Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40468338›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2025

Translation, cultural adaptation, and content validation of the Hong Kong Chinese version of Self-completion Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT-SCT4) for care service users.

Siyue Yu, Judy Chu Dik Sze, Annie Wai Ling Cheung, Kailu Wang, Elizabeth Welch, Nick Smith, Richard Huan Xu, Eliza Lai Yi Wong

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Norwegian translation and adaptation of the INT4 version of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT).Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Siyue YuJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Judy Chu Dik SzeJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Annie Wai Ling CheungJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Kailu WangJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Elizabeth WelchPersonal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Nick SmithCentre for Health Service Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Richard Huan XuDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Eliza Lai Yi WongJC School of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. lywong@cuhk.edu.hk.

Funding

Health and Medical Research Fund 18190641
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn light of the global challenges posed by an ageing population, the evaluation of long-term care (LTC) is of particular importance. The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit Four-Level Self-completion Tool (ASCOT-SCT4) is a preference-based instrument developed to measure long-term care (LTC) related quality of life (QoL). However, it is not yet available in Hong Kong (HK). This study aims to translate and culturally adapt the ASCOT-SCT4 into Chinese and evaluate its content validity in the HK context.

methodsThe study adhered to well-established international guidelines for conducting translation, cultural adaptation, and content validation of instruments. The translation process included forward, backward translations, and expert committee review. Subsequently, LTC users aged 60 or above and experts with diverse professional backgrounds in LTC were involved in content validation in terms of comprehensibility, relevance, and comprehensiveness through cognitive interviews and a content validity index (CVI) survey. For clarity and relevance, an item-level CVI (I-CVI) of ≥ 0.78 and a scale-level CVI (S-CVI) of ≥ 0.90 were considered acceptable.

resultsIn the translation process, concern was raised about the literal translation of 'Control over daily life' item. During the cognitive interviews, 27 LTC users perceived the instrument's length as acceptable, and experienced no sensitive feelings while completing it. However, seven of the nine items were found to have comprehension and interpretation issues, which were mostly resolved through revisions of wordings. For the 'Food and drink' and 'Dignity' items, alternative terms were used and sentence structure was revised to improve its comprehensibility while ensuring equivalence to the original English version. The final translated version demonstrated acceptable clarity (S-CVI: 0.92, I-CVIs: 0.86-1.00) as evaluated by seven experts. Both LTC users and experts found the items relevant (S-CVI: 0.97, I-CVIs: 0.94 to 1.00), and no additional LTC-related QoL domains were identified as missing from the instrument.

conclusionsThis study provides evidence that the Chinese version of the ASCOT-SCT4 is comprehensible, relevant, and comprehensive for the HK context, which allows for further testing on psychometric properties in a larger population.

Indexed as

Long-Term CareQuality of LifeAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHong KongHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTranslatingTranslationsASCOTCognitive interviewsContent validityCross-cultural adaptionLong-term careOutcome assessmentQuality of life

Identifiers

PMID40468338
PMCPMC12135604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.