Performance of the lot quality assurance sampling method identify inadequately-performing areas with less than 10% misclassification error. The difference in proportion of misclassified areas identified by the LQAS method and HDSS was not statistically significant in any of the cases. Table 4 shows the number of work-areas identi- fied as adequate or inadequate by the LQAS method and HDSS data along with sensitivity and specificity. The table shows that, for BCG, 56 of the 57 work-areas were identified as adequate by both the systems. For DPT, 54 of the 57 work-areas were identified as adequate by both the systems. The remaining three work-areas were classified differently by the HDSS and LQAS method. For measles, 51 and, for family planning, 55 of the 57 work-areas were classified as adequate by both the sys- tems. In all the cases, the LQAS method had a very high level of success in identifying adequately-performing work-areas and a very low level of success in identify- ing inadequately-performing work-areas. 43 Table 5 presents the proportion of health areas classified as inadequate with a sample size of 19. This also has identified a statistically similar proportion of inade- quately-performing areas with a higher level of errors for measles and CPR. For measles, the maximum al- lowed number of non-immunized children—of 19 children—was four with a total misclassification error of 0.105. For CPR, the maximum allowed number of non-user couples was six to classify an area as inad- equate with an error level of 0.152. Table 6 examines the consistency between the LQAS method and the HDSS in classifying inadequate- ly-performing work-areas and the specificity and sen- sitivity of the LQAS method for a sample size of 19. It can be seen from the table that there is a very high level of consistency between the two methods for the ade- quately-performing areas. The level of consistency for the inadequately-performing areas was also low in this case. Table 4. Consistency between HDSS and LQAS method using the schemes used in Table 3 to classify 57 work-areas HDSS Adequate Inadequate Predictability of LQAS (%) LQAS DPT LQAS (n=15) Measles LQAS (n=20) BCG LQAS (n=15) CPR LQAS (n=26) Adequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate Adequate Inadequate 54 1 51 5 56 1 55 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Sensitivity=98.2 Specificity=0 Sensitivity=91.1 Specificity=0 Sensitivity=98.3 Specificity=Indeterminate Sensitivity=96.5 Specificity=Indeterminate CPR=Contraceptive prevalence rate; HDSS=Health and demographic surveillance system; LQAS=Lot qual- ity assurance sampling Table 5. Proportion of areas classified as inadequate based on 19 samples in the LQAS method and data from HDSS Proportion inadequate Method No. of areas DPT: 65-95% Measles: 60-90% BCG: 65-95% CPR: 50-80% LQAS 57 0.00 (0) 0.09 (5) 0.00 (0) 0.05 (3) HDSS 57 0.04 (2) 0.02 (1) 0.00 (0) 0.00 (0) Sample size 19 19 19 19 Statistics Z 0.86 1.23 Not done 1.11 p 0.39 0.22 - 0.27 Figures in parentheses indicate the number of inadequately-performing areas CPR=Contraceptive prevalence rate; HDSS=Health and demographic surveillance system; LQAS=Lot quality assurance sampling