The MIRECC Version of the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale: Reliability and Validity

2007 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 529-535 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noosha Niv ◽  
Amy N. Cohen ◽  
Greer Sullivan ◽  
Alexander S. Young
2011 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 502-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esther M. V. Grootenboer ◽  
Erik J. Giltay ◽  
Rosalind van der Lem ◽  
Tineke van Veen ◽  
Nic J. A. van der Wee ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-4, 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norma Leclair ◽  
Steven Leclair ◽  
Robert Barth

Abstract The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is part five of the multiaxial diagnostic system for mental disorders outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition–Text Revised (DSM-IV-TR). The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) notes the use of DSM-IV-TR in rating an individual's global functional capacity, which, like disability, is related directly to the effects of impairments. The AMA Guides, Fourth and Fifth Editions, do not provide numeric psychiatric impairment, and shortcomings plague the use of GAF to define disability—but even so, authorities ranging from the State of California to the Veterans Administration rely on GAF scores. A table shows the 100-point scale Global Assessment Scale in which higher scores indicate better functioning. The GAF has been modified to address deficiencies; a decision tree has been added and is summarized; and the editor of DSM-IV-TR has developed a computerized version that reportedly improves reliability and validity. Evaluators should bear in mind that the GAF helps evaluate the individual's functioning in three areas: psychological, social, and occupational (including the activities of daily living). The resulting score facilitates the creation of a treatment plan, evaluates its effectiveness, and predicts outcomes, but evaluators should be aware of its significant limitations.


1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Kuhlman ◽  
Michael Bernstein ◽  
James Kloss ◽  
Virginia Sincaban ◽  
Linda Harris

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-36
Author(s):  
Yeşim Aksoy Derya ◽  
Aslı Sis Çelik ◽  
Serap Ejder Apay

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 317-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Travis Sky Ingersoll ◽  
John Poulin ◽  
Rong Deng ◽  
Xu Shan ◽  
Heather Witt ◽  
...  

1995 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 875-879 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Scott Nebeker ◽  
Michael J. Lambert ◽  
Jonathan C. Huefner

The Outcome Questionnaire is a 45-item inventory of client-reported symptoms and distress, used to track therapeutic change on a session-by-session basis. Data collected with the cooperation of a managed care provider were analyzed to note ethnic differences on the questionnaire. 1552 first session questionnaires were selected and mean total and subscale scores were analyzed using analysis-of-variance procedures for differences by ethnicity. No significant differences were found; however, significant ethnic differences on some items were noted, and these are reported with ethnic trends in clients' problems, diagnoses, and therapists' ratings on Global Assessment of Functioning. These findings were contrasted with those of other studies reporting ethnic differences on various measures such as IQ and personality assessment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document