**Second regional workshop**

**Washington Group on Disability Statistics**

**September 19-20, 2005: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil**

**Purpose**

The Rio regional workshop was primarily directed toward countries in
Latin America and the Caribbean who are interested in including
disability questions on their national censuses. In addition, there was
interest in determining what countries are prepared to do in terms of
testing and implementation of the Washington Group questions and to get
feedback relative to testing plans.

**Participants**

Representatives from the National Statistics Offices of the following
countries took part in the second regional meeting: Antigua and Barbuda,
Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Haiti,
India, Mexico, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Panama, Paraguay, Peru,
Philippines, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, South Africa, Saint
Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, Uruguay and Viet
Nam. Inter-American Development Bank and United Nations Statistics
Division were the two international organizations that participated in
the meeting. Brazil, Ecuador, and Panama had representatives of people
with disabilities in the meeting.

**Summary of Agenda**

The program included an introduction to the short set of Washington
Group questions on disability and an explanation of the rationale for
the question set. In addition, testing protocols were presented which
outlined: the objectives of the test and evaluation plan; the plans for
cognitive and field testing; translation protocols; enumerator training;
sample design; and specifications for tabulation, analysis and report
writing. Also, there was a discussion about the approach of the
Washington Group on measuring disability worldwide and the applicability
of the test protocols in their country.

**Opening**

Eduardo Pereira Nunes, President, Instituto Brazileiro de Geografia e
Estatistica (IBGE) welcomed the participants and stated that the WG work
is important for social inclusion and policy development. Izabel de
Loureiro Maior, Coordenadoria Nacional para Integração da Pessoa
Portadora de Deficiência (CORDE) mentioned the change in approach to the
way persons with disabilities were included in the census. She discussed
that previously people with severe disabilities were targeted but now
people with limitation in activities were being included in order to
help them overcome environmental barriers. She urged participants to go
beyond statistics and explain them well in order to use them to support
positive policies.

**Summary of Issues Identified**

[Review work of the WG and UNSD]{.underline}

During the review of the work the key area of discussion focused on the
use of proxy respondents. The participants indicated that the number of
persons with disability will increase with the use of activity
limitation questions. Use of questions such as these will affect policy
implementation for example employment quota for persons with
disabilities. Another important question that was raised was on the
issue of level of severity. The discussion focused on whether to allow a
person to assess their own level of disability and what impact would
this have to the validity of the statistics thus compiled.

[WG short set of questions on disability]{.underline}

One of the key questions raised during the introduction of the short set
of questions was how can countries approach a complex topic such as
disability with 3 to 5 questions in their national censuses. Also, the
issue of permanence of disability and the usefulness of an introduction
were raised as was the issue of excluding certain disabilities due to
the addressing specific domains and not others. The restricted space on
national censuses and surveys and difficulty with cultural comparability
on learning disabilities determined the selection of a limited set of
core questions.

[Objectives of the test and evaluation plan]{.underline}

The importance of international comparability was emphasized and so was
the need for an international core set of questions that captures most
people with disabilities. At the same time there is no such thing as a
single measure of disability, it depends on the purpose of measurement.
The WG will do two types of testing, cognitive to identify respondents'
understanding of questions followed by field tests to see how questions
work operationally in the field. Different countries will do some things
differently because of the logistics, resources and state of the art of
collection of disability statistics in the respective countries.

[Question by question specifications]{.underline}

The issue of enumerators skipping over information provided in brackets
was raised as this creates ambiguity for respondents wondering if they
have to respond with or without use of glasses or hearing aid. Also, it
was bought to the attention that explaining the concept of climbing
stairs to respondents in various parts of the world would be a
challenge. Taking note of these issues the WG emphasized that it was
exactly for this reason that the cognitive and field testing were being
planned.

[Translation issues]{.underline}

One of the reasons for doing question by question specifications is for
translation. These specifications ensure a common understanding of what
is being asked in each question by the researchers, translators,
enumerators and respondents. The enumerators will be provided with as
much information as possible. The original document will be in English
and a conceptual translation will take place rather than a technical
(literal) translation. The semi-final questionnaire will be translated
(for the test) and again when there is a final questionnaire.
Enumerators would be given hand cards containing definitions and
specific instructions so they understand the objective and how to ask
each question.

[Plans for cognitive test]{.underline}

Clarification on cognitive interviewing was provided in particular that
it was not a survey but an in depth interview of 20-100 people.

[Plans for field test]{.underline}

Issues regarding plans for field test included training the enumerator
on understanding persons with disabilities. Country experiences
(Ecuador) of using persons with disabilities in the training of the
enumerators was shared. The issue of lighting and background noise needs
to better for everyone, not just people with disabilities. The need to
be opportunistic was also discussed in the context of field testing, for
example, adding it onto another survey. Since different countries will
have different opportunities in how they will carry out their field test
it is important to document what each country does.

[Plan for tabulation, analysis and report writing]{.underline}

Some guidelines on sample size for prevalence rates were provided. It
was suggested that it was best to use all severity levels and then
investigate different cut points. A sample size of at least 5000-10000
households is usually needed to obtain a decent sense of prevalence. If
countries do not have an idea of prevalence estimates then they should
do small test on 400-500 households to get some sense of prevalence. It
was highlighted that when using proxy responses, there is a risk of
under reporting. Hence it is always preferable to use self-reporting.
However, it is sometimes necessary to use proxies.

[UNSD Questionnaire on Human Functioning and Disability
Statistics]{.underline}

Participants felt that it is very important that disability is
considered as one of the major topics for inclusion in the UN
Demographic Yearbook. Some participants mentioned that their countries
do not compile date with the full disaggregation requested in the UNSD
Questionnaire. It was suggested that the questions on non-response and
refusal should state clearly whether they relate only to the disability
module or to the overall data collection exercise.

[Break-out groups]{.underline}

Explanation on the differences between the cognitive test and field test
was provided along with sampling and sample size. The WG is setting out
to test 6 questions. The field test includes these 6 questions plus an
extended set of questions. A purposeful sample (at least 200 persons
with disabilities and 200 persons without disabilities) is needed so
there are enough cases for quantitative analysis. For the cognitive test
the WG recommends 20-100 interviews using the questions provided.
Participants were asked to think about a way to alter question 6 on
communication which is deemed to be too long. The participants expressed
concern that in many countries the institutionalized population are not
included and hence the prevalence rates are not accurate. Also,
participants expressed concern over the exclusion of persons in refugee
camps.

[Wrap-up]{.underline}

-   A country's national statistics organization can become a member of
    the WG.

-   The WG meetings are held in English with no translation. Translation
    costs were not envisaged under the project "Support to the
    Washington Group Disability Statistics" funded by a World Bank
    Development Grant Facility.

-   If countries are interested in doing the testing some limited
    funding is available.

-   Countries were asked to answer the questions on whether they were
    able to undertake the cognitive and/or field testing of the WG
    questions.