Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Care | Research

Japanese translation and cross-cultural validation of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) in Japanese social service users

Authors: Hiromi Nakamura-Thomas, Mie Morikawa, Yoko Moriyama, Takeru Shiroiwa, Makoto Kyougoku, Kamilla Razik, Juliette Malley

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to develop and perform cross-cultural validation of a Japanese version of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) four-level Self-Completion questionnaire (SCT4) instrument to measure Social-Care Related Quality of Life. It was important to develop a Japanese version of the ASCOT-SCT4 and validate it in the Japanese context, given the interest in measuring outcomes of social care services in Japan.

Methods

The original version of ASCOT-SCT4 was translated into Japanese following good practice guidelines. Additionally, comments and feedback were obtained from an independent committee engaged in managing and providing social care services to refine the flow of sentences of the newly developed translated version. The resulting version was tested for cross-cultural validation among community-dwelling adults who use social care services to confirm the factorial structure and the scale system of the Japanese version, using Structural Equation Modeling and Item Response Theory.

Results

Vigorous discussion was needed to translate the original version into Japanese especially for the items control over daily life and dignity. These two items were linguistically difficult to express in everyday language so potential participants could easily understand the intended concepts. In the cross-cultural validation, we obtained values for model fit within the acceptable range: between 0.706 and 0.550 for factor loadings, 0.923 for the Comparative Fit Index, 0.910 for the Tucker-Lewis Index, and 0.083 for the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation. This confirmed the factorial structure of the Japanese version. The IRT analysis, however, revealed that the scale system needed refinement to facilitate appropriate differentiation between each response option.

Conclusions

This study provided preliminary evidence that the Japanese version of ASCOT-SCT4 is valid. As a result, the Japanese version was finalized and approved by the instrument developer.
Literature
1.
2.
Morikawa M, Matsushige T, Ohtaga A. Strategy for developing the community-based comprehensive care system: a framework to lean from case studies. Community Caring. 2015;17(10):56–63 [In Japanese].
3.
Nakamura-Thomas H, Kawamata H, Mastumoto M, Suzuki N, Kyougoku M. Effectiveness of occupational therapy evaluations within a system for prevention of deterioration of health status. Jpn Occupational Ther Res. 2015;29(3):290–8 [In Japanese with English abstract].
4.
Itoh M, Kondoh K. Quality assessment and goal of care and issues. J Natl Inst Popul Soc Secur Res. 2012;48(2):120–32 In Japanese].
5.
Tsutsui T. Quality assessment of care: current achievements in an international context and the future direction of Japan. Soc Secur Res. 2016;1(1):129–47 [In Japanese with English title].
6.
OECD. A good life in old age?: monitoring and improving quality in long term care. 2013; OECD.
7.
Netten A, Burge P, Malley J, Potoglou D, Towers A-M, Brazier J, Flynn T, Forder J, Wall B. Outcomes of social care for adults: developing a preference-weighted measure. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:1–166.CrossRef
8.
Nagasawa M. Measuring quality of long-term care: international trends of the indicators and the recent development of the outcome indicators in England. J Natl Inst Popul Soc Secur Res. 2012;48(2):133–51 [In Japanese with English title].
9.
Morikawa M, Ueshima H. Development of a social care related QoL measurement instrument (ASCOT) and its utilization in England. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, data base. H28-general-002. 2017; 29–39.[In Japanese].
10.
Morikawa M. Constructing community-based integrated care system based on multidisciplinary and cross-sectional collaboration. J Natl Inst Public Health. 2016;65(1):16–23 [In Japanese with English abstract].
11.
Bulamu NB, Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J. A systematic review of instruments for measuring outcomes in economic evaluation within aged care. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:179.CrossRef
12.
Smith N, Towers A, Razik K. Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) SCT4 guidance, Discussion Paper 2937. Personal social services research unit, University of Kent, UK; 2017.
13.
van Leeuwen KM, Bosmans JE, Jansen APD, Rand SE, Towers AM, Smith N, Razik K, Trukeschitz B, van Tulder MW, van der Horst HE, et al. Dutch translation and cross-cultural validation of the adult social care outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:56.CrossRef
14.
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.CrossRef
15.
Rand S, Malley J, Towers AM, Netten A, Forder J. Validity and test-retest reliability of the self-completion adult social care outcomes toolkit (ASCOT-SCT4) with adults with long-term physical, sensory and mental health conditions in England. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:163.CrossRef
16.
Ochiai E. Unsustainable societies: the failure of familialism in East Asia’s compressed modernity. Hist Soc Res. 2011;36(2):219–45.
17.
Estevez-Abe M, Yang JJ, Choi YJ. Beyond familialism: recalibrating family, state and market in southern Europe and East Asia. J Eur Soc Policy. 2016;26(4):301–13.CrossRef
18.
de Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide (practical guides to biostatistics and epidemiology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.CrossRef
19.
Wild D, Eremenco S, Mear I, Martin M, Houchin C, Gawlicki M, Hareendran A, Wiklund I, Lee Chong Y, von Maltzahn R, et al. Multinational trials—recommendations on the translations required, approaches to using the same language in different countries, and the approaches to support pooling the data: the ISPOR patient-reported outcomes translation and linguistic validation good research practices task force report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):430–40.CrossRef
20.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). Guidance for Industry: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. http://​www.​fda.​gov/​MedicalDevices/​Device RegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm (2009) Accessed 25 Aug 2017.
21.
Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 4th ed. London: SAGE; 2014.
22.
Munro BH. Statistical methods for health care research. Baltimore: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
23.
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hilllsdale: Erlbaum; 1988.
24.
Muthén BO, Muthén LK. Mplus User’s Guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 2001.
25.
McDonald RR. Test theory: a unified measurement. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 1999.
26.
Toyoda H. Item response theory: case study version. Tokyo: Asakura Shoten; 2012. [In Japanese]
27.
Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with Mplus: basic concept, applications and programming. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group; 2012.
28.
MacCallum RC, Brown MW, Sugawara HM. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol Methods. 1996;1(2):130–49.CrossRef
29.
30.
von Oertzen T, Brandmaier AM, Tsang S. Structural equation modeling with Ωnyx. Struct Equ Model 2015; A Multidisciplinary J. 2015;22(1):148–161.
31.
32.
Hofstede G. Culture consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. California: Sage; 2001.
33.
Yoo WK. A research methodology for Korean neo-Confucianism. Acta Koreana. 2013;16(1):177–97.CrossRef
34.
Ogawa T, Fujimoto S. A frame of goal setting for social participation. Community Based Rehabil. 2018;13(5):266–71 [In Japanese].
35.
Horike H. A Japanese version of the health locus of control scales. Jpn J Health Psychol. 1991;4(1):1–7 [In Japanese with English abstract].CrossRef
36.
Komatsu H, Yagasaki K, Kida H, Eguchi Y, Niimura H. Preparing for a paradigm shift in aging population: listen to the older old. Int J qualitative studies on health and well-being. e-journal 2018, 10 Jan 2019.
37.
Iwakura T. A study of the meaning and relationship of “human dignity” and “dignity of life.”. Kawasaki City Coll Nurs. 2018;23(1):1–10 [In Japanese with English abstract].
38.
Kinoshita S, Miyashita M, Sato K. Development of a scale for the Japanese version of the quality of dying and death in the intensive care unit instrument for use by nurses. Palliat Care Res. 2018;13(1):121–8 In Japanese with English abstract.CrossRef
39.
Park M, Chesla C. Revising Confucianism as a conceptual framework for Asian family study. J Family Nur. 2007;13(3):293–311.CrossRef
40.
Shek DT, Yu L, Fu X. Confucian virtues and Chinese adolescent development: a conceptual review. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2013;25(4):335–44.PubMed
41.
Morikawa M, Nakamura-Thomas H, Moriyama Y, Shiroiwa T. Japanese translation of the adult social care outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) as social care related quality of life measures: focus on the linguistic validation. Journal of the National Institute of public health. J National Institute of Public Health 2018;67 (3):313–321.[In Japanese with English abstract].
Metadata
Title
Japanese translation and cross-cultural validation of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) in Japanese social service users
Authors
Hiromi Nakamura-Thomas
Mie Morikawa
Yoko Moriyama
Takeru Shiroiwa
Makoto Kyougoku
Kamilla Razik
Juliette Malley
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1128-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research

Psychometric analysis of the adult sickle cell quality of life measurement information system (ACSQ-Me) in a UK population

Research

Parent proxy assessment of sibling quality of life following pediatric hematopoietic cell transplantation

Research

Validity and reliability of the Persian version of the psychosocial impact of dental aesthetics questionnaire

Research

Resilience acts as a moderator in the relationship between infertility-related stress and fertility quality of life among women with infertility: a cross-sectional study

Research

Health-related quality of life and mental health in children and adolescents with strabismus – results of the representative population-based survey KiGGS

Research

Outcome preferences of older people with multiple chronic conditions and hypertension: a cross-sectional survey using best-worst scaling