Describe how you would measure the outcomes that you identified in this week’s Discussion

Submit a 1-2 page paper in which you:
Describe how you would measure the outcomes that you identified in this week’s Discussion.
Specifically, identify the two best measurement instruments that you would use and explain why. 
Include strengths and limitations, and consider criteria such as usefulness, validity, reliability, precision, feasibility, and cost. 
Describe how you would collect the data and what you would expect to learn from it.
British Journal of Social Work (2021) 51, 1482–1508
doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcab054
Advance Access Publication March 30, 2021
Thomas Noordink 1,2,*, Lisbeth Verharen2,
Rene? Schalk1, Marcel van Eck1 and Tine van Regenmortel1,3
1 Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
2 Research group Strengthening Social Quality, HAN University of Applied Sciences,
Nijmegen, The Netherlands
3 HIVA and Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
*Correspondence to Thomas Noordink, Academie Mens & Maatschappij, HAN University
of Applied Sciences, Kapittelweg 33, 6525 EN, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. E-mail:
[email protected]
Abstract
Empowerment is seen as an important thinking and working framework for social work. Ideally, it is possible to measure the empowering effects of social work.
However, various factors complicate measuring empowerment, making it a difficult exercise. In past decades many instruments for measuring empowerment have been
developed and there are many variations in the way these instruments have been developed. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the available instruments, scales or questionnaires that intent to measure the empowerment of users of social work in different contexts of social work, by means of a scoping review. A total of 2,711 studies were screened, resulting in 49 unique instruments for measuring empowerment in contexts related to social work. The results show that the
found instruments are almost exclusively Patient-Reported Outcome Scales. Whilst many instruments measure individual empowerment, only a few measure community
empowerment. The results also show that there are many variations in which instruments operationalise empowerment. This overview provides social work organisations
and its researchers an overview of measuring tools necessary to measure the effects of their efforts, allowing them to build on what is available.
www.basw.co.uk
# The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The
British Association of Social Workers.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact [email protected]
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/4/1482/6202975 by Walden University user on 09 October 2022
Measuring Instruments for Empowerment in Social Work:
A Scoping Review
Measuring Instruments for Empowerment in Social Work 1483
Keywords: Empowerment, measuring instruments, scoping review, social work
Accepted: February 2021
Empowerment in social work
Empowerment is globally accepted as a central concept for social work, as can be seen in the international definition of social work, in which
empowerment is stated as a core value (IFSW, 2014). Empowerment is seen as an important thinking and working framework within social
work (Van Regenmortel, 2008).
The concept of empowerment seems regularly used by social workers. Professionals identify with it, partly because they tend to give meaning to
empowerment in all sorts of ways. However, therein lies the risk that empowerment becomes a vague concept that social workers link to everything they do (Van Regenmortel, 2002). As a result, the concept loses its substantive meaning and becomes an all-purpose word for things related
to strengthening people, power, control and so on. That is an unnecessary result, since ‘empowerment’ is actually a theoretically well-founded scientific concept, which makes it possible to operationalise and measure empowerment (Zimmerman, 2000; Steenssens and Van Regenmortel, 2014).
The value and complexity of measuring empowerment Ideally, it is possible to evaluate the empowering efforts of social work
and then determine the effects of these efforts. Gulikers (2016) emphasises the importance of meaningfully justifying social work and its
efforts. To do so, measuring instruments are needed that expose empowerment as a result of social interventions. For years, professional
practice has been looking for methods that can support the effects of social work (Hermans, 2008). In past decades many instruments have
been developed that aim to measure different levels of empowerment.
However, measuring empowerment and determining whether the efforts of social workers lead to citizens being able to empower themselves, is difficult (Jacobs et al., 2005; Wallerstein, 2006). The complexity of measuring empowerment is implied by theoretical assumptions that are
involved when one wants to measure empowerment. Van Regenmortel (2002) inspired by the work of Rappaport and Zimmerman, states a few
basic theoretical assumptions of empowerment, which are exemplary to the complexity of measuring empowerment.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/4/1482/6202975 by Walden University user on 09 October 2022
Introduction
1484 Thomas Noordink et al.
The available range of empowerment instruments In the past decades, many instruments for measuring empowerment
have been developed for specific contexts and there are many variations in the way these instruments have been developed (Peters et al., 2007).
A few reviews make an inventory of available instruments for a specific target population, for example, the review by Bakker and Van Brakel
(2012), Barr et al. (2015) or Herbert et al. (2009). There is no overarching review of instruments that are available and relevant specifically for
social work. It is imaginable that this is partly due to the fact that ‘social work’ as a context is hard to define (Van de Kamp et al., 2020). It
includes many different target populations, problems and contexts.
A comprehensive overview of available tools to measure empowerment in the various sectors of social work can be a useful starting point
for social workers, when they want to measure empowerment within
their own specific context.
The aim of this study
The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of available instruments that intent to measure empowerment of users of social
work in different contexts of social work, by means of a scoping review.
Subsequently, this study aims to describe these instruments, distinguishing between dimensions of empowerment that are measured,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/4/1482/6202975 by Walden University user on 09 October 2022
First, empowerment is an open-ended construct and a variable which
can vary per context or person. It can occur in several degrees.
Empowerment can have a different meaning for each person.
Furthermore, it is not set in stone and can develop over time.
Second, empowerment is seen as a multilevel concept, in which different levels of analysis can be distinguished. Psychological empowerment,
which relates to empowerment of individuals, organisational empowerment and community empowerment (Zimmerman, 2000). These levels
are often intertwined, interconnected, interdependent and can be both
cause and effect. This implies the interactive nature of empowerment,
the constant mutual influence between individuals and their environments. Furthermore, these three levels can themselves be divided into
underlying dimensions and components (Zimmerman, 1995).
The aforementioned factor that empowerment is an open-ended construct implies the complexity of developing universal measuring instruments (Zimmerman, 1995; Van Regenmortel, 2002). A ‘one size fits all’
solution does not seem likely. As a result, there are many different
measures for different target populations and contexts. Such a fragmentation of instruments hinders maintaining an overview.
Measuring Instruments for Empowerment in Social Work 1485
Methods
A scoping review was conducted focusing on finding empowerment
measures, which can be used for the context of social work. This review
followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines extension for Scoping Reviews
(Tricco et al., 2018).
Eligibility criteria
In a first screening all articles that refer to empowerment measures,
were included and screened. The original study of the referred to
measure, was then included. Subsequently, articles were eligible when
they reported instrument development or validation. Only articles in
English or Dutch were included. All instruments that measure empowerment in a context related to social work, were included, delineated as illustrated in the results section. In order to reduce the
amount of outdated information, all articles must be referred to or
reported in the past 15 years.
Articles were not eligible when the context of the study was not relevant for OECD countries. Also, instruments that include empowerment as a subscale or bycatch, were excluded. Furthermore,
translated instruments were excluded; the original study was then included. Editor letters, recommendations and opinion papers were excluded. Work-related instruments, in which empowerment of
professionals was measured, were also excluded since there is no specific relation with social work.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/4/1482/6202975 by Walden University user on 09 October 2022
psychometric properties of the instruments found and relevant contexts
in which empowerment is measured.
A scoping review seeks to summarise key concepts and primary sources and types of relevant research data concerning specific topics
(Arksey and O’Malley, 2005). It differs from systematic reviews in many
ways. For example, a scoping review’s purpose is to take stock of and
map the available knowledge concerning a specific topic, whilst the purpose of a systematic review is to summarise the best available research
(Pham et al., 2014). Also, to identify research gaps concerning the available measuring instruments for empowerment, in the context of social
work. What is not known and is thus a knowledge gap that requires the
focus of research in order to fill the void.
1486 Thomas Noordink et al.
Information sources
Search
Experimenting with different search strategies resulted in the following
search input, with small variations to meet the specific properties of certain databases:
TI (Empower* N3 (validit* OR specificity OR sensitivity OR measur*
OR Assess* OR Scale* OR Tool* OR instrument* OR screen* OR test
OR tests OR survey* OR questionnaire* OR score* OR apprais* OR
index OR checklist*)) OR AB (Empower* N1 (validit* OR specificity
OR sensitivity OR measur* OR Assess* OR Scale* OR Tool* OR
instrument* OR screen* OR test OR tests OR survey* OR
questionnaire* OR score* OR apprais* OR index OR checklist*)).
Given our desire to distil instruments that have the intention of measuring empowerment as a complete construct, it was decided not to
operationalise the concept ‘empowerment’ any further.
The other concept ‘measuring’ was further operationalised for the
search strategy, as seen above. A third concept, being ‘social work’ was
not operationalised and not included in the search strategy. ‘Social
work’ is considered a broad concept, which is hard to define (Van de
Kamp et al., 2020). Limiting the search strategy by defining ‘social work’
would possibly lead to unwanted exclusion of studies.
Figure 1: Results per database.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/4/1482/6202975 by Walden University user on 09 October 2022
To this end seven electronic databases were consulted (PsycInfo, Web of
Science, MedLine, Eric, Embase, Cinahl, Sociological Abstracts) from 6
January to 3 February 2020. Subsequently, the reference sections of included papers, along with review articles that were found, were
examined.
Measuring Instruments for Empowerment in Social Work 1487
Article selection and data charting
Figure 2: PRISMA flowchart of study selection process.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/4/1482/6202975 by Walden University user on 09 October 2022
A total of 5,198 articles were identified in the search, which was reduced
to 2,711 after the removal of duplicates (Figure 1). The 2,711 remaining
abstracts and titles were screened blinded by two researchers.
For 179 articles, the full text was assessed. In total, unique instrument
for measuring empowerment in contexts related to social work, were
found. The process of data selection is shown in Figure 2. Most of the
selection challenges are related to defining social work as a context in
which empowerment can be measured. As stated before, ‘social work’
was not operationalised and included in search strategies. The contexts
eventually reported are not predetermined, but the result of inductive
analyses, in which two researchers determined per study whether the described context was related to social work, based on their own expertise.
The four-eyes-principle allows the researchers to compare and discuss
differences and involve expertise of the supervisory committee consisting
of Dutch and Belgium professors of social work.
1488 Thomas Noordink et al.
Data items
For included articles, we abstracted data on study characteristics, instrument objectives and registration methods. In this way, an overview was created with whom is measured, how is measured and what
is measured.
Data concerning validity and reliability of an instrument have been
added to give a basic impression of the quality of instruments found.
Since it is our goal to provide an overview of what is available and not
what is good, we choose not to make further statements about the quality of instruments.
Synthesis of results
The data were compiled in a single overview as reported in the results
section, in which 49 instruments have been elaborated by describing the
aforementioned factors. No further synthesis of results is given, as we intend to describe what is available for social work.
Results
The results are clustered per context within social work. These clusters
are presented as follows: parent and family support (9), mental healthcare (8), childcare and youth work (8), elderly healthcare (3), medical
healthcare (13) and other (8).
The results show that all measures are questionnaires and that, a few
exceptions aside, they use Likert scales as scoring system.
The results further show that 40 of the 49 instruments are patientreported outcome measures, questionnaires completed by patients to
measure their perception of their functional well-being and health
status (Department of Health, 2009). Five instruments use interviewer
administration, one uses a parallel administration where the measures
of patients and nurses are combined and two are unclear. One measure of community empowerment uses an administration method
where the questionnaire was self-administered at first and discussed
towards consensus in the group thereafter. All instruments measure
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/4/1482/6202975 by Walden University user on 09 October 2022
In this phase, instruments were excluded of which the context was not
in line with the aim of this study. For example, the Kim Alliance Scale
(Kim et al., 2001) was excluded since empowerment was not the construct primary intended to measure, but one of four subscales (collaboration, integration, empowerment and communication).
Akey et al. (2000)
Koren et al. (1992)
McConkie-Rosell et al.
(2019)
1
2
3
4
Families whose children have emotional disabilities
(USA)
Parents of children
who were undergoing genome
sequencing
The Genome
Empowerment
Scale
Parents of children
with disabilities
(USA)
Parents (The
Netherlands)
Target population
and land of origin
The Family
Empowerment
Scale
Psychological
Empowerment
Scale
The Empowerment
Questionnaire
Title/description
Individual empowerment

Meaning of a diagnosis

Emotional management of
processes
Expressed as:

Attitudes

Knowledge

Behaviour
Family empowerment
Level:

Family

Service system

Community
Psychological empowerment

Attitudes of control and
competence,

Cognitive appraisals of skills and
knowledge,

Formal participation in
organisations

Informal participation in social
systems
Psychological empowerment

Intrapersonal

Interpersonal

Behavioural
Levels, subscales/dimensions
28 Items
7-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
34 Items
5-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
32 Items
Unknown-points Likert scale
Self-administered
12 Items
5-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
Number of items, score
system and method of
administration
Validity and
reliability2
(continued)
Content validity
Criterion validity
Convergent validity
EFA
Panel ratings of
items based on
construct
de?nitions
FA
C, TRR
Convergent validity
CFA
C
Construct validity
CFA
C
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/4/1482/6202975 by Walden University user on 09 October 2022
Parents and family
support:
Damen et al. (2017)
Authors and
publication year1
Measuring Instruments for Empowerment in Social Work 1489
Fadda et al. (2017)
Freiberg et al. (2014)
Latour et al. (2010)
Jurkowski et al.
(2014)
Degeneffe et al.
(2011)
6
7
8
9
Authors and
publication year1
Caregiver
Empowerment
Scale
Parent Resource
Empowerment
Scale
The Parent
Empowerment
and Ef?cacy
Measure
EMpowerment of
PArents in THe
Intensive Care
Vaccination
Psychological
Empowerment
Scale
Title/description
Family caregivers of
persons with
traumatic brain
injury (USA)
Parents of overweight or obese
children (USA)
Parents of children
in a paediatric
intensive care
unit (The
Netherlands)
Parents (Australia)
Parents considering
child vaccination
(Italy)
(USA)
Target population
and land of origin
Seeking information and support
Implications and planning
Individual empowerment

Advocacy self-ef?cacy

Community self-ef?cacy

Caregiver self-ef?cacy
Individual empowerment (scale was
adapted from Spreitzers’ PEI)

Weight

Physical activity

Diet
Individual empowerment

Information

Care and cure

Parental participation

Organisation

Professional attitude
Individual empowerment

Ef?cacy to parent

Ef?cacy to connect
Psychological empowerment

Perceived in?uence of own
experience

Interest in others immunisation
opinion/experience.

Levels, subscales/dimensions
30 Items
5-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
15 Items
4-Point Likert scale
Self-administered (by parents)
65 Items
6-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
20 Items
10-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
9 Items
6-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
Number of items, score
system and method of
administration
Validity and
reliability2
(continued)
Not validated (development of
scale was discussed between
authors and a
community advisory board gave
a critique)
C
Convergent and discriminant validity
C
Convergent validity
Concurrent validity
PCA
C, TRR
Content validity
Face validity
Congruent validity
C
Convergent and discriminant validity
PCA
C
C
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/4/1482/6202975 by Walden University user on 09 October 2022
5
(continued)
1490 Thomas Noordink et al.
Segal et al. (1995)
Segal et al. (1995)
Segal et al. (1995)
Rogers et al. (1997)
Lopez et al. (2010)
10
11
12
13
14
15
Authors and
publication year1
Empowerment
Questionnaire
for Inpatients
Boston University
Empowerment
Scale
Extra-organisational
Empowerment
Scale
Organisational
Empowerment
Scale
Personal
Empowerment
Scale
Dutch
Empowerment
Scale
Title/description
Psychiatric ward
patients (UK)
Mental healthcare
(USA)
People with mental
illness (USA)
People with mental
illness (USA)
People with mental
illness (USA)
Mental healthcare
(The
Netherlands)
Target population
and land of origin
Personal self-ef?cacy
Individual empowerment

