Validation of Standard of Living Scale with Comparison to Other Socio-Economic Scales in a Semi Urban Area of Mangalore : A Pilot Study

Abstract

Introduction: Socioeconomic status is an important determinant of health condition of an individual or a family. Many tools are being used to assess the socioeconomic status. Each of the scales have their own advantages and disadvantages. But an appropriate and a standardized tool is yet to be developed

Objectives: To compare the standard of living based on different socioeconomic scales in a semiurban area of Mangalore and to assess the appropriateness of socioeconomic scales to be used in a semiurban area of Mangalore

Methodology: A cross sectional study was conducted in households of Kuthar and Manjanady villages of Dakshina Kannada district from June- August 2014. Questionnaire method was used to avail information about the socioeconomic status of the study population. The data was analysed using SPSS 16 software.

Results: Majority (70%) of the study population belonged to class IV of kuppuswamy scale. Whereas according to Modified BG Prasad scale majority of the population belonged to class III (35%) and class II (28%). According to Pareek's scale around 92% of population belonged to class IV. But when standard of living was assessed majority of them (62%) had high standard of Living.

Conclusions: We found that Standard of living is the better option in assessing the socio-economic status of a household as compared to all other scales whether be it urban, rural or semi urban.

Keywords:

socio economic status - different socioeconomic scales - Modified Kupuswamy scale - Pareek scale - Modified BG prasad scale and standard of living index

Publication History

Article published online:
22 April 2020

• References

• 1 Park K. Preventive and Social Medicine. 22nd ed. m/s Banarsidas Bhanot; 2013. p.640
• 2 Agarwal OP, Bhasin SK, Sharma AK, Chhabra P, Agarwal K, Rajoura OP. A new instrument (scale) for measuring the socioeconomic status of a family: Preliminary study. Indian J Community Med. 2005;30:(4): 111–4.
• 3 Gupta MC, Mahajan BK, Roy RN, Saha I. Text book of preventive and social medicine. 4th ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Publications; 2005. p. 117
• 4 Masthi RNR, Boraih G, Kulkarni P. An Exploratory Study on Socio Economic Status in Rural and Urban Setting. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary care. 2013 Jan-Mar; 2(1): 69–73.
• 5 Report of the Expert Group to Review The Methodology For Measurement of Poverty.Government of India Planning Commission, June 2014.pdf [Internet].[cited 2016 Jan28].Available from : http:// planning commission.nic.in/reports/genrep/pov_rep0707. pdf
• 6 Holyachi SK, Santosh A. Socioeconomic Status scales –An Update. Annals of community Health.volume 1:(1):24-26.
• 7 Ministry Consumer Price Index [Internet]. [cited 2016 Jan 28]. Available from: http://164.100.34.62:8080/cpiindex/Default1.aspx
• 8 Government of India [Internet]. [cited 2016 Jan 28]. Available from: http://labourbureau.nic.in/PressIW%20New%20series.htm
• 9 NFHS-3-Chapter -02-Household-Populat ion-and-Housing- Characteristics.pdf [Internet]. [cited 2016 Jan 29]. Available from: http://hetv.org/india/nfhs/nfhs3/NFHS-3-Chapter-02-Household-Population-and-Housing-Characteristics.pdf