Guidelines for rating Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF)

I H Monrad Aas, I H Monrad Aas

Abstract

Background: Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is a scoring system for the severity of illness in psychiatry. It is used clinically in many countries, as well as in research, but studies have shown several problems with GAF, for example concerning its validity and reliability. Guidelines for rating are important. The present study aimed to identify the current status of guidelines for rating GAF, and relevant factors and gaps in knowledge for the development of improved guidelines.

Methods: A thorough literature search was conducted.

Results: Few studies of existing guidelines have been conducted; existing guidelines are short; and rating has a subjective element. Seven main categories were identified as being important in relation to further development of guidelines: (1) general points about guidelines for rating GAF; (2) introduction to guidelines, with ground rules; (3) starting scoring at the top, middle or bottom level of the scale; (4) scoring for different time periods and of different values (highest, lowest or average); (5) the finer grading of the scale; (6) different guidelines for different conditions; and (7) different languages and cultures. Little information is available about how rules for rating are understood by different raters: the final score may be affected by whether the rater starts at the top, middle or bottom of the scale; there is little data on which value/combination of GAF values to record; guidelines for scoring within 10-point intervals are limited; there is little empirical information concerning the suitability of existing guidelines for different conditions and patient characteristics; and little is known about the effects of translation into different languages or of different cultural understanding.

Conclusions: Few studies have dealt specifically with guidelines for rating GAF. Current guidelines for rating GAF are not comprehensive, and relevant points for new guidelines are presented. Theoretical and empirical studies, and international expert panels would be valuable, as well as production of a manual with more information about scoring. Computerised assessment may well be the future.

References

    1. Hagmeister C, Westhoff K. Teaching and learning psychological assessment: aspects of the client's question. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2002;18:252–258. doi: 10.1027//1015-5759.18.3.252.
    1. Kici G, Westhoff K. Evaluation of requirements for the assessment and construction of interview guides in psychological assessment. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2004;20:83–98. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.20.2.83.
    1. Ryu SG, Hong N, Jung HY, Hwang S-C, Jung H-Y, Jeong D, Rah UW, Suh D-S. Developing Korean Academy of Medical Sciences guideline for rating the impairment in mental and behavioural disorders: a comparative study of KNPA's new guidelines and AMA's 6th guides. J Korean Med Sci. 2009;24(Suppl 2):S338–342. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2009.24.S2.S338.
    1. Sawyer J. Measurement and prediction, clinical and statistical. Psychol Bull. 1966;66:178–200. doi: 10.1037/h0023624.
    1. Watson P, McFall M, McBrine C, Schnurr PP, Friedman MJ, Keane T, Hamblen JL. Best practice manual for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) compensation and pension examinations. 2002.
    1. Bartram D. The development of international guidelines on test use: the International Test Commission project. Int J Testing. 2001;1:33–53. doi: 10.1207/S15327574IJT0101_3.
    1. Bartram D. Guidelines for test users: a review of national and international initiatives. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2001;17:173–186. doi: 10.1027//1015-5759.17.3.173.
    1. Watson P, McFall M, McBrine C, Schnurr PP, Friedman MJ, Keane T, Hamblen JL. Guidelines for the assessment process (GAP): a proposal for discussion. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2001;17:187–200. doi: 10.1027//1015-5759.17.3.187.
    1. Fernández-Ballesteros R. Psychological assessment: future challenges and progresses. Eur Psychol. 1999;4:248–262.
    1. Meyer GJ, