Trade-offs in Using Indirect Sampling to Measure Conflict Violence

Silva, Romesh; Price, Megan

doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1032

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are myriad complexities in collecting high quality population-based data on GBV in humanitarian settings, including ongoing instability, poor access to affected populations, and limited services to support survivors [ 3 – 5 ]. In addition to these logistical complexities, there are also numerous methodological challenges to measuring GBV accurately in such settings, such as underreporting due to fear or stigma, inconsistent operationalization of key outcomes, telescoping and issues with recall of past incidents [ 6 – 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Secondary reporting offers several potential advantages, including faster and more cost-effective data collection, increased sample size through a single interview, the opportunity to spend more time per interview with a respondent, which in turn reduces non-disclosure bias, and the ethical advantage of limiting the number of interviewees potentially exposed to further trauma or violence triggered by an interview [ 16 ]. At the same time, secondary reporting relies on a critical assumption: that informants can and will provide complete and accurate information about the experiences of others [ 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating the reliability and validity of secondary reporting to measure gender-based violence in conflict and disaster

Stark

Roberts²,

et al. 2020

Confl Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Accurately identifying the magnitude of gender-based violence (GBV) in humanitarian settings is hindered by logistical and methodological complexities. The 'Neighborhood Method', an adapted household survey that uses primary and secondary reporting to assess the prevalence of GBV in humanitarian settings, reduces the length of time and cost associated with traditional surveys. Primary female adult respondents disclose incidents of physical violence, intimate and non-intimate partner rape for themselves, other females in their homes (standard reporting) and other women and children in their social networks (secondary reporting). This study examines the reliability and validity of this inclusion of secondary reporting to determine the comparability of the Neighborhood Method to a traditional survey approach. Methods: Drawing on data from 1180 women reporting on 3744 females in respondent households and 15,086 in neighboring households across four humanitarian settings (Ethiopia/ Somalia, Liberia, Sri Lanka, and Uganda), reliability of secondary reporting was measured through intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Cohen's kappas. Validity was assessed using two-sample z-tests for differences between standard versus secondary reporting. Results: Prevalence estimates comparing a respondent's household with a neighboring household show closer agreement (ICC: 0.999-0.986) than self-reports vs. secondary reporting on a female counterpoint in a neighboring home (ICC: 0.939-0.98). Kappa statistics analyzing the reliability of two separate neighbors reporting on a third neighbor showed moderate agreement beyond chance alone (κ = 0.45 for physical violence and 0.48 for rape). Prevalence rates corresponded between standard and secondary reports (i.e. showed no statistical difference) in 18 out of 24 compared populations. Conclusions: For prevalence of GBV, secondary reporting about neighbors can serve as a useful adjunct to standard survey methodology. Findings offer important initial insights into the consistency and accuracy of secondary reporting as a tool for field epidemiologists in humanitarian settings.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%