Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Anexo II.h. Cooperativa El Recuerdo, San Pedro Pínula, Guatemala. Resultados de la
encuesta de Seguridad Alimentaria. 2006
Resultados de la encuesta de Seguridad Alimentaria En el marco de un proyecto cofinanciado por el Gobierno Vasco
Encuestas realizadas
En el marco del proyecto de seguridad alimentaria cofinanciado por el Gobierno Vasco, en el
mes de agosto del 2006 la Cooperativa Agrícola Integral 'El Recuerdo' realizó una encuesta
con el objetivo de evaluar el estado de inseguridad alimentaria de las familias que participan
en el proyecto.
Con el fin de cuantificar la inseguridad alimentaria en los Estados Unidos de América, el
Servicio de Alimentación y Nutrición (FNS) del Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados
Unidos de América (USDA) desarrolló una escala que permite determinar el nivel de
inseguridad alimentaria y hambre en el hogar. Dicha escala, conocida bajo el nombre de
Encuesta de Seguridad Alimentaria (Food Security Survey)1, forma parte de la Encuesta
Continua de Población (Current Population Survey). La Cooperativa utilizó una versión en
español modificada de la Encuesta de Seguridad Alimentaria utilizada con anterioridad por un
estudio con inmigrantes mexicanos en California2 y validada en la Sierra de Manantlán,
Jalisco (México)". 3
El cuestionario está compuesto por 18 preguntas de las cuales 10 son sobre la familia en su
conjunto y 8 tratan específicamente de los niños y niñas de la familia. 5 de las 10 preguntas
sobre la familia en su conjunto son preguntas de ocurrencia (si/no) y 5 son preguntas de
frecuencia (muy seguido, a veces, nunca). De las 8 preguntas sobre los niños y niñas de la
familia 4 son de ocurrencia y 4 de frecuencia. Para más detalles adjuntamos en anexo el
cuestionario. En general es la mujer de la familia quien contestó las preguntas
La encuesta ha sido implementada por los 3 técnicos agrícolas activos en el proyecto.
Ninguno de estos jóvenes agrónomos tenía experiencia previa en técnicas de encuestas
formales. Previamente a la aplicación de la encuesta en el campo, los técnicos asistieron a
una sesión informativa que consistía principalmente en la lectura del cuestionario y la
aclaración del objetivo de la encuesta.
En el contexto de la encuesta se consideró una familia a todas las personas que viven en una
misma vivienda. Se realizó la encuesta en un total de 663 familias de 25 comunidades.
Político-administrativamente las comunidades La Ceiba y La Ceibita conforman la aldea La
Ceiba y, las comunidades San Miguel El Zunzo y Santiago El Zunzo la aldea El Zunzo. Las
familias entrevistadas participan en un proyecto de seguridad alimentaria cofinanciado por el
Gobierno Vasco y ejecutado por la cooperativa El Recuerdo, R.L. . El siguiente cuadro 1
recoge por comunidad el número de encuestas realizadas desglosado por familias sin o con
menores de 5 años.
1 'Guide to Measuring Household Food Security ,Revised March 2000', Bickel, Gary, Mark Nord,
Cristofer Price, William Hamilton, and John Cook, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Alexandria VA. March, 2000. 2 'Inseguridad alimentaria en latinos de California: observaciones de grupos focales', Melgar-Quiñonez
HR, Kaiser LL, Martin AC, Metz O, Olivares A., Salud Pública Méx 2003;45:198-204. 3
'Validación de un instrumento para vigilar la inseguridad alimentaria en la Sierra de Manantlán,
Jalisco' Hugo Melgar-Quiñonez et all., Salud Publica Mex 2005;47:413-422'.
Comunidad
# Encuestas realizadas y procesadas
# Encuestas procesadas /#Familias
# Familias sin Familias con
Familias menores de 5
menores de 5 Total años años
1 Arroyo 51 9 16 25 45%
2 Buena Vista 167 5 32 37 22%
3 Carrizalito 338 0 29 29 9%
4 Crucitas 92 4 12 16 17%
5 Durazno 154 8 22 30 16%
6 El Zapote 6 9 15
7 Flores 153 13 35 48 29%
8 Hierbabuena 239 0 37 37 15%
9 Ingenio 159 3 25 28 18%
10 La Ceiba 291 5 27 32 21%
11 La Ceibita 9 21 30
12 Laguna Mojada 242 0 25 25 10%
13 Las Agujitas 192 9 23 32 17%
14 Limite las Flores 84 1 13 14 17%
15 Montaña 181 0 6 6 3%
16 Palestina 58 6 12 18 28%
17 Pie de la Cuesta 1 12 13
18 Piedras Negras 220 12 21 33 15%
19 Plan de la Cruz 243 5 17 22 9%
20 Puerta 115 6 13 19 17%
21 San José 296 O 40 40 13%
22 San Miguel El Zunzo
490 5 11 16 16%
23 Santiago El Zunzo 19 46 65
24 Sestiadero 45 0 12 12 27%
San Nicolas 120 6 15 21 15%
Total 132 531 663
En el momento de la realización de la encuesta 132 familias de 6 comunidades no tenían un
niño o niña menor de 5 años (19,9%) por 531 familias que tenían niños o niñas menores de 5
(80,1%). Por cada comunidad se realiza un medio de 27 encuestas, con un máximo de 65
encuestas en la comunidad 'Santiago El Zunzo' y un mínimo de 6 encuestas en la comunidad
'Montaña'.
Los cuestionarios han sido procesados y los resultados analizados por Mark Nord del
Servicio de Investigación Económica del Departamento de Agricultura de los Estado
Unidos de América (Economic Research Service, USDA).
1. Mark Nord señaló que los últimos estudios han demostrado que resulta no ser indicado
procesar las preguntas sobre la familia y las preguntas sobre los niños y niñas en una
misma escala por lo que se analizaron por separado los resultados relativos a la
infancia y los de la familia.
Para evaluar la situación de la inseguridad alimentaria familiar tomamos en cuenta tanto las familias con menores de 5 años como las sin menores de 5 años. Las preguntas del
cuestionario relativas a la situación familiar son la 1, 2, 3, 7, 7a, 8, 9, 10, 11 Y 11 a. Hay un número importante de cuestionarios (40,27%) que contienen 1 ó más preguntas sin contestar probablemente debido a que la pregunta no ha sido entendida por el sujeto. La pregunta #10 sobre la pérdida de peso destaca por la falta de contestaciones válidas ya que más del 37% de las personas entrevistas contestaron 'no sabe'. Este dato no es tan sorprendente teniendo en cuenta que en un medio rural de escasos ingresos como son las comunidades indígenas de Jalapa pocas familias disponen de una balanza, y aún menos se preocupan de su peso. Esta pregunta ha sido descartada en el posterior análisis. Queremos destacar que el cuestionario utilizado indica que si las preguntas 7 y 11 son contestadas con un negativo el encuestador salta las preguntas 7a y 11a. Tras haber omitido la pregunta #10 sobre la pérdida de peso y teniendo en cuenta el mecanismo para cumplimentar el cuestionario, las 633 encuestas realizadas son válidas y han sido procesadas. Mark Nord calculó la escala familiar de 3 maneras: (1) en base a 7 preguntas omitiendo las preguntas 7a, 11 a y 10; (2) considerando las opciones 'cada semana' y 'algunas semanas' como una respuesta positiva a las preguntas 7a y 11
a; y (3) considerando
solo la opción 'cada semana' como una respuesta positiva a las preguntas 7a y 11 a. Resulta que no hay gran diferencia entre las distintas maneras de calcular la inseguridad alimentaria por lo que hemos optado por la escala basada en 7 preguntas.
Para la evaluación de la inseguridad alimentara infantil disponemos de los resultados
de las 531 familias con menores de 5 años. Las preguntas del cuestionario relativas a
la situación infantil son la 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 13a, 14 y 15. Queremos destacar que el
cuestionario utilizado indica que si la pregunta 13 es contestada con un negativo el
encuestador salta la pregunta 13a y sigue con la pregunta 14. Teniendo en cuenta este
mecanismo de cumplimentar el cuestionario, todos los 531 cuestionarios son válidos y
han sido procesados.
Resultados del análisis de la seguridad alimentaria familiar El siguiente cuadro recoge los resultados del análisis estadístico realizado por Mark Nord.
Frecuencia
Porcentaje
Frecuencia
cumulativa
Frecuencia
cumulativa
Porcentaje
Cumulativo
Porcentaje
Cumulativo
0 36 5,4% 36 161 5, 4% 24,3%
1 58 8,7% 94 14,2%
2 67 10,1% 161 24,3%
3 265 40,0% 426 418 64.3% 63,0%
4 81 12,2% 507 76,5%
5 72 10,9% 579 87,3%
6 63 9,5% 642 84 96,8% 12,7%
7 21 3,2% 663 100,0%
663 100,0% 663 100%
- Son consideradas como familias en situación de seguridad alimentaria las que contestaron
2 o menos de las 7 preguntas de manera afirmativa. El 24% de las familias que
participaron en el proyecto gozan una situación de seguridad alimentaria.
- Son consideradas como familias en situación de inseguridad alimentaria leve las que
contestaron de 3 a 5 preguntas de las 7 de manera afirmativa. El 63% de las familias que
participaron en el proyecto padecen un leve grado de inseguridad alimentaria.
- Son consideradas como familias en situación de inseguridad alimentaria severa las que
contestaron al menos 6 de las 7 preguntas de manera afirmativa. El 13% de las familias
que participaron en el proyecto viven en una situación de alta inseguridad alimentaria. El siguiente cuadro refleja la prevalencia de la inseguridad alimentaria familiar para cada uno de los grupos que participaron en el proyecto
Aldea Prevalencia inseguridad alimentaria
Indicador I II III
Pie de la Cuesta 46% 54% 0% 2,5
Hierbabuena 30% 68% 3% 2,7
El Zapote 40% 60% 0% 2,7
La Ceiba 40% 60% 0% 2,7
La Ceibita 47% 37% 17% 2,9
Puerta 16% 79% 5% 2,9
Durazno 27% 63% 10% 3,0
Palestina 28% 67% 6% 3,1
Flores 19% 75% 6% 3,1
Piedras Negras 39% 39% 21% 3,1
San Miguel el Zunzo 25% 56% 19% 3,2
Santiago el Zunzo 28% 63% 9% 3,3
San Nicolás 19% 67% 14% 3.3
Proyecto 24% 63% 13% 3,3
Buena Vista 9% 62% 19% 3,4
Arroyo 24% 68% 8% 3,4
Carrizalito 17% 79% 3% 3,5
Montaña 0% 100% 0% 3,5
Plan de la Cruz 23% 64% 14% 3,5
San José 15% 73% 13% 3,6
Sestiadero 17% 75% 8% 3,6
Laguna Mojada 16% 68% 16% 3,7
Limite las Flores 14% 86% 0% 3,9
Las Agujitas 19% 47% 34% 4,1
Crucitas 6% 75% 19% 4,1
Ingenio 7% 61% 32% 4,5 I: Familias en una situación de seguridad alimentaria II: Familias en una situación de inseguridad alimentaria leve
III: Familias en una situación de inseguridad alimentaria severa
En general las familias que participan en el proyecto viven en una situación de inseguridad
alimentaria leve. Destaca la comunidad Ingenio donde 1 de cada 3 familias entrevistadas
viven en una situación de inseguridad alimentaria severa. A su vez en las aldeas La Ceibita y
Pie de la Cuesta, 1 de cada 2 familias entrevistadas vive en una situación de seguridad alimentaria. Finalmente se calculó un indicador de seguridad alimentaria cornunítario
4 dividiendo la suma
de las respuestas afirmativas de todas las familias por el número de familias entrevistadas (la
suma por familia tiene un máximo de 7). Cuanto más bajo el valor del indicador más seguro
se puede calificar la comunidad. El indicador permite comparar la seguridad alimentaria de las distintas aldeas. Según éste indicador las aldeas de mayor seguridad alimentaria son Pie de
la Cuesta, Hierbabuena y El zapote. Las aldeas que se encuentran en la peor situación de
seguridad alimentaria serían Las Agujitas, Crucitas y Ingenio.
Resultados del análisis de la seguridad alimentaria infantil El siguiente cuadro recoge los resultados del análisis estadística realizado por Mark Nord.
Frecuencia
Porcentaje
Frecuencia cumulativa
Frecuencia cumulativa
Porcentaje Cumulativo
Porcentaje Cumulativo
0 31 5,9% 31 83 5, 4% 15,78%
1 52 9,9% 83 25,8%
2 91 17,3% 174 379 33,1%
3 245 46,6% 419 79,7% 72,05%
4 43 8,2% 462 87,8%
5 23 4,4% 485 64 92,2%
6 17 3,2% 502 95,4% 12,17%
7 17 3,2% 519 98,7%
8 7 1,3% 526 100,0%
526 100,0% 526
~ Son consideradas como familias en las que los niños y niñas viven en una situación de
seguridad alimentaria las que contestaron 1 o ninguna de las 8 preguntas de manera
afirmativa. En el 16% de las familias que participaron en el proyecto, los niños y niñas
gozan una situación de seguridad alimentaria
~ Son consideradas como familias en las que los niños y niñas viven en una situación de
inseguridad alimentaria leve las que contestaron de 2 a 4 de las 8 preguntas de manera
afirmativa. En el 72% de las familias que participaron en el proyecto, los niños y niñas
padecen un leve grado de inseguridad alimentaria.
- Son consideradas como familias en las que los niñas y niñas viven en condiciones de
inseguridad alimentaria severa las que contestaron al menos 5 de las 8 preguntas de
manera afirmativa. En el 12% de las familias que participaron en el proyecto, los niños y
niñas viven en una situación de alta inseguridad alimentaria.
4 'Escala del Componente de Acceso de la Inseguridad Alimentaria en el Hogar (HFIAS) para la
Medición del Acceso a los Alimentos en el Hogar: Guía de Indicadores (v. 2)', Jennifer Coates, Anne Swindale y Paula Bilinsky, Washington, D.C.: Proyecto de Asistencia Técnica sobre Alimentos y Nutrición, Academia para el Desarrollo Educativo, julio de 2006.
El siguiente cuadro refleja la prevalencia de la inseguridad alimentaria infantil para cada uno de los grupos que participaron en el proyecto.
Aldea Prevalencia inseguridad alimentaria
Indicador I II III
San Miguel el Zunzo 36% 64% 0% 1,8
Puerta 31% 69% 0% 1,9
San Nicolás 46% 54% 0% 1,9
La Ceibita 33% 62% 5% 2,1
La Ceiba 33% 59% 7% 2,2
Piedras Negras 33% 62% 5% 2,2
Pie de la Cuesta 17% 75% 8% 2,3
Durazno 27% 68% 5% 2,3
Santiago el Zunzo 23% 70% 7% 2,5
El Zapote 33% 56% 1% 2,6
Arroyo 13% 81% 6% 2,7
Palestina 17% 67% 17% 2,8
Flores 14% 69% 17% 2,9
Plan de la Cruz 12% 76% 12% 2,9
Proyecto 16% 72% 12% 2,9
Carrizalito 3% 93% 3% 3,0
Buena Vista 19% 61% 19% 3,0
Hierbabuena 5% 92% 3% 3,1
Montaña 0% 83% 17% 3,3
San José 0% 90% 10% 3,4
Las Agujitas 17% 52% 30% 3,6
Laguna Mojada 0% 80% 20% 3,6
Sestiadero 0% 83% 17% 3,8
Ingenio 4% 68% 28% 4,1
Limite las Flores 0% 69% 31% 4,2
Crucitas 0% 58% 42% 4,3
Destacan las comunidades San miguel el Zunzo, Puertas y San Nicolas donde en ninguna
de las entrevistadas los niños y niñas viven en una situación de inseguridad alimentaria
severa. A su vez en la aldea Crucitas, los niños y niñas de 4 de cada 10 familias entrevistadas viven en una situación de seguridad alimentaria severa.
Finalmente se calculó un indicador de seguridad alimentaria lnfantil5 dividiendo la suma de
las respuestas afirmativas de todas las familias por el número de familias entrevistadas (la
suma por familia es máximo 8). Cuanto más bajo el valor del indicador más seguro se puede
calificar la comunidad. El índice permite comparar la seguridad alimentaria de las distintas
aldeas. Según este indicador las aldeas de mayor seguridad alimentaria infantil son San
5 'Escala del Componente de Acceso de la Inseguridad Alimentaria en el Hogar (HFIAS) para la
Medición del Acceso a los Alimentos en el Hogar: Guía de Indicadores (v. 2)', Jennifer Coates, Anne Swindale y Paula Bilinsky, Washington, D.C.: Proyecto de Asistencia Técnica sobre Alimentos y Nutrición, Academia para el Desarrollo Educativo, julio de 2006.
Miguel el Zunzo, Puertas y San Nicolas. Las aldeas que se encuentran en la peor situación
de seguridad alimentarla serían Ingenio, Limite las Flores y Crucitas.
Seguridad alimentaria familiar vs seguridad alimentaria infantil
Para las 526 familias con menores de 5 años se realizó un análisis comparativo de la
seguridad alimentaria familiar con la seguridad alimentaria infantil. El siguiente cuadro refleje
los resultados de este análisis comparativo.
Adult food Security vs Child Food Security
SA familiar Frecuencia
vs SA infantil # Familias %
SA familiar >> SA infantil 2 0%
SA familiar > SA infantil 102 19%
SA familiar = SA infantil 360 68%
SA familiar < SA infantil 62 12%
Total 526 100%
Comparando por cada familia el estado de seguridad alimentaria familiar con su estado de
seguridad alimentaria infantil, en el 12% de las familias la situación de seguridad alimentaria
en la que viven los niños y niñas resulta ser mejor que la situación de seguridad alimentaria
en la que viven sus respectivas familias. Esto indicaría que las personas adultas (en
particular las madres) protegen sus niños y niños en detrimento de su propio acceso a los
alimentas. En el 19% de las familias la situación de seguridad alimentaria en la que viven los
niños y niñas resulta ser peor que la situación de seguridad alimentaria en la que viven sus
respectivas familias. No está muy claro a qué se debe esta situación. Debido a los altos
niveles de inseguridad alimentaria familiar la gestión (íntrafamillar) de los alimentos podría
ser tan desorganizada que los niños y niñas son mucho menos protegidos de lo que cabe
esperar.
Conclusiones
En el mes de agosto del 2006 la Cooperativa Agrícola Integral 'El Recuerdo' realizó una
encuesta con el objetivo de evaluar el estado de inseguridad alimentaria de las familias que
participan en el proyecto. El cuestionario utilizado es una versión en español modificada de la
Encuesta de Seguridad Alimentaria desarrollado por el Servicio de Alimentación y Nutrición
(FNS) del Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos de América (USDA).
Los 663 cuestionarios han sido procesados y los resultados analizados por Mark Nord del
Servicio de Investigación Económica del Departamento de Agricultura de los Estado Unidos
de América (Economic Research Service, USDA).
Con respecto a la seguridad alimentaria familiar el 13% de las familias vive en un estado de
inseguridad alimentaria severa mientras que el 24% vive en una situación de seguridad
alimentaria. Durante los 3 meses anteriores a la encuesta en 1 de cada 8 familias la gente
sufría hambre y ha habido días enteros que no comían nada.
Con respecto a la seguridad alimentaria infantil los niños y niñas del 12% de las familias
viven en una situación de inseguridad alimentaria severa y el 16% en unas condiciones de seguridad alimentaria. Durante los últimos 3 meses anteriores a la encuesta en 1 de cada 8 familias los niños y las niñas sufrían hambre y ha habido días enteros que no comían nada
Estos primeros datos de inseguridad alimentaria son preocupantes y particularmente el
acceso que los niños y niñas tienen a los alimentos. Es importante subrayar la necesidad de
llevar a cabo más investigación sobre la situación de inseguridad alimentaria infantil.
The Journal of Nutrition
Community and International Nutrition
Development and Validation of Measure ofHousehold Food Insecurity in Urban Costa RicaConfirms Proposed Generic Questionnaire1,2
Wendy Gonzalez,3 Alicia Jimenez,4 Graciela Madrigal,4 Leda M. Munoz,4 and Edward A. Frongillo3*
3Department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208
and 4School of Nutrition, University of Costa Rica, 2060 San Jose, Costa Rica
Abstract
Interest in household food insecurity (FI) within scientific and policy groups has motivated efforts to develop methods for
measuring it. Questionnaires asking about FI experiences have been shown to be valid in the contexts in which they were
created. The issue has arisen as to whether such questionnaires need be developed from the ground up or if a generic
questionnaire can be adapted to a particular context. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of household FI in
urban Costa Rica, develop and validate a questionnaire for its measurement, and inform the choice between the 2
methods of development. The study was conducting using qualitative and quantitative methods provided in the Food and
Nutrition Technical Assistance (FANTA) guidelines. In-depth interviews were conducted with 49 low-middle-income urban
women using a semistructured interview guide. A 14-item FI questionnaire was developed based on results from these
interviews. A field study was conducted in 213 households. The results show that the developed questionnaire provides
valid measurement of household FI in urban Costa Rica and is simple and quick to apply in the household setting. FANTA
developed a guide during the period that this research was completed that provides a generic questionnaire that can be
adapted for use in various countries, rather than building the questionnaire from the ground up. This study provides
evidence that careful attention to the procedures in this guide will likely yield a questionnaire suitable for assessing
household FI in middle-income countries. J. Nutr. 138: 587–592, 2008.
