Goal attainment scaling: a critique

Seaberg, James R.; Gillespie, David F.

doi:10.1093/swra/13.2.4

Cited by 24 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some of the limitations of user defined outcomes are relatively obvious (see Cytrynbaum et al, 1979;Seaberg and Gillespie, 1977). One is that we used the parent's view, and this is only one perspective on the work of Children's Social Care.…”

Section: What Did We Learn?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes in Children’s Social Care

Forrester

2017

JCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose There are often calls for more focus on outcomes in Children’s Social Care yet there is little consensus on what these outcomes should be. Key challenges include who should decide what outcomes should be measured and the sheer range of issues that social workers deal with. The purpose of this paper is to provide a reflective account of approaches to measuring outcomes that the author has used in recent studies in order to illustrate the complexity involved in understanding what the purpose of Children’s Social Care is and therefore how outcomes might be measured. Design/methodology/approach A review of and reflection on lessons from recent research studies carried out by the author and colleagues. Findings The results are used to illustrate and support an argument that Children’s Social Care performs multiple functions and that this has implications for thinking about outcomes. Helping children and parents is one element of the work, but assessing risk across large numbers of referrals and identifying those that require involvement is equally important. Furthermore, the social work role requires complex considerations around liberty and the rights of parents and children. One consequence of this is that the quality of the service provided is important in its own right. Research limitations/implications It is suggested that the evaluation of Children’s Social Care involves four types of outcomes: measures of the quality of the service provided; assessment of whether the “right” families are being worked with; client-defined measures of change; and the development of appropriate standardised instruments. Examples of approaches in each area are discussed. Practical implications The theoretical considerations suggest that we need to have a multi-dimensional approach to evaluating, inspecting and leading Children’s Social Care services. In particular, the importance of the quality of delivery and appropriate targeting of the service are emphasised, as well as considering various approaches to measuring outcomes. Originality/value The paper proposes a combination of qualitative and quantitative measures of process, assessment and outcomes for evaluating outcomes in Children’s Social Care.

show abstract

Section: What Did We Learn?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes in Children’s Social Care

Forrester

2017

JCS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So wünschenswert solche Auswirkungen auch sein mögen -vom methodischen Standpunkt der Evaluationsforschung aus betrachtet führen sie zu einer Konfundierung von Effekten, die einerseits durch die Behandlung erzielt und andererseits durch die Reaktivität des Evaluationsverfahrens erzeugt werden [91]. Kiresuk und Sherman [47] empfehlen deshalb eine strikte Trennung beider Aspekte durch Hinzuziehung externer, vom Therapieprozess unabhängiger Untersucher [11,46,74]. Wegen des hohen Aufwands und wegen der therapeutischen Erwünschtheit der reaktiven Effekte wird in der Praxis auf diese Kontrolle häufig verzichtet, so dass mit Konfundierungen zu rechnen ist.…”

Section: Mögliche Reaktivitätunclassified

Zielorientierte Ergebnismessung (ZOE) mit dem IRES-Patientenfragebogen: Eine kritische Zwischenbilanz

Zwingmann

2003

Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper gives a critical view on "Goal Oriented Measurement" (ZOE, Zielorientierte Ergebnismessung) with the IRES (Indicators of Rehabilitation Status) questionnaire. Gerdes (1998) proposed this method for individualizing outcome measurement in rehabilitation research. The rationale of Goal Oriented Measurement is described and differentiated from Goal Attainment Scaling and Patient Preferences. Subsequently, important shortcomings of Goal Oriented Measurement are pointed out: insufficient validity with regard to selecting clinically relevant problems, possible regression artifacts, unsuitably aggregated scores, possible reactivity, possible changes of individual problems, possible deteriorations in problems not initially selected, and plurality as well as small size of subsamples. Overall, Goal Oriented Measurement has to undergo substantial improvement.

show abstract

“…The limitations of GAS must also be presented to inform the selection of this approach. Seaberg and Gillespie (1977) pointed out that, compared to other devices for measuring treatment outcome, GAS has low construct and concurrent validity. Goal attainment scores are also not intended to have high correlation with other measures, since it measures goal attainment as outcome, not constructs specific to any particular problem or programme type (Seaberg & Gillespie, 1977: Ottenbacher & Cusick, 1993.…”

Section: Liter Atu R E Rev I E Wmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of a client‐centred paediatric rehabilitation programme using goal attainment scaling

Mitchel

Cusick

1998

Aus Occup Therapy J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Goal attainment scaling is a method to evaluate services based on the attainment of individual client or programme goals. This method was used to evaluate the effectiveness of a client‐centred cognitive rehabilitation programme designed to teach compensatory strategies for planning daily activities. In this application, an 8‐year‐old boy long‐term after traumatic brain injury and his family participated. The evaluation results revealed an overall goal attainment T‐score of 68.70, indicating that the programme goal was attained above the expected level. The application of goal attainment scaling as an evaluation method for client‐centred paediatric programmes is discussed.

show abstract

Goal attainment scaling: a critique

Cited by 24 publications

References 0 publications

Outcomes in Children’s Social Care

Outcomes in Children’s Social Care

Zielorientierte Ergebnismessung (ZOE) mit dem IRES-Patientenfragebogen: Eine kritische Zwischenbilanz

Evaluation of a client‐centred paediatric rehabilitation programme using goal attainment scaling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About