Author
Listed:
- Fabian A. Davis
(Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, UK)
- Jan Burns
(Canterbury Christ Church University, UK)
Abstract
The Support Needs Questionnaire (SNQ) measures the support people with severe mental illness need to attain valued social roles as a route to social inclusion. Its design derives from Wolfensberger’s Social Role Valorisation theory. It is a clinical tool comprising a comprehensive lifestyle inventory of “universal basic” and “disability” needs; and “revalorisation needs” arising from social devaluation and deep exclusion. The SNQ comprises eight discreet sub-scales based on O’Brien’s Five Service Accomplishments, the domains of which include Community Presence, Community Participation, Choice and Control, Social Roles and Respect, Skills and Competencies, and Finance. There are also two descriptive sub-scales: Physical and Mental Health. The item set was developed collaboratively with service users. This paper introduces the SNQ, its design rationale and development, and investigates aspects of its reliability, validity and utility. Care co-ordinators in a Community Mental Health Team rated eighty-two service users’ support needs at a two week interval using the SNQ, the Global Assessment Scale and the MARC-2. The SNQ is shown to have high test-retest reliability, good construct and concurrent validity, and good discriminatory power. It exhibited no floor or ceiling effects with the reference population. It could be used with a more diverse population. The descriptive sub-scales were weakest. The population profile showed moderate support was required for physical integration but high levels for social integration which is consistent with previous research. The SNQ has some good psychometric properties. Future research should address internal consistency and potential item redundancy, determine inter-rater reliability and change sensitivity.
Suggested Citation
Fabian A. Davis & Jan Burns, 2015.
"The Development and Properties of the Support Needs Questionnaire,"
Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 3(4), pages 63-75.
Handle:
RePEc:cog:socinc:v3:y:2015:i:4:p:63-75
DOI: 10.17645/si.v3i4.206
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:socinc:v3:y:2015:i:4:p:63-75. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.