# Development of a Scale to Measure Perception of KVK Officials on Capacity Needs Under NICRA

Manju Prem, Riza Mathew, Jayalekshmi G

► To cite this version:

Manju Prem, Riza Mathew, Jayalekshmi G. Development of a Scale to Measure Perception of KVK Officials on Capacity Needs Under NICRA. Ecology, Environment and Conservation, 2025, 31, pp.S290-S294. 10.53550/EEC.2025.v31i02s.051. hal-04977148

HAL Id: hal-04977148

https://hal.science/hal-04977148v1

Submitted on 19 Mar 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
# Development of a Scale to Measure Perception of KVK Officials on Capacity Needs Under NICRA

Manju Prem S.¹*, Jayalekshmi G.² and Riza Mathew¹

College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Kerala Agricultural University, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India

(Received 11 September, 2024; Accepted 10 November, 2024)

## ABSTRACT

A scale was developed to measure the perception of KVK officials regarding capacity needs under NICRA. Likert's summated rating scale technique was used for constructing the scale. A total of 80 statements were initially selected based on relevance scores and administered to 40 KVK officials from non-sampled areas in Kerala and Karnataka, India. The final scale comprised 31 statements, including 26 positive and 5 negative ones. The reliability and validity of the scale demonstrate its precision and consistency in measuring the intended perceptions

**Key words:** Perception, Capacity needs, Climate resilience, NICRA, Scale development

## Introduction

The National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture (NICRA) started by Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) plays a vital role in improving the resilience of Indian agriculture to climate change. It is very important that officials working under NICRA to have a clear understanding of the capacity needs required to meet the challenges of climate change (Gupta, 2021). Climate change has emerged as a major challenge recently, affecting various aspects of agricultural productivity and sustainability (Shah et al., 2024). Therefore it is very important to identify, analyse and address the capacity needs of officials under NICRA to lessen the negative impacts of climate change on agriculture.

It is necessary to have a fundamental understanding of officials' perceptions of climate variability and capacity requirements in order to respond to these challenges (Kabir et al., 2024). For the purpose of developing successful coping mechanisms and capac-

ity-building programs, it is essential to comprehend these views. These understandings can help shape discussions on climate resilience in science and policy, enabling the development of useful and effective interventions. Because officials' perceptions can affect how effectively they respond to climate variability, researchers should understand how officials view their capacity needs (Sherman and Van Boven, 2024).

Policy makers need to understand the needs and preferences of the farming community to design policies that will be either supported or at least accepted. Officials play a major role in the success of the program so finding the capacity needs of officials will indirectly help the final beneficiaries i.e., farmers. So while forming the policies, keeping in mind the capacity needs of officials is highly instrumental. So there is a need for this type of study that focuses on the perception of officials' needs that helps in improving their capacity and finally mitigating the climate change.
## Materials and Methods

The psychology of perception explores how individuals interpret and make sense of their environment through the processes carried out by their perceptual systems, which involve both behavioural and biological frameworks (Dror and Schreiner, 1997). In this study, perception was defined as the significant awareness of the gap between the current availability and the required level of knowledge, skills, resources, and institutional support that KVK officials need to help farmers effectively adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change on agriculture. The method of summated ratings, as proposed by Likert (1932), Edwards (1957), and Patil et al. (1996), was used to develop the scale. The following factors were considered when measuring officials' perceptions:

*Collection and Editing of Statements:* A set of items and statements eliciting the perceptions of KVK officials on capacity needs under NICRA was gathered in consultation with KVK officials and experts in Extension Education. A preliminary list of 152 statements, comprising 85 positive and 67 negative items, was drafted to ensure the statements were relevant to the study area.

*Editing the Items:* These statements were carefully reviewed and edited based on the criteria suggested by Thurstone, Likert, and Edwards (1957). As a result, 18 statements were eliminated, and the remaining 134 statements were included in the performance.

