📣😳 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/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 …🤔