Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF EDUCATION in the Department of Educational Psychology of the Faculty of Education at the University of Zululand, 1996. / The aims are: To study and report on relevant existing literature pertaining to Zulu fathers' perceptions of their educational responsibility To undertake an empirical investigation into Zulu fathers' perceptions of their educational responsibility. To provide certain recommendations and guidelines so that accountable support can be instituted in order to meet the possible needs of Zulu fathers regarding their educational responsibilities.

Disability statistics are an important component of an informational base to monitor the needs and rights of people with disabilities within all spheres of life. The effective use of disability statistics is based on measures that are transparent and valid and where potential sources of sampling, interviewer or respondent error are clearly understood. This study investigates respondent sources of survey data error generated by three sets of existing questions on disability, as applied to adults in South Africa as a case study contributing to the growing work in this field at an international level. The questions are the Short and Extended sets of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics, and the Global Study on Ageing’s (SAGE) health state description questions used by the World Health Organization. Disability is defined as the outcome of the interaction between a person’s health condition or impairment, and the context in which he or she lives. The question evaluation considers: a) the wording, comparing asking about difficulties and disabilities; b) respondents’ understanding and interpretations of whole questions; and c) the association between various life factors and the type and severity of functional profiles. The study uses a mixed methods design comprising focus groups, semi-structured interviews, in-depth interviews that tapped into the thinking behind respondents’ answers to questions, and standard questionnaires. There were 21 focus groups located nationally, and 69 semi-structured interviews and ten detailed cognitive testing interviews at the Agincourt Health and Population Unit, located in a rural area in north eastern South Africa. The results provide insight into the performance of the questions, and, particularly, the need for revisions of the questions, potential respondent sources of error, and factors in people’s lives that are associated with different response profiles. The analysis of wording shows that asking about ‘difficulty’ people have is a more inclusive and transparent measure than asking about disability. Analysis of respondents’ understanding and interpretation of questions shows that questions on vision, hearing, walking and climbing, self-care and communication are well understood as intended, while the questions on remembering are misinterpreted in similar ways by a high number of respondents. Responses to non-traditional disability domains of pain, affect (anxiety and depression) and fatigue (or problems with sleep) reflect predominantly people’s reactions to living in adverse conditions. The measures provide a way to broaden the notion of who is counted as disabled because of functional limitations for statistical purposes, but the identity of being disabled remains a separate concern. The differences between measuring identity and functional status and the implications of these separate concepts is one area identified as an important focus of future research arising from this thesis. This thesis builds on existing knowledge by: providing strong evidence on the effect of asking about disability versus difficulty; illustrating the importance of question evaluation as part of validity testing and provide a further example to add to the growing literature on this approach; providing evidence on how responses to basic activity domains differ to those given to questions on feeling domains and the implications of this for how disability is understood in a low income and resources context of rural South Africa.

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis(D.Sc.D.)--Boston University, Henry M. Goldman School of Dental Medicine, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 161-166). / Purpose: To describe the testing of oral health outcomes measures. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of clinical and self-reported oral health in two samples of veterans: 538 users of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) outpatient medical clinics (VHS) and 278 veterans from VA’s Dental Longitudinal Study (DLS). Clinical data incIuded number of teeth, tooth mobility, periodontal treatment need, an index of root caries, coronaI caries, oral mucosal status and denture stability and retention. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) was measured by the Veterans SF-36. Oral-specific heaith-related quaIity of life (OQOL) measures included the single item seIf-report of oral health (OH1), the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP), the Geriatric (General) Oral Health Assessment Instrument (GOHAI), the D-E-N-T-A-L, a screening measure of need for care and the Oral Health Quality of Life (OHQOL) measure. Results: Self-reported oral problems are significant burdens on the health and function of users of VA outpatient care. Self-reported oral health, as measured by the GOHAI, is associated with the general well-being of users of VA care. VA patients have worse clinical and self-reported oral health than community dwelling men of similar age. Clinically determined need for dental care was universai in the VHS and present in two-thirds of the DLS. The OH1 and the DENTAL are useful in identifying who needs dental care in the combined population. Criterion and construct validity of self-reported measures of oraI heaIth (OH1, OHIP, GOHAI) are supported by their associations with selected sociodemographic, behavioral and dental conditions in users of VA care. Validity is further supported by the association with recency of dental care and reason for last visit in the VHS. Conclusions: VA outpatients have significant oral health needs as measured by self-report and clinical measures. Users of VA care have worse oral health than the general population. The OH1 and the DENTAL can help identify veterans who are in need of dental care. Longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate the impact of oral health care on general health and well-being and to estimate the resources needed to meet the needs of veterans eligible for care in VA.

This study investigates the psychometric issues and viability of cellphone-based-testing, a novel test administration modality whereby test-takers use a cellphone to respond to items on a web-based assessment. The study explored mode-dependent differences in scores from a web-based version of the Self-Monitoring Scale (SMS) administered across two modalities: desktop computer and cellphone. The selection of the SMS was based on several pre-established criteria. The instrument was simple and brief. Its text-based items included true/false response categories. Its rights of use fell under public domain and it had been previously validated for online administration. The study includes a comprehensive overview of recent literature related to the topic of psychometric equivalency and incorporates numerous methodological approaches to determine test score equivalence, including: comparisons of central tendency, dispersions, and rank order; the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of equal score distributions; the Pitman procedure for detecting differences in reliability coefficients; a confirmatory factor analysis of the equality of factor structures using LISREL; and an analysis of differential item functioning based on item response theory using BILOG-MG. The study employed a counterbalanced repeated measures design whereby 234 participants took an 18-item web-based version of the SMS using a desktop computer and/or a cellphone. The psychometric equivalency of scores from the two modes of administration was analyzed. All statistical comparisons provided overwhelming support for one general conclusion: There were no mode-dependent differences in scores on the web-based version of the SMS when administered by desktop computer versus cellphone. The study also explored participants’ attitudes toward using cellphones as a test-taking tool. The participants correctly anticipated that their scores would not be affected by using a cellphone, but they categorically rated the cellphone as less enjoyable, more difficult, and more cumbersome than a desktop computer. However, one cannot ignore the tendency of our modern society for being obsessed with information on demand. As cellphone technology continues to improve and the text-messaging generation begins to influence the field of educational and psychological measurement, cellphone-based-testing will likely become an accepted standard for both academic and clinical practice.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.