4.5 Article

Validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly in community-dwelling people with dementia

Journal

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS
Volume 20, Issue 6, Pages 1273-1290

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610208007400

Keywords

construct validity; criterion validity; test-retest reliability; needs assessment; community; dementia; CANE

Funding

  1. Freeband User Experience project (FRUX)
  2. Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs [BSIK 03025]
  3. Dioraphte Foundation
  4. RCOAK
  5. NHDI
  6. Foundation Het Zonnehuis
  7. Stichting Alzheimer & Neuropsychiatrie Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Tailor-made care in dementia requires an individual needs assessment. The Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly (CANE) was developed to assess needs of older people with mental disorders. In this study the validity and reliability of the Dutch version of the CANE were studied among community-dwelling persons with dementia and their informal carers. Method: Interviews were carried out with 236 people with mild to severe dementia and 322 informal carers; 69 informal carers were interviewed twice. Construct and criterion validity and test-retest reliability of the CANE were studied using data for informal carers. Construct validity was also studied for CANE ratings of people with dementia. Results: The construct validity of the CANE was good among people with dementia and informal carers. Criterion validity could be studied for 76.9% of the CANE items, and all significant correlations were convergent. Test-retest reliability of the CANE varied from poor to very good and was best on domains where needs were explicit and problems well defined. Conclusions: Use of the Dutch version of the CANE among community-dwelling people with dementia and their carers is supported by the study results, with the study showing acceptable construct and criterion validity and test-retest reliability of the CANE.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available