[Jobs] [Fwd: Fw: [GPDD] Consultancy Opportunity at UNICEF: Project Coordinator, Child Disability]

[elto at demog.berkeley.edu]

Courtesy of Ellen Smith:

--------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Fw: [GPDD] Consultancy Opportunity at UNICEF:  Project
Coordinator, Child Disability
From:    "Ellen Smith" <ellenmsmith at yahoo.com>
Date:    Tue, February 7, 2012 12:37 pm
To:      "elto at demog.berkeley.edu" <elto at demog.berkeley.edu>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the jobs listserv
 
 
From:Global Partnership for Disability and Development
[mailto:GPDD at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Anna Burlyaeva-Norman
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 1:46 PM
To: GPDD at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: [GPDD] Consultancy Opportunity at UNICEF: Project Coordinator,
Child Disability
 
 
TERMS OF REFERENCE
 
Project Coordinator, Child Disability
 
 
Purpose of Assignment
 
These terms of reference (TOR) have been written to guide the
identification and selection of a household survey specialist to
coordinate a project on the development of guidelines and methodology for
the clinical evaluation of child disability through household-based
surveys such as the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS).
 
 
Background
 
Data collection and research in the area of childhood disability in
developing countries has been inadequate to date despite the large impact
that disability has on child development, family life, and socio-economic
conditions of communities. This is in part due to the lack of an
established best method for identifying children with disabilities in this
context, as well difficulty in defining and evaluating child disability in
resource-poor settings. Different methodologies have been used to collect
data in different locations making comparisons across countries
problematic.
 
To address the need for comparable data on disability, UNICEF supported,
through the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey program, the implementation
of the Ten Questions Screen for childhood disability (TQ). This screening
tool was developed with the objective of creating a low-cost and rapid
method for identifying children at increased risk of disability in
populations where professional resources are extremely scarce[1]. By
utilizing the TQ, MICS has become the largest source of internationally
comparable data on children at increased risk for disability in developing
countries. The last round of the MICS, implemented in 2005-2007, collected
data on disability for 26 of 50 countries participating in the program[2].
 
The TQ contains questions on congenital and developmental disabilities,
including seizures, speech, cognitive, motor, vision and hearing
disabilities[3]. Questions on disability are addressed to the
parent/caretaker of each child ages 2 to 9 years of age in the
household[4].
 
The validity of the TQ has been evaluated in epidemiological surveys which
include screening and clinical assessments of more than 22,000 children,
in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Jamaica[5]. Results of these studies caution
that while the TQ is highly sensitive (children who have a disability are
likely to screen positive to the TQ), it also has a relatively low
positive predictive value overall. That is, some of the children who
screen positive to the TQ will not be found to have a disability on
further diagnostic evaluation. However, previous studies report that many
children who screen positive to the TQ but are not diagnosed with a
serious disability on evaluation in fact have either a mild disability or
health condition requiring treatment, such as an ear infection, and which
could potentially lead to a disability if left untreated. The TQ is not
designed to be used as an assessment tool, but rather a screen to help
identify children with a
 developmental delay or who are at increased risk of disability. Data on
disability collected through MICS that indicate the percentage of
children who screened positive on the TQ should be interpreted as the
percentages of children at increased risk of having a disability and who
would most benefit from further medical and developmental assessment. The
TQ is indeed designed to be used in a two-stage evaluation process
wherein the TQ is followed by clinical diagnostic evaluation for all
children screening positive and for a percentage of children screening
negative. While the first screening (administration of the TQ) can be
carried out by the regular interviewers with parents, the diagnostic and
clinical testing needs to be carried out by specially-trained
interviewers or medical professionals that will be hired for this
specific purpose.
 
Despite recommendations that the TQ be followed by a second-stage of
clinical assessment to more accurately estimate prevalence of child
disability, few studies conducted in developing countries have had
sufficient financial or infrastructure resources to conduct diagnostic
evaluations. Notable exceptions are the studies testing the validity and
reliability of the TQ screen conducted by Durkin et al. in Bangladesh,
Jamaica and Pakistan, and a more recent study by Mung’ala-Odera et al.
in Kenya[6]. In several of these cases the clinical evaluation proved to
be expensive, time-consuming and challenging due, among other factors, to
the lack of specialized medical personnel in the countries. None of the
countries that participated in MICS (both MICS2 and MICS3) conducted a
clinical evaluation as part of the implementation of the disability
module. In the absence of diagnostic evaluations, the results of the
Disability Module screen can certainly provide
 substantial preliminary information about the substantial impact that
child disability is likely to have in participating countries. Moreover,
given the large percentages of children identified as at risk for
disability via MICS3, these data can be used to help raise awareness
about this important global public health issue.
 
For the fourth round of MICS, it has been recommended that only countries
that have the capacity, resources and commitment to conduct the medical
assessment will include the Disability Module in their surveys. However,
countries need to be supported in the development and implementation of
the assessment. In light of the above mentioned challengesrelated to the
clinical evaluation, it was thus decided to provide support to countries
for the development and implementation of the second-stage diagnostic
evaluation of child disability.
 
