CAN - Camberwell Assessment of Need, Revised

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

0

Population

Mental Health Challenges

Instrument Citation(s)

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