Page 62 - S. Ličen, I. Karnjuš, & M. Prosen (Eds.). (2019). Women, migrations and health: Ensuring transcultural healthcare. Koper, University of Primorska Press.
P. 62
vanni Delli Zotti
mutual respect, consent and shared responsibility for sexual behavior and
its consequences’ (1995, p. 36).
Making an index means starting from a general concept to arrive at its
‘measurement’ at the end of a process that can be quite complex. Even if
we succeed in defining the concept with some precision, the property to be
measured remains relatively abstract until we move on to its concrete specifi-
cation. The concept of ‘health’ is perhaps less abstract than others, but rather
complex, because we can talk about health (sexual, reproductive or other-
wise) only after verifying the absence of several situations that could under-
mine it, or the presence of factors that can positively affect it. In method-
ological terms, it is therefore necessary to identify suitable ‘indicators’ and
to define them operationally, meaning that we must specify how we intend
to measure them. The indicators this way become variables that need to be
opportunely combined in order to obtain the foreseen index.
Using the term ‘opportunely,’ we intend to recall the fact that indicators
overlap more or less broadly the semantic range of the concept/property
that we intend to measure. It is therefore legitimate to attribute to the indica-
tors/variables appropriate weights, trying to replicate their degree of validity.
In fact, when choosing indicators validity is an important requisite, since we
need indicators that clearly point at the property we aim at measuring (face
validity, see Drost, 2011). When establishing how to translate each indicator
into a variable, the most important characteristic to seek is instead reliability
of the outcome of measurement.
Other criteria may also be relevant, such as those listed in a site dedicated
to the construction of indicators for Family Planning/Reproductive Health
(FP/RH) (measureevaluation.org):
– Relevance: there is a clear relationship between the indicator and FP/RH
– Accuracy: the indicator measures what it purports to measure
– Importance: the measurement captures something that ‘makes a differ-
ence’ in program effectiveness
– Usefulness: the results point to areas for improvement. Furthermore,
the indicator captures information that helps move FP/RH strategies,
priorities, or programming forward
– Feasibility: data can be obtained with reasonable and affordable effort
– Credibility: the indicator has been recommended – and is being used
– by leading experts and organizations such as WHO, UNAIDS, USAID,
and UNFPA
– Validity: to the extent possible, the indicator has been field-tested (in-
60
mutual respect, consent and shared responsibility for sexual behavior and
its consequences’ (1995, p. 36).
Making an index means starting from a general concept to arrive at its
‘measurement’ at the end of a process that can be quite complex. Even if
we succeed in defining the concept with some precision, the property to be
measured remains relatively abstract until we move on to its concrete specifi-
cation. The concept of ‘health’ is perhaps less abstract than others, but rather
complex, because we can talk about health (sexual, reproductive or other-
wise) only after verifying the absence of several situations that could under-
mine it, or the presence of factors that can positively affect it. In method-
ological terms, it is therefore necessary to identify suitable ‘indicators’ and
to define them operationally, meaning that we must specify how we intend
to measure them. The indicators this way become variables that need to be
opportunely combined in order to obtain the foreseen index.
Using the term ‘opportunely,’ we intend to recall the fact that indicators
overlap more or less broadly the semantic range of the concept/property
that we intend to measure. It is therefore legitimate to attribute to the indica-
tors/variables appropriate weights, trying to replicate their degree of validity.
In fact, when choosing indicators validity is an important requisite, since we
need indicators that clearly point at the property we aim at measuring (face
validity, see Drost, 2011). When establishing how to translate each indicator
into a variable, the most important characteristic to seek is instead reliability
of the outcome of measurement.
Other criteria may also be relevant, such as those listed in a site dedicated
to the construction of indicators for Family Planning/Reproductive Health
(FP/RH) (measureevaluation.org):
– Relevance: there is a clear relationship between the indicator and FP/RH
– Accuracy: the indicator measures what it purports to measure
– Importance: the measurement captures something that ‘makes a differ-
ence’ in program effectiveness
– Usefulness: the results point to areas for improvement. Furthermore,
the indicator captures information that helps move FP/RH strategies,
priorities, or programming forward
– Feasibility: data can be obtained with reasonable and affordable effort
– Credibility: the indicator has been recommended – and is being used
– by leading experts and organizations such as WHO, UNAIDS, USAID,
and UNFPA
– Validity: to the extent possible, the indicator has been field-tested (in-
60
