This tool shows strong content validity and reliability in assessing livelihood security among Khuti system dwellers, suggesting targeted interventions may enhance socio-economic conditions.
The study outlined the development and validation of the Assam Rural Livelihood and Farming Scale (ARLFS), a socio-economic assessment tool designed for Khuti system dwellers in Assam. The development process involved a systematic literature review, expert consultations, and focus group discussions with members of the target community. Initially, 30 items were identified to represent key domains such as livelihood security, access to basic services, technological and institutional linkages, and adaptive capacities. Content validity was assessed by a panel of 10 subject matter experts using Lawshe’s method, resulting in the selection of 18 items with Content Validity Ratios (CVR) ≥ 0.62. Items with lower CVRs were either revised or excluded. The scale’s overall content validity was further supported by high Scale-level Content Validity Index (S-CVI) scores: S-CVI/UA = 0.875 and S-CVI/Ave = 0.9813, indicating strong expert agreement. The ARLFS used an 8-point scoring system for each component, ranging from 0 (indicating highest vulnerability) to 8 (indicating the most favorable condition). The total score reflected a household’s socio-economic vulnerability level. Face validity was ensured through expert feedback, and the scale was pilot-tested on 20 Khuti households to evaluate clarity, feasibility, and internal consistency. Reliability was measured using Cronbach’s alpha, with a threshold of α ≥ 0.70 considered acceptable. The results demonstrated that the ARLFS was both valid and reliable for assessing socio-economic and farming vulnerabilities among nomadic and semi-settled livestock communities in Assam. Its structured design enabled a detailed evaluation of multiple livelihood dimensions and provided a practical foundation for targeted interventions and evidence-based policymaking aimed at marginalized rural populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dutta et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: