CAN - Camberwell Assessment of Need, Revised

Share this page

Overview

Purpose
Determining unmet human needs and support for adults with mental health challenges (e.g. housing, parenting, etc.)
Respondent
Person with a Disability
Administration Method
Interview
Administration Mode
In-person
Developer
King’s College London
Item Count
81
Population
Mental Health Challenges

Instrument Citation(s)

CAN - Camberwell Assessment of Need, Revised. http://www.researchintorecovery.com/adultcan

Slade, M, Thornicroft, G, Loftus, L, Phelan, M, Wykes, T. CAN Camberwell Assessment of
Need. Gaskell, London 1999.

Instrument Domains

DomainNumber of Items
Community Inclusion15
Employment1
Meaningful activity6
Social connectedness and relationships8
Transportation1
Resources and settings to facilitate inclusion0
Holistic Health and Functioning18
Health promotion and prevention2
Individual health and functioning16
Person-Centered Planning and Coordination81
Assessment81
Coordination0
Person-centered planning0
Caregiver Support0
Access to resources0
Family caregiver/natural support involvement0
Family caregiver/natural support wellbeing0
Training and skill-building0
Choice and Control0
Choice of services and supports0
Personal choices and goals0
Personal freedoms and dignity of risk0
Self-direction0
Consumer Leadership in System Development0
Evidence of meaningful caregiver involvement0
Evidence of meaningful consumer involvement0
System supports meaningful consumer involvement0
Equity0
Availability0
Equitable access and resource allocation0
Transparency and consistency0
Fluctuation of Need0
Human and Legal Rights0
Freedom from abuse and neglect0
Informed decision-making0
Optimizing the preservation of legal and human rights0
Privacy0
Supporting individuals in exercising their human and legal rights0
Level of Caregiver Well-Being0
Service Delivery and Effectiveness0
Delivery0
Person's needs met and goals realized0
System Performance and Accountability0
Data management and use0
Evidence-based practice0
Financing and service delivery structures0
Workforce0
Adequately compensated with benefits0
Culturally competent0
Demonstrated competencies when appropriate0
Person-centered approach to services0
Safety of and respect for the worker0
Staff Turnover0
Sufficient workforce numbers dispersion and availability0
Workforce engagement and participation0

Psychometric Citations

  • Hansson, L., Bjorkman, T., & Svensson, B. (1995). The assessment of needs in psychiatric patients:
    Interrater reliability of the Swedish version of the Camberwell Assessment of Needs instrument
    and results from a cross-sectional study. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 92, 285-293.

    Type of Publication
    Peer review
    Instrument Language
    Swedish
    Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

    18-35 (37%);
    36-48 (42%);
    >48 (40%)

    Sample: Age Group

    18-64 Years

    Sample: Countries/State

    Sweden

    Sample: Disability Type

    Mental Health Challenges

    Sample: Gender (%male)

    45%

    Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

    Not Reported

    Sample: Sampling Strategy

    Convenience Sample

    Sample: Size

    119

    Reliability: Inter-rater

    Kappa = .50 to 1.00

    Study design
    Cross sectional

  • Wennstrom, E., Sorbom, D., & Wiesel, F.A. (2004). Factor structure in the Camberwell Assessment of
    Need. British Journal of Psychiatry, 185, 505-510.

    Type of Publication
    Peer review
    Instrument Language
    Swedish
    Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

    Mean=45.5 years

    Sample: Age Group

    Not Reported

    Sample: Countries/State

    Sweden

    Sample: Disability Type

    Mental Health Challenges

    Sample: Gender (%male)

    50%

    Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

    Not Reported

    Sample: Sampling Strategy

    Convenience Sample

    Sample: Size

    741

    Validity: Construct (Convergent and Discriminant)

    Factor analysis yielded a three-factor solution; CFA showed a good model fit (RMSEA = .051)

    Study design
    Cross sectional

  • Phelan, M., Slade, M., Thornicroft, G., Dunn, G., Holloway, F., Wykes, T., Strathdee, G., Loftus, L.,
    McCrone, P., & Hayward, P. (1995). The Camberwell Assessment of Need: the validity and
    reliability of an instrument to assess the needs of people with severe mental illness. British
    Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 589-595.

    Type of Publication
    Peer review
    Instrument Language
    English
    Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

    Mean=48.3 years

    Sample: Age Group

    18-64 Years

    Sample: Countries/State

    Unknown

    Sample: Disability Type

    Mental Health Challenges

    Sample: Gender (%male)

    62%

    Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

    Not Reported

    Sample: Sampling Strategy

    Not Reported/Unknown

    Sample: Size

    Patients 49; Staff 60

    Reliability: Inter-rater

    r = .99 for patient ratings; r = .98 for staff ratings

    Reliability: Test-retest

    r = .78 for patient ratings; r = .71 for staff ratings

    Validity: Criterion Validity (Concurrent and Predictive)

    r = -.51 with the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale of DSM-IV.

    Validity: Face Validity

    The Flesch reading score = 6, which is the "preferred level for most readers", and the average word length is 1.58 syllables, indicating that "most readers could comprehend the vocabulary".

    Validity: Other Evidence

    Consensual validity: A draft version was sent for comments to 50 experienced professionals in multiple fields. Numerous minor changes and some major changes were incorporated into the final instrument.

    Study design
    Cross sectional

  • Xenitidis, K., Thornicroft, G. Leese, M., et al. (2000). Reliability and validity of the CANDID—a needs assessment instrument for adults with learning disabilities and mental health problems. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 473-478

    Type of Publication
    Peer review
    Instrument Language
    English
    Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

    Mean=37.5 years

    Sample: Age Group

    18-64 Years

    Sample: Countries/State

    Multiple Countries

    Sample: Disability Type

    Not Reported

    Sample: Gender (%male)

    68%

    Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

    95% White;
    5% others

    Sample: Sampling Strategy

    Not Reported/Unknown

    Sample: Size

    40

    Reliability: Inter-rater

    ICC = .93 for user, ICC = .90 for carer; ICC = .97 for staff ratings

    Reliability: Test-retest

    ICC = .71 for user, ICC = .69 for carer, ICC = .86 for staff ratings

    Validity: Criterion Validity (Concurrent and Predictive)

    Correlations with other measures ranged from -.33 to -.47.

    Validity: Other Evidence

    Consensual validity: 45 experts responded to the questionnaire. Satisfactory consensus on the content and structure of the instrument was ensured.

    Study design
    Cross sectional

  • Reynolds, T., Thornicroft, G., Abas, M., Woods, B., & Hoe, J. (2000). The Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly (CANE): Development, reliability and validity. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 444–452.

    Type of Publication
    Peer review
    Instrument Language
    English
    Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

    Mean=75.4 years

    Sample: Age Group

    65+ Years

    Sample: Countries/State

    Unknown

    Sample: Disability Type

    Mental Health Challenges

    Sample: Gender (%male)

    53%

    Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

    Not Reported

    Sample: Sampling Strategy

    Not Reported/Unknown

    Sample: Size

    55

    Reliability: Inter-rater

    Kappa =.97

    Reliability: Test-retest

    Kappa=.77

    Validity: Construct (Convergent and Discriminant)

    r = .05 to .70

    Validity: Face Validity

    The overall consensus was that the CANE covers the main areas of need for the target population. The choice of words and word length are suitable for most readers.

    Validity: Other Evidence

    Consensual validity: The overall consensus was that there was a definite requirement for a needs-assessment instrument for elderly people with mental illness.

    Study design
    Cross sectional

  • Romeva GE, Rubio LG, Güerre SO, Miravet MJ, Cáceres AG, Thomas SD (2010). Clinical validation of the CANFOR scale (Camberwell Assessment of Need-Forensic version) for the needs assessment of people with mental health problems in the forensic services. Actas Espanola di Psiquiatria 38(3), 129–137

    Type of Publication
    Peer review
    Instrument Language
    Spanish
    Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

    Not Reported

    Sample: Age Group

    Not Reported

    Sample: Countries/State

    Spain

    Sample: Disability Type

    Mental Health Challenges

    Sample: Gender (%male)

    97%

    Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

    79% European
    9% African- Maghreb
    3% Hispanic
    4%Gypsy
    4% Other

    Sample: Sampling Strategy

    Simple Random Sample, Convenience Sample

    Sample: Size

    90

    Reliability: Inter-rater

    Agreement = 84% to 100%; Kappa = .44 to 1.00

    Reliability: Test-retest

    Agreement = 84% to 100%; Kappa = .44 to 1.00

    Validity: Construct (Convergent and Discriminant)

    A negative correlation was found between GAF (p<0,01); LSP in all its subscales(p<0,01-p<0,05 ) and needs as assessed with CANFOR.

    Validity: Criterion Validity (Concurrent and Predictive)

    Correlations with other measures ranged from -.24 to .81.

    Study design
    Cross-sectional

  • Andresen R., Caputi P., Oades L.G. (2000) Interrater
    reliability of the Camberwell assessment of
    need short appraisal schedule. Australian and
    New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34(5),
    856–861.

    Type of Publication
    Peer review
    Instrument Language
    English
    Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

    Mean=38 years

    Sample: Age Group

    18-64 Years

    Sample: Countries/State

    Australia

    Sample: Disability Type

    Mental Health Challenges

    Sample: Gender (%male)

    78%

    Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

    Not Reported

    Sample: Sampling Strategy

    Not Reported/Unknown

    Sample: Size

    32

    Reliability: Inter-rater

    Need: For the patient ratings, from Kappa = 0.39 to 1.00, with 64% of the items above Kappa = 0.70; Coefficients for staff ratings, Kappa = from 0.20 to 1.00, with 36% of items above Kappa= 0.70.

    Study design
    Cross-sectional