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

本研究将探讨英语社会包容性的衡量标准是否可以翻译成中文社会包容性的衡量标准，以评估弱势群体如移民群体和有心理健康问题的人的社会包容性。我们将在几个样本中比较中文版的一些新结果与英国原始研究的结果：香港居民和移民人口中有精神健康问题的人，以及英国的中国移民。据报道，跨文化比较的优势在于测试知识的边界和拉伸方法参数;突出重要的相似性和差异性;以及促进机构和文化间的交流和理解。目前的建议着眼于与英国和香港的社会包容概念有关的这些问题。虽然我们认识到社会包容的概念是一个有争议的概念，但为了本提案的目的，我们接受世界银行的定义。社会包容（Social Inclusion，SI）是指促进机会均等，使每个人都能为社会经济发展做出贡献并分享其成果，跨文化测量问题自世纪以来得到了迅速发展。尽管心理学家在测量问题上处于领先地位，但社会工作研究人员已经认识到发展跨文化测量对专业的重要性，特别是对少数民族和移民群体的工作。大多数作者同意新问卷应显示与原始问卷等同的基本领域。这些包括概念本身，用来评估它的问题，这些问题的精确措辞，以及在不同语言中使用的单词的含义。从技术上讲，每一个项目（或变量）相互关联的方式以及与基本概念的关系在两种文化中应该是相同的，以证明完全等同。多年来，已经出现了一些跨文化翻译指南，为其他文化提供了适应措施的指导。考虑到各种可用的指南，为了这项研究的目的，我们采用了法国一家领先研究机构的指南，该机构建议我们按以下方式进行。首先，我们需要与香港的人群交谈，看看他们对概念本质的看法与英国的相似或不相似的程度。为此，我们使用一种称为“概念映射”的方法。然后，我们让专家检查英国测量项目捕捉这些想法的程度。在这一点上，可能有必要添加额外的项目到新版本。然后，我们将英国版本翻译成中文，再翻译回来，并调和和澄清任何差异。新版本的测量方法会先在华人社区试行，若有困难，我们会尽快解决。一旦我们获得一个可接受的测量方法版本，在试行后，我们会将该方法应用于不同的样本。其中一项是香港的出院精神病患者，并将这些患者与英国的类似患者进行比较，以确定他们的性质和纳入程度是否相似。另一个将是中国移民到英国，看看他们的融入程度是否与英国人口或香港居民和移民更相似。最后，我们会评估新措施与一个广泛使用的标准化措施及一个复苏措施的比较，是否符合应有的标准。有关措施及研究结果将为香港、中国内地及世界其他地区的华人移民社区的进一步社区研究提供基础。可以在这些背景下评估社会包容政策的影响，社会干预措施可以显示它们如何帮助人们更多地融入社会。

This study is going to explore whether an English language measure of social inclusion can be translated into an equivalentChinese measure of inclusion that can be used to assess inclusion in disadvantaged groups such as immigrant groups andpeople with mental health problems. We will compare some new results for the Chinese version with results from theoriginal research in the UK in several samples: people with mental health problems in the Hong Kong (HK) resident andimmigrant populations, and Chinese immigrants in the UK.The advantages of cross-cultural comparison have been reported as testing the boundaries of knowledge and stretchingmethodological parameters; highlighting important similarities and differences; and the promotion of institutional andintercultural exchange and understanding. The present proposal looks at these matters in relation to the concept of socialinclusion in the UK and HK. While we recognise that the concept of social inclusion is a contested one, for the purposes ofthe current proposal we accept the World Bank definition. Social Inclusion (SI) refers to promoting equal access toopportunities, 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 havetaken the lead on measurement issues social work researchers have recognised the importance of developingcrosscultural measurement for the profession, especially for work with minority and immigrant groups. Most authors agreeon the fundamental areas in which the new questionnaire should be shown to be equivalent to the original one. Theseinclude the concept itself, the questions used to assess it, the precise wording of these questions, and the meaning of thewords used in the different languages. Technically, the way each of the items (or variables) relate to each other and to theunderlying 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 adaptingmeasures for other cultures. Taking into consideration the various available guides, for the purposes of this research weare adopting the guidance from a leading French research institute, which suggests that we proceed as follows. First weneed to speak to groups of people in HK to see to what extent their views about the nature of the concept are similar ordissimilar to those in the UK. To do this we use a method known as 'concept mapping'. We then have experts examine theextent to which the items in the UK measure capture these ideas. At this point it may be necessary to add additional itemsto the new version. We then translate the UK version into Chinese, and back again, and reconcile and clarify anydifference. 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 differentsamples. One will be of discharged mental patients in HK and these will be compared to similar patients in the UK to see iftheir nature and levels of inclusion are similar or not. Another will be of Chinese immigrants to the UK to see if their levelsof inclusion are more similar to UK population or HK residents and immigrants. Finally, we will assess whether the newmeasure 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 inChinese immigrant communities in other parts of the world. Social inclusion policy impact could be evaluated in thesecontexts and social interventions could demonstrate how they have helped people to become more included in society.