**GENERAL REPORT OF THE COGNITIVE TESTING OF THE WCG**

**Contry**: MEXICO

**Institution**: INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTADÍSTICA, GEOGRAFÍA E
INFORMÁTICA, DIRECCIÓN GENERAL DE ESTADÍSTICA.

**Contact**: RITA VELAZQUEZ LERMA

**BACKGROUND**

As a result of the Fifth Meeting Washington Group (WG) on Disability
Statistics, INEGI decided to carry out the application of the Cognitive
Testing proposed by of the Group; the test was carried out from the
6^th^ to June 10^th^, 2006; in 82 households distributed in two
federative entities (Aguascalientes and Mexico City). In each household
there was at least some person with disability. The expenses of the test
were assumed by INEGI.

**INTERVIEWERS**

10 interviewers were used that work for INEGI, 4 were men and 6 were
women with some experience in the topic and in the realization of
interviews at households; the interviewers were distributed in the
following form:

The educational level of the interviewers was the following: 7
interviewers have concluded professional\'s level and the other 3 have
high school studies, all of them are Spanish speakers.

![](media/image1.wmf){width="4.161111111111111in" height="3.58125in"}

**TRAINING**

An interviewer manual was developed, where the objectives of the test,
the objectives of the questions, were precise. The instructions of
filled; the recommendations to carry out the interview depending on the
limitation type that the person manifested; recommendations for to carry
out difficult cases and operative aspects. This manual was the main
support material for the training.

The training to the interviewers was carried out in two days; during the
first, the instrument, its instructions and application sequence were
revised, in the second practical exercises of application of the
instrument were carried out and explanation of doubts were done.
Additionally it was carried out an exercise where each interviewer made
the complete application in a real home.

Finally a meeting was done where in the problems and suggested doubts
from the application were reviewed, the homogeneous procedures were
settled down to not affect the test.

**RESPONDENTS **

The observation unit for the application of the interviews was the
homes, the main condition was that every home must have at least one
person with disability; in total 82 homes were visited and 326
interviews were carried out. In average 4 interviews were made by home;
the average time of duration of the interview was 2 hours with 45
minutes.

In order to obtain the sample of home to interview, private and public
institutions that work with and for the people with disability helped
us. The distribution of the homes by type of disability was the
following.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.23125in" height="2.754861111111111in"}

As part of the instructions for the interviewer, considering the type of
disability that could have the person was included a group of
recommendations oriented to the conduction of the interview.

The homes were informed about the realization of the test and they
accepted to participate in a voluntary way, once selected the homes, an
appointment was established. They defined the day and hour they wanted
to be visited; we looked for that at the time and date of our visit the
biggest number of habitants were at home.

**The respondents\' profile social - demographic**

The results obtained from test are:-

**Interview type **

Each interviewed person\'s information was obtained in two ways: 

A.  **Self report**: when the interview was made directly; that is to
    say the informant was present at home and answered all the questions
    of the interview

B.  **Proxy report**: this report applied to all the interviews in where
    for any reason the person (respondents) couldn't provide information
    at the moment of the interview and a person of legal age existed,
    who knew the respondent's information. It was applied in the
    following situations:

-   In the cases where some member of them couldn't be present (by
    personal reasons) to do the interview, It was possible that another
    member that knew the information answered its information of the
    absent person, in this case the interview was codified like proxy
    report.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   When the person (respondents) suffered of severe disability that did
    not allow to respond the interview without help; in this case
    another person gave the information, in most of these cases the
    information it was provided by the parents or the person who is in
    charge of his or her care.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A third case was when the "informant" was a small child (babies and
    children under 6 years of age), who for obvious reasons they don't
    have the capacity to give its own answers, in this case near people
    as the parents, uncles or grandparents gave the information about
    them.

Unlike other countries; in Mexico all the interviews were made only
once.

Of the 326 interviews carried out, in 223 were the same informant who
provided their information (self report), and in 103 another person that
knew their data starting from a proxy report; the information was
provided it by a third person provided it (table 3).

![](media/image3.wmf){width="4.547916666666667in"
height="2.058333333333333in"}

**Sex and age **

Of the 326 interviews carried out, 46.9% were made to men and 53.1% were
made to women; The age group distribution shows that 16.9% the
interviews were made to children of among 0 to 14 years old, 14.7% to
people of 60 and more years, 23.6% to young population between 15 and 29
years and 44.5% to the population of 30 to 59 years.

![](media/image4.wmf){width="4.302777777777778in" height="4.4875in"}

**Education**

The last degree of study of the interviewed people was asked at the time
of the interview, 19,1% of them have equivalent studies of high school
 (average superior), 22,1% of them have smaller studies than primary
education, 14.7% declared to have bachelor's or master's degree.

![](media/image5.wmf){width="5.907638888888889in"
height="3.314583333333333in"}

**Marital Status**

The results of the test showed that the respondents\' 48.1% was single
person, 42.4% was living with partner, 4.9% were widowers, and the rest
was declared as divorced (2.5%) and separates (2.1%), the similar
distribution is observed as much for the men as for women; for the case
of divorced and widows the proportion is bigger in the women in relation
to the men (table 6).

![](media/image6.wmf){width="5.8125in" height="3.140277777777778in"}

**Main work status**

The question of main work status includes a group of activities that
allow to differentiate to population\'s group that carries out some
work, of those that don\'t carry out some productive activity (from the
approach of the active economic population); it is necessary to remember
that this question was made to the whole population without establishing
population\'s subgroup; for the case of Mexico, the age considered to
ask this question is the 12 years old

Table No.7 showed that 27.6% of the interviewed people declared that
they worked for money, 10.4% declared as self employed (they own their
business or farming) and 0.6% declared that they worked unpaid, in an
indirect way, one can conclude that of those interviewed, and 38.6% are
in the economically active population. By sex, it was observed that men
outnumbered women in the first two categories

![](media/image7.wmf){width="5.908333333333333in" height="3.175in"}

The other group of population is which doesn't work; the students
represent 26,7% of the total of the population interviewed and the
people stay in their house for some reason reach a proportion of 20.6%
and 2.8% declared not to work for health reasons.

**Household income**

Mexico is a country that has high percentages of poverty; due to its
sensitive nature this question was made until the end of the interview,
it was wondered for the total amount of monthly income for the household
in national currency, to the last one the conversion was made to Euro
and it was classified according to the table that proposed by WCG.

The results show that 24.4% of the visited homes had a household income
less than 150 monthly Euros. The same perceptual proportion was founded
for the interval between 300-150 monthly Euros. Both ranges concentrated
43.8% of the interviewed population\'s. The highest household income
interval that was identified was 2000-1500 monthly Euros. It was
declared only in one home.

![](media/image8.wmf){width="5.802777777777778in"
height="2.5076388888888888in"}

**QUESTIONNAIRE**

The questionnaire maintained its original structure in its English
version; but it was necessary to make some adjustments to the sections
to assure their application and monitoring. In general terms were made
three big changes to the questionnaire:

1.  A section was elaborated for the household where we included the
    list of people in the household, some data demographic requested for
    the household in the cognitive testing and another information like
    control measurement.

2.      It was necessary to make adjustments to the sections, when these
were related with the use or not of any kind of equipment to be able to
build the universes to which should be applied these specific questions,

3.      A section related to the disability topic was added, where were
included the questions of  type and it causes of the disability that
were used in the XII General Census of Population and Housing 2000 and
we incorporated a question for the age that had the person at the
beginning of the disability.

***First change***:

Lists of people in the household

For this section we used INEGI format to design its questionnaire; the
following data are those that were asked the home:

-   Geographical location

-   Place of the interview

-   Control of the household and questionnaire

-   Lists of people in household

-   Duration of the interview

-   Name of the interviewer

-   household income (monthly)

-   The obligation clauses and confidentiality

-   A section for observations

***Second change:***

Related with the original self report questionnaire of the WCG 

[Report type (self report and proxy report)]{.underline}

Instead of having two versions of the questionnaire (one for the
self-report and another for the proxy report as it appears in the
original version), it was identified the type of report by means of the
following box at the beginning of the interview:

![](media/image9.wmf){width="3.3333333333333335in"
height="0.8020833333333334in"}

In some of the questions about data of the informant slight
modifications were made to adapt the questions to the national idioms,
were used already proven questions  in the Count of Population and House
2005, the modified questions were the following ones:

[Educational level ]{.underline}

Original structure WCG:

2\. **How many years in all did you spend studying in school, college or
university?** Years \_\_\_\_\_

Adaptation for Mexico:

![](media/image10.wmf){width="5.748611111111111in" height="2.13125in"}

The last grade studied by respondent in this question was identified,
with the levels of the educational system that exists in Mexico.

