Table 1.

Summary of characterization of experience-based food security indicators

Indicators	Description/method	Recall period	Level of analysis	Dimension covered	Components covered	Possible purpose	Validity and Reliability	Data requirement and availability	Strengths and weaknesses
Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM) (Bickel [111])	Measures households’ experience of FI using 18-item questionnaire (the 8 questions only for households with children) Used to monitor FS in USA Categorical scale based on the sum of affirmative responses (4 categories) -Continuous scale (0–9.3) based on a Rasch model with cut-off points	1 year; 1 month possible	Household	Access	Quantity, perceived quality	- Estimate FI prevalence - Monitor trends in FI at national level Program monitoring, evaluation and targeting	Valid and reliable [10], Gulliford et al. [17])	Can be collected using the 18-items questionnaire	-It is simple to implement, and has also a validated short version with 6-questions. It does not quantify/assess ‘actual’ food consumption, and diet quality
Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) (FAO [18])	Measures individual’s experience of FI using an 8-item questionnaire Used by FAO to monitor global FS Categorical scale based on the sum of affirmative responses (4 categories) Continuous scale based on a Rasch model with cut-off points	1 year	Individual	Access	Quantity, perceived quality	Estimate prevalence of FI FS monitoring at global (SDG) and national levels Program monitoring and evaluation	Valid and reliable	Can be collected via the 8-items questionnaire For most countries data is available from FAO’s survey via Gallup Inc	Comparable FS estimates across countries/cultures/sub-populations; FAO provides software program and learning materials for computing FIES. Yet, FIES is complicated for non-specialists, does not quantify the ‘actual’ food consumption and diet quality, does not measure child FS
Household Food Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) (Coates et al. [112])	Measures households’ experience of FI using a 9-item questionnaire Categorical scale derived from the affirmative responses (4 categories) Continuous scale can also be derived based on a Rasch model	4 weeks	Household	Access	Quantity, perceived quality, Preference	Monitoring and evaluation of FS programs, Targeting Estimate FI prevalence	Valid and reliable [10]’ [20],	Can be collected via the 9-items questionnaire	It has a specific question about the ‘food preference’ component; straightforward to apply. Yet, it does not quantify the ‘actual’ food consumption and diet quality
Latin American and Caribbean Household Food Security Scale (ELCSA) [10], FAO [21])	Adapted from HFSSM to measure households’ experience of FI using a 15-item questionnaire (the 7 are questions only for households with children) Categorical scale based on the sum of affirmative responses (4 categories) Continuous scale based on a Rasch model with cut-off points	3 months	Household	Access	Quantity, perceived quality	Estimate FI prevalence Program monitoring, evaluation and targeting	Valid and reliable [10]	Can be collected via the 15-items questionnaire	Harmonised for its application in Latin American and Caribbean; easy to apply. A continuous scale based on a Rasch model can also be derived. ELCSA does not quantify the ‘actual’ food consumption and does not consider diet quality
Household Hunger Scale (HHS) (Deitchler et al. [22])	Estimates the prevalence of severe experiences of lack of food access and experiences of hunger HHS is derived from data collected using the last three HFIAS questions Categorical scale based on the sum of affirmative responses (3 categories)	30 days	Household	Access	Quantity	Estimate prevalence of severe FI or hunger across contexts Early warning for humanitarian responses	Valid and reliable [10]	Can be derived from HFIAS dataset or data collected via the 3-items questionnaire	Comparable across contexts; easy to apply. Yet, it does not quantify the ‘actual’ food consumption and does not consider diet quality
Food Adequacy Questionnaire (FAQ) [23]	Subjective indicator of FS based on individual’s self-reported adequacy of food	–	Household/Individual	Access	Quantity	Estimate prevalence of FI Rapid FS assessment	Not valid and reliable [24]	Data can easily collected using one question	Capture the behavioural aspects of FI, Suitable for conducting preliminary FS assessments Yet, prone to subjective biases

FS food security, FI food insecurity