How to reference ASCOT

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 Easy Read (ASCOT-ER)

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-ER:

• 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 Easy Read for Older People (ASCOT-ER (OP))

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-ER (OP):

• 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.

ASCOT care homes mixed-methods (ASCOT-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 ASCOT-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:

• Not available (N/A)

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-CH4 health domains (ASCOT-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:

• Not available (N/A).

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.
• 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

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:

• Rand S, Vadean F, Forder J (2020) The impact of social care services on carers’ quality of life, International Journal of Care and Caring, 4(2), 235-259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/239788219X15718896111445

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

Main academic Reference:

• Towers A, Rand, S, Allan S and Welch L (2025) Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit Workforce (ASCOT-Workforce) guidance. Version 1.0. Discussion Paper 2025-01. University of Kent, Canterbury.

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 University of Kent.

Therefore, including the full ASCOT instrument (i.e., presenting the complete set of questions from any of the ASCOT meaures) in publications would be considered a breach of 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 ASCOT domain in each measure (i.e. control over daily life in versions of ASCOT for adults with care and support needs, and occupation in ASCOT-Carer SCT4 or INT4) should be sufficient to give the reader an insight into and 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, please contact the ASCOT team for further information.

The image above is an example of the correct way to quote ASCOT questions, taken from Van Leeuwen et al, 2015.