Comparability — Benin [top]

The 2002 sample indicates lower member paralysis only.

Comparability — Botswana [top]

All census asked whether the respondent had the inability to use one or both legs.

Comparability — Brazil [top]

The 1991 census only identifies paralysis in the lower limbs. The category for absence of a limb does not identify the precise limb affected. Persons with multiple disabilities are coded "Unknown".

Related data for 2000 and 2011 are included in DISMOBIL, which identifies the functional ability to walk or climb stairs.

Comparability — Burkina Faso [top]

In 1985, a person has a lower extremity disability if he/she is paralyzed. The 1996 sample considers paralysis and amputation of lower extremities as well as quadriplegia. In 2006, a person has a disability affecting lower extremities if he/she suffers from a handicap in the lower extremities.

The 1985 sample only provides the type of disability for residents of the household. The 1996 and 2006 samples provide the type of disability for all persons. The samples do not distinguish between temporary and permanent disabilities.

Comparability — Cameroon [top]

The 2005 sample identifies persons having a disability affecting his/her lower extremities.

Comparability — Colombia [top]

The 1993 sample specified "paralysis or absence of lower limbs".

Related data for 2005 are included in DISMOBIL, which identifies the functional ability to walk or climb stairs.

Comparability — Côte d'Ivoire [top]

The 1998 sample identifies people having a disability affecting his/her lower limbs.

Comparability — Dominican Republic [top]

In 2002, limited mobility or loss of legs qualified as a disability. In 2010, respondents reported that they were missing one or both legs and those they had a permanent difficulty moving one or both legs.

Comparability — Egypt [top]

The "yes" response included loss of a leg or partial or complete paralysis. Whether the paralysis affected the lower limbs was not specified. Persons reporting multiple unidentified disabilities are coded as "unknown" for DISLOWR, because the exact disabilities in those cases are not specified. See DISABLED to identify these cases.

Comparability — El Salvador [top]

The 1992 sample refers to persons with paralysis or partial/total loss of a lower extremity, while the 2007 sample identifies permanent limitations in moving or walking.

Comparability — Ethiopia [top]

In 1984 the "yes" response is the combination of responses for amputation, limp, not having one or two legs, and paralysis in one or both legs. In 1994 the "yes" response does not specify the type of leg problem. In 2007 the "yes" response refers to non-functional lower limbs.

Comparability — France [top]

The "Yes" response combines several categories for amputation or paralysis of either or both legs, or "lameness", as separately reported in the disability source variables for France. Several residual categories in source variables might also include persons with lower extremity disabilities.

Comparability — Guatemala [top]

The data identify persons with an inability to move one or both legs.

Comparability — Guinea [top]

In 1996 and 2014, the sample reports impairment in lower limbs: abnormalities of structure or function that affected normal activities. Multiple disabilities that included impairment of the lower extremities are not reported in this variable.

Comparability — Haiti [top]

The 2003 sample identifies persons having a disability affecting his/her lower extremities.

Comparability — Iran [top]

The variable indicates whether the person has either a leg amputation or impairment. This is defined as having the loss or "shortage of performance or deformation" in the toes, ankle, knee, thigh, or pelvis in either leg.

Comparability — Iraq [top]

The "yes" response included loss of a leg or paralysis. Whether the paralysis affected the lower limbs was not specified.

Comparability — Lesotho [top]

The 2006 sample records amputation of toes, amputation of foot or leg, and lame or paralyzed limb. Any affirmative response to these was coded as a "yes".

Comparability — Liberia [top]

In the 2008 sample, a person reported either a limited use or loss of legs.

Those with multiple disabilities are grouped in the unknown category due to the inability to determine the type of disability.

Comparability — Mauritius [top]

The 1990 harmonized variable is constructed from the first, second, and third reported disabilities. It indicates a disability related to legs and feet.

The 2000 and 2011 samples do not identify disabilities in lower extremities, but for difficulties in walking see DISMOBIL.

Comparability — Mozambique [top]

In 2007 the "yes" response refers to "amputated or atrophied legs" and it includes "paralysis" from a separate source variable. Whether the paralysis specifically affects the lower body is not stated.

Comparability — Paraguay [top]

The 2002 sample has three questions about disabilities: a person was coded "yes" category if he/she answered "total paralysis" or "problem in lower limbs".

Comparability — Philippines [top]

In both samples, loss of one or both legs or being paralyzed or quadriplegic is included. In 2000, mild quadriplegics capable of caring for themselves are also included.

Related data for 2010 are included in DISMOBIL, which identifies the functional ability to walk or climb stairs.

Comparability — Rwanda [top]

The census identifies disability in the lower extremities. If a person had more than one disability, the most severe one was to be reported.

Related data for 2012 are included in DISMOBIL, which identifies the functional ability to walk or climb stairs.

Comparability — Saint Lucia [top]

The 1991 sample identifies disabilities affecting lower limbs separately from disability affecting upper limbs. "Yes" responses for disability affecting lower limbs are included in this variable. The question was not asked in the 1980 sample.

Comparability — Senegal [top]

In the 2002 sample, responses include persons with multiple disabilities.

Comparability — Sierra Leone [top]

The variable indicates if the person's most serious disability is either having limited use of legs or loss of leg(s). Therefore, a person may go unrecorded yet still have a disability in the legs because it is not his/her most "serious" disability.

Comparability — South Sudan [top]

The variable indicates whether the person has only limited use of leg(s) or loss of leg(s).

Comparability — Sudan [top]

The variable indicates whether the person has only limited use of leg(s) or loss of leg(s).

Comparability — Togo [top]

The 2010 census asked about the loss or paralysis of one or both lower limbs. The loss of limbs could be reported in either of two source variables recording disabilities.

Comparability — Turkey [top]

In the 1985 sample, persons with a disability in their legs that limits daily life activities are coded as "Yes". The 2000 sample identifies persons with a physical disability without separately referring to those corresponding to arms, legs, or feet, thus this was not integrated into DISLOWR.

Comparability — Uganda [top]

Limited use or loss of legs qualified as a disability.

Comparability — Venezuela [top]

The variable indicates if the person suffered from loss or disability of lower extremities, including limited movement in one or both legs.

Comparability — Zambia [top]

The 1990 sample identifies crippled persons.