Selected Recent Articles About Chinese Instrument/Scale Development and Intervention Research

We are pleased to present this special edition of Research on Social Work Practice based upon a set of recent selected empirical studies on Chinese instrument/scale development and intervention research. Specifically, these selected articles reflected the types of designs submitted for publication to Research on Social Work Practice in 2015–2016 and also their methodological quality. Prior to presenting introductory comments about these articles, we would be remiss not briefly contextualizing the state of the social work research in China and Hong Kong.

China the country and Hong Kong a geographically designated special administrative region within it have seen much growth in the past two to three decades. The landmark Sino-British Joint Declaration transferred the sovereignty of Hong Kong back to China on July 1, 1997, after 100 years of British rule, under the current idealized “one country, two systems” agreement. Hong Kong and Mainland China have undergone considerable growing pains both separately and together.

Social work was first introduced to China in the 1920s but was eliminated in the early 1950s by the Communist government. After almost 30 years, it was restored to the university curriculum in 1988 because social service was deemed useful in addressing social problems triggered by the introduction of the “Open-Door” economic policy of China (Yuen Tsang & Wang, 2008). In 2006, the 16th Central Committee meeting of the Chinese Communist Party released a document which stated the necessity to establish “a grand team of professional social workers” to help in building a more harmonious society. This marked a new chapter for the development of social work in China (Yuen Tsang & Wang, 2008). At present, it is estimated that there are at least 310 tertiary education institutes that have a social work undergraduate program and about 104 with a social work masters’ program in China (Sim & Lau, 2016). Nonetheless, to date, intervention research is not well developed in China. Sim and Lau (2016) analyzed the content of n = 206 practice research articles in Chinese journals published in the Peoples’ Republic of China since 1915 and found that only a few studies used quasi-experimental designs (3.4%) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (1.9%).

Compared to Mainland China, Hong Kong has much fewer government-funded/supported universities. Hong Kong has only eight government-funded universities, of which five of them offer bachelor- (or above) level social work training programs, including The University of Hong Kong, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, City University of Hong Kong, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, and Hong Kong Baptist University. However, the social work educational system in Hong Kong is more structured with layered progressions and clearly articulated role differentiations between different types of programs: higher diploma in social work, bachelor of social work, bachelor of social work (honors), bachelor of social sciences (honors) in social work, bachelor of arts (honors) in social work, bachelor of social science in social work, master of social work, master of social sciences in social work, master of social science in social work, and doctor of social work. Unlike North America, the titles of these Hong Kong degrees in social work still have a very applied social sciences connotation in their respective programs.

Hong Kong formally started its social work education in the early 1950s, and since then, it has developed considerably. At present, graduates with either a recognized diploma/associate degree or a degree entry-level training in social work are eligible for registration with the Social Workers’ Registration Board, with the practice designation “registered social worker.” On the whole, the quality of these programs is high, even when compared to international standards.

Hong Kong scholars are also very productive in social work research publications. A simple search via the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) database in June 2016 indicated that there were N = 752 articles related to Hong Kong or China categorized under “social work” in the SSCI. Among the top 10 authors constituting 19% of this set of social work articles related to Hong Kong or China, 9 were Hong Kong Chinese scholars. In fact, research is a key focus and the public face of the various social work departments in Hong Kong. Among all of the five social work departmental websites, four of them have a prominent bannered section noting their numerous research and funded research activities. In addition, their websites will usually note all research staff affiliated with their departments, including their research assistants and project principal investigators. This high and visible profile—the public image of social work research—is uncommon in social work schools in North America and other places around the world.

In brief, compared to Mainland China, Hong Kong has a much more structured and unbroken history of social welfare provision offered in a multidisciplinary applied social sciences context as per the dominant approach in the United Kingdom. Although Mainland China has many more social work programs at the moment, Hong Kong has a much more sophisticated tradition of training social workers and has a stronger track record of published social work research. This special edition focuses on the social work research conducted by academics from Hong Kong. It aims to shed light on the achievements and challenges of developing quality empirical research in Chinese contexts. In addition, this special edition attempts to offset some research concerns recently noted by both North American and Asian social workers alike.