Information

Choice
Individual empowerment
Self-esteem-self-ef?cacy

Power-powerlessness

Community activism and
autonomy

Optimism and control over future

Righteous anger
Extra-organisational empowerment

Political activity involvement

Community activity involvement
Organisational empowerment

Control

Coordination
Personal empowerment

Amount of choice in day-to-day
life

Reduction of uncertainty in dayto-day life
Individual empowerment

Professional help

Social support

Own wisdom

Sense of belonging

Vulnerability management

Committed community

Levels, subscales/dimensions
16 Items
4-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
Unclear number of items
Interviews with users, staff
and volunteers
Interviewer administered
Unclear number of items
Interviews with users, staff
and volunteers
Interviewer administered
28 Items,
4-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
Unclear number of items
Interviews with users, staff
and volunteers
Interviewer administered
40 Items
5-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
Number of items, score
system and method of
administration
Validity and
reliability2
(continued)
Concurrent validity
Face validity
Content validity
Construct validity
Known group
validity
PCA
C
Convergent and discriminant validity
C, TRR
Convergent and discriminant validity
C, TRR
Convergent and discriminant validity
C, TRR
Construct validity
Face validity
PCA
C
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/4/1482/6202975 by Walden University user on 09 October 2022
Mental healthcare:
Boevink et al. (2009)
(continued)
Measuring Instruments for Empowerment in Social Work 1491
Childcare and youth
work:
Walker et al. (2010)
18
Ozer and Schotland
(2011)
Schafer (2000)
17
Youth (14–21 years
old) with mental
health dif?culties
(USA)
Urban youth (13–
19 years old)
Psychological empowerment
Mental health
patients
Mental health
patients
Target population
and land of origin
Youth
Empowerment
Scale–Mental
Health
Environment
Empowerment
Assessment
Individual
Empowerment
Assessment
Title/description
Communication
Psychological empowerment

Socio-political skills
Adapted from the FES (Koren et al.,
1992).
Three factors

System

Services

Self
Environmental (in?uence on)
empowerment

Enabling staff qualities

Learning community

Consciousness raising

Safety

Partnership and involvement

Individual planning

Commitment to self-help
Individual empowerment

Professional critique

Commitment to self-help
principles

Power to in?uence

Levels, subscales/dimensions
26 Items
4-Points Likert scale
20 Items
5-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
49 Items
Self-administered
12 Items
Self-administered
Number of items, score
system and method of
administration
Validity and
reliability2
(continued)
Criterion validity
CFA
EFA
C
TRR
CFA
C, TRR
NR/U (concept was
de?ned via interviews with workers, managers
and self-help
groups)
C, TRR
NR/U (concept was
de?ned via interviews with workers, managers
and self-help
groups)
C, TRR
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/4/1482/6202975 by Walden University user on 09 October 2022
19
Schafer (2000)
Authors and
publication year1
16
(continued)
1492 Thomas Noordink et al.
Gothenburg Young
Persons
Empowerment
Scale
~ a Mora et al.
Acun
(2018)
Marr-Lyon et al.
(2008)
Patterson (2013)
21
22
23
Incarcerated youth
(USA)
Youth (11–22 years
old) (USA)
Youth with chronic
condition (12–
25 years old;
Sweden & The
Netherlands)
High school students (average
16 years old)
(USA)
(USA)
Target population
and land of origin
Motivation to in?uence
Participatory behaviour
Perceived control
Behavioural
Interactional

Awareness of resources

Critical awareness

Problem solving
Psychological empowerment.
Intrapersonal

Self-ef?cacy

Motivation to control

Perceived control
Individual empowerment (in relation to
possible tobacco use)

