Reliability of the Camberwell Assessment of Need - European Version: EPSILON Study 6
BackgroundThe five-country European Psychiatric Services: Inputs Linked to Outcome Domains and Needs (EPSILON) Study aimed to develop standardised and reliable outcome instruments for people with schizophrenia. This paper reports reliability findings for the Camberwell Assessment of Need – European...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of psychiatry 2000-07, Vol.177 (39), p.s34-s40 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | s40 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 39 |
| container_start_page | s34 |
| container_title | British journal of psychiatry |
| container_volume | 177 |
| creator | McCRONE, PAUL LEESE, MORVEN THORNICROFT, GRAHAM GRIFFITHS, GWYN PADFIELD, SARAH SCHENE, AART H CHARLOTTE KNUDSEN, HELLE VAZQUEZ-BARQUERO, JOSE LUIS LASALVIA, ANTONIO WHITE, IAN R |
| description | BackgroundThe five-country European Psychiatric Services: Inputs Linked to Outcome Domains and Needs (EPSILON) Study aimed to develop standardised and reliable outcome instruments for people with schizophrenia. This paper reports reliability findings for the Camberwell Assessment of Need – European Version (CAN-EU).MethodThe CAN – EU was administered in each country, at two points in time to assess test – retest reliability, and was rated by two interviewers at the first administration. Cronbach's α, test–retest reliability and interrater reliability were compared between the five sites. Reliability coefficients and standard errors of measurement for summary scores were estimated.ResultsSites varied in levels and spread of needs. Alphas were 0.48, 0.58 and 0.64 for total, met and unmet needs respectively. Test–retest reliability estimates, pooled over sites, were 0.85 for the total needs, 0.69 for met needs and 0.78 for unmet needs. Pooled estimates for interrater reliability were higher, at 0.94, 0.85 and 0.79 for total, met and unmet needs respectively. There were statistically significant differences in interrater reliability between sites.ConclusionThe results confirm the feasibility of using CAN–EU across sites in Europe and its psychometric adequacy. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1192/bjp.177.39.s34 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2315584382</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2315584382</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c247t-fd3b318197d4b05f51af088ad0b1ef3c879039cad86488e7bea476e3e24009c93</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpNkE1Lw0AQhhdRsFavnhc9J-5XsrveSqlaKK3Y6nXZJBOTkiZxN6Hk35tSD56Gl3neGXgQuqckpFSzp2TfhlTKkOvQc3GBJlRIFlARR5doQgiRAWURuUY33u_HyAWTE7T7gKq0SVmV3YCbHHcF4Lk9JOCOUFV45j14f4C6Oy3XABkO8KJ3TQu2xl_gfNnUz3jxvl2uNmu87fpswPEtuspt5eHub07R58tiN38LVpvX5Xy2ClImZBfkGU84VVTLTCQkyiNqc6KUzUhCIeepkppwndpMxUIpkAlYIWPgwAQhOtV8ih7Pd1vX_PTgO7NvelePLw3jNIqU4IqNVHimUtd47yA3rSsP1g2GEnMyZ0ZzZjRnuDajubHwcC4U5XdxLB0Yl7Z-SIv_0C_8Xmv0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2315584382</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reliability of the Camberwell Assessment of Need - European Version: EPSILON Study 6</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>McCRONE, PAUL ; LEESE, MORVEN ; THORNICROFT, GRAHAM ; GRIFFITHS, GWYN ; PADFIELD, SARAH ; SCHENE, AART H ; CHARLOTTE KNUDSEN, HELLE ; VAZQUEZ-BARQUERO, JOSE LUIS ; LASALVIA, ANTONIO ; WHITE, IAN R</creator><creatorcontrib>McCRONE, PAUL ; LEESE, MORVEN ; THORNICROFT, GRAHAM ; GRIFFITHS, GWYN ; PADFIELD, SARAH ; SCHENE, AART H ; CHARLOTTE KNUDSEN, HELLE ; VAZQUEZ-BARQUERO, JOSE LUIS ; LASALVIA, ANTONIO ; WHITE, IAN R ; EPSILON Study Group</creatorcontrib><description>BackgroundThe five-country European Psychiatric Services: Inputs Linked to Outcome Domains and Needs (EPSILON) Study aimed to develop standardised and reliable outcome instruments for people with schizophrenia. This paper reports reliability findings for the Camberwell Assessment of Need – European Version (CAN-EU).MethodThe CAN – EU was administered in each country, at two points in time to assess test – retest reliability, and was rated by two interviewers at the first administration. Cronbach's α, test–retest reliability and interrater reliability were compared between the five sites. Reliability coefficients and standard errors of measurement for summary scores were estimated.ResultsSites varied in levels and spread of needs. Alphas were 0.48, 0.58 and 0.64 for total, met and unmet needs respectively. Test–retest reliability estimates, pooled over sites, were 0.85 for the total needs, 0.69 for met needs and 0.78 for unmet needs. Pooled estimates for interrater reliability were higher, at 0.94, 0.85 and 0.79 for total, met and unmet needs respectively. There were statistically significant differences in interrater reliability between sites.ConclusionThe results confirm the feasibility of using CAN–EU across sites in Europe and its psychometric adequacy.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0007-1250</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1472-1465</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1192/bjp.177.39.s34</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: RCP</publisher><subject>Cronbach's alpha ; Errors ; Feasibility ; Health services ; Interrater reliability ; Measurement ; Mental disorders ; Mental health care ; Patients ; Psychiatric services ; Psychiatry ; Schizophrenia ; Statistical analysis</subject><ispartof>British journal of psychiatry, 2000-07, Vol.177 (39), p.s34-s40</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2000 The Royal College of Psychiatrists</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c247t-fd3b318197d4b05f51af088ad0b1ef3c879039cad86488e7bea476e3e24009c93</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,12827,27905,27906,30980</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>McCRONE, PAUL</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LEESE, MORVEN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>THORNICROFT, GRAHAM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GRIFFITHS, GWYN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PADFIELD, SARAH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SCHENE, AART H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CHARLOTTE KNUDSEN, HELLE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>VAZQUEZ-BARQUERO, JOSE LUIS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LASALVIA, ANTONIO</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WHITE, IAN R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>EPSILON Study Group</creatorcontrib><title>Reliability of the Camberwell Assessment of Need - European Version: EPSILON Study 6</title><title>British journal of psychiatry</title><description>BackgroundThe five-country European Psychiatric Services: Inputs Linked to Outcome Domains and Needs (EPSILON) Study aimed to develop standardised and reliable outcome instruments for people with schizophrenia. This paper reports reliability findings for the Camberwell Assessment of Need – European Version (CAN-EU).MethodThe CAN – EU was administered in each country, at two points in time to assess test – retest reliability, and was rated by two interviewers at the first administration. Cronbach's α, test–retest reliability and interrater reliability were compared between the five sites. Reliability coefficients and standard errors of measurement for summary scores were estimated.ResultsSites varied in levels and spread of needs. Alphas were 0.48, 0.58 and 0.64 for total, met and unmet needs respectively. Test–retest reliability estimates, pooled over sites, were 0.85 for the total needs, 0.69 for met needs and 0.78 for unmet needs. Pooled estimates for interrater reliability were higher, at 0.94, 0.85 and 0.79 for total, met and unmet needs respectively. There were statistically significant differences in interrater reliability between sites.ConclusionThe results confirm the feasibility of using CAN–EU across sites in Europe and its psychometric adequacy.</description><subject>Cronbach's alpha</subject><subject>Errors</subject><subject>Feasibility</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Interrater reliability</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Mental disorders</subject><subject>Mental health care</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Psychiatric services</subject><subject>Psychiatry</subject><subject>Schizophrenia</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><issn>0007-1250</issn><issn>1472-1465</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNpNkE1Lw0AQhhdRsFavnhc9J-5XsrveSqlaKK3Y6nXZJBOTkiZxN6Hk35tSD56Gl3neGXgQuqckpFSzp2TfhlTKkOvQc3GBJlRIFlARR5doQgiRAWURuUY33u_HyAWTE7T7gKq0SVmV3YCbHHcF4Lk9JOCOUFV45j14f4C6Oy3XABkO8KJ3TQu2xl_gfNnUz3jxvl2uNmu87fpswPEtuspt5eHub07R58tiN38LVpvX5Xy2ClImZBfkGU84VVTLTCQkyiNqc6KUzUhCIeepkppwndpMxUIpkAlYIWPgwAQhOtV8ih7Pd1vX_PTgO7NvelePLw3jNIqU4IqNVHimUtd47yA3rSsP1g2GEnMyZ0ZzZjRnuDajubHwcC4U5XdxLB0Yl7Z-SIv_0C_8Xmv0</recordid><startdate>20000701</startdate><enddate>20000701</enddate><creator>McCRONE, PAUL</creator><creator>LEESE, MORVEN</creator><creator>THORNICROFT, GRAHAM</creator><creator>GRIFFITHS, GWYN</creator><creator>PADFIELD, SARAH</creator><creator>SCHENE, AART H</creator><creator>CHARLOTTE KNUDSEN, HELLE</creator><creator>VAZQUEZ-BARQUERO, JOSE LUIS</creator><creator>LASALVIA, ANTONIO</creator><creator>WHITE, IAN R</creator><general>RCP</general><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000701</creationdate><title>Reliability of the Camberwell Assessment of Need - European Version: EPSILON Study 6</title><author>McCRONE, PAUL ; LEESE, MORVEN ; THORNICROFT, GRAHAM ; GRIFFITHS, GWYN ; PADFIELD, SARAH ; SCHENE, AART H ; CHARLOTTE KNUDSEN, HELLE ; VAZQUEZ-BARQUERO, JOSE LUIS ; LASALVIA, ANTONIO ; WHITE, IAN R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c247t-fd3b318197d4b05f51af088ad0b1ef3c879039cad86488e7bea476e3e24009c93</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Cronbach's alpha</topic><topic>Errors</topic><topic>Feasibility</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Interrater reliability</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Mental disorders</topic><topic>Mental health care</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Psychiatric services</topic><topic>Psychiatry</topic><topic>Schizophrenia</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>McCRONE, PAUL</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LEESE, MORVEN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>THORNICROFT, GRAHAM</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>GRIFFITHS, GWYN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>PADFIELD, SARAH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SCHENE, AART H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>CHARLOTTE KNUDSEN, HELLE</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>VAZQUEZ-BARQUERO, JOSE LUIS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>LASALVIA, ANTONIO</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WHITE, IAN R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>EPSILON Study Group</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>British journal of psychiatry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>McCRONE, PAUL</au><au>LEESE, MORVEN</au><au>THORNICROFT, GRAHAM</au><au>GRIFFITHS, GWYN</au><au>PADFIELD, SARAH</au><au>SCHENE, AART H</au><au>CHARLOTTE KNUDSEN, HELLE</au><au>VAZQUEZ-BARQUERO, JOSE LUIS</au><au>LASALVIA, ANTONIO</au><au>WHITE, IAN R</au><aucorp>EPSILON Study Group</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reliability of the Camberwell Assessment of Need - European Version: EPSILON Study 6</atitle><jtitle>British journal of psychiatry</jtitle><date>2000-07-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>177</volume><issue>39</issue><spage>s34</spage><epage>s40</epage><pages>s34-s40</pages><issn>0007-1250</issn><eissn>1472-1465</eissn><abstract>BackgroundThe five-country European Psychiatric Services: Inputs Linked to Outcome Domains and Needs (EPSILON) Study aimed to develop standardised and reliable outcome instruments for people with schizophrenia. This paper reports reliability findings for the Camberwell Assessment of Need – European Version (CAN-EU).MethodThe CAN – EU was administered in each country, at two points in time to assess test – retest reliability, and was rated by two interviewers at the first administration. Cronbach's α, test–retest reliability and interrater reliability were compared between the five sites. Reliability coefficients and standard errors of measurement for summary scores were estimated.ResultsSites varied in levels and spread of needs. Alphas were 0.48, 0.58 and 0.64 for total, met and unmet needs respectively. Test–retest reliability estimates, pooled over sites, were 0.85 for the total needs, 0.69 for met needs and 0.78 for unmet needs. Pooled estimates for interrater reliability were higher, at 0.94, 0.85 and 0.79 for total, met and unmet needs respectively. There were statistically significant differences in interrater reliability between sites.ConclusionThe results confirm the feasibility of using CAN–EU across sites in Europe and its psychometric adequacy.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>RCP</pub><doi>10.1192/bjp.177.39.s34</doi></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0007-1250 |
| ispartof | British journal of psychiatry, 2000-07, Vol.177 (39), p.s34-s40 |
| issn | 0007-1250 1472-1465 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2315584382 |
| source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
| subjects | Cronbach's alpha Errors Feasibility Health services Interrater reliability Measurement Mental disorders Mental health care Patients Psychiatric services Psychiatry Schizophrenia Statistical analysis |
| title | Reliability of the Camberwell Assessment of Need - European Version: EPSILON Study 6 |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T15%3A54%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reliability%20of%20the%20Camberwell%20Assessment%20of%20Need%20-%20European%20Version:%20EPSILON%20Study%206&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20psychiatry&rft.au=McCRONE,%20PAUL&rft.aucorp=EPSILON%20Study%20Group&rft.date=2000-07-01&rft.volume=177&rft.issue=39&rft.spage=s34&rft.epage=s40&rft.pages=s34-s40&rft.issn=0007-1250&rft.eissn=1472-1465&rft_id=info:doi/10.1192/bjp.177.39.s34&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2315584382%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2315584382&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |