Exploring the structural characteristics of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) and ASCOT-Carer

NIHR Open Res. 2023 Mar 21:2:21. doi: 10.3310/nihropenres.13259.2. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

Background: Measurement models inform the approach to assess a measure's validity and also how a measure is understood, applied and interpreted. With preference-based measures (PBMs), it is generally accepted that they are formative; however, if they are applied without preferences, they may be reflective, formative or mixed. In this study, we sought to empirically test whether the reflective, formative or mixed measurement model best describes PBMs of social care-related quality of life (SCRQoL) - specifically, the ASCOT and ASCOT-Carer. We also explored the network approach, as an alternative.

Methods: ASCOT and ASCOT-Carer data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis and Multiple Indicators Multiple Causes models to test reflective, formative or mixed measurement models, respectively. Network analysis of partial correlations using the Gaussian graphical model was also conducted.

Results: The results indicated that the reflective measurement model is the worst fit for ASCOT and ASCOT-Carer. The formative or mixed measurement models may apply to ASCOT. The mixed measurement model was the best fit for ASCOT-Carer. The network analysis indicated that the most important or influential items were Occupation and Personal cleanliness and comfort (ASCOT) and Time and space and Self-care (ASCOT-Carer).

Conclusions: The ASCOT and ASCOT-Carer are best described as formative/mixed or mixed measurement models, respectively. These findings may guide the approach to the validation of cross-culturally adapted and translated versions. Specifically, we recommend that EFA be applied to establish structural characteristics, especially if the measure will be applied as a PBM and as a measure of SCRQoL. Network analysis may also provide further useful insights into structural characteristics.

Keywords: ASCOT; carers; long-term care; quality of life; service users; social care.

Plain language summary

For many people living with long-term health conditions or disabilities, community-based social care services (like, home care) enable them to maintain independence, stay connected, and to live well. For families and friends who care for someone (‘carers’), these services may also help them. They may allow carers to continue in paid employment and to have time for hobbies, friendships, to stay healthy, and connect with others in a similar situation. An important question is what type(s) of community-based services, best support people and their carers. To find this out, we need a way of measuring the effect services have on people’s lives. The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) is a questionnaire that asks people about aspects of their life that might be affected by social care services (for example, having control over everyday life). This questionnaire has already been used by researchers and care providers to review how well social care services support people. There is also another version of the questionnaire called the ASCOT-Carer, which looks at aspects of life that are important to carers. There has been interest in culturally adapting and translating these measures into other languages. However, there are different ways of establishing how well a translated version relates back to the original. This is important to make sure that the new version is measuring what we expect it to. In this paper, we compare different ways of understanding the information collected using the ASCOT and ASCOT-Carer in England. This will inform how to approach the testing of ASCOT (and other similar measures) that have been translated into new languages. It also helps us to understand how different aspects of life that are supported by social care services are related to each other. This can inform our understanding of people’s needs and how to best support them.

Grants and funding

This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Social Care (RfSC) Programme (Grant Reference Number: NIHR200058). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.