Active participation

Empowerment ef?cacy

External organisation involvement

Participant satisfaction
Individual empowerment

Knowledge and Understanding

Personal control

Identity

Shared decision-making

Enabling others
Community empowerment

Opportunities that use student
voice,

Representation of student
perspectives,

Opportunities for student-led
activities,

Teacher support

Levels, subscales/dimensions
Discriminant
validity
EFA, CFA
C
18 Items
5-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
(continued)
Construct validity
PAFA
C
Content and face
validity
CFA
C
Convergent validity
EFA
C
C
Validity and
reliability2
27 Items
5-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
15 Items
5-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
33 Items
6-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
Self-administered
Number of items, score
system and method of
administration
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/4/1482/6202975 by Walden University user on 09 October 2022
Psychological
Empowerment
Measure
Incarcerated
Youth Oregon
Youth Tobacco
Empowerment
Prevention
Evaluation
Youth empowerment measure
within schools
measure—Urban
Youth
Title/description
Bode (2018)
Authors and
publication year1
20
(continued)
Measuring Instruments for Empowerment in Social Work 1493
Speer et al. (2019)
Travis and Bowman
(2011)
Elderly healthcare:
Gagnon et al. (2006)
Faulkner (2001)
Elder et al. (2007)
Medical healthcare:
Bulsara et al. (2006)
Johnson et al. (2012)
25
26
27
28
29
30
Authors and
publication year1
Health Care
Patient
Empowerment
Scale
Seniors
Empowerment
and Advocacy in
Patient Safety
Patient
Empowerment
Scale
Health Care
Empowerment
Questionnaire
Individual and
Community
Empowerment
Youth Cognitive
Empowerment
Scale
Title/description
Adults with HIV
Cancer patients
(Australia)
Seniors (USA)
Older hospitalised
people (aged
65þ)
Elderly (Canada)
Youth (majority 13–
22 years old)
(USA)
Highschool students
(USA)
Target population
and land of origin
Advocacy
Involvement
Coping
Individual empowerment
Community empowerment
Individual risk
Community risk
Individual empowerment
No factors speci?ed. It measures for example: resources, involvement in decision-making process, support of
family and friends and more
Individual empowerment
Individual empowerment

Outcome ef?cacy

Attitudes

Self-ef?cacy

Behaviours
Individual empowerment

Control giving acts

Control taking acts
Individual empowerment

Decision-making involvement

Control

Interaction involvement

Psychological empowerment

Source of social power

Nature of social power

Instruments of social power

Levels, subscales/dimensions
27 Items
(continued)
Validity and reliability was measured
by means of The
Rasch measurement model
Convergent and
Content validity
Construct validity
C
21 Items
4-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
28 Items
4-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
NR/U
Convergent and discriminant validity
EFA, PCA, CFA
C, TRR
Face validity
CFA
C
Construct validity
Predictive validity
CFA
Reliability ¼ NR/U
Validity and
reliability2
40 Items (acts)
3-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
10 Items
4-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
33 Items
5-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
12 Items
5-Point Likert scale is suggested (p.6)
Self-administered
Number of items, score
system and method of
administration
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/4/1482/6202975 by Walden University user on 09 October 2022
24
(continued)
1494 Thomas Noordink et al.
Van den Berg et al.
(2013)
Mikky (2006)
Jerofke and Weiss
(2016)
Anderson et al. (2000)
McAllister et al.
(2011)
Kettunen et al. (2006)
32
33
34
35
36
Authors and
publication year1
Empowering
Genetic Counselling
Outcome Scale
Diabetes
Empowerment
Scale
Patient Perceptions
of PatientEmpowering
Nurse Behaviours
Scale
Client
Empowerment
Scale
Cancer
Empowerment
Questionnaire
Empowerment
Inventory
Title/description
Hospitalised
Patients of clinical
genetics (United
Kingdom)
Diabetes patients
(USA)
Cancer and cardiac
patients (USA)
Clients with chronic
diseases (USA)
Breast cancer
patients (The
Netherlands)
(USA)
Target population
and land of origin
Informed
Committed
Collaborative
Engaged
Uncertainty tolerance
58 Items
24 Items
7-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
28 Items (long form)
5-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
Individual empowerment

