General Statistical Office of Viet Nam

Country Report

Results of The Cognitive Test On Washington Group Disability Questions

Ha Noi-2006

REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF THE TEST FOR WASHINGTON GROUP'S QUESTION SET

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470827 .anchor}I. Introduction.

Vietnam is one of the first statistical office in Asia participating the
both cognitive and field test for the set of questions designed by
Washington Group on Disability Statistics. This is one of activities
that Viet Nam is carrying out in attempts to promote and improve the
disability statistics in Viet Nam.

The results of the test are very important in carrying out the goal of
GSO to apply a disability module in VHLSS2006 and in Population Census
2009.

This document presents results and experiences of General Statistical
Office from the test.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470828 .anchor}II. Methodology:

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470829 .anchor}1. Translations of questions:

Questions in the original questionnaire were translated into Vietnamese
language by a group of experts working in Medical Committee
Netherlands-Vietnam (MCNV) which carrying out on the health area in
Vietnam since 1986. After the first daft done by Ms. Huynh Huong Thanh,
Mr. Pham Dung and Ms. Anneke Maasre checked it as the checkers. They
were checking the English and Vietnamese version.

MCNV transfer the second draft to GSO. Mr. Nguyen Phong and Ms. Nguyen
Bui Linh checked the second draft. After the meeting with MCNV
translators to discuss and reconcile discrepancies, GSO had the third
version for experts to review.

The fourth version was used for training. During the training, the
participants reviewed and contribute for the fourth translation where
some questions were revised.

Here are the key persons for translation process from MCNV and GSO:

Mr. Pham Dung MD, MPH - CBR Officer - MCNV

Ms. Huynh Huong Thanh, CBR and IE Project Assistant - MCNV.

Ms. Anneke Maarse, Senior Advisor, MCNV.

Mr. Nguyen Phong, MA - Director of the Statistical Social and

> Environmental Department - GSO.

Mr. Nguyen Bui Linh, MA - Statistician, Statistical Social and

> Environmental Department - GSO.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470830 .anchor}2. Questionnaire

Questionnaire for the cognitive test provided by Washington Group with
some following changes:

-   The cover page: Adding ID code: Code/name of province, name and code
    of household, name and code for interviewer, date and time of
    interviewing, name and code of data entry operator.

-   Income level of household: Changing to the four categories to
    classify economic status of a household: Rich, about average, poor,
    very poor. The first two categories are fitted to the non-poor and
    the rest are the poor household.

-   Debriefing Interviewers: Keeping some blank lines for interviewers
    writing down their comments and notes.

-   Introduction to the respondent: It is revised for being suitable
    with Vietnam.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470831 .anchor}3. [Selecting
respondents]{.underline}

There were 134 people selected for interviewing from Ha Noi and Thai
Binh province. The respondents were selected purposively for specific
characteristics such as their gender, type of disability, various age
groups.

**[Ha Noi]{.underline}**: There were 87 disable respondents. They were
selected from disable associations through NGO - Disability Forum:

-   Deaf-and-Dump Xa Dan School

-   Ha Noi Deaf Association

-   Bright Future Group

-   Hanoi Disable Student Club Of Management College

-   Ha Noi Disable Club Of Students

-   Hold The Future Group

-   Hope Club

-   Integration Club (Hoa Nhap Club)

-   The Center For Art Vocational Guidance

-   You & I Group

For selecting PWD, GSO sent official letter to Disability Forum Viet Nam
to have their cooperation. From a list PWD provided by Disability Forum
Viet Nam, GSO selected PWD by types of disability and sex. After
selecting respondents, Disability Forum Viet Nam sent invitation letters
for the associations and for every PWD.

**[Thai Binh:]{.underline}** Thai Binh were also the province GSO
conducted the field test. There were 47 disable respondents selected for
interviewing. GSO and Thai Binh PSO selected purposively two communes,
one from Urban and the other from rural area. There were 6 staff of Thai
Binh PSO and GSO conducted screening survey to have a list of PWD. They
worked with Head of the villages to have the list of PWD in the
villages. There were 50 PWD selected from the two villages/wards.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470832 .anchor}4. Interviewers[:]{.underline}

There were 18 persons chosen to be interviewers and supervisors. They
were from General Statistical Office (GSO) and MCNV. 2 persons from MCNV
(two these ones translated English into Vietnamese questions) and two
disability persons (mobility), The appendix 1 shows the list of
interviewers and supervisors of the cognitive test.

