Measurement as Communication in Outcomes Management: The Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS)

Transitions of Youth in Mental Health Residential Care to Less Restrictive Settings: The Role of Strengths and Gender

“…Initial certification and annual recertification to 70% reliability is required of all trained raters. Previous research has demonstrated that the CANS has adequate interrater and internal consistency reliability (Anderson, Lyons, Giles, Price, & Estle, 2003;Epstein, Jordan, Rhee, McClelland, & Lyons, 2009;Leon, Lyons, & Uziel-Miller, 2000;Leon, Uziel-Miller, Lyons, & Tracy, 1999;Lyons, Rawal, Yeh, & Leon, 2002;Lyons, Weiner, & Lyons, 2004). Findings from an audit comparing prospective screening with retrospective chart review, for example, found reliability above 70%, and comparison of 188 training participant ratings of test case vignette to those of the CANS developer resulted in average reliability using intraclass correlation of .76 (Lyons et al, 2004).…”

“…The CANS has also been shown to have adequate concurrent, discriminate, and predictive validity Leon et al, 1999;Lyons & Schaefer, 2000;Lyons, Baerger, Quigley, Erlich, & Griffin, 2001;Lyons et al, 1997;Lyons et al, 2000;Lyons et al, 2004;Park, Jordan, Epstein, Mandell, & Lyons, 2009). For example, one validity study using both the CANS and the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Survey (CAFAS; Hodges, Kline, Stern, & McKnew, 1982) reported that the correlation between the CANS and the CAFAS total score was .63, with the correlation between single CANS items and the corresponding CAFAS subscale score ranging from .54 to .73 (Lyons et al, 2004). The CANS has been used by many states as a decision support tool and as a tool for quality and outcomes monitoring (Lyons et al, 2004;Lyons & Weiner, 2009).…”

“…Previous research has demonstrated that the CANS has adequate interrater and internal consistency reliability (Anderson, Lyons, Giles, Price, & Estle, 2003;Epstein, Jordan, Rhee, McClelland, & Lyons, 2009;Leon, Lyons, & Uziel-Miller, 2000;Leon, Uziel-Miller, Lyons, & Tracy, 1999;Lyons, Rawal, Yeh, & Leon, 2002;Lyons, Weiner, & Lyons, 2004). Findings from an audit comparing prospective screening with retrospective chart review, for example, found reliability above 70%, and comparison of 188 training participant ratings of test case vignette to those of the CANS developer resulted in average reliability using intraclass correlation of .76 (Lyons et al, 2004). The CANS has also been shown to have adequate concurrent, discriminate, and predictive validity Leon et al, 1999;Lyons & Schaefer, 2000;Lyons, Baerger, Quigley, Erlich, & Griffin, 2001;Lyons et al, 1997;Lyons et al, 2000;Lyons et al, 2004;Park, Jordan, Epstein, Mandell, & Lyons, 2009).…”

“…Findings from an audit comparing prospective screening with retrospective chart review, for example, found reliability above 70%, and comparison of 188 training participant ratings of test case vignette to those of the CANS developer resulted in average reliability using intraclass correlation of .76 (Lyons et al, 2004). The CANS has also been shown to have adequate concurrent, discriminate, and predictive validity Leon et al, 1999;Lyons & Schaefer, 2000;Lyons, Baerger, Quigley, Erlich, & Griffin, 2001;Lyons et al, 1997;Lyons et al, 2000;Lyons et al, 2004;Park, Jordan, Epstein, Mandell, & Lyons, 2009). For example, one validity study using both the CANS and the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Survey (CAFAS; Hodges, Kline, Stern, & McKnew, 1982) reported that the correlation between the CANS and the CAFAS total score was .63, with the correlation between single CANS items and the corresponding CAFAS subscale score ranging from .54 to .73 (Lyons et al, 2004).…”

“…For example, one validity study using both the CANS and the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Survey (CAFAS; Hodges, Kline, Stern, & McKnew, 1982) reported that the correlation between the CANS and the CAFAS total score was .63, with the correlation between single CANS items and the corresponding CAFAS subscale score ranging from .54 to .73 (Lyons et al, 2004). The CANS has been used by many states as a decision support tool and as a tool for quality and outcomes monitoring (Lyons et al, 2004;Lyons & Weiner, 2009). …”