1. INTRODUCTION

Based on the connotation given to rural development, referred to as an improvement to economic and environmental conditions as well as quality of life for inhabitants of rural areas, Salas-Razo and ^{Juárez Hernández (2018}) studied whether it was pertinent to move to a sustainable integrated rural development model, based on a knowledge society. In past decades, Latin America’s rural areas have undergone profound changes, because of major demographic, social, and manufacturing changes that have exacerbated poverty and the degradation of natural resources. An instrument that can describe reality through its inhabitants’ eyes is needed, as they live with the scarcity and needs grounded in their reality.

The authors believe that sustainable rural development is multifactorial, which establishes it as a complex and dynamic phenomenon, that aims to surpass economic proposals and look systemically at the various dimensions that determine the development level of a rural community. Accordingly, they consider that the factors are i) economic, social and cultural ii) environmental iii) basic services and infrastructure and iv) organizational and governmental.

There are different proposed instruments to evaluate rural community development (^{Galván-Corral et.al., 2014}; ^{De Alcântara-Bousi et al., 2017}; ^{Milano, 2017}; ^{Fuentes et al., 2018}) that assess biodiversity loss, deforestation, socioeconomic inequality, malnutrition, access to education, health, security, infrastructure, housing, services, democracy, and social stability. They also evaluate the adoption of new technology, the use of renewable energy, the manufacture of consumer and wellbeing goods, and the suitability of the region. These are seen as key factors for sustainable development, quality of life, territorial security, education, technology, and employment, based on factors relating to resource availability, social reliability, social justice, opportunities for choice, the ability to choose and the perception of satisfaction and sustainable economic development. However, Salas-Razo and ^{Juárez-Hernández (2018}) highlight that the different factors for development levels in a rural community remain disperse.

In that regard, ^{Rodríguez-Casavielles et al. (2011}), ^{Galván-Corral et al. (2014}), ^{Estrada et al. (2015)}, ^{De Alcântara-Bousi et al. (2017)}, ^{Milano (2017}), and ^{Fuentes et al. (2018}), note that the dimensions that comprise the concept are child development, quality of life, territorial security, education, technology and employment, all according to factors relating to resource availability, social reliability, social justice, opportunities for choice, the ability to choose and the perception of satisfaction and sustainable economic development. However, these proposals do not include the fundamental dimensions (economic, sociocultural, environmental conditions; basic services and infrastructure; and organization and governance), which were considered essential to evaluating development levels in rural areas (^{Salas-Razo and Juárez-Hernandez, 2018}).

Consequently, it became clear that there was a need for an instrument that filled the existing gaps in diagnostic materials of the development levels of a rural community. An instrument that included the pertinent dimensions and that objectively described the context, shortages, and the opportunities according to a rural community as perceived by its own inhabitants. (^{Lares and López, 2004}; ^{Barrera-Ortiz et al., 2015}; ^{Ibáñez and Castillo, 2015}; ^{Rizo- Mustelier et al., 2017}).

Faced with this need, ^{Salas-Razo and Juárez-Hernández (2019}) developed the instrument called an “Analytical Rubric for a Comprehensive Diagnosis of The Development Level of a Rural Community” that incorporates economic conditions, social and cultural conditions, the community’s environmental condition, basic services and infrastructure, and organization and governance.

When using the term instrument, it is important to note its definition: a group of items that allow for the identification of theoretical variable levels that are not directly observable (^{Mendoza-Mendoza and Garza, 2009}). Therefore, if the measurement or evaluation is undertaken in an indirect manner, robust evidence of the relationship between what is really being measured and the attribute that one thinks one is measuring is needed (^{Kerlinger and Lee, 2002}).

Thus, the instrument, “Analytical Rubric for a Comprehensive Diagnosis of The Development Level of a Rural Community” underwent a de facie and content process of validation, as well as an adaptability analysis of the target population (^{Salas-Razo and Juárez-Hernández, 2019}) which showed that the instrument is valid de facie. Therefore, the dimensions and items of the construct were shown to be present (^{Buela-Casal and Sierra, 1997}). The content was also shown to be valid, indicating that the items chosen as measurement instruments were both representative and relevant (^{Sireci, 2003}). Moreover, the rural population was able to understand the elements that comprise the instruments.

