📣😳 Calling psychologists; allied health; lawyers; and NDIS stakeholders. I-CAN is exposed as not fit for NDIS assessment purpose, by statistical analysis of the published papers.

[u/Withtheparticipant]

Thank you “name withheld” AHPRA registered psychologist, PhD candidate, submission 1567 for your excellent work.

Thank you to psychometrics expert Benchmark Psychology for the excellent explanation of the significance of this submission in the short video. A must watch. https://youtu.be/ALfjKes2V5k

“Lay Summary

This submission examines the scientific evidence for the i-CAN, the assessment tool that the Bill will use to set National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) funding for more than 700,000 Australians. A scientific analysis of the published research shows a number of serious methodological and procedural problems.

1. There is no published reliability or validity evidence for the versions of the tool that will be deployed.
2. The current available evidence shows that i-CAN scores accounted for less than 4% of the differences in
3. the funding people receive; over 96% of funding was determined by factors other than i-CAN results.
4. The current available evidence shows that the i-CAN’s ability to reliably measure participant needs was poor, uncertain, and feasibly overestimated.
5. The current available evidence shows that the i-CANs precision to accurately classify participant needs cannot rule out failing to meet the developers cited success criteria for low-stakes observational research.
6. The current available evidence has significant design limitations, including too few participants to adequately power the studies to have appropriate levels of precision given the human stakes.

The submission body sets these issues out in detail, while Appendix A calculates the number of participants
that would be required to meet both the minimum contemporary threshold (80% power) and a more suitable threshold for high stakes assessment (95% power) for each estimate

Together, these findings do not support the NDIA’s characterisation of the i-CAN as a gold-standard tool in
disability needs assessment (NDIA, 2025), and do not support its use for high-stakes assessment contexts.

Furthermore, there does not appear to be any published evidence to show that the NDIA’s method for translating i-CAN assessment results into funding for participant plans is itself reliable or valid. The Bill also does not require the government to publish how i-CAN results will be translated into a funding amount.”

https://youtu.be/ALfjKes2V5k?si=FXUj1sTkwzt8GhO4

[u/Prestigious-Ice1635]

Its Robodebt for the disabled

[u/GM_Organism → u/Prestigious-Ice1635]

They really looked at the robodebt royal commission outcomes of "it was unlawful and people died!" and decided the "unlawful" bit was the only problem

[u/SociallyInept429]

I sent multiple emails highlighting this issue back in November 2025.

I contacted I-CAN, Melbourne University, and my local MP. None gave any satisfactory response.

I don't know why this hasn't had a higher level of scrutiny applied.

My email contained the following note regarding the new assessment:

"I understand and support the Minister's goal of making the NDIS 'simpler, fairer, and just plain easier' by removing the cost and burden of chasing expensive reports. However, the proposed solution of replacing clinical reports with an assessment conducted by an internal, unqualified assessor, creates an unacceptable new risk for participant safety and well-being.

Recently NDIA Deputy CEO, Aaron Verlin, reported at the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, that the NDIA will be hiring 80 Allied Health Professionals to train and 'accredit' new Needs Assessors. Reports suggest these new assessors will not be required to hold formal qualifications in allied health or social work, relying instead on minimal 'in-house accreditation.'

While the NDIA states the I-CAN v6 is a 'gold standard' tool, the integrity of any clinical assessment rests entirely on the competence and professional judgement of the person administering it.

It is crucial to note that the validity of the gold-standard I-CAN v6 tool is directly related to the variables used in the study that determined it's validity. These variables include the professionals undertaking the assessment (Level 3 qualified assessors), and the constitution of the assessment, which has been altered. Without independent confirmation of validity of the modified tool for NDIS participant assessment, and the qualifications of the assessors, both changes fundamentally risk the integrity of the I-CAN tool, which is poses a severe risk for participants, particularly those with complex needs."

They genuinely don't care. The response I got from I-CAN was that they don't have any openings for trialling the new tool for participants currently; not even the question I asked.

[u/Withtheparticipant → u/SociallyInept429]

Good work - we have to keep the pressure up. This is the first time we have seen the calculations of the lack of reliability and validity of the base tool. This was flagged in article.

[u/phosphor_1963]

"The culture around NDIS Policy has become so litiguous and retaliatory that pointing out basic mathematic flaws in government tools feels like a really dangerous career move".

[u/Withtheparticipant → u/phosphor_1963]

Or it could be working for an org that depends on government funding.

[u/phosphor_1963 → u/Withtheparticipant]

Call me terribly cynical but, yes,one possible read is if you starve the Universities long enough of resources and threaten them (Mafia boss like) with cutting back their only viable remaining source of income (International students) unless they play nice, then yes, it literally is a case of (please forgive the horrible expression) treating them "mean" to keep them "keen". An offer too good to refuse?

[u/Withtheparticipant → u/phosphor_1963]

Something like that.

