The reliability and validity of the forensic Camberwell Assessment of Need (CANFOR): a needs assessment for forensic mental health service users

Abstract

No instrument exists that measures the individual needs of forensic mental health service users (FMHSUs). The aim of this study was therefore to develop a valid and reliable individual needs assessment instrument for FMHSUs that incorporated staff and service user views and measured met and unmet needs. The Camberwell Assessment of Need was used as a template to develop CANFOR. Consensual and content validity were investigated with 50 forensic mental health professionals and 60 FMHSUs. Both were found to be satisfactory. Concurrent validity was tested using the Global Assessment of Functioning and a five-point needs scale, and again was found to be satisfactory. Reliability studies were carried out with 77 service users and 65 staff in high and medium security psychiatric services in the UK. Inter-rater reliability, rating whether a need was present or not, was high for service users (0.991) and staff (0.998). Similarly high reliability was found for unmet needs (0.985 and 0.972, respectively). Test-retest reliability was found to be moderately high for service users (0.795) and staff (0.852) when ratings were made two weeks apart. Similar levels were found for ratings of unmet needs (0.813 and 0.699, respectively). The average interview time was 23 minutes. CANFOR has good validity and reliability, and is suitable for further testing with other service user groups.

A standardised tool for assessing needs in forensic psychiatric population: clinical validation of the Italian CANFOR, staff version

“…Results of the reliability tests are consistent with previous validation studies conducted internationally in the UK (Thomas et al 2008), Spain (Romeva et al 2010) and…”

“…The slightly lower agreement found in the inter-rater reliability test compared with other published studies may be due to differences in the professional backgrounds and conceptual frames of reference of the two raters, as similarly noted by Thomas et al (2008). We found a lower level of agreement in the more socially orientated need domains of company, intimate relationships, psychological distress and information.…”

Six years on: a prospective cohort study of male juvenile offenders in secure care

“…The short form of the Camberwell Assessment of NeedForensic Version (CANFOR-S) was used to assess the needs of the offenders [15]. The CANFOR is a needs assessment tool for adults with mental health problems who are also in contact with forensic services.…”

The development of a ‘best practice’ service for women in a medium‐secure psychiatric setting: treatment components and evaluation

“…Measures used to evaluate global outcomes over time include (1) Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure (Evans et al, 2002); (2) Expanded Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (Lukoff, Nuechterlin, & Ventura, 1986); (3) The Beck Depression Inventory (Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996); (4) The Global Assessment Scale (Endicott, Spritzer, Feleiss, & Cohen, 1976); (5) CANFOR (Thomas et al, 2003); (6) Generalised Self-effi cacy Scale (Jerusalem & Schwarzer, 1992); (7) Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (Patton, Stanford, & Barratt, 1995); and (8) Modifi ed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Symptom Scale-Self report (Falsetti, Resnick, Resick, & Kilpatrick, 1993).…”

“…Use is made of a standard pre-admission assessment proforma, and baseline assessments include the HoNOS Secure (Sugarman & Walker, 2004) and the Camberwell Assessment of Need-Forensic Version (CANFOR; Thomas et al, 2003) in addition to a focus on patient's strengths. The admission criteria exclude patients of less than low average intelligence (typically, an IQ below 70) and those with a signifi cant physical disability.…”