Goal Attainment Scaling: A Method for Evaluating Special Education Services

Abstract

Goal attainment scaling (GAS) is presented in this paper as a useful approach for evaluating special education services at the local education agency (LEA) level. Utilization of the approach by school practitioners allows for individualization of program goals for a range of special education service programs. In the paper, the nature and scope of the GAS method are described, its applications to evaluating special education services at the LEA level are reported, and considerations in the implementation of the approach are discussed.

Promoting Positive Behaviour: An evaluation of a behaviour support project

“…A useful approach for evaluating special education services at the LEA level was described by Maher (1983) using the goal attainment scaling (GAS) method. This technique allows for die individualism of programme goals where the needs of die pupil and the nature of the intervention programme can be explicidy accounted for by an evaluator.…”

Site-Based Transdisciplinary Educational Partnerships: Development, Implementation, and Outcomes of a Collaborative Professional Preparation Program

“…This frame of reference was based on a paradigm shift that promotes a collaborative ethic (V. Phillips & McCullough, 1990), whereby educators believe that joint ownership of problems and problem solving will ultimately benefit not only students but other educators and the school as well. The collaborative ethic is realized through an ecological perspective to identlfy and use a variety of human, technological, informational, physical, and financial resources (Maher & Bennett, 1984;Welch & Sheridan, 1995) for collaborative problem solving. Through observations and interviews at project sites, university students identified a specific area of schoolbased need to serve as the focus for an action research project.…”

A Behavior Observation System for Group Supervision

“…The development of an observation system for describing verbal problem-solving behavior occurring during group supervision, described herein, is consistent with Holloway and Hosford's ( 1983) recommendation. The importance of studying the problem-solving process is underscored by the recommendations that problem solving be used as a heuristic guide to delivering psychological services (Comtois & Clark, 1976) and other related services, such as special education (Maher & Bennett, 1984). The use of a systematic problem-solving process can be thought of as one of the hallmarks of professional psychology.…”

“…The categories of problem-solving behavior we selected for instrument development were derived from a review of literature on the problemsolving process in professional psychology (e.g., Comtois & Clark, 1976) and related service areas (e.g., Maher & Bennett, 1984). As Hirokawa (1983) noted, previous attempts to study problem solving in groups (e.g., Bales & Strodtbeck, 1951;Fisher, 1970) have tended to employ categories that analyze verbal behavior with respect to their general purpose (e.g., gives opinion, asks for orientation).…”

“…Hirokawa (1983) investigated laboratory created groups that did not have to implement their solutions or evaluate the implementation and outcomes of their solutions. In contrast, problem-solving frameworks that are intended to guide the practice of service providers (e.g., Bergan, 1977;Maher & Bennett, 1984) have emphasized the importance of action-planning and evaluating activities. The possible significance of examining action planning (i.e., specific actions intended to implement a program) is underscored by a study that indicated that this problem-solving activity may be relatively neglected in practice: Yoshida (1980) reported that two-thirds or more of the planning teams he investigated did not assign clear program implementation responsibilities to team members.…”