2011
DOI: 10.1177/0269215511407220
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Responsiveness of Goal Attainment Scaling in comparison to two standardized measures in outcome evaluation of children with cerebral palsy

Abstract: Goal Attainment Scaling, PEDI and GMFM-66 were complementary in their ability to measure individual change over time in children with cerebral palsy. Using only the standardized instruments could have caused many individual rehabilitation goals actually attained being missed in the outcome evaluation.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
75
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 99 publications
(81 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
3
75
0
Order By: Relevance
“…11 A limitation of this study is the lack of standardization of the goal-setting process, and the use of evaluative measures such as using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) or Goal Attainment Scale (GAS). 12 Nevertheless, the parents' support of repeat injections suggests that they felt that the injections were beneficial. Of note is the fact that parents reported improvements in areas not identified as goals at the time of injection.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…11 A limitation of this study is the lack of standardization of the goal-setting process, and the use of evaluative measures such as using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) or Goal Attainment Scale (GAS). 12 Nevertheless, the parents' support of repeat injections suggests that they felt that the injections were beneficial. Of note is the fact that parents reported improvements in areas not identified as goals at the time of injection.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Inter-rater reliability Good to excellent ICC 0.82 (95% CI 73-91) Children with CP GMFCS I-V [63] Excellent inter and intra-rater reliability in children with CP at a range of GMFCS levels ICC = 0.96 (95% CI 93-97 and 94-98, respectively) [64] Content validity established for use with children with CP at a range of GMFCS levels [64] Convergent validity with COPM for children with hemiplegic CP [59] Responsive to change in activity goals in children CP at all GMFCS levels [65] Likert scale GAS more sensitive than weighted GAS goals or COPM in hemiplegic CP [59]. Responsive to change in gross motor goals at a range of GMFCS levels [64] Excellent for GMFCS IV and V Adequate for GMFCS IV and V Adequate for GMFCS IV and V QUEST 2.…”
Section: Internal Consistencymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When predefining and grading the goals at T2, the current level of eye-gaze technology usage was set to −2 on the five-point scale from −2 (much less than expected) to +2 (much more than expected) with 0 (expected), +1 (more than expected), and +2 as successful levels. GAS has shown good responsiveness in detecting clinically relevant change [15,16].…”
Section: Assessmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%