The CANS is a ‘communimetric’ measure, developed from communication theory rather than psychometric theory. Most other measures used for outcomes management purposes were developed from psychometric theories. There are a number of implications of this difference in measurement design; the primary difference is the use of action trumps to correspond to the individual needs and strengths items.
For needs:
0 indicates no evidence, no need for action
1 indicates watchful waiting/prevention
2 indicates action
3 indicates immediate/intensive action
For strengths
0 indicates a centerpiece strength, something so powerful it can be the focus of a strength-based plan
1 indicates a useful strength
2 indicates that a potential strength has been identified but must be developed
3 indicates no strength has been identified
The CANS is also unique in that:
1. It is about the child not about the service. If a child is receiving services that are masking a need, this is factored into the ratings. A hyperactive child on stimulants is still rated a ‘2’ as long as you have to work to control symptoms with medications.
2. You consider culture and development before you establish the action levels. It is in this way that cultural sensitivity is embedded into the CANS and how it can be useful across the developmental trajectory of childhood and adolescence.
3. It is ‘agnostic’ as to etiology. With the exception of two items (traumatic grief and adjustment to trauma), there are no assumptions of cause and effect. The CANS is intended to be descriptive. The occurrence of the behavior, not the reason for it, is all that is considered.
4. It uses a 30-day window unless otherwise specified. Action levels may ‘trump’ this window. If something happened 45 days ago that is relevant to current service planning, this is factored into the ratings.
In addition, since the CANS is designed at an item level, it is possible to create a tailored version to any specific purpose. A number of standard versions exist, but several states including Indiana, Tennessee and Virginia have made modifications of the tool to fit their specific information needs and child serving culture.