Search

Recent study shows that 617 million children and adolescents–or six out of 10 globally- are not acquiring minimum levels in literacy and mathematics, indicating the magnitude of the learning acquisition problem. For children with disabilities in context of conflict, the situation is arguably even worse: the literature shows that they face difficulties to access the education system due to multiple barriers, and when they do access, they are not learning. Our paper examines if an active education policy promoting inclusion since 2005 in Afghanistan, a protracted crisis context, has been effective. Using two cross sectional household surveys carried out eight years apart (2005–2013), our study shows that access to school and literacy did not improve between 2005 and 2013 for children and youth with disabilities. Both access and literacy outcomes were worse for girls with disabilities, those with a mental, learning or associated disability and those living in household where the head was uneducated. Finally, odds of being mentally distressed significantly declined between 2005 and 2013 indicating that schools might play a protective role for children with disabilities in Afghanistan. Our findings suggest that a multilevel multi-pronged adaptation of the existing system to improve the learning experience and promote children’s resilience, particularly for children with disabilities, in conflict context such as Afghanistan, is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the new Sustainable Development Goal 4, quality of education defined as equity and inclusion alongside traditional learning outcomes, has replaced the narrow goal of access to primary education stipulated in the Millennium Development Goal 2. Since 2000, considerable progress has been made towards improving access to school for children in India, yet questions remain regarding not just children with disabilities’ access and acquisition of basic learning skills, but also completion of learning cycles. Methods and findings: Between November, 2, 2011 and June 20th 2012, we interviewed 1294 households about activity limitations and functioning difficulties associated with a health problem among all family members using a validated screening instruments, as well as questions about access, retention and barriers to education. We found that vulnerable children, particularly children with disabilities are less likely to start school and more likely to drop out of school earlier and before completing their high school education than non-disabled children, showing that the learning process is not inclusive in practice. The gap is wider for girls, economically deprived children, or children from households where the head is uneducated. Conclusions: Firstly, in order to fill the existing knowledge gap on education of children with disabilities in line with SDG4, not only is there a necessity for relevant data with regards to learning outcomes, but also an urgent requirement for more innovative information pertaining to relational aspects of learning that reflect inclusion. Secondly, a stronger understanding of the implications of early assessment would further promote equity in education. Finally, research should tackle learning as a complex and dynamic phenomenon. Education needs to fulfil its instrumental value, but must also re-claim its intrinsic value that often gets watered down in the journey from policies to implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although 80% of persons with disabilities live in low and middle-income countries, there is still a lack of comprehensive, cross-culturally validated tools to identify persons facing activity limitations and functioning difficulties in these settings. In absence of such a tool, disability estimates vary considerably according to the methodology used, and policies are based on unreliable estimates. Methods and Findings: The Disability Screening Questionnaire composed of 27 items (DSQ-27) was initially designed by a group of international experts in survey development and disability in Afghanistan for a national survey. Items were selected based on major domains of activity limitations and functioning difficulties linked to an impairment as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Face, content and construct validity, as well as sensitivity and specificity were examined. Based on the results obtained, the tool was subsequently refined and expanded to 34 items, tested and validated in Darfur, Sudan. Internal consistency for the total DSQ-34 using a raw and standardized Cronbach’s Alpha and within each domain using a standardized Cronbach’s Alpha was examined in the Asian context (India and Nepal). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factoring (PAF) evaluated the lowest number of factors to account for the common variance among the questions in the screen. Test-retest reliability was determined by calculating intraclass correlation (ICC) and inter-rater reliability by calculating the kappa statistic; results were checked using Bland-Altman plots. The DSQ-34 was further tested for standard error of measurement (SEM) and for the minimum detectable change (MDC). Good internal consistency was indicated by Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.83/0.82 for India and 0.76/0.78 for Nepal. We confirmed our assumption for EFA using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling well above the accepted cutoff of 0.40 for India (0.82) and Nepal (0.82). The criteria for Bartlett’s test of sphericity were also met for both India (< .001) and Nepal (< .001). Estimates of reliability from the two countries reached acceptable levels of ICC of 0.75 (p<0.001) for India of 0.77 for Nepal (p<0.001) and good strength of agreement for weighted kappa (respectively 0.77 and 0.79). The SEM/MDC was 0.80/2.22 for India and 0.96/2.66 for Nepal indicating a smaller amount of measurement error in the screen. Conclusions: In Nepal and India, the DSQ-34 shows strong psychometric properties that indicate that it effectively discriminates between persons with and without disabilities. This instrument can be used in association with other instruments for the purpose of comparing health outcomes of persons with and without disabilities in LMICs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]