Validating overcrowding measures using the UK Household Longitudinal Study
Validating overcrowding measures using the UK Household Longitudinal Study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100439
复制
发表时间：
2019-08-01
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
Sacker, Amanda
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cable, Noriko;Sacker, Amanda
过度拥挤被认为是物质匮乏的表现，并被视为个人社会经济地位的替代衡量标准。传统上，在英国的调查数据中，“每间客房人数”（PPR）被用来识别过度拥挤的家庭，尽管“卧室标准”（BS）方法或“修改后的卧室标准”（MBS）方法被认为更能捕捉过度拥挤的家庭。很少有人知道，过度拥挤的措施将执行良好的结构效度和表面效度。在这项工作中，三个过度拥挤的措施和社会经济（收入和家庭保有权状态）和健康（对健康和GHQ 12满意）指标之间的关联进行了评估，使用英国家庭纵向研究第6波数据。PPR，BS和MBS是使用相关的住房网格信息和住房信息从数据集，这是在家庭层面上汇总（N = 18，848）。根据每种过度拥挤措施的既定临界点，原始分数被分为“入住不足（房间<人）”、“平衡（房间=人）”、“过度拥挤（房间<人）”。Kappa系数被用来评估过度拥挤措施之间的协议水平。结构效度的措施进行了测试，对对数转换的家庭等值收入和住房保有权的地位，以及与每个组成部分的过度拥挤的措施。使用个体数据（N = 38，455），根据GHQ 12所指示的健康和心理健康满意度来检验拥挤措施的表面效度。每个拥挤措施与其他措施具有公平的一致性（kappa = 0.44，p < 0.001）。所有过度拥挤措施都以类似的方式与收入和家庭保有权显著相关。然而，过度拥挤措施的组成部分与这些社会经济指标的相关性不同，而与GHQ 12相比，它们与健康满意度的相关性更好，表明过度拥挤措施的复杂性。然而，鉴于健康不平等机制的复杂性，需要相关的家庭信息来了解这种联系。
Overcrowding has been regarded as indicating material deprivation and treated as a proxy measure for individual socioeconomic status. Conventionally, 'persons per room' (PPR) has been employed to identify overcrowded households in UK survey data, though the 'bedroom standard' (BS) approach or the 'modified bedroom standard' (MBS) approach has been thought to capture overcrowded households better. Little is known about which overcrowding measure will perform well in regard to construct and face validity. In this work, associations between three overcrowding measures and socioeconomic (income and household tenure status) and health (satisfied with health and GHQ12) indicators were assessed, using the UK Household Longitudinal Study Wave 6 data.PPR, BS and MBS were derived using relevant housing grid information and housing information from the dataset, which were aggregated at a household level (N = 18,848). Raw scores were categorised into 'under occupied (rooms < people)', 'balanced (rooms = people)', 'overcrowded (rooms < people)' according to an established cut-off point for each overcrowding measure. Kappa coefficient was used to assess the level of agreement between overcrowding measures. Construct validity of the measures were tested against log-transformed household equivalised income and housing tenure status as well as with each component of overcrowding measures. Using individual data (N = 38,455), face validity of the overcrowding measures was tested against satisfaction with health and mental health indicated by GHQ12.Each overcrowding measure has a fair agreement with the others (kappa = 0.44, p < 0.001). All overcrowding measures were significantly correlated with income and household tenure in a similar manner. However, components of overcrowding measures were associated differently to these socioeconomic indicators, while they were better correlated with satisfaction with health compared to GHQ12, showing a complex aspect of overcrowding measures.In sum, use of PPR as a socioeconomic indicator is reasonable. However, given the complexity of the mechanism of health inequalities, the relevant household information is required to understand the link.