The instrument was shown to be valid in de facie terms and content. However, construct validity, considered the main type of validity, must also be determined, (^{Pérez-Gil et al., 2000}) as it verifies that the instrument does, in fact, reproduce the definition of the construct considered (^{Lagunes, 2017}). Construct validity can be defined as an integrated evaluative judgement of the degree to which empirical evidence and theoretical rationales support the adequacy and appropriateness of inferences and actions based on survey results (^{Messick, 1986})

Thus, the article’s objective is to analyze the construct validity and reliability of “Analytical Rubric for a Comprehensive Diagnosis of The Development Level of a Rural Community”. Verifying these psychometric properties ensures that the quality of the instrument is optimal, and that valid and reliable evidence can be obtained. (^{Messick, 1989}; ^{Pérez-Gil et al., 2000}; ^{Kerlinger and Lee, 2002}).

The article is divided into five sections: following the introduction, the second section, defines the methodology applied in the study, the instrument used, the sample population selection, and the definition of statistical methods and procedures used. The third presents results obtained from the analysis carried out. The fourth section contains a discussion of the results, and the fifth presents conclusions, highlighting the main results.

2. METHODOLOGY

3. RESULTS

4. DISCUSSION

Improving living conditions for the rural population requires a development model that is sustainable and does not negatively impact on productivity. It must also be environmentally friendly, and balance the fulfilment of needs for services, without prioritizing the accumulation of wealth as the goal of the development model. Therefore, sustainable rural development should be seen as having multifactorial traits that establish it as being a complex and dynamic phenomenon (^{Salas-Razo and Juárez-Hernández, 2018}). The profound changes in the rural landscape, a consequence of huge changes in demographic, social conditions and manufacturing have increased poverty and the degradation of natural resources. An instrument that can describe the reality of the rural environment, from the inhabitants’ point of view is needed. It should include how the community functions, how it is organized and an evaluation of territorial aptitude as a key factor in determining sustainability (^{Salas-Razo and Juárez-Hernández, 2019}).

However, as previously noted, the instruments available for evaluating the levels of development of a rural community are scarce, and the attempts at evaluating them are unclear. Thus, the “Analytical Rubric for a Comprehensive Diagnosis of The Development Level of a Rural Community” (^{Salas-Razo and Juárez-Hernández, 2019}) fills the voids that exist in the matter of diagnostics of development levels of a rural community and includes the essential and pertinent dimensions (economic condition, sociocultural condition, environmental condition, level of basic services and infrastructure and organization and governance). These describe the context, the scarcity and opportunities present in a rural community, from the perspective of its inhabitants (^{Salas-Razo and Juárez-Hernández, 2018}).

Moreover, it is important to emphasize that the instrument was subject to an initial methodological process, to show that it measures what it intends to measure (^{Carvajal et al., 2011}). It was also shown to provide evidence relating to the pertinence, relevance and representativeness of the dimensions and items of the construct (^{Haynes et al., 1995}; ^{Buela-Casal and Sierra, 1997}; ^{Koller et al., 2017}), the instrument’s precision and representation of the concept analyzed (reliability) (Haynes et al., 1995; ^{Welch and Comer, 1988}; ^{Tavakol and Dennick, 2011}); as well as the clarity and intelligibility of items and instructions (Haynes et al., 1995; ^{Meliá, 2001}; ^{Koller et al., 2017}).

These phases, which took place prior the instrument’s analysis, are important as they show the same definition as in the analysis carried out here. The validity of the construct is the unifying concept that integrates the considerations of content validity and criteria in a common framework for testing hypotheses about theoretically relevant relationships (^{Messick, 1980}).

In this respect, it is important to mention that the method used (i.e., EFA) to analyze construct validity requires that the guidelines for its application be verified, one of these being sample size (^{Mavrou, 2015}). The validity of the study is further established, as the number of participants was 351, which is considered to be optimal. In addition, the correlation between items and the susceptibility of the data (kMO and Bartlett test) to be analyzed by this multivarious method, was observed. Analyzing these assumptions gives validity to the results obtained.

