1. Disability Cognitive Test: The Philippine Experience Presented by: Carmelita N. Ericta Administrator, PNSO 6 th Annual Meeting of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics October 10 – 13, 2006 Kampala, Uganda Question on Communication

2. 2 6 th Annual Meeting of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics October 10 – 13, 2006 Kampala, Uganda Outline of the Presentation  Main Thrust of the Test  Respondents  Dates and Venues of the Test  Interview Approach  Test Results  Findings

3. 3 6 th Annual Meeting of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics October 10 – 13, 2006 Kampala, Uganda Main thrust of the test Identify problems in adopting the core questions for use in censuses and surveys Identify problems in adopting the core questions for use in censuses and surveys Provide comparative results in administering the core questions to respondents and their respective proxies Provide comparative results in administering the core questions to respondents and their respective proxies

4. 4 6 th Annual Meeting of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics October 10 – 13, 2006 Kampala, Uganda Respondents 36 pairs of respondents (self-report and proxy) were selected: 36 pairs of respondents (self-report and proxy) were selected:  6 employees from PNSO-Central Office staff  15 residents from a rural village in the province of Rizal (55 kms away from Manila)  15 residents from an urban village in the City of Valenzuela (17 kms away from Manila)

5. 5 6 th Annual Meeting of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics October 10 – 13, 2006 Kampala, Uganda Dates and Venues of Conduct of Test ActivityDateArea Cognitive Test 1January 23 - 27,2006 Central Office – Manila Cognitive Test 2February 3, 2006Rizal Cognitive Test 3February 24, 2006Valenzuela City

6. 6 6 th Annual Meeting of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics October 10 – 13, 2006 Kampala, Uganda Interview Approach A partnership approach was adopted: one served as interviewer and another as observer. A partnership approach was adopted: one served as interviewer and another as observer. A respondent for self-report was to be interviewed first followed by the interview for the proxy report. A respondent for self-report was to be interviewed first followed by the interview for the proxy report.

7. 7 6 th Annual Meeting of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics October 10 – 13, 2006 Kampala, Uganda Test Results There were 31 matched self- report and proxy respondents.

8. 8 6 th Annual Meeting of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics October 10 – 13, 2006 Kampala, Uganda  Of the 31 self-report respondents, only 8 respondents (25.8 percent) experienced difficulty in communicating;  17 proxies (54.8 percent) revealed that the majority of their counterparts have difficulty in communicating; and Test Results

9. 9 6 th Annual Meeting of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics October 10 – 13, 2006 Kampala, Uganda  Most of the respondents and their proxies had no problem in answering the core question on communication. Test Results

10. 10 6 th Annual Meeting of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics October 10 – 13, 2006 Kampala, Uganda  Almost all of those who have difficulty in communicating (87.5 percent) claimed to have difficulty in understanding or being understood somewhat often. Test Results

11. 11 6 th Annual Meeting of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics October 10 – 13, 2006 Kampala, Uganda  Majority of respondents in self-report with difficulty in communicating (87.5 percent) admitted they exerted some effort in understanding or being understood. Several proxies observed their counterparts to exert some or a lot of effort on this activity Test Results

12. 12 6 th Annual Meeting of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics October 10 – 13, 2006 Kampala, Uganda  Proxies were more concerned for their counterparts’ ability to understand or be understood. Test Results

13. 13 6 th Annual Meeting of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics October 10 – 13, 2006 Kampala, Uganda Test Results

14. 14 6 th Annual Meeting of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics October 10 – 13, 2006 Kampala, Uganda  Most of the self-report respondents revealed that they have no difficulty in understanding what people say, and starting and maintaining a conversation.  Most of their proxies, however, have a different perception on this matter. Test Results

15. 15 6 th Annual Meeting of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics October 10 – 13, 2006 Kampala, Uganda Test Results

16. 16 6 th Annual Meeting of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics October 10 – 13, 2006 Kampala, Uganda  Most self-report respondents (87.1 percent) disclosed that they have no difficulty in making new friends. Most proxies (93.6 percent) also observed that their counterparts have no difficulty in making new friends.  More than half (51.6 percent) of the self-report respondents disclosed that they felt shy in a group or social situations. But about 65 percent of the proxies claimed that their counterparts were not shy in group or social situations. Test Results

17. 17 6 th Annual Meeting of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics October 10 – 13, 2006 Kampala, Uganda  The core question on communication is very long that some respondents were confused. Findings  During interviews, self-report respondents tend to conceal their poor hearing abilities that affected their ability to communicate, understand or be understood.  The tests showed the necessity for additional information on the respondents. For instance, the respondents tend to relate some difficulties beyond the health condition of the household members. In this case, some of the reasons the respondents cited were lack of education, language barrier, and attitude and financial “problem” towards a particular activity.

18. 18 6 th Annual Meeting of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics October 10 – 13, 2006 Kampala, Uganda  Question on Communication: frequencies generally differ between the self-report respondents and their proxies on the following items: Findings degree of difficulty in communication degree of difficulty in communication amount of effort exerted in understanding and being understood amount of effort exerted in understanding and being understood degree of concern or worry in the ability to understand or be understood degree of concern or worry in the ability to understand or be understood  Since the question on communication was placed at the end of the questionnaire, it may have suffered from inconsistencies of responses due to the length of the questionnaire and too many follow-up probes.

19. PHILIPPINES NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE P.O. Box 779, Manila, Philippines http://www.census.gov.ph