Cordier Reinie, Milbourn Ben, Martin Robyn, Buchanan Angus, Chung Donna, Speyer Renée
School of Occupational Therapy and Social Work, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
College of Healthcare Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 9;12(6):e0179109. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179109. eCollection 2017.
Improving social inclusion opportunities for population health has been identified as a priority area for international policy. There is a need to comprehensively examine and evaluate the quality of psychometric properties of measures of social inclusion that are used to guide social policy and outcomes.
To conduct a systematic review of the literature on all current measures of social inclusion for any population group, to evaluate the quality of the psychometric properties of identified measures, and to evaluate if they capture the construct of social inclusion.
A systematic search was performed using five electronic databases: CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, ERIC and Pubmed and grey literature were sourced to identify measures of social inclusion. The psychometric properties of the social inclusion measures were evaluated against the COSMIN taxonomy of measurement properties using pre-set psychometric criteria.
Of the 109 measures identified, twenty-five measures, involving twenty-five studies and one manual met the inclusion criteria. The overall quality of the reviewed measures was variable, with the Social and Community Opportunities Profile-Short, Social Connectedness Scale and the Social Inclusion Scale demonstrating the strongest evidence for sound psychometric quality. The most common domain included in the measures was connectedness (21), followed by participation (19); the domain of citizenship was covered by the least number of measures (10). No single instrument measured all aspects within the three domains of social inclusion. Of the measures with sound psychometric evidence, the Social and Community Opportunities Profile-Short captured the construct of social inclusion best.
The overall quality of the psychometric properties demonstrate that the current suite of available instruments for the measurement of social inclusion are promising but need further refinement. There is a need for a universal working definition of social inclusion as an overarching construct for ongoing research in the area of the psychometric properties of social inclusion instruments.
改善社会包容机会以促进人群健康已被确定为国际政策的一个优先领域。有必要全面审视和评估用于指导社会政策及成果的社会包容测量方法的心理测量特性质量。
对有关任何人群社会包容的所有现有测量方法的文献进行系统综述，评估所确定测量方法的心理测量特性质量，并评估它们是否涵盖社会包容的概念。
使用五个电子数据库进行系统检索：CINAHL、PsycINFO、Embase、ERIC和PubMed，并获取灰色文献以确定社会包容的测量方法。根据预先设定的心理测量标准，对照COSMIN测量特性分类法评估社会包容测量方法的心理测量特性。
在所确定的109种测量方法中，25种测量方法（涉及25项研究和1本手册）符合纳入标准。所审查测量方法的总体质量参差不齐，社会与社区机会简表、社会联结量表和社会包容量表显示出心理测量质量良好的最有力证据。测量方法中最常见的领域是联结（21种），其次是参与（19种）；公民身份领域被测量方法涵盖的数量最少（10种）。没有单一工具能测量社会包容三个领域内的所有方面。在具有可靠心理测量证据的测量方法中，社会与社区机会简表对社会包容概念的涵盖最为全面。
心理测量特性的总体质量表明，目前用于测量社会包容的现有工具系列很有前景，但需要进一步完善。需要一个社会包容的通用工作定义，作为社会包容工具心理测量特性领域持续研究的总体概念。