The first is about emerging Chinese social work research activities specifically their quality and quantity. For instance, Wu, Fraser, Guo, Day, and Galinsky (2014) noted that there is a growing body of controlled trials of interventions in mainland China and Hong Kong. Similarly, Sim and Lau (2016) stated that developing a culture of more indigenous practice research for a younger and growing social work profession in China is essential.

The second concern was the lack of attention in our profession’s research about its context, and/or culture—namely, who receives our planned interventions (Castro, Barrera, & Martinez, 2004; Fraser & Galinsky, 2010; Holosko, 2016; Jenson, 2005; Nurius, Brekke, & Fong, 2010). In short, each article in this special edition both develops culturally sensitive instruments and/or implements local interventions in rigorous ways. Thus, these articles are all “bottom up” Chinese crafted specific instruments and/or indigenously unique interventions. Taken together, these articles offset another insidious and pervasive “research conundrum” aptly labelled by Wodarski (2011) as indiscriminately using homogeneous “off-the-shelf” interventions and applying them to heterogeneous clients.

The first subset of articles in this special edition are empirical studies on Chinese instrument/scale development. Over two 3-year periods (2001–2007; 2009–2011), Holosko and his colleagues, while assessing several design criteria in three respected empirical North America journals including Research on Social Work Practice, Journal of Social Service Research, and Social Work Research, found that 26% of the studies in these journals were instrument/scale development (Holosko, 2010; Holosko, Hamby, & Pettus, 2013). Since thorough assessment is a precursor to effective intervention planning, we are pleased that half of the high-quality studies purposefully selected herein are related to crafting appropriate assessment tools.

To date, Chinese researchers have used a range of methods to develop local scale/instruments for practice. A few of them developed their own Chinese instruments using an entirely “bottom-up” approach (Bola, Chan, Chen, & Ng, 2016), but most have translated, adapted, and validated English scales (Chui, Wu, Kwok, & Liu, 2016; Kwok, Gu, & Kit, 2016; Leung, Tsang, & Lo, 2015; Leung, Tsang, Ng, & Choi, 2016; Pan, Ng, Young, & Caroline, 2016; Tang, Duan, Wang, & Liu, 2014; Wang et al., 2015; Wong, Lau, Kwok, Wong, & Tori, 2015; Young, Ng, Pan, & Cheng, 2015). It has been empirically determined that for successful cultural adaptation of instruments, it is essential that the meanings of instruments and their items in different cultures or languages are equivalent to each other. It is, therefore, worthwhile to assess to what extent current scale developments, translations, and adaptations in Chinese contexts are aligned with widely accepted protocols in social research (Beaton, Bombardier, Guillemin, & Ferraz, 2000; Bracken & Barona, 1991; Cabrera-Nguyen, 2010; Sousa & Rojjanasrirat, 2011).

The second subset of articles in this special edition are about providing rigorous social work interventions targeted to various Chinese populations. It has been said that the lifeblood of our person-centered social work research is about client change—understanding what does not work or potentially harmful to our clients (Soydan, 2010). Earlier, Fraser (2004) underscored this linkage to our profession’s raison d’etre when he stated: “The essence of social work research is the study of intervention—the development and design of systematic change strategies” (p. 210).

Although Holosko and colleagues found that only less than 3% of the designs of social work of the n = 619 studies in the three top ranked social work journals were experimental studies (Holosko, 2010; Holosko et al., 2013), Thyer (2015) in an extensive and comprehensive review of English language social work literature found that between 1949 and 2013, there were an “astonishing” (his word choice) n = 740 experimental studies cited in studies where at least one author was a social worker. The selected articles herein included four of five RCTs, corroborating Thyer (2015) contention of both their importance and use in social work in the Eastern part of the world. We hope that this contribution will not only benefit other researchers but more importantly to our way of thinking will highlight the quality of Chinese practice research to better direct and inform our practice with Chinese clients not just in Asia but all over the world.