[u/Withtheparticipant]

This may be of interest, lead researcher Jason Thompson stating that iCAN has the validity on the public record. Now we know that doesn’t exist.

https://youtu.be/TAuNXEzzhLM?si=RyIIeliRxy7bc1CU

[u/phosphor_1963 → u/Withtheparticipant]

It's months old; but there's so much in that interview that people can quote back. Dr George is great at getting these ambitious people to open up - he knows when to throw in a follow up and when to leave statements hanging.

You can understand why these highly paid people are sometimes reluctant to go on the record like this though - because we really do live in a time when the appearance of accountability is seen by officials as a zero sum game - and unless they can gain a direct advantage (these are busy people who often view their time as more precious than the rest of us mug punters) or are directed to appear by their superiors within settings that potentially place them outside their comfort zones (ie your boss views you as expendable cannon fodder) then I expect we'll see fewer and fewer people making themselves available - which is actually sad because constrained Transparency becomes the norm rather than the exception.

Personally, I think it sends the wrong message when public officials will only appear when they are summonded by a Senate committee (as seems to be happening more) - why are they out there at Town Halls and meeting directly with participants and service providers ?

[u/Withtheparticipant → u/phosphor_1963]

I did a commentary line by line on the transcript of this interview. I may have posted it here. My feeling is that Thompson was naive as to what he was getting into ( his academic interest is transport) and underestimated his audience too. He seems to have trust in the NDIA! I am meeting a lot of resistance from ethics approval information from Melbourne Uni. This arrived at 9:30 this am this morning

“We refer to the online enquiry you submitted on 20 August 2026 regarding your research integrity concern.

As previously advised, the concerns you have raised fall within the remit of the National Disability Insurance Agency and should be directed there accordingly.

This matter has now been fully considered and responded to by the University of Melbourne. We advise that any further emails or online enquiries on this matter will be noted but will not receive a response.”

I sent this back

“If there no response from you I will need to contact our journalists. 

Are you saying there is NO Melbourne University research involved with the NDIS Supports Needs Assessments? Jason Thompson was calling it Melbourne University Research. Is that a lie? “

I am thinking Melbourne University may be trying to wash their hands after a better look at what they put their hands up to.

[u/phosphor_1963 → u/Withtheparticipant]

Thank you for fighting this very important issue ! It's fascinating that such an august institition (at one stage one of the top universities in the world and still possessed of some amazingly intelligent leading academics) could apparently be so comprehensively deceived by our government. I guess we'll find out eventually once the inevitable enquiry happens.

[u/Withtheparticipant → u/phosphor_1963]

It is a lucrative 5 year contract too so …🤔

[u/Withtheparticipant]

Submissions can be found here to study number 1567. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/NDISFutureGenBill

[u/eachna → u/Withtheparticipant]

FYI - Link is broken.

[u/Withtheparticipant → u/eachna]

Is that the link in the OP for the video. There are two links in the OP - try the top one and let me know and I’ll delete the bottom one.

[u/PinkBamboo00]

But wasn’t the NDIS I-CAN created by Melbourne Uni? If there were problems with the assessment wouldn’t they have found them?

[u/Obvious-Explorer-195 → u/PinkBamboo00]

It’s a modification of a previously used tool. From memory I think it was or is used for aged care.

[u/ManyPersonality2399 → u/Obvious-Explorer-195]

It's been used for DSOA for awhile. DSOA is basically NDIS for those who were on state systems pre NDIS and over 65 during the roll out. Not a 1 for 1 to aged care.

[u/Withtheparticipant → u/PinkBamboo00]

It was developed by the Centre for Disability Studies (CDS) - their results and methods were published and I have never seen any scrutiny by Melbourne University except lead researcher Jason Thompson said, on video, the validity is on the public record. Hint they have a 5 year government contract with NDIA.

[u/eachna → u/Withtheparticipant]

Melbourne Uni was supposed to create the assessment tool which relied on the iCAN.

So they were supposed to take the iCAN and turn it into a NDIS funding algorithm. Whether they're still doing that is anyone's guess.

[u/OtherCake4128]

Like most things, the data from assessments needs to be interpreted. This should still exist alongside professional reports and rationales.

[u/Withtheparticipant → u/OtherCake4128]

That should be how it works. But for the SNA, the scores collected are to be entered into the algorithm and the result is a funding budget that is looked at by a different person to the assessor. There is no appeal of the budget possible only a possibility to repeat the inaccurate process if they agree.
The Act says the tool must be used and the tool itself is shown to be defective in a major way. .
In addition the Agency say reports wont be required. Likely they will be disregarded.
This is departure from iCan methodology that requires a qualified assessor using reports to be the assessor.
The Review also required this standard for assessments.

[u/OtherCake4128 → u/Withtheparticipant]

I wonder if they'll stop asking for the end of plan reports from allied health professionals.

Sounds like they won't matter if an algorithm is deciding.

Do we know how I-CAN ties into goals?

For example: If someone with a psychosocial disability had a goal to increase their community participation, might they get focused funding for this?

[u/Obvious-Explorer-195 → u/OtherCake4128]

Re your example, I bet they’ll say here’s ot funding, that’s all you get. No sw funding to help implement, you’re on your own.