Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2026
SECONDs Administration Guidelines: A Fast Tool to Assess Consciousness in Brain-injured Patients
Published on: February 6, 2021
Validity and responsiveness of the care and needs scale for assessing support needs after traumatic brain injury
Cheryl Soo1, Robyn L Tate, Vanessa Aird
1Rehabilitation Studies Unit, Northern Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Objective:
To investigate the validity and responsiveness of the Care and Needs Scale (CANS), which was designed to assess support needs of people with traumatic brain injury (TBI).
Design:
Two samples of community clients (n=38, n=30) were recruited to examine concurrent, convergent/divergent, and discriminant validity. The ability of the CANS to detect change over a 6-month period from the time of inpatient rehabilitation discharge (predictive validity and responsiveness) was investigated in a third sample of 40 rehabilitation inpatients.
Setting:
Two Brain Injury Rehabilitation Units in Sydney, Australia.
Participants:
People (N=108) aged between 16 and 70 years admitted for rehabilitation after TBI.
Interventions:
Not applicable.
Main Outcome Measures:
The CANS, Supervision Rating Scale, FIM, Sydney Psychosocial Reintegration Scale, and Disability Rating Scale.
Results:
Evidence for concurrent validity was shown with fair to moderate correlation coefficients between the CANS and measures of supervision, functional independence, and psychosocial functioning (absolute value, r(s)=.43-.68; P<.01). Support for convergent and divergent validity was provided by correlation coefficients that were higher for measures tapping similar constructs (absolute value, r(s)=46; P<.01) but lower for measures of dissimilar constructs (absolute value, r(s)=.07-.26; not significant). In addition, the CANS discriminated between levels of injury severity, functional independence, and overall functioning (P<.01). In terms of predictive validity and responsiveness, CANS scores at inpatient rehabilitation discharge predicted the participant's functioning 6 months later.
Conclusions:
These results show the CANS is a valid and responsive tool and, together with its previously shown reliability, is suitable for routine application in clinical and research practice.