Introduction
Food security (FS)5 ‘‘exists when all people, at all times, havephysical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritiousfood to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for anactive and healthy life’’ (1). It includes the availability of nutri-tionally adequate and safe foods and an assured availability toacquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways. (2). FS is,therefore, intimately related to the fulfillment of basic humanrights (3). When family household conditions do not guaranteeaccess to food, the household can be called food insecure. Foodinsecurity (FI) is experienced when there is: 1) uncertainty aboutfuture food availability and access; 2) insufficiency in theamount and kind of food required for a healthy lifestyle; or3) the need to use socially unacceptable ways to acquire food (2).FI is most prevalent in countries and populations subject topoverty and social exclusion, but it is also present in some of themost affluent societies (4–7). FI, therefore, seems to be related to
the degree of equity and solidarity within a nation rather than itswealth.
In the last 10 y, a renewed interest in the concept of FI at thehousehold level has emerged within scientific and policy groups.This interest has led to a better understanding of the determi-nants and consequences of the phenomenon as well as the de-velopment of better ways of measuring it. Measuring FI allowsfor information about nutrition, related consequences, and aspectsof economic welfare to be more readily captured. Furthermore,FI can be measured through simple and short questionnaires,therefore with low cost and low respondent burden. Numerouscountries, such as Brazil (8), Venezuela (9), Canada (10), and theUnited States (2), have elaborated country surveys to measure FIamong their populations. The Food and Nutrition TechnicalAssistance (FANTA) Project recently summarized efforts tounderstand and measure household FI across multiple countries(11) and has published 2 technical guides to assist the timelydevelopment of a measurement instrument for household FI inparticular countries (12,13). The first guide described how todevelop a measure of FI from the ground up, whereas the secondguide described how to develop a measure of FI by adapting ageneric set of items understood to be universal. The choicebetween these 2 methods of development involves a trade-offbetween time, effort, and higher inter-country comparability onone hand and potential increased local sensitivity and specificity
1 Supported by the Program of Integral Health Care, University of Costa Rica.2 Author disclosures: W. Gonzalez, A. Jimenez, G. Madrigal, L. M. Munoz, and
E. A. Frongillo, no conflicts of interest.5 Abbreviations used: FANTA, Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance; FI, food
insecurity; FS, food security; PLM, poverty line method; UBNM, unsatisfied
basic needs method.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected].
edu.
0022-3166/08 $8.00 ª 2008 American Society for Nutrition. 587Manuscript received 14 August 2007. Initial review completed 16 September 2007. Revision accepted 10 December 2007.
by on August 24, 2010
jn.nutrition.orgD
ownloaded from
on the other. This study was motivated in part to inform thischoice.
Costa Rica is an example of a transitional economy withincreasing problems in the redistribution of the benefits of amodest but sustained economic growth experienced during thelast 20 y. After reaching levels of social development far betterthan its neighboring Central America countries, with values forindicators such as the Human Development Index among thehighest ranked countries for the Latin American region, povertyhas remained stagnated in the last 20 y. Additionally, an ever-increasing Gini’s coefficient, which measures the extent of incomeinequality, portrays a country in need of developing effectivestrategies to address poverty and to monitor vulnerable groups(14).
In Costa Rica, expensive nationwide surveys are conductedabout every 10 y to monitor food and nutritional status (15).Annual nationwide surveys are conducted to determine theprevalence of poverty at the household level (16). These surveyshave revealed a prevalence of poverty of ;20% for the last 20 y,affecting increasingly the urban areas, where .50% of thepopulation concentrate and, therefore, where more people liveunder poverty. The methods used involve the use of rather longquestionnaires, however, with items that respondents find dif-ficult to answer. Additionally, some of the less formal sources ofincome are harder to capture for low-income groups, whereasfor high-income groups, underreporting is common (17).
The measurement of FI in Costa Rica could provide impor-tant information related to the experience of poverty. A ques-tionnaire quick to administer and analyze could potentiallydetermine households at risk of undernutrition and/or sufferingpoverty in a simpler way. Furthermore, demonstration of thetimely development and usefulness of measuring FI in CostaRica provides an example that can be adapted in other tran-sitional countries.
The aims of this study were to provide an in-depth under-standing of FI in urban Costa Rica, develop and validate aquestionnaire to measure this phenomenon, and test the ground-up approach of the first FANTA technical guideline (12).
Methods
A questionnaire to measure FI was developed based on the first FANTA
guide (12) using both qualitative and quantitative methods. A detailedreview of the scientific literature on FS was prepared.
Interviews with local informants to obtain a good understanding of
the phenomenon of FI at the household level were conducted. A pur-
posive sample of 49 mothers with children , 15 y of age were selectedfrom 2 urban middle-low income communities in San Diego and
Concepcion de La Union de Tres Rıos, in the province of Cartago, during
the summer of 2005. Studies have shown that households with children
are the most vulnerable to FI (18). These communities represent a widevariety of socioeconomic households and families; therefore, a range
of FI experiences, perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors were ex-
pected to be present. In each community, women attending the Commu-nity Health Center, typical of those in the community, were interviewed
using a standard interview guide to ensure that similar information was
obtained from all informants. The questionnaire consisted of general
open-ended questions that allowed the interviewer to explore or detailissues that arose during conversation. Themes covered were related to
the experience of individuals facing FI, determinants, consequences,
coping, and management strategies. Special care was taken to use local
terms when applicable in the questionnaire and to document the exactphrases and terminology used by the participants. Immediately after the
interviews, field notes were revised and expanded where necessary.
A summary of each interview was created, highlighting the essential
elements of the FI experience within each household. The causes, con-
sequences, coping, and management strategies of FI described were pre-
sented in matrices to a panel of experts, which included the Minister of
Health of Costa Rica, the national representative of FAO, and nutrition
and economics researchers. This panel discussed the results, provided
additional inputs, and helped define the constructs of the questionnaire.
The interview data, the data from the panel of experts, and the literature
were compared and it was concluded that the experience of FI in Costa
Rica is similar to the experience seen elsewhere (4,19).After reviewing the Radimer-Cornell instrument (19) and the U.S.
Household Food Security Survey Module (2), specific items were de-
signed to address each component of FI. The items were developed as a
close-ended quantitative questionnaire designed to capture the severity
of FI, trying to maintain as much as was possible the actual words used
by the women interviewed. A total of 14 close-ended questions were
created with 3 possible ordinal answers: ‘‘Never,’’ ‘‘sometimes’’ and ‘‘many
times.’’ The questions were asked with reference to a 12-mo recall period.
The first draft of the questionnaire was presented to another expert
panel of health professionals for their analysis and feedback. Inputs from
the panel were used to guide adjustments and revision of the question-
naire.
The quality of the items developed for the questionnaire was assessed
using cognitive interviewing (12,20) on a diverse group of 12 women
from the population of interest. Cognitive interviewing allows for the
identification of difficulties in terms of how the items are interpreted by
respondents compared with their intended meaning (21). The results of
this process guided additional adjustments in the phrasing of terms used
in the questionnaire.
Validation of the resulting questionnaire was conducted according to
5 of the 6 criteria presented by Frongillo (20): 1) construction of the
instrument well grounded in the understanding of FI; 2) performance of
the instrument consistent with that understanding; 3) precise; 4) depend-
able; 5) accurate; and 6) accuracy of the instrument attributable to the
well-grounded understanding for the purpose and context. Criterion 6 is
difficult to meet unless there is another measure available that is more
accurate than the questionnaire. Nevertheless, the accomplishment of
the other criteria would provide reasonable evidence to establish its
validity (12).