Criteria for selecting interviewers were experience and professional
competence. Most of interviewers are experiences in household living
standard survey/census, in sociological surveys or in researching with
health/disability area. They had bachelor degree, trainings in
statistics area or social science. The disable interviewers have
contributed important comments for the results of the test.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470833 .anchor}5. Training interviewers:

All interviewers participated the one and half day training course
conducted in Ha Noi from 25/02/2006 to 26/02/2006. Contents of the
training course were:

-   Introducing with interviewers purposes and methods of testing,
    methods of interviewing and filling questionnaire for every
    questions.

-   Introducing methods of working with PWD by the two disable
    participants.

-   Practicing interview section.

-   Evaluating the training.

All interviewers had a half-day to learn experiences from Ha Noi before
interviewing the rest of respondents in Thai Binh province.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470834 .anchor}6. Selecting interpreters for
interview

There are 9 deaf persons who were interviewee of the test. Of which,
there were 6 persons (with deaf and dump) from Ha Noi sample. The test
used two sign-language interpreters to support for interviewing in Ha
Noi.

Comments and conclusion for using sign-language interpreters:

-   Idiolect of the deaf --and-dump persons are limited, so they were
    difficult to understand the words such as "concentrate" in the
    cognitive question WG3 (Do you have difficulty remembering or
    concentrating?) or "Health condition" in the communication question
    WG 6 (Because of a physical, mental or health condition, do you have
    difficulty communicating, for example understanding or being
    understood by others?)

-   In generally, understanding and answering questions depended very
    much on interpreters.

-   Proxy interview will be better in context of survey or census.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470835 .anchor}III. Implementing of the field
work:

The fieldwork of the cognitive test was conducted in Ha Noi and Thai
Binh province. All the self-report parts were completed before the
proxy-report questions.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470836 .anchor}1. [Hanoi:]{.underline}

87 disable respondents were interviewed from 25/02 to 27/02/2006. GSO
and Disable forum Vietnam had invited PWD (together with his/her
relative for each) going to the Disability Forum Vietnam's office for
interviewing. Interviewing respondents outside of their home had some
following limitations:

-   Founding some cases that PWD were flinched or shy of answering
    questions asked by strangers.

-   Not all invitees came to participate the interview because of
    obstacles of traveling or being busy with earning their living
    (especially proxy-response).

-   The space of Disable Forum Viet Nam's Office were large, each of the
    interviews were arranged a private table, however people with
    hearing difficulties might be interfered from 8-10 interviews
    carried out at the same time.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470837 .anchor}2. [Thai Binh]{.underline}:

47 disable respondents were interviewed from 3/3/2006 to 05/02/2006. GSO
had sent official letters to People committee of commune for their
supports for the test. GSO mobilized about 10-15 guiders to get to the
households (generally they were heads of villages). All PWDs and their
relatives (one for each household) were made an appointment from the
previous day by guiders.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470838 .anchor}3. [Length of an
interview]{.underline}.

Mean time for interviewing a questionnaire is approximately one hour
(minimum: half hour, maximum: approx. 2 hours).

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470839 .anchor}IV. Characteristics of the
respondent sample:

Of the 134 respondents, there were 69 females (approx. 51.5%); most of
respondents were belonging to age's groups of 17-50 yeas old (82.9%) and
average age of 32.4 years old. (See table 1).

