Chapter 5:
Unanswered Questions for Future Research
[ Main page of Report |
Contents of Report ]
While this report describes the approaches taken to define and measure material
hardship, more work is needed to answer several key questions related to
defining what constitutes material need, specifying a threshold above which
people are considered well-off and no longer in material need, and identifying
measurement strategies that collect data appropriate to determine whether
people fall above or below a threshold. In concluding this report, we identify
a number of unanswered questions that might direct future research.
-
What constitutes basic material needs for families with children, from a
normative societal perspective? That is, how do Americans understand and
define "basic needs?"
-
To what extent should material needs included in our discussion of material
hardship be universal or "absolute?" Is there an "irreducible core" of material
needs that apply to all Americans? Similarly, what types, if any, of material
needs based on relative circumstances (e.g., air conditioning in hot climates)
should be incorporated in a material hardship measure?
-
What are the minimum standards or thresholds for basic material needs? How
might the intensity, severity, and duration of certain conditions be incorporated
in these minimum standards? How would these standards be operationalized
in material hardship measurement?
-
Should the goal be to develop one consistent approach to measuring material
hardship for the entire US population, or should different approaches be
developed and adopted for different population groups?
-
To what extent do the indicators used in material hardship indexes identify
the same and different population groups? Are there instances where different
indicators used in hardship indexes measure the same construct (e.g., both
within and across aspects of need)?
-
What is the best approach to developing a hardship index? Should the set
of indicators used be based on sub-scales within specific aspects of need
(e.g., food security, housing security) or on a separate set of indicators
that are based on a single measure? Should the focus be on individual types
of hardship (e.g., food security, housing quality) or should the primary
focus be on a more global index of overall material hardship? In what ways
might the intensity and severity of households' hardship conditions be summarized
in a hardship index? Is there room for a categorical ranking of material
need, similar to that used in food security research?
-
Which SIPP questions have the greatest degree of face validity and are most
important for measuring material hardship? Are there questions on the SIPP
that have not been previously used, or only lightly used, which could be
incorporated into future research to improve our understanding of material
hardship?
-
What dimensions or aspects of material hardship, if any, are not covered
by the SIPP? What other data sources might be used to fill these gaps in
coverage?
-
What ambiguities or sources of measurement error exist among the SIPP questions
most often used for material hardship measurement? How might these questions
be improved?
Where to?
Top of Page | Contents
Main Page of Report | Contents
of Report
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy
(HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)