Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 141, Issue 1, pp 95–110 | Cite as

A Proposal for a Model-Based Composite Indicator: Experience on Perceived Discrimination in Europe

  • Stefania CapecchiEmail author
  • Rosaria Simone
Article

Abstract

In social sciences the need often arises to compare and rank groups of respondents by analyzing huge amounts of data and composite indicators are amongst the most effective tools. The paper aims to design an original procedure suitable for ordinal data and able to synthesize subjective evaluations while accounting for both agreement and heterogeneity in response patterns. A composite indicator for ordinal data based on cub models is introduced: the proposal discloses and preserves the heterogeneity also at an aggregated level. Empirical evidence relies on perceived discrimination analysis stemming from the Special Eurobarometer Survey 2015.

Keywords

Composite indicators Ordinal data Heterogeneity cub models Perceived discrimination 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been partially funded by the CUBREMOT project (code: RBFR12SHVV) of the University of Naples Federico II, Italy. Authors thank very much Editor and Anonymous Referees for their critical comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Agresti, A. (2010). Analysis of ordinal categorical data (2nd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2011). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 476–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. André, S., & Dronkers, J. (2017). Perceived in-group discrimination by first and second generation immigrants from different countries of origin in 27 EU member-state. International Sociology, 32(1), 105–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baert, S. (2017). Hiring discrimination: An overview of (Almost) all correspondence experiments since 2005. GLO discussion paper, 61.Google Scholar
  5. Blommaert, L., Coenders, M., & van Tubergen, F. (2014). Ethnic discrimination in recruitment and decision makers’ features: Evidence from laboratory experiment and survey data using a student sample. Social Indicators Research, 116, 731–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Capecchi, S., & Piccolo, D. (2017). Dealing with heterogeneity in ordinal responses. Quality & Quantity, 51, 2375–2393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capecchi, S., Iannario, M., & Simone, R. (2018). Well-being and relational goods: A model-based approach to detect significant relationships. Social Indicators Research, 135(2), 729–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. D’Elia, A., & Piccolo, D. (2005). A mixture model for preference data analysis. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 49, 917–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2007). Tackling multiple discrimination: Practices, policies and laws. Directorate general for employment, social affairs and equal opportunities, Unit g.4. http://ec.europa.eu.
  11. European Commission. (2016). Special Eurobarometer 437, Discrimination in EU, Brussels.Google Scholar
  12. E.U. Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2011). Handbook on European non-discrimination law, European Court of Human Rights. http://fra.europa.eu.
  13. Fattore, M. (2016). Partially ordered sets and the measurement of multidimensional ordinal deprivation. Social Indicators Research, 128, 835–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fattore, M., & Maggino, F. (2014). Partial orders in socio-economics: A practical challenge for poset theorists or a cultural challenge for social scientists? In R. Bruggemann, L. Carlsen, & J. Wittmann (Eds.), Multi-indicator systems and modelling in partial order. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Fattore, M., & Maggino, F. (2017). Some considerations on well-being evaluation procedures, taking the cue from .“Exploring multidimensional well-being Switzerland: Comparing three synthesizing approaches”. Social Indicators Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1634-0.
  16. Fattore, M., Maggino, F., & Arcagni, A. (2015). Exploiting ordinal data for subjective well-being evaluation. The Measurement of Subjective Well-Being in Survey Research, 16(3), 409–428.Google Scholar
  17. Fattore, M., Maggino, F., & Colombo, E. (2012). From composite indicators to partial order: Evaluating socio-economic phenomena through ordinal data. In F. Maggino & G. Nuvolati (Eds.), Quality of life in Italy: Research and reflections. Social indicators research series 48, New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Firat, R. B. (2016). Discrimination and well-being: The moderating effects of agentic value orientations. Social Indicators Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1425-z.Google Scholar
  19. Giambona, F., & Vassallo, E. (2014). Composite indicator of social inclusion for European countries. Social Indicators Research, 116, 269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greenacre, M. J. (1993). Correspondence analysis in practice. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Iannario, M. (2010). On the identificability of a mixture model for ordinal data. METRON, LXVIII, 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Iannario, M. (2014). Modelling uncertainty and overdispersion in ordinal data. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 43, 771–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iannario, M., & Piccolo, D. (2014). Inference for CUB models: A program in R. Statistica & Applicazioni, XII, 177–204.Google Scholar
  24. Iannario, M., & Piccolo, D. (2016a). A comprehensive framework of regression models for ordinal data. METRON, 74, 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Iannario, M., & Piccolo, D. (2016b). A generalized framework for modelling ordinal data. Statistical Methods and Applications, 25, 163–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Iannario, M., Piccolo, D., & Simone, R. (2017). CUB: A class of mixture models for ordinal data. R package version 1.1.1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=CUB.
  27. Johnson, R., & Wichern, D. W. (2013). Applied multivariate statistical analysis (6th ed.). Pearson: Pearson New International Edition.Google Scholar
  28. Lauro, N. C., Grassia, M. G., & Cataldo, R. (2016). Model based composite indicators: New developments in partial least squares-path modeling for the building of different types of composite indicators. Social Indicators Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1516-x.Google Scholar
  29. Maggino, F. (2016). Challenges, needs and risks in defining well-being indicators. In F. Maggino (Ed.), A life devoted to quality of life. Festschrift in honor of Alex C. Michalos (pp. 209–233). Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maggino, F. (2009). The state of the art on indicators construction in the perspective of a comprehensive approach in measuring well-being of societies. Archivio E-Prints, Firenze: Firenze University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Manly, B. (1994). Multivariate statistical methods. London: Champamn & Hall.Google Scholar
  32. Mazziotta, M., & Pareto, A. (2016). Methods for constructing non-compensatory composite indices: A comparative study. Forum for Social Economics, 45(2–3), 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McLachlan, G. (2004). Discriminant analysis and statistical pattern recognition., Wiley series in probability and statistics New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Molero, F., Recio, P., Garcia-Ael, C., Fuster, M. J., & Sanjuan, P. (2013). Measuring dimensions of perceived discrimination in five stigmatized groups. Social Indicators Research, 114, 901–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., & Giovannini, E. (2005). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide, OECD statistics working paper. Revised edition, 2008.Google Scholar
  36. OECD. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators, Methodology and user guide, OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  37. Pascoe, E. A., & Richman, L. S. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 531–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Piccolo, D. (2003). On the moments of a mixture of uniform and shifted binomial random variables. Quaderni di Statistica, 5, 85–104.Google Scholar
  39. Piccolo, D. (2006). Observed information matrix for MUB models. Quaderni di Statistica, 8, 33–78.Google Scholar
  40. Piccolo, D. (2015). Inferential issues on CUBE models with covariates. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 44, 771–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Punzo, G., Castellano, R., & Buonocore, M. (2017). Job satisfaction in the “Big Four” of Europe: Reasoning between feeling and uncertainty through CUB models. Social Indicators Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1715-0.
  42. Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 168(2), 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simone, R., & Tutz, G. (2017). Dealing with response styles in finite mixture models. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Workshop on Statistical Modelling (pp. 223–228). Groningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  44. Tutz, G. (2012). Regression for categorical data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Zanarotti, M. C., & Pagani, L. (2015). Some considerations to carry out a composite indicator for ordinal data. Electronic Journal of Applied Statistical Analysis, 8(3), 384–397.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political SciencesUniversity of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations