Psychometric validation of the Family Outcomes Survey-Revised in Japan.
The Japanese FOS-R is ready to measure family-perceived early-intervention benefits in your Japanese caseload.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Ueda et al. (2015) checked if the Japanese Family Outcomes Survey-Revised (FOS-R) truly measures what it claims. They asked families of young children in early-intervention programs to fill out the survey. The team then ran math tests to see if the scores were reliable and meaningful.
What they found
The Japanese FOS-R passed the tests. It showed good internal consistency and content validity. In plain words, parents answered the questions the same way each time, and the questions really cover the benefits families feel from early-intervention services.
How this fits with other research
Two years earlier the same team validated the Japanese Family Needs Survey (Kimiko et al. 2013). That tool asks what families say they need. The new FOS-R flips the lens and asks what families say they actually gained. Using both gives you a before-and-after picture.
Amore et al. (2011) reviewed family-quality-of-life tools worldwide and warned against relying only on mom-report. The FOS-R follows that advice by including questions about the whole family system, not just one caregiver.
Jubenville-Wood et al. (2024) recently showed the Chinese Caregiver Strain Questionnaire also holds up in East Asia. Together these studies build a toolkit: you can now measure strain, needs, and outcomes in Japanese, Chinese, or English without losing accuracy.
Why it matters
If you run or consult for an early-intervention program in Japan, you now have a validated Japanese survey that asks families, "Did we help?" Use it at intake and exit to show funders real family-perceived change. The survey is short enough to mail or hand out while waiting for appointments, and the math is already done for you.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add the Japanese FOS-R to your exit packet and compare intake-to-exit scores to show families their own progress.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
According to a revision of Japan's Basic Law for Persons with Disabilities in 2011, Article 17 stipulated the government's obligation to provide early intervention to children with disabilities. However, the concept of family outcomes in early intervention has not really been considered in Japan yet. This article describes the development and validation of the Japanese version of the Family Outcomes Survey Revised (FOS-R). Our goal was to determine whether this survey for assessing how families of children with disabilities are affected by early intervention would be appropriate for use in early intervention in Japan. Both the Japanese version of the FOS-R and an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire about background factors were given to 394 mothers of children who were either currently using or had in the past year used early intervention at an early intervention facility or medical institution. Survey responses were obtained from 335 mothers (response rate of 85.0%). The total number of subjects in the analysis was 301 mothers who answered the Japanese version of the FOS-R completely. To assess content validity, another survey was given to 115 experts involved in supporting children with disabilities and their families. The family outcomes indicator items as well as the helpfulness indicators items showed good psychometric properties. Although the components of the FOS-R worked better as individual subscales than as a single scale, we confirmed that a total score was also psychometrically valid. We also confirmed both content validity and external validity. The Japanese version of the FOS-R appears to be a valid tool for assessing the benefits experienced by families as a result of services received, but further research is needed to determine the nature of practices most likely to lead to positive family outcomes.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2015 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2015.01.003