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

Evans, Sherrill and Huxley, Peter (2017). Development of a Chinese language version of the Social & Community Opportunities Profile (SCOPE) for NGO services in Hong Kong. [Data Collection]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive. 10.5255/UKDA-SN-852321

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.

Data description (abstract)

Mental health service users complete the SCOPE-C, the Everyday discrimination scale and the SF12. these are all standardised published instruments. They were self-completed or completed with the assistance of research staff. Over 160 patients were assessed.

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.