appropriate to use item response theory models to measure these dimensions. However, the Rasch IRT model may not be appropriate in the current application. If the Rasch model is not appropriate, then using the sum scores of the items also is not appropriate.

Conclusion 3: Threshold scores applied to estimates provided by IRT models can be used to categorize households into levels of food insecurity. However, the appropriate categories and labels need to be examined further.

Conclusion 4: A household interview survey may be one appropriate vehicle to query households about their food security experiences and to measure the prevalence of food insecurity among households.

Conclusion 5: Prevalence estimates of food insecurity as currently obtained are not well suited for evaluation of the effectiveness of food assistance programs. It is unclear that monitoring the prevalence of food insecurity at national and sub-national levels would be suitable for evaluation of these programs.

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement