How to reference ASCOT

When referencing ASCOT, we recommend that you cite the following papers, with the corresponding guidance alongside which you will receive along with your registration approval email.

Service user instruments

ASCOT SCT4 and ASCOT INT4

Main academic reference (with preference weights):

Netten A, Burge P, Malley J, Potoglou D, Towers A, Brazier J, Flynn T, Forder J, Wall B (2012) Outcomes of Social Care for Adults: Developing a Preference-Weighted Measure, Health Technology Assessment, 16, 16, 1-165. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta16160

Guidance:

  • Smith N, Towers A and Razik K (2017) Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) SCT4 guidance. Version 1.0. Discussion Paper 2937. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury.
  • Smith N, Towers A and Razik K (2017) Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) INT4 guidance. Version 1.0. Discussion Paper 2936. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury.

Validity, reliability and feasibility of ASCOT SCT4: 

  • Rand S, Malley J, Towers A, Netten A, Forder J (2017) Validity and test-retest reliability of the self-completion adult social care outcomes toolkit (ASCOT-SCT4) with adults with long-term physical, sensory and mental health conditions in England, Quality of Life Outcomes, 15:163, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0739-0
  • Malley J, Towers A, Netten A, Brazier J, Forder J, Flynn, T (2012) An assessment of the construct validity of the ASCOT measure of social care-related quality of life with older people, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 10:21. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-10-21

Validity, reliability and feasibility of ASCOT INT4:

  • Malley J, Rand S, Netten A, Towers A-M, Forder J (2019) Exploring the feasibility and validity of a pragmatic approach to estimating the impact of long-term care: The ‚expected‘ ASCOT method, Journal of Long Term Care, (2019), 67-83. https://journal.ilpnetwork.org/articles/abstract/11

ASCOT SCT4 Easy Read

Main academic reference (with preference weights):

  • Netten A, Burge P, Malley J, Potoglou D, Towers A, Brazier J, Flynn T, Forder J, Wall B (2012) Outcomes of Social Care for Adults: Developing a Preference-Weighted Measure, Health Technology Assessment, 16, 16, 1-165. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta16160

Development:

  • Turnpenny A, Caiels J, Whelton R, Richardson L, Beadle-Brown J, Crowther T, Forder J, Apps, J, Rand S. (2016). Developing an Easy Read version of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT). Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 31(1), e36-e48, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12294

Guidance:

  • Caiels J, Smith N, Towers A and Razik K (2017) Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) SCT4 Easy Read guidance. Version 1.0. Discussion Paper 2939. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury.

Validity, reliability and feasibility of ASCOT SCT4 Easy Read:

  • Rand S, Towers A-M, Razik K, Turnpenny A, Bradshaw J, Caiels J, Smith N (2020) Feasibility, factor structure and construct validity of the easy-read Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT-ER), Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 45(2), 119-132 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2019.1592126

ASCOT SCT4 Easy Read for Older People

Main academic reference (with preference weights):

  • Netten A, Burge P, Malley J, Potoglou D, Towers A, Brazier J, Flynn T, Forder J, Wall B (2012) Outcomes of Social Care for Adults: Developing a Preference-Weighted Measure, Health Technology Assessment, 16, 16, 1-165. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta16160

Development:

  • Caiels, J., Rand, S., Mikelyte, R., Webster, L., Field, E., Towers, A-M. (in submission). Enhancing Quality of Life Measurement: Adapting ASCOT-ER for Older Adults accessing Social Care. Quality of Life Research.

Guidance:

  • Caiels, J., Rand, S., Mikelyte, R., Towers, A-M. (2024) Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) SCT4 Easy Read for older people guidance. Version 1.0. Discussion Paper 2024-01. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury.

Validity, reliability and feasibility of ASCOT SCT4 Easy Read for Older people:

  • This will be the focus of future ASCOT work

ASCOT-Proxy

Main academic reference (with preference weights):

  • Netten A, Burge P, Malley J, Potoglou D, Towers A, Brazier J, Flynn T, Forder J, Wall B (2012) Outcomes of Social Care for Adults: Developing a Preference-Weighted Measure, Health Technology Assessment, 16, 16, 1-165. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta16160

Development:

  • Rand S, Caiels J, Collins G. et al. (2017) Developing a proxy version of the Adult social care outcome toolkit (ASCOT). Health Qual Life Outcomes 15, 108. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0682-0
  • Caiels J, Rand S, Crowther T. et al. (2019) Exploring the views of being a proxy from the perspective of unpaid carers and paid carers: developing a proxy version of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT). BMC Health Serv Res 19, 201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4025-1

Guidance: 

  • Rand S, Caiels J, Silarova B, Towers A-M and Welch E. (2024). Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) Proxy guidance. Version 2.0. Discussion Paper 2021-02. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury.

Validity and Reliability of ASCOT-Proxy

  • Rand S, Towers A-M, Allan S, Webster L, Palmer S, Carroll R, Gordon A, Akdur G, Goodman C (2024), Exploratory factor analysis and Rasch analysis to assess the structural validity of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit Proxy version (ASCOT-Proxy) completed by care home staff. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03631-1.
  • Silarova B, Rand S, Towers A-M, Jones K (2023), Feasibility, validity and reliability of the ASCOT-Proxy and ASCOT-Carer among unpaid carers of people living with dementia in England. Health Quality of Life Outcomes. 3;21(1):54. https:// doi.org/10.1186/s12955-023-02122-0.

Care homes mixed-methods (CH4)

For preference weights:

  • Netten A, Burge P, Malley J, Potoglou D, Towers A, Brazier J, Flynn T, Forder J, Wall B (2012) Outcomes of Social Care for Adults: Developing a Preference-Weighted Measure, Health Technology Assessment, 16, 16, 1-165. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta16160

For CH4:

  • Towers A-M, Smith N, Allan S, Vadean F, Collins G, Rand S, et al. Care home residents’ quality of life and its association with CQC ratings and workforce issues: the MiCareHQ mixed-methods study. Health Serv Deliv Res 2021;9(19). https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr09190

Guidance:

  • In draft.

Applying the mixed-methods approach in care homes

  • Towers, A., Palmer, S., Smith, N. and Collins, G. (2019). A Cross-sectional Study exploring the relationship between regulator quality ratings and care home residents’ quality of life in England. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1093-1
  • Smith, N., Towers, A., Palmer, S., Collins, G. (2019). Quality of Life in older adult care homes: comparing office hours with out of office hours. Journal of Long-term Care. http://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.29
  • Smith N, Towers A, Palmer S, Beecham J, Welch E (2017) Being occupied: supporting ‘meaningful activity’ in care homes for older people in England, Ageing and Society, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X17000678
  • Towers A, Smith N, Palmer S, Welch E. & Netten, A. (2016). The acceptability and feasibility of using the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) to inform practice in care homes. BMC Health Services Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1763-1
  • Netten A, Trukeschitz B, Beadle-Brown J, Forder J, Towers A, Welch E (2012) Quality of life outcomes for residents and quality ratings of care homes: is there a relationship? Age and Ageing. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afs050

ASCOT health domains (CH4-HD)

Main academic reference

Towers A-M, Smith N, Allan S, Vadean F, Collins G, Rand S, et al. Care home residents’ quality of life and its association with CQC ratings and workforce issues: the MiCareHQ mixed-methods study. Health Serv Deliv Res 2021;9(19). https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr09190

Guidance

In draft.

 

Carer instruments

ASCOT-Carer SCT4 and INT4

Development

  • Rand S, Malley J, Netten A (2012) Measuring the Social Care Outcomes of Informal Carers, PSSRU Discussion Paper 2833, Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury.

Guidance:

  • Rand S, Smith N, Towers A and Razik K (2017) Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT)-Carer SCT4 guidance. Version 1.0. Discussion Paper 2938. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury.
  • Rand S, Smith N, Towers A and Razik K (2017) Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT)-Carer INT4 guidance. Version 1.0. Discussion Paper 2940. Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury.

Validity, reliability and feasibility of ASCOT-Carer SCT4:

  • Rand S, Malley J, Netten A, Forder, J (2015) Factor structure and construct validity of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers (ASCOT-Carer), Quality of Life Research, 24(11) 2601-2614. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1011-x
  • Rand S, Malley J, Vadean F, Forder J (2019) Measuring the outcomes of long-term care for unpaid carers: Comparing the ASCOT-Carer, Carer Experience Scale and EQ-5D-3L. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 17(184). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1254-2

Applying the ASCOT-Carer INT4:

Preference weights:

  • Batchelder L, Malley J, Burge P, Lu H, Saloniki E.-C, Linnosmaa I, Trukeschitz B, Forder J (2019). Carer social care-related quality of life outcomes: estimating English preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers (ASCOT-Carer). Value in Health, 22(12), P1427-1440. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.07.014

 

Examples of applications of ASCOT are available in the Applications section of the References webpage.

How to quote ASCOT questions

The developers of the ASCOT wish the tools to be used widely in social care to promote and outcomes approach in social care practice and policy. However, it is important that any quotations of the ASCOT questions in publications do not violate the intellectual property, which belongs to the developers (members of the Personal Social Services Unit at the University of Kent). Therefore, including the full ASCOT instruments (e.g. a complete set of questions from the ASCOT SCT4/Carer SCT4 or ASCOT INT4/Carer INT4) in publications would be considered a breach of the copyright and Intellectual Property. Authors should provide a fair and reasonable representation of the ASCOT instruments used in their research or practice. Quoting the first and the last ASCOT domain, i.e. control over daily life and dignity in the service user versions of ASCOT, and occupation and feeling encouraged and supported in the Carer versions, will give the reader a good understanding of the ASCOT measure. We therefore stipulate that authors quote the questions from these domains in their publications. In addition, authors may provide definitions of the remaining domains.

In some cases funder restrictions and/or preference elicitation studies necessitate full publication of the tool. In which case, contact the ASCOT team for further information.

Above is an example of the correct way to quote ASCOT questions, taken from Van Leeuwen et al, 2015:

 

Translations

Dutch

Van Leeuwen K M, Bosmans J E, Jansen A P D, Rand S E, Towers A-M, Smith N, Razik K, Trukeschitz B, van Tulder M W, van der Horst H E, Ostelo R W (2015) Dutch translation of cross-cultural validation of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT), Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13:56, DOI: 10.1186/s12955-015-0249-x

German

For information on how to reference the German version of ASCOT, see the WU’s ASCOT website.

Comments are closed.