Criterion 1 was addressed through the qualitative method that pro-
vided understanding of FI, described above. To address the other 4 cri-
teria, a field study was conducted in Concepcion, 1 of the 2 communities
selected for the study, during the summer and fall of 2005. Four sectors
of the community were selected purposively to cover a large group of
low-income households (the most vulnerable group). Households were
selected using available community household maps elaborated by the
Community Health Center and census data that identified households
with children ,15 y of age. Within each sector, 3 census segments
displaying the largest number of households with children ,15 y of age
were selected for a total number of 1206 households across all sectors.
Households were visited randomly and invited to participate in the
study, refusals were thanked for their time, and study personnel
proceeded to the next identified household. This process continued until
a final sample size of 213 households was obtained (12). About 7% of
households that were invited to participate refused. Refusals occurred
because of reluctance to report income, lack of time, or disinterest.
Criterion 2 was assessed by examining the pattern of frequency of
affirmative responses to the items in the questionnaire. The ordering of
the frequency of affirmative answers to the questions was consistent with
the ordering of expected severity of the items.
To assess the precision and dependability (i.e. reliability, criteria
3 and 4) of the questionnaire, the internal consistency of the set of
items was examined using Cronbach’s a (11,18) and factor analysis.
Cronbach’s a and factor analysis were calculated based on both the
dichotomized responses and the 3-category responses. Although this
analysis technically assesses the reliability of the FI items when combined
into a continuous scale, it is informative about the internal consistency of
the items in general. Cronbach’s a is reported because it is a familiar
statistic. Because the responses were 2 or 3 categories, it is biased down-
ward and so provides a conservative assessment of the internal validity of
the item set. Factor analysis yielded the same results for both 2- and
3-category responses.
588 Gonzalez et al.
by on August 24, 2010
jn.nutrition.orgD
ownloaded from
There are multiple options for expressing the level of severity of FI
from the questionnaire items (12,13). One option is to make cut-points
on a continuous scale. Another option obtains the level of severity based
on the specific meaning of the items, not using the scale. The first option
has the advantage of being derived from the scale for which statistical
reliability has been demonstrated, whereas the other option has the
advantage of being more understandable and having higher face validity
with policy officials and the general public. Levels of severity were
obtained using both options, with a very high degree of association as
measured by g of 0.99. Furthermore, 83% of households were iden-
tically classified by the 2 options, with the other 17% of households
classified as more severe by option 2 than by option 1. We used option
2 in which 3 levels of FI (mild, moderate, or severe, along with food
secure) were created based on the specific meaning of the items, with
a household being at a particular FI level if 1 or more items linked to
that level were affirmed and no items from a more severe level were
affirmed.
To assess the accuracy of the measurements obtained (criterion 5), FI
expressed as levels of severity was compared with measures from tradi-
tional methods to evaluate poverty and exclusion conditions, expected to
be associated with FI and consistent with its pattern. The methods
selected for this comparison are used routinely by government institu-
tions and the research community in Costa Rica and in many other
countries (22) to estimate the prevalence of poverty in the population.
Two instruments were used: the poverty line method (PLM) and the
unsatisfied basic needs method (UBNM) (23,24). The questionnaires
used for the comparison methods are an adaptation of those used by the
National Home Survey for Multiple Purposes published by the National
Institute of Statistics and Surveys (Instituto Nacional de Estadıstica y
Censos) of Costa Rica (25).
The PLM was determined by quantifying the total income reported
by each home and comparing it to the actual cost of a predefined ‘‘basic
basket.’’ This basket has a food and a nonalimentary component. The
food basket includes the basic food products needed to cover the energy
requirements of a typical Costa Rican family (26), whereas the non-
alimentary component refers to the other necessary basic resources (24).
Families whose income was below the cost of the basic basket were
classified as poor; families whose income was below the cost of the food
basket were classified as extremely poor.
The UBNM classifies families according to the level at which a group
of critical basic needs are satisfied. This methodology evaluates 4 basic
needs: access to an adequate household, a healthy life, knowledge, and
other resources and services. A family is considered poor if it has at least
1 basic need unsatisfied. When all basic needs are satisfied, a household is
classified as satisfied basic needs according to this methodology. Housing
conditions, for example, are evaluated in terms of floor and ceiling
conditions, by the number of people sleeping per bedroom available in
the house, etc. Standard of living is evaluated by variables such as access
to adequate feces disposal systems, potable water, and health insurance.
Knowledge is classified by whether the members of the household
between 7 and 17 y of age attend school regularly at the appropriate
grade for their age group. Access to other resources and services is
determined by the education and amount of income individuals living in
the household contribute (23,25).
Finally, given the fact that the PLM and UBNM measure different
aspects of the condition of poverty, an aggregation of the 2 methods,
known as the Integrated Poverty Classification, was also used in this
study. A household is considered to suffer recent poverty when it does
not fulfill its basic needs but it has a higher income than the cost of the
basic basket. It experiences inertial poverty when it has satisfied basic
needs, but it is poor by the PLM. A chronic poor household is classified
as poor by both PLM and UBNM (24).
Pearson chi-square and ANOVA were used to test for associations
between household FI status and socioeconomic variables such as educa-
tion, insurance coverage, and income. All analyses were conducted with
SPSS software (v. 11.5).
This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of
the University of Costa Rica. Women interviewed were fully informed
of the nature of the study and provided their written consent to par-
ticipate.
Results
FI experience. The respondents considered that FI has multiplecauses, most of them income related, such as unemployment,insufficient income, and bad administration of household in-come that is generally linked with social problems such asalcoholism and drug abuse. Another cause of FI cited is low levelof education of the head of the household.
The respondents cited as management strategies against FI:borrowing money, working extra hours, selling or pawningpersonal belongings, and recurring to institutional aids. Food-related strategies included borrowing food from friends orfamily and improving management of food in the household(e.g. diminish food wastage, use low-cost food). The respon-dents also emphasized that parents protect the children’s foodintake, because it is considered a priority.
The experience of FI was linked with immediate psychologi-cal and biological outcomes. The respondents refer to distress,anxiety, and sadness as immediate manifestations of FI. Theseemotions may affect the family and social interactions. Therespondents also cited malnutrition, health weakening, sickness,and negative changes in the appearance of a person as biologicalmanifestations of FI.
Development and validation of questionnaire. Table 1 pre-sents the English version of the elaborated questionnaire and thepercentage of households that responded ‘‘sometimes’’ or ‘‘manytimes’’ to each question. Most households (73.2%) affirmed thatthey have worried that there was not enough food and that theycould not obtain more, whereas 28.6% established changes inthe quality of the children’s diet. Almost 11% of the householdsresorted to doing things that made them feel ashamed to acquirefood and 6.1% of households reported having gone an entire daywithout eating due to a lack of food.