Table 01: Distribution of respondents by age\'s groups and gender

  ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ----------- -----------
  ** **       **Sex**                                          **Total**   

              **Male**                **Female**               **Count**   **Col (%)**

              **Count**   **Col (%)** **Count**    **Col (%)**             

  **0-17**    5           7.7         5            7.2         10          7.5

  **17-30**   30          46.2        35           50.7        65          48.5

  **31-40**   13          20.0        12           17.4        25          18.7

  **41-50**   10          15.4        11           15.9        21          15.7

  **51-60**   4           6.2         6            8.7         10          7.5

  **61+**     3           4.6         0            0           3           2.2

  **Total**   65          100.0       69           100.0       134         100.0

                          48.5                     51.5                    100
  ----------- ----------- ----------- ------------ ----------- ----------- -----------

Source: Cognitive test of WG question

![](media/image1.wmf)

  ----------------- ------------- -------------------- -------------------
  **Table 2: Mean                                      
  of Schooling                                         
  years of                                             
  respondents                                          
  (years)**                                            

                                                       

                    **Gender**                         

                    **Male**      **Female**           **Total**

  **0-17**          6             11                   9

  **18-30**         11            9                    10

  **31-40**         9             6                    8

  **41-50**         6             10                   8

  **51-60**         11            9                    10

  **61+**           7             .                    7

  **Total**         9             9                    9
  ----------------- ------------- -------------------- -------------------

# Chart: Schooling years of respondents by age groups

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.542361111111111in"
height="2.7402777777777776in"}

**Table 3: Main work status of respondents by types of work and gender
(%)**

  ------------------------------------------ ------------ ------------ -----------
                                                                       

  ** **                                      **Gender**                **Total**

  ** **                                      **Male**     **Female**   ** **

  Paid work                                  23.1         22.7         22.9

  Self employed, such as own your business   26.2         22.7         24.4
  or farming                                                           

  Non paid work, such as volunteer or        3.1          3            3.1
  charity                                                              

  Student                                    15.4         21.2         18.3

  Keeping house/Homemaker                    3.1          9.1          6.1

  Retired                                    13.8         4.5          9.2

  Unemployed (health reasons)                6.2          3            4.6

  Other                                      9.2          13.6         11.5

  **Total**                                  100          100          100
  ------------------------------------------ ------------ ------------ -----------

**Table 4: Respondents by economics status of households (sellf-report
of respondents)**

  ------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------
  ** **               **Gender**                          **Total**

  ** **               **Male**          **Female**        

  **Rich**            6.3               3.0               4.6

  **Normal**          51.6              65.7              58.8

  **Poor**            39.1              28.4              33.6

  **Very poor**       3.1               3.0               3.1

  **Total**           100               100               100
  ------------------- ----------------- ----------------- -----------------

## Chart: Economics status of households of respondents by sex

![](media/image3.wmf)

**Table 5: Marital status of respondents by age and gender (%)**

+-------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| ** **       | **   |      | **Ag |      |      |      | **T    |
|             | Gend |      | e\'s |      |      |      | otal** |
|             | er** |      | grou |      |      |      |        |
|             |      |      | ps** |      |      |      |        |
|             | *    |      |      |      |      |      |        |
|             | * ** |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| ** **       | **Ma | **   | **0- | *    | *    | **5  | ** **  |
|             | le** | Fema | 30** | *31- | *41- | 1+** |        |
|             |      | le** |      | 40** | 50** |      |        |
+-------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| **Married** | 36.9 | 16.2 | 9.5  | 44.0 | 47.6 | 53.8 | 26.3   |
+-------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| **Widowed** | 0.0  | 1.5  |      | 0.0  | 4.8  | 0.0  | 0.8    |
+-------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| *           | 6.2  | 1.5  | 1.4  | 4.0  | 9.5  | 7.7  | 3.8    |
| *Divorced** |      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| **          | 1.5  | 4.4  | 1.4  | 4.0  | 4.8  | 7.7  | 3.0    |
| Separated** |      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| **Never     | 55.4 | 76.5 | 87.8 | 48.0 | 33.3 | 30.8 | 66.2   |
| Married**   |      |      |      |      |      |      |        |
+-------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+
| **Total**   | 100  | 100  | 100  | 100  | 100  | 100  | 100    |
+-------------+------+------+------+------+------+------+--------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470840 .anchor}V. Results:

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470841 .anchor}1. The results of six core
questions designed by Washington Group.

The Table 6 shows the percentage of people by levels of difficulty.
Percent of people with no difficulty is highest in comparison with other
questions and the difference between the self and proxy-respondents are
small. The differences between the self and proxy-respondents will be
analyzed parts bellow.

The percent of people who cannot do at all are around 1 to 9%.

Table 6: Number of obs and percentage of people by levels of difficulty

  ----------- --------- --------- --------- ------------ ----------- --------- --------- --------- ------------ -----------
              Count                                                  Percent                                    

              **No      **Some    **A lot   **Unable**   **Total**   **No      **Some    **A lot   **Unable**   **Total**
              diff.**   diff.**   diff.**                            diff.**   diff.**   diff.**                

  **WG1       54        31        9         3            97          55.7      32.0      9.3       3.1          100
  (self)**                                                                                                      

  **WG1       54        32        8         3            97          55.7      33.0      8.2       3.1          100
  (proxy)**                                                                                                     

  **WG2       72        11        8         7            98          73.5      11.2      8.2       7.1          100
  (self)**                                                                                                      

  **WG2       70        10        9         9            98          71.4      10.2      9.2       9.2          100
  (proxy)**                                                                                                     

  **WG3       51        36        9         0            96          53.1      37.5      9.4       0.0          100
  (self)**                                                                                                      

  **WG3       63        25        7         1            97          64.9      25.8      7.2       1.0          100
  (proxy)**                                                                                                     

  **WG4       33        29        31        7            100         33.0      29.0      31.0      7.0          100
  (self)**                                                                                                      

  **WG4       28        35        30        7            100         28.0      35.0      30.0      7.0          100
  (proxy)**                                                                                                     

  **WG5       65        18        10        5            98          66.3      18.4      10.2      5.1          100
  (self)**                                                                                                      

  **WG5       56        26        14        2            98          57.1      26.5      14.3      2.0          100
  (proxy)**                                                                                                     

  **WG6       43        31        18        1            93          46.2      33.3      19.4      1.1          100
  (self)**                                                                                                      

  **WG6       52        19        21        1            93          55.9      20.4      22.6      1.1          100
  (proxy)**                                                                                                     
  ----------- --------- --------- --------- ------------ ----------- --------- --------- --------- ------------ -----------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470842 .anchor}2. Interview coding:

The table 7 shows the results from three interview coding questions.
Here are some comments from the table:

-   The W4 seem to be easier for interviewer to understand (Do you have
    difficulty walking or climbing steps?): Percentage of interviewees
    needs to clarify the question is smallest in comparison with the
    other core WG questions (8.1% for self report, 2.2% for
    proxy-report), there are only 12.6% having any difficulty with using
    response options.

-   There are more than 80% and 69% interviewees (self-report and
    proxy-report respectively) asked for clarification or qualify their
    answer for the WG3 (Do you have difficulty remembering or
    concentrating?). It can be explained by the unclear meaning with the
    word "concentrating" in Vietnamese for people.

-   For the WG2 (Do you have difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing
    aid?), the percentage of self-report interviewee with any difficulty
    using the response options is highest in comparison with other core
    questions, but lowest with proxy-report interviewees (62.5% vs
    4.2%). The reason may be from (a) the sample selected purposively
    from disability, of which there are 25-30% people with some or more
    difficulty with hearing (b) people are usually difficulty in
    measuring themselves their hearing ability.

-   The table 7 and the following charts show that the percentages of
    interviewees that say "Yes" for three interview-coding questions for
    self-report are higher than proxy-report interviewees. There are
    some opposite impacts to the results: (a) It can be from all
    self-report interviewees are belonging to any type of disability
    or (b) it can be the sequence of an interview (completing all the
    self-report questions before the proxy-report questions). In Ha Noi,
    there was no impact of (b) because the proxy-interviewees waiting
    far from the place of interviewing. But in Thai binh province, It
    were not ensured that the proxy-interviewees were sitting far from
    the place of the interview because the interviews were carried out
    at households, they could be sitting beside or around and heard the
    content of the questionnaire before their turn.

