The Experts below are selected from a list of 132 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Parke Wilde - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
“He said, she said”: who should speak for households about experiences of food inSecurity in Bangladesh?
Food Security, 2010Co-Authors: Jennifer C. Coates, Patrick Webb, Robert F. Houser, Beatrice Lorge Rogers, Parke WildeAbstract:This paper examines the extent to which males and females from the same household respond differently to household food inSecurity questions, and explores the reasons for these differences and the impact for measurement. The data derive from the 2001–2003 Bangladesh Food InSecurity Measurement and Validation Study. Male and female enumerators administered the food inSecurity questionnaire to women and men in the same household during three survey rounds and debriefed a subsample of men and women regarding their response discrepancies. The rate of discordance in male-female responses to individual items was examined using contingency tables. Potential explanations for the discordance were informed by the joint respondent debriefing. These hypotheses were assessed through an examination of response patterns. To assess the impact of discordance on measurement, female and male responses to a scale of 13 food inSecurity items were compared and the degree of differential classification was assessed. On average the rate of discordance was 15%, but it ranged for particular items from less than 1% to upwards of 53%. Item content interacted with gender to produce discordance; women and men seemed to respond differently due to separate spheres of responsibility within the same household, power imbalances influencing intra-household food allocation, and because men seemed to take more psychological responsibility for ensuring the household food supply. Nearly one-third of households were classified in a different food Security Category using female versus male responses to the items. The results suggest that the household food inSecurity construct is not as useful in places like Bangladesh where certain food inSecurity-related manifestations are not collectively or similarly shared by members of the same living space. Individual-level measures of food inSecurity are needed to complement household data, along with surveys that allow for proportionate representation of potentially vulnerable individuals with different demographic characteristics across the population.
Stephen W. Hwang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Short communication The assessment of food Security in homeless individuals: a comparison of the Food Security Survey Module and the Household Food InSecurity Access Scale
2020Co-Authors: Anna C Holland, Matthew C Kennedy, Stephen W. HwangAbstract:Objective: To compare the Household Food InSecurity Access Scale (HFIAS), the US Food Security Survey Module (US FSSM) and a modified version of the US FSSM in which references to buying food were changed to references to getting food, in terms of their classification of food Security levels among homeless individuals, and to determine which of these instruments was most preferred by homeless individuals. Design: A cross-sectional survey. Setting: Recruitment of participants took place at seven shelters and from three drop-in programmes that serve homeless individuals in Toronto, Canada. Subjects: Fifty individuals who were $18 years of age, able to communicate in English and currently homeless. Results: The modified US FSSM assigned 20% of participants to a lower ordinal food Security Category compared with the US FSSM, and only 8% to a higher food Security Category. The HFIAS assigned 30% of participants to a lower food Security Category compared with either the US FSSM or the modified US FSSM, and only 10‐16% of participants to a higher food Security Category. When asked to compare all three instruments, the majority of respondents (62%) selected the HFIAS as the best instrument for people who are homeless. Conclusions: A majority of homeless individuals selected the HFIAS as the best food Security instrument for people who are homeless. Our findings suggest that the HFIAS is a more appropriate instrument than the US FSSM for measuring food Security in the homeless population.
-
The assessment of food Security in homeless individuals: a comparison of the Food Security Survey Module and the Household Food InSecurity Access Scale
Public Health Nutrition, 2011Co-Authors: Anna C Holland, Matthew C Kennedy, Stephen W. HwangAbstract:Objective To compare the Household Food InSecurity Access Scale (HFIAS), the US Food Security Survey Module (US FSSM) and a modified version of the US FSSM in which references to buying food were changed to references to getting food, in terms of their classification of food Security levels among homeless individuals, and to determine which of these instruments was most preferred by homeless individuals. Design A cross-sectional survey. Setting Recruitment of participants took place at seven shelters and from three drop-in programmes that serve homeless individuals in Toronto, Canada. Subjects Fifty individuals who were ≥18 years of age, able to communicate in English and currently homeless. Results The modified US FSSM assigned 20 % of participants to a lower ordinal food Security Category compared with the US FSSM, and only 8 % to a higher food Security Category. The HFIAS assigned 30 % of participants to a lower food Security Category compared with either the US FSSM or the modified US FSSM, and only 10–16 % of participants to a higher food Security Category. When asked to compare all three instruments, the majority of respondents (62 %) selected the HFIAS as the best instrument for people who are homeless. Conclusions A majority of homeless individuals selected the HFIAS as the best food Security instrument for people who are homeless. Our findings suggest that the HFIAS is a more appropriate instrument than the US FSSM for measuring food Security in the homeless population.
