http://doi.org/10.33698/NRF0109 Monika Pebma, Sushma Kumari Saini, Indarjit Walia
Abstract : Socio-economic status (SES) is a combined total measure of economic and sociological condition of an individual, family and community. Socio-economic status of a family would mean the ranking of the family in the milieu to which the family belongs. It may be indicated by educational attainment, occupational standing, income, tangible possessions such as home appliances, houses, cars etc. Income is a most widely used indicator of socio-economic status (SES). But people tend to underestimate their family income. Scales are available to assess the SES family. But those scales are not applicable to families residing in low-income communities. Dadu Majra Colony is one of the low-income communities. It is resettled colony with 2670 houses having population of 18000 and total families of 3196. It hosts a stay of migrants from different states of India like Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar etc. The need was felt to categorize the socio-economic status (SES) of this colony and for that a socio-economic status scale is needed.Hence, a methodological study was undertaken to develop socio-economic status scale of families residing in Dadu Majra Colony, Chandigarh. Delphi technique was used to develop SES scale along with a scoring sheet and the guidelines to use the scale with 12 experts. After four Delphi rounds the scale was tried out on 914 families residing in Colony. The reliability of scale was assessed by Cronbach alpha coefficient (unstandardised) which was 0.81 indicated the reliability and internal consistency of scale. For inter-item correlation Pearson’s Correlation showed 18 items having <0.2 correlation and those items were dropped from the scale prior to Factor analysis. In factor analysis 8 components were generated with 36 items which accounts for 50% of variance. Hence, a valid and reliable SES scale was develop to classify the community of DaduMajra Colony, Chandigarh into six socio-economic classes. The feasibility of present scale can also be checked in other low socio- economic communities.
Key words :Socio-economic status
Correspondence at :Ms. Monika Pebma Lecturer, Sukhmani College of Nursing, Dera Bassi, Punjab
Introduction:The term ‘socio-economic status’ (SES) generally refers to person’s overall social position1. It is a combined measure of economic and sociological condition of an individual, family and community2. Socio-economic status of a family would mean the ranking of the family in the milieu to which the family belongs3. It is typically divided into three categories, high SES, middle SES, and low SES to describe the three levels a family or an individual may fall into2. Different researchers have used different variables to represent socio-economic status of family.As far as the use of socio-economic status is concerned, the socio-economic status is one of the indicators of health which can include housing (number of persons per room), family size, literacy rates (especially female literacy rates), dependency ratio and per capita calorie availability etc4. It has been seen that socio-economic status is a prime predictive variable in epidemiologic studies. As an explanatory variable in health studies, SES has been used to derive health policy recommendations and to infer public health implications of dietary needs in different social strata. In addition, SES has long been an important factor in many studies in the social sciences. Additionally, income, occupation and education have shown to be strong predictors of a range of physical and mental health problems, ranging from ar thritis, coronary diseases etc2. The relationship between socio-economic status and health disparities is reflected in life expectancy, infant mortality rates and other health measures.The measures of a social fact, phenomenon or psychological construct are often found difficult and the outcome viewed subjectively. Such a required measurement scale is not available, if available, notaccessible, lacks reliability and predictive value. Thus, the development of a sensitive, valid and reliable measurement scale is a serious and demanding work. Social transformation and fast changing economy have rendered the currently available scales ineffective in measuring the SES over the years and across the population groups in the country5. The socio-economic indicators change with time among various groups of people. The goods which the people strive to acquire as early as they can possibly afford, change with time, hence the indicators of SES also changes6.It is felt that the currently available scales were either out dated or there was a need for redefinition of some relevant items for indicating the SES accurately. Moreover, the available scales were developed on smaller samples drawn from sub-strata of population and not on large representative cross-section of the community3. A good scale needs to evolve over time to capture the change in economic conditions of individuals7. Moreover lack of clarity about how to measure and interpret SES not only makes it difficult to study socio-economic disparities in health in ways that are useful to inform policies to reduce those gaps, it also makes it difficult to interpret results of studies that attempts to adjust for socio-economic influences on health8.Different researchers had used different technique to ensure validity of SES scale. One of the techniques for content validity is Delphi technique. The Delphi method is a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of exper ts. The exper ts answer questionnaires in two or more rounds. After each round, a facilitator provides an anonymous summary of the exper ts’ forecasts from the previous round as well as the reasons they provided for their judgments9. The researcher felt the need to develop a reliable and valid scale for a low income community living in DaduMajra Colony, Chandigarh. It is resettled colony that hosts the stay of migrants from different states of India like Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar etc. In majority of socio-economic scales the education and occupation of head of the family is taken in to account but it is of no value if head of the family is retired person and or an unemployed presently. As there are variety of scales to measure the socio- economic status but not even a single scale can be used to measure the socio-economic status particularly for residents in low income group communities. Most of the available scales are designed either for urban or rural community but not for sub-urban area. Although Aggarwal’s scale was tried out in different settings like urban, rural, resettled colony and slums but income which they took as one of the item is very high so it cannot be used in low income community in Dadu Majra Colony, Chandigarh.The income is one impor tant component to measure the socio-economic status which keeps on changing with the passage of time, and very few scales are there which are being updated with changes in income. So there was the need for development of valid and reliable scale notnonly based on the income but also on the information regarding all the family members and the material possessions in the house that will fit to assess the socio-economic status of families in low income community residing in Dadu Majra Colony, UT Chandigarh.
Objective:To develop ‘socio- economic status scale’ for community residing in Dadu Majra Colony, UT, Chandigarh.
Methodology:Methodological research design was adopted to carry out the present study. The tool was developed under four Phases. And under each phase some steps had been taken.
PHASE I- PRELIMINARY PREPARATION
During this phase the researcher developed the preliminary version of SES scale. Firstly an extensive review of literature was carried out from books, journals and through internet. Literature was searched which represents the socio-economic status especially of resettlement areas. Related items such as income, education, family possessions etc. were selected from the content and the items were pooled together. Selected items which seemed to represent socio-economic status were organized to generate first draft of socio-economic status scale. In this draft the items were categorised under four headings i.e physical structure and family possessions, economic status, social status and status of member getting highest income among all the family. Separate scoring key and Guidelines to use the Scale were developed.
Each category have been given an equal weightage i.e score 22.
PHASE II-VALIDATION OF FIRST DRAFT AND SUBSEQUENT DRAFTS: Panel of experts was selected.The members of Panel were nursing experts from National Institute of Nursing Education, PGIMER, Chandigarh and from College of Nursing, Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana, and public health experts from School of Public Health, PGIMER, Chandigarh, exper ts from Public Health Department of Panjab University, and an expert from Anthropology Department of Panjab University and statistician. The first draft of tool was circulated among 12 experts from above stated fields. The modified Delphi technique was used to validate the draft (The Delphi is an interactive process designed to combine exper t’s opinion into group consensus. According to this technique the response of each panellist remains anonymous that there is equal chance of each panellist to present the ideas unbiased by the identity of other panellist. There are subsequent Delphi rounds until a definitive level of consensus is recorded). As per the expert’s opinion the modifications in the scale were made.
Modification after First Delphi Round:SES scale which was earlier under four domains (i.e Physical structure & family possessions, social status, economic status, and the status of member getting highest income among all the family members) has now changed to three domains i.e. Physical structure & family possessions, social status, economic status. Following items were added
- Necessities which included electricity, tap water, sanitary latrine, separate kitchen,
- Educational status of adult males,
- Working status of the family
- Occupation of the member earning more in the
- Life insurance of family members and free medical facility or medical insurance available to the
- Other items added were ar tificial electricity means, other goods (such as microwave, LPG cylinder & burner, geyser, water purifier, camera, handicam) and furnished goods(such as sofa set, dinning table, chairs, centre table/study table, double bed , single bed, dressing table, almirah ).
The following Itemswere deleted from the scale:
- Political leader in the family
- Educational status of women in the family and
- of adult members with matriculation
- Presence of at least one working women in the family and monthly instalment to be paid by the
- Par t-D i.estatus of member getting highest income among all the family members was deleted as many experts suggested that this par t includes items which are already there in other Parts.
Some Items were modified such as:
- Items named ownership and condition of house were combined
- Transpor t goods were renamed as conveyance
- Electrical goods i.e TV, Music system were renamed as Enter tainment & recreation mode
- Electronic goods such as AC, Computer, Washing machine, Refrigerator, Cooler were now under separate headings.
- Land agricultural/non-agricultural was splited to land, plot, constructed house and
- Caste of the family was more
Modification after the second round of Delphi technique
The tool which was under three domains was now brought under Two headings i.e Part-A(house, living goods and communication means), Par t-B(caste & social status, educational status, income sources & financial security). The item added in the scale was material used for construction of house and perks available to the family
The following items were deleted from the scale:
- Working status of family members
- Income tax paid by the family members
- Ratio of earning member to dependent member
- Free medical facility available to the family
- Savings in the form of fix deposits
- First approach to medical The following Itemswere modified:
- All the electronic and electrical goods were combined
- Material possessions was renamed as living goods
- Entertainment and recreation means were renamed as communication means which included auditory and visual mode, only auditory mode, Communication material, communication mode and means of local
- Education was now under separate heading e educational status
- Item named Non-movable property was shifted to Part-B.
Modification after the Third Delphi round
No item was added in this round and only one Item was deleted i.e. Material used for construction of the house. Only one item was modified i.e. living goods were renamed as material possessions and Communication means as recreation and means of communication respectively.
PHASE III- TESTING FEASIBILITY OF SCALE
PILOT STUDY: The objectives of the Pilot study were to assess the feasibility of scale and to pretest the scale for language and sequence of items. Ten families residing in DaduMajra Colony were interviewed. The results of pilot study indicated that the language of the questions was clear and understandable. The average time taken in assessing socio-economic status of one family was found to be 8-10 minutes. Some of the items such as microwave was moved under the cooking goods and furnished goods were renamed as furniture, auditory and visual mode as type of television, only auditory mode as music player. Modifications were also made in the guidelines.Because of above modifications 4th Delphi round was conducted. Againtool was circulated to experts.
All the items are same after fourth Delphi round. But certain modifications were there in the guidelines to use the scale. Modifications in the guidelines were basically language correction.
PHASE IV-ASSESSING RELIABILITY & CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF SCALE
Draft prepared after the fourth Delphi round was tried out on large sample.
Study setting– The study was conducted in Dadu Majra Colony, UT, Chandigarh. This is resettled colony with 2670 houses having population of 18000 and 3196 families. The colony is situated at a distance of 5 kilometres from National Institute of Nursing Education, PGIMER, Chandigarh and 10 kilometres away from Inter State Bus Stand, Sector 43, Chandigarh. The whole colony is divided into eight blocks and each block has 350-400 houses. The residents of colony are migrants from different states of India and few from neighbouring country Nepal. There were total 3196 families in Dadu Majra Colony and through Systematic random sampling (every 4th family) the sample size comes out be 914. Interview technique was used to collect data. Lottery method was used to select a number out of 4 and 1 number was selected. As per the systematic random sampling every 4th family was interviewed starting from the 1st family residing in the 1st house number of Dadu Majra Colony. Subsequently every 4th family was surveyed and data was collected by interviewing the adult member present in the house at that time. Before star ting the interview firstly self- introduction was given to the family. The family was well informed about the purposes and objectives of the study. The interview was conducted after taking the consent of the family. All the families were informed that the information collected from them will be kept confidential and will be used only for research purpose. Total 914 families were interviewed in the month of August- October 2009. The average time taken to interview single family was found to be 8-10 minutes.Reliability of Socio-economic status scale (SES scale):- The scale was administered on 914 families residing in Dadu Majra Colony. The scale has two items which
Table -1 : Reliability analysis of Socio-economic status scale by using Cronbach’s alpha
| Items of Scale Scale mean if item deleted | Corrected item
total correlation |
Cronbach’s
alpha if item deleted |
| 1. Type of House 44.40 | .03* | .81 |
| 2. Number of persons per room 45.70 | .34 | .80 |
| 3. Electricity 47.94 | .05* | .81 |
| 4. Tap water supply 47.94 | .10* | .81 |
| 5. Sanitary latrine 47.94 | .10* | .81 |
| 6. Separate kitchen 48.06 | .34 | .81 |
| 7. Ventilators/Windows 47.98 | .22 | .81 |
| 8. Stove 47.07 | .32 | .81 |
| 9. Microwave 48.91 | .15* | .81 |
| 10. Computer/Laptop 48.68 | .39 | .80 |
| 11. AC 48.91 | .15* | .81 |
| 12. Refrigerator 48.15 | .50 | .80 |
| 13. Washing machine 48.51 | .40 | .81 |
| 14. Inverter 48.89 | .19* | .81 |
| 15. Geyser 48.69 | .36 | .80 |
| 16. Cooler 48.28 | .29 | .81 |
| 17. Fans 47.98 | .08* | .81 |
| 18. Water purifier 48.84 | .23 | .81 |
| 19. Sofa set 48.52 | .35 | .81 |
| 20. Dinning table with chairs 48.88 | .11* | .81 |
| 21. Double bed(wooden) 48.16 | .34 | .81 |
| 22. Almirah(wooden/iron) 48.25 | .39 | .81 |
| 23. Type of television 47.03 | .28 | .81 |
| 24. Music player 47.38 | .37 | .80 |
| 25. Magazine 48.92 | .12* | .81 |
| 26. Newspaper 48.58 | .44 | .80 |
| 27. Landline phone 48.82 | .28 | .81 |
| 28. Mobile phone 48.05 | .31 | .81 |
| 29. Internet connection 48.92 | 12* | .81 |
| 30. Car 48.80 | .28 | .81 |
| 31. Any Two wheeler 47.91 | .53 | .80 |
| 32. Cycle 48.31 | .04* | .81 |
| 33. Caste of family 46.94 | .18* | .81 |
| 34. Community leader in family 48.90 | .05* | .81 |
| 35. Occupation of member getting highest income 46.70 | .30 | .81 |
| 36. Employment of domestic servant 48.92 | .16* | .81 |
| 37. Preference to private hospital, clinic 48.50 | .02* | .81 |
| 38. Education of adult woman 46.39 | .45 | .80 |
| 39. Education of adult male 45.83 | .47 | .80 |
| 40. Education of children 46.13 | .20 | .81 |
| 41. Monthly per capita income in Rs. 45.20 | .61 | .80 |
| 42. Monthly savings in Rs. 46.91 | .68 | .79 |
| 43. Life insurance of family members 47.92 | .48 | .80 |
| 44. Free medical facility 48.42 | .41 | .80 |
| 45. Concession of education for children 48.92 | .20 | .81 |
| 46. House rent facility 48.54 | .40 | .80 |
| 47. Free transport facility 48.78 | .38 | .81 |
| 48. Free Mobile phone 48.91 | .10* | .81 |
| 49. Free food facility 48.92 | .04* | .81 |
| 50. Free clothing facility 48.72 | .22 | .81 |
| 51. Land for agriculture 48.61 | .18* | .81 |
| 52. Plot (in marla) 48.86 | .13* | .81 |
| 53. Construted house 48.51 | .02* | .81 |
| 54. Shop 48.88 | .17* | .81 |
**Overall scale mean is 48.94. *Items in the tool which shows item to total Correlation <0.2,
**Overall reliability of tool is 0.81(unstandardisedCronbach’s alpha) are not applicable to every family. These items were occupation of member getting highest income among all the family members and education of children from 5 yrs -18 yrs. The data was analyzed by SPSS (Version -16). Only 621 families were accepted. And 293 families were rejected as the above stated items were not applicable to 293 families. Hence, the sample size for analysis was 621 families.To find out internal consistency and reliability of present SES scale, the Cronbach’s alpha (unstandardised) was used. There were total 54 items in the scale and overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of present scale was 0.81 which indicates reliability and internal consistency of the tool (Ideally Cronbach’s alpha coefficient should be >0.70). Corrected item to total correlation was applied on 54 items of scale, 32 items in the scale had item score to total score correlation between 0.2-.07(Table-1) where as 22 items in the scale had item score to total score correlation less than 0.2 showing there incompatibility with the overall tool. To check the individual contribution of items, each item was deleted one by one to see the changes in the value of Cronbach alpha coefficient. But none item had shown increase in the value of Cronbach alpha coefficient rather the value of Cronbach alpha coefficient remained same or it decreased which indicates all the items are contributing in the tool. Even on deleting items having item to total correlation less than 0.2, the value of Cronbach alpha did not increase.Hence, these 22 items were also contributing to the reliability of tool. This indicates that all the 54 items were contributing for the reliability of the scale. The average scale mean was 48.94. It means scale is internally consistent by taking all 54 items. Correlation (bivariate): To analyze inter-items correlation among items of SES scale Pearson’s Correlation (bivariate) was applied. Out of 54 items, 18 items showed the correlation <0.2. Rest 36 items hadcorrelation between 0.20- 0.72. Those 18 items were dropped from the scale.
Construct Validity of the scale Factor analysis was applied to check the construct validity of the scale. In order to apply factor analysis for construct validity, inter-item correlation among the items of scale was checked by Pearson’s correlation (bivariate). Out of total 54 items 18 items had inter-item Correlation (Pearson’s correlation) <0.2 which were dropped from the scale. Hence, factor analysis was applied on 36 items having Pearson’s correlation value 0.2 and above. To assess the suitability of data to carry out factor analysis for construct validity the Kaiser-Meyer- Olkin(KMO) test and Bar tlett’s test of Sphericity(p value) was done. KMO value was 0.869 where as p value of Bartlett’s test of sphericity was 0.000 (Table-3) which was significant (KMO value must be >0.60 and Value of Bartlett’s test of Sphericity must be<0.05). It means that the data was suitable for factor analysis.
Table-2 : Inter-item Correlation of SES scale by using Pearson’s Correlation (Bivariate)
Items of Scale Pearson’s Correlation ** Items of Scale Pearson’s Correlation **
| 1. Type of House | 0.22 | 29. Internet connection | 0.18* | |
| 2. Number of persons per room | 0.32 | 30. Car | 0.33 | |
| 3. Electricity | 0.03* | 31. Any Two wheeler | 0.60 | |
| 4. Tap water supply | 0.08* | 32. Cycle | 0.009* | |
| 5. Sanitary latrine | 0.08* | 33. Caste of family | 0.32 | |
| 6. Separate kitchen | 0.37 | 34. Community leader in family | 0.09* | |
| 7. Ventilators/Windows | 0.24 | 35. Occupation of member getting |
- Stove 34
- Microwave 19*
| 10. Computer/Laptop
11. AC 12. Refrigerator |
0.43
.019* 0.52 |
| 13. Washing machine | 0.46 |
| 14. Inverter | 0.23 |
| 15. Geyser | 0.42 |
| 16. Coole | 0.35 |
| 17. Fans | 0.08* |
| 18. Water purifier | 0.28 |
| 19. Sofa set | 0.42 |
| 20. Dinning table with chairs | 0.16* |
| 21. Double bed(wooden) | 0.38 |
| 22. Almirah(wooden/iron) | 0.42 |
| 23. Type of television | 0.30 |
| 24. Music player | 0.48 |
| 25. Magazine | 0.15* |
| 26. Newspaper | 0.40 |
| 27. Landline phone | 0.31 |
- Mobile phone 0.38
highest income 0.38
| 36. Employment of domestic servant | 0.19* |
| 37. Preference to private hospital, clinic | 0.11* |
| 38. Education of adult woman | 0.53 |
| 39. Education of adult male | 0.52 |
| 40. Education of children | 0.20 |
| 41. Monthly per capita income in Rs. | 0.58 |
| 42. Monthly savings in Rs. | 0.72 |
| 43. Life insurance of family members | 0.55 |
| 44. Free medical facility | 0.44 |
| 45. Concession of education for children | 0.20 |
| 46. House rent facility | 0.45 |
| 47. Free transport facility | 0.42 |
| 48. Free Mobile phone | 0.11* |
| 49. Free food facility | 0.06* |
| 50. Free clothing facility | 0.22 |
| 51. Land for agriculture | 0.25 |
| 52. Plot(in marla) | 0.17* |
| 53. Construted house | 0.10* |
| 54. Shop | 0.18* |
**Pearson Correlation is significant at the level of 0.2 or above
*Items with Pearson’s Correlation <0.2
Table-3 : Assessment of suitability of Socio-economic Status scale for undertaking Factor analysis
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin(KMO)* 0.869Test Value
Bartlett’s test of Sphericity(p value)** 0.000
*KMO value must be >0.60 **Value of Bartlett’s test of Sphericity must be <0.05
Extraction communality of items of Socio- economic status scale To find out the extraction communality value of each item of Socio-economic status scale, Principal Component analysis extraction method was applied. Initial communality is assumed as 1(100%) for each item. Table 4 depicts the extraction communality of each item.Extraction communality of items was in range of 0.31-0.88. Average communality extraction was 0.61(Average communality extraction should be >0.6). It means data is suitable to carry out factor analysis.The item named house rent facility had highest value of communality extraction i.e 0.88 in comparison to Sofa set which got lowest value of communality extraction i.e 0.31. Out of 36 items, 18 items had communality extraction value less than average i.e<0.61 and 18 items had communality extraction value higher than average i.e>0.61.Rotated component matrix by using Principal component analysis.By applying rotated component matrix by using principal component analysis tool had generated 8 components listed as 1, 2, 3………8 as depicted in table-5.Factor 1 has loaded 13 items but only 5 item were retained, other 6 items has loading value less than 0.3 and other 2 items had loading values higher in other components. The items retained in Factor 1 were free clothing facility, monthly savings in Rupees, free medical facility, house rent facility, free transport facility. Factor 2 had loaded 23 items but only 8 items were retained, rest of the 12 items had loading values <0.3 and 4 items had loading values higher in other components. The items retained in Factor 2 were, washing machine, cooler, sofa set, double bed, type of television, music player, mobile phone, any two wheeler. Factor 3 had loaded 21 items but only 6 items were retained these were number of persons per room, stove, almirah, education of adult woman, education of adult male, education of children as other 13 items had loading value< 0.3 and 2 items had loading value higher in other components. Factor 4 had loaded 21 items but 3 items retained which were caste of family, occupation of member getting highest income, land for agriculture as 4 items had loading value higher in other components
Table-4 : Extraction communality of items of Socio-economic Status scale* of itemsItems of Scale Extraction communality and other 14 items had loading value
<0.3. Factor 5 had loaded 20 items but only 5 items were retained which were computer/ laptop, newspaper, landline phone, car, monthly per capita income in Rupees. Other 13 items had loading value <0.3 and 2 items
- Type of House .60
- Number of persons per room .66
- Separate kitchen .59
- Ventilators/Windows .62
- Stove .62
- Computer/Laptop .57
- Refrigerator .63
- Washing machine .44
- Inverter .62
- Geyser .55
- Cooler .56
- Water purifier .34
- Sofa set .31
- Double bed(wooden) .60
- Almirah(wooden/iron) .64
- Type of television .58
- Music player .58
- Newspaper .62
- Landline phone .44
- Mobile phone .61
- Car .61
- Any Two wheeler .45
- Caste of family .51
- Occupation member getting highest income .46
- Education of adult woman .61
- Education of adult male .64
- Monthly per capita income in .56
- Monthly savings in .72
- Life insurance of family members .59
- Free medical facility .81
- House rent facility .88
- Free transport facility .74
- Free clothing facility .65
- Land for agriculture .61
- Concession of education for children .56
- Education of children .67
*Initial communality of each item is assumed 1(100%),
**Average communality extraction is 0.61
***Extraction communality of items was in range of 0.31-0.88 had loading value higher in other components. Factor 6 had loaded 19 items but only 2 items were retained (separate kitchen, ventilators/ windows). Rest 17 items had loading value<0.3. Factor 7 had loaded 14 items but only 5 items retained which were refrigerator, inverter, geyser, water purifier, concession of education for children. Other 8 items had loading value <0.3 and one item had loading value higher in another component. Factor 8 had loaded 14 items but only 2 items were retained which were type of house and life insurance of family members. Other 12 items had loading value <0.3.Hence, all 36 items were retained in 8 components so generated through factor analysis.
Table-5 : Factor analysis of SES scale using Principal Component Analysis through Varimax rotation
| Items | Component | ||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||
| 1. | Monthly savings in Rs. | .499 | .356 | .157 | .434 | .212 | .282 | ||
| 2. | Free medical facility | .885 | |||||||
| 3. | House rent facility | .926 | |||||||
| 4. | Free transport facility | .848 | |||||||
| 5. | Free clothing facility | .775 | -.180 | ||||||
| 6. | Type of television | .526 | .189 | -.121 | -.322 | ||||
| 7. | Music player | .643 | .174 | .131 | |||||
| 8. | Washing machine | .526 | .193 | -.103 | .138 | .230 | .179 | ||
| 9. | Cooler | .547 | .116 | .154 | |||||
| 10. | Sofa set | .413 | .197 | -.115 | .257 | .101 | |||
| 11. | Double bed(wooden) | .490 | .248 | -.190 | .158 | .176 | |||
| 12. | Mobile phone | .383 | .365 | .225 | -.251 | ||||
| 13. | Any Two wheeler | .451 | .276 | .150 | .265 | .208 | .133 | ||
| 14. | Number of persons per room | .168 | .585 | -.100 | .220 | .100 | |||
| 15. | Stove | .244 | .648 | -.102 | -.141 | ||||
| 16. | Almirah(wooden/iron) | .381 | .383 | .162 | .214 | .119 | |||
| 17. | Education of adult woman | .139 | .374 | .341 | .297 | .204 | |||
| 18. | Education of adult male | .142 | .100 | .399 | .362 | .276 | .198 | ||
| 19. | Education of children | .545 | .117 | -.195 | .108 | ||||
| 20. | Caste of family | -.165 | .103 | .664 | .134 | ||||
| 21. | Occupation of member | -.227 | .188 | .455 | .330 | .176 | .139 | ||
| getting highest income | |||||||||
| 22. | Land for agriculture | .686 | -.123 | ||||||
| 23. | Computer/Laptop | .136 | .170 | .168 | .602 | ||||
| 24. | Newspaper | .282 | .165 | .239 | .343 | .152 | |||
| 25. | Landline phone | .641 | |||||||
| 26. | Car | .172 | .470 | -.108 | .399 | ||||
| 27. | Monthly per capita income in Rs. | .405 | .298 | .293 | .434 | .147 | |||
| 28. | Separate kitchen | .235 | .184 | .693 | .114 | ||||
| 29. | Ventilators/Windows | .143 | -.181 | .132 | .693 | .107 | |||
| 30. | Refrigerator | .139 | .559 | .340 | .132 | .231 | .570 | .169 | |
| 31. | Inverter | .123 | .768 | ||||||
| 32. | Geyser | .382 | .199 | .570 | .169 | ||||
| 33. | Water purifier | .192 | .364 | .398 | |||||
| 34. | Concession of education for children | .255 | .112 | .225 | .350 | -.372 | |||
| 35. | Type of House | -.137 | .203 | .658 | |||||
| 36. | Life insurance of family members | .349 | .247 | .177 | .421 | .433 | |||
Rotated Component Matrix Extraction Method:Principal component analysis Rotation Method:Varimax with Kaiser Normalization Principal component analysis technique with varimax rotation had yielded a total of 8 factors having eigen value of above 1. The eigen values of 8 components was in the range of 1.036-6.702. The 8 factors so generated accounted for 50% variance (Table 6).
Table-6 : Pricipal component analysis (varimax rotation) of SES
| Component
of tool |
Eigen valve of |
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings of component of tool
% of Variance of |
Cumulative % of |
| components | components | components | |
| 1 | 6.702 | 18.616 | 18.616 |
| 2 | 3.001 | 8.337 | 26.953 |
| 3 | 2.028 | 5.632 | 32.585 |
| 4 | 1.690 | 4.695 | 37.280 |
| 5 | 1.318 | 3.661 | 40.940 |
| 6 | 1.160 | 3.222 | 44.162 |
| 7 | 1.085 | 3.014 | 47.176 |
| 8 | 1.036 | 2.879 | 50.055 |
Scree Plot of Socio-economic Status scale Scree plot of 36 items of SES scale was drawn and it showed the point of inflection at 8th component (Figure2). And it as clear in the scree plot that till 8th component the eigen value is above 1. So it is clear that all the 8 components can be retained with 36 items amount of variance accounted for each factorFig 2 : Scree Plot of Socio-economic status scale showing
Results:A socio-economic status scale was developed to assess the socio-economic status of families of low income community residing in Dadu Majra Colony, UT Chandigarh. For construct validity of the scale factor analysis was applied which divided the scale into 8 parts according to the factors so generated through factor analysis. According to the factor generated through factor analysis the items of the scale were organized under 8 parts i.e A-Financial security, B-material possessions, C- Educational status of family and other items, D-Social status of family, E-Income and other necessities, F-Housing, G-Other possessions, H-Type of house and life insurance of family members. Rest of the 18 items which were deleted in Pearson’s correlation are kept under separate heading i.e I-Other items.On applying the Cronbach alpha if item deleted, none of the item has shown increase in the value of Cronbach alpha coefficient which means that all the 54 items were equally contributing to make the scale reliable. All the experts also felt that 18 items which were deleted in Pearson’ correlation were also important. Hence, those 18 items were kept under separate heading which formed the 9th part of the scale. The final Socio-economic status scale is having 9 parts and 54 items. There is separate scoring key along with the guidelines to use the scale. The interview technique should be used to use the scale. The interviewer has to ask the question and to mark a tick in the box corresponding to the response given by family. The information should be collected from adult member (> 18 years of age) of the family. In this way the interviewer will calculate the total score of the family corresponding to the scores given against each item in the scoring key. While giving score to each item guidelines to use the scale should be kept in to mind. As per the scores obtained by the family, that family can be classified into any of the six socio-economic classes. The six socio-economic classes are Upper high, High, Upper middle, Lower middle, Poor and Very poor. Maximum score of the scale is 110. The family will be having very poor socio-economic status if the score obtained by the family will be in the range of 1-18. Similarly if the score of the family is in the range of 19-36 then the status of family will be poor, if scores are in the range of 37- 54 then lower middle, if in 55-72 range then upper middle, if in 73-90 range then high and if 91-110 range then the status will be upper high.
Discussion:‘Socio-economic status’ (SES) is a combined total measure of economic and sociological condition of an individual, family and community. It can be typically broken into three categories, high SES, middle SES, and low SES to describe the three areas a family or an individual may fall into2.It is difficult to measure the family income. Because usually, people tend to understate or inaccurately state their family income due to high taxation level or due to subsidies offered to lower income groups by the government. Hence, accurate measurement of family income is difficult. In order to overcome this problem of true measure of SES, several efforts have been made to develop SES scales. But the available scales are developed on smaller samples drawn from sub-strata of population and not on large representative cross-section of the community. And lack of clarity about how to measure and interpret SES, not only makes it difficult to study socio-economic disparities in health in ways that are useful to inform policies to reduce those gaps, it also makes it difficult to interpret results of studies that attempts to adjust for socio- economic influences on health. Social transformation and fast changing economy have rendered the currently available scales ineffective in measuring the SES over the years and across the population groups in the country especially low income group communities5.Hence, the need was felt to develop SES Scale for families residing in low income community in Dadu Majra Colony, Chandigarh because this is one of the areas which is adopted by National Institute of Nursing Education, PGIMER, Chandigarh to provide experiences to the students in the field of community health nursing.In order to develop the SES scale methodological research design was adopted. The tool was developed in four phases with different steps. Phase I- was Preliminary preparation in which extensive literature was reviewed and different items which seemed to represent socio-economic status were selected and pooled together in the form of a scale. In Phase II content validity was under taken with Delphi technique. There were 12 Twelve experts in all Delphi rounds. Three Delphi rounds were under taken and modifications were made as per the suggestions given by the experts.Delphi technique was also used by Michelle et al to determine nursing research priorities in the North Glasgow University Hospitals. They found that three Delphi rounds were sufficient to reach common consensus.10 In present study modifications were made after each Delphi round. In the first draft the scale was under four domains (i.e Physical structure & family possessions, social status, economic status, and status of member getting highest income among all the family members) which was changed to three domains (i.e Physical structure & family possessions, social status, economic status) in second draft. Again the scale was organized under two domains in third draft and four th draft. After each consecutive Delphi round the modifications were reduced reaching towards the common consensus by all the experts. After fourth Delphi round all items were same as in the third Delphi round but there were some modifications in the guidelines to use the scale. As per the suggestions from guide and co- guide the Delphi rounds were stopped as common consensus were gained by all the experts.Different researchers had presented their SES scales under different domains e.g in Prasad classification socio-economic class is based on single domain i.e income as compared to Kuppuswami’s scale which takes into account three domains i.e income, education and occupation. Present SES scale was under two domains i.e Part-A which includes house, material possessions, recreation and means of communication and Par t-B which contains caste and social status, educational status, income sources and financial security. In the present scale there were total 54 items as compared to Kuppuswami’s scale containing 3 items. Similarly in Prasad classification’s there was single item i.e income in comparison to the OP Agarwal’s scale which has 22 items.In Phase III Pilot study was done and developed SES scale was administered on 10 families residing in Dadu Majra Colony. Again fourth Delphi round was undertaken as there were certain modifications after Pilot study.In Phase IV the draft prepared after the fourth Delphi round was tried out on large sample. The study setting was low income community residing in Dadu Majra Colony, Chandigarh. There are total 3196 families in Dadu Majra Colony. Systematic random sampling technique was used to select the families on the basis of which every 4th family was interviewed. Interview technique was used to collect the data. Consent was taken from each family. All the families were informed about the purpose and objectives of the study. After that data was analysed by SPSS version-16. Internal consistency (reliability) and construct validity was checked by Cronbach’s alpha (unstandardised) and factor analysis respectively. The Cronbach alpha coefficient of present SES scale was 0.81 showing the reliability of scale. It also revealed that all the items were uniformly contributing for the reliability of the scale. Another study was on development and initial Psychometric evaluation of patient perspective of Arrhythmis questionnaire11. In this study also Cronbach’ alpha Coeffcient was used to find out the reliability of their tool. The value of Cronbach’ alpha Coeffcient for their tool was 0.93 which indicates the internal consistency of tool. Similarly a study on reliability and validity of sexual pressure scale for women (revised)12 had also used Cronbach alpha to find out the internal consistency of their tool and value of Cronbach’ alpha Coeffcient was 0.88 which also suggested the reliability of the tool. A methodological study for auditing the family health records13 also used Cronbach’ alpha Coeffcient to find out the internal consistency of the tool. And value of Cronbach’ alpha Coeffcient was 0.73 which indicated the reliability of the tool. Another study on development of birth preparedness tool14 had also used Cronbach’ alpha Coeffcient and value of Cronbach’ alpha Coeffcient was 0.81 which also suggested the reliability of the tool.Construct validity of present SES scale was checked by factor analysis. Factor analysis is most often used as a part of instrument development process. It is a method for organizing the items into the factors15. It can be used as to reduce the number of items in scale by eliminating factors with low factor loadings or items that load approx. equal on two or more factors. Maureen IH, Annette LG16 did to refine a new instrument on perception of pregnancy risk questionnaire. There were total 9 items in the original tool and after applying factor analysis all the 9 items were retained. Another study was on development of the differentiation of self and role inventory for nurses17. There were total 47 items in the original tool which were reduced to 23 after factor analysis. One more study on alcohol and drug confrontation scale18 had also used factor analysis. There were total 72 items in the original scale and out of which only 64 items were retained.In the present study inter item correlation was checked by Pearson’s correlation (bivariate). There were total 54 items in the original SES scale and out of that 18 items were deleted as their Perason’s Correlation was <0.2. And then Factor analysis was done on 36 items. Total 8 components were generated through Principal component (Varimax rotation). And all 36 items were retained in 8 components so generated which accounted for the 50 % of the variance. But overall Cronbach alpha coefficient of 54 item-version of scale was 0.81 which indicates the internal consistency of scale. When the Cronbach’s Alpha if item deleted was applied then none of the item has shown increase in the value of Cronbach alpha coefficient. It indicates all the items are equally contributing to make the scale reliable. It means all the 54 items are retained through Cronbach alpha coefficient. Expert’s also felt that other 18 items are also important and can be used to assess the socio-economic status of family. Final SES scale is divided in to 8 parts and 18 items deleted in Perason’s
Correlation were kept under separate heading i.e Other items which forms the 9th part of the scale. These 18 items can also be used to assess socio-economic status of families residing in Dadu Majra Colony, Chandigarh. Separate scoring key and guidelines was developed to use the scale.Maximum score of the scale is 110. On the basis of score obtained by the family, one can categorize the family into six socio- economic classes i.e. upper high, high, upper middle, lower middle, poor, very poor. Different researcher had categorised the socio- economic status in to different classes. Like in Kuppuswami’s scale there are total 5 socio- economic classes such as upper class, upper middle, lower middle, upper lower, and lower. In Prasad SES scale there are 6 socio- economic classes which includes upper high, high, upper middle, lower middle, poor, very poor or below poverty line(BPL). Similarly in Uday Pareekh SES scale there are 5 classes such as upper class, upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class, and lower class.The present scale was tried out on large sample i.e 914 families which made the scale standardised. Available SES scales rely on the information based on the head of the family but present scale is based on the information regarding all the family members and material possessions in the house. Hence, it is better to use present SES scale for comprehensive assessment of socio-economic status of residents in Dadu Majra Colony, UT, Chandigarh. From the above discussion it is clear that the developed SES scale is reliable,valid, and can be used by nursing students and other health care professionals to assess the socio-economic status of families residing in Dadu Majra Colony, Chandigarh. The feasibility of scale in other low income communities can also be checked.
References
- Sinclair G, Doughney J, Palermol J. Equity indicators: Measures of socio-economic status at Victoria University of Technology AAIR 2001 3-5th Available at http:// www.aair.org.au/jir/2001Papers/ Sinclair.pdf. Accessed on 5th March 2009.
- Socio-economic Available at h t t p : / / e n . w i k i pe d i a . o rg / wi k i / S o c i o economic_status. Accessed on 3rd March 2009.
- Tiwari SC, Kumar Aditya, Kumar Developmant and standardisation of a scale to measure socio-economic status in urban and rural communities in India, Indian Journal of Medical Research October 2005;122:309-314.
- DeonandanRaywat Campbell Karen, OstbyeTruls, Tummon Ian &Robersonn James. A comparison of methods for measuring socio- nomic status by occupation or postal area. Chronic diseases of Canada 2000;21(3):114-
- Gupta RN. A scale to measure socio- economic status in urban& rural communities in India. Indian Journal of Medical Research October 2005:288-289.
- Park Textbook of Preventive & social medicine. 19th ed. Jabalpur:BanarsidasBhanot Publishers;2007:25
- Patel AB, Prabhu AS, Dibley MJ, A Tool for rapid socio-economic assessment. Indian Journal of Pediatric 2007;74(4):349-352
- Braveman Paula et Measuring socio- economic status/position in studies of racial/ethnic disparities. Public health reports 2001;116;September- October:449-463.
- Delphi method. Available at http:// wikipedia. org/ wiki/ Delphi_ method Accessed on 5th April 2010.
- Kirkwood Michelle, Wales Ann, Wilson Delphi study to determine Nursing research priorities in North Glasgow University Hospitals. International journal of Nursing studies 2005;43:560-563.
- Wood KA et Development and initial psychometric evaluation of the patient perspective of Arrhythmia questionnaire. Research in Nursing and Health 2009;32:504-516.
- Jones Rachel, Gulick Reliability and validity of the sexual Pressure scale for women- Revised. Research in Nursing and Health 2009;32:71-85.
- Bandana, Walia Indarjit, Saini Development of Audit tool: A methodological study for auditing the family health records. Nursing and Midwifery Journal 2009;5(4):166-175.
- KaurVarinder, Saini SK, Development of Birth preparedness tool(BPT)-A tool to assess mother’s preparedness for delivery, postnatal and new born care. Nursing and Midwifery Journal 2009;5(2):45-58
- Munro Statistical methods for health care research. 5th ed. Philadelphia; Lippincott William & Wilkins:321-349.
- Heaman MI, Gupton AL. Psychometric testing of the Perception of pregnancy risk Research in Nursing and Health 2009;32:493-503.
- Beebe Ronald, Frisch Development of the differentiation of self and role inventory for nurses(DSRI-RN): A tool to measure internal dimensions of workplace stress. Nursing Outlook 2009;57:240-245.
- Douglas LP, Gantt PG, Alan Factor analysis of the alcohol and drug confrontation scale. Journal of addiction behaviour 2007;32:2274-2280.