using hbsc data in constructing a well-being indicator
DESCRIPTION
Benelux Seminar « Indicators of Child and Youth Well-Being: The Link between Knowledge, Policy and Practice ». Using HBSC Data in Constructing a Well-Being Indicator. Charles BERG. Outline. Introductory Remarks Alternatives and complements to quantitative indicator construction Practice - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Using HBSC Data in Constructing a Well-Being Indicator
Charles BERG
Benelux Seminar « Indicators of Child and Youth Well-Being: The Link between Knowledge, Policy and Practice »
Outline Introductory Remarks Alternatives and complements to quantitative
indicator construction Practice Concluding Remark
Introductory Remarks
• The current multiple political framing of policy relevant youth research
• Health/well-being as a complex category• Data and data sources used in the presentation• Objectives of presentation
• International Reporting (UNICEF, OECD)– Little power, strong influence
• The OMC (European Union)– Acquiring a greater understanding and knowledge of
young people and their concerns is one of the priorities of youth policies at EU level
• Memorandum van overeenstemming (BENELUX)– « hiertoe wordt nauw samengewerkt […] met
jeugdkenntniscentra » • Luxembourg Youth Act 2008 (National, local)
– A knowledge based youth policy development: Observatoire des jeunes, Rapport jeunesse, Plans communaux
The current multiple political framing of policy relevant youth research
Data and Data Sources
• Data-Set 0: HBSC (Health Behaviour in Schoolaged Children) in Luxembourg Schools; n=7398 (1999)
• Data-Set 1: Diekirch, military recruits and soldiers; n=311(2003-2004)
• Data-Set 2: Esch, unemployed young people (in vocational training course); n=130 (2003-2004)
• Data-Set 3: Dreiborn, young people in enforced residential care; n=24 (2003-2004)
• Data-Set 4: Manternach, drug addicts in therapy; n=22 (2003-2004)
DJAB Project (Ministery of Health, Ministerry of Education, Ministery of Family), Survey Data (Questionnaire, 536 Variables)
Health/Wellbeing as a Complex Categorie
• Defining Health• Measuring Health • Constructing Health• Experiencing Health• Enacting Health• Relating Health to Social
Structure
Cf. e.g.: Blaxter, Mildred (2004). Health. Cambridge:
Polity.
Objective of Presentation
• Illustrate the work with indicators and its political relevance
• Contextualise indicator construction in the more general approach of policy relevant data analysis
• Show potentials and limits of indicators
Alternatives and complements to quantitative indicator construction
• Networking
• Theory-driven semantic structuring
Networking
• Interviewing experts• Organizing focus groups and workshops• Analyzing documents• Gathering discourse data• Translating and merging discourses• Relating discourses to contexts• Gaining experts as critical friends• Giving young people a voice• Reconstructing everyday rationales• Grounded Theory Methodology
Theory-driven semantic structuring as a preprocess of quantitative indicator construction
• Luxembourg Youth Report Method:– Chapter
• Thematic Domains– Dimensions
» Indicators
Physical, Mental, & Social Well-Being
• Contexts of Well-Being
• Health Promoting and Health Harming Behaviour
• Health Outcomes
• Risk Behaviour
Data
Oriented
Theory
OrientedCompare to UNICEF
or OECD Structure
Contexts of Well-Being
• Family Background – Family structure and Dwelling – Socioeconomic Condition – Quality of Relationships– Parental Pressure to Perform
• Peers– Frequency of Social Contacts – Support Resources – Support through Class Mates
• Leisure• School
– Perception of School– School Skipping
• Work– Satisfaction with work situation– Absences from Work
• General personal Optimism
Available
Data Sources
Sensible
Indicators
etc
Practice
• Approaches to indicator construction• The Well-Being Indicator• Examples of a few Analytic Inquiries
Approaches to indicator construction: Different Rationales
• Semantically/theoretically plausible links between variables
• Boolean intersection• Distributional criterion• Classification of variables• Classification of cases• Dimension Reduction• Moving Beyond the Observed
• Multidimensional contingency table• Correlation matrix• Cluster Analysis (variables)• Unifactorial relationship between a set of more
variables (Principal Component Analysis)• Reliability: Cronbach’s Alpha• Cluster Analysis (Cases)• Factor Analysis• Latent Class Analysis
Approaches to indicator construction: Statistical Toolkit
The Constructionof a Well-Being Indicator
Wellbeing Indicator
Declared
Health
h
Perm
an
ent F
eelin
gs o
f Lo
nelin
ess a
nd
Un
hap
pin
essr
Somatic Symptoms Declared Negative Feelings
Body Acceptance
Self Concept
Declared
Health
Feelin
g o
f Lo
nelin
ess
Feelin
g o
f Un
hap
pin
ess
Sto
mach
Pain
Head
ach
e
Backach
e
Sleep
ing
Pro
blem
s
Vertig
o
Sad
ness
Bad
Mo
od
Nervo
usn
ess
Tired
nes
s
Desire
to C
han
ge B
od
y
Accep
tance o
f Weig
ht
Bo
dy Im
age
Self Im
age: R
ejected
Self Im
mag
e: Un
able
Self C
on
fiden
ce
6 dimensions ; 18 variables
Frequencies of Well Being Indicator
Well-Being Indicator
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Std. Dev = 1.00
Mean = -.00
N = 5804.00
Analysis 1: The Gender Divide in Well-Being
CHI2 = .707Sig.= .000PHI = .36
Comparing Frequency Distributions in Quartiles
Wellbeing by Gender
Well-Being Indicator (recoded in quartiles)
75-100%50-75%25-50%0-25%
Cou
nt
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
Gender
f
m
Analysis 2: The Gender Divide in Well-Being
F = 798.56
Sig = .000
ETA = .35
ETA2 = .12
Comparing Group Means of Wellbeing Indicator
30142788N =
Wellbeing by Gender
Gender
fm
Wel
l-Bei
ng F
acto
r
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
Analysis 3:Gender – Wellbeing Relation by Subfiles
319102982 7171392625N =
Wellbeing by Gender & Data Set
Data Set
DreibornEschDiekirchHBSC
Wel
l-Bei
ng F
acto
r
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
Gender
m
f
Analysis 4: Family and Wellbeing
• FAS: Family Affluence Scale
• Family Structure
• Relationship with Parents
• Endo- and Exogenic Network
• Family Climate• Structure• Agency• Culture
Analysis 5: Wellbeing by FAS
8081594437 8561297293N =
FAS (Family Aflluence Scale)
HighAverageLow
Wel
lbei
ng in
dica
tor
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
Sexe
m
f
16642891730N =
FAS (Family Aflluence Scale)
HighAverageLow
95%
CI W
ellb
eing
indi
cato
r
.3
.2
.1
.0
-.1
-.2
-.3
-.4
-.5
8081594437 8561297293N =
FAS (Family Aflluence Scale)
HighAverageLow
95%
CI W
ellb
eing
indi
cato
r
.8
.6
.4
.2
0.0
-.2
-.4
-.6
-.8
Gender
m
f
Analysis 6:Wellbeing and Family Structure
Parents (recoded)
m&delsepatchworkmonoparentalnone
Med
Wel
l-Bei
ng F
acto
r
.3
.2
.1
-.0
-.1
-.2
-.3
Parents (recoded)
m&delsepatchworkmonoparentalnone
Med
Wel
l-Bei
ng F
acto
r
.8
.6
.4
.2
0.0
-.2
-.4
-.6
-.8
Gender
m
f
2258718629465 2102915125137N =
Parents (recoded)
m&d
else
patchwork
monoparental
none
Wel
l-Bei
ng F
acto
r
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
Gender
m
f
Analysis 7: Well-Being by Parent Relationships
2177364134143 22562065962N =
Declared Relation to Parents
Good
Ambivalent (D: Bad)
Ambivalent (M: Bad)
Bad
Wel
l-Bei
ng In
dica
tor
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
Gender
m
f
Declared Relation to Parents
GoodAmbivalent (D.: Bad)Ambivalent (M. Bad)Bad
Med
Wel
l-Bei
ng F
acto
r
.4
.2
0.0
-.2
-.4
-.6
-.8
-1.0
-1.2
Declared Relation to Parents
Good
Ambivalent (D.: Bad)
Ambivalent (M. Bad)
Bad
Med
Wel
l-Bei
ng F
acto
r
1.0
.5
0.0
-.5
-1.0
-1.5
Gender
m
f
Analysis 8: Well-Being by Trust Networks
543156284139 410175176151N =
Trust Relationship Net (exo-/endogenic)
sociableendo-centredexo-centredisolated
Wel
lbei
ng in
dica
tor
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
Gender
m
f
953331460290N =
Trust Relationship Net (exo-/endogenic)
sociableendo-centredexo-centredisolated
95%
CI W
ellb
eing
indi
cato
r
.4
.2
0.0
-.2
-.4
-.6
-.8
543156284139 410175176151N =
Trust Relationship Net (exo-/endogenic)
sociableendo-centredexo-centredisolated
95%
CI W
ellb
eing
indi
cato
r
1.0
.5
0.0
-.5
-1.0
-1.5
Gender
m
f
More Topics/similar tendency
• Mediation by Knowledge: The Instance of AIDS Prevention
• Peer Group Cultures• Nationality, Language, Multilingualisme• Leisure Cultures• Sexual Behaviour• School• Drugs• Nutrition• Risk Behaviour• etc
Concluding Remark
• Relevance of indicators both in policy relevant and comparative research
• Contextualise indicators The indicator construction should be open to a policy making process as well to a process of understanding
• Embed indicator reading and interpreting in a conversational process
• See indicators as elements in a process of sense making