Anju Saha - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Qualitative usability feature selection with ranking: a novel approach for ranking the identified usability problematic attributes for academic websites using data-mining techniques
Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences, 2017Co-Authors: Kalpna Sagar, Anju SahaAbstract:Objective The aim of this study is to identify common usability problematic patterns that belong to top-50 academic websites as a whole and then ranking of these identified usability problems is also provided. Methods In this study, a novel approach is proposed that is based upon the integration of conventional usability testing and heuristic evaluation with data-mining knowledge discovery process. An experiment is conducted to evaluate ISO 9241-151 guidelines under 16-different categories by hundred participants who are frequent users of academic websites. After evaluation, the qualitative usability data is collected and different data-mining techniques i.e. association rule and decision tree are applied to recognize fully functional and problematic usability attributes. Identified problematic attributes represent common usability problems patterns related to academic websites from the qualitative viewpoint only. This study further prioritizes these problematic attributes by using the ranking algorithm that represents the order in which usability issues must be resolved. Results In this study, 16-different categories are considered for usability evaluation of academic websites. The results show that no issues are identified in two-categories i.e. {Headings_Titles_Labels and The Home_Page}. In Scrolling and Paging Category, horizontal scrolling is identified as a major issue whereas, in Internationalization Category, the users do not identify supported languages on most of the academic websites. Users do not find websites to be highly secured under Security Category. Our findings investigate that most of the issues are found in Search and Social Media categories. Furthermore, users easily locate 50.53% guidelines on websites as fully functional whereas, 49.46% of characteristics are considered as problematic usability features that are not functional on the academic website as a whole. Conclusions Identification of common usability problems at an early stage can lower substantially the development efforts in cost and time. Software developers can restrain from these potential usability problems during the development of novel systems under the same context. Providing appropriate solutions for these problems can become valuable in software development. The proposed approach concludes that conventional usability evaluation methods can go beyond just than testing of systems. The study is a milestone towards identification and prioritizing problematic usability features for academic websites and helps in providing the wholistic approach of usability problematic patterns for web-domain.
-
Qualitative usability feature selection with ranking: a novel approach for ranking the identified usability problematic attributes for academic websites using data-mining techniques
Human-centric Computing and Information Sciences, 2017Co-Authors: Kalpna Sagar, Anju SahaAbstract:The aim of this study is to identify common usability problematic patterns that belong to top-50 academic websites as a whole and then ranking of these identified usability problems is also provided. In this study, a novel approach is proposed that is based upon the integration of conventional usability testing and heuristic evaluation with data-mining knowledge discovery process. An experiment is conducted to evaluate ISO 9241-151 guidelines under 16-different categories by hundred participants who are frequent users of academic websites. After evaluation, the qualitative usability data is collected and different data-mining techniques i.e. association rule and decision tree are applied to recognize fully functional and problematic usability attributes. Identified problematic attributes represent common usability problems patterns related to academic websites from the qualitative viewpoint only. This study further prioritizes these problematic attributes by using the ranking algorithm that represents the order in which usability issues must be resolved. In this study, 16-different categories are considered for usability evaluation of academic websites. The results show that no issues are identified in two-categories i.e. {Headings_Titles_Labels and The Home_Page}. In Scrolling and Paging Category, horizontal scrolling is identified as a major issue whereas, in Internationalization Category, the users do not identify supported languages on most of the academic websites. Users do not find websites to be highly secured under Security Category. Our findings investigate that most of the issues are found in Search and Social Media categories. Furthermore, users easily locate 50.53% guidelines on websites as fully functional whereas, 49.46% of characteristics are considered as problematic usability features that are not functional on the academic website as a whole. Identification of common usability problems at an early stage can lower substantially the development efforts in cost and time. Software developers can restrain from these potential usability problems during the development of novel systems under the same context. Providing appropriate solutions for these problems can become valuable in software development. The proposed approach concludes that conventional usability evaluation methods can go beyond just than testing of systems. The study is a milestone towards identification and prioritizing problematic usability features for academic websites and helps in providing the wholistic approach of usability problematic patterns for web-domain.
Jennifer C. Coates - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
“He said, she said”: who should speak for households about experiences of food inSecurity in Bangladesh?