[Household income]{.underline}

Original structure WCG:

5\. **What is your household income?** (See card) (J, C, M, F, S, K, P,
D, H, U, N)

Adaptation for Mexico:

![](media/image11.wmf){width="5.582638888888889in"
height="0.7076388888888889in"}

This question is considered by us very sensitive, for that reason it we
decided to use the question of the Census; we asked for the total amount
of income of the home in the month previous to the interview in national
currency and later the conversion to Euros was done and was classified
according to the propose table by the WCG.

[Construction of application universes (domains)]{.underline}

For every domain of the test and according to the sequence of the
interview, were constructed different subgroups to the interior,
depending on if they use or no aids or equipment; in these cases were
done a review careful and we decided to divide in sections. These same
changes applied in similar sections, the vision dominion serves like
example. 

Original structure WCG:

**1.** (VSVISION) **Do you have difficulty seeing, even if wearing
glasses?**

> **No,** **No difficulty** (0)
>
> **Yes,** **Some difficulty** (1)
>
> **Yes,** **A lot of difficulty** (2)
>
> **Can not do at all** (3)
>
> *No Answer/Don't Know* (9)

1\. (VSWHY) Why did you answer that way?

2\. (VSGLASS) Do you wear glasses all of the time, only for certain
activities, or none of the time?

> All of the time (2) Certain activities (1) None of the time (0) *No
> Answer/Don't Know* (9)

**[3 -- 4 Only if Respondent Reported Any Difficulty Seeing:]{.mark}**

3\. (VSDIFF) \[[Without your glasses]{.mark}\], how often do you have
difficulty seeing well?

> Never (0)
>
> Somewhat often (1)
>
> Very often (2)
>
> *No Answer/Don't Know* (9)
>
> **[Glasses wearers only]{.mark}:**
>
> 3a. (VSDIFFG) With your glasses, how often do you have difficulty
> seeing well?
>
> Never (0)
>
> Somewhat often (1)
>
> Very often (2)
>
> *No Answer/Don't Know* (9)

4\. (VSEFF) [\[Without your glasses]{.mark}\], when you are having
difficulty, how much effort do you have to put into seeing?

> No effort (0)
>
> Some effort (1)
>
> A lot of effort (2)
>
> *No Answer/Don't Know* (9)
>
> **Glasses wearers only:**
>
> 4a. (VSEFFG) With your glasses, how much effort do you have to put
> into seeing?
>
> No effort (0)
>
> Some effort (1)
>
> A lot of effort (2)

*No Answer/Don't Know* (9)

Adaptation for Mexico:

Due to the experience that the Institute has in questionnaire design, it
was possible to determine that with this structure proposed by WCG, the
sequence of the interview was difficult to follow and it was possible to
commit mistakes during the application, so it was necessary to separate
the sections in order to make easier for the interviewer the tracking of
the interview. Changes made the instrument a little longer but easier to
fill.

![](media/image12.wmf){width="6.3694444444444445in"
height="6.0777777777777775in"}

![](media/image13.wmf){width="6.370138888888889in"
height="4.631944444444445in"}

![](media/image14.wmf){width="6.245833333333334in"
height="3.404166666666667in"}

![](media/image15.wmf){width="6.247916666666667in"
height="1.0118055555555556in"}

***Third change: ***

Inclusion of a new section about Disability

Imitating the model of the questionnaire of the WCG, were added at the
end of the questionnaire the questions used in Mexico the XII General
Census of Population and Housing 2000 in order to identify to the
disability and the origin, including also the questions of the gray area
(Interviewer Coding), proposed by the WCG.

Also a question was included about the age to the beginning of the
disability that was proven in Mexico in a survey of health in the year
2000.

![](media/image16.wmf){width="5.835416666666666in" height="3.3125in"}

![](media/image17.wmf){width="5.835416666666666in"
height="1.601388888888889in"}

![](media/image18.wmf){width="5.835416666666666in"
height="1.7013888888888888in"}

![](media/image19.wmf){width="5.835416666666666in"
height="2.9923611111111112in"}

**TRANSLATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE **

The interviews were only carried out in the Spanish language, the
population object studied only spoke this language, and therefore there
was not necessity to apply it in another language or indigenous
language.

The translation was done by personnel of INEGI that has an appropriate
knowledge in English of the topic. The process to carry out the
translations was the following:

-   Two independent translations of the questionnaire were carried out
    of that the WCG send us.

-   A third version was built from the two translations. This was
    modified again when considering the concepts used in the ICF
    (International Classification of Functioning, Disability and
    Health), some tests were carried out to evaluate their
    understanding.

-   A fourth translation was obtained from the observations received by
    the expert personnel in the instrument design, and its doubts. We
    returned to the original questionnaire and the ICF to made the
    necessary changes

A small test to co-workers and neighbors were made during the second and
quarter version of translation, with the objective of identifying the
clarity of the concepts used and the writing of the questions, these
tests led us to modify some part of the questionnaires like writings of
questions and options of answers.

Additionally, it was carried out an exercise where each interviewer
would have to make application in a real home; this exercise helped to
precise especially some operative procedures from the application of the
questionnaire.

The main problems and difficulties that appeared in the process of the
translations were due to the meaning of some words. Some words used in
English questionnaire didn\'t correspond to those used in Spanish
language, like technical terms, regionalisms and own questions about
characteristic of the application; this last we consult it directly with
those in charge of the WCG, them specify some operative questions and
through the versions, we were adjusting and adapting to the Spanish
language to be able to receive the informant\'s correct answer.
Following a description is given of these problems:

*Questions for the interviewer*

-   In the shaded boxes of the original version said: * Did the
    respondent ask for clarification or qualify their answer?,* the
    literal translation of the verb *qualify* it is confused, for what
    the translation adapted in the following way: *Did the respondent
    ask to clarify or to confirm their answer?;* where the verb
    "*confirm*" gives us some evaluation or qualification that could
    make the informant of its answer

*Vision*

-   The term *Wearing glasses,* in our language only refers to the
    eyeglasses or glasses, we had to add the *contact eyeglasses* to be
    more explicit

-   In the question: *How concerned or worried are you about your
    vision?;* limits its global meaning, to be able to make reference on
    the abilities of the sense of the view, the word that were used was:
    *ability to see.*

*Hearing*

-   The question:  *Do you wear a hearing aid all of the time, only for
    certain activities, or none of the time?,* in the question are
    included the answer options, it was made extensive and repetitive;
    to avoid this situation, the first part of the question was equal: 
    *Do you wear a hearing ...?,* (with ellipsis) and the rest of
    question were left in the answer options.

-   This same procedure was used in the questions of the other chapters
    that were in the same situation.

-   In the sentence *\"In to crowded room? \",* \"room\" refer to a type
    of physical space (for example the room of a house), so that the
    informant kept in mind that it could be in any physical space, not
    alone a \"room\", this word changes by \"place\". The same happened
    in the sentence \"quiet room\", it changes by \"quiet place.\"

*Cognitive*

This was one of the chapters more difficult of all the considered
domains, as much for the translation and as for the application.

-   The expression COGNITIVE, is not a term that know all the people and
    besides includes several mental processes; therefore we decided to
    use synonym of two cognitive more important functions: the
    concentration and memory that are derived of the ICF (section
    Activities and participation, chapter 1 Learning and applying
    knowledge) and of the type of reagents that are included in the
    original version; also it's easier of understanding for most of
    people.

-   The expression \"older\" it was changed by \"age\".

*Lower Mobility*

-   In general more examples were included of the kind of equipment that
    the person can use.

*Self care*

-   The expression \"washing all over\" it was changed by the activity
    that implies \"to take a bath.\"

-   To know that specific movement referred the question: *Reaching out
    as if to shake someone's hand?* was it appealed the ICF, where the
    movement was identified (to stretch the hand) and by this was asked.

-   The question: Does have difficulty using your hands and fingers,
    such as picking up small objects or opening or closing containers?,
    it cause doubt if it really belonged to this block because it make
    more reference to the mobility of the members than to the self-care,
    it was also to look up the ICF to confirm their location.

-   In special, in this chapter were used expressions and examples as
    commonly the people name or know them (to go bathroom, to fasten the
    blouse, to bathe, etc.)

*Communication*

-   The problem was during the translation because the questions became
    too long sentences and this was so tired for interviewers and
    respondents.

*Health*

-   For the following sufferings were necessary to consult medical
    dictionaries and the ICD-10 (International Classification of
    Diseases):

1.  (GSCOND) Do you have any of the following conditions?

> **⁯**Asthma/breathing problem (1)
>
> **⁯**Arthritis/rheumatism (2)
>
> **⁯**Fracture, bone/joint injury (4)
>
> **⁯**Missing limbs, amputee (13)

*Operative aspects*

-   It was necessary to request explanation to WCG on which situations
    the Proxy report had to be applied

-   Some explanations were requested to WCG about if the interview was
    applied to all the persons at home, if there were a limits age
    (inferior and superior) and the reference period for some variables;
    these aspects are not including in the original version of the
    questionnaire.

During the process of translation of the instrument, the English
concepts and terms had to be adjusted and adapted to be suitable in
Spanish. In these cases, ICF was of great help and was consulted
frequently; the internal descriptions of each area helped to identify
with greater clarity the type of activity referenced by the concept in
English.

For to apply chapter IV Cognitive, in some interviews was necessary to
make adaptations to the questions; the reasons were the following ones:

-   the questions were difficult to understand for some respondents,

-   sounded repetitive, and

-   The questions were too long to the reading.

**QUALITY OF THE DATA**

The general comment of the interviewers was that the application of the
cognitive test turned out to be too long and tired because the same
structure of questions was repeated in each section (domain); the main
difficulties that they reported are the following ones:

**Section of general data**: in the questions about condition of main
work status and marital status is necessary to include passes to differ
and establish universes (according to the age) they should be carried
out.

**Core questions:** Some times the respondents didn´t wait for the
complete reading of the answer´s options and they answered something
like that: "I don\'t have any problem", "I can see well", "I can hear or
to listen well", I don\'t have difficulty", "I am healthy", etc.

For each section (domain) is necessary to put filters depending on the
respondent\'s age and their answer of the core question

**Hearing section (question 9.6):** *How often do you miss words in
conversation or on the radio or television because you have difficulty
hearing*?,  the respondent's interpretation was in affirmative form:
*How often do you listen well some words in conversation or on the radio
or television because you have difficulty hearing?,* in some cases was
necessary to repeat the question. For questionnaires in Spanish is
recommended to change the writing in affirmative form for to reduce the
mistake.

**Lower mobility**: When the respondent had some medullar lesion (kind
of sclerosis or severe problems of lower mobility) in some cases the
respondent showed surprise when we were applied some of the questions
that make reference to moving around inside or outside their home. It's
recommended to include filters for not applied the questions about
mobility (with or without using equipment). Of equal form happened to
the questions about the displacement ability (question 16.6 to 16.11).

**Self-care:** when the respondent was smaller than 4 years, he/she
could not be carried out the activity or was carried out with a lot of
effort, these answers were not indicative of limitation in the ability,
since they were consequence of her/his development level and growth; for
these situations is recommended to include filters.

**Questions proven in Mexico about disability**: In some cases the
questions turned out to be repetitive, the respondent since during the
course of the interview had deepened already on his/her limitation and
the causes of the same ones, this situation produced in most of the
cases, only the confirmation of the limitation

**Quantitative analysis**

With the objective to evaluate the relation between the core questions
and the identified types of disability in the Census of year 2000 in
Mexico, an statistical exercise of being able was made  the objective of
this one was to know the significant correspondence with its similar in
each case. In order to be able to make the exercise its relation with
the types of disability was defined in each basic question that could
have correspondence or relation; hypotheses were established, later the
statistical test of correlation was chosen and the hypotheses were
evaluated from the results. Following appear the results for each
domain.

**[Vision]{.underline}**

The relation of the following variables was analyzed to know if
correspondence between them exists:

-   ***VSVISION.* Do you have difficulty seeing, even if wearing
    glasses?**

-   **Type5 Are you blind or see shades only?**

Ho: The variables *Vsvision* and *Type5* have significant relation

Hi: The variables *Vsvision* and *Type5* don't have significant relation

Justification:

The question *VSVISION* has objective to know if the respondent
considers that some visual limitation has or not although uses glasses
or contact eyeglasses and the *Type5* measures the individual\'s severe
visual limitations.

**Vsvision \* type5**

![](media/image20.wmf){width="4.604166666666667in"
height="2.7395833333333335in"}

![](media/image21.wmf){width="4.114583333333333in"
height="2.1041666666666665in"}

The variables *VSVISION and Type5* have a **[high and symmetrical
correlation]{.underline}**, with **r = 0.868**. This result permit
concluded that exist a significant relation between the variables, Ho is
accepted (the variables *Vsvision and Type5* have significant relation)

**[Hearing]{.underline}**

The relation of the following variables was analyzed to know if
correspondence between them exists:

-   ***HSHEAR* Do you have difficulty hearing, even if using a hearing
    aid?**

-   **Type3 Are you deaf or it use hearing aid?**

Ho: The variable *Hshea*r and Type3 have significant relation

Hi: The variable *Hshear* and Type3 don't have significant relation

Justification:

The question *HSHEAR* has objective to identify if the respondent has
some auditory deficiency using or not a hearing aid and the *Type3*
consider if the individual has limitation auditory type deafness or if
it uses some hearing aid.

**hshear \* type3**

![](media/image22.wmf){width="4.552083333333333in"
height="2.7395833333333335in"}

![](media/image23.wmf){width="4.114583333333333in"
height="2.1041666666666665in"}

The variables *HSHEAR* and *Type3* have a **[high and symmetrical
correlation]{.underline}**, with **r= 0.770**. This result permit
concluded that exist a significant relation between the variables, Ho is
accepted (the variable *Hshea*r and Type3 have significant relation)

**[Cognitive]{.underline}**

The relation of the following variables was analyzed to know if
correspondence between them exists:

-   ***CSCOG* Do you have difficulty remembering or concentrating?**

-   ***Type6* Have you as some retardation or mental deficiency?**

Ho: The variables *CSCOG* and *Type6* have significant relation

Hi: The variables *CSCOG* and *Type6* don't have significant relation

Justification:

The question *CSCOG* has objective to know if the respondent considers
that has some difficulty to remember or to concentrate and the Type6
considers if the respondent has of some retardation or mental
deficiency.

**cscog \* type6**

![](media/image24.wmf){width="4.479166666666667in" height="3.125in"}

![](media/image25.wmf){width="4.114583333333333in"
height="2.1041666666666665in"}

The variables *CSCOG* and *Type6* have a **[weak and symmetrical
correlation]{.underline}**, with **r=0.327.** This result permit
concluded that not exist a significant relation between the variables,
Hi is accepted (the variables *CSCOG* and *Type6* don't have significant
relation).

**Lower Mobility**

The relation of the following variables was analyzed to know if
correspondence between them exists:

-   ***MSWALK*. Do you have difficulty walking or climbing steps?**

-   ***Type1* have you limitation to move, to walk or it does with
    aid?**

Ho: The variables *MSWALK* and *Type1* have significant relation

Hi: The variables *MSWALK* and *Type1* don't have significant relation

Justification:

The question MSWALK has objective to know if the respondent has
difficulty to walk or to go up stairways and the question Type 1,
identifies if the respondents have limitation in the inferior members to
move or to walk or makes with help.

**mswalk \* type1**

![](media/image26.wmf){width="4.59375in" height="3.1145833333333335in"}

![](media/image27.wmf){width="4.114583333333333in"
height="2.1041666666666665in"}

The variables *MSWALK* and *Type1* present a **[high and symmetrical
correlation]{.underline}**, with **r = 0.695.** This result permit
concluded that exist a significant relation between the variables, Ho is
accepted (the variables *MSWALK* and *Type1* have significant relation).

