Goal Attainment Scaling as a Method of Measuring Clinical Outcome for Children with Learning Disabilities

1997 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 111-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Young ◽  
Rosemary Chesson

In this article, one approach to measuring therapeutic impact — Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) — is discussed. The authors forward the case for GAS based on their own research regarding occupational therapy with children with learning disabilities. GAS is described and the factors relating to the setting of goals are examined. The main advantages are identified and GAS is seen to have benefits beyond those relating specifically to occupational therapy. The implications for multidisciplinary teamworking are examined and, in particular, it is asserted that co-workers may acquire, through the goal-setting process, realistic expectations of clients. The audit of therapeutic goals is seen to have the potential to inform decision making regarding treatment options. In conclusion, GAS is advocated as a particularly appropriate evaluative tool for the 1990s.

1998 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 116-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debbie Joy ◽  
Anita Young ◽  
Val Harvais ◽  
Rosemary Chesson

As an adjunct to a pilot project on the use of Goal Attainment Scaling in occupational therapy for children with learning disabilities, children's views of therapeutic intervention were explored. These were investigated by means of interviews held at the residential special school that the children attended and were carried out by a therapist who was unknown to them. During the interview, six photographs (three therapy and three non-therapy related) were presented. Each child's response was recorded by the interviewer. Despite the seven children having emotional and behavioural difficulties, all cooperated during the interviews, looking at the photographs and not displaying any challenging behaviour. When the children's responses were categorised in terms of their unique styles of communication, more positive reactions to the photographs relating to occupational therapy than to the others were noted. It is acknowledged, however, that further development work is required in order to establish the reliability and validity of the method.


2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd F. Lewis ◽  
Mary F. Larson ◽  
James S. Korcuska

Client-centered, outcomes-based mental health counseling is driving the behavioral health field toward identifying mechanisms to facilitate specific, measurable goal setting and tracking with clients. Motivational interviewing (MI) is an evidence-based, collaborative, goal-oriented style of counseling; however, the fourth process of MI, planning, is not as well defined as the other MI processes, especially related to goal setting. Goal attainment scaling (GAS) is a method for setting measurable goals and assessing clinical progress. The combination of MI and GAS has potential to be a valuable clinical tool to establish client-centered goals, monitor goal attainment, and provide feedback within clinical mental health settings. Therefore, we propose that the MI planning process can be enhanced by incorporating GAS. However, research is needed to substantiate the feasibility of the proposed integration. A brief case study is provided to illustrate key concepts.


Author(s):  
Catherine H. Yu ◽  
◽  
Calvin Ke ◽  
Aleksandra Jovicic ◽  
Susan Hall ◽  
...  

Abstract Background An individualized approach using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting is a person-centred strategy that may facilitate prioritization of treatment options. SDM has not been adopted extensively in clinical practice. An interprofessional approach to SDM with tools to facilitate patient participation may overcome barriers to SDM use. The aim was to explore decision-making experiences of health professionals and people with diabetes (PwD), then develop an intervention to facilitate interprofessional shared decision-making (IP-SDM) and goal-setting. Methods This was a multi-phased study. 1) Feasibility: Using a descriptive qualitative study, individual interviews with primary care physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and PwD were conducted. The interviews explored their experiences with SDM and priority-setting, including facilitators and barriers, relevance of a decision aid for priority-setting, and integration of SDM and a decision aid into practice. 2) Development: An evidence-based SDM toolkit was developed, consisting of an online decision aid, MyDiabetesPlan, and implementation tools. MyDiabetesPlan was reviewed by content experts for accuracy and comprehensiveness. Usability assessment was done with 3) heuristic evaluation and 4) user testing, followed by 5) refinement. Results Seven PwD and 10 clinicians participated in the interviews. From interviews with PwD, we identified that: (1) approaches to decision-making were diverse and dynamic; (2) a trusting relationship with the clinician and dialog were critical precursors to SDM; and, (3) goal-setting was a dynamic process. From clinicians, we found: (1) complementary (holistic and disease specific) approaches to the complex patient were used; (2) patient-provider agendas for goal-setting were often conflicting; (3) a flexible approach to decision-making was needed; and, (4) conflict could be resolved through SDM. Following usability assessment, we redesigned MyDiabetesPlan to consist of data collection and recommendation stages. Findings were used to finalize a multi-component toolkit and implementation strategy, consisting of MyDiabetesPlan, instructional card and videos, and orientation meetings with participating patients and clinicians. Conclusions A decision aid can provide information, facilitate clinician-patient dialog and strengthen the therapeutic relationship. Implementation of the decision aid can fit into a model of team care that respects and exemplifies professional identity, and can facilitate intra-team communication. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02379078. Date of Registration: 11 February 2015.


2000 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin McAndrew ◽  
Stacey McDermott ◽  
Shelley Vitzakovitch ◽  
Michele Warunek ◽  
Margo B. Holm

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document