*Relevancy test:* It was likely that not all the collected statements would be equally relevant in measuring officials' perceptions of capacity needs under NICRA. Therefore, the statements were subjected to scrutiny by an expert panel of judges to assess their relevancy and to screen them for inclusion in the final scale. For this purpose, all 134 statements were typed and sent to a panel of judges. The panel consisted of experts in the fields of Extension Education, Climate Change, or from KVKs. A total of 100 judges received the statements, along with instructions to critically evaluate each one for its relevance in measuring officials' perceptions of capacity needs under NICRA. The judges were asked to rate each statement on a five-point continuum: Most relevant, relevant, somewhat relevant, less relevant, and not relevant, with scores of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1, respectively.

In total, 42 judges responded within the two-month period. The relevancy score for each item was determined by summing the scores assigned by the

42 judges on the rating scale. The total scores for each item were then aggregated across all respondents, and a relevancy index was calculated using the following formula:

$$ \text{Relevancy index} = \frac{\text{Total score obtained on each item} \times 100}{\text{Maximum possible score}} $$

This index helped in selecting the most relevant items for the final scale. Items that achieved a relevancy index of 80 or above were selected, leading to the retention of 80 items. This ensured that only the most relevant items were used to measure the perceptions of officials regarding capacity needs under NICRA.

*Item analysis:* It was essential to differentiate the items based on their ability to distinguish between respondents with high perceptions and those with low perceptions of capacity needs under NICRA. To achieve this, an item analysis was conducted on the statements selected in the first stage. A schedule consisting of 80 statements was prepared and distributed via a mailed questionnaire to a sample of 40 officials from non-sampled areas. The responses were collected on a five-point continuum: strongly agree, agree, somewhat agree, disagree, and strongly disagree, with corresponding scores of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1, respectively for positive statements, and vice versa for negative statements. Each respondent's perception score was calculated by summing up the scores of all the statements.

For the item analysis, respondents were arranged in descending order based on their perception scores. The top 25 per cent of respondents with the highest total scores and the bottom 25 per cent with the lowest total scores were selected, forming the criterion groups for the analysis. The critical ratio was calculated using the t-test, with the t-value serving as a measure of how effectively a given statement differentiates between the high and low groups. Based on the t-values obtained, 31 statements with t values above 2.145 were ultimately retained in the final scale. The statements are presented in Table 1.

$$ t = \frac{\bar{X}_H - \bar{X}_L}{\sqrt{\frac{\sum (X_H - \bar{X}_H)^2 + \sum (X_L - \bar{X}_L)^2}{n(n-1)}}} $$

Where,

*X̄H* = Mean of the score of an item for the high group

*X̄L* = Mean of the score of an item for the low group

n = Number of subjects in a group
*Standardization of the scale:* The validity and reliability of the scale were established for its standardization. Validity was confirmed through both content validity and criterion validity assessments.

a. *Content validity:* Content validity refers to the representativeness and adequacy of the sampling of the content, substance, and topics of the measuring instrument. This was carefully considered during the selection of perception statements. Careful attention was given to the selection and wording of the statements to ensure that all relevant aspects of quality were covered, thereby ensuring a satisfactory degree of content validity.

b. *Criterion validity:* Criterion validity refers to an objective measure of performance or quality. In this study, criterion validity was assessed using the criterion of total service experience. A comparison was made between the perception scores and the total service experience of 40 non-sampled respondents.

Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient was calculated, yielding an r-value of 0.686, which indicates the validity of the scale.

c. *Reliability:* The split-half method was employed to test the reliability of the scale. The scale was divided into two halves based on the odd and even-numbered items and administered to 40 officials. The reliability of the test was measured at 0.952, indicating a high level of reliability for the scale. This suggests that the test is dependable for measuring officials' perceptions of capacity needs under NICRA.

## Results and Discussion

The final scale comprised 31 statements, with their corresponding t-values presented in Table 1. Responses were recorded on a five-point continuum, representing Strongly Agree, Agree, Somewhat

<table><caption>**Table 1.** Item Analysis</caption><thead><tr><td>Sl. No.</td><td>Items</td><td>t value</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1.</td><td>Learning about natural resource conservation methods through training is highly beneficial for NICRA.*</td><td>2.26</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>I think it's a good idea to split the capacity-building programs into different topic areas.</td><td>0.91</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>Climate change training providing me with solutions to agricultural problems caused by climate change.*</td><td>2.87</td></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>Understanding resource conservation technologies through training is highly beneficial for NICRA.</td><td>0.53</td></tr><tr><td>5.</td><td>Training on nutrient management practices is highly beneficial for NICRA.*</td><td>2.15</td></tr><tr><td>6.</td><td>I think clubbing of few themes can also be done for effectiveness.</td><td>1.93</td></tr><tr><td>7.</td><td>Learning livestock and fishery management techniques through training is highly beneficial for NICRA.*</td><td>2.86</td></tr><tr><td>8.</td><td>Training on crop diversification strategies is highly beneficial for NICRA.*</td><td>2.46</td></tr><tr><td>9.</td><td>I think that learning about climate change during training helps in understanding its agricultural impacts better.*</td><td>3.00</td></tr><tr><td>10.</td><td>Understanding crop management techniques through training is highly beneficial for NICRA.*</td><td>3.10</td></tr><tr><td>11.</td><td>Repetition of training topics will affect training effectiveness.</td><td>0.18</td></tr><tr><td>12.</td><td>Selection of training methods appropriate for training topics is not important for effectiveness.* (-)</td><td>4.26</td></tr><tr><td>13.</td><td>Training on climate change is discouraging me to actively participate in NICRA project activities. (-)</td><td>1.02</td></tr><tr><td>14.</td><td>Learning various teaching methods during training helping me work effectively in NICRA project.*</td><td>2.46</td></tr><tr><td>15.</td><td>Training on fodder and feed management practices is highly beneficial for NICRA.</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>16.</td><td>Familiarity with integrated crop management approaches through training is highly beneficial for NICRA.*</td><td>2.59</td></tr><tr><td>17.</td><td>Training on pest and disease management methods is highly beneficial for NICRA.*</td><td>2.63</td></tr><tr><td>18.</td><td>New topics require more training sessions for better comprehension.*</td><td>3.53</td></tr><tr><td>19.</td><td>Training on value addition processes in agriculture is more beneficial for NICRA.*</td><td>2.30</td></tr><tr><td>20.</td><td>I believe that training in adaptability skills contributes to my job performance.</td><td>0.31</td></tr><tr><td>21.</td><td>I believe both technical and soft skill training are necessary for improving my job performance.*</td><td>3.10</td></tr><tr><td>22.</td><td>I'm always punctual, respecting not only my time but also that of my trainees.*</td><td>3.32</td></tr><tr><td>23.</td><td>I believe that soft skill training by a diverse group of trainers, including those from outside the industry, is highly valuable.*</td><td>2.91</td></tr><tr><td>24.</td><td>I think training on organisational skills are essential.*</td><td>2.92</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1. Continued ...**</caption><thead><tr><th>Sl. No.</th><th>Items</th><th>t value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>25.</td><td>I find that training in organizational skills, like time management and problem-solving, enhances my job performance.</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>26.</td><td>I find that training in communication skills, such as clarity and active listening, improves my job performance.</td><td>1.16</td></tr><tr><td>27.</td><td>I believe that receiving training in technological proficiency improves my job performance.</td><td>1.65</td></tr><tr><td>28.</td><td>I always uplift my teaching and learning environment.</td><td>1.78</td></tr><tr><td>29.</td><td>Training in both English and local languages is not necessary for effective understanding and performance.* (-)</td><td>2.70</td></tr><tr><td>30.</td><td>I think video lessons are the highly effective training method.</td><td>0.67</td></tr><tr><td>31.</td><td>I think my length of service under NICRA significantly impacts my understanding and capacity development in training activities.</td><td>1.45</td></tr><tr><td>32.</td><td>I think training before the cropping season is effective.</td><td>1.61</td></tr><tr><td>33.</td><td>I will participate effectively in training if my physical and mental health needs are met.</td><td>0.18</td></tr><tr><td>34.</td><td>I support group discussions are the highly effective training method.</td><td>1.2</td></tr><tr><td>35.</td><td>I am not capable of effectively reflecting on what I have learned in training. (-)</td><td>0.64</td></tr><tr><td>36.</td><td>I believe previous training experiences doesn't impact understanding of current training. (-)</td><td>1.58</td></tr><tr><td>37.</td><td>I think fields of successful farmers are not suitable venues for effective training. (-)</td><td>0.54</td></tr><tr><td>38.</td><td>I believe providing travel facilities to the training venue is not essential. (-)</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td>39.</td><td>I don't recognize the importance of having flexibility to attend training sessions offered by other institutes. (-)</td><td>0.46</td></tr><tr><td>40.</td><td>I don't think monitoring and evaluation of training is crucial for further improvement. (-)</td><td>1.78</td></tr><tr><td>41.</td><td>I believe training should not take place in NICRA villages for effectiveness. (-)</td><td>0.67</td></tr><tr><td>42.</td><td>I believe that conducting Training Needs Analysis (TNA) is not crucial for effective capacity building. (-)</td><td>0.50</td></tr><tr><td>43.</td><td>I believe well-defined mission, vision, and goals are crucial for NICRA's success.*</td><td>2.84</td></tr><tr><td>44.</td><td>I feel NICRA should allocate funds for training and capacity building by giving flexibility at the KVK level.*</td><td>4.15</td></tr><tr><td>45.</td><td>In my opinion evaluation should encompass not only results but also the targets set.*</td><td>2.74</td></tr><tr><td>46.</td><td>I think monitoring and evaluation at every level are not crucial. (-)</td><td>1.50</td></tr><tr><td>47.</td><td>I think the strategies are well-developed and are playing good role in the easy implementation.</td><td>0.30</td></tr><tr><td>48.</td><td>I believe monitoring committees have clearly defined roles and responsibilities.</td><td>0.18</td></tr><tr><td>49.</td><td>I think the monitoring committee visits all implementation sub-units and it's never a waste of time.</td><td>0.50</td></tr><tr><td>50.</td><td>Learning from monitored and evaluated information is not much important for addressing gaps and challenges within the system. (-)</td><td>1.60</td></tr><tr><td>51.</td><td>Even with central funding, having additional sources of funding can enhance project implementation.</td><td>2.12</td></tr><tr><td>52.</td><td>I think capacity building for KVKs should be more systematically organized.</td><td>0.80</td></tr><tr><td>53.</td><td>I feel the inter-functional coordination among all the departments within KVKs is effective.</td><td>0.63</td></tr><tr><td>54.</td><td>I think weekly meetings at KVKs regarding NICRA are sufficient.*</td><td>2.74</td></tr><tr><td>55.</td><td>I believe there should be a separate budget allocated for exposure visits or conferences.*</td><td>3.15</td></tr><tr><td>56.</td><td>I don't feel that the absence of an annual training plan hinders the successful implementation of the trainings. (-)</td><td>0.58</td></tr><tr><td>57.</td><td>I feel that while staff at KVKs undergo regular training and capacity building activities, these are mostly for other projects.</td><td>0.78</td></tr><tr><td>58.</td><td>I believe training on climate adaptation and resilience should be conducted in a more engaging and inclusive manner.</td><td>0.68</td></tr><tr><td>59.</td><td>I believe my project leader possessing a strong understanding of the subject matter doesn't affect me. (-)</td><td>1.20</td></tr><tr><td>60.</td><td>I don't think a lack of additional training would prevent me from fully grasping the complexities of adaptation interventions.* (-)</td><td>2.96</td></tr><tr><td>61.</td><td>It is good that NICRA documents from KVKs are shared through reports.*</td><td>2.69</td></tr><tr><td>62.</td><td>I think decisions are made in a structured manner within the organization.*</td><td>2.22</td></tr><tr><td>63.</td><td>I believe that soliciting feedback from us is of paramount importance.*</td><td>2.41</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 1. Continued ...**</caption><thead><tr><th>Sl. No.</th><th>Items</th><th>t value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>64.</td><td>The NICRA website should be more dynamic to reflect implementation developments.</td><td>0.38</td></tr><tr><td>65.</td><td>Access to necessary software and hardware needs to be adequate.</td><td>0.87</td></tr><tr><td>66.</td><td>ICT is essential for reaching out to people effectively.*</td><td>2.59</td></tr><tr><td>67.</td><td>KVKs not documenting learning and best practices from NICRA affects the project in the long run.</td><td>1.37</td></tr><tr><td>68.</td><td>Developing a KVK service application is important.*</td><td>4.95</td></tr><tr><td>69.</td><td>I believe there is thorough documentation of processes followed at KVK are useless. (-)</td><td>0.72</td></tr><tr><td>70.</td><td>Effective leadership is not needed for the project's success. (-)</td><td>1.28</td></tr><tr><td>71.</td><td>Although structural decisions involve participation and representation, there can occasionally be delays in communicating decisions made at higher levels.* (-)</td><td>3.00</td></tr><tr><td>72.</td><td>Digitization is necessary in KVKs.</td><td>0.50</td></tr><tr><td>73.</td><td>I feel the decision-making framework should be systematic with guidelines and flexibility.</td><td>0.68</td></tr><tr><td>74.</td><td>I believe our organization has a clear structure with defined roles, responsibilities, and accountability.</td><td>0.33</td></tr><tr><td>75.</td><td>Documentation and dissemination of success stories helps me to understand well about anything.</td><td>1.21</td></tr><tr><td>76.</td><td>I don't believe the involvement of the local community through Village Climatic Risk Management Committee (VCRMC) and CHCs (Custom Hiring on Farm Implements and Machinery) is crucial for NICRA's success.* (-)</td><td>4.52</td></tr><tr><td>77.</td><td>I am confident in my understanding of my roles and responsibilities.</td><td>1.28</td></tr><tr><td>78.</td><td>I believe the learning and best practices documented by KVKs are disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, publications, and brochures.</td><td>1.45</td></tr><tr><td>79.</td><td>I'm not concerned about the lack of formal training to understand jargon, concepts, and principles. (-)</td><td>0.98</td></tr><tr><td>80.</td><td>I'm worried about the frequent changes in leadership.</td><td>1.34</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Statements selected to construct the final scale.

(-) Negative statements

Agree, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree, with scores of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1, respectively for positive statements and reverse scoring (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) for negative statements.

## Conclusion

The validity and reliability of the scale demonstrate the precision and consistency of the results. This scale can be utilized to measure KVK officials' perceptions beyond the study area and can be adapted for use in other projects with minimal modifications.

## Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

## References

* Dror, I.E. and Schreiner, C.S. 1997. Neural networks and perception. *Advances in Psychology*. 126: 77-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(98)80018-6

* Edward, A.L. 1957. *Techniques of attitude scale construction.*

New York: Appleton Century-Crofts.

* Gupta, A. 2021. Climate action in India: challenges and ways forward in agriculture. *Journal of Environmental Toxicology Studies*. 5: S1.

* Kabir, K.H., Schneider, U.A. and Leggette, H.R. 2024. Three faces of climate change: Using Q-methodology to understand farmers' perspectives of climate change and adaptive capacity in Bangladesh's wetland areas. *Climate Services*. 34: 100497.

* Likert, R.A. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. *Archives of Psychology*. 140.

* Patil, S.L., Swamy, S.B. and Patil, V.G. 1996. Development of a scale to measure perception of farmers about the usefulness of NAEP. *Maharashtra Journal of Extension Education*. XV: 125-131.

* Shah, W.U.H., Lu, Y., Liu, J., Rehman, A. and Yasmeen, R. 2024. The impact of climate change and production technology heterogeneity on China's agricultural total factor productivity and production efficiency. *Science of The Total Environment*. 907: 168027.

* Sherman, D.K. and Van Boven, L. 2024. The connections—and misconnections—between the public and politicians over climate policy: A social psychological perspective. *Social Issues and Policy Review*. 18(1): 31-58.