| Title |
One Size Fits All? The Validity of a Composite Poverty Index Across Urban and Rural Households in South Africa
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Social Indicators Research, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11205-016-1540-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Janina Isabel Steinert, Lucie Dale Cluver, G. J. Melendez-Torres, Sebastian Vollmer |
| Abstract |
Composite indices have been prominently used in poverty research. However, validity of these indices remains subject to debate. This paper examines the validity of a common type of composite poverty indices using data from a cross-sectional survey of 2477 households in urban and rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Multiple-group comparisons in structural equation modelling were employed for testing differences in the measurement model across urban and rural groups. The analysis revealed substantial variations between urban and rural respondents both in the conceptualisation of poverty as well as in the weights and importance assigned to individual poverty indicators. The validity of a 'one size fits all' measurement model can therefore not be confirmed. In consequence, it becomes virtually impossible to determine a household's poverty level relative to the full sample. Findings from our analysis have important practical implications in nuancing how we can sensitively use composite poverty indices to identify poor people. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 38% |
| Germany | 1 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 62% |
| Scientists | 4 | 31% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 56 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 20% |
| Researcher | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 17 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 10 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Unknown | 19 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 March 2018.
All research outputs
#4,268,265
of 23,318,744 outputs
Outputs from Social Indicators Research
#374
of 1,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,311
of 423,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Indicators Research
#7
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,318,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,755 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 423,206 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.