Nationally representative estimates of food insecurity during COVID‐19: An investigation of the Food Insecurity Experience Scale in Australia

Abstract The purpose of this paper was to measure the prevalence of food insecurity (FI) in Australia during the COVID‐19 pandemic using the 8‐item Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES). Employing the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, Rasch models alongside a discrete method were used to investigate the severity of FI and robustness of the 8‐item FIES during 2020–2021. Our results indicate that during 2020–2021, 6.47% of Australians experienced moderate or severe FI and 2.93% experienced severe FI. Validation tests following United Nations guidelines show similar weighted and unweighted results and consistency with the discrete method. Infit and outfit metrics, alongside measures of reliability and residual correlations, were all within the expected range. We conclude that the FIES administered as part of Wave 20 of the HILDA survey was a suitable instrument for measuring the prevalence of FI at a representative population level. Although Australia has been measuring FI for 40 years, it has been characterised by measurement inconsistency, inadequacy and infrequency, resulting in insufficient data for policymaking. Reliable representative population estimates of the extent of FI in Australia provides critical intelligence for an effective policy response.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Australian Journal of Social Issues
Published
2024-10-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.375
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Food Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.55

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Nationally representative estimates of food insecurity during COVID‐19: An investigation of the Food Insecurity Experience Scale in Australia

Irina Grossman, Sue Kleve, Jane M. Fry, Jeromey Temple et al.
3 citations
Australian Journal of Social Issues
Food Security and Health in Diverse Populations
2.55
article

Nationally representative estimates of food insecurity during COVID‐19: An investigation of the Food Insecurity Experience Scale in Australia

Irina Grossman, Sue Kleve, Jane M. Fry, Jeromey Temple, Sue Booth, Christina Pollard
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Abstract The purpose of this paper was to measure the prevalence of food insecurity (FI) in Australia during the COVID‐19 pandemic using the 8‐item Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES). Employing the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, Rasch models alongside a discrete method were used to investigate the severity of FI and robustness of the 8‐item FIES during 2020–2021. Our results indicate that during 2020–2021, 6.47% of Australians experienced moderate or severe FI and 2.93% experienced severe FI. Validation tests following United Nations guidelines show similar weighted and unweighted results and consistency with the discrete method. Infit and outfit metrics, alongside measures of reliability and residual correlations, were all within the expected range. We conclude that the FIES administered as part of Wave 20 of the HILDA survey was a suitable instrument for measuring the prevalence of FI at a representative population level. Although Australia has been measuring FI for 40 years, it has been characterised by measurement inconsistency, inadequacy and infrequency, resulting in insufficient data for policymaking. Reliable representative population estimates of the extent of FI in Australia provides critical intelligence for an effective policy response.

Australian Journal of Social IssuesVol. 60(4)
University of Hertfordshire (GB), The University of Melbourne (AU), Flinders University (AU), Curtin University (AU), Monash University (AU)
Australian Research Council
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Food Security and Health in Diverse Populations
2.55
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.