**[Communication]{.underline}**

Of the following variables, the relation was analyzed to know if
correspondence between them exists:

-   ***TSCOMM*. Because of a physical, mental or health condition, do
    you have difficulty communicating, for example understanding or
    being understood by others?**

-   ***Type3* Are you deaf or it uses an apparatus to hear?**

Ho: The variables *TSCOMM* and *Type3* have significant relation

Hi: The variables *TSCOMM* and *Type3* don't have significant relation

Justification:

The question *TSCOMM* has objective to know if the respondent has
difficulty communicate because of a physical, mental or health condition
and the Type3 considers if the individual has limitation auditory type
deafness or if uses some hearing aid.

**tscomm \* type3**

![](media/image28.wmf){width="4.614583333333333in"
height="2.7395833333333335in"}

![](media/image29.wmf){width="4.114583333333333in"
height="2.3229166666666665in"}

The variables *TSCOMM* and *Type3* presented a **[weak and symmetrical
correlation]{.underline}**, with **r=0.441.** This result permit
concluded that not exist a significant relation between the variables,
Hi is accepted (the variables *TSCOMM* and *Type3* don't have
significant relation).

For this domain, another group of relations of variables were the
following ones:

-   ***TSCOMM*. Because of a physical, mental or health condition, do
    you have difficulty communicating, for example understanding or
    being understood by others?**

-   **Type4** **Are you dumb?**

Ho: The variable *TSCOMM* and *Type4* have significant relation

Hi: The variable *TSCOMM* and *Type4* don't have significant relation

Justification:

The question *TSCOMM* has objective to know if the respondent has
difficulty to communicate because of a physical, mental or health
condition and the *Type4* considers if the person is dumb.

**tscomm \* type4**

![](media/image30.wmf){width="4.614583333333333in"
height="2.7395833333333335in"}

![](media/image31.wmf){width="4.114583333333333in"
height="2.3229166666666665in"}

The variable *TSCOMM* and *Type4* present a **[weak and symmetrical
correlation,]{.underline}** with **r=0.419**. This result permit
concluded that not exist a significant relation between the variables,
Hi is accepted (the variable *TSCOMM* and *Type4* don't have significant
relation)

For this domain, another variable relation is the following one:

-   ***TSCOMM*. Because of a physical, mental or health condition, do
    you have difficulty communicating, for example understanding or
    being understood by others?**

-   ***Type6* have you some deficiency or mental retardation?**

Ho: The variable *TSCOMM* and *Type6* have significant relation

Hi: The variable *TSCOMM* and *Type6* don't have significant relation

Justification:

The question *TSCOMM* has objective to know if the respondent has
difficulty to communicate because of a physical, mental or health
condition and the Type6 considers if the respondent has of some
retardation or mental deficiency.

**tscomm \* type6**

![](media/image32.wmf){width="4.614583333333333in"
height="2.7395833333333335in"}

![](media/image33.wmf){width="4.114583333333333in"
height="2.3229166666666665in"}

The variable *TSCOMM* and *Type6* presented a **[moderate and
symmetrical correlation,]{.underline}** with **r = 0.459** this result
permit concluded that exist a moderate relation between the variables,
Ho is accepted (The variable *TSCOMM* and *Type6* have significant
relation)

**Conclusion:**

-   For the core questions of vision, hearing and lower mobility and the
    question used in 2000 by Mexico for the same areas, the similar
    information is received; this gives reliable to both (core questions
    and the used in Mexico).

-   For the core questions of communication and cognition are different,
    because don\'t have high correlations, therefore they aren\'t
    reliable.

**RESULTS**

To analyze the obtained information of the test 39 tables were designed
to carry out the crossings of information among the variables, at the
moment we work in the analysis of the table. An advance of the analysis
emphasizes the following ones:

**Distribution for domains (core question)**

In the table 9 is observed than more than 50% of interviewed people
declared, for all the domains, not to present some difficulty. The
percentage more high is located in the domain of Self-care (88.0%) and
the lowest in vision (55.5%), it is interesting to observe as the grade
of the limitation increases and the affected population\'s proportion
diminishes, the highest differences are observed in the cognitive and
communication domains.

![](media/image34.wmf){width="5.909027777777778in"
height="2.348611111111111in"}

Another analysis type that was carried out was to cross the information
for each domain that people answered in the question about the general
health.