The frequency and order of participant’s affirmative answersto each item of the questionnaire was consistent with the orderof the components of severity established in the pattern of FI andresponses, supporting the questionnaire’s internal validity (cri-terion 2). Based on the specific meaning of the items and thefrequency of affirmative responses, the phenomenon of FI can beexpressed in 3 levels of severity. An initial level at which familiesfeel uncertain and worry about their capacity to adequatelysatisfy their family’s food needs and therefore begin to reduce thevariety of the adult’s diet (items 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the question-naire), defined as mild FI. A 2nd level occurs when adults’ eatingpatterns are disrupted and the quantity of adults’ intake andquality of the children’s diets are reduced; the number of mealsand general food patterns are maintained (items 5, 6, 7, 9, or 10of the questionnaire), defined as moderate FI. The 3rd level isreached when the children’s eating patterns are disrupted andquantity of their intake reduced. Some members in the familygroup may engage in socially unacceptable, often perceived asshameful, practices to secure a minimum of food for the family(items 8, 11, 12, 13, or 14), defined as severe FI.
Only 16.4% of the sampled households were food secure (i.e.they answered ‘‘never’’ to all items). A total of 40.4% of thehouseholds experienced mild FI, 25.8% had a moderate level ofFI, and 17.4% a severe level of FI (Table 1).
For the set of items, the values of 0.89 and 0.87 were ob-tained for the Cronbach’s a based on 3-category and dichoto-mized responses, respectively. In a 1-factor model that explained46% of the variation, the loadings of the items ranged from 0.58to 0.81 for 13 of the items, with the loading for item on socialacceptability being 0.47.
Household food insecurity in Costa Rica 589
by on August 24, 2010
jn.nutrition.orgD
ownloaded from
Associations with other variables were used to assess theaccuracy of the questionnaire to differentiate groups. There wasan association between the levels of FI and the PLM (x2 ¼ 18.3;P , 0.06), UBNM (x2 ¼ 12.9; P , 0.005), and IPM (x2 ¼ 31.2;P , 0.001). There was an increased gradient of FI in householdsclassified as poor with the PLM and UBNM (Table 2). Only5.7% of extremely poor households were food secure, whereas71.4% of nonpoor households were food secure. The IPM,which compiles both methods, also shows this behavior: 14.3%of chronic poor households were food secure, whereas 56.8%were severely food insecure. Only 17.1% of households withouthealth insurance were food secure and 45.7% were severely food
insecure. Mean income per capita of food-secure householdswas almost 2.5 times the mean income of households with severeFI. Heads of food-insecure households were less likely to havecompleted 9 y of schooling, although the relationship was notsignificant (P , 0.170).
Discussion
The aim of this study was to understand FI in Costa Rica, usethis understanding to develop a valid questionnaire for measur-ing this phenomenon in this middle-income country, and informthe choice of method for questionnaire development. Qualitative
TABLE 1 English translation of the questionnaire developed to measure household FI in Costa Rica and responses to itemsobtained when applied to 213 women in the community of Concepcion de La Union1
Items ordered by frequency of responsesThose responding ``sometimes''
or ``many times''Severity level(% of sample)
%
1. Have you worried that in your home there was not enough food and you could not obtain more? 73.2 Mild FI (40.4)
2. Did you or any adult in your home have to limit the variety of food because of lack of resources? 69.0
3. Did you or any adult in your home have to eat the same for several days in a row because you didn't have food to
prepare another different meal?
54.0
4. Did you have to serve less food because there wasn't resources to obtain enough food? 50.7
9. Did you have to stop giving the children the food they should have because you couldn't obtain it? 28.6 Moderate FI (25.8)
10. Because there was not enough food at home, did you have to serve less food to the children? 21.6
5. Because there was not enough food at home, were you unable to prepare 1 of the meals of the day? 21.6
6. Did you or any adult in your home have to skip 1 of the meals of the day because there was not enough food? 18.8
7. Did you or any adult in your home have to go to sleep without eating because there was not enough food at home? 10.8
14. In order to have food in your home, did you have to do things that make you feel ashamed? 10.8 Severe FI (17.4)
11. Did any of the children have to skip 1 of the meals of the day because there was not enough food at home? 9.9
8. Did you or any adult in your home have to go a whole day without eating because there was not enough food? 6.1
12. Did any of the children have to go to sleep without eating because there was not enough food at home? 2.8
13. Did any of the children have to go a whole day without eating because there was not enough food? 1.9
1 Item numbers correspond to the order in the questionnaire. Cronbach’s a reliability coefficient ¼ 0.89.
TABLE 2 Distribution of households according to FI severity within the different categories of the3 methods used to estimate prevalence of poverty in the families (as well as othercharacteristics)
Household characteristics FS Mild FI Moderate FI Severe FI Test statistic1 P-value
PLM, %
Extreme poverty 5.7 14 14.5 18.9 18.3 ,0.006
Poverty 22.9 36 54.5 48.6
No poverty 71.4 50 30.9 32.4
BNM, %
UBN 25.7 44.2 43.6 67.6 12.9 ,0.005
IPM, %
Chronic poverty 14.3 26.7 40 56.8 31.2 ,0.001
Recent poverty 14.3 23.3 29.1 10.8
Inertial poverty 11.4 17.4 3.6 10.8
No poverty 60 32.6 27.3 21.6
Educational level of head of household, %
,9 y of schooling 62.9 73.3 83.6 75.7 5 ,0.170
Social security coverage (health insurance)
Not covered 17.1 23.5 20.4 45.7 9.8 ,0.021
Income per capita, ¢/mo
(Costa Rican colon)
93,078 6 107,110 50,655 6 33,709 39,448 6 22,649 37,959 6 19,649 9.8 ,0.001
1 Values are means 6 SD or %.
590 Gonzalez et al.
by on August 24, 2010
jn.nutrition.orgD
ownloaded from
and quantitative methods described in the FANTA guides wereused for this purpose.
Consistent with previous studies (27–29), the causes of FIcited by respondents were income related. Economic resourcesare the principal determinant of access to food in urban CostaRica (30).
From the interviews, the pattern of FI in Costa Rica wassimilar in many ways to that of Radimer et al. (19), althoughthere were also important differences. FI in Costa Rica does notinvolve changes in food storage, in contrast to other studies thathave reported this (4,31). The social component of FI alsoincludes the use of socially acceptable ways to acquire food.Households rely on family or institutional support for food ormoney. This has also been described previously (32,33). Con-sistent with the findings of other studies, FI has immediatepsychological (34–36) and physical (5,32,37) consequences.
The percentage of affirmative responses to the questionnaireitems suggests that a pattern of FI can be described in terms of anevolution of experiences from less to more severe. This patternbegins with uncertainty and anxiety. As FI evolves, it progressesinto decreased quality and diversity of the diet, soon afterwardcutting back on the quantity of food eaten per meal and, finally,skipping meals and going hungry for $1 d (4). Because parentsbuffer their children from FI, at least in some cultures, theevolution to the final response level in the pattern is slower inchildren than in their parents (4).
The results provide strong evidence that the developed ques-tionnaire provides valid measurement of household FI in urbanCosta Rica. Its construction is well grounded in the understand-ing of FI in urban Costa Rica, its performance is consistent withthat understanding, and it is reliable and accurate at least at thegroup level. The somewhat lower loading of the item on socialacceptability was expected, given that this item addressed acomponent of FI that was not addressed by any of the otheritems.
The FI questionnaire is simple and quick to apply in thehousehold setting. Although further research to validate thisapproach to the measurement of household FS in rural CostaRica would be ideal, this questionnaire could be used in nationalsurveys to measure families’ vulnerability to the consequences ofFI and to target related interventions.
The first FANTA guide (12) was a useful reference for de-veloping the questionnaire from the ground up (38) based oninterviews with respondents. The steps described in the guidewere easy to follow and facilitated the development of the ques-tionnaire suitable to the Costa Rican socioeconomic and culturalcontext.
