Index

A

Adverse outcomes, of food insecurity, 46

Aggregations, units requiring from respondents, 65

Applications and policy research priority. See Priority Research Agenda

Argentina. See International adaptations

B

Balanced meal, concept of, 62

Brazil. See International adaptations

C

Center for Survey Methods Research (CSMR), 30–31

Colombia. See International adaptations

Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project (CCHIP), 25, 30

Concepts and definitions, 3–5, 9, 41–54

Conditional statistical independence, 75–77

measurement models, 76–77

Constrained economic resources, defining, 63–64

Current Population Survey (CPS), 1, 7, 11, 14–15, 20–21, 30–35, 48, 55–58, 62, 67, 71, 74–76, 91, 99, 104–109, 113.

See also Food Security Supplement to the Current Population Survey

design of, 55–57

key features of, 100

D

Definitions. See Concepts and definitions

Differential item functioning (DIF), 81–82, 90

Duration, of food insecurity, 62–63

E

Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, Birth Cohort of 2002 (ECLS-B), 38



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



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 139
Food Insecurity and Hunger in the United States: An Assessment of the Measure Index A Adverse outcomes, of food insecurity, 46 Aggregations, units requiring from respondents, 65 Applications and policy research priority. See Priority Research Agenda Argentina. See International adaptations B Balanced meal, concept of, 62 Brazil. See International adaptations C Center for Survey Methods Research (CSMR), 30–31 Colombia. See International adaptations Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project (CCHIP), 25, 30 Concepts and definitions, 3–5, 9, 41–54 Conditional statistical independence, 75–77 measurement models, 76–77 Constrained economic resources, defining, 63–64 Current Population Survey (CPS), 1, 7, 11, 14–15, 20–21, 30–35, 48, 55–58, 62, 67, 71, 74–76, 91, 99, 104–109, 113. See also Food Security Supplement to the Current Population Survey design of, 55–57 key features of, 100 D Definitions. See Concepts and definitions Differential item functioning (DIF), 81–82, 90 Duration, of food insecurity, 62–63 E Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, Birth Cohort of 2002 (ECLS-B), 38

OCR for page 139
Food Insecurity and Hunger in the United States: An Assessment of the Measure Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, Kindergarten Class of 1998–1999 (ECLS-K), 38 Economic Research Service (ERS), 56, 62, 67 F Federal Food Security Measurement Project, 28 Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, Life Sciences Research Office, 3–4, 16, 26, 43 First National Conference on Food Security Measurement and Research, 28–30 Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), 2, 7, 14–18, 108–111 Food insecurity, 15 concept and definition of, 43–46 defining, 4–5 determinants and consequences of, 9, 45 frequency and duration of, 6 labels of, 51–54 measuring and monitoring, 9 Food insecurity estimates as a measure of program performance, 7–8, 108–112 Food security, 15 defining, 1, 4 Food Security Measurement Project, 15 Food security status of households, 59 with children, 2, 59 food insecure with hunger, 2 food insecure without hunger, 2 food secure, 2 without children, 59 Food Security Supplement (FSS) to the Current Population Survey, 1, 4, 7, 10–11, 15, 20–21, 30–36, 38, 48–50, 55–58, 63–71, 74–76, 88, 96–100, 105, 113 questions used to assess the food security of households in, 32–33 research activities on, 31–36 Frequency, of food insecurity, 62–63 G Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), 2, 8, 14, 18, 21, 108, 111 H History of the development of food insecurity and hunger measures, 23–40 early efforts to define hunger, 23–24 the 1990s: a Period of Transition, 26–30 surveys in the United States, 36–38 uses of the Household Food Security Survey Module in other surveys, 36–40 Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM), 4–9, 21, 30–31, 36, 47–52, 55, 58–70, 80, 89–92, 99, 105 international adaptations, 39–40 Households classifying based on the manifest data, 88–89 experience of uncertainty and food depletion, 59–60 Hunger concept and definition of, 9, 47–48 as distinct from food insecurity, 5 early efforts to define, 15, 23–24 feeling of, 60–62 I Insufficiencies, in quality or quantity of diet, 60 International adaptations, 39–40 Argentina, 40 Brazil, 39