**Vision**

The relation on degree of limitation of a dominion and its condition of
health, allow of indirect form to relate the ability of the person with
the perception that it has on how this ability affects its condition of
health.

In table No. 10 a similar tendency is observed among people that
declared to have a little difficulty to see and those that have a lot of
difficulty, who consider as very good or good its own health; however,
when the difficulty to see is bigger. We did not find cases were the
interviewed person consider its condition of health fair or poor; when
the person declared that he/she cannot see, 60% of these cases qualifies
its condition of health like very good or good and 25% among to fair and
poor.

![](media/image35.wmf){width="5.89375in" height="2.7666666666666666in"}

**Hearing**

In the core question of hearing, it is observed that in the cases where
people declared that they had a little difficulty to listen, 77.1% of
them consider its condition of health very good or good and only 14.6%
like fair or poor. When the difficulty to listen is bigger, the
distribution is modified and 13% of them qualify its health like to fair
and 8.7% as poor. These percentages are increased in people that cannot
listen, 46.7% of them report a condition of very good or good health
and, 26.7% as poor.

![](media/image36.wmf){width="5.908333333333333in"
height="2.7784722222222222in"}

**Cognitive**

In people that reported to have a little difficulty to concentrate or to
remember, 41.9% of them qualifies its condition of health like good and
37.6% as to fair, in people that reported to have a lot of difficulty
the fair health category is increased up to 48.5%, an increase was also
observed in the category of poor conditions of health; for the case of
people that they can not remember or to concentrate, 50% declared a good
health and the other 50% a poor health condition.

We should not forget that this question was made to all the people and
that in the case of small children, it is possible that they answered
that cannot remember and to concentrate because they don\'t speak or
because its development level in not complete.

![](media/image37.wmf){width="5.907638888888889in"
height="2.848611111111111in"}

**Lower Mobility**

For the population that declared to have a lot of difficulty to move or
that cannot walk or up stairways, we emphasize that there were not
reports about excellent condition of health. On the other hand, 47.7%
people declared a little difficulty qualifies its health like to fair; a
similar percentage, is observed in people that have a lot of difficulty
and for the group of people that they cannot walk or to go up stairways,
20% of them answered to have a regular health and 26.7% qualified their
health as poor.

![](media/image38.wmf){width="5.891666666666667in"
height="2.745138888888889in"}

**Self-care**

This question presents the following complexity: it was applied the
whole population without considering that small children don\'t has the
development level to be able to take a shower by themselves; for such
reason, some of the answers of this category of \"he/she cannot make
it\" are affected by this situation. 

According to the results, more than 50% of people that declared a little
difficulty on their self-care, they qualify their health like very good
or good, 31.9% as to fair and 13.6% as poor; these last two categories
are increased for the population that has a lot of difficulty (23.1% for
both) and for the population that cannot do it (33.3% for both).

![](media/image39.wmf){width="5.904861111111111in"
height="2.7423611111111112in"}

**Communication**

As in self-care domain, it is very possible that some bias exists in the
communications distributions because it was applied the whole population
including the small children.

The results show that the group of people that reported little
difficulty to communicate so 40.0% qualifies its health like good, 44%
as to fair and 10% as poor; in the group of people with a lot of
difficulty, 37.1% has good condition of health, 44.4% fair and just 3.7%
poor; while, in the group of people that cannot communicate, 25% reports
excellent health, 50% to fair and 25 poor%.

![](media/image40.wmf){width="5.903472222222222in"
height="2.7784722222222222in"}

**CONCLUSIONS**

The detailed analysis of the results isn\'t yet concludes, is possible
to identify some aspects on which it is recommended to work.

About writing and definition of the domains:

-   The core question on **Cognitive** (**concentration and memory**)
    turns out to be very general, according to this inform, the people
    do not manage to identify in which context are used; additionally
    the writing is recommended to modify and to give a greater context
    and it will be easier to understand by the informant in a Census.

-   In **Communication** the question is too long and confuse for some
    informants (both versions, Spanish and English) although it was
    included examples for locate in the context of the same one.

On the operative aspects:

-   Some type of filter is required in order to apply the questions that
    determine which questions (social - demographic and core question),
    define those core questions that can present biases for the age of
    the respondents, according to the age of the respondents or to carry
    out the necessary modifications