Development of a Chinese Language version of the Social & Community Opportunities Profile (SCOPE) for NGO services in Hong Kong

This study is going to explore whether an English language measure of social inclusion can be translated into an equivalent
Chinese measure of inclusion that can be used to assess inclusion in disadvantaged groups such as immigrant groups and
people with mental health problems. We will compare some new results for the Chinese version with results from the
original research in the UK in several samples: people with mental health problems in the Hong Kong (HK) resident and
immigrant populations, and Chinese immigrants in the UK.
The advantages of cross-cultural comparison have been reported as testing the boundaries of knowledge and stretching
methodological parameters; highlighting important similarities and differences; and the promotion of institutional and
intercultural exchange and understanding. The present proposal looks at these matters in relation to the concept of social
inclusion in the UK and HK. While we recognise that the concept of social inclusion is a contested one, for the purposes of
the current proposal we accept the World Bank definition. Social Inclusion (SI) refers to promoting equal access to
opportunities, enabling everyone to contribute to social and economic program and share in its rewards.
Interest in cross-cultural measurement issues has grown rapidly since the turn of the century. Although psychologists have
taken the lead on measurement issues social work researchers have recognised the importance of developing
crosscultural measurement for the profession, especially for work with minority and immigrant groups. Most authors agree
on the fundamental areas in which the new questionnaire should be shown to be equivalent to the original one. These
include the concept itself, the questions used to assess it, the precise wording of these questions, and the meaning of the
words used in the different languages. Technically, the way each of the items (or variables) relate to each other and to the
underlying concepts should be the same in both cultures, for full equivalence to be demonstrated.
A number of cross-cultural translation guides have become available over the years which provide guidance about adapting
measures for other cultures. Taking into consideration the various available guides, for the purposes of this research we
are adopting the guidance from a leading French research institute, which suggests that we proceed as follows. First we
need to speak to groups of people in HK to see to what extent their views about the nature of the concept are similar or
dissimilar to those in the UK. To do this we use a method known as 'concept mapping'. We then have experts examine the
extent to which the items in the UK measure capture these ideas. At this point it may be necessary to add additional items
to the new version. We then translate the UK version into Chinese, and back again, and reconcile and clarify any
difference. The new version is then piloted in the Chinese communities, and any difficulties ironed out.
Once we have obtained an acceptable version of the measure, following piloting we will then apply the measure to different
samples. One will be of discharged mental patients in HK and these will be compared to similar patients in the UK to see if
their nature and levels of inclusion are similar or not. Another will be of Chinese immigrants to the UK to see if their levels
of inclusion are more similar to UK population or HK residents and immigrants. Finally, we will assess whether the new
measure compares in the way it should with a widely used standardised measure, and a measure of recovery.
The measure and these findings will provide the basis for further community research in Hong Kong, mainland China and in
Chinese immigrant communities in other parts of the world. Social inclusion policy impact could be evaluated in these
contexts and social interventions could demonstrate how they have helped people to become more included in society.

Social policies in both Wales and England aim to demonstrate that they are able to help and support people from
disadvantaged and disabled groups to engage in meaningful activity in the social mainstream. Use of the SCOPE and
SCOPE-C could be instrumental in enabling them to measure the efficacy of their social interventions.
Int'l Co-I (Chui) has good links and association with NGOs in Hong Kong who run rehabilitation services for people with mental
illness. The proposed research, when carried out, will generate valid measurement tools for Hong Kong where valid
outcome measures are badly needed to raise service accountability, service efficacy, and to promote evidence-based
practice and service evaluation. This is particularly important as rehabilitation services are undergoing a re-structuring in
the direction of integration and a more community based approach. It is expected both social and healthcare services,
government or non-government organizations, will benefit from the study. The fruits of the study will also benefit future
research in the form of handy baseline measures for helping professions and healthcare services, providing reliable
yardsticks for policy making on social inclusion, and making it possible for Hong Kong to take part in international multi-site
studies in connection with outcome measures.
Some organisations may wish to use the SI measure as an audit tool, or as a routine outcome measure for those social
and health care providers whose goal is to promote inclusion for disadvantaged groups. Betsi Cadwallader University
Health Board and the local authority in Wrexham have used one of our measures to conduct such an audit and to arrange
services to meet the identified aspirations of the users of services (see also the ESRC examples of impact, below). For
example:
Enhancing cultural enrichment, quality of life, health and well-being: Direct impact on services and service users. Measure
can be used to assess progress towards individual inclusion goals. Data can be aggregated to assess performance of
services.
Contributing towards evidence based policy-making and influencing public policies and legislation at a local level: In
Wrexham, audit and then system level changes showed that social inclusion for service users improved. Provides a tool for
managers and clinical teams to self-assess performance in relation to inclusion and mainstreaming goals.
Shaping and enhancing the effectiveness of public services: Wrexham changed service configurations and pathways on
the basis of the audit that included service user goals for mainstreaming etc. Concentrated on user identified priorities and not organisational integration.
Transforming evidence based policy in practice and influencing and informing practitioners and professional practice:
Individual professionals and teams can adopt this kind of assessment and then focus on the service user priorities. In
Wrexham the organisations involved improved access to facilities for people with mental health problems.
Improving social welfare, social cohesion: Helps clinical services to take a holistic view of service user needs rather than
focusing only on symptoms. This leads to improved outcomes for service users and thereby improves social welfare
provision.
Changing organisational culture and practices: Wrexham changed referral practices and removed obstacles to inclusion.
Enhancing the research capacity, knowledge and skills of businesses and organisations: Provides the services with a tool
to evaluate their own services and compare themselves with population norms and other providers.
Contributing toward wealth creation and economic prosperity i.e. the creation and growth of companies and jobs;
enhancing business revenue and innovative capacity: those people who are enabled to engage in paid employment will be
contributing to economic prosperity through performing a useful function, paying taxes, and coming off state benefits.