Validity and Reliability Analysis of the Household Water Insecurity Experiences Scale: The Case of Argentina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. Evaluate the validity and reliability of the Household Water Insecurity Experiences Scale (HWISE) as a tool to assess the experiences of households and the Argentine population regarding insecurity in access to water. Material and methods. The scale was administered as part of the Argentine Social Debt Survey (EDSA), on a probabilistic sample of 5,799 households. Results. The HWISE scale proved to be reliable globally and in each of its items (Cronbach's Alpha of 0.95 at a total level and greater than 0.94 in each of the items), and criterion validity in terms of correlation with a broad set of indicators of social deprivations, sanitary infrastructure, food insecurity, and psychological health. Finally, the scale showed internal consistency, with a total Omega coefficient value of 0.96, suggesting that all scale indicators refer to the same concept of deprivation in water access. Conclusions. The HWISE scale applied to the case of Argentina is deemed appropriate for estimating household water insecurity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".