Indigenous agricultural knowledge can inform locally relevant extension materials, but expert endorsement does not establish the effectiveness or safety of individual practices. This study developed a Hindi electronic booklet documenting indigenous agricultural and allied knowledge from the Gird region of Madhya Pradesh and described its expert evaluation. Practices from Bhind, Gwalior, Morena, Sheopur and Shivpuri districts were organised into seven content domains. A panel of 25 experts assessed the booklet using a three-point rating scale, and the reported reliability and content-validity indices were summarised descriptively. Mean ratings across the seven domains ranged from 2.87 to 2.95, with an overall arithmetic mean of 2.92 out of 3.00. Agronomic practices and livestock shelters received the highest ratings (2.95 each), whereas natural embankment practices received the lowest (2.87). The reported Spearman–Brown-adjusted split-half reliability coefficient was 0.90, and the arithmetic mean of the seven message-level content validity ratios was approximately 0.82. However, expert-level ratings, item-level essentiality counts and aggregation rules were unavailable, preventing independent reconstruction of these indices. Some practice-level acceptance percentages also lacked clearly specified denominators. The booklet received favourable descriptive expert ratings and offers a format for documenting regionally situated knowledge. Nevertheless, farmer comprehension, adoption, agronomic outcomes and practice safety were not evaluated. Further assessment is required before the documented practices can be presented as validated field recommendations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maran et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: