Rater bias and the measurement of support needs

Guscia, Roma; Harries, Julia; Kirby, Neil; Nettelbeck, Ted

doi:10.1080/13668250600876459

Cited by 11 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ratings of support needs have been shown to be affected significantly by raters knowing whether the ratings are for the purpose of funding or research. 22 In the present study, Rater 1 knew that the rating would directly impact on how long the client concerned would wait for services, and may have been influenced by a number of factors (such as the strength of a verbal case made by either a client or referrer, or sympathy for a client's situation). Rater 2 was rating purely for the purpose of research, which may have allowed a more objective view.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritizing patients for Community Rehabilitation Services: do clinicians agree on triage decisions?

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritizing patients for Community Rehabilitation Services: do clinicians agree on triage decisions?

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recent instruments, such as the SIS , have assumed that support needs involve more than adaptive and challenging behaviour, although, as noted, some studies have reported very strong associations between support need assessments and adaptive behaviour (Guscia et al . ; Brown et al . ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Guscia et al . ). Validation against funding level is further compromised by the major differences in funding across service types and funding programmes (Stancliffe & Lakin , ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

I‐CAN: The Classification and Prediction of Support Needs

Arnold

Riches

Stancliffe

2013

Research Intellect Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, an investigation into rater bias in the SNAP found inflated scores when raters were aware of the fact that the assessment results were to be used for funding purposes as opposed to research purposes. Guscia et al. (2006a) concluded that such measures may seriously overestimate support needs when raters know that the assessment is being used for funding purposes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Reliability, Validity and Practical Utility of Measuring Supports using the I‐CAN Instrument: Part II

Riches

Parmenter

Llewellyn

et al. 2009

Research Intellect Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is an urgent need for developing reliable, valid and practical instruments that assess and classify the support needed by persons with disability to function in their chosen living, working and social environments. I-CAN is an instrument that addresses the frequency and level of support needed (not individual skills or deficits) for each individual with a disability. Method Studies were conducted to assess the test-retest reliability and inter-rater reliability. Concurrent validity was investigated by exploring the relationship between the I-CAN domain scales and the Inventory for Client and Agency Planning (ICAP) (Bruininks et al. 1986) and the Quality of Life Questionnaire (QOL-Q) (Schalock & Keith 1993). Predictive validity studies were undertaken using day-and night-time support hours. Regression analyses were run using these measures with I-CAN domain scales. Two independent studies were also conducted to ascertain the practical utility of the instrument. ResultsThe I-CAN instrument demonstrated excellent inter-rater and test-retest reliability in the Activities and Participation domains. Low-to-moderate test-retest results in Physical Health, Mental Emotional Health and Behaviour domains were tracked to actual change in support needs in these areas. Validity proved acceptable. The relationships between I-CAN domain scales and adaptive behaviour were mixed but in the expected direction. Low-to-moderate correlation coefficients were evident between the I-CAN scales and the QOL-Q Total, but greater support needed in certain domains was associated with less empowerment and independence, and less community integration and social belonging. Attempts to explain current support hours against the I-CAN scales were disappointing and suggest that a number of other factors apart from individual support need to play a significant role. There was general satisfaction with the assessment process from stakeholders and participant groups. Conclusions I-CAN is a reliable, valid and user-friendly instrument for assessing the support needs of people with disabilities. It uses a process that involves the persons with disability, their family and friends and staff as appropriate. It is also apparent that the current provision of paid support hours by agencies is a complex phenomenon that is not based solely on individual support needs. Further research is warranted on the influence of the environment and the perceptions of need for support based on negotiable and non-negotiable support needs.

show abstract

Rater bias and the measurement of support needs

Abstract: Our results suggest that support measures such as SNAP may significantly overestimate support needs when raters know the assessment is being used for funding purposes.

Cited by 11 publications

References 2 publications

Prioritizing patients for Community Rehabilitation Services: do clinicians agree on triage decisions?

Prioritizing patients for Community Rehabilitation Services: do clinicians agree on triage decisions?

I‐CAN: The Classification and Prediction of Support Needs

The Reliability, Validity and Practical Utility of Measuring Supports using the I‐CAN Instrument: Part II

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About