The 2nd FANTA guide (13) was being developed during theperiod that this research was completed. Two internationalworkshops were held in April 2004 and October 2005 to sup-port and contribute to the development of this guide. The guideprovides a generic questionnaire that can be adapted for use invarious countries rather than building the questionnaire fromthe ground up. Of the 9 items in the FANTA generic question-naire, 6 of them had a counterpart included in the Costa Ricanquestionnaire. The exceptions were that: 1) in the FANTA ques-tionnaire, 2 items asked about foods not eaten that are preferredand eaten that are not preferred, whereas the Costa Rica ques-tionnaire instead asked about eating the same food for severaldays in a row; and 2) the FANTA questionnaire asked whetherthere was ever no food at all in the household, whereas there wasnot a similar question in the Costa Rican questionnaire. Thestrong similarity between the 2 independently developed ques-tionnaires from the 2nd FANTA guide and Costa Rica means
that the latter confirms the constructs and items in the FANTAgeneric questionnaire. This study provides evidence that carefulattention to following the procedures outlined in the 2ndFANTA guide will likely yield a questionnaire suitable forassessing household FI in middle-income countries.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the support of Mario Leon, Direc-tor, and Fernando Chavarrıa, Academic Coordinator, of theProgram of Integral Health Care of the University of CostaRica. We thank Juan Diego Trejos and Silvia Vargas of theUniversity of Costa Rica for advice about the project.
Literature Cited
1. FAO. Food: a fundamental human right. Rome: FAO; 1996.
2. Committee on National Statistics. Food insecurity and hunger in theUnited States: an assessment of the measure. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press; 2006.
3. Pelletier DL, Olson CM, Frongillo EA. Food insecurity, hunger andundernutrition. In: Bowman B, Russell R, editors. Present knowledge innutrition. Washington, DC: International Life Science Institute Press;2006. p. 906–22.
4. Habicht JP, Pelto G, Frongillo EA, Rose D. Conceptualization andinstrumentation of food insecurity. Proceedings of the Workshop on theMeasurement of Food Insecurity and Hunger; 2004 July 15; Wash-ington, DC. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2004. p. 1–18.
5. Alaimo K, Olson CM, Frongillo EA, Briefol RR. Food insufficiency,family income and health in US preschool and school-aged children. AmJ Public Health. 2001;91:781–6.
6. Melgar-Quinonez HM, Kaiser LL, Martin AC, Metz D, Olivares A.Food insecurity among Latinos in California: a focal group study. SaludPublica Mex. 2003;45:198–205.
7. Olson CM, Rauschenbach BS, Frongillo EA, Kendall A. Factors con-tributing to household food insecurity in a rural upstate New Yorkcounty. Fam Econ Nutr Rev. 1997;10:2–17.
8. Perez-Escamilla R, Segall-Correa AM, Maranha LK, Archanjo SampaioMF, Marın-Leon L, Panigassi G. An adapted version of the U.S.Department of Agriculture Food Insecurity Module is a valid instrumentfor assessing household food insecurity in Campinas, Brazil. J Nutr.2004;134:1923–8.
9. Lorenzana P, Sanjur D. Abbreviated measures of food sufficiency validlyestimate the food security level of poor households: measuringhousehold food security. J Nutr. 1999;129:687–92.
10. Health Canada. Canadian Community Health Survey, Cycle 2.2, Nutri-tion (2004): income-related household food security in Canada.Ottawa, Ontario: Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion; 2007.
11. Coates J, Frongillo EA, Rogers BL, Webb P, Wilde PE, Houser R.Commonalities in the experience of household food insecurity acrosscultures: what are measures missing? J Nutr. 2006;136:S1438–48.
12. Frongillo EA, Nanama S, Wolfe WS. Technical guide to developing adirect, experience-based measurement instrument for household foodinsecurity. Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical AssistanceProject, Academy for Educational Development; 2004.
13. Coates J, Swindale A, Bilinsky P. Household Food Insecurity AccessScale (HFIAS) for measurement of food access: indicator guide version3. Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project,Academy for Educational Development; 2007.
14. Programa Estado de la Nacion. [Eleventh state of the nation in sus-tainable human development]. San Jose (Costa Rica): Consejo Nacionalde Rectores; 2004.
15. Ministerio de Salud. [National nutrition survey]. San Jose (Costa Rica):Ministerio de Salud; 1996.
16. Instituto Nacional de Estadısticas y Censos. [National household surveyfor multiple purposes]. San Jose (Costa Rica): Instituto Nacional deEstadısticas y Censos; 2005.
17. Feres JC. Notes on the measurement of poverty by the income method.CEPAL Rev. 1997;61:119–33.
Household food insecurity in Costa Rica 591
by on August 24, 2010
jn.nutrition.orgD
ownloaded from
18. Nord, M, Andrews, M, Carlson S. Household food insecurity in theUnited States, 2005. USDA; 2006 Nov. Economic Research Report No.:ERR-29.
19. Radimer KL, Olson CM, Campbell CC. Development of indicators toassess hunger. J Nutr. 1990;120:1544–8.
20. Frongillo EA Jr. Validation of measures of food insecurity and hunger.J Nutr. 1999;129:506–9.
21. Alaimo K, Olson CM, Frongillo EA. Importance of cognitive testing forsurvey items: an example from food security questionnaires. J NutrEduc. 1999;31:269–75.
22. Mendez F, Trejos JD. [Costa Rica: map of critical needs for the year2009]. San Jose (Costa Rica): Universidad de Costa Rica; 2002.
23. Feres JC, Mancero X. [Basic needs method and its application in LatinAmerica]. Serie estudios estadısticos y prospectivos. Santiago, Chile:CEPAL; 2001 Feb. Report No. 7.
24. Feres JC, Mancero X. [Approach to measure poverty: a literature re-view]. Serie estudios estadısticos y prospectivos. Santiago, Chile: CEPAL;2001 Jan. Report No. 4.
25. Instituto Nacional de Estadısticas y Censos. [National survey for mul-tiple purposes]. San Jose (Costa Rica): Instituto Nacional de Estadısticasy Censos; 2006.
26. Menchu M, Oseguera O, Zuniga M. [Definition of the food basket inthe Central American region]. Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala:INCAP/OPS; 1992.
27. Rose D. Economic determinants and dietary consequences of foodinsecurity in the United States. J Nutr. 1999;129:517–20.
28. Rose D, Gundersen C, Oliveira V. Socio-economic determinants of foodinsecurity in the United States: evidence from the SIPP and CSFIIdatasets. Washington, DC: USDA, Economic Research Service, Foodand Rural Economics Division; 1998. Technical Bulletin No.: TB1869.
29. ANGLICARE. Food insecurity: a welfare agency perspective [mono-graph on the Internet]. Sydney: Anglicare; 2003 [cited 2005 Nov 28].Available from: http://www.beanangel.com.au/downloads/Food%20In-security%20Final%20Draft%20@%20171103.pdf
30. Instituto Nacional de Estadıstica y Censos. [National survey of house-hold’s incomes and expenses 2004: principal results]. San Jose (CostaRica): Instituto Nacional de Estadıstica y Censos; 2006.
31. Matheson D, Varady J, Varady A, Killen J. Household food security andnutritional status of Hispanic children in the fifth grade. Am J Clin Nutr.2002;76:210–7.
