Study (first author) | Dataset | Study limitations* | Indicators included in wealth index† | Consumption equivalence scale | Wealth index–consumption expenditure association | Strength of agreement between wealth index and consumption expenditure | ||||||

Total | D | S | H | C | A | Other | ||||||

Ferguson55 | Peru 2000 LSMS; N∼4000 | M, H | 24 | 21 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Total | Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.734 | STRONG | ||

Jamal40 | Pakistan Integrated Household Survey 2001/2 URBAN | M, U, N, H | 30 | 17 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 2R | Total | R^{2} value from regressions of indicators on consumption expenditure = 0.69 | STRONG | |

Jamal40 | Pakistan Integrated Household Survey 2001/2 RURAL | M, U, N, H | 30 | 17 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 2R | Total | R^{2} value from regressions of indicators on consumption expenditure = 0.52 | STRONG | |

McKenzie45 | Mexico Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares 1998; N = 10 773 | M | 27 | 18 | 4 | 5 | Not presented | Rank correlation coefficient = 0.894 | STRONG | |||

Filmer46 | Brazil 1996/7 LSMS; N = 4940 | M | 29 | 23 | 6 | Per capita | % households in poorest quintile of expenditures in same quintile of wealth index = 68% | MODERATE | ||||

Filmer46 | Panama 1991 LSMS; N = 4945 | M | 27 | 21 | 1 | 5 | Per capita | % households in poorest quintile of expenditures in same quintile of wealth index = 72% | MODERATE | |||

Grosch44 | Jamaica LSMS 1989; N∼4000 | M, H | 24 | 9 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 1 | Per capita | R^{2} value from regressions of indicators on consumption expenditure = 0.41 | MODERATE | |

Sahn16 | Peru 1994 LSMS; N = 3623 | M | 9 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Per capita | Correspondence index = 0.28 | MODERATE | ||

Sahn16 | South Africa 1994 LSMS; N = 8848 | M | 9 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Per capita | Correspondence index = 0.31 | MODERATE | ||

Sahn16 | Vietnam 1998 LSMS; N = 5999 | M | 9 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Per capita | Correspondence index = 0.36 | MODERATE | ||

Skoufias42 | Mexico 1998 Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares RURAL; N = 4378 | M, U, H | 20 | 13 | 5 | 2 | Total | Sensitivity = 67.6% | MODERATE | |||

Sumarto43 | Indonesia National Socioeconomic Survey 1999 URBAN | M, H, N | 28 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 1L, 8P | Per capita | Grouped into bottom 30%, middle 40% and top 30% | MODERATE | |

63.7% households in same group | ||||||||||||

Sumarto43 | Indonesia National Socioeconomic Survey 1999 RURAL | M, H, N | 31 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 10 | 1L, 8P | Per capita | Grouped into bottom 30%, middle 40% and top 30% | MODERATE | |

60.1% households in same group | ||||||||||||

Ward21 | Tanzanian Household Budget Survey 2000/1; N = 20 883 | M | 26 | 9 | 1 | 6 | 10P | Per adult equivalent | % households in same tercile = 62.1% | MODERATE | ||

Azzarri56 | Albania 2002 LSMS; N = 3600 | M | 13 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1L, 2W | Per capita | % households in same quartile = 56.8% | WEAK | |

Filmer5 | Indonesia DHS 1994; N = 16 242 | M, H | 13 | 6 | 3 | 4 | Per adult equivalent | Classified into poorest 40%, middle 40%, and top 20%. 54.9% households in same group | WEAK | |||

Filmer5 | Pakistan Integrated Household Survey 1991 (LSMS); N = 1192 | M, H | 15 | 7 | 4 | 4 | Per adult equivalent | Classified into poorest 40%, middle 40%, and top 20%. 50.0% households in same group | WEAK | |||

Filmer5 | Nepal Living Standards Survey 1996 (LSMS); N = 3372 | M, H | 16 | 6 | 4 | 6 | Per adult equivalent | Classified into poorest 40%, middle 40%, and top 20%. 56.0% households in same group | WEAK | |||

Filmer46 | Nicaragua 2001 LSMS; N = 4191 | M | 32 | 24 | 4 | 4 | Per capita | % households in poorest quintile of expenditures in same quintile of wealth index = 56% | WEAK | |||

