A systematic review evaluating the psychometric properties of measures of social inclusion

Abstract

IntroductionImproving 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.ObjectiveTo 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

Validity, reliability, acceptability, and utility of the Social Inclusion Questionnaire User Experience (SInQUE): a clinical tool to facilitate social inclusion amongst people with severe mental health problems

“…Despite the fact that social inclusion is often cited as an important treatment outcome by mental health service users, it is often neglected by mental health professionals when considering care planning [7,12]. One factor contributing to this may be the lack of a validated, robust, and acceptable measure of social inclusion for use in mental health services [2,4,13,14].…”

“…A number of measures have been developed that assess related concepts, such as social integration, social networks, and quality of life, or which represent composite measures, created from a selection of questions and subscales [13]. However, reviews of existing measures of social inclusion for individuals with mental health problems have concluded that, despite recent developments, further progress is required [14].…”

Alone with My Phone: Exploring Links Between Solitude, Technology Use, and Socio-Emotional Functioning in Adolescents

“…The SCS-R is an 8-item measure rated on a 5-point scale from (1 = "Strongly disagree" to 5 = "Strongly agree") with statements where lower scores indicated feeling more socially connected (e.g., "I feel so distant from people"). This scale has shown good psychometric properties demonstrating strong content validity and good structural validity (Cordier et al, 2017). High internal consistency has also been met (α = .91) (Lee & Robbins, 1995), which is similar to that found by Kleynshteyn (2013) with a clinical sample.…”

Re‐imagining occupational wellbeing: Development of an evidence‐based framework

“…Striving to obtain a sense of belonging is said to form part of our occupational nature, as the most complex occupations require collaboration and sharing of skills with others (Sadlo, 2016). Becoming involved in community based groups or organisations has been suggested as a way of increasing a sense of belonging (Cordier et al, 2017). This suggestion was supported by our study, as a sense of belonging and of community as a result from engaging in occupations relating to community based volunteering, was a strong theme that emerged from the Rotarian focus group in phase one.…”