A Latent Class Application to the Multidimensional Measurement of Poverty
Tóm tắt
The paper presents the multidimensional measurement as a transparent and easy-to-interpret method to measure poverty, where poverty is measured with a set of direct and indirect poverty indicators side-by-side. Multidimensional measurement is formalised and compared to the traditional, one-dimensional measurement. This formalisation is based on the idea about a set of indicators that are measuring different manifestations of the same latent variable. The Latent Class Model (LCM) is proposed as a method to select a valid and reliable set of poverty indicators for multidimensional measurement. The LCM is used to test if these different poverty indicators really measure the same latent referent – an assumption on which the multidimensional measurement is based. Before this method presented here, constructing and selecting indicators for the multidimensional measurement of poverty has relied practically on theory and substance only. Naturally, the method presented here can be used generally for studying and developing multidimensional measurements.
Tài liệu tham khảo
P. Alcock (1993) Understanding Poverty MacMillan London
A. B. Atkinson (1998) Poverty in Europe Blackwell Publishers Oxford
T. Atkinson B. Cantillon E. Marlier B. Nolan (2002) Social Indicators–The EU and Social Inclusion Oxford University Press Oxford
K. A. Bollen (1989) Structural Equations with Latent Variables Wiley New York
R. Breen J. Jonsson (1997) How reliable are studies of social mobility? An investigation into the consequences of unreliability in measures of social class. In: Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, Vol. 15 JAI Press Greenwich, CT 91–112
L. J. Cronbach G. C. Gleser H. Nanda N. Rajaratnam (1972) The Dependability of Behavioral Measurements: Theory of Generalizability for Scores and Profiles Wiley New York
A.P. Dempster N. M. Laird D. B. Rubin (1977) ArticleTitleMaximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data via the EM Algorith Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39 1–38
E. Ghiselli J. P. Campbell S. Zedeck (1981) Measurement Theory for the Behavioural Sciences Freeman and Company San Francisco
S. E. Embretson S. L. Hersberger (Eds) (1999) The New Rules of Measurement. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates What Every Psychologist and Educator Should Know. Mahwah
InstitutionalAuthorNameEurostat (1999) ECHP Data Quality 108/99 European Commission Luxembourg
L. A. Goodman (1978) Analyzing Qualitative/Categorical Data Abt Books Cambridge
T. Heinen (1996) Latent Class and Discrete Latent Trait Models: Similarities and Differences Saga London
O. Kangas V. M. Ritakallio (1998) Different methods–different results? Approaches to␣Multidimensional Poverty H.-J. Andre β (Eds) Empirical Poverty Research in Comparative Perspective Ashgate Aldershot 167–203
P. F. Lazarsfeld N. W. Henry (1968) Latent structure analysis Houghton Mifflin Boston
Marcoulides, G. A. (1999). Generalizability Theory: Picking Up Where the Rasch IRT Model Leaves off? In S. E. Embretson & S. L. Hersberger (ed.) (1999).
A. L. McCutcheon (1987) Latent Class Analysis. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Sage Beverly Hills
R. Muffels J. Berghman H. Dirven (1992) ArticleTitleA multimethod approach to monitor the evaluation of poverty Journal of European Social Policy 2 193–213
B. Nolan C. T. Whelan (1996) Resources, deprivation and poverty Clarendon Press Oxford
S. Ringen (1985) ArticleTitleToward a Third Stage in the Measurement of Poverty Acta Sociologica 28 99–11
Standards for educational and psychological testing (1994). Washington, DC. American Psychological Association.
A. Sen (1992) Inequality Re-examined Oxford University Press Oxford
P. Townsend (1979) Poverty in United Kingdom Penguin Books Ltd Middlesex
J. K. Vermunt (1997) LEM: A General Program for the Analysis of Categorical Data Tilburg University The Netherlands