Scope of the work
 
The consultant will be responsible for conceptualizing the landscape of
the project and for drafting a template to outline all the components that
will be required to create the package of guidelines, tools, materials
etc. The consultant will be asked to provide feedback and contribute to
the drafting of some of the pieces of work, particularly in relation to
household survey methodology and implementation. The consultant will need
to assist with tasks related to recruiting and contracting consultants
that will work on the project. The consultant will be responsible for
coordinating and managing the contributions from several
people/institutions that will be providing inputs to the overall project
for development of the guidelines and methodology. The consultant will
need to maintain correspondence and liaise among several partners in order
to ensure that the work is being carried out to a high standard and in a
timely and efficient manner. The
 consultant will be expected to consolidate all the inputs, materials and
documents produced by the various contributors into one coherent and
complete package. The consultant will be responsible for organizing all
aspects of expert consultations, including identifying participants,
sending invitations, arranging rooms, coordinating travel, as needed,
document preparation etc.  The consultant will need to be able to work
independently and with a high degree of responsibility, but will be under
the guidance and supervision of UNICEF staff. 
 
Duration: The assignment will be full-time starting on 1 March 2012 and
will end on 1 July 2012.
 
Duty station: The consultant must be based in New York for the duration of
the assignment (or willing to re-locate for the assignment) and will be
provided office space in UNICEF.
 
Supervision: The consultant will be supervised directly by Claudia Cappa
and Attila Hancioglu in the Statistics and Monitoring Section.
 
Key skills, technical background, and experience required:
 
§  Postgraduate degree in statistics, demography, economics or a related
social science
§  At least five to seven years’ previous experience working on
household surveys; involvement with disability surveys is highly desirable
§  Substantial knowledge of household survey methodology and implementation
§  Previous involvement with MICS or DHS is highly desirable
§  Analytical, methodical and precise style of writing
§  Excellent command of English required
 
Application:
Qualified candidates are requested to submit a cover letter, CV and P-11
form (which can be downloaded from our website at
http://www.unicef.org/about/employ/index_53129.html) to
pdconsultants at unicef.org with subject line “Project Coordinator, Child
Disability”               by 13 February 2012. Please
indicate your daily/monthly rate and availability to undertake the terms
of reference above. Please note that the selected consultant will not
receive additional funds to cover living expenses while in New York.
Applications submitted without a daily rate will not be considered.
 
 
 
 
 



________________________________

LISTSERV MODERATION: The GPDD Secretariat moderates the content of this
listserv for relevance and propriety, and does not necessarily share or
endorse the opinions expressed. TO RECEIVE LISTSERV MESSAGES IN A DAILY
DIGEST: Send an e-mail to LISTSERV at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU with "SET GPDD DIGEST"
in the message body (do NOT include quotation marks and remove ALL other
content from message body). ARCHIVES CAN BE FOUND AT:
http://listserv.syr.edu/archives/gpdd.html (Please follow site
instructions for establishing a password to access page)


________________________________

[1]Zaman S, Khan N, Islam S, Banu S, Dixit S, Shrout P, Durkin MS (1990),
“Validity of the Ten Questions for screening serious childhood
disability: results from urban Bangladesh”, International Journal of
Epidemiology, 19(3):613-620; Durkin MS, Davidson LL, Desai P, Hasan ZM,
Khan N, Thorburn MJ, Shrout PE, Wang W (1994), “Validity of the ten
questions screen for childhood disability: results from population-based
studies in Bangladesh, Jamaica and Pakistan”, Epidemiology, 5:283-289.
[2]During the second round of MICS (2000-2001), 22 countries collected
data on child disability. Eight countries however used different
questionnaires from the standard Ten Questions Screen. Among the 14
countries that used the Ten Questions Module, only 7 included the complete
set of questions.
[3]The TQ does not include screening questions that specifically focus on
behavioral disorders, such as Autism Spectrum Disorders and Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
[4]Developmental theory suggests that the TQ might not be as effective in
children younger than 2 years or older than 9 years of age. For those
under 2 years of age, it might be difficult on the basis of ten simple
questions to distinguish normal variability in development from
disability. For those over age 9 (with intellectual disability in
particular), the TQ questions might no longer adequately evaluate
appropriate skills or might represent skills that children have developed,
just later than children without any developmental delay or disability
[5]Durkin MS et al. (1994), op. cit. 
[6]Durkin MS et al. (1994), op. cit; Mung'ala-Odera V, Meehan R, Njuguna
P, Mturi N, Alcock KJ, Newton C (2006), Prevalence and risk factors of
neurological disability and impairment in children living in rural Kenya,
International Journal of Epidemiology, 35(3): 683-688.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.demog.berkeley.edu/pipermail/jobs/attachments/20120207/5b108ce0/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 7822 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.demog.berkeley.edu/pipermail/jobs/attachments/20120207/5b108ce0/attachment.png 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8387 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.demog.berkeley.edu/pipermail/jobs/attachments/20120207/5b108ce0/attachment-0001.png