1

`````` MISSING DIMENSIONS OF POVERTY: IMPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL POVERTY

MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING IN THE PHILIPPINES

Celia M. Reyes, Jeremy L. de Jesus, Erica Paula S. Sioson and Alellie B. Sobreviñas

ABSTRACT

This paper documents the experiences and challenges in the conduct of OPHI modules on employment, empowerment, physical safety and security, shame and humiliation, and psychological and subjective well-being in the Philippines. It discusses the operational and policy application of implementing these modules on local poverty measurement and monitoring. It also identified what indicators and questions that did work and those that did not based on survey experience and validation. Keywords: poverty, measurement, community-based monitoring system (CBMS), missing dimensions, indicators, validity, reliability

2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 2. Methodology

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Survey Pre-test and Pilot Test

3.1.1. Empowerment Questions 3.1.2. Psychological and Subjective Wellbeing Questions 3.1.3. Shame and Humiliation Questions 3.1.4. Employment Questions 3.1.5. Violence Questions

3.2. Community Validation 3.2.1. Pasay City 3.2.2. Rosario, Batangas Province 3.3. Validity and Reliability Tests 3.3.1. Psychological and Subjective Wellbeing 3.3.2. Shame and Humiliation 3.3.3. Empowerment 3.4. Response Analysis

4. General Comments on OPHI Modules

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

References

Annexes

3

MISSING DIMENSIONS OF POVERTY: IMPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL POVERTY MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING IN THE PHILIPPINES1

Celia M. Reyes, Jeremy L. de Jesus, Erica Paula S. Sioson and Alellie B. Sobreviñas2

1. INTRODUCTION As the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) succinctly puts it, “money alone is an incomplete measure of poverty.” Given this thrust, OPHI has developed five survey modules intended to capture the ‘missing dimensions’ of poverty data namely quality of work, empowerment, physical safety, without shame, and psychological wellbeing. These ‘missing dimensions’ according to OPHI are relevant to poor people but for many years been excluded from large scale surveys. Since 2007, OPHI had carried out testing and refinement of the ‘missing dimensions’ survey modules alongside data collection. The Community-based Monitoring System is one if not the most widely adopted local poverty monitoring system in the Philippines. As of October 2010, CBMS is being implemented in 61 provinces – 32 of which are implementing CBMS province-wide. This covers 710 municipalities and 46 cities covering 18,706 barangays (villages). Its use ranges from poverty diagnosis and monitoring to program targeting and localizing the millennium development goals (MDGs). Other uses of CBMS include crisis monitoring (i.e., food and fuel shocks, financial crisis) and gender-responsive budgeting. The wide range of CBMS data usability largely reflects its flexibility as a survey instrument in itself. Hence, the CBMS Network Philippines is eager to explore additional indicators that will contribute to the improvement of the system which will produce better data and as a results better response from policymakers. This paper documents the experiences and challenges faced by the CBMS Network Philippines team during the conduct of data collection activities of the CBMS-OPHI project. The paper mainly discusses the observations of the team with regards to the list of problems linked to implementation of the modules namely comprehension problem, multiple interpretations, difficulty to recall, wrong type of response, social pressure, format of the question, and no response (as listed in Cibelli, 2004). A section is also devoted to the documentation of community validation held in study sites wherein results of the study were presented to the communities. In addition to the observations and insights of the CBMS team during the implementation of the modules and the highlights of the validation workshops, statistical work carried out to test the validity and reliability of relevant questions in the OPHI modules are also presented.

1 For more information on the preliminary results and analysis of the missing dimensions of poverty data of the CBMS-OPHI project, kindly refer to Analysis of the Missing Dimensions of Poverty Data in the Philippines (Reyes et. al, 2010). 2 The authors would like to extend their sincerest gratitude to Jose Manuel Roche of Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) for his valuable comments and inputs as well as excellent assistance in the conduct of reliability and validity tests on the OPHI modules.

4

The main objective of this paper is to contribute to the refinement and further development of the OPHI modules especially on empowerment, psychological and subjective wellbeing, and shame and humiliation. This paper also aims to guide researchers in the field of poverty measurement and monitoring in the analysis of survey data. 2. METHODOLOGY In collaboration with the Community-based Monitoring System (CBMS) Network Coordinating Team in the Philippines, the OPHI survey modules had been pilot-tested in small scale data collection work in two barangays (villages) in the country. The modules were implemented in 420 households. Prior to actual pilot testing, the five survey modules were extensively reviewed and pre-tested to facilitate the smooth implementation of the questions. Survey Design and Pre-test The OPHI modules were redesigned as a rider questionnaire to the standard 12-page CBMS household questionnaire. An initial design with full set of questions was pre-tested in about 10 households in a barangay in Batangas. A workshop was organized to document and to learn from the experiences of CBMS team members who functioned as enumerators of the said instrument. A research staff from OPHI was also present during the workshop to guide the team during the revision of the OPHI modules based on experiences from the pre-test. During the workshop, minor revisions were implemented in the module including localization of options for certain questions as well as dropping inapplicable and redundant questions from the modules. Furthermore, crucial changes in a few relative autonomy questions in the empowerment module were also adopted during the workshop in order to simplify some of the long-winded questions in this particular module. Translation The five ‘missing dimensions’ of poverty modules were translated to the native language, Tagalog. The translation of the modules was carried out by Dr. Jimmuel Naval, chair of Department of Filipino and Philippine Literature, University of the Philippines. Translation was a challenge. Some terms used in the modules do not have an equivalent term in the local language. The translated material from the lead translator was reviewed by the team to check for rarely-used or strictly-formal Tagalog words which respondents may not understand or difficult to comprehend and replaced this with more commonly used synonyms. This reviewed material was then returned to the lead translator for approval pertaining to meaning, context, and comprehensibility. Pilot test and Fieldwork The final version of the OPHI questionnaire was implemented in two sites namely Brgy.80 in Pasay City and Brgy. Lumbangan in Rosario, Batangas. The team was able to experience first-hand the implementation of the OPHI modules. As a standard procedure followed by CBMS, at the end of each working day the team would meet to discuss the challenges, issues, problems, or concerns regarding data collection during the day. This is very good opportunity for the team to

5

learn from each other’s experiences and to improve day-to-day survey operations. Being the enumerators for this study, the CBMS team had a better understanding of the modules that were implemented. The comments presented in the section on survey pre-test and pilot test were the insights and observations of the CBMS team on the actual implementation of OPHI modules. Community Validation An integral part of the CBMS process is the community validation. This activity essentially involves the presentation of survey results to the members of the community. CBMS takes this opportunity to validate the findings particularly related to the CBMS core indicators on health, education, water, sanitation, livelihood, etc. Another significance of this kind of activity is that it instills a sense of ownership on the data that was collected resulting to a more active community eager to participate in local planning. Validation workshops also foster transparency and accountability on the part of local government. The CBMS team held validation workshop in the two study sites to gather qualitative data on how do the communities perceive the CBMS-OPHI survey on missing dimensions. Residents and local officials of the villages were invited to share their views and give feedback on the survey results. Statistical Validation A substantial amount of statistical work was also done to test the validity and reliability of relevant questions in some of the modules. All estimations and computations were done using Stata® Version 11.1 software package. Tests that were carried out include exploratory factor analysis (using tetrachoric correlation matrix on dichotomous variables), confirmatory factor analysis, computing Cronbach’s alpha for the multi-item questions, and simple correlations to explore convergent validity for some of the items. The details of the statistical are discussed accordingly in the section on validity and reliability tests. Missing values The treatment of missing values is case-to-case basis. Estimations are computed with all the non-missing values available for the set of variables that are being used for a particular analysis. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This section contains the observations and insights from fieldwork experience during pre-test and pilot test of the OPHI modules, highlights of the community validation workshops held in the study sites as well as results of statistical work relating to reliability and validity of scales in some modules and non-response rates. 3.1. Survey Pre-test and Pilot Test Notes: 1. The numbers in parentheses correspond to numbering of the questions in the CBMS-OPHI questionnaire.

6

2. The questions that appear in this list are only the questions that have comments from the team. Comments are in italics.

3.1.1. Empowerment Questions EMP1 (35). In general, how much control do you feel you have in making personal decisions that affect your daily activities (such as dropping off the children at school, buying bread, cooking, washing up, etc.)? The response to this question might be influenced by the presence or absence of other members

of the household. EMP2 (36).\a How much does your household spend on food in a normal week? This question took most of the time of the respondents. Most of them find it easier to recall

their daily expenses on food rather than their weekly expenditures. \a Chosen instead of alternative EMP2: What routine expenditures did your household make in the last week? EMP3 (37). When decisions are made regarding minor household purchases such as food or other daily items, who is it that normally makes the decision? The response to this question might be influenced by the presence or absence of other members

of the household. EMP5 (39&40).\b I will now ask you to express your level of disagreement or agreement with the following statements, where 1 is greatly disagree with the statement and 4 is strongly agree, regarding how you make minor household purchases such as food or other daily items. a. I can’t make minor household purchases differently to how I do them. b. I make minor household purchases because my spouse, another person, society, social organizations or my community insist that I make them. c. I make minor household purchases according to what others expect of me or to obtain their approval. If I didn’t, they might blame me. d. I make minor household purchases according to what I personally consider important. This question is not easy to ask because of length and sometimes respondents get lost during

interview. The Tagalog translation is sometimes difficult for the respondent to understand specifically

what is meant by statement c, especially the second statement. Some of the respondents interpret the phrase 'baka sisihin nila ako' differently. .

7

\b In the Tagalog version, there are two sets of these questions corresponding to those who can purchase food and those who can't buy food. This question is difficult to translate.

EMP9 (41).\c Where would you go if you had a serious health problem?

Most of the respondents answered proper nouns to this question. They gave the actual name of the hospital or health center etc. and the interviewer would be the one who will classify accordingly.

\c Options were localized and replaced by codes in the CBMS HPQ VN 06-2009-01

EMP12 (42). I will now ask you to express your level of disagreement or agreement with the following statements, where 1 is greatly disagree with the statement and 4 is strongly agree, regarding how you would resolve a serious health problem.. a. I can’t face a health problem of my own differently to how I do. b. If I have a serious health problem, I do what my spouse or some other person, society or social organizations insist that I do. c. If I have a serious health problem, I act according to what other people expect of me or to get their approval. If I didn’t, they might blame me. d. If I have a serious health problem I do what I personally consider is important.

Are we really capturing the concept that we want to measure here? In the Tagalog translation, we limit the question on where the respondent would bring the sick patient in case of serious illness. That is, assuming that they have the capacity to bring their patient to the hospital. In some cases, poor households may not even have the resources to bring the patient to the hospital. In the Tagalog version of the questionnaire, it seems that we are limiting all health-related decisions to the “place where patient” will be brought while in the English version, what is tends to capture is all cases of “serious health problems”. We might consider revising this statement. Some respondents do not understand the questions the first time they were asked with these

questions. The original Tagalog translation is lengthy and not so clear. This question is not easy to ask because of length and sometimes respondents get lost during

interview.

EMP13. \d Do you practice any religion?

\d Question 8 of the CBMS Household Profile Questionnaire substituted for this question EMP17_1 (48). I will now ask you to express your level of disagreement or agreement with the following statements, where 1 is greatly disagree with the statement and 4 is strongly agree, regarding why you practice a religion. a. I have to practice the religion I already practice. b. I practice a religion because my spouse, another person, society, social organisations or my community insist that I do. c. I practice a religion according to what others expect of me or to obtain their approval. If I didn’t, they might blame me. d. I practice a religion because I personally consider it important.

8

We may consider revising how statement c is translated to Tagalog. EMP20 (110). I will now ask you to express your level of disagreement or agreement with the following statements, where 1 is greatly disagree with the statement and 4 is strongly agree, regarding what actions you take to protect your household’s security. a. I cannot do anything to prevent or reduce the risk of crime differently to what I already do. b. To prevent or reduce the risk of crime I do what my spouse, another person, society, social organisations or my community insist that I do. c. To prevent or reduce the risk of crime I do what others expect of me or what will obtain their approval. If I didn’t, they might blame me. d. To prevent or reduce the risk of crime I do what I personally consider important.

This question is difficult to ask; statement a needs further explanation for the respondents. EMP22 (51). At this point in time, what three thing(s) would you most like to change in your life? Some respondents took some time to respond to this question and cite three things that they

want to change. EMP24 (53). Do you feel that people like yourself can generally change things in your community if they want to?

There are alternative measurements of community participation that are more objective for instance membership in community organizations, or attendance to barangay meetings and involvement in community-based projects, etc. CBMS had an indicator of community participation in the past. Some respondents have hesitation when responding. This question is difficult to ask since the Tagalog translation is mildly offensive (because of

straightforwardness). Most of the respondents usually answered the first option without hearing first the remaining

choices first. Upon hearing the remaining choices though some tended to change their minds and choose other options.but sometimes they ended up changing their mind and choosing the other options.

EMP25 (54). Imagine a ten step ladder, where on the bottom, the first step, stand people who are completely without free choice and control over the way their lives turn out, and on the highest step, the tenth, stand those with the most free choice and control over their lives. In this context, we ask you to answer the following questions: a. On which step are you today? b. On which step are most of your neighbours today? c. On which step were you five years ago?

Some respondents did not easily understand the translation. In several cases, respondents thought that the question is referring to their economic status and not empowerment per se. For statement b, some respondents find it difficult to provide opinions on which step other

people are in the ten-step ladder. A few respondents declined to answer this item. They felt

9

uneasy about comparing themselves with their neighbours. Respondents were hesitant / shy to respond to this question because they may appear judgmental of their neighbours. Generally not hard to ask, except when it comes to their perception on their neighbours’

standing. A few respondents answered they don’t know and have to be convinced to provide an answer The question required a lot of effort in interpreting especially for those respondents who take

the ladder literally and it involved repeating the question a lot of times. General Comments on the Empowerment Module 1. For the empowerment module, some of the questions that need to be asked to respondents depend on whether they are employed or not. In addition, for those questions related to perceptions, answers are very subjective. Hence, the number of responses for these questions depend on who is actually interviewed (i.e., whether the household head who is working or any other adult member of the household) which may not necessarily reflect fully the general condition of the households, and also of the barangay if we opt to aggregate the results. 2. In general, for the questions in this module, respondents show some form of irritation/boredom/annoyance, in answering questions. Most of the questions require additional explanation from the interviewer since most of these questions are a bit complicated. After the first set of questions in this module, it feels like the respondent doesn't think about the answer to the next set of questions in this module anymore since the questions obviously follow a pattern. Thus, there arises the question of whether the answers were really thought of or not. 3.1.2. Psychological and Subjective Wellbeing Questions

MV3 (55). Please take a few minutes to think about the things that make your life important. How true are the following statements for you? a. My life has a clear meaning or purpose. b. I have found a satisfactory meaning in life. c. I have a clear sense of what gives meaning to my life.

Not difficult to ask though some respondents were hesitant to respond if other household members can hear their answer. Some nuances between/among the three statements may not be captured by the Tagalog

translations, statements a-c capture more or less the same idea, especially when translated to Tagalog. These statements are sometimes confusing to the respondents (e.g., some asked me what I mean

with the phrase "meaning or purpose in life". To some respondents, the questions are vague. Respondents usually say that these 2 statements mean the same thus these statements need thorough explanation in order for the respondents to understand the statements.

MV4 (56). How true are the following statements for you? a. I feel free to decide for myself how to lead my life. b. I generally feel free to express my ideas and opinions. c. I feel like I can pretty much be honest with myself in daily situations.

10

Not difficult to ask though some respondents were hesitant to respond if other household members can hear them while answering.

MV2 (60). In general, how satisfied or unsatisfied are you with your: a. Life overall b. Food c. Housing d. Income e. Health f. Work g. Local security level h. Friends i. Family j. Education k. Free choice and control over your life l. Dignity m. Neighbourhood/town/community/ n. Ability to help others o. Spiritual, religious or philosophical beliefs Generally, not difficult to ask though some respondents were hesitant to respond if other

household members can hear them while answering. Respondents generally took relatively longer time responding to this question compared to

other questions. Item l (dignity) is particularly difficult to ask.

3.1.3. Shame and Humiliation Questions SH1 (61). Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? a. I would be ashamed if I were poor. b. I would be ashamed if someone in my family were poor. c. People living in poverty should be ashamed of themselves. d. People who are not poor make people who are poor feel bad.

These questions are difficult to ask especially in cases where the respondent is apparently poor. Sensitive questions; sometimes difficult to ask to respondents. Most of the respondents need

further explanation for the statement d. Some respondents have hesitation when answering, in one instance respondent became a bit uncomfortable when asked particular options Generally, these questions are not received very well by respondents. SH2 (62). How do you think the people in your community/neighbourhood/city would answer the following questions? a. I would be ashamed if I were poor. b. I would be ashamed if someone in my family were poor. c. People living in poverty should be ashamed of themselves. d. People who are not poor make people who are poor feel bad.

11

Several respondents actually declined to answer these questions citing that they don't know what are the thoughts of their neighbors (maybe out of respect and may be linked to Filipino culture of not speaking on behalf of others). Difficult for the respondents to provide opinions on how other people in their community

would respond to the questions. Most of the respondents need further explanation for the statement d. Majority of the respondents did not feel confident about answering these items. A few asked

one of the enumerators outright: "why don’t you ask my neighbors directly about how they feel about these statements?” Some are annoyed in responding to this set of questions after answering SH1. Some respondents are hesitant to answer, while some others confused this with the earlier

question (SH1) thinking that this question is just the same with the earlier one and preferred not to answer anymore.

SH3 (63). For each of the following listed feelings please place a number from 1 to 4, reflecting how common the feeling is for you. a. Embarrassment b. Feeling ridiculous c. Self-consciousness d. Feeling humiliated e. Feeling stupid f. Feeling childish g. Feeling helpless, paralyzed h. Feelings of blushing i. Feeling laughable j. Feeling disgusting to others

Distinctions between statements a, d and h should be clearer. The most difficult set of questions to ask in this module. Statement e is the most difficult sub-question to ask in this question since the Tagalog

translation “tanga” has a negative connotation in Philippine context and deemed offensive when spoken to another person. Respondents sometimes have different understanding/interpretation of the Tagalog translation

of statement. Some associate the "pakiramdam ay pagiging bata" to looking andng feeling young instead of feeling childish. One alternative translation can be “pakiramdam ay asal-bata”. Statement h may not be as relevant to the Philippine context. Most respondents answer that

this question is not applicable to them (54.8% of the respondents answered that they rarely or never felt feelings of blushing). The Tagalog translation of statement j may sound offensive if not properly ask. Gets unsettled

response such as "ay hindi naman!" (not really!).

SH6A (66). Have you been treated in a way that you felt was prejudiced during the last three months?

Sometimes, respondents confused the question with ill-treatment from other people.

12

SH6B (67). Who treated you in a way that you felt was prejudiced?

Some respondents were hesitant answering this question saying that it's too personal.

SH6C (68). Why were you treated in a way that you felt was prejudiced?

Several respondents did not cite any reason for the prejudiced treatment. SH7 (69). Do you think that someone's ethnic, racial or cultural background impedes their chances of getting: SH8 (70). Do you think being a woman impedes someone’s chances of getting: SH9 (71). Do you think that being poor impedes someone’s chances of getting: a. Access to public services / infrastructure (for example: health, basic sewage, bridges, pavement) b. Public sector jobs c. Government contracts d. Private sector jobs e. Educational opportunities at school f. Educational opportunities at the technical, teacher training, military or police level. g. Educational opportunities at the university level Concept of ethnicity should be explained well to respondents. Some respondents do not

differentiate between nationality and ethnicity. And since this set of questions is repeated thrice, most respondents do not really think about the next two sets, especially the last one. Too many options to answer. The respondents sometimes looked tired fed-up in answering

these questions because of repetitive long choices. Since this set of questions is repeated thrice, most respondents do not really think about the next two sets, especially the last one. This may affect the quality of the data especially on the last question because they were answering just for the sake of answering without comprehending the question well.

SH10 (72). Please read each of the following items carefully and indicate the rating that best describes your feelings: Throughout your life, how seriously have you felt harmed by being … a. Excluded b. Put down c. Ridiculed d. Discounted e. Cruelly criticized f. Called names or referred to in derogatory terms Some respondents were hesitant to answer because some said the question was too personal.

Another concern is the problem with recall. The Tagalog translation seems to be lengthy. After finishing the entire question/instruction, the

respondents already forgot the first things that the interviewer said. This one resulted to repeating the whole question/instruction again. The easiness of asking this question/instruction really depends on the interviewer. Statements a and d are closely similar when translated to Tagalog. The same case is true for

statements c and e.

13

3.1.4. Employment Questions E1 (1). For this work will you receive a retirement pension? E2 (2). Are you entitled to paid sick leave? E3 (3). Are you entitled to paid holidays? E4 (4). Are you entitled to maternity leave? E5 (5). Are you covered or entitled to social security benefits? E6 (6). Are you covered or entitled to health insurance or free medical care? These questions are intended to be part of a series of questions that suppose to capture informal employment (a similar set of questions can be found in the Informal Sector Survey of the NSO). In the said survey, these questions are not asked to self-employed individuals or employer in own-family operated farm or business. Some employment-related questions for the other members of the households (i.e., other than the respondent) are difficult to answer as most respondents do not know or do not have accurate information about, for instance, the other members’ employment benefits. These questions may not be applicable to those who are part of the informal sector or are self-employed, especially Questions 1-4. For questions 5-6, it should be clear if we also want to capture those workers who pay (in full) their own contributions social security and health insurance or only those who receive counterpart contributions from their employers.

E8 (20). The reason your income decreased is: The options can be expanded to include other coping strategies. Maybe should include “others” as another option. May need to clearly define what is meant by an “informal activity". E12 (23). Considering the total number of hours worked last week, would you like to work fewer hours at the expense of a reduction in income? E13 (24). Considering the total number of hours worked last week, would you like to work more hours in order to increase your income?

E12 maybe not that applicable in the case of the Philippines. Of the two questions, E12 and E13, only the latter appears in the Philippines Labor Force Survey questionnaire. Furthermore, a question on reason for long hours of work was asked. We may also include questions on number of working hours during the past week. If we are to include questions to capture underemployment, we need to check the official definition, as well as the Labor Force Survey (LFS) to determine how the questions should be phrased. There might be a need to add more questions in this case. E14 (17). Do you have another or other occupations aside from your main occupation (secondary activity or occupation)? As a follow-up question, we may ask the reason for having multiple occupations.

14

E15 (9). Have you suffered any accidental injury, illness, disability or other physical or mental health problem caused by work during the past 12 months? E16 (11). Did any of these incidents lead to loss of work of one or more days? E17 (13). The most serious incident had: E18 (14-16). Thinking about the most serious of these injuries or health problems, how would you describe it? E19 (25). Thinking about the place where you work:

1. Do you have clean water? 2. Do you have adequate toilets? 3. Are you exposed to uncomfortable work postures or spend long hours standing? 4. Do you work with cutting/grinding machines or hand tools? 4_1. Do you have adequate protection? 5. Are you exposed to noise too loud to talk normally? 5_1. Do you have adequate protection? 6. Are you exposed to extreme temperatures (high or low)? 6_1. Do you have adequate protection? 7. Are you exposed to harmful chemicals, dust, fumes, smoke, gases or vapours? 7_1. Do you have adequate protection? 8. Do you handle heavy loads? 8_1. Do you have adequate protection? 9. Other, specify _________________

These questions are essentially part of an occupational hazard module. In the context of CBMS, these questions are not universally relevant. These questions can be better used for targeted surveys (i.e, communities near mining facilites, Export Processing Zones, etc.) Difficult to answer for some whose place of work is not permanent or those who are usually working on the field. The questions should have 2 columns to provide space for the 2 questions asked under items 4-9. For statements a and b, it might be good if we can clearly specify the “usual” place of work. What if the member works at home? Will there be any implications on the concept that we want to measure? 3.1.5. Violence Questions V1A (73). In the last 12 months were you or any member(s) of your household victim of the following situations? V1A_a (74). Did someone get into your house, flat or dwelling without permission and steal or try to steal something? V1A_b (75). Did someone take something from you or a member of your household (on your person) by using force or threatening you? Or did anyone try to do so? V1A_c (76). Did someone steal something you or a member of your household owns (not stored in the dwelling) such as vehicles, parts or contents of vehicles, motorbikes, mopeds, scooters, machinery, pumps, bicycles, store property and so on? V1A_d (77). Did someone steal animals or crops from you or a member of your household?

15

V1A_e (78). Did someone deliberately destroy or damage your home, shop or any other property that you or a member of your household owns? V2A. In the past five years, were you or any member(s) of your household victim of the following situations? V2A_a Were you or a member of your household assaulted (hit, slapped, shoved, punched, pushed or kicked) without any weapon either inside or outside your home? V2A_b Were you or a member of your household assaulted (beaten, stabbed, burnt, throttled or otherwise attacked) with a weapon (e.g., bottle, glass, knife, club, hot liquid or rope) not including being shot by a gun or firearm? V2A_c Were you or a member of your household shot with a firearm? V2A_d Were you or a member of your household kidnapped (taken away and kept in captivity against your will)? V2A_e Were you or a member of your household injured by a bomb, Molotov cocktail, landmine or other explosive device?

Generally, questions pertaining to crime are difficult to ask (especially several of the situations listed are violent crimes). It is a sensitive matter mainly because the incident may be traumatic for the respondent. Furthermore, people tend to be hesitant in sharing this information to strangers (i.e, enumerators) or withhold information altogether. The reference period for Questions 73-78 is past 12 months while reference period for Questions 87-92 is past 5 years. It might be good if reference period is the same for these questions. Since the reference period for V2A is 5 years the respondents had difficulty remembering the number of times the said incident happened to them The information that is being gathered here might have already been captured in the CBMS Core Questionnaire (section on victims of crime). In fact, some respondents noticed this and asked why the same set of questions again was asked again. Some respondents have to be convinced that these questions are more detailed than the previous questions (core). Sensitive questions; sometimes difficult to ask, especially if the perpetrator is also a member of the household and if there are other people (i.e., other than the respondent) who are present in the house when the interview is being conducted. V1C, V2F (81,97). The last time this happened, who was the perpetrator?

Some respondent were hesitant to answer at first.

V3 (103 and 104). In the next twelve months, what is the likelihood that you will become a victim of one of the forms of violence mentioned above?

Some respondents are not comfortable answering this question because they don't want to entertain the thought of something bad happening to their family (Filipino culture). 3.2. Community Validation

3.2.1. Pasay City

16

The validation workshop was held in Pasay City (one of the study site). Duration of the activity was about 2 hours. Ten residents of Barangay 80 were present together with the barangay chairman and two barangay kagawads. Also, staff and head of Cooperative Department and City Planning and Development Office participated in the workshop.

The following sections highlight the validation activity held in Pasay City. On Safety and Violence, in order to lessen the incidence of crime, the barangay captain informed the attendees of the validation that there are plans of installing security cameras in order to monitor the perpetrator of the crimes in the barangay. He also added that the apartment owners in their barangay should require their tenants to provide an NBI clearance or a certificate from their previous landlady to prove that they have good records. The residents suggested to add more barangay tanods and to take precautionary measures in protecting their properties and their selves. The residents disagreed that they are most concern about the threat or injury from natural disasters like flood just like what the results of the survey show because their area is not prone to flood. Instead, they said that they were most concern about the occurrence of fire in their barangay which is very frequent. But, it can be easily prevented because of the stock of water in their drums provided by the local water company.

On Quality of Work, they said that the probable reason why majority of the people in the barangay don’t have benefits is that most of them are underemployed and their companies/work place do not offer benefits like health insurance. While those who were able to finish studies wasn’t able to find a job that suits their educational attainment so they just settle to what job is available, whether it has benefits or not and whether the pay is high or low. A representative of the city government shared that Philhealth is available for everyone but awareness of this program is minimal because the program itself is not attractive to the citizens. Indigents residing in the barangay were aware of the program because they were selected to be beneficiaries of the program but the problem lies on their re-enrollment. Most of them were too lazy to re-enroll because they can’t find any added value of the program. The sharing of information on Philhealth has been very informative to the attendees of the validation. This also got the attention of the barangay captain to disseminate the information about Philhealth to his people.

On Psychological and Subjective Wellbeing, most of the attendees of the validation did not agree that they are fairly or very happy and satisfied with their lives over-all. They strongly agreed with the results of the survey that they are very satisfied with their family and that their life has meaning. Since the results of the survey show that the respondents were least satisfied with their income and work, livelihood programs available in the city government were raised during the validation. A city government representative informed that there are available livelihood programs in the city government like the hydrophonics, a method of growing plants in mineral solution and is just appropriate for the urban setting and greening the roof or planting vegetables in the rooftop of the condominiums.

On empowerment, it was found out that although the results show that the respondents see themselves as agents of change in the community, most of them are not actively participating in the barangay assembly wherein they can voice out their opinions because they are busy tending other things like work, household duties, etc. The barangay captain pointed out that an incentive is needed like raffles so that they can encourage the residents to attend meetings in the barangay.

17

On Shame and Humiliation, they strongly agreed that better educated individuals are less prone to shame and unfair treatment because of their educational background and with that, they know how to place themselves in every situation. Meanwhile, poor residents are more prone to shame also because of their educational attainment. Discriminations on sex, ethnicity and economic status, according to them, do not exist most especially when accessing public services. Overall the attendees of the validation thinks that the questions asked on the survey were really different from the common surveys that they encounter which only asks for their demographic characteristics and their needs. They found the questions asked on the OPHI survey really difficult to answer but in the end, they know that the information gathered will be of importance to their lives. They also wondered if any direct help will be provided in the barangay but the team explained that the information gathered in the survey will be made known to donor agencies and also to the local officials of the barangay and the city government and will be the one in charge to do appropriate actions to some problematic conditions based from the results. 3.2.2. Rosario, Batangas Province The validation activity was in Brgy. Lumbangan Barangay in Rosario, Batangas. The workshop were attended by more than 40 participants composed of Barangay Health Workers, Barangay Officials, Barangay Tanods, Municipal Officers (Municipal Planning Development Coordinator and Staff, Municipal Administrator, and DILG Officer) and 14 respondents of the survey. Highlights of the validation activity are discussed in the succeeding paragraphs. On safety and violence, residents of the barangay suggested that to lessen the incidence of crime in their barangay more street lights should be put up on the roads within the barangay. It was also suggested that Tanod visibility in the barangay should be increased through regular Tanod roving during night time. The barangay captain explained that each barangay kagawad was assigned as a purok leader of one purok in the barangay. The barangay chairperson then mandated the kagawads to visit their assigned purok not only to get the problems of the residents on peace and order but also asked about their grievances and report these to the barangay captain. The Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator (MPDC) added that the Brgy Kagawads as Purok Leaders System are also being advocated by the Municipal Government to improve local governance. She also urged the residents to report any incident of crime to the barangay since the results indicated that incidence of crime was mostly not reported. On results on threat of death or injury from natural disasters, the residents agreed that they are most concern about it because the walls and roofs of their houses are made of light materials hence can be easily damaged by natural calamities. The barangay captain responded that in case of calamity there is an enough calamity fund, however, they still have to devise a calamity or disaster management system. On quality of work, they agreed that most residents who are working have no employment benefits because most are working in private households or small businesses. The respondents confirmed that unemployment is high in age group 15-24 years old. They could not find jobs since most are elementary graduate and some haven’t even attended high school. Residents of

18

the barangay commented on the result that more respondents of the survey wanted to have additional hours in work to increase income. They said that the working hours are enough but the wage they earn per day is not enough to support their families. Hence, they want a job that will offer a higher wage given the same number of hours of work. The MPDC informed the residents of the barangay that the municipal government has educational and livelihood programs/trainings available for them. Some programs mentioned are Alternative Learning System, Hair Cutting Training and Pipe-fitting Training offered by TESDA. The trainings are free and are offered to all but only a few are attending these trainings. She also mentioned that they assigned one kagawad per barangay to gather information on what trainings are the residents interested to attend. The barangay kagawad who was assigned to gather the information, said that many young persons in their barangay want to undergo training related to computers such as computer technician. When presented with the results on psychological and subjective wellbeing, the residents agreed that they are not contented or satisfied with their work and the wage that they are earning but they are most contented with their family and their religion. Though they are not contented but still they are happy since there family is still complete and the family bond is still strong. According to the MPDC, the results on the what aspects of life are the residents most satisfied and not satisfied with are very useful since it be can easily identified on what aspects should the local government will focus on. She also added that residents of Lumbangan still have so much hope since the results showed that most residents answered that their life has meaning and purpose. On empowerment, the respondents of the survey agreed that their family has an important role in changing their lives. Also, results showed that respondents believe that they can change their community but still with a little difficulty. When asked what makes it difficult for them to change their community they answered that sometimes it is hard to raise their opinions or to change things in their community because they have no ally or no one is on their side to help and support them. On shame and humiliation, the respondents of the survey agreed that they sometimes feel embarrassed or ridiculed. Their low educational attainment is one reason they identified for being ridiculed or embarrassed. On prejudiced treatment, they responded that due to extended families living together, it is common to feel unjust treatment from close relatives. During the validation workshop, respondents of the survey were asked why they had a difficulty in listing 3 things they want to change in their life. They responded that their general answer such as ‘’reduce poverty and improve standard of living’’ already covers all the things they want to change in all aspects of their life. They prefer not to answer questions that require their opinion regarding their neighbor since they don’t want to meddle with their neighbor’s life. Also, if they’ll voice out their opinions, they are afraid their neighbors might be mad at them. The respondents also gave their feedback regarding the OPHI questionnaire. Some said that the questions are okay and they don’t mind answering all the questions. While, one respondent said that she finds it hard to answer questions pertaining to their neighbors. The MPDC commented that data results especially on crimes and

19

satisfaction/contentment are an eye-opener for local government officials. The results will greatly help them understand the concerns of the residents. 3.3. Reliability and Validity Tests There are several scales present in the OPHI modules particularly on empowerment, psychological and subjective wellbeing and shame and humiliation. These are the psychological wellbeing questions on meaning in life, autonomy, competence, and relatedness, subjective wellbeing questions on domain-specific life satisfaction, questions on stigma of poverty, shame proneness, levels of accumulated humiliation, and relative autonomy questions. Scales are commonly used to capture theoretical constructs that are difficult to measure (e.g. meaning in life). There are an ample number of statistical techniques that can be applied to test the reliability and validity of these scales. Examples of these statistical tests include Cronbach’s alpha, factor analysis, and simple correlation analysis. The main objective of this exercise is to check the internal validity of the scales – whether the scale correctly captures the concept it is purport to measure and the scale consistently and systematically measures the construct. 3.3.1. Psychological and Subjective Wellbeing The module on psychological and subjective wellbeing comprises six questions. There are four questions pertaining to meaning in life and the three basic psychological needs namely autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The questions on meaning in life were adopted from the short-form of Steger questionnaire for presence of Meaning in Life while the questions on autonomy, competence, and relatedness were taken from the short-form of Ryan and Deci Basic Psychological Needs scales (Samman 2007). These questions have three statements each and use a 4-point rating scale asking how true the statements are to the respondents. The response options are ‘not at all true’, ‘somewhat true’, ‘fairly true’, and ‘completely true’. Options for ‘no answer’ and ‘don’t know’ are also provided. There is also a question on happiness which was adopted from the World database of happiness (Samman 2007). The response options of this variant of the happiness question are ‘very happy’, ‘fairly happy’, ‘not very happy’, and ‘not at all happy’. Lastly, this module also has a question on satisfaction. It has 15 items which includes ‘life over-all’ and domain-specific items like ‘food’, ‘family’, ‘spirituality’, etc. The general question on life satisfaction was taken from Eurobarometer while the domain-specific items were selected based on review of related literature (Samman 2007). It also uses a 4-point rating scale asking how satisfied the respondent on each item. The response options are ‘very satisfied’, ‘fairly satisfied’, ‘not very satisfied’, and ‘not at all satisfied’. Psychological Wellbeing Table 1 shows the Kendall tau-b correlation coefficients of items in questions on meaning in life and the three basic psychological needs. As expected the variables are positively correlated but it appears that the correlations are not that strong.

20

01

23

4Ei

genv

alue

s

0 5 10 151 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12Factor

Factor Analysis Parallel Analysis

meaning_a meaning_b meaning_c autonomy_a autonomy_b autonomy_c competence_a competence_b competence_c relatedness_a relatedness_b relatedness_cmeaning_a 1.00meaning_b 0.29 1.00meaning_c 0.33 0.39 1.00autonomy_a 0.22 0.27 0.24 1.00autonomy_b 0.25 0.21 0.27 0.38 1.00autonomy_c 0.35 0.30 0.27 0.38 0.33 1.00competence_a 0.20 0.21 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.32 1.00competence_b 0.20 0.26 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.30 1.00competence_c 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.30 0.18 0.26 0.31 0.31 1.00relatedness_a 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.21 0.16 0.27 0.36 0.28 0.31 1.00relatedness_b 0.31 0.26 0.25 0.29 0.27 0.35 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.50 1.00relatedness_c 0.26 0.23 0.26 0.20 0.23 0.34 0.35 0.28 0.32 0.44 0.44 1.00

Table 1. Kendall Tau-b Correlations: Meaning in Life and Basic Psychological Needs

Note: N=397 Source: CBMS-OPHI Survey, 2009 The four multi-item questions correspond to 4 categories namely meaning in life, and the basic psychological needs namely autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In order to validate the existence of these four constructs, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used on these sets of questions. The screeplot of eigenvalues (Figure 1) shows that the “elbow” can be either at 3 factors or 4 factors indicating that there are either 3 or 4 underlying factors. The same graph also shows the results of parallel analysis for factor analysis. Parallel analysis is an alternative method for determining the number of factors to retain from factor analysis. The parallel analysis suggests that four factors should be retained - the red dashed line for parallel analysis in the graph crosses the solid factor analysis line before reaching the fifth factor.

Figure 1. Screeplot of Eigenvalues and Parallel Analysis: Psychological Wellbeing Indicators

Note: N=397 Source: CBMS-OPHI Survey, 2009

Factor analysis was once again calculated for the variables but this time we retained 4 factors (as indicated by parallel analysis). However, in unrotated results factor loadings for each variable commonly loads consistently greater to Factor 1 compared to other factors hence no discernable pattern can be observed (see Annex A). To be able to interpret the results of EFA we must rotate the factor loadings. After rotating the factors using promax (which allows for correlation of factor loadings) and constraining for 4 factors, a clearer pattern emerges. Visual inspection of

21

(blanks represent abs(loading)<.3) relatednes~c 0.5722 0.5787 relatednes~b 0.6606 0.5352 relatednes~a 0.6793 0.5475 competence_c 0.3298 0.6937 competence_b 0.3984 0.7352 competence_a 0.3005 0.6301 autonomy_c 0.4304 0.5976 autonomy_b 0.4840 0.7132 autonomy_a 0.6286 0.6040 meaning_c 0.5660 0.6646 meaning_b 0.5286 0.6573 meaning_a 0.4335 0.7338 Variable Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Uniqueness

Rotated factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances

e 1

e 2

e 3

e 4

e 5

e 6

e 7

e 8

e 9

e 1 0

e 1 1

e 1 2

m e a n in g _ a

m e a n in g _ b

m e a n in g _ c

a u to n o m y _ a

a u to n o m y _ b

a u to n o m y _ c

c o m p e te n c e _ a

c o m p e te n c e _ b

c o m p e te n c e _ c

re la t e d n e s s _ a

r e la t e d n e s s _ b

r e la te d n e s s _ c

m e a n in g

a u t o n o m y

c o m p e te n c e

r e la t e d n e s s

r 1

r2

r 3

r4

factor loadings to each factor reveals substantial loadings and few cross-loadings (see Annex B). The pattern matrix (Table 2) show that Factor 1 is mostly defined by relatedness_a, relatedness_b, and relatedness_c, Factor 2 by autonomy_a, autonomy_b, and autonomy_c, Factor 3 by meaning_a, meaning_b, and meaning_c, and Factor 4 by competence_a, competence_b, and competence_c. The matrix shows quite neatly that the items converge where they should. This confirms the existence of four components namely meaning, autonomy, competence and relatedness.

Table 2. Rotated Factor Loadings: Meaning in Life and Basic Psychological Needs

Note: N=397, Loadings below 0.30 were suppressed. Source: CBMS-OPHI Survey, 2009

Now that we have a theoretical model i.e. the scales correspond to four domains, we can test how well this model fits the data using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The hypothesized model is defensible by theory and empirical work conducted by Steger and Ryan and Deci on these indicators. CFA tests how well the model (see Figure 2) fits the data. Figure 2. Four-domain Model of Psychological Wellbeing

22

For this specific exercise all the factors have their variances set to 1 and all the parameters have their values set also to 1 (except for covariance parameters which are set to 0.5) for the maximization procedure. Observations with at least 1 missing value for the specified variables were dropped resulting to 397 as the total number of observations used in the exercise. The model estimation was done using the confa command in Stata® Version 11.1 software package. Maximum likelihood (ML) was the estimator used for this exercise. Fit indices suggest that the fit of the model is excellent (see Table 3).

Table 3. CFA Multiple Fit Indices: Meaning in Life and Basic Psychological Needs

Index Value Cut-off RMSEA* 0.0367 ≤ 0.05 RMSR 0.0180 ≤ 0.05 TLI 0.9617 ≥ 0.95 CFI 0.9722 ≥ 0.95 *90% CI=(0.0183, 0.0527)

The Cronbach’s raw alpha was computed for each multi-item question on psychological wellbeing. Cronbach's alpha is a measure of internal consistency, that is, how closely related a set of items are as a group. Majority of literature indicates 0.70 to be an acceptable reliability coefficient but lower thresholds are sometimes accepted in the literature especially if the research is in its early stages. Values of the Cronbach’s alpha for the scales range from 0.59 for competence to 0.72 for relatedness (Table 4) indicating acceptable reliability for the said scales.

Table 4. Cronbach’s alpha: Meaning in Life and Basic Psychological Needs

Scale Value of α* Meaning in Life 0.61 Autonomy 0.65 Competence 0.59 Relatedness 0.72 *unstandardized

Subjective Wellbeing Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was also conducted for the multi-item question on satisfaction excluding the item on life overall. Although the items were categorized into at least 7 domains as presented in Samman (2007), it would be interesting to know if factor analysis will yield the same number of domains based on collected data. Scree plot of the eigenvalues indicates that two factors should be retained. The point of inflection or kink in the scree plot is situated at Factor 2.

23

01

23

45

Eige

nvalue

s

0 5 151 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1414Number

(blanks represent abs(loading)<.2) sat_beliefs 0.5695 0.6704 sat_helpot~s 0.5447 0.6112 sat_commun~y 0.6535 0.6203 sat_dignity 0.7273 0.5027 sat_choice 0.6343 0.5206 sat_educat~n 0.3841 0.3233 0.5858 sat_family 0.5239 0.5979 sat_friends 0.6660 0.5097 sat_security 0.4665 0.7692 sat_work 0.6285 0.5342 sat_health 0.2668 0.3777 0.6546 sat_income 0.7726 0.4869 sat_housing 0.6147 0.5954 sat_food 0.6486 0.4998 Variable Factor1 Factor2 Uniqueness

Rotated factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances

Figure 3. Screeplot of Eigenvalues: Domain-specific Satisfaction Items

Unrotated results of EFA on 14 domain-specific items in the satisfaction questions with 2 factors retained are presented in Annex C. Just like in our previous exercise, the initial solution is unrotated making it difficult to interpret because it maximizes the loadings of all items on the first factor and tends to hide groupings in the data. Promax rotation reveals that security, friends, family, education, free choice and control over life, dignity, ability to help others, and spiritual, religious or philosophical beliefs loaded on Factor 1; food, housing, income, health, and work correlated with Factor 2. Contrary to what was expected, factor analysis yielded only two factors suggesting that the specific items on satisfaction do not necessarily group according to the domains listed in Samman (2007). Results imply that the items on satisfaction can be grouped into two broad domains. Factor 1 seems to refer to non-material aspects while Factor 2 refers to material aspects. Moreover, what we found very interesting as shown by Table 5 is that health and education cross-load on Factor 1 and Factor 2. This finding implies that health and education are related to material and non-material aspects of wellbeing.

