DOCUMENT 4

Expert advice to support evaluation of the component one technical requirements

Version: 1

Date: May 2025

The contents of this document are OFFICIAL: SENSITIVE

ndis.gov.au

Contents

Expert advice to support evaluation of the component one technical requirements 1

• Contents 2
• 1. Overview of component 1 requirements 3
  • 1.1 Be suitable for NDIS purposes: 3
  • 1.2 Be suitable for NDIS cohorts: 5
  • 1.3 Support a positive participant experience: 6
  • 1.4 Suitable for NDIS business requirements: 7
• 2. University of Melbourne 8
  • 2.1 Suitable for NDIS purposes 8
  • 2.1 Suitable for NDIS Cohorts 12
  • 2.2 Supports a positive participant experience 15
  • 2.3 Suitable for NDIS business requirements 16

May 2025 | Expert Advice for Component One 2

1. Overview of component 1 requirements

The following table was included in the Request for Tender Package provided to tenderers. It provides an overview of the four component 1 requirements, and the types of indicators/evidence that would be expected in a submission.

Requirements

The assessment tool(s) should meet the set of requirements outlined under the following four headings. The assessment tool(s) should:

1.1 Be suitable for NDIS purposes:

Requirement	Indicators/Evidence
1. The tool(s) primarily assess disability support needs The tool(s) primarily assesses the concept ‘support needs’ and does not primarily assess other concepts such as functioning, severity of impairment, quality of life, or non-disability support needs (e.g. carer support needs, or supports only related to other areas of need such as health or housing).	• Measures attributes of disability-related support needs of people with disability (rather than concepts such as function, impairment or quality of life), and • Measures attributes of support needs such as type, frequency, and intensity, and • Scales should be ordinal or continuous and have at least three levels.
2. The tool(s) assess need in relation to NDIS supports The list of disability-related supports funded by the NDIS is available on the NDIS website. The support needs assessment tool should assess the pertinence of these supports to the person with disability.	• Scales or domains demonstrate the coverage of relevant support type(s).
3. The tool(s) assess needs across a broad range of support need areas The solution assesses needs across a range of life areas in which a person may have disability-related supports. For example, it assesses needs across the activity and participation areas described in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), including	• Domain structure and content demonstrate coverage of each support need area.

May 2025 | Expert Advice for Component One 3

Requirement	Indicators/Evidence
disability-related health needs and behavioural support needs).
4. The tool(s) are appropriately structured The structure of the tool(s), including the domains and associated items is well-validated, supported by a strong theoretical/conceptual basis with empirical evidence.	• Description of relevant and contemporary theoretical underpinning of the structure of the tool(s), and/or • Studies exploring the structural validity and/or internal consistency of the tool(s) found satisfactory results (as defined by recognised standards for the interpretation of psychometric results) in relevant cohorts.
5. The outputs of the tool(s) support appropriate budgeting decisions in respect to NDIS Supports The data derived from the assessment tool(s) include scores for each domain and/or support need area in sufficient detail to inform the budgetary requirements of the participant.	• Outputs are provided for each domain of the tool(s) (i.e. does not only provide one overall score).
6. The tool(s) are consistent with a contemporary model of disability Conceptually founded or consistent with a model of disability such as the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), Canadian Occupational Performance Model, or the Disability Creation Process Model.	• Evidence of the use of relevant models in the development of the tool(s), and/or • Satisfactory description of how the tool(s) are consistent with one or more contemporary model of disability.
7. The tool(s) are able to produce consistent outputs Demonstrated sufficient reliability (including inter-rater, inter-respondent, test-retest and intra-rater reliability).	• Research studies to assess the tool(s)’ reliability found satisfactory results (as defined by recognised standards for the interpretation of psychometric results) in relevant cohorts.
8. Evidence of tool(s)’ ability to predict support needs Evidence to indicate the assessment tool can accurately predict support needs, as demonstrated through its practical	• Research studies which statistically explored the tool(s)’ predictive validity found satisfactory results (as defined by recognised standards for the interpretation of psychometric results) in relevant cohorts, and/or

May 2025 | Expert Advice for Component One 4

Requirement	Indicators/Evidence
application in another relevant context and/or statistical evidence within a research context.	• Previous examples which demonstrate the tool(s)’ ability to be used to predict support needs in another relevant context.

1.2 Be suitable for NDIS cohorts:

Requirement	Indicators/Evidence
1. The tool(s) are appropriate for relevant ages The solution has been developed for, or successfully tested with, people with disability aged 16+ to reflect the range of age cohorts accessing the NDIS.	• Appropriateness for relevant ages demonstrated through the initial design or subsequent revisions of the tool(s) (e.g. consideration of domains, questions, response options), and/or • Appropriateness for relevant ages demonstrated through subsequent testing of the tool(s) (e.g. satisfactory results or feedback).
2. The tool(s) are appropriate for disability groups relevant to the NDIS The solution has been developed for, or tested with, people with disabilities relevant to the NDIS’s participant cohorts. These include people with neurodevelopmental conditions, physical disability, neurological conditions, degenerative conditions, and psychosocial disability.	• Appropriate for (tested or developed with) disability groups accessing the NDIS, and/or • Demonstrated ability to tailor the assessment for different disability groups (e.g. semi-structured interview).
3. The tool(s) can be administered in a culturally appropriate way Tool’s content and administration requirements includes and supports sensitivity and respect towards cultural differences, including any practices, translations, and representations are suitable for a diverse range of participants, including Australian First Nations Peoples. This includes a demonstrated awareness of how various ethnic, racial, and linguistic groups differ from one another and recognising the significance of their cultural elements.	• Does not contain concepts, practices or language that are culturally insensitive or inappropriate, and/or • Tested and validated with a range of cultural groups (including Australian First Nations Peoples), and/or • Multiple language versions available.

May 2025 | Expert Advice for Component One 5

Requirement	Indicators/Evidence
4. The tool(s) can be administered in a way that recognises the diversity of members of the LGBTIQASB+ Communities The tool(s) account for the diversity of relationships (including family structures, such as chosen family) and uses gender-conscious language (as defined here: Inclusive Language Playbook: Writing for LGBTQ+ Communities) that recognises the diversity of gender.	• Does not contain concepts, practices or language that do not recognise the diversity of members of LGBTIQASB+ Communities.
5. The tool(s) can be delivered in a way that is trauma informed Able to be administered in a trauma-informed way (either through inherent properties that are trauma-informed, or a lack of inappropriate properties).	• Does not contain concepts, practices or language that are inconsistent with trauma informed practice.
6. The tool(s) are available in English The tool(s) are available in English, with minimal colloquialisms or terminology that would be unfamiliar to an Australian audience.	• English version available (may have been validated in another language and no significant changes have been made).

1.3 Support a positive participant experience:

Requirement	Indicators/Evidence
1. The tool(s) collect information from appropriate sources The tool(s) allows, but not require, self-reporting by the participant. It should also include the ability for information to be incorporated from multiple sources (e.g. carers, information from treating professionals).	• Description of sources of information able to be used by the tool(s) as described in the administration manual/instructions, and/or • Appropriate information sources demonstrated through initial design or subsequent testing.
2. The tool(s) can be administered in contexts relevant to the NDIS	• Description of contexts suitable for administering the tool(s) as described in the administration manual/instructions, and/or

May 2025 | Expert Advice for Component One 6

Requirement	Indicators/Evidence
The tool(s) is able to be administered in a range of environments (e.g. NDIS offices, the participant’s home etc.), and allows, but does not require, in-person assessment (e.g. permits assessments via video call).	• Appropriate administration contexts demonstrated through initial design or subsequent testing.

1.4 Suitable for NDIS business requirements:

Requirement	Indicators/Evidence
1. Assessor workforce The tool(s) are able to be administered by a multi-skilled workforce with differing levels of professional qualification and disability experience.	• Description of requirements for assessor skills, training or qualifications as described in the administration manual/instructions, and/or • Appropriate assessor skills, training, or qualifications demonstrated through subsequent testing.
2. Administration time required The average time taken to administer the collection of sufficient information to understand a participant’s holistic disability support needs.	• Description of expected face to face administration time as described in the administration manual/instructions, and/or • Description of expected preparation, scoring and report writing time as described in the administration manual/instructions, and/or • Evidence of administration time in research studies or other similar cohorts.
3. The solution utilises questionnaire or interview information collection methods The tool(s) should use questionnaire or interview information collection methods, rather than relying on performance-based methods. Ability to administer the tool(s) using semi-structured interview methods is beneficial.	• Description of appropriate information collection methods as described in the administration manual/instructions, and/or. • Appropriate information collection methods as demonstrated in subsequent testing.

May 2025 | Expert Advice for Component One 7