2011
DOI: 10.1176/ps.62.4.pss6204_0411
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Assessment of Symptom Severity and Functional Impairment With DSM-IV Axis V

Abstract: Findings indicate that GAF ratings for patients with psychosis tend to reflect symptom severity rather than functional impairment. Splitting the GAF into two parts resulted in greater discrimination for this patient group yet retained ease of administration.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The GAF has been criticized as being unable to distinguish the relative contributions of illness severity and adaptive functioning to overall score (Smith et al, 2011). Its validity has also been questioned.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The GAF has been criticized as being unable to distinguish the relative contributions of illness severity and adaptive functioning to overall score (Smith et al, 2011). Its validity has also been questioned.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The split version of the GAF was chosen, as advocated by various authors [38, 39], to preserve separate ratings for symptoms and functioning (the regular GAF records only the lowest of these values).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The scale was designed for simplicity of administration and reliability with minimal training, and the reliability and validity of the measurement are well-established (Goldman, et al, 1992; Hilsenroth, et al, 2000; Smith, et al, 2011; Startup, et al, 2002). The one way random intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC 1, 4) reflecting the reliability of this measurement across the four clinical assessors (three independent interviewers and the treating clinician) in this study was excellent, ICC (1,4) = .81.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%