Table 7: Percentage of interviewees need to repeat any part of question,
have any difficulty using the response options or ask for clarify

+--------------+----+----+------+------+-----+--------+------+-----+
|              | Vi | H  | C    | Mobi | Sel | Co     | St   |     |
|              | si | ea | ogni | lity | f-c | mmuni- | atis |     |
|              | on | ri | tive |      | are | cation | tics |     |
|              |    | ng |      | WG4  |     | WG6    |      |     |
|              | W  |    | WG3  |      | WG5 |        |      |     |
|              | G1 | W  |      |      |     |        |      |     |
|              |    | G2 |      |      |     |        |      |     |
+--------------+----+----+------+------+-----+--------+------+-----+
| **[Sel       |    |    |      |      |     |        | Min  | Max |
| f-report:]{. |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
| underline}** |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
+--------------+----+----+------+------+-----+--------+------+-----+
| 1.Need to    | 2  | 2  | 2    | 2    | 16  | 19.47  | 1    | 23  |
| [repeat]     | 3. | 1. | 2.81 | 0.17 | .67 |        | 6.67 | .53 |
| {.underline} | 53 | 49 |      |      |     |        |      |     |
| any part of  |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
| the question |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
+--------------+----+----+------+------+-----+--------+------+-----+
| 2\. Have any | 1  | [  | 1    | 1    | 13  | 13.73  | 1    | 6   |
| difficulty   | 5. | 62 | 6.36 | 2.61 | .89 |        | 2.61 | 2.5 |
| using the    | 45 | .5 |      |      |     |        |      |     |
| [response    |    | ]{ |      |      |     |        |      |     |
| options]     |    | .m |      |      |     |        |      |     |
| {.underline} |    | ar |      |      |     |        |      |     |
|              |    | k} |      |      |     |        |      |     |
+--------------+----+----+------+------+-----+--------+------+-----+
| 3\. Ask for  | 1  | 12 | 8    | 8.11 | 9   | 12.75  | 8.11 | 80  |
| [cl          | 3. | .4 | 0.77 |      | .35 |        |      | .77 |
| arification] | 64 |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
| {.underline} |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
| or qualify   |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
| their answer |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
+--------------+----+----+------+------+-----+--------+------+-----+
| ### P        |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
| roxy-report  |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
+--------------+----+----+------+------+-----+--------+------+-----+
| 1.Need to    | 1  | 6. | 8.08 | 1    | 4   | 15.46  | 4.95 | 15  |
| [repeat]     | 2. | 93 |      | 1.22 | .95 |        |      | .46 |
| {.underline} | 87 |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
| any part of  |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
| the question |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
+--------------+----+----+------+------+-----+--------+------+-----+
| 2\. Have any | 8  | 4. | 6.67 | 5.49 | 8   | 10.34  | 4.21 | 10  |
| difficulty   | .6 | 21 |      |      | .51 |        |      | .34 |
| using the    |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
| [response    |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
| options]     |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
| {.underline} |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
+--------------+----+----+------+------+-----+--------+------+-----+
| 3\. Ask for  | 8  | 6. | 6    | 2.2  | 4   | 14.29  | 2.2  | 69  |
| [cl          | .6 | 25 | 9.44 |      | .26 |        |      | .44 |
| arification] |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
| {.underline} |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
| or qualify   |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
| their answer |    |    |      |      |     |        |      |     |
+--------------+----+----+------+------+-----+--------+------+-----+

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.073611111111111in"
height="2.6465277777777776in"}

![](media/image5.wmf){width="5.083333333333333in"
height="2.6569444444444446in"}

![](media/image6.wmf){width="5.09375in" height="2.6666666666666665in"}

![](media/image7.wmf){width="5.104861111111111in"
height="2.6770833333333335in"}

![](media/image8.wmf){width="5.115277777777778in"
height="2.6881944444444446in"}

![](media/image9.wmf){width="5.125in" height="2.698611111111111in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470843 .anchor}3. The differences from
self-report and proxy-report and Index of Inconsistency

The following cross tabs between self-report and proxy-report shows some
problems with data:

-   The first, of the 134 questionnaires, there are around 34-41
    questionnaires without the answer for self-report and/or
    proxy-report core questions. Checking data we found a fact that the
    number of missing from proxy-report questionnaire is greater than
    self-report. The reason is from conducting interviews out-side home
    (at Ha Noi) and many disable persons came to interviewing place
    without their relative together with.

-   There were the differentials between the prevalent results from
    self-report and proxy-report. For example:

  ------------------ --------- --------------- --------------- -------------------
  **Table 9:                                                   
  Hearing: W2                                                  
  (self-report) and                                            
  W2                                                           
  (proxy-report)**                                             

  ** **                        **W2 (proxy)**                  **Total**

                               **Yes**         **No**          

  **W2 (self)**      **Yes**   14              1               15

                     **No**    4               79              83

  **Total**                    18              80              98
  ------------------ --------- --------------- --------------- -------------------

From table 9 we can calculate the prevalent rate of hearing disability,
they are 18/98=18.4% (for proxy-response) and 15/98=15.3% (for
self-report). (We defined disability for people with answer's categories
of 2 and 3). By this method, we have the prevalent for other questions:

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Table 10: Prevalent rate for six WG questions**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

  -------------------------------- ------------------- -------------------
  ** **                            **Prevalent rate    
                                   (%)**               

                                   **Self**            **Proxy**

  W1                               11.3                12.4

  W2                               18.4                15.3

  W3                               8.3                 9.4

  W4                               37.0                38.0

  W5                               16.3                15.3

  W6                               23.7                20.4
  -------------------------------- ------------------- -------------------

The disparity of self-report and proxy-report will indicate the problems
with the questions. By this way, we can indicate that W2 and W6 are most
'serious'.

How ever, the mentioned way cannot give us the deeper details, and we
haven't got confident basics to believe.

For this reason, we calculate the Index of Inconsistency (IOI) (see the
method in the appendix 2).

We look firstly in the bold cells (Aggregate IOI) to measure totally
(Table 11). From the 6 core questions, we have the three best questions:
W4 (39.5%), W1 (43.0), W2 (45.4%) and the most three worst questions: W3
(68.6%), W6 (54.7%), W5 (51.3%).

How we can explain the highest aggregate IOI of W3? They mean that:

-   Τhe question may be unclear. It may be from combining the two
    phrases: (a) remembering; (b) concentrating. It made interviewee
    have some difficulties to understanding the question.

-   The concept itself may not be difficult to measurable. Most
    interviewers and respondents feel difficult to understand or explain
    the word "concentrating".

-   This is a cognitive question; the proxy-report may be not selected
    well. For example: They are not the most closely with/ not
    understand the self-report, uneducated persons\....

-   Problems with training/manual training?

-   Too small sample.

By this explaining, we can explore data to find the root problems to
deal with. How ever, a part of the problems maybe from small sample.

Similarly, for W6 question, we can see that the question is too long for
people to understand: The respondents have to understand "physical,
mental or health condition" (not easy to understand or to explain
meaning of the phrase); then have to know the two phrases
"understanding" others and "being understood by others". The question
should be separated for easier to understand.

For W5 question, people can understand bias between "ability" and
"fact". Many children in the city are able to care themselves, but they
are always to be helped by adult or housekeepers so that they don't know
how or rely on others. In this case, people are usually answering: "oh,
difficultly, he/she can not do him/herself?" If the interviewer were
coding, he/she had made a mistake. This is also a problem of training.

#### Table 11: The Index of Inconsistence

  ------------------ ------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- --------
  **Vision: W1                                                                  
  (self-report) and                                                             
  W1                                                                            
  (proxy-report)**                                                              

  ** **                      **WG1                                  **Total**    
                             (proxy)**                                          

                             **0**       **1**    **2**    **3**                IOI

  **WG1 (self)**     **0**   **46**      7        1        0        54          33.4

                     **1**   8           **21**   2        0        31          49.4

                     **2**   0           4        **4**    1        9           58.0

                     **3**   0           0        1        **2**    3           34.4

  **Total**                  54          32       8        3        **97**      43.0
  ------------------ ------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- --------

  ------------------ ------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- --------
  **Hearing: W2                                                                 
  (self-report) and                                                             
  W2                                                                            
  (proxy-report)**                                                              

  ** **                      **WG2                                  **Total**   
                             (proxy)**                                          

                             **0**       **1**    **2**    **3**                

  **WG2 (self)**     **0**   64          8        0        0        72          35.8

                     **1**   5           2        4        0        11          90.6

                     **2**   1           0        5        2        8           45.1

                     **3**   0           0        0        7        7           13.6

  **Total**                  70          10       9        9        98          45.4
  ------------------ ------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- --------

  ------------------ ------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- --------
  **Cognition: W3                                                               
  (self-report) and                                                             
  W3                                                                            
  (proxy-report)**                                                              

  ** **                      **WG3                                  **Total**   
                             (proxy)**                                          

                             **0**       **1**    **2**    **3**                

  **WG3 (self)**     **0**   42          8        1        0        51          62.8

                     **1**   15          16       4        1        36          68.3

                     **2**   6           1        2        0        9           81.6

                     **3**   0           0        0        0        0           ....

  **Total**                  63          25       7        1        97          68.6
  ------------------ ------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- --------

  ------------------ ------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- --------
  **Mobility: W4                                                                
  (self-report) and                                                             
  W4                                                                            
  (proxy-report)**                                                              

  ** **                      **WG4                                  **Total**   
                             (proxy)**                                          

                             **0**       **1**    **2**    **3**                

  **WG4 (self)**     **0**   27          6        0        0        33          16.5

                     **1**   1           19       9        0        29          59.5

                     **2**   0           10       20       1        31          49.5

                     **3**   0           0        1        6        7           15.4

  **Total**                  28          35       30       7        100         39.5
  ------------------ ------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- --------

  ------------------ ------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- --------
  **Self - care: W5                                                             
  (self-report) and                                                             
  W5                                                                            
  (proxy-report)**                                                              

  ** **                      **WG5                                  **Total**   
                             (proxy)**                                          

                             **0**       **1**    **2**    **3**                

  **WG5 (self)**     **0**   50          15       0        0        65          45.0

                     **1**   5           10       3        0        18          69.7

                     **2**   1           1        8        0        10          37.8

                     **3**   0           0        3        2        5           44.1

  **Total**                  56          26       14       2        98          51.3
  ------------------ ------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- --------

  ------------------ ------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- --------
  **Communication:                                                              
  W6 (self-report)                                                              
  and W6                                                                        
  (proxy-report)**                                                              

  ** **                      **WG6                                  **Total**   
                             (proxy)**                                          

                             **0**       **1**    **2**    **3**    ** **       

  **WG6 (self)**     **0**   35          6        2        0        43          53.3

                     **1**   17          11       3        0        31          75.0

                     **2**   0           2        15       1        18          29.2

                     **3**   0           0        1        0        1           ...

  **Total**                  52          19       21       1        93          54.7
  ------------------ ------- ----------- -------- -------- -------- ----------- --------

By the above method of analyzing, we can look more details in IOI of
every category, explain and find the way to solve the problems.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470844 .anchor}VI. Recommendations:

The cognitive test and also field test is very important with Vietnam in
attempts to promote the statistical activities on disability area. Of
them, the most important activities are applying a disability module in
Population Census 2009. Here are some recommendations from experiences
of the test:

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470845 .anchor}1. Questionnaire:

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470846 .anchor}(a) Introduction:

The sentence: "*The next questions ask about difficulties you may have
doing certain activities because of a HEALTH PROBLEM*" should be added a
short paragraph to explain about "health problem" and some examples to
illustrate "health problem".

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470847 .anchor}(b) The questions:

The W1 is good enough. But the extension question: "Seeing the print in
a map, newspaper or book?" may have a problem with the illiterate, they
cannot read, so that they are usually answering:"No, I cannot read".

The W2 is good enough. However, But there a problem with the extension
question: "Do you have difficulty hearing what is said in a conversation
with one other person in a crowded room?" that we don't have "a
threshold" for a "crowded room".

The W3 need to be revised. The meaning of "concentrating" is unclear.
Interviewees usually asked for clarification or qualify their answer for
this question. We should break the questions to ask separately and
should put a specific example for "concentrating".

