He Oranga Hapori: A model for raising Maori ... - Te Puni Kokiri

tpk.govt.nz
  • No tags were found...

He Oranga Hapori: A model for raising Maori ... - Te Puni Kokiri

The ‘genuine progress indicator growth score’ of 87 is arrived at by adding together 85 + 2. Thisscore of 87 includes the initial growth score and its quality adjustment. To obtain some idea ofwhat this score means, it should be compared with the ‘potential GPI indicator growth score’ of113 in the last row of Table 5. This score shows how well the study could have scored in terms ofquality if we had been able to score 1 (a positive enhancing influence) to all of the quality scoretikanga shown in the growth worksheet of Appendix 4. Had this happened, the ‘genuine progressindicator growth score’ would have been 113 rather than 87. A score of 87 demonstrates thatwhile growth occurred, the quality of this growth was not as good as it could have been. Morethought is required regarding how growth is achieved, rather than just concentrating on growthfor the sake of achieving a higher growth score.Accounting adjustments made to relationship indicatorSimilar accounting adjustments need to be made to the relationship score of 1 in Appendix 4worksheet. The relationship does not measure change in size from one time period to another.It simply measures the satisfactory completion of a developmental stage which is then used toinfer the existence of appropriate relationships needed to achieve this outcome. Once again, therelationship score of 1 indicates existence of relationships but says nothing about their quality.To assess the nature of relationship quality it is necessary to assess how the relationships(associated with this developmental milestone) contributed towards the expression of othergrowth and relationship tikanga. The same scoring strategy outlined above for our growthquality indicator score (Table 5) is used here. The final results are shown in Table 6 below.Table 6 - The relationship quality score results from the relationship worksheet (Appendix 4)Total relationship score 1Total relationship quality score 9Genuine progress indicator relationship score 10Potential GPI indicator relationship score 29The results shown in Table 6 may be interpreted like those described for the growth indicatorscore in Table 5. This worked example shows it was possible to achieve a potential score of 29;but in this case a score of 10 was calculated. This result again shows that while key relationshipsare in place, they are not yet a positive influence that contributes (100%) to the expressionof other key Mäori community wellbeing indicators (i.e. kaupapa and tikanga). More work isrequired in the future to improve these scores.Calculating a final scoreThe worked examples shown in Appendix 3 and 4 would need to be repeated for each of the29 indicators listed in Table 3. All the scores could then be added together to produce a onedimensional indicator that combines all growth and relationship quality scores into one.There can be problems in aggregating up quality scores across different scales of measurement.For example, it would be possible for large scores from one röpü Mäori to introduce an unequalweighting. However, problems of this kind can be addressed by adding mathematical weightsbased on indicators like area or population size as part of the aggregating process.22

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines