Caregiver-identified strengths in children attending their first neurodevelopmental assessment: Findings from the Sydney child development research registry and development of a child strengths checklist.
Kelsie A Boulton, Lorna Hankin, Marie-Antoinette Hodge and 3 others
PMID 40145608WHAT IT FOUND
Caregivers of children attending neurodevelopmental assessments identified an average of 2.8 strengths, ranging from cognitive and social skills to hobbies and character.
Autistic children's caregivers more often cited cognitive strengths, while non-autistic caregivers more often cited social strengths.
Key findings
01Caregivers identified six main themes of strengths: cognitive and intellectual, social and interpersonal, hobbies and passions, character and personality, physical, and behavioural.
02Cognitive and intellectual strengths were the most frequently identified theme, appearing in 44.8% of children, followed by social and interpersonal strengths in 40.8%.
03A checklist (CANS Checklist) was developed from these themes to help clinicians integrate caregiver-identified strengths into diagnostic assessments and feedback.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study relied on open-ended responses from caregivers, which may not capture all strengths, particularly if caregivers struggled to identify them. Socioeconomic status was not specifically reported, and previous research suggests missing strengths data may be linked to socioeconomic risk factors. The study did not evaluate the impact or effectiveness of using the CANS Checklist in clinical practice. The checklist has not been translated into other languages, despite a high proportion of culturally and linguistically diverse families in the sample.
Declared interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest and received no financial support for the research.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the CANS Checklist is validated or proven to improve patient outcomes. This study describes the development of the checklist based on qualitative themes, but it does not report on its clinical efficacy or reliability in practice.