Using Tape Measures in Family Therapy: An Exploration of the Global Assessment of Relational Functioning

Stiefel, Ingeborg; Johnson, Susan C.; Clarke, Leanne; Chahoud, Katrina

doi:10.1002/j.1467-8438.2003.tb01344.x

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reliability has been evaluated by comparing ratings made by different raters of the same family therapy sessions. Inter-rater reliability has ranged from .54 when comparing intake session ratings made by graduate student therapists and their faculty supervisors (Rosen, McCollum, Middleton, Locke, & Bird, 1997), to .62 for a therapist and co-therapist ⁄ observer rating an intake session (Stiefel, Johnson, Clarke, & Chahoud, 2003), to .72 for raters viewing video recordings of a structured family task (Dausch, Miklowitz, & Richards, 1996), to .75 for trainees rating a clinical intake session (Wilkins & White, 2001). Hay, Katsikitis, Begg, Da Costa, and Blumenfeld (2003) reported a strong intraclass correlation of .98 between two raters who conducted 12 joint interviews.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and Validity of the Global Assessment of Relational Functioning (GARF) in a Psychiatric Family Therapy Clinic

Denton¹,

Nakonezny²,

Burwell³

2010

J Marital Family Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The reliability and validity of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV Global Assessment of Relational Functioning (GARF) was evaluated in consenting participants presenting to a family therapy training clinic. The purpose of this study was to (a) assess whether the GARF could be administered quickly in a marriage and family therapy training clinic, (b) assess the inter-rater and internal reliability of GARF ratings of intake sessions, (c) examine the relationship of GARF ratings to established measures of relationship functioning, and (d) compare GARF ratings to a measure of depressive symptoms. Study participants completed the General Functioning Subscale of the Family Assessment Device (GFS/FAD), the Quality of Marriage Index (QMI), and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D). After intake sessions were conducted with study participants, GARF ratings were made by an American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Approved Supervisor or Supervisor-in-Training, a therapist trainee, and two observing trainees who had observed the session from behind a one-way mirror. Cronbach's coefficient alphas and the average intraclass correlation coefficients were both .82 when ratings of the supervisor and two observers were compared and .78 and .79, respectively, when ratings of the supervisor, two observers, and therapist were evaluated. There was significant agreement between GARF ratings made by the supervisor and therapist (but not observers) and scores on the GFS/FAD, QMI, and CES-D. Results suggest that GARF ratings can be made quickly and reliably, especially among raters with greater clinical experience, and are related to measures of relational functioning and depression. Implications for research and marriage and family therapy training are discussed.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and Validity of the Global Assessment of Relational Functioning (GARF) in a Psychiatric Family Therapy Clinic

Denton¹,

Nakonezny²,

Burwell³

2010

J Marital Family Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Anecdotal evidence suggests that the GARF received little use by family therapists or other mental health practitioners. This is unfortunate as research has consistently demonstrated the GARF's reliability and validity (e.g., Dausch, Miklowitz & Richards, ; Denton, Nakonezny & Burwell, ; Stein, Hilsenroth, Pinsker‐Aspen & Primavera, ; Stiefel, Johnson, Clarke & Chahoud, ). At this writing, it is not known whether the GARF will be retained in DSM‐5 but given the elimination of the multiaxial system, it would seem there may not be a place for it.…”

Section: Implications Of Dsm‐5 For Family Therapistsmentioning

confidence: 99%

DSM‐5 and the Family Therapist: First‐order Change in a New Millennium

Denton

Bell

2013

ANZ J of Family Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Family therapists have struggled to find a place in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and the fifth edition of the manual will provide no relief. Small first-order changes in DSM-5 continue the same paradigm in place since DSM-III wherein mental disorders are defined as occurring only in an individual. This was not always the case, however, as DSM-I viewed mental disorders as a reaction between the environment and biology while DSM-III through DSM-IV-TR utilised a multiaxial system of evaluation (eliminated in DSM-5). Many proposals were made for both DSM-IV and DSM-5 to allow for an inclusion of relational processes in diagnosis but were met with limited success. The DSM approach now, however, is being attacked from a new direction. Neuroscientists have exposed limitations in the validity of the DSM categories and have proposed an entirely new system called the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) project, which offers new hope for systemically oriented practitioners and researchers.

show abstract

“…Family assessment. Stiefel et al (2003) argued for the routine assessment of families before and after treatment with the Global Assessment of Relations Functioning Scale (GARF) to evaluate treatment effectiveness. The GARF, a simple, reliable rating scale, is included in an appendix of DSM IV TR (APA, 2000).…”

Section: Therapy Process Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%