OCR for page 139
Food Insecurity and Hunger in the United States: An Assessment of the Measure Colombia, 40 Israel, 39 Serbia, 40 Yemen, 40 Yugoslavia, 40 Israel. See International adaptations Item response theory (IRT) and food insecurity, 6–7, 10–11, 71–98 matching the measurement model to the data collected, 92–96 -scale, setting cut points along, 87–88 polytomous IRT models, for polytomous food insecurity questions, 93–96 polytomous items, 92–93 use of estimated IRT models for measuring food insecurity, 83–84, 86–92 L Latent distribution, 80–83 differential item functioning, 81–82 multiple groups of respondents, 81 posterior, 82–83 Latent variable models brief history of, 72 and problems of model identifiability, 84–86 structure of latent variable models, 73–86 threshold models for item response functions, 79–80 Life Sciences Research Office (LSRO), 3–4, 16, 26, 43 Logistic item response theory, single-parameter, 14 M Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR), 32 Measurement and item construction, 63–69 defining constrained economic resources, 63–64 interpretation of question wording, 68–69 reference periods, 66–68 response scales, 68 specification of the reference person(s), 64–66 Measurement error, consequences of, 90–91 Measurement models, 76–77 and item response functions, 78–80 the Rasch model, 78–79 threshold models for item response functions, 79–80 Measurement research, priority. See Priority Research Agenda Measuring Food Insecurity and Hunger: Phase 1 Report, 3 N National Academies, Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT), 2–3, 17–18 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL), 51–52 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 51, 87–88, 92 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), 11, 25, 37, 101–105 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 5, 7, 11, 50, 103–105, 110 key features of, 103–104 NHANES III, 25, 103 NHANES IV, 36 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), 7, 11, 101–102, 106 National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research (NNMRR) Act, 14, 27, 50 National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Program (NNMRRP), 16, 27 Nutritional state, core concepts related to, 44

OCR for page 139
Food Insecurity and Hunger in the United States: An Assessment of the Measure P Phase 1 panel study, 17–19 Phase 2 panel study, 18–20 -scale, setting cut points along, 87–88 Polytomous IRT models, for polytomous food insecurity questions, 93–96 Polytomous items, 92–93 President’s Task Force on Food Assistance, 24–25 Prevalence of food insecurity with and without hunger, 60–61 on latent and manifest scales, 89–90 Priority Research Agenda, 37 Proxy reports, questions asking for, 65–66 Q Question design issues, 63–70 measurement and item construction, 63–69 Questions asking for proxy reports, 65–66 assessing the food security of households in the CPS Food Security Supplement, 32–33 interpretation of wording, 68–69 units referred to, 64–65 R Rasch model, 2, 6–7, 14, 78–79 Recommendations, 8–11, 48–49, 96–98, 105–107 Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs), 42 Reduced food intake, 60–62 Reference periods, 66–68 Response scales, 68 S Scales, stability of over time, 92 Second Conference on Food Security Measurement and Research, 36 Serbia. See International adaptations Single-parameter logistic item response theory, 14 Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), 109 Specification of the reference person(s), 64–66 units requiring respondents to aggregate or summarize, 65 Stability, of scales over time, 92 Statistical independence, 75–76 Survey measurement of food insecurity and hunger, 6, 9, 55–70. See also Food Security Supplement current approach to, 55–58 question design issues, 63–70 relationship between concepts and questions, 59–63 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 7, 11, 38, 107, 110 key features of, 104–105 Survey vehicles to measure food insecurity and hunger, 7, 11, 99–107 key features of selected surveys, 100–105 relative advantages and disadvantages, 105–107 T Ten-year plan, 27–30 the Federal Food Security Measurement Project, 28 First National Conference on Food Security Measurement and Research, 28–30 U United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 40–43

OCR for page 139
Food Insecurity and Hunger in the United States: An Assessment of the Measure U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Survey Methods Research, 30–31 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1–21, 25–27, 31, 34–37, 46, 49, 52, 58, 62–63, 69–71, 78–80, 84–114 Food and Nutrition Service, 2, 7, 14–18, 108–111 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 14, 17, 26–28 U.S. Food Security Measurement Project, 1, 13 W Workshop on the Measurement of Food Insecurity and Hunger, 18–19 Y Yemen. See International adaptations Yugoslavia. See International adaptations

OCR for page 139
Food Insecurity and Hunger in the United States: An Assessment of the Measure This page intentionally left blank.