Addi van Bergen

Chapter 5 106 For each SEI-HS item the semantic, conceptual and contextual connotations reported by the respondents were coded and compared between the four research groups. As can be seen from Table 5 the items of dimension 4 caused most reason for concern. Semantic problems were identified for all groups (including native Dutch respondents) in item 17. The item was misunderstood by more than a third of the respondents (12 out of 33). Instead of ‘working is just a way of earning money’ most of them understood the item as ‘working is an unjust way of earning money’. Coincidentally, a negative answer indicates in both cases normative integration and a positive answer the lack thereof. Semantic problems with item 15 (I sometimes do something for my neighbours) concerned primarily Moroccan respondents. Items 14, 15 and 17 of dimension 4 showed conceptual problems in all four groups. Item 14 measured in almost half of the respondents (15 out of 32) lack of money instead of noncompliance to the core values of Dutch society: “ I have a few charities that are my favourites, they really need it. But my finances are at a pretty low ebb at the moment. ” Item 15 measured in one third of the respondents (18 out of 37) lack of opportunity to do something for your neighbours (e.g. in case of conflict or no contact with neighbours) and/or inability to help (e.g. due to old age or ill health). Item 17 measured in one fifth of the respondents (7 out of 35) work ethic instead of noncompliance to core values. These respondents found work a good way to earn money: “ If you don’t work, you won’t eat ”. Contextuality played a role in item 14. One Moroccan and one Turkish respondent mentioned payment to the mosque. This works both ways: “ If they come from the mosque, I pretend I don’t hear anything, they think 2 or 3 euros is too little. ” One Moroccan respondent paid medical costs for poor family members in the home country. The items of dimension 2 and 3, ‘Material deprivation’ and ‘Access to basic social rights’, gave less reason for concern. A number of respondents had difficulty in understanding the wording of the items 8 and 12. Three Surinamese respondents (3 out of 7) did not answer item 8 if they have enough money to heat the house properly, but whether the house can be heated well: “ I hope so, I have not experienced the winter here yet ”. Five Moroccan respondents (5 out of 9) were not able to translate their (dis) satisfaction with their home (item 12) into a corresponding grade. Our analysis did not suggest any conceptual problems: all respondents interpreted the items of dimension 2 and 3 as intended. Contextuality only played a role in item 10. Having enough money to visit others did not only depend on the financial situation of the household but also on the travel costs incurred. Family of immigrants generally live further away, making travel costs more difficult to pay. The items of dimension 1 also functioned much as expected, with some exceptions. Item 1 was not understood by a quarter of the respondents (6 out of 24), both immigrants and one native Dutch respondent: “ Emptiness? What do you mean by that? ”. Item 5 showed comparatively the most validity problems. Six respondents, both immigrants (3 out of 17) and native Dutch (3 out of 18), reported that they