We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To examine the cross-sectional and inter-temporal validity of the Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) for rural households in Burundi.
Design
Longitudinal survey about food security and agricultural production, individually administered by trained interviewers in June 2007 and 2012.
Setting
Ngozi, north of Burundi.
Subjects
Three hundred and fourteen household heads were interviewed.
Results
Tobit models showed that the HFIAS was significantly correlated with objective measures of food security, in this case total annual food production (P<0·01), livestock keeping (P<0·01) and coffee production (P<0·01) in both 2007 and 2012. This confirms that the HFIAS is cross-sectionally valid and corroborates the findings of previous studies. However, while total food production decreased by more than 25 % in terms of energy between 2007 and 2012, households reported an improvement in their perceived food security over the same period, with the HFIAS decreasing from 13·9 to 10·8 (P<0·001). This finding questions the inter-temporal validity of the HFIAS. It may be partly explained through response shifts, in which households assess their own food security status in comparison to that of their peers.
Conclusions
The evidence from our study suggests that the HFIAS is cross-sectionally valid, but may not be inter-temporally valid, and should not be used as a single indicator to study temporal trends in food security.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.