The results revealed the representation of the proposed items, showing that these reproduce the construct (^{Mavrou, 2015}; ^{Lagunes, 2017}). As mentioned previously, this aspect shows the importance of the previous confirmation phases, both de facie and instrument content (^{Salas-Razo and Juárez Hernández, 2019}). As ^{Hayness et al. (1995}) stated, content validity is an important component of construct validity because it provides evidence regarding the degree to which the elements of an assessment instrument are relevant and pertinent to the target construct.

The EFA revealed that the organization of the items and dimensions (see table 4) is different from the theoretical proposal (see table 1), which is determined by the perception of the participants. This is consistent with the functional objectives of EFA, which allows for the reinterpretation of variables, grouping items and excluding those requiring substantial modifications or that are outside the estimated dimensions (^{Figueroa et al., 2018}; ^{Olivares-Faúndez et al., 2018}).

Thus, the resulting factorial model is shown to be composed of four factors that explain over 58% of the variance, reaffirming that rural development is multifactorial (^{Salas-Razo and Juárez Hernández, 2018}). According to the model obtained, the resulting factors were named “organizational, economic-environmental, and access to education condition dimensions” (F1), “infrastructure dimensions” (F2), “governance dimension” (F3) and finally “community’s social and cultural condition dimension” (F4).

As shown, the differentiation between the theoretical model and findings in the analysis are highly justifiable due to the target population’s point of view, attributable to the diverse socio-economic and cultural situations that exist, for each of them involves a psychological evaluation, in a constant and dialectical relationship with the context in which they are immersed. That is to say, a point of view can change due to gender, biopsychosocial model, “emics” or “etics”, age, education, and the person’s sociocultural level. To aim to evaluate a universal construct (Etic) with the idiosyncratic characteristics of each person (Emic), requires identifying indicators that are relevant to the construct (^{Romero, 2011}; ^{Palacios et al., 2017}). The precision with an individual is situated in relation to the characteristic to be measured, defines the instrument’s exactitude, and has a close relationship to its validity and reliability (^{Cadena-Iñiguez et al., 2017}).

Looking specifically at data for F1, it is not surprising that organizational level ranks as most relevant, (organizational, economic-environmental status and access to education). As stated by ^{Rodriguez-Hernandez and Quintero-Novoa (2018}), social capital is an important factor in fostering the development of societies and their organizations, and they are the main protagonists in achieving development. Their importance is based in the fact that they are in direct contact with community issues and function as interlocutors by liaising with government institutions. Investment for industrial development has consequently been managed and brought in, in turn promoting economic growth and employment, by boosting manufacturing and productivity in communities (^{Martínez-Domínguez et al., 2018}).

Environmental management, as well as the use and conservation of natural resources, are currently structured on organizational guidelines, conceived from a philosophical and not epistemological perspective, moving to a new awareness from a local to a global level. Examples can be seen in a town’s contaminated stream to global warming and soil desertification, water shortages, and of course the loss of indigenous cultural heritage (^{López and Bastida, 2018}). This could constitute a dimension of economic-environmental status in an organized community, capable of synthesizing the development level of a rural community. Thereon, it is important to note that education is a factor in development, given that its impact shown in different jobs is of greater efficiency, increased salaries, and a lesser degree of inequity (^{Yunez-Naude and Taylor, 2001}; ^{Jonasson and Helfland, 2010 Martínez - Domínguez et al., 2018}).

In F2 (the dimension relating to infrastructure) the infrastructure level dominated, showing the relevance it has to development levels in rural communities. ^{Calero (2008}) states that infrastructure is the return on development and the quality, coverage and efficiency obtained from it. He goes on to say that to a greater degree, it defines the level of wellbeing or stagnation experienced by a community and its inhabitants. Development without an existing basic physical infrastructure is unthinkable, especially when considering housing, the use and protection of water resources, road development, water and sanitation infrastructure, and telecommunications.