Food Security, 2010Co-Authors: Jennifer C. Coates, Patrick Webb, Robert F. Houser, Beatrice Lorge Rogers, Parke WildeAbstract:This paper examines the extent to which males and females from the same household respond differently to household food inSecurity questions, and explores the reasons for these differences and the impact for measurement. The data derive from the 2001–2003 Bangladesh Food InSecurity Measurement and Validation Study. Male and female enumerators administered the food inSecurity questionnaire to women and men in the same household during three survey rounds and debriefed a subsample of men and women regarding their response discrepancies. The rate of discordance in male-female responses to individual items was examined using contingency tables. Potential explanations for the discordance were informed by the joint respondent debriefing. These hypotheses were assessed through an examination of response patterns. To assess the impact of discordance on measurement, female and male responses to a scale of 13 food inSecurity items were compared and the degree of differential classification was assessed. On average the rate of discordance was 15%, but it ranged for particular items from less than 1% to upwards of 53%. Item content interacted with gender to produce discordance; women and men seemed to respond differently due to separate spheres of responsibility within the same household, power imbalances influencing intra-household food allocation, and because men seemed to take more psychological responsibility for ensuring the household food supply. Nearly one-third of households were classified in a different food Security Category using female versus male responses to the items. The results suggest that the household food inSecurity construct is not as useful in places like Bangladesh where certain food inSecurity-related manifestations are not collectively or similarly shared by members of the same living space. Individual-level measures of food inSecurity are needed to complement household data, along with surveys that allow for proportionate representation of potentially vulnerable individuals with different demographic characteristics across the population.
Anna C Holland - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Short communication The assessment of food Security in homeless individuals: a comparison of the Food Security Survey Module and the Household Food InSecurity Access Scale
2020Co-Authors: Anna C Holland, Matthew C Kennedy, Stephen W. HwangAbstract:Objective: To compare the Household Food InSecurity Access Scale (HFIAS), the US Food Security Survey Module (US FSSM) and a modified version of the US FSSM in which references to buying food were changed to references to getting food, in terms of their classification of food Security levels among homeless individuals, and to determine which of these instruments was most preferred by homeless individuals. Design: A cross-sectional survey. Setting: Recruitment of participants took place at seven shelters and from three drop-in programmes that serve homeless individuals in Toronto, Canada. Subjects: Fifty individuals who were $18 years of age, able to communicate in English and currently homeless. Results: The modified US FSSM assigned 20% of participants to a lower ordinal food Security Category compared with the US FSSM, and only 8% to a higher food Security Category. The HFIAS assigned 30% of participants to a lower food Security Category compared with either the US FSSM or the modified US FSSM, and only 10‐16% of participants to a higher food Security Category. When asked to compare all three instruments, the majority of respondents (62%) selected the HFIAS as the best instrument for people who are homeless. Conclusions: A majority of homeless individuals selected the HFIAS as the best food Security instrument for people who are homeless. Our findings suggest that the HFIAS is a more appropriate instrument than the US FSSM for measuring food Security in the homeless population.
-
The assessment of food Security in homeless individuals: a comparison of the Food Security Survey Module and the Household Food InSecurity Access Scale
Public Health Nutrition, 2011Co-Authors: Anna C Holland, Matthew C Kennedy, Stephen W. HwangAbstract:Objective To compare the Household Food InSecurity Access Scale (HFIAS), the US Food Security Survey Module (US FSSM) and a modified version of the US FSSM in which references to buying food were changed to references to getting food, in terms of their classification of food Security levels among homeless individuals, and to determine which of these instruments was most preferred by homeless individuals. Design A cross-sectional survey. Setting Recruitment of participants took place at seven shelters and from three drop-in programmes that serve homeless individuals in Toronto, Canada. Subjects Fifty individuals who were ≥18 years of age, able to communicate in English and currently homeless. Results The modified US FSSM assigned 20 % of participants to a lower ordinal food Security Category compared with the US FSSM, and only 8 % to a higher food Security Category. The HFIAS assigned 30 % of participants to a lower food Security Category compared with either the US FSSM or the modified US FSSM, and only 10–16 % of participants to a higher food Security Category. When asked to compare all three instruments, the majority of respondents (62 %) selected the HFIAS as the best instrument for people who are homeless. Conclusions A majority of homeless individuals selected the HFIAS as the best food Security instrument for people who are homeless. Our findings suggest that the HFIAS is a more appropriate instrument than the US FSSM for measuring food Security in the homeless population.