The head of Australia's leading psychological organisation has issued a stark warning about potential dangers associated with the National Disability Insurance Scheme's new assessment instrument. Dr Kelly Gough, president of the Australian Psychological Society, has expressed serious concerns that the I-CAN tool has not undergone adequate testing across a sufficiently diverse range of disability categories.
Testing Gaps in Critical Disability Areas
According to expert testimony, the assessment tool has not been properly validated for numerous disability types, including the full spectrum of autistic needs. This significant testing gap extends to other crucial areas such as acquired brain injury and psychosocial conditions. The Australian Psychological Society, representing more than 25,000 psychologists nationwide, has received multiple reports from members indicating the I-CAN tool demonstrates particular weaknesses in understanding the specific requirements and support needs of individuals within these disability categories.
Potential for Serious Consequences
Dr Gough has articulated a troubling scenario that could unfold if the tool receives widespread implementation without additional research and validation. "What will probably happen is that there will just be terrible outcomes for six months or a year and complaints ... and people talking to the government and the ombudsman and whatever else and maybe a couple of tragedies and then something will get fixed," she cautioned. This warning suggests that vulnerable individuals might experience significant harm before necessary corrections to the assessment process occur.
Contrasting Perspectives on Tool Development
The National Disability Insurance Agency has defended the assessment instrument, describing it as "the gold standard of available, validated needs assessment tools." Agency representatives have emphasised that the tool represents more than two decades of development within the Australian context, having undergone multiple research studies across various disability groups. This position creates a significant divergence from the concerns raised by disability experts and psychological professionals.
Call for Comprehensive Research
Psychology and disability specialists are urging authorities to conduct more thorough investigation before proceeding with broader implementation. Their primary concern centres on the tool's potential inability to accurately capture the nuanced support requirements of individuals with diverse disability presentations. Without addressing these validation gaps, experts warn that the assessment process could fail to allocate appropriate resources and support to some of the scheme's most vulnerable participants.
The debate highlights ongoing tensions between administrative efficiency and personalised disability assessment within Australia's landmark National Disability Insurance Scheme. As discussions continue, disability advocates emphasise that assessment tools must demonstrate both scientific rigour and practical effectiveness across the complete spectrum of disability experiences to prevent potentially harmful outcomes for scheme participants.