Filmer46 | Uganda 2000 LSMS; N = 10 696 | M | 16 | 9 | 2 | 5 | Per capita | % households in poorest quintile of expenditures in same quintile of wealth index = 52% | WEAK | |||

Filmer46 | Zambia 2004 LSMS; N = 19 247 | M | 34 | 26 | 4 | 4 | Per capita | % households in poorest quintile of expenditures in same quintile of wealth index = 42% | WEAK | |||

Howe57 | Malawi LSMS 2004/5; N = 11 280 | M | 12 | 6 | 4 | 2 | Per capita | % households in same quintile = 29.2% | WEAK | |||

Khe37 | Bavi District epidemiological field study; N = 11 547 | L, R, M, H | 15 | 14 | 1L | Per capita | Sensitivity = 50.8% | WEAK | ||||

Lindelow47 | Mozambique National Household Survey on Living Conditions; N = 8250 | M, H | 12 | 7 | 3 | 2 | Per capita | % households in same quintile = 25.1% | WEAK | |||

Montgomery38 | Ghana 1998 LSMS; N = 4291 | M, H | 12 | 6 | 5 | 1 | Per adult equivalent | R^{2} value from regressions of index on consumption expenditure = 0.104 | WEAK | |||

Montgomery38 | Guatemala Encuesta de Salud Familiar 1995; N = 2816 | L, C, R, M, H | 12 | 6 | 5 | 1 | Per adult equivalent | R^{2} value from regressions of index on consumption expenditure = 0.077 | WEAK | |||

Montgomery38 | Tanzania 1993/4 LSMS; N = 6742 | M, H | 10 | 4 | 5 | 1 | Per adult equivalent | R^{2} value from regressions of index on consumption expenditure = 0.155 | WEAK | |||

Rutstein4 | Guatemala Health Demand and Expenditure Survey 1997; N = 2562 | L, R, M, H | 13 | 8 | 3 | 2 | Total | % households in same quintile = 36% | WEAK | |||

Sahn16 | Côte d’Ivoire 1988 LSMS; N = 1600 | M | 9 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Per capita | % households in same quintile = 37.0% | WEAK | ||

Sahn16 | Ghana 1988 LSMS; N = 3192 | M | 9 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Per capita | % households in same quintile = 30.6% | WEAK | ||

Sahn16 | Ghana 1992 LSMS; N = 4552 | M | 9 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Per capita | % households in same quintile = 30.7% | WEAK | ||

Sahn16 | Jamaica 1998 LSMS; N = 7375 | M | 9 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Per capita | Correspondence index = 0.60 | WEAK | ||

Sahn16 | Madagascar 1993 LSMS; N = 4800 | M | 9 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Per capita | Correspondence index = 0.73 | WEAK | ||

Sahn16 | Papua New Guinea 1996 LSMS; N = 1396 | M | 8 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Per capita | Correspondence index = 0.64 | WEAK | ||

Sahn16 | Vietnam 1993 LSMS; N = 4800 | M | 9 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Per capita | % households in same quintile = 35.5% | WEAK | ||

Skoufias42 | Mexico 1998 Encuesta Nacional de Ingresos y Gastos de los Hogares URBAN; N = 9001 | M, U, H | 20 | 13 | 5 | 2 | Per capita | Sensitivity = 53.4% | WEAK |

*Key to methodological limitations:

*Measurement of wealth index*: I = included narrower range of indicators than standard DHS indices;*Measurement of consumption expenditure*: L = limited details provided, C = restricted list of items;*Study design*: R = not nationally representative;*Analysis features*: M = missing data excluded or not mentioned at all, U = analysis only performed separately for different areas, N = sample size not reported, H = clustered sampling not discussed or not taken into account in analysis.†Key to indicator types: D, consumer durables (includes all durables, domestic appliances, vehicles, telephones, etc.); S, access to services (includes water supply, sanitation facilities, fuels used, healthcare use); H, housing characteristics (includes dwelling materials, ownership status, etc.); C, demographics and human capital (includes education, occupation, family size and composition, crowding, etc.); A, area; Other categories: P, purchases, consumption indicators and clothing; L, livestock; R, remittances; W, subjective well-being.

LSMS, Living Standards Measurement Survey.