The W4 is good enough. But should change "climbing steps" to "climbing
steps of stare or steps of house". In Vietnamese language, we cannot use
the "steps" alone.

The W5 becomes better if put words to emphasize on "ability", other than
"fact". Also, need to emphasize these ones in the training manual.

The W6 should separate into the two following questions:

**Do you have difficulty communicating, for example** understanding **or
being understood by others?**

*If say "Yes, Some difficulty or Yes, A lot of difficulty".* Interviewer
**asks: Is it because of because of a physical, mental or health
condition?**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470848 .anchor}(c). Code of answer options:

Should use a set of a united codes for the whole questionnaire, for
example: Yes=1, No=2.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470849 .anchor}(d) Design format:

Regulate a set of fonts using in the questionnaire (for example, italic,
bold, capital letter, lower-case letter,) so that interviewers can be
easy to follow the process of interviewing and also avoid mistakes.

Also, regulate skip patterns to guide interviewers and avoid mistakes
made by interviewers. Skip patterns help for interviewers from repeating
unnecessary questions which causing uncomfortable feeling for
respondents.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470850 .anchor}(e). Design flash card for
interviewer.

There are many questions that repeating the answer options: "**No,**
**No difficulty** (0)" "**Yes,** **Some difficulty** (1)" "**Yes,** **A
lot of** difficulty**" "Can not do at all". "N***o Answer/Don't Know*
(9)". In this case, should design a flash card look like this:

0 1 2 3

No, Yes, Yes,

No difficulty Some difficulty A lot of difficulty Can not do at all

It make easier for respondents to select the answer options, especially
the disable persons.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470851 .anchor}2. About proxy-respondents:

In general, we need to research or test on impacts of proxy-respondents
to survey or census results. In many cases, the proxy-respondents are
better than self-report, For example: Too young or too old people, the
mental health problems, \... especially in the context of Census.

Need to regulate the minimum age for proxy-respondents.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc139470852 .anchor}3. The training manual and
training:

The training manual should be put more and more specific examples and
should present more clearly.

[I. Introduction. 1](#__RefHeading___Toc139470827)

[II. Methodology: 1](#__RefHeading___Toc139470828)

[1. Translations of questions: 1](#__RefHeading___Toc139470829)

[2. Questionnaire 2](#__RefHeading___Toc139470830)

[3. Selecting respondents 2](#__RefHeading___Toc139470831)

[4. Interviewers: 3](#__RefHeading___Toc139470832)

[5. Training interviewers: 4](#__RefHeading___Toc139470833)

[6. Selecting interpreters for interview
4](#__RefHeading___Toc139470834)

[III. Implementing of the field work: 5](#__RefHeading___Toc139470835)

[1. Hanoi: 5](#__RefHeading___Toc139470836)

[2. Thai Binh: 5](#__RefHeading___Toc139470837)

[3. Length of an interview. 6](#__RefHeading___Toc139470838)

[IV. Characteristics of the respondent sample:
6](#__RefHeading___Toc139470839)

[V. Results: 9](#__RefHeading___Toc139470840)

[1. The results of six core questions designed by Washington Group.
9](#__RefHeading___Toc139470841)

[2. Interview coding: 10](#__RefHeading___Toc139470842)

[3. The differences from self-report and proxy-report and Index of
Inconsistency 14](#__RefHeading___Toc139470843)

[VI. Recommendations: 17](#__RefHeading___Toc139470844)

[1. Questionnaire: 17](#__RefHeading___Toc139470845)

> [(a) Introduction: 17](#__RefHeading___Toc139470846)
>
> [(b) The questions: 17](#__RefHeading___Toc139470847)
>
> [(c). Code of answer options: 18](#__RefHeading___Toc139470848)
>
> [(d) Design format: 18](#__RefHeading___Toc139470849)
>
> [(e). Design flash card for interviewer.
> 19](#__RefHeading___Toc139470850)

[2. About proxy-respondents: 19](#__RefHeading___Toc139470851)

[3. The training manual and training: 19](#__RefHeading___Toc139470852)