IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pwat00/0000338.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigating the suitability of dichotomous responses for the Water Insecurity Experiences (WISE) Scales using nationally representative data from 39 countries

Author

Listed:
  • Indira Bose
  • Joshua D Miller
  • Hilary J Bethancourt
  • Olga P García
  • Hugo R Melgar-Quiñonez
  • Rosana Salles-Costa
  • Mauro E DelGrossi
  • Scott M Miller
  • Tessa L Durham
  • Teresa Shamah-Levy
  • Pablo Gaitán-Rossi
  • Sera L Young
  • Edward A Frongillo

Abstract

The Water Insecurity Experiences (WISE) Scales have been validated to comparably measure water insecurity globally. The scales consist of 12 items that can be administered in approximately 3 minutes. There is interest in developing more rapid versions of the tools for when time is limited. One alternative is to use a subset of 4 items, which has been validated, but has some drawbacks. Here we investigate another alternative: dichotomous (yes/no) response options instead of the original four levels of frequency-based (polytomous) responses. We used nationally representative data from 39 countries to simulate dichotomized responses by collapsing the four levels of frequency (never, rarely, sometimes, often/always) into yes/no. We first explored if “rarely” is meaningful in the gradation of water insecurity, as experiences that occur “rarely” may not be affirmed with dichotomous response options. We tested item-by-item if “rarely” responses predicted dissatisfaction with water quality using logistic regression and found that they were associated with higher odds of dissatisfaction with water quality. As such, some meaningful nuance may be lost if “rare” experiences are not affirmed as “yes”. We then compared the predictive accuracy of WISE scores using simulated dichotomous responses compared to those calculated using polytomous responses. Based on receiver-operator-characteristic (ROC) curves and regression models, scores calculated using dichotomized responses had good predictive accuracy. Scores calculated using the abbreviated 4-item version were similarly accurate. Finally, we examined whether levels of water insecurity, as calculated from the original responses, could be classified using dichotomized responses. Using ROC curves, we found that this approach was effective, offering an advantage over the 4-item scales. While polytomous response options provide more detailed information, dichotomous responses offer the potential advantage of a quicker alternative for measuring water insecurity.

Suggested Citation

  • Indira Bose & Joshua D Miller & Hilary J Bethancourt & Olga P García & Hugo R Melgar-Quiñonez & Rosana Salles-Costa & Mauro E DelGrossi & Scott M Miller & Tessa L Durham & Teresa Shamah-Levy & Pablo G, 2025. "Investigating the suitability of dichotomous responses for the Water Insecurity Experiences (WISE) Scales using nationally representative data from 39 countries," PLOS Water, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(5), pages 1-18, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pwat00:0000338
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pwat.0000338
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/water/article?id=10.1371/journal.pwat.0000338
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/water/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pwat.0000338&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000338?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pwat00:0000338. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: water (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/water .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.