The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly (CANE): Development, validity and reliability
Open accessAbstract
Background: There exists no instrument specifically designed to measure comprehensively the needs of older people with mental disorders. Aim: To develop such an instrument which would take account of patients', staff and carers' views on needs. Method: Following an extensive development process, the assessment instrument was subjected to a test–retest and interrater reliability study, while aspects of validity were addressed both during development and with data provided by sites in the UK, Sweden and the USA. Results: The Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly (CANE) comprises 24 items (plus two items for carer needs), and records staff, carer and patient views. It has good content, construct and consensual validity. It also demonstrates appropriate criterion validity. Reliability is generally very high: κ > 0.85 for all staff ratings of interrater reliability. Correlations of interrater and test–retest reliability of total numbers of needs identified by staff were 0.99 and 0.93, respectively. Conclusions: The psychometric properties of the CANE seem to be highly acceptable. It was easily used by a wide range of professionals without formal training.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 · Cited by 30,033
(1997) · Naming the Mind: How Psychology Found its Language · doi:10.4135/9781446221815.n7 · Cited by 15,148
The Delphi method: Substance, context, a critique and an annotated bibliography
Pill, J. (1971) · Socio-Economic Planning Sciences · doi:10.1016/0038-0121(71)90041-3 · Cited by 579
Cited by
A European consensus on outcome measures for psychosocial intervention research in dementia care
Moniz-Cook, E., Vernooij-Dassen, M., Woods, R., Verhey, F., Chattat, R., Vugt, M. D., Mountain, G., O’connell, M., Harrison, J., Vasse, E., et al. (2008) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607860801919850 · Cited by 391
Review of ICT-based services for identified unmet needs in people with dementia
Lauriks, S., Reinersmann, A., Van der Roest, H. G., Meiland, F. J. M., Davies, R. J., Moelaert, F., Mulvenna, M. D., Nugent, C. D., & Dröes, R. M. (2007) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2007.07.002 · Cited by 291
The needs of older people with dementia in residential care
Hancock, G. A., Woods, B., Challis, D., & Orrell, M. (2006) · International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/gps.1421 · Cited by 269
Self-citationBallard, C., Corbett, A., Orrell, M., Williams, G., Moniz-Cook, E., Romeo, R., Woods, B., Garrod, L., Testad, I., Woodward-Carlton, B., et al. (2018) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002500 · Cited by 263
Self-citationMiranda-Castillo, C., Woods, B., & Orrell, M. (2013) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-13-43 · Cited by 163
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Reynolds, T., Thornicroft, G., Abas, M., Woods, B., Hoe, J., Leese, M., & Orrell, M.
- Venue
- British Journal of Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Royal College of Psychiatrists
- Published
- 2000-05
- Volume
- 176
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 444-452
- ISSN
- 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
- 1472-1465
- OpenAlex
- W2074876404
- Cited by
- 359
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 4.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly (CANE): Development, validity and reliability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1192/bjp.176.5.444
- The paper
- Reynolds, T., Thornicroft, G., Abas, M., Woods, B., Hoe, J., Leese, M., & Orrell, M. (2000). Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly (CANE): Development, validity and reliability. British Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.176.5.444
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
