Mental health service users complete the SCOPE-C, the Everyday discrimination scale and the SF12. these are all standardised published instruments. They were self-completed or completed with the assistance of research staff. Over 160 patients were assessed. A number of cross-cultural translation guides have become available over the years which provide guidance about adapting measures for other cultures. Taking into consideration the various available guides, for the purposes of this research we are adopting the guidance from a leading French research institute, which suggests that we proceed as follows. First we need to speak to groups of people in HK to see to what extent their views about the nature of the concept are similar or dissimilar to those in the UK. To do this we use a method known as 'concept mapping'. We then have experts examine the extent to which the items in the UK measure capture these ideas. At this point it may be necessary to add additional items to the new version. We then translate the UK version into Chinese, and back again, and reconcile and clarify any difference. The new version is then piloted in the Chinese communities, and any difficulties ironed out. Once we have obtained an acceptable version of the measure, following piloting we will then apply the measure to different samples. One will be of discharged mental patients in HK and these will be compared to similar patients in the UK to see if their nature and levels of inclusion are similar or not. Another will be of Chinese immigrants to the UK to see if their levels of inclusion are more similar to UK population or HK residents and immigrants. Finally, we will assess whether the new measure compares in the way it should with a widely used standardised measure, and a measure of recovery. The measure and these findings will provide the basis for further community research in Hong Kong, mainland China and in Chinese immigrant communities in other parts of the world. Social inclusion policy impact could be evaluated in these contexts and social interventions could demonstrate how they have helped people to become more included in society.This study is going to explore whether an English language measure of social inclusion can be translated into an equivalent Chinese measure of inclusion that can be used to assess inclusion in disadvantaged groups such as immigrant groups and people with mental health problems. We will compare some new results for the Chinese version with results from the original research in the UK in several samples: people with mental health problems in the Hong Kong (HK) resident and immigrant populations, and Chinese immigrants in the UK. The advantages of cross-cultural comparison have been reported as testing the boundaries of knowledge and stretching methodological parameters; highlighting important similarities and differences; and the promotion of institutional and intercultural exchange and understanding. The present proposal looks at these matters in relation to the concept of social inclusion in the UK and HK. While we recognise that the concept of social inclusion is a contested one, for the purposes of the current proposal we accept the World Bank definition. Social Inclusion (SI) refers to promoting equal access to opportunities, enabling everyone to contribute to social and economic program and share in its rewards. Interest in cross-cultural measurement issues has grown rapidly since the turn of the century. Although psychologists have taken the lead on measurement issues social work researchers have recognised the importance of developing crosscultural measurement for the profession, especially for work with minority and immigrant groups. Most authors agree on the fundamental areas in which the new questionnaire should be shown to be equivalent to the original one. These include the concept itself, the questions used to assess it, the precise wording of these questions, and the meaning of the words used in the different languages. Technically, the way each of the items (or variables) relate to each other and to the underlying concepts should be the same in both cultures, for full equivalence to be demonstrated.

Questionnaires, that is standardised instruments were completed by the respondents who are service recipients in the Hong Kong NGO mental health services. Currently unwell subjects were excluded. Most had schizophrenia and were living in semi-sheltered accommodation.