Table 5. Rotated Factor Loadings: Domain-specific Satisfaction Items

Note: N=399, Loadings below 0.20 were suppressed. Source: CBMS-OPHI Survey, 2009

To check the convergent validity of indicators in the psychological and subjective wellbeing module or the relationship of these indicators to each other, we correlated (using Kendall tau-b, Pearson, and Spearman rank) eight indicators that were generated from the variables in the said module. These indicators are (1) ‘nonmat’ - the predicted factor score of Factor 1 from EFA

24

Test scale .2101022 0.8118 sat_educat~n 414 + 0.6908 0.5266 .2141244 0.7926sat_work 405 + 0.7584 0.6122 .1964388 0.7737sat_health 416 + 0.6690 0.5175 .2241448 0.7942sat_income 413 + 0.7616 0.6293 .2000988 0.7698sat_housing 416 + 0.7046 0.5452 .2111688 0.7885sat_food 416 + 0.7353 0.6176 .214786 0.7742 Item Obs Sign correlation correlation covariance alpha item-test item-rest interitem average

Test scale = mean(unstandardized items)

results on domain-specific satisfaction; (2) ‘mat’ – the predicted factor score of Factor 2 from the same exercise; (3) ‘hap’ – the happiness variable with reversed scale; (4) ‘satisfaction_life’ – satisfaction score on life overall; (5) ‘pca_meaning’ – meaning in life index score as computed with pca; (6) ‘pca_autonomy’ - autonomy index score as computed with pca; (7) ‘pca_competence’ - competence index score as computed with pca; and (8) ‘pca_relatedness’ - relatedness index score as computed with pca. Table 6 shows the Kendall tau-b correlation coefficients for these eight indicators. For the purpose of comparison, the correlation matrix using Pearson and Spearman can be found in Annex E.

Table 6. Kendall Tau-b Correlations: Psychological and Subjective Wellbeing Indicators nonmat mat hap satisfaction_life pca_meaning pca_autonomy pca_competence pca_relatedness

nonmat 1.00mat 0.56 1.00hap 0.31 0.32 1.00satisfaction_life 0.41 0.51 0.37 1.00pca_meaning 0.28 0.24 0.26 0.21 1.00pca_autonomy 0.22 0.14 0.19 0.16 0.37 1.00pca_competence 0.27 0.23 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.32 1.00pca_relatedness 0.29 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.30 0.34 0.41 1.00Note: nonmat = non-material aspects (Factor 1), mat = material aspects (Factor 2), hap = question on happiness (with scale reversed), satisfaction_life = satisfaction with life overall, pca_meaning = meaning of life computed with pca, pca_autonomy = autonomy computed with pca, pca_competence = competence computed with pca, pca_relatedness = relatedness computed with pca We found a few interesting convergent validity results. As expected, there is correlation between material and non-material aspects of life (0.77, Pearson's correlation) but could be distinguished as two different aspects of one's life. The item on happiness is equally correlated with both material and non-material components while satisfaction with life overall is slightly more correlated with satisfaction with material aspects. Meaning in life and the basic psychological needs indicators are more correlated with non material aspects. Interestingly, relatedness has the highest correlation with non-material aspects. These results confirm the theory and the need for measuring non-material aspects and psychological wellbeing. After determining the two broad domains of satisfaction items i.e. material and non-material aspects the next step is to check if we could construct scales from these groupings though the question where to put health and education remains. A scale with the items in Factor 2 (material wellbeing) including education and health has an alpha of 0.81 (very reliable). If we exclude health or education from this scale the alpha decreases (Table 7). The non-material satisfaction scale has an alpha value of 0.8458 however it seems that it’s better to exclude "security" from this scale as it has the lowest item-rest correlation and was loading very low in the factor. The alpha increases to 0.8464 if we drop this item. Since we included "education" in the material aspects of wellbeing, it might be better to drop it from this one as well. The final value of alpha is 0.8318.

Table 7. Cronbach’s alpha: Material and Non-material Satisfaction

25

Test scale .1726012 0.8458 sat_beliefs 416 + 0.6345 0.5190 .1763663 0.8341sat_helpot~s 415 + 0.6730 0.5720 .1743075 0.8289sat_commun~y 416 + 0.6629 0.5536 .1735678 0.8305sat_dignity 411 + 0.7214 0.6306 .1689774 0.8226sat_choice 413 + 0.7372 0.6383 .1633501 0.8211sat_educat~n 414 + 0.6658 0.5439 .1702188 0.8321sat_family 416 + 0.6665 0.5674 .1756428 0.8294sat_friends 414 + 0.7248 0.6399 .1708537 0.8225sat_security 415 + 0.5644 0.4157 .1801485 0.8464 Item Obs Sign correlation correlation covariance alpha item-test item-rest interitem average

Test scale = mean(unstandardized items) We have hypothesized that domain-specific items can be grouped into to broad groupings – material and non-material. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) will test how well the model (Figure 4) will fit the data. Figure 4. Two-group Model of Domain-specific Satisfaction Items

In this particular analysis, the variances of all the factors have been set to 1 and all the values of parameters have been also set to 1. The chosen estimator for this exercise is maximum likelihood (ML). Observations with missing values were excluded for this analysis (N=399). The model was estimated using the confa command for Stata® Version 11.1 statistical package. Based on the results of the goodness-of-fit indices, the theoretical model has a good fit with the data (Table 8).

Table 8. CFA Multiple Fit Indices: Material and Non-material Satisfaction

Index Value Cut-off RMSEA* 0.0708 ≤ 0.08 RMSR 0.0234 ≤ 0.10 TLI 0.9039 ≥ 0.90 CFI 0.9212 ≥ 0.90 *90% CI=( 0.0594, 0.0825)

sat_ fam ily

sa t_h ou sin g

sa t_h e al th

e 1

e 2

e 3

e 4

e5

e 6

e 7

e8

e 9

e 1 0

e 1 1

e 1 2

sa t_fo od

s at_ in com e

sa t_w ork

s at_ ed u catio n

sa t_frien ds

sa t_c ho ice

sa t_d ig n ity

sa t_ co mm un ity

sa t_ h elpo the rs

Ma ter ia l

Non -m a te r ial

r 1

r2

s at_ be li efs e 13

26

D o m a in s C o r r . w it h li fe o v e r - a l lL if e o v e r a ll 1 .0 0F o o d 0 .4 3H o u s in g 0 .3 4In c o m e 0 .5 0H e a l th 0 .4 0W o r k 0 .4 8S e c u r it y 0 .2 8F ri e n d s 0 .3 4F a m i ly 0 .3 4E d u ca t io n 0 .3 4C h o i ce 0 .3 6D ig n ity 0 .2 8C o m m u n ity 0 .3 0H e lp o th e rs 0 .3 0B e l ie f s 0 .2 5

In addition to exploring dimensionality of domain-specific satisfaction items, it is also interesting to find out the relationship between these items. Table 9 presents the correlations between domains of satisfaction. The highest correlation 0.58 was between ‘dignity’ and ‘free choice and control over your life’ followed by 0.50 between ‘friends’ and ‘family’. Other interesting findings include strong correlation of friends with family and neighborhood. We also found strong correlation between income and work as well as strong correlation between material needs i.e. food, housing and income. There is also a strong correlation between being satisfied with one’s education and satisfaction on being autonomous. Lowest correlation 0.17 was found between ‘local security level’ and ‘dignity’.

Table 9. Kendall Tau-b Correlations: Satisfaction Domain Items Food Housing Income Health Work Security Friends Family Educat ion Choice Dignity Community Help others Beliefs

Food 1.00Housing 0.48 1.00Income 0.47 0.43 1.00Health 0.36 0.27 0.33 1.00Work 0.42 0.36 0.49 0.40 1.00Security 0.24 0.22 0.19 0.25 0.24 1.00Friends 0.35 0.30 0.26 0.34 0.34 0.38 1.00Family 0.36 0.28 0.24 0.36 0.36 0.22 0.50 1.00Educat ion 0.38 0.36 0.33 0.38 0.36 0.21 0.38 0.42 1.00Choice 0.35 0.29 0.27 0.31 0.32 0.26 0.36 0.42 0.48 1.00Dignity 0.36 0.26 0.21 0.33 0.27 0.17 0.43 0.47 0.44 0.58 1.00Community 0.25 0.23 0.25 0.24 0.26 0.44 0.49 0.30 0.27 0.32 0.33 1.00Help others 0.35 0.29 0.28 0.35 0.29 0.31 0.38 0.31 0.36 0.41 0.40 0.38 1.00Beliefs 0.30 0.21 0.19 0.28 0.26 0.23 0.34 0.39 0.31 0.44 0.45 0.26 0.39 1.00 Table 10 shows results of correlation with ‘life overall’ satisfaction. The correlations ranged from 0.27 to 0.53. The highest correlations were found with ‘income’ (0.53) and ‘work’ (0.52) and ‘food’ (0.46). The lowest correlation (0.27) was found in the domain of ‘spiritual, religious, or philosophical beliefs’.

Table 10. Kendall Tau-b Correlations: ‘Life Overall’ Satisfaction on Domains

3.3.2. Shame and Humiliation There are two questions in the OPHI module on shame and humiliation that seeks to know own and neighbors’ perceptions on feelings of shame towards poverty. Four similar statement make up each of the category (own and neighbors’), the difference is that the first category is based on

27

01

23

45

Eig

enva

lues

0 2 4 6 81 3 5 7Factors

the respondents’ views and the second is based on how they think their neighbors would respond. These are answerable by yes or no. There is also a multi-item question enumerating ten feelings of shame. The respondents are asked to rate how often they experience ‘embarrassment’, ‘feeling ridiculous, ‘self-consciousness’, ‘feeling humiliated’, ‘feeling stupid’, ‘feeling childish’, ‘feeling helpless’, ‘paralyzed’, ‘feelings of blushing’, ‘feeling laughable’, and ‘feeling disgusting to others’. The respondents was asked to rate this in a scale of 1 to 4 with 1 being always and 4 being never. Lastly, there is a question in the module asking how harmed the respondents were by being ‘excluded’, ‘put down’, ‘ridiculed’, ‘discounted’, ‘cruelly criticized’ and ‘called derogatory names’. Respondents were asked to rate how hurt they were in a scale of 1 to 4, 1 being a lot and 4 being very occasionally. Stigma of poverty Based on the results of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on matrix of tetrachoric inter-item correlations among items in the scales (because of the dichotomous nature of variables involved) and evident on the scree plot, it seems that there are 3 underlying factors, or that there may be 3 concepts that are being defined by the eight statements (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Screeplot of Eigenvalues: Stigma to Poverty

EFA was repeated but this time with only 3 factors retained (see Annex H for the unrotated results). Rotated results (using promax rotation) indicate that the three items (‘I would be ashamed if I were poor’, ‘I would be ashamed if someone in my family were poor’ and ‘People living in poverty should be ashamed of themselves’) for the individual shame category loaded on one factor while the same set of statements for community shame loaded on another factor. The last items (‘People who are not poor make people who are poor feel bad’) on two categories loaded highly on another factor. It is surprising but not unexpected that these two variables would lump together to define another factor suggesting that indeed, these two statements might be trying to capture a concept other than stigma to poverty (Table 11). It is possible that the concept of ‘feel bad’ included in the last two statements of the two categories might be trying to capture a concept more closely related to hurt than shame.

28

(blanks represent abs(loading)<.5) shameneigh~d 0.7602 0.0534 shameneigh~c 0.8913 0.1433 shameneigh~b 0.9847 0.0260 shameneigh~a 0.9027 0.0596 shameown_d 1.0320 0.0036 shameown_c 0.7830 0.1450 shameown_b 0.9065 0.0471 shameown_a 0.9846 0.0534 Variable Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Uniqueness

Rotated factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances

Test scale .0207412 0.5035 shameown_d 404 + 0.6610 0.0869 .0324302 0.7817shameown_c 412 + 0.6618 0.4359 .0174085 0.3423shameown_b 415 + 0.6874 0.4921 .0163292 0.3205shameown_a 415 + 0.6717 0.4194 .0166018 0.3404 Item Obs Sign correlation correlation covariance alpha item-test item-rest interitem average

Test scale = mean(unstandardized items)

Test scale .0570324 0.7195 shameneigh~d 321 + 0.6859 0.3069 .0693225 0.8265shameneigh~c 324 + 0.7286 0.5301 .0597228 0.6389shameneigh~b 323 + 0.8165 0.6591 .0493409 0.5739shameneigh~a 316 + 0.7958 0.6050 .0497371 0.5964 Item Obs Sign correlation correlation covariance alpha item-test item-rest interitem average

Test scale = mean(unstandardized items)

Table 11. Rotated Factor Loadings: Domain-specific Satisfaction Items

Note: N=300, Loadings below 0.50 were suppressed. Source: CBMS-OPHI Survey, 2009

To test for the reliability of the two scales, Cronbach’s alpha was applied. Cronbach’s alpha can also be used for binary-type data as the literature suggests. As can be noticed from Table 12, though the item-test correlations for all four items are high and are almost similar, the item-rest correlations are not. What appears to be significant is the very low correlation of the last item with the rest of the items. Dropping one of the first three items in both scales (individual and community shame) would result to very low values of alpha while removing the last statement for both scales would result to a significantly higher alpha value, suggesting that removing the last item will be better in order to increase the reliability of the scale (i.e., from 0.50 to 0.78 and from 0.72 to 0.83).

Table 12. Cronbach’s alpha: Stigma to Poverty

Figure 6 shows the theoretical models that were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The Model A includes the statement ‘People who are not poor make people who are poor feel bad’ as a factor for stigma poverty while Model B had dropped this statement. EFA test of dimensionality indicates that the said statement in both models as represented by variables shameown_d and shameneighbor_d are explained by a separate underlying construct. These results were further validated by reliability tests suggesting that these variables do not effectively group with the rest of the items in the stigma to poverty questions. Hence we would expect that Model A will be rejected and Model B will be confirmed by CFA tests.

29

shameneighbor_a

shameown_b

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

shameown_a

shameown_c

shameneighbor_b

shameneighbor_c

Stigma to poverty, Own view

Stigma to poverty, Neighbors’ view

r1

r2

shameneighbor_a

shameown_b

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

e6

e7

e8

shameown_a

shameown_c

shameown_d

shameneighbor_b

shameneighbor_c

shameneighbor_d

Stigma to poverty, Own view

Stigma to poverty, Neighbors’ view

r1

r2

Model A Model B

Figure 6. Theoretical Models: Stigma to Poverty

It can be seen in Table 13 that comparison of fit indices between the two models for stigma to poverty discussed previously shows that only Model B fits the data well supporting earlier findings (EFA results and reliability tests) that the last statement for both categories seems to be explained a different factor and therefore be considered to be dropped from the scales.

Table 13. CFA Multiple Fit Indices: Stigma to Poverty

Index Value Cut-off Model A Model B

RMSEA* 0.1792 0.1086 ≤ 0.08 RMSR 0.0242 0.0054 ≤ 0.10 TLI 0.6623 0.9310 ≥ 0.90 CFI 0.7709 0.9632 ≥ 0.90 *90% CI= A:( 0.1573, 0.2020), B: (0.0748, 0.1451)

Shame proneness Applying factor analysis on this scale we see that the items in the shame proneness scale may be explained by a single underlying construct. There is a significant difference between eigenvalues of Factor 1 and Factor 2 which are 3.38 and 0.29 respectively (refer to Annex J). The scree plot and results of parallel analysis also indicate a single-factor solution (Figure 7).

30

01

23

4Ei

genv

alue

s

0 2 4 6 8 10Factor

Factor Analysis Parallel Analysis

Figure 7. Screeplot of Eigenvalues: Shame Proneness All ten feelings associated with shame namely ‘embarrassment’, ‘feeling ridiculous’, ‘self-consciousness’, ‘humiliated’, ‘blushing’, ‘laughable’, ,’disgusting to others’, ‘feeling stupid’, ‘feeling childish’ and ‘feeling helpless or paralyzed’ are correlated to a single construct. As clearly presented in the pattern matrix, the ten variables are more or less loading to the single factor at the same degree. Another notable observation is that there were no factor loadings less than 0.4 (Table 14).

Table 14. Factor Loadings: Shame Proneness

(blanks represent abs(loading)<.4) shprone_di~g 0.5384 0.7101 shprone_la~e 0.6635 0.5597 shprone_bl~g 0.6600 0.5645 shprone_he~s 0.4115 0.8306 shprone_ch~h 0.4354 0.8104 shprone_st~d 0.6304 0.6026 shprone_hu~d 0.6480 0.5800 shprone_se~s 0.5174 0.7323 shprone_ri~s 0.6650 0.5578 shprone_em~t 0.5704 0.6746 Variable Factor1 Uniqueness

Factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances

Note: N=416, Loadings below 0.40 were suppressed. Source: CBMS-OPHI Survey, 2009

Knowing that the items in the scale are explained by the same construct, would it be possible to drop any of these variables? To address this concern we need to explore the relationship between the items as well as their relationship as a group. Using Kendall tau-b correlation to check for internal consistency we see that all the items are positively correlated with each other. However, we see that the correlations are not all strong, the highest being just 0.49 and 0.46. In particular, the variables ‘childish’, ‘helpless’, and ‘disgusting’ seem to have the lowest correlations with the rest of the variables (Table 15).

31

Test scale .1579013 0.8306 shprone_di~g 418 + 0.5826 0.4861 .1664167 0.8190shprone_la~e 418 + 0.6926 0.6009 .1544442 0.8076shprone_bl~g 419 + 0.6885 0.5969 .1548499 0.8079shprone_he~s 418 + 0.5333 0.3937 .1647636 0.8286shprone_ch~h 419 + 0.5290 0.4038 .1668212 0.8260shprone_st~d 417 + 0.6847 0.5814 .1530257 0.8094shprone_hu~d 419 + 0.6833 0.5855 .1542424 0.8087shprone_se~s 419 + 0.6137 0.4907 .1577109 0.8184shprone_ri~s 419 + 0.6899 0.5743 .1483751 0.8088shprone_em~t 418 + 0.6203 0.5052 .1583631 0.8165 Item Obs Sign correlation correlation covariance alpha item-test item-rest interitem average

Test scale = mean(unstandardized items)

Table 15. Kendall Tau-b Correlations: Shame Proneness Items embarrassment ridiculous self-conscious humiliated stupid childish helpless blushing laughable disgusting

embarrassment 1.00ridiculous 0.44 1.00self-conscious 0.31 0.34 1.00humiliated 0.34 0.46 0.32 1.00stupid 0.30 0.31 0.33 0.41 1.00childish 0.21 0.21 0.26 0.26 0.38 1.00helpless 0.19 0.26 0.26 0.24 0.32 0.27 1.00blushing 0.38 0.36 0.37 0.43 0.31 0.24 0.30 1.00laughable 0.30 0.43 0.31 0.39 0.41 0.34 0.27 0.49 1.00disgusting 0.23 0.29 0.19 0.27 0.35 0.22 0.25 0.30 0.42 1.00 To further test for internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated. Overall reliability is high with an alpha of 0.8306. Item-test correlations are high, though relative to other items, ‘childish’ and ‘helpless’ seemed to have the lowest correlations with the scale. This is also the case for item-rest correlation. The correlation of each item with the rest of the scale is high, except for ‘childish’ and ‘helpless’. If we remove the two items i.e. ‘childish’ and ‘helpless’ from the scale the value of alpha will not go down significantly, 0.8260 and 0.8286 respectively. The alpha value of the scale after removing both of items is 0.8266. This implies that the scale will still be very reliable even if after the removal of these two items.

Table 16. Cronbach’s alpha: Shame Proneness

For simulation purposes, values of alpha were computed for 3 different situations wherein items were dropped from the scale (Table 17). In Scenario A, we dropped ‘stupid’ and ‘blushing’ from the scale. Items ‘stupid’ and ‘blushing’ were found to be difficult to ask during fieldwork. Scenario B removed ‘childish’ and ‘helpless’ from the scale in addition to items removed in Scenario A. Items ‘childish’ and ‘helpless’ have the lowest item-rest correlations. Finally, in Scenario C, we likewise omitted ‘self-conscious’ and ‘disgusting to others’ including all of the items that were deleted in Scenario A and Scenario B. Items ‘self-conscious’ and ‘disgusting to others’ also have low item-rest correlations. This exercise will demonstrate what will happen to the reliability of the scale when we delete certain items from the scale.

32

The overall alpha of Scenario A is 0.78, still not bad for a scale. Literature often points to an alpha of 0.7 to say that a scale is reliable enough. Taking note of this, the scale could then be reduced to having as low as four items and would still register an acceptable reliability.

Table 17. Cronbach’s alpha: Shame Proneness (Scenario-based)

Scenario Value of α* A 0.78 B 0.77 C 0.74

*unstandardized

Models based on the situations enumerated previously were then subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Fit indices for each model are shown in Table 18. Results show that the model for full shame proneness scale has an acceptable fit with the data. However Model A and Model B does not fit the data. Surprisingly, the four-factor model (Model C) fits the data very well.

Table 18. CFA Multiple Fit Indices: Shame Proneness (Scenario-based)

Model Index Remarks RMSEA* RMSR TLI CFI

Full scale 0.0778 0.0217 0.8812 0.9076 Good Fit

A (8-factor) 0.0932 0.0245 0.8365 0.8832 Poor Fit B (6-factor) 0.1208 0.0227 0.8224 0.8935 Poor Fit C (4-factor) 0.0396 0.0081 0.9886 0.9962 Excellent Fit

Cut-off ≤ 0.08 ≤ 0.10 ≥ 0.90 ≥ 0.90 *90% CI= FS:(0.0631, 0.0930), A: (0.0744, 0.1128), B: (0.0939, 0.1496), C: (0.0000, 0.1128)

Further tests are necessary to say whether it is still possible to reduce the number of items in the shame proneness scale and still capture what it purports to measure. Factor analysis indicates that there is one underlying factor. Tests of reliability and consistency depict high consistency within the scale and that dropping one to four items which show relative low correlation with the rest of the scale would only insignificantly lower the overall alpha, but would still remain as a reliable scale. The 10-item scale could still be improved by dropping some items (after further extensive testing) which would make the scale more manageable. Levels of accumulated humiliation. Using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), it was observed that all variables load highly on Factor 1. Moreover, scree plot also suggests that the scale has only one underlying factor (Figure 8). The results of the EFA after retaining only one factor can be found in Annex 2E. The factor loadings are still, more or less, the same. Notably, no factor loadings were less than 0.70 (Table 19). Results indicate that there is a single underlying factor.

33

01

23

4E

igen

valu

es

1 2 3 4 5 6Factors

(blanks represent abs(loading)<.7) acchum_cal~s 0.7803 0.3911 acchum_cri~d 0.7816 0.3892 acchum_dis~d 0.8119 0.3409 acchum_rid~d 0.8070 0.3487 acchum_put~n 0.8499 0.2778 acchum_exc~d 0.7376 0.4560 Variable Factor1 Uniqueness

Factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances

Figure 8. Screeplot of Eigenvalues: Accumulated Humiliation

Table 19. Factor Loadings: Accumulated Humiliation

Testing for consistency using Kendall tau-b, we see that the all the items are positively correlated and that in fact the correlations are moderately strong. In particular the variable ‘excluded’ is highly correlated with ‘put down’ (0.70) and ‘called names’ with ‘cruelly criticized’ (0.65). The lowest correlation is between

Table 20. Kendall Tau-b Correlations: Accumulated Humiliation Items

excluded put down ridiculed discounted criticized called namesexcluded 1.00put down 0.62 1.00ridiculed 0.51 0.70 1.00discounted 0.56 0.64 0.61 1.00criticized 0.49 0.55 0.53 0.60 1.00called names 0.48 0.54 0.58 0.56 0.65 1.00

Using Cronbach’s alpha on the scale to check whether these items closely relate as a group, a very high overall alpha of 0.9125 is estimated (Table 21). Correlations of each item to the overall scale is high, the lowest is 0.7969 for item ‘excluded’. Along with item-test correlation, the correlations of each item with the rest of the items are also high; the item ‘excluded’ shows the

34

Test scale .7811016 0.9125 acchum_cal~s 417 + 0.8224 0.7396 .7924449 0.8989acchum_cri~d 415 + 0.8232 0.7404 .7899615 0.8987acchum_dis~d 417 + 0.8481 0.7755 .777577 0.8938acchum_rid~d 416 + 0.8417 0.7645 .7743527 0.8954acchum_put~n 417 + 0.8704 0.8029 .7498887 0.8896acchum_exc~d 416 + 0.7969 0.7021 .8023574 0.9042 Item Obs Sign correlation correlation covariance alpha item-test item-rest interitem average

Test scale = mean(unstandardized items)

acchum_putdown

acchum_criticized

e1

e2

e3

e4

e5

acchum_excluded

acchum_ridiculed

acchum_discountedd

acchum_callednames

Accumulated Humiliation

r1

e6

lowest correlation. If this particular item is removed from the scale, alpha would still be particularly high indicating an equally reliable scale.

Table 21. Cronbach’s alpha: Accumulated Humiliation Items

All results so far of exploratory factor analysis, correlation, and internal consistency suggest a very reliable unidimensional scale. The representation of the hypothesized model for the scale on accumulated humiliation is shown in Figure 9. We need to do confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to confirm that the model (where variables ‘excluded’, ‘put down’, ‘ridiculed’, ‘discounted’, ‘criticized’, and ‘called names’ are explained by a single construct ‘accumulated humiliation’) fits the data.

Figure 9. Theoretical Model: Accumulated Humiliation

Following the same specifications of the other CFA exercises carried out in this study and using confa command of Stata® Version 11.1 to do the computations, results reveal that the model has an acceptable fit with the data (Table 22).

Table 22. CFA Multiple Fit Indices: Accumulated Humiliation

Index Value Cut-off RMSEA* 0.1553 ≤ 0.08 RMSR 0.0481 ≤ 0.10 TLI 0.9010 ≥ 0.90 CFI 0.9406 ≥ 0.90 *90% CI=( 0.1285, 0.1836)

35

Measures of statistical dependence (i.e., Kendall, Pearson, Spearman) show very high correlation among all the items and this may suggest that these items are in fact, almost very similar. Results of EFA and Cronbach’s alpha indicated a very reliable unidimensional scale and a theorized construct of this scale fits the data as suggested by CFA. This may be good for the scale, since it is assured that the items are capturing only one concept and consistently measuring this concept, however, the scale could better be improved if the items are reduced, since in fact, removing any item in the scale leaves the scale, still, with a high overall alpha. In fact, it could be suggested that to make the entire module, and the entire questionnaire, manageable the scale could be dropped (if further tests and analysis confirm) and replaced with a simple question. The dilemma is that perhaps, the distinction between the concepts of ‘exclusion’, ‘being discounted’ and all other items in the scale are blurred. There’s a very thin line distinguishing ‘exclusion’ from being ‘discounted’, ‘ridicule’ from cruel ‘criticism’ to ‘name calling’ and that in fact, when asked in a census-operation setting, the respondent may not be able to differentiate one from the other. So given the possibility that the respondent might be pertaining to one particular concept when answering the scale, it could be suggested that the questionnaire be made more manageable by asking just one direct-to-the-point question. 3.3.3. Empowerment The OPHI module on Empowerment consists of 25 questions. Seven of these questions are considered to be scales. This particular set of questions are used to compute for the relative autonomy index (RAI value) for a particular set of domains namely minor household purchases, job, household chores, religious practice, addressing a serious health problem, and preventing crime. The multi-item questions have 4 statements each corresponding to motivations of actions carried out in relation to the domains earlier listed. These motivations are having no control, acting out of coercion, meeting expectations of others, and following internal drive (Ibrahim and Alkire, 2007). The multi-item questions were designed to be answered using a four-point scale of agreement to the statement – ‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’, ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’. As was mentioned in earlier part of this section, tests for validity and reliability had to be conducted to explore the structure of these indicators. Relative Autonomy The relative autonomy questions composed of four items that are grouped into five domains namely job/household task, minor household purchases, serious health problem, religious practice, and preventing crime. The objective of this exercise is to see whether there the items do group together as suggested by their underlying/latent structures. It is important to note that before exploratory factor analysis was carried out with the data observations with missing values were excluded. The method of extraction used for analysis was principal factor and the rotation method employed was promax (oblique). Results of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) suggest that there are 3 factors. The scree plot of eigenvalues shows that the point of inflection is located in Factor 3 (Figure 10). Because unrotated results tend to hide groupings in the data, the factor loadings were then rotated

36

01

23

Eig

enva

lues

0 5 10 15 201 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19Factors (blanks represent abs(loading)<.3)

sec_au4 0.3218 0.9035 rgp_au4 0.6407 0.6079 rgp_au3 0.6212 0.5840 rgp_au2 0.6821 0.4972 rgp_au1 0.4091 0.7736 skh_au4 0.7296 0.4543 skh_au3 0.7532 0.4538 skh_au2 0.6740 0.4969 skh_au1 0.5251 0.6671 buy_au3 0.5642 0.6777 buy_au2 0.6025 0.6107 buy_au1 0.3275 0.8940 act_au4 0.3872 0.8482 Variable Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Uniqueness

Rotated factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances

Job Household Task

Can Do Minor

Purchases

Cannot Do Minor

Purchases

Serious Health

Problem

Religious Practice

Preventing Crime

n 187 227 386 25 411 418 407α (all four items) 0.39 0.41 0.47 0.66 0.70 0.62 0.38α (only 2 , 3, 4) 0.30 0.40 0.44 0.64 0.66 0.58 0.46α (only 1 , 3, 4) 0.18 0.28 0.27 0.69 0.56 0.46 0.21α (only 1 , 2, 4) 0.37 0.26 0.27 0.44 0.62 0.50 0.12α (only 1 , 2, 3) 0.50 0.41 0.55 0.57 0.68 0.63 0.39α (only 1 , 2) 0.54 0.05 0.37 0.06 0.46 0.37 0.04α (only 1 , 3) 0.15 0.03 0.32 0.50 0.33 0.27 0.25α (only 1 , 4) 0.03 0.55 0.07 0.69 0.69 0.62 0.04α (only 2 , 3) 0.47 0.64 0.63 0.72 0.80 0.77 0.55α (only 2 , 4) 0.16 0.04 0.05 0.19 0.41 0.24 0.24α (only 3 , 4) 0.17 0.01 0.16 0.6 0.34 0.22 0.21Note:Red- denotes a decrease in value of alpha with alpha value of 4 items as referenceGreen- denotes an increase in value of alpha with alpha value of 4 items as referenceHighlighted in yellow- highest value of alpha observed

obliquely while retaining 3 factors. Refer to table below for the results of promax rotation. Factor loadings less than 0.3 were omitted in the presentation.

Based on EFA results, items 2 and 3 for domains on job/housework, serious health problem, and religious practice correlated to the same factor (Factor 1) while items 1 and 4 for domains on serious health problem and religious practice as well as item 4 for domains on job/housework and security loaded to Factor 2. Finally, items 1, 2, and 3 for domain on minor household purchases loaded to Factor 3. If we are to examine closely, 2 and 3 were expected to group together because these items capture closely related concepts (coercion and meet expectations) while item 4 is capturing a different concept (internal motivation) hence it was explained by a separate factor. Simulation exercises reveal that the value of alpha increases in cases where items 1 and 4 are dropped from the scale (Table 24). This pattern is clearly observed in all domains. Notably, the scale on serious health problem registered the highest value of alpha (0.8). The questions specifically on this scale were revised prior to pilot testing. Cronbach’s alpha for religious practice a little lower (0.77). The rest of the scales show alpha coefficients 0.54-0.72.

Table 24. Cronbach’s alpha: Multi-item Relative Autonomy Questions

Figure 10. Screeplot of Eigenvalues: Relative Autonomy Questions

Table 23. Rotated Factor Loadings: Relative Autonomy Questions

37

skh_au1 skh_au2 skh_au3 skh_au4skh_au1 1.00skh_au2 0.29 1.00skh_au3 0.18 0.63 1.00skh_au4 0.55 0.24 0.16 1.00

The results of EFA were indeed surprising. The dimensions that were observed using EFA are not similar to what were expected. But this does not mean that the results are not interesting albeit cannot be explained. For instance, results indicate that item 1 (supposed to be no control statement) of domains serious health problem and religious practice were also defined by the same factor for internal motivation. This is quite interesting because lack of choice and internal motivation are too far apart in the relative autonomy continuum. One possible explanation is the way the pilot tested statements were translated (see Table 26). In the case of serious health problem, the statement fielded does not necessarily connote ‘lack of choice’ or ‘no control’. In actuality, it unintentionally came across as the mere declarative form of another question in the household questionnaire that asks where members of household go to seek medical attention. With the context of ‘not having choice’ taken out of the question, the statement inevitably elicited a different type of response – a response correlated to item 4 (internal motivation) (see Table 25). This is contrary to an expected negative relationship between the said items. On the other hand, as expected, item 2 (coercion) and item 3 (meet expectations) positively correlated because both can be considered as external sources of motivation.

Table 25. Kendall tau-b correlations: Serious Health Problem Autonomy Questions

Table 26. Variants of Relative Autonomy Question on Serious Health Problem Domain Original statements Revised statements pilot tested (Tagalog) Revised statements pilot tested (English)I can’t face a serious health problem of my own differently from how I do.

Kung mayroon akong isang seryosong problemang pangkalusugan pupunta ako sa ____ (Sagot sa 41).

If I have a serious health problem I will go to ______ (Answer in 41)

If I have a serious health problem, I do what my spouse or some other person, society or social organisations insist that I do.

Kung mayroon akong isang seryosong problemang pangkalusugan pupunta ako sa ____ (Sagot sa 41) dahil yung ang gugustuhin ng aking asawa, ibang tao, lipunan, organisasyong sosyal o ng aking komunidad na gawin ko tungkol dito.

If I have a serious health problem I will go to ______ (Answer in 41) in because this is what my spouse or some other person, society, or social organizations insist that I do.

If I have a serious health problem, I act according to what other people expect of me or to get their approval. If I didn’t, they might blame me.

Kung mayroon akong isang seryosong problemang pangkalusugan pupunta ako sa ____ (Sagot sa 41), dahil iyon ang inaasahan ng iba sa akin upang kuhanin ang kanilang pagsang-ayon. Kung hindi ko gagawin, baka sisihin nila ako.

If I have a serious health problem I will go to ______ (Answer in 41) because this is what other people expect of me or to get their approval. If I didn't, they might blame me.

If I have a serious health problem, I do what I personally consider is important.

Kung mayroon akong isang seryosong problemang pangkalusugan pupunta ako sa ____ (Sagot sa 41), dahil ito ang sa tingin ko ang pinakamakakabuti.

If I have a serious health problem I will go to ______ (Answer in 41) because I believe this to be most beneficial.

The situation of religious practice domain is not too different from the earlier case. There was a difference between the intended meaning of the original statement and the Tagalog translation. The back-translation of the Tagalog translation would read as following: “I have to follow the principles of my religion”. Again, it appears that the necessary words or phrases that would entail ‘lack of choice’ were inadvertently omitted from the fielded question. Hence, the relationship between statement 1 and statement 4 was positive instead of negative (Table 27).

38

rgp_au1 rgp_au2 rgp_au3 rgp_au4rgp_au1 1.00rgp_au2 0.21 1.00rgp_au3 0.13 0.61 1.00rgp_au4 0.45 0.11 0.08 1.00

buy_au1 buy_au2 buy_au3 buy_au4buy_au1 1.00buy_au2 0.22 1.00buy_au3 0.20 0.43 1.00buy_au4 0.05 0.03 0.06 1.00

Table 27. Kendall tau-b correlations: Religious Practice Autonomy Questions

Table 28. Relative Autonomy Question on Religious Practice Domain O rigina l sta te m e nts Orig ina l sta te m e nts (Ta ga log tra nsla tion)I have to prac t ice the religion I a lready prac t ice. Kailangan kong s undin ang

alituntunin ng ak ing relihiy on.I prac t ice a religion bec aus e m y spouse, another person, soc iety , soc ial organis ations or m y com m unity ins is t that I do.

Kailangan kong s undin angalituntunin ng ak ing relihiy on dahils inasabi ng ak ing asawa, ibang tao,lipunan, organisasyong s osyal o ngak ing kom unidad na gawin ko ito.

I prac t ice a religion acc ording to what others ex pec t of m e or to obtain their approval. If I didn’t, they m ight blam e m e.

Kailangan kong s undin ang alituntunin ng ak ing relih iyon ayon sa inaasahan ng iba sa ak in upangkuhanin ang kanilang pagsang-ay on.Kung hindi k o gagawin, baka s is ihin nila.

I prac t ice a religion bec aus e I personally cons ider it im portant.

Kailangan kong s undin angalituntunin ng ak ing relihiy on dahilpers onal kong it inuturing ito nam ahalaga.

Based on results of correlations between items in the autonomy question on minor purchases, ‘lack of choice’ in the minor household purchases positively correlated with external motivations i.e., ‘coercion’ and ‘meeting expectations of others’ in contrast to the rest of domains while ‘international motivation’ virtually had no relationship to the rest of the items in the scale. If we inspect closely the translation of the original statement to Tagalog, it seems that the translated statement was referring to items being purchased instead of the actual action of buying minor goods. External motivation plays a greater role rather than circumstances in determining the items that will be purchased by the household compared to doing the actual buying of these goods. For example, even if the family can only afford to buy certain foodstuff due to budget constraints the actual food items that will be purchased are influenced by external sources of motivation (e.g., children/spouse prefer a certain kind of cheap food). The peculiarity of variable dependence in the scales and the dissimilarity of connotation between original and translated material may possibly explain why this domain (items 1-3) was loading conspicuously to a separate factor. Further tests and analysis are needed to further explore the relative autonomy data from the Philippine survey.

Table 29. Relative Autonomy Question on Minor Household Purchases Domain

39

Table 30. Relative Autonomy Question on Minor Household Purchases (Asked to respondents who can make purchases)

Original statements Original statements (Tagalog translation)I can’t make minor household purchasesdifferently to how I do them.

Hindi ko kayang baguhin ang mgakaraniwang binibili ko para sa sambahayan

I make minor household purchases becausemy spouse, another person, society, socialorganisations or my community insist that I makethem.

Ginagawa ko ang pamimili para sa sambahayandahil sinasabi ng aking asawa, ibang tao, lipunan,organisasyong sosyal o ng aking komunidad nagawin ko itong gawin.

I make minor household purchases accordingto what others expect of me or to obtain theirapproval. If I didn’t, they might blame me.

Ginagawa ko ang pamimili para sasambahayan ayon sa inaasahan ng iba sa akinupang kuhanin ang kanilang pagsang-ayon.Kung hindi ko gagawin, baka sisihin nila ako.

I make minor household purchases accordingto what I personally consider important.

Ginagawa ko ang pamimili para sasambahayan ayon sa kung ano ang personal kong itinuturing na mahalaga.

3.3.3. Summary of Results Psychometric tests like factor analysis, reliability tests, and simple correlations had been very useful in uncovering the dimensionality and relationship of scale items as a group. Scales in the psychological and subjective wellbeing module work well based on results of psychometric tests. Not all of the scales in the shame and humiliation module are working as indicated by test results. In particular, the stigma to poverty question had some dimensionality and reliability issues and therefore revision is recommended. The importance of translation is highlighted in the test results for the relative autonomy scales. Most of the statements in these autonomy scales are either too long or convoluted making translation a challenging task which brings us to the suggestion of reworking the relative autonomy scales to make it simpler and more straightforward. 3.4. Response Analysis A good indicator of how well respondents understood the questions in the modules is to check the non-response rates. The non-response rate is simply the number of ‘no answer’ and/or ‘don’t know’ responses over total number of responses. Non-response rates for all of the questions were computed to identify questions that seem to be difficult for respondents to answer (indicated by a high non-response rate). This kind of information would be very useful in considering what questions that are needed to be revised or it can be basis for dropping some questions. All estimates of non-response rates for the modules can be found in Annexes P-T. Only questions with relatively high non-response rates would be discussed in the following sections.

40

Item %54a 1.454b 14.354c 2.1

EMP25 (54). Imagine a ten step ladder,...free choice and control over their lives. In this context, we ask you to answer the following questions:a. On which step are you today?b. On which step are most of your neighbours today?c. On which step were you five years ago?

Item %51_1 051_2 39.851_3 64.8

EMP22 (51). At this point in time, what three thing(s) would you most like to change in your life?

Empowerment Module There are two questions in the empowerment module that registered more than 10 percent non-response rates. These are Question 51 and Question 54 (see Table 31). Respondents encounter difficulties providing 3 answers to Question 51 as it is asking for three things that respondent would like to change in his/her life. As much as 65% of respondents are not able to give a third answer to the question. One possible solution is to ask for only 1 answer for this question. In the case of Question 54, item b registered a 14.3% non-response rate. Based on fieldwork observations, respondents in general do not want to answer on behalf of their neighbors. According to some participants of community validations they don’t want to be accused of speaking about their neighbors. Responding to matters regarding your neighbor is frowned upon in communities where the survey was implemented.

Table 31. Non-Response Rates, Question 51 and Question 54

Shame and Humiliation Module Only one question (Question 62) in the shame and humiliation module registered high non-response rates. This multi-item question has four statements for the respondent to answer. We once again encountered a question referring neighbors. The average non-response rate for all four sub-items is 23.6% which is almost a fourth of respondents not answering this question during the data collection. Community validation and fieldwork observation reveal that it is considered rude to answer ‘on behalf’ of one’s neighbor. This finding suggests that questions with reference to neighbors be dropped from any OPHI module.

Table 32. Non-Response Rates, Question 62 Item %62a 24.862b 23.162c 22.962d 23.6

SH2 (62). How do you think the peop le in your comm unity/ne ighbourhoo d/city would answer the following questions?a. I would be asham ed if I were poor.b. I would be asham ed if som eone in m y fam ily were poor.c. Peop le living in poverty should be asham ed of them selves.d. People who are not poor m ake peop le wh o are poor feel bad .

41

5. GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE OPHI MODULES

1. The definition of the important terms used in questionnaire should be clear for both the interviewer and the interviewee.

2. Translating the questionnaire in the local language is an important challenge. Words may mean differently among different groups of people. We should also consider that in some localities, translating the questionnaire in their local dialect may be necessary as some Filipino terms may not be as clear to them, although interviewers may just exert more effort in explaining the concept.

3. Given the very sensitive nature of some of the issues, it should be ensured that interviewers are properly trained on ethical standards. Since some of the questions in the survey try to explore the perceptions of the respondents, it is more likely that the reliability and validity of the survey will be significantly influenced by the interviewer’s behaviour. Hence, this issue should be addressed through proper selection and training of interviewers.

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The CBMS methodology had adopted a multidimensional approach to poverty since its inception recognizing the fact that poverty is multi-faceted. There had been no major changes to the present CBMS survey instrument and its core indicators for the past several years. However, new knowledge and perspectives about the nature and characteristics of poverty had been included in mainstream poverty and development discourse since then. Therefore it is imperative for CBMS to evaluate its current set of questions and indicators for possible revisions and improvements. The collaboration with OPHI on ‘missing dimensions’ of poverty data presented a very good opportunity for CBMS to explore the feasibility of adding questions from ‘missing dimensions’ modules (i.e. employment quality, empowerment, shame and humiliation, psychological and subjective wellbeing, and physical security) into the current CBMS survey instrument and monitoring these indicators together with the standard CBMS indicators. The additional indicators are expected to bring more depth and breadth to poverty analysis and in the process contribute to better understanding of poverty especially in the Philippine context. Although potential academic value to poverty research is a major factor in evaluating what questions and indicators to incorporate in the revised CBMS survey instrument, the CBMS team also considered the following criteria: a) ease of data collection; b) expected quality of data to be collected; and most importantly c) usefulness or policy relevance of the information.

Based on fieldwork observations, response analysis, community validations as well as data analysis and taking into consideration the criteria noted earlier, CBMS categorized the OPHI modules into 3 groups and identified specific questions and indicators for inclusion to the standard CBMS questionnaire. Firstly, Category 1 includes indicators and questions that are going to be incorporated in the revised CBMS questionnaire. Secondly, Category 2 refers modules that are interesting to capture but it is still uncertain whether these will be included in the CBMS questionnaire. Lastly, Category 3 pertains to questions and indicators that are problematic or not relevant to Philippine setting.

42

Items included under Category 1 are questions and indicators on underemployment rate and access to social security benefits. Questions on under-employment were originally part of the earlier versions of the CBMS questionnaire. Evaluations indicate that this particular indicator should be reconsidered to capture employment quality. Therefore, pertinent questions regarding hours worked during the reference period and whether the employed member wants additional hours of work could be included in the CBMS questionnaire. Moreover, aside from asking employment questions only to respondents who are employed, as intended in the OPHI questionnaire, it is recommended that these questions be asked to all employed members of the household as it is being done in standard labor force surveys. In addition to indicator on unemployment rate, indicator on access to social security benefits is likewise included in the CBMS questionnaire to complement information on employment quality among employed members. A physical safety and security module specifically questions to capture information on victim of crimes is already incorporated in the standard CBMS questionnaire

Recent academic studies suggest increasing evidence on the importance of empowerment and psychological and subjective wellbeing in poverty analysis. Hence, it is recognized that this can be included in the CBMS core indicators. Nonetheless, uncertainty on what questions or indicators to consider remains an important issue. Equally critical is to carry our further discussions and analysis to determine possible policy relevance and to isolate specific indicators that would be easy to collect and adequate for meaningful data analysis.

On the other hand, the module on shame and humiliation should be studied further. Based on survey experience and validation activities, respondents have trouble answering some questions in this module. Thus, there is a need to go back over these questions and consider how this module be refined to better capture what it purport to measure, take into account cultural nuances, and ascertain relevance of this module on program design and policy-making.

To sum up, collecting data on the ‘missing dimensions’ of poverty data is of paramount importance. However, further work is needed to explore the policy relevance of some of these proposed indicators.

43

REFERENCES Abell, Neil, Springer, David W. & Kamata, Akihito (2009). Developing and Validating Rapid

Assessment Instruments. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/oso/public/content/socialwork/9780195333367/toc.html

Alkire, Sabina (2007). The Missing Dimensions of Poverty Data: An Introduction. In Oxford Development Studies. Retrieved from http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/OPHI-wp00.pdf

Cibeli, Kristen (2004). Cognitive Interviewing Techniques: A Brief Overview. Retrieved from http://www.metagora.org/training/example/SL_1_CognitiveInterviewing_051405.pdf

Campanelli, Pamela (1997). Testing Survey Questions: New Directions in Cognitive

Interviewing. Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique, 55, 5-17. Brown, Timothy (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Retrieved from

http://books.google.com.ph/

DeCoster, J. (2005). Scale Construction Notes. Retrieved from http://www.stat-help.com/notes.html

Diprose, Rachael (2007). Safety and Security - A Proposal for Internationally Comparable Indicators of Violence. In Oxford Development Studies. Retrieved from http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/OPHI-wp01.pdf

Ibrahim, Solava & Alkire, Sabina (2007). Agency and Empowerment: A Proposal for Internationally Comparable Indicator. In Oxford Development Studies. Retrieved from http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/OPHI-wp04.pdf

Lugo, Maria Ana (2009). Employment - A Proposal for Internationally Comparable Indicators. In Oxford Development Studies. Retrieved from http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/OPHI-wp02.pdf

Samman, Emma (2007). Psychological and Subjective Well-being: A Proposal for Internationally Comparable Indicators. In Oxford Development Studies. Retrieved from http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/OPHI-wp05.pdf

Zavaleta, Diego (2007). The Ability to go About Without Shame: A Proposal for Internationally Comparable Indicators. In Oxford Development Studies. Retrieved from http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/OPHI-wp03.pdf

44

relatednes~c 0.5985 -0.2342 -0.0633 -0.0648 0.5787 relatednes~b 0.6195 -0.2063 -0.0668 -0.1843 0.5352 relatednes~a 0.5461 -0.3849 -0.0551 -0.0549 0.5475 competence_c 0.4746 -0.1960 0.1667 0.1221 0.6937 competence_b 0.4485 -0.1067 0.0214 0.2276 0.7352 competence_a 0.5857 -0.0901 0.0199 0.1354 0.6301 autonomy_c 0.5961 0.1730 0.0873 -0.0975 0.5976 autonomy_b 0.4448 0.2445 0.1672 -0.0353 0.7132 autonomy_a 0.5144 0.2380 0.2682 -0.0535 0.6040 meaning_c 0.4548 0.2957 -0.1944 0.0571 0.6646 meaning_b 0.5042 0.2171 -0.1917 0.0676 0.6573 meaning_a 0.4412 0.2121 -0.1592 -0.0342 0.7338 Variable Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Uniqueness

Factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances

LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi2(66) = 1047.12 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000 Factor12 -0.26339 . -0.0768 1.0000 Factor11 -0.20318 0.06021 -0.0593 1.0768 Factor10 -0.18878 0.01441 -0.0551 1.1361 Factor9 -0.08836 0.10042 -0.0258 1.1912 Factor8 -0.07310 0.01526 -0.0213 1.2170 Factor7 -0.05004 0.02306 -0.0146 1.2383 Factor6 -0.03093 0.01911 -0.0090 1.2529 Factor5 0.01641 0.04734 0.0048 1.2619 Factor4 0.14880 0.13239 0.0434 1.2571 Factor3 0.24757 0.09876 0.0722 1.2137 Factor2 0.62943 0.38187 0.1836 1.1415 Factor1 3.28307 2.65363 0.9579 0.9579 Factor Eigenvalue Difference Proportion Cumulative

Rotation: (unrotated) Number of params = 42 Method: principal factors Retained factors = 4Factor analysis/correlation Number of obs = 397

ANNEXES

Annex A

Unrotated Results of Factor Analysis for Scales on Meaning in Life, Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness (4 Factors Retained)

45

Factor4 -0.1767 -0.1326 0.0622 0.5879 Factor3 -0.4387 0.3839 0.4623 -0.2639 Factor2 -0.0950 0.4004 -0.3957 0.2253 Factor1 0.8759 0.8214 0.7911 0.7308 Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4

Factor rotation matrix

relatednes~c 0.5722 0.0076 0.0626 0.0568 0.5787 relatednes~b 0.6606 0.0924 0.0473 -0.0991 0.5352 relatednes~a 0.6793 -0.0890 -0.0588 0.0968 0.5475 competence_c 0.2425 0.1553 -0.1346 0.3298 0.6937 competence_b 0.1014 -0.0301 0.1179 0.3984 0.7352 competence_a 0.2294 0.0698 0.1363 0.3005 0.6301 autonomy_c 0.1664 0.4304 0.1547 -0.0351 0.5976 autonomy_b -0.0503 0.4840 0.0931 0.0241 0.7132 autonomy_a -0.0291 0.6286 -0.0102 0.0431 0.6040 meaning_c -0.0576 0.0435 0.5660 0.0298 0.6646 meaning_b 0.0293 0.0109 0.5286 0.0703 0.6573 meaning_a 0.0831 0.0843 0.4335 -0.0601 0.7338 Variable Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Factor4 Uniqueness

Rotated factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances

LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi2(66) = 1047.12 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000 Factor4 1.86106 0.5430 Factor3 2.22860 0.6502 Factor2 2.35031 0.6857 Factor1 2.64703 0.7723 Factor Variance Proportion Rotated factors are correlated

Rotation: oblique promax (Kaiser off) Number of params = 42 Method: principal factors Retained factors = 4Factor analysis/correlation Number of obs = 397

Annex B Rotated Results of Factor Analysis for Scales on Meaning in Life, Autonomy, Competence, and

Relatedness (4 Factors Retained)

46

sat_beliefs 0.5435 -0.1851 0.6704 sat_helpot~s 0.6109 -0.1246 0.6112 sat_commun~y 0.5649 -0.2461 0.6203 sat_dignity 0.6563 -0.2581 0.5027 sat_choice 0.6717 -0.1679 0.5206 sat_educat~n 0.6427 0.0340 0.5858 sat_family 0.6266 -0.0974 0.5979 sat_friends 0.6725 -0.1952 0.5097 sat_security 0.4583 -0.1440 0.7692 sat_work 0.6191 0.2872 0.5342 sat_health 0.5792 0.1000 0.6546 sat_income 0.5836 0.4154 0.4869 sat_housing 0.5631 0.2958 0.5954 sat_food 0.6428 0.2951 0.4998 Variable Factor1 Factor2 Uniqueness

Factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances

LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi2(91) = 2007.72 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000 Factor14 -0.21755 . -0.0386 1.0000 Factor13 -0.17411 0.04344 -0.0309 1.0386 Factor12 -0.15706 0.01705 -0.0278 1.0694 Factor11 -0.15460 0.00246 -0.0274 1.0973 Factor10 -0.12990 0.02470 -0.0230 1.1247 Factor9 -0.10243 0.02748 -0.0182 1.1477 Factor8 -0.04919 0.05323 -0.0087 1.1659 Factor7 -0.01133 0.03786 -0.0020 1.1746 Factor6 0.03989 0.05123 0.0071 1.1766 Factor5 0.12077 0.08088 0.0214 1.1696 Factor4 0.17804 0.05726 0.0316 1.1481 Factor3 0.45620 0.27816 0.0809 1.1166 Factor2 0.71428 0.25808 0.1266 1.0357 Factor1 5.12720 4.41292 0.9090 0.9090 Factor Eigenvalue Difference Proportion Cumulative

Rotation: (unrotated) Number of params = 27 Method: principal factors Retained factors = 2Factor analysis/correlation Number of obs = 399

Annex C

Unrotated Results of Factor Analysis for Domain-specific Satisfaction Items (2 Factors Retained)

47

Factor2 -0.3311 0.4985 Factor1 0.9436 0.8669 Factor1 Factor2

Factor rotation matrix

sat_beliefs 0.5695 0.0070 0.6704 sat_helpot~s 0.5447 0.1119 0.6112 sat_commun~y 0.6535 -0.0596 0.6203 sat_dignity 0.7273 -0.0347 0.5027 sat_choice 0.6343 0.0844 0.5206 sat_educat~n 0.3841 0.3233 0.5858 sat_family 0.5239 0.1526 0.5979 sat_friends 0.6660 0.0508 0.5097 sat_security 0.4665 0.0209 0.7692 sat_work 0.0787 0.6285 0.5342 sat_health 0.2668 0.3777 0.6546 sat_income -0.0914 0.7726 0.4869 sat_housing 0.0320 0.6147 0.5954 sat_food 0.0852 0.6486 0.4998 Variable Factor1 Factor2 Uniqueness

Rotated factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances

LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi2(91) = 2007.72 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000 Factor2 4.03076 0.7146 Factor1 4.64341 0.8233 Factor Variance Proportion Rotated factors are correlated

Rotation: oblique promax (Kaiser off) Number of params = 27 Method: principal factors Retained factors = 2Factor analysis/correlation Number of obs = 399

Annex D

Rotated Results of Factor Analysis for Domain-specific Satisfaction Items (2 Factors Retained)

48

Annex E

Pearson and Spearman Rank Correlations: Psychological and Subjective Wellbeing nonmat mat hap satisfaction_life pca_meaning pca_autonomy pca_competence pca_relatedness

nonmat 1.00mat 0.77 1.00hap 0.40 0.40 1.00satisfaction_life 0.52 0.63 0.40 1.00pca_meaning 0.40 0.35 0.32 0.28 1.00pca_autonomy 0.35 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.46 1.00pca_competence 0.42 0.34 0.30 0.35 0.36 0.42 1.00pca_relatedness 0.42 0.29 0.22 0.23 0.35 0.38 0.53 1.00Note: nonmat = non-material aspects (Factor 1), mat = material aspects (Factor 2), hap = question on happiness (with scale reversed), satisfaction_life = satisfaction with life overall, pca_meaning = meaning of life computed with pca, pca_autonomy = autonomy computed with pca, pca_competence = competence computed with pca, pca_relatedness = relatedness computed with pca

nonmat mat hap satisfaction_life pca_meaning pca_autonomy pca_competence pca_relatednessnonmat 1.00mat 0.74 1.00hap 0.39 0.40 1.00satisfaction_life 0.51 0.62 0.41 1.00pca_meaning 0.39 0.34 0.32 0.26 1.00pca_autonomy 0.31 0.19 0.23 0.19 0.49 1.00pca_competence 0.39 0.33 0.31 0.34 0.35 0.42 1.00pca_relatedness 0.39 0.27 0.22 0.22 0.39 0.43 0.53 1.00Note: nonmat = non-material aspects (Factor 1), mat = material aspects (Factor 2), hap = question on happiness (with scale reversed), satisfaction_life = satisfaction with life overall, pca_meaning = meaning of life computed with pca, pca_autonomy = autonomy computed with pca, pca_competence = competence computed with pca, pca_relatedness = relatedness computed with pca

49

Annex F

Pearson and Spearman Rank Correlations: Satisfaction Domains Food Housing Income Health Work Security Friends Family Educat ion Choice Dignity Community Help others Beliefs

Food 1.00Housing 0.53 1.00Income 0.53 0.48 1.00Health 0.38 0.29 0.38 1.00Work 0.44 0.40 0.54 0.46 1.00Security 0.25 0.24 0.23 0.26 0.26 1.00Friends 0.37 0.33 0.30 0.38 0.38 0.40 1.00Family 0.38 0.32 0.29 0.37 0.38 0.22 0.52 1.00Educat ion 0.41 0.38 0.38 0.41 0.40 0.22 0.40 0.43 1.00Choice 0.36 0.32 0.32 0.35 0.37 0.28 0.39 0.42 0.51 1.00Dignity 0.38 0.29 0.25 0.35 0.29 0.19 0.47 0.48 0.45 0.59 1.00Community 0.26 0.25 0.28 0.27 0.28 0.48 0.51 0.33 0.31 0.36 0.38 1.00Help others 0.38 0.32 0.31 0.37 0.32 0.33 0.42 0.32 0.38 0.44 0.42 0.41 1.00Beliefs 0.32 0.24 0.23 0.29 0.29 0.26 0.36 0.38 0.31 0.45 0.45 0.29 0.40 1.00

Food Housing Income Health Work Security Friends Family Educat ion Choice Dignity Community Help others BeliefsFood 1.00Housing 0.51 1.00Income 0.50 0.46 1.00Health 0.38 0.29 0.35 1.00Work 0.45 0.39 0.52 0.43 1.00Security 0.26 0.24 0.21 0.27 0.27 1.00Friends 0.37 0.33 0.28 0.36 0.37 0.41 1.00Family 0.38 0.30 0.26 0.39 0.39 0.24 0.53 1.00Educat ion 0.41 0.39 0.36 0.41 0.40 0.23 0.40 0.44 1.00Choice 0.37 0.32 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.28 0.39 0.46 0.52 1.00Dignity 0.38 0.29 0.23 0.36 0.29 0.19 0.46 0.50 0.48 0.61 1.00Community 0.27 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.28 0.47 0.51 0.32 0.30 0.34 0.36 1.00Help others 0.38 0.32 0.30 0.37 0.32 0.34 0.41 0.33 0.39 0.44 0.42 0.41 1.00Beliefs 0.32 0.23 0.20 0.30 0.28 0.25 0.37 0.41 0.33 0.48 0.49 0.28 0.42 1.00

50

Domains Corr. with li fe over-al lLife overall 1.00Food 0.46Housing 0.37Income 0.54Health 0.43W ork 0.53Securit y 0.32Friends 0.37Family 0.36Educat ion 0.37Choice 0.41Dign ity 0.29Commun ity 0.32Help others 0.31Beliefs 0.28

Domains Corr. with li fe over-al lLife overall 1.00Food 0.46Housing 0.36Income 0.53Health 0.43W ork 0.52Securit y 0.31Friends 0.37Family 0.37Educat ion 0.38Choice 0.40Dign ity 0.30Commun ity 0.33Help others 0.32Beliefs 0.27

Annex G

Pearson and Spearman Rank Correlations: ‘Life Overall’ Satisfaction on Domains

51

shameneigh~d 0.5675 0.7899 0.0258 0.0534 shameneigh~c 0.8405 0.1396 -0.3616 0.1433 shameneigh~b 0.8748 0.0896 -0.4479 0.0260 shameneigh~a 0.8974 -0.0062 -0.3674 0.0596 shameown_d 0.3280 0.7203 0.6083 0.0036 shameown_c 0.8158 -0.1136 0.4202 0.1450 shameown_b 0.8107 -0.4787 0.2580 0.0471 shameown_a 0.7164 -0.5499 0.3619 0.0534 Variable Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Uniqueness

Factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances

LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi2(28) = 2.2e+04 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000 Factor8 -0.00000 . -0.0000 1.0000 Factor7 -0.00000 0.00000 -0.0000 1.0000 Factor6 0.02737 0.02737 0.0034 1.0000 Factor5 0.15495 0.12758 0.0194 0.9966 Factor4 0.34918 0.19423 0.0436 0.9772 Factor3 1.21106 0.86189 0.1514 0.9336 Factor2 1.71467 0.50360 0.2143 0.7822 Factor1 4.54278 2.82812 0.5678 0.5678 Factor Eigenvalue Difference Proportion Cumulative

Rotation: (unrotated) Number of params = 21 Method: principal factors Retained factors = 3Factor analysis/correlation Number of obs = 300

Annex H

Unrotated Results of Factor Analysis for Scales on Stigma to Poverty (3 Factors Retained)

52

Factor3 -0.4461 0.3989 0.4411 Factor2 0.1526 -0.4893 0.7909 Factor1 0.8819 0.7756 0.4242 Factor1 Factor2 Factor3

Factor rotation matrix

shameneigh~d 0.4840 -0.2345 0.7602 0.0534 shameneigh~c 0.8913 0.0507 0.0358 0.1433 shameneigh~b 0.9847 0.0376 -0.0535 0.0260 shameneigh~a 0.9027 0.1721 -0.0756 0.0596 shameown_d -0.2329 0.1233 1.0320 0.0036 shameown_c 0.0799 0.7830 0.3253 0.1450 shameown_b 0.1582 0.9065 -0.0750 0.0471 shameown_a -0.0133 0.9846 -0.0836 0.0534 Variable Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Uniqueness

Rotated factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances

LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi2(28) = 2.2e+04 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000 Factor3 2.12555 0.2657 Factor2 3.33558 0.4169 Factor1 3.81385 0.4767 Factor Variance Proportion Rotated factors are correlated

Rotation: oblique promax (Kaiser off) Number of params = 21 Method: principal factors Retained factors = 3Factor analysis/correlation Number of obs = 300

Annex I

Rotated Results of Factor Analysis for Scales on Stigma to Poverty (3 Factors Retained)

53

shprone_di~g 0.5384 0.7101 shprone_la~e 0.6635 0.5597 shprone_bl~g 0.6600 0.5645 shprone_he~s 0.4115 0.8306 shprone_ch~h 0.4354 0.8104 shprone_st~d 0.6304 0.6026 shprone_hu~d 0.6480 0.5800 shprone_se~s 0.5174 0.7323 shprone_ri~s 0.6650 0.5578 shprone_em~t 0.5704 0.6746 Variable Factor1 Uniqueness

Factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances

LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi2(45) = 1108.03 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000 Factor10 -0.24270 . -0.0745 1.0000 Factor9 -0.20102 0.04169 -0.0617 1.0745 Factor8 -0.11680 0.08422 -0.0359 1.1362 Factor7 -0.06722 0.04958 -0.0206 1.1721 Factor6 -0.02139 0.04582 -0.0066 1.1927 Factor5 0.00595 0.02734 0.0018 1.1993 Factor4 0.01779 0.01184 0.0055 1.1974 Factor3 0.22016 0.20237 0.0676 1.1920 Factor2 0.28533 0.06517 0.0876 1.1244 Factor1 3.37734 3.09201 1.0368 1.0368 Factor Eigenvalue Difference Proportion Cumulative

Rotation: (unrotated) Number of params = 10 Method: principal factors Retained factors = 1Factor analysis/correlation Number of obs = 416

Annex J

Unrotated Results of Factor Analysis for Scale on Shame Proneness (1 Factor Retained)

Note: Rotated EFA results using promax is identical with unrotated results

54

Annex K

Pearson and Spearman Rank Correlations: Shame Proneness Items embarrassment ridiculous self-conscious humiliated stupid childish helpless blushing laughable disgusting

embarrassment 1.00ridiculous 0.50 1.00self-conscious 0.32 0.36 1.00humiliated 0.35 0.50 0.34 1.00stupid 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.47 1.00childish 0.17 0.22 0.26 0.26 0.34 1.00helpless 0.19 0.25 0.27 0.27 0.32 0.23 1.00blushing 0.42 0.42 0.34 0.46 0.36 0.25 0.28 1.00laughable 0.31 0.45 0.32 0.39 0.38 0.35 0.21 0.49 1.00disgusting 0.27 0.33 0.20 0.27 0.38 0.25 0.20 0.37 0.50 1.00

embarrassment ridiculous self-conscious humiliated stupid childish helpless blushing laughable disgustingembarrassment 1.00ridiculous 0.46 1.00self-conscious 0.33 0.37 1.00humiliated 0.36 0.49 0.34 1.00stupid 0.31 0.33 0.35 0.43 1.00childish 0.22 0.22 0.28 0.27 0.40 1.00helpless 0.20 0.27 0.28 0.25 0.34 0.29 1.00blushing 0.40 0.38 0.39 0.45 0.32 0.25 0.31 1.00laughable 0.32 0.45 0.33 0.41 0.43 0.35 0.28 0.50 1.00disgusting 0.24 0.31 0.20 0.29 0.37 0.22 0.26 0.31 0.43 1.00

55

(blanks represent abs(loading)<.7) acchum_cal~s 0.7803 0.3911 acchum_cri~d 0.7816 0.3892 acchum_dis~d 0.8119 0.3409 acchum_rid~d 0.8070 0.3487 acchum_put~n 0.8499 0.2778 acchum_exc~d 0.7376 0.4560 Variable Factor1 Uniqueness

Factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances

LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi2(15) = 1611.98 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000 Factor6 -0.15002 . -0.0409 1.0000 Factor5 -0.11152 0.03851 -0.0304 1.0409 Factor4 -0.06223 0.04929 -0.0170 1.0713 Factor3 0.02606 0.08829 0.0071 1.0883 Factor2 0.16833 0.14227 0.0459 1.0812 Factor1 3.79636 3.62803 1.0353 1.0353 Factor Eigenvalue Difference Proportion Cumulative

Rotation: (unrotated) Number of params = 6 Method: principal factors Retained factors = 1Factor analysis/correlation Number of obs = 414

Annex L Unrotated Results of Factor Analysis for Scale on Accumulated Humiliation (1 Factor Retained)

Note: Rotated EFA results using promax is identical with unrotated results

56

excluded put down ridiculed discounted criticized called namesexcluded 1.00put down 0.69 1.00ridiculed 0.57 0.75 1.00discounted 0.63 0.70 0.66 1.00criticized 0.56 0.61 0.59 0.65 1.00called names 0.54 0.60 0.64 0.62 0.72 1.00

excluded put down ridiculed discounted criticized called namesexcluded 1.00put down 0.69 1.00ridiculed 0.58 0.76 1.00discounted 0.63 0.71 0.67 1.00criticized 0.55 0.62 0.58 0.66 1.00called names 0.54 0.61 0.64 0.62 0.71 1.00

Annex M

Pearson and Spearman Rank Correlations: Accumulated Humiliation Items

57

sec_au4 0.1813 0.2350 0.0915 0.9035 rgp_au4 0.3874 0.4823 0.0966 0.6079 rgp_au3 0.5535 -0.3170 -0.0959 0.5840 rgp_au2 0.6334 -0.2959 -0.1182 0.4972 rgp_au1 0.4080 0.2446 0.0048 0.7736 skh_au4 0.5208 0.5169 0.0847 0.4543 skh_au3 0.6577 -0.2561 -0.2192 0.4538 skh_au2 0.6710 -0.1406 -0.1817 0.4969 skh_au1 0.4636 0.3433 0.0102 0.6671 buy_au3 0.2736 -0.2549 0.4272 0.6777 buy_au2 0.2925 -0.3358 0.4370 0.6107 buy_au1 0.1564 -0.0296 0.2840 0.8940 act_au4 0.1085 0.3743 0.0012 0.8482 Variable Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Uniqueness

Factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances

LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi2(78) = 1228.09 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000 Factor13 -0.27725 . -0.0655 1.0000 Factor12 -0.27124 0.00600 -0.0640 1.0655 Factor11 -0.19281 0.07843 -0.0455 1.1295 Factor10 -0.16580 0.02702 -0.0391 1.1750 Factor9 -0.13043 0.03537 -0.0308 1.2142 Factor8 -0.06203 0.06840 -0.0146 1.2450 Factor7 0.05153 0.11356 0.0122 1.2596 Factor6 0.09477 0.04324 0.0224 1.2475 Factor5 0.17835 0.08358 0.0421 1.2251 Factor4 0.47898 0.30063 0.1131 1.1830 Factor3 0.58334 0.10436 0.1377 1.0699 Factor2 1.32496 0.74162 0.3129 0.9321 Factor1 2.62272 1.29777 0.6193 0.6193 Factor Eigenvalue Difference Proportion Cumulative

Rotation: (unrotated) Number of params = 36 Method: principal factors Retained factors = 3Factor analysis/correlation Number of obs = 400

Annex N

Unrotated Results of Factor Analysis for Relative Autonomy Questions (3 Factors Retained)

58

Factor3 -0.2477 0.1168 0.7550 Factor2 -0.3747 0.7276 -0.4763 Factor1 0.8934 0.6760 0.4506 Factor1 Factor2 Factor3

Factor rotation matrix

sec_au4 -0.0657 0.3218 0.0498 0.9035 rgp_au4 -0.0563 0.6407 0.0103 0.6079 rgp_au3 0.6212 -0.0595 0.0860 0.5840 rgp_au2 0.6821 -0.0104 0.0689 0.4972 rgp_au1 0.1509 0.4091 -0.0074 0.7736 skh_au4 0.0269 0.7296 0.0081 0.4543 skh_au3 0.7532 0.0069 -0.0443 0.4538 skh_au2 0.6740 0.1281 -0.0393 0.4969 skh_au1 0.1336 0.5251 -0.0239 0.6671 buy_au3 0.0053 0.0217 0.5642 0.6777 buy_au2 0.0535 -0.0396 0.6025 0.6107 buy_au1 -0.0875 0.1287 0.3275 0.8940 act_au4 -0.1219 0.3872 -0.0984 0.8482 Variable Factor1 Factor2 Factor3 Uniqueness

Rotated factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances

LR test: independent vs. saturated: chi2(78) = 1228.09 Prob>chi2 = 0.0000 Factor3 1.16568 0.2752 Factor2 1.90783 0.4505 Factor1 2.31537 0.5467 Factor Variance Proportion Rotated factors are correlated

Rotation: oblique promax (Kaiser off) Number of params = 36 Method: principal factors Retained factors = 3Factor analysis/correlation Number of obs = 400

Annex O

Rotated Results of Factor Analysis for Relative Autonomy Questions (3 Factors Retained)

59

Annex P

Column charts of non-response rates among questions in the Empowerment module

60

Annex Q Column charts of non-response rates among questions in the PSWB module

61

Annex R Column charts of non-response rates among questions in the SH module

62

Annex S

Column charts of non-response rates among questions in the Employment module \e

\e non-response rates for Questions 17-20 are 0% respectively.

63

Annex T

Column charts of non-response rates among questions in the Violence module \e