Generalizability studies of the Global Assessment of Functioning–Split version
Section snippets
Background
The first standardized and broadly used instrument for assessing patients overall mental health was introduced in 1962 when Luborsky [1] reported the development of the Health-Sickness Rating Scale. Some decades later, Endicott et al [2] modified the original instrument, which resulted in the Global Assessment Scale (GAS). Both the Health-Sickness Rating Scale and GAS are single 100-point rating scales reflecting overall functioning from 1, representing the hypothetically sickest, to 100,
The samples in the study
In this study, 2 samples are analyzed and compared, where both samples scored the symptom and function dimension of GAF on the same set of 6 case vignettes. The first sample consisted of 19 experienced psychiatrists across several mental health regions of Norway, who scored the case vignettes in 1998. In 2001, 8 units from the Norwegian Network of Psychotherapeutic Day Hospitals [13] participated in a study where the same case vignettes were GAF rated by all staff members. From this, 58 staff
Results
The main findings of this study are as follows: both relative and absolute agreement of GAF symptom and function scores were found to be acceptable, even when assuming only a single rater. Both symptom and function scores of GAF were found highly consistent across raters and units. Considering the large GAF scale (100 points), only minor differences between raters were found.
Table 2 shows the estimated variance components of the 2 measurement designs. For both designs, the largest variance was
Discussion
With respect to both relative and absolute interpretations, GAF scores from single independent raters hold acceptable reliability. Furthermore, there seems to be no noticeable systematic difference between the groups of local raters. Thus, GAF scores from different clinical units seem highly interchangeable. As to the reliability of difference scores, we found no support for any differential construct validity of GAF. Although the reliability, given by Eρ2 and Φ, for symptom and function
Acknowledgment
We wish to thank the staff from the day units in the Norwegian Network of Psychotherapeutic Day Hospitals, and the expert raters for their effort in scoring the GAF case vignettes which made this study possible.
References (24)
Global assessment of functioning. A modified scale
Psychosomatics
(1995)Clinicians' judgements of mental health
Arch Gen Psychiatry
(1962)- et al.
The Global Assessment Scale. A procedure for measuring overall severity of psychiatric disturbance
Arch Gen Psychiatry
(1976) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(1981)Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(1987)- et al.
Revising axis V for DSM-IV: a review of measures of social functioning
Am J Psychiatry
(1992) - et al.
Does the Global Assessment of Functioning assess functioning?
J Ment Health Couns
(2002) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(1994)- et al.
Inter-rate reliability of global assessment of functioning in a clinical setting
J Child Psychol Psychiatry
(1995) - et al.
Routine evaluation of mental health: reliable information or worthless ‘guesstimates’?
Acta Psychiatr Scand
(1996)
Evaluering av GAF-skåring som del av Minste Basis Datasett
Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening
Reliability and validity of DSM-IV axis V
Am J Psychiatry
Cited by (370)
Cognitive and inflammatory heterogeneity in severe mental illness: Translating findings from blood to brain
2024, Brain, Behavior, and ImmunityMismatch negativity and polygenic risk scores for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder
2024, Schizophrenia ResearchTelomere length and verbal learning in bipolar disorders
2023, Journal of Affective DisordersNeurocognitive function and mortality in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders
2023, Schizophrenia Research: Cognition