Dutch translation and cross-cultural validation of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT)

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Raymond W Ostelo⁴  Henriette E van der Horst²  Maurits W van Tulder³  Birgit Trukeschitz¹  Kamilla Razik⁵  Nick Smith⁵  Ann-Marie Towers⁵  Stacey E Rand⁵  Aaltje PD Jansen²  Judith E Bosmans³  Karen M van Leeuwen³ 

[1] Research Institute for Economics of Aging, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria;Department of General Practice & Elderly Care Medicine and EMGO+ Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Department of Health Sciences and EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Faculty of Earth & Life Sciences, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics and EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Personal Social Services Research Unit and Quality and Outcomes of Person-Centred Care Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK

关键词: Quality of life;    Social care;    ASCOT;    Cross-cultural validation;    Translation;   

Others  :  1209250
DOI  :  10.1186/s12955-015-0249-x

 received in 2014-12-18, accepted in 2015-03-17,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit was developed to measure outcomes of social care in England. In this study, we translated the four level self-completion version (SCT-4) of the ASCOT for use in the Netherlands and performed a cross-cultural validation.

Methods

The ASCOT SCT-4 was translated into Dutch following international guidelines, including two forward and back translations. The resulting version was pilot tested among frail older adults using think-aloud interviews. Furthermore, using a subsample of the Dutch ACT-study, we investigated test-retest reliability and construct validity and compared response distributions with data from a comparable English study.

Results

The pilot tests showed that translated items were in general understood as intended, that most items were reliable, and that the response distributions of the Dutch translation and associations with other measures were comparable to the original English version. Based on the results of the pilot tests, some small modifications and a revision of the Dignity items were proposed for the final translation, which were approved by the ASCOT development team. The complete original English version and the final Dutch translation can be obtained after registration on the ASCOT website (http://www.pssru.ac.uk/ascot webcite).

Conclusions

This study provides preliminary evidence that the Dutch translation of the ASCOT is valid, reliable and comparable to the original English version. We recommend further research to confirm the validity of the modified Dutch ASCOT translation.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 van Leeuwen; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Inspectie voor de Gezondheidszorg, Zorgverzekeraars Nederland, LOC Zeggenschap in Zorg: Kwaliteitsdocument 2013 Verpleging, Verzorging En Zorg Thuis. 2013. https://www.zorgvoorkwaliteit.com/wpcontent/uploads/130805_Kwaliteitsdocument-VVT-2013.pdf. Access date: November 12, 2014.
• [2]Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: A New Direction for Community Services. The Stationery Office, London; 2006.
• [3]Secretary of State for Health: Caring for Our Future : Reforming Care and Support. 2012.
• [4]Lipszyc B, Sail E, Xavier A: Long-Term Care: Need, Use and Expenditure in the EU-27. 2012.
• [5]Waldhausen A. Care Services in Crisis?. Long-Term Care in Times of European Economic and Financial Crisis, Frankfurt; 2014.
• [6]Netten A, Burge P, Malley J, Potoglou D, Towers A-M, Brazier J et al.. Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference-weighted measure. Health Technol Assess. 2012; 16:1-166.
• [7]EuroQol–a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990; 16:199-208.
• [8]Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992; 30:473-483.
• [9]Grewal I, Lewis J, Flynn T, Brown J, Bond J, Coast J. Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: preferences or capabilities? SocSciMed. 2006; 62:1891-1901.
• [10]Coast J, Flynn TN, Natarajan L, Sproston K, Lewis J, Louviere JJ et al.. Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 67:874-82.
• [11]Makai P, Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA, Stolk EA, Nieboer AP. Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2014; 102:83-93.
• [12]Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000; 25:3186-91.
• [13]Muntinga ME, Hoogendijk EO, Van Leeuwen KM, Van Hout HPJ, Twisk JWR, Van der Horst HE et al.. Implementing the chronic care model for frail older adults in the Netherlands: study protocol of ACT (frail older adults: care in transition). BMC Geriatr. 2012; 12:19. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Netten A, Beadle-Brown J, Caiels J, Forder J, Malley J, Smith N, Trukeshitz B, Towers AM, Welch E, Windle K: Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit v2.1: Main Guidance. Volume PSSRU disc. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit; 2011. [PSSRU discussion paper 2716/3]
• [15]Sen A. Commodities and Capabilities. North-Holland, Amsterdam; 1985.
• [16]Nussbaum M, Sen A. The Quality of Life. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1993.
• [17]Netten A, Ryan M, Smith P, Skatun D, Healey A, Knapp M et al.. The Development of a Measure of Social Care Outcome for Older People. Volume PSSRU Disc . Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury; 2002.
• [18]Willis GB. Cognitive Interviewing: A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA; 2005.
• [19]Collins D. Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res. 2003; 12:229-238.
• [20]Trukeschitz B. Worauf es letztlich ankommt: Ergebnisqualität in der Langzeitpflege und -betreuung. Kurswechsel 2011;4:22–35.
• [21]Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL et al.. International consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes: results of the COSMIN study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63:797-745.
• [22]Malley JN, Towers A-M, Netten AP, Brazier JE, Forder JE, Flynn T. An assessment of the construct validity of the ASCOT measure of social care-related quality of life with older people. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012; 10:21.
• [23]Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996; 37:53-72.
• [24]Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 1968; 70:213-220.
• [25]De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59:1033-9.
• [26]Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33:159-174.
• [27]Forder J, Malley J, Towers A-M, Netten A. Using cost-effectiveness estimates from survey data to guide commissioning: an application to home care. Health Econ. 2014; 23:979-92.