Small-area composite measures (such as for deprivation, \ngeographic access or green space) have become \nincreasing popular among both researchers and policy \nmakers and are frequently used to compare or rank \nareas. Because of their seeming simplicity and wide \nappeal, it is important to set out for researchers and \nusers the different stages and options that underlie the \ndevelopment of composite indices. Using small area \ndeprivation measures as an example, this article reviews \nthe key decisions faced by researchers from choosing \nthe data and variables to validation and measuring \nuncertainty. Our aim is to guide researchers in the \nplanning and following through with the process of \ndeveloping a small-area measure. To date, the different \nchoices are often not considered and the methodological \ndecisions tend to be based on tradition or convenience. \nWhile there is no widely accepted framework for \nchoosing between methods, we argue that researchers \nshould compare different methods and justify their \ndecisions at each stage of the process. In particular, \nmore emphasis should be put on validating measures for \ndifferent population subgroups.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 112 citations exist upstream.