32. Hamelin AM, Beaudry M, Habicht JP. Characterization of householdfood insecurity in Quebec: food and feelings. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:119–32.
33. Studdert LJ, Frongillo EA, Valois P. Measuring household food inse-curity in Java during Indonesia’s economic crisis. J Nutr. 2001;131:2685–91.
34. Alaimo K, Olson CM, Frongillo EA. Family food insufficiency, but notlow family income, is positively associated with dysthymia and suicidesymptoms in adolescents. J Nutr. 2002;132:719–25.
35. Alaimo K, Olson CM, Frongillo EA. Food insufficiency and Americanschool-aged children’s cognitive, academic and psychosocial develop-ment. Pediatrics. 2001;108:44–53.
36. Jyoti D, Frongillo EA, Jones S. Food insecurity affects school children’sacademic performance, weight gain, and social skills. J Nutr. 2005;135:2831–9.
37. Lee JS, Frongillo EA. Nutritional and health consequences are associ-ated with food insecurity among U.S. elderly persons. J Nutr. 2001;131:1503–9.
38. Wolfe WS, Frongillo EA. Building household food security mea-surement tools from the ground up. Food Nutr Bull. 2001;22:5–12.
592 Gonzalez et al.
by on August 24, 2010
jn.nutrition.orgD
ownloaded from
ANEXO II.l. Daniela Caldera Herrera D. Validación de la Escala Latinoamericana y
Caribeña de Seguridad Alimentaria en familias rurales nicaragüenses. Tesis de Licenciatura
en Nutrición. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Nicaragua. RESUMEN - Tesis completa
se envió en documento aparte
- 3 -
RESUMEN En el periodo Octubre- Noviembre 2008 se realizó un estudio descriptivo de corte
transversal en el Municipio de San José de Cusmapa- Madriz, con el objetivo de validar la
Escala de Seguridad Alimentaria en las familias.
Se capacitó y estandarizó un equipo de nutricionistas quienes aplicaron la escala de
Seguridad Alimentaria y entrevistaron a la persona encargada de la preparación de los
alimentos en el hogar y a un miembro de la familia entre 6 y 10 años de edad, se partió de
la premisa de que hubieran presentado las situaciones descritas en los ítems en los
últimos 7 días, la muestra estuvo constituida por 180 familias.
En la encuesta que se aplicó se recolectó la siguiente información: datos socio
demográfico, datos socio económico, datos acceso de alimentos, registro de frecuencia y
consumo de alimentos basado en los últimos 7 días, la escala de seguridad alimentaria y
un cuestionario dirigido a miembro de la familia entre las edades de 6- 10 años.
La participación de las familias fue de manera voluntaria, para esto se firmó una carta de
consentimiento donde se explicaban los objetivos del estudio.
Para la visita a las comunidades se coordinó con miembros de la Fundación Padre
Fabretto y los maestros de las escuelas.
En la mayoría de las familias el informante fue de sexo femenino entre las edades
promedio de 26-30 años con un nivel de escolaridad de primaria.
En cuanto a la diversidad, frecuencia y consumo de alimentos basados en los últimos 7
días los resultados fueron:
Los grupos de alimentos más consumidos por las familias son: cereales, aceites y grasas,
leguminosas, vegetales, misceláneos, y productos lácteos.
- 4 -
La diversidad de estos grupos fue crítica con un índice < 0.5 e insuficiente con un índice de
0.5 a 0.69.
La frecuencia de consumo de los 11 grupos incluidos en el registro semanal de los últimos
7 dias fue poco frecuente.
En cuanto a los niveles de seguridad alimentaría los resultados fueron: 62.2% de las
familias presentaron inseguridad alimentaria moderada, seguido de un 23.3% que
presentaron inseguridad alimentaria leve, un 13.9% tienen inseguridad alimentaria severa
y solo un 0.6% son seguros.
El 90 % de las comunidades (El Jobo, El Carrizo, Ángel 1, Ángel 2, Ángel 3, y El Mojón)
se encuentran en un nivel de inseguridad moderada, seguido de 10% ( Los Llanitos)
que se encuentra en un nivel inseguridad alimentaria Leve.
La escala estuvo constituida por 14 ítems, en base a los resultados que generaron los
programas estadístico Winsteps en la escala de seguridad alimentaria aplicada en el
municipio de San José de Cusmapa, los resultados obtenidos al aplicar el modelo de
Rasch permitieron poner en evidencia el buen ajuste que tienen los ítems (2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14). Lo cual corrobora la validez del instrumento para el municipio
Los ítems (1, 3, 9), obtuvieron un rango por encima de 1.3, lo que indica que su ajuste fue
inapropiado, por tal razón se excluyen del instrumento, quedando éste con 11 ítems de
14. Así, el resultado del modelo de Rasch indica, además, la estrecha relación que existe
entre los ítems de la escala y a la vez corroboran validez del instrumento.
Se puede calcular valores Infit para un ítem o una persona promediando los valores
correspondientes. Matemáticamente el valor esperado es 1. Por convención se considera
que los valores superiores a 1,3 indican desajuste en muestras con menos de 500 casos,
1,2 en muestras de tamaño medio (entre 500 y 1000 casos) y 1,1 en muestras con más de
1000 casos (pepsic.bvs-psi.org.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0258-64442003000100001&lng=pt&nrm=iso).
- 5 -
En este estudio se recomienda a las instituciones gubernamentales y no gubernamentales
que trabajan en pro a la Seguridad Alimentaria, validar la escala de seguridad alimentaría
en otras zonas, para así obtener un instrumento válido para el País.
ANEXO lI.m. Bezuneh M., Yiheyis Z. Measuring Food Security in the Dominican
Republic. Adaptation of the V.S. Food Security Survey Module. Contractor and
Cooperator Report No. 47. 2008. [citado el2 de marzo 2010]. Disponible en:
http://ddr.naI.usda.govlbitstream/10113/32857/lICAT31 012161.pdf
RESUMEN - el documento completo se envió aparte
Abstract
The U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module was translated into Spanish and adapted for use in theDominican Republic. Qualitative assessment in a focus group was conducted to confirm the relevance of the con-cepts and to refine the questions. A pilot survey of 110 households in a rural, economically vulnerable communitywas conducted, and the data were analyzed to assess the validity of the questions as a multiple-item measure ofhousehold food insecurity. Both internal and construct validity appear to be acceptable, although further assessmentof two items is recommended. The Dominican survey module complements work in several other countries inCentral and South American and the Caribbean to develop a common set of food security questions for use indiverse cultural and linguistic settings.
Measuring Food Security in theDominican Republic
Adaptation of the U.S. Food SecuritySurvey ModuleContractor and Cooperator Report No. 47August 2008
By Mesfin Bezuneh and Zelealem Yiheyis, Department of Economics,Clark Atlanta University, and Pedro Juan del Rosario and Luís Ortiz,Instituto Dominicano De Investigaciones Agropecuarias Y Forestales,Dominican Republic
This study was conducted by Clark Atlanta University and the InstitutoDominicano De Investigaciones Agropecuarias Y Forestales under acooperative research contract with USDA’s Economic Research Service(ERS) Food and Nutrition Assistance Research Program (FANRP) (ERS projectrepresentative: Mark Nord). The views expressed are those of the authorsand not necessarily those of ERS or USDA.
