Tool appropriate to all Yes Yes but Yes Yes but types of disability some edited question as version to reliability needed of mental for health people measures without an ID Tool’s most tested Mental Eldercare n/a ID domain health Internal reliability Yes. Not Yes No Yes (consistency between a peer evidence person’s ratings on related reviewed items of the tool) Inter-rater reliability Yes. Not Yes No Yes (consistency between peer evidence administrators’ ratings of the reviewed found same person) Test-retest reliability Yes. Not Yes No Yes (consistency between a peer evidence person’s ratings over two or reviewed found more different time periods) Content validity Yes for Yes No Yes (degree to which mental evidence professionals agree that the health found full construct (support need) is measured by the tool) Yes for Yes No Yes validity mental evidence health found (consistency between a person’s rating on the tool and similar measures or clinical judgement of professionals) To summarise, comparing the technical characteristics of the tools is difficult because the tools are not tested to the same extent, on the same domains or using the same tests. FACE has not published peer review evaluations, however internal FACE papers do show good statistical properties. InterRAI has the most testing, particularly for eldercare and this shows good reliability, validity and consistency. SIS has published evaluations for its intellectual disability tool that has good statistical properties. We could find no published statistical tests for RAS 5.
Tool appropriate to all types of disability Yes Yes but some question as to reliability of mental health measures Yes Yes but edited version needed for people without an ID Tool’s most tested domain Mental health Eldercare n/a ID Internal reliability (consistency between a person’s ratings on related items of the tool) Yes. Not peer reviewed Yes No evidence Yes Inter-rater reliability (consistency between administrators’ ratings of the same person) Yes. Not peer reviewed Yes No evidence found Yes Test-retest reliability (consistency between a person’s ratings over two or more different time periods) Yes. Not peer reviewed Yes No evidence found Yes Content validity (degree to which professionals agree that the full construct (support need) is measured by the tool) Yes for mental health Yes No evidence found Yes validity (consistency between a person’s rating on the tool and similar measures or clinical judgement of professionals) Yes for mental health Yes No evidence found Yes To summarise, comparing the technical characteristics of the tools is difficult because the tools are not tested to the same extent, on the same domains or using the same tests. FACE has not published peer review evaluations, however internal FACE papers do show good statistical properties. InterRAI has the most testing, particularly for eldercare and this shows good reliability, validity and consistency. SIS has published evaluations for its intellectual disability tool that has good statistical properties. We could find no published statistical tests for RAS 5.
NDA-Appraisal-of-four-resource-allocation-systems-2015.docx