国际标准期刊号: 1522-4821

国际紧急心理健康和人类复原力杂志

开放获取

我们集团组织了 3000 多个全球系列会议 每年在美国、欧洲和美国举办的活动亚洲得到 1000 多个科学协会的支持 并出版了 700+ 开放获取期刊包含超过50000名知名人士、知名科学家担任编委会成员。

开放获取期刊获得更多读者和引用
700 种期刊 15,000,000 名读者 每份期刊 获得 25,000 多名读者

索引于
  • 哥白尼索引
  • 谷歌学术
  • 引用因子
  • 西马戈
  • 大英图书馆
  • 斯科普斯
  • 参考搜索
  • 普布隆斯
  • 大学教育资助委员会
  • 欧洲酒吧
  • 出版医学
  • ICMJE
分享此页面

抽象的

Towards a Better Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): Improving Scale Properties

IH Monrad Aas

Background: Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is a rating scale used in a very high number of studies. GAF is known worldwide. GAF rates severity of illness in psychiatry and is often used together with instruments rating other characteristics of mental disease. From research, we know there are problems with GAF (for example, reliability and validity problems). The properties of the GAF scale need a closer examination with the potential for improvement in mind. The present study has focus on GAF properties. Purpose: to show both gaps in current knowledge and ideas for further development. Methods: The present study is based upon a systematic literature review. Findings: for the properties of GAF, numerous gaps in knowledge were found: for example, a continuous scale is used for the present GAF, but would a categorical scale make a better GAF? On visual scales scoring is done by setting a mark directly on the scale, but would transformation to a visual scale result in an improved GAF? The anchor points (including examples) were decided early in the history of GAF, but would new anchor points and examples result in a better GAF (anchor points for symptoms, functioning, positive mental health, prognosis, improvement of generic properties, exclusion criteria for scoring in each 10-point intervals, and anchor points at the endpoints of the scale)? Is a change in the number of anchor points and their distribution over the total scale important? Rating within 10-point intervals can be requiring, but can better instructions improve this? Internationally, GAF with both one and two values are used, but what is the advantage of having separate symptom (GAF-S) and functioning scales (GAF-F)? GAF-S and GAF-F scales should score different dimensions and still be correlated, but what is the best combination of definitions for GAF-S and GAF-F? Conclusions: Given the widespread use, research-based development of GAF has not been especially strong. Further research could improve GAF.