Psychosocial aspects of diabetes

Assessing dissatisfaction and readiness to change

Setting and achieving goals
No factors speci?ed. A 7-factor model
was eventually tried, but the factor
analysis failed, so GCOS was treated
as a unidimensional measure.
Individual empowerment.
42 Items (long form)
11-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
60 Items
5-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
40 Items
5-Points Likert scale
Self-administered
5-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
Number of items, score
system and method of
administration
Individual empowerment

Initiation

Access to opportunity

Access to resources

Access to information

Access to support

Formal Power

Informal Power
Individual empowerment

Self-con?dence

Client-provider Relationship

Social advocacy

Awareness

Control

Client–client support
Psychological empowerment

Intrapersonal

Interpersonal

Levels, subscales/dimensions
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/4/1482/6202975 by Walden University user on 09 October 2022
31
(continued)
(continued)
Convergent and divergent validity
EFA
C, TRR
EFA, CFA
Content validity
Concurrent validity
C, TRR
Convergent validity
Predictive validity
Content validity
Known group
validity
CFA
C
Convergent and discriminant validity
PCA
C
Construct validity
EFA, PCA
C
divergent
validity
EFA, CFA
C (Raykov’s rho)
Validity and
reliability2
Measuring Instruments for Empowerment in Social Work 1495
Treatment-related
Empowerment
Scale
Patient
Empowerment
QuestionnaireIntensive Care
Unit
Pereyra-Rodriguez
et al. (2019)
Webb et al. (2001)
Wa?hlin et al. (2017)
39
40
41
ICU patients
(Sweden)
HIV patients (UK)
Adult patients with
atopic dermatitis
(Spain)
Patients with
psoriasis
Patients suffering
long-term conditions (United
Kingdom)
patients
(Finland)
Target population
and land of origin
Patient empowerment. No factors speci?ed. Patient experience and perceived importance were measured
Individual empowerment

Communication

treatment choice

decision-making

satisfaction
Individual empowerment

Knowledge

Abilities

Intention to change

Coping skills
Individual empowerment

Knowledge

Experience

Skills
Individual empowerment

positive attitude and sense of
control

knowledge and con?dence in decision-making

enabling others
Two dimensions:

Professionally led conversation

Patients requests for additional
clari?cation
Levels, subscales/dimensions
27 Items
5-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
10 Items
5-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
17 Items
5-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
12 Items
5-Point Likert scale
Self-administered
47 Items
Unknown-points Likert scale,
Self-administered
3-Point Likert scale (‘yes/no/
ambiguous’ scoring)
Patient administered and
nurse administered (parallel measuring)
Number of items, score
system and method of
administration
Validity and
reliability2
(continued)
Content validity
Face validity
Reliability¼NR/U
Criterion validity
Discriminant
validity
C
Construct validity
EFA
C
Construct validity
PCA
C
Construct validity
EFA, PAFA
C
C
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bjsw/article/51/4/1482/6202975 by Walden University user on 09 October 2022
Psoriasis
Empowerment
Enquiry in the
Routine practice
questionnaire
DATEMP
questionnaire
Pagliarello et al.
(2010)
38
Patient
Empowerment
measure in longterm conditions
Speech Practice
Scale
Title/description
Small et al. (2013)
Authors and
publication year1
37
(continued)
1496 Thomas Noordink et al.
Other:
Van Dop et al. (2016)
Gysemberg and
Heremans (2002)
Samoocha et al.
(2011)
Haswell et al. (2010)
43
44
45
Authors and
publication year1
Growth and
Empowerment
Measure
Vrijbaan
Questionnaire
Empowerment
questionnaire by
Gysemberg and
Heremans
Service User
Psychological
Empowerment
Scale
Title/description
Indigenous
Australians
(Australia)
People with longterm work disability (The
Netherlands)
Adults (Belgium
and The
Netherlands)
Service users
(Belgium)
Target population
and land of origin
Functional aspects of empowerment
(12S):

Healing and Enabling Growth

Connection and Purpose
Emotional empowerment (EES):

Self-Capacity

Inner Peace
Individual empowerment

Competence

Self-determination

Meaning

Impact

Positive identity

Group-