R Andresen1, P Caputi, L G Oades. 1. Department of Psychology, The University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Australian mental health policy aims to introduce evidence-based practice within a community care approach. This aim requires reliable measures that can be used by a wide variety of professionals. The interrater reliability of the Camberwell Assessment of Need Short Appraisal Schedule (CANSAS) was assessed under routine conditions. METHOD: Three interviewer-observer dyads assessed the needs of 14 inpatients and 18 day patients of a psychiatric rehabilitation unit in New South Wales, Australia. RESULTS: Agreement on the identification of an area of need was high. However, agreement was higher on patient ratings than on staff ratings. Correlations on staff ratings of met needs were also moderate (r = 0.53), suggesting discrepancies in rating the level of need. CONCLUSION: Differences in staff ratings may be attributed to ambiguity in the definition of need and levels of need and/or the sources of information used by the rater making the assessment. An approach to establishing an operational definition of need is suggested, and an increase in the number of levels of need is recommended. Implications for Australian mental health policy are noted.
OBJECTIVE: Australian mental health policy aims to introduce evidence-based practice within a community care approach. This aim requires reliable measures that can be used by a wide variety of professionals. The interrater reliability of the Camberwell Assessment of Need Short Appraisal Schedule (CANSAS) was assessed under routine conditions. METHOD: Three interviewer-observer dyads assessed the needs of 14 inpatients and 18 day patients of a psychiatric rehabilitation unit in New South Wales, Australia. RESULTS: Agreement on the identification of an area of need was high. However, agreement was higher on patient ratings than on staff ratings. Correlations on staff ratings of met needs were also moderate (r = 0.53), suggesting discrepancies in rating the level of need. CONCLUSION: Differences in staff ratings may be attributed to ambiguity in the definition of need and levels of need and/or the sources of information used by the rater making the assessment. An approach to establishing an operational definition of need is suggested, and an increase in the number of levels of need is recommended. Implications for Australian mental health policy are noted.
Authors: Nikie Korver; Piotr J Quee; Heleen B M Boos; Claudia J P Simons; Lieuwe de Haan Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Maya Semrau; Mark van Ommeren; Monica Blagescu; Andre Griekspoor; Louise M Howard; Mark Jordans; Heidi Lempp; Anita Marini; Jon Pedersen; Isabelle Pilotte; Mike Slade; Graham Thornicroft Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2012-08-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jessica de Nijs; Thijs J Burger; Ronald J Janssen; Seyed Mostafa Kia; Daniël P J van Opstal; Mariken B de Koning; Lieuwe de Haan; Wiepke Cahn; Hugo G Schnack Journal: NPJ Schizophr Date: 2021-07-02