A self-evaluation instrument for support plans.

The author built a short checklist that teams can use to grade their own support plans. The tool has two scales: one looks at how much the plan centers on the person, the other on relationships.

Two-hundred sixty-eight case managers, psychologists, and teachers filled it out twice. The study checked if their answers stayed the same and if the scores matched expert ratings.

The checklist showed solid reliability and validity. Teams could quickly spot plans that were too weak in either person-centered or relationship goals.

Scores lined up with expert judgments, so the tool gives an honest snapshot of plan quality without outside auditors.

Chou et al. (2013) and Johnson et al. (2009) also tested support tools, but they focused on the Supports Intensity Scale for funding decisions. Their work and this paper share the same goal—better planning—yet answer different questions. SIS tells you how much support a person needs; the new audit tells you if the written plan is any good.

Cymbal et al. (2020) used a similar do-it-yourself format with the PDC-HS to fix workplace problems. Both studies prove that short, self-scored checklists can give reliable data when staff are trained.

Kaiser et al. (2022) found weak scores for child self-report SDQ, while this study got strong numbers. The gap is likely age and construct: kids with IDD struggle to rate mental-health items, but adult professionals can judge plan content accurately.

You can plug this two-minute audit into your next plan review meeting. Have every team member score the draft, average the ratings, and target the lower-scoring dimension before the meeting ends. No extra cost, no outside expert, just a quick, evidence-based tune-up that makes plans more person-centered and relationship-focused.