Both the levels of health and nutrition, as well as the use and adoption of renewable energy and clean alternatives, were highlighted in factor 2. These have moved from the technical to the political sphere and involve economic, social, and cultural aspects that impact the population. When looked at in a general or local situational analysis, these are increasingly permeated by globalization and sustainable development objectives (^{Yepes and Marin, 2018}). All these factors are fundamental in determining the development level present in a rural community. However, not all rural communities benefit from them, due to geographical, economic, or political reasons, with a clear association between higher levels of social marginalization and places that have the least access to and coverage of services (^{Alvarado et al., 2016}). As rural areas have potential based on their natural, environmental, and cultural assets, producing renewable energies can be used to advance the local population and contribute to sustainability goals (^{Jiménez, 2014}; ^{Perusset, 2018}).

F3 (the dimension relating to governance) highlights that democracy, the level of law adherence and the quality of justice imparted are closely connected. The unreal exercise of democracy predominant in Latin America provides us with an example. It is a form of plebiscite oligarchy with consequences such as political favoritism, opportunism, and corruption; a scenario in which politicians’ interests come before those of their constituents, and where legality is always sanctioned by whomsoever is in power and can coerce individuals, leaving justice to one side and bowing to power and irresistible financial interests (^{Guariglia, 2012}).

F4 (the dimension relating to the community’s social and cultural condition) can be seen as determinant in the development level, cultural identity, and safety present in a rural community. Rural development based on valuing each community’s cultural identity (language, music, literature, art, tradition and folklore, gastronomy and arts and crafts) is increasingly frequent and well-known. However, poverty and marginalization call for a reassessment of economic development priorities as inhabitants’ needs are greater than the value given to their cultural identity (^{Fonte and Ranaboldo, 2007}).

In Mexico, the increase in lack of public safety and delinquency has worsened in recent years, resulting in the Federal government and states taking measures such as changes in legislation. Examples of these have been structures for obtaining, imparting, and administering justice, creating legal defense and human right institutions, among others. The situation has worsened, and estimates of probable benefits are unclear, which demands that alternative policies be found and implemented. These could be policies that direct spending to containing violence from a virtuous peace circle by bolstering a culture revindicating the local identity of each community. The impact on economic growth would then be felt, with job creation and, in turn, create greater social equity and opportunities (^{Soria, 2018}).

The internal consistency analysis (globally, as well as for most factors) showed acceptable values, underlining the degree of correlation between items and the representation of the concept addressed (^{Haynes et al., 1995}; Welch and Comer, 1998; ^{Tavakol and Dennik, 2011}). With regards to this, even if F4 (the community’s social and cultural status) had a lower value than the others, according to ^{Katz (2006}), it can be deemed acceptable.

A valuable aspect analyzed in this report was the sample’s perception of how complete the instrument was, which is fundamental as it shows how functional the instrument was in considering the target population in accordance with nature of the research (^{Cadena-Iñiguez et al., 2017}).

Research into psychometric properties allowed the meaning of each factor to be evaluated. This highlights the fact that the findings obtained from this instrument, applied to a rural context, contribute substantially given that they provide accurate data for development levels present in rural communities (^{Salvador-Ginez et al., 2017}).

Finally, it must be recognized that the instrument must be applied to a larger sample to confirm the factorial structure obtained.

5. CONCLUSIONS

From the construct validity analysis, “Analytical Rubric for a Comprehensive Diagnosis of The Development Level of a Rural Community”, showed an adequate representation of the target construct. The representation of all the items initially proposed was observed, and a reorganization of the items and theoretically proposed dimensions obtained. In that regard, the arrangement of the items into four revealed factors allowed the dimensions to be defined by the following terms: organizational status; economic-environmental and access to education; condition of infrastructure; condition of governance and social and cultural condition.

An excellent result was obtained for reliability, both globally as well as for each factor, showing the instrument’s precision, the correlation between items and construct representation. It is important to note that the instrument “Analytical Rubric for a Comprehensive Diagnosis of The Development Level of a Rural Community” will provide valid and reliable assessments, according to the analysis of the psychometric properties studied. This addition to the data will allow social scientists, decision makers, environmental risk managers, authorities and those responsible for public policy to design development planning criteria and will generate new knowledge societies in rural areas.

Another notable aspect is that as the instrument is grounded in the inhabitants’ point of view, aspects of sustainable rural development can be identified. These deserve greater attention, as do areas that need to be revalued such as cultural identity, which should undergo a process of economic reevaluation. If adopted as a means for development, these offer a path to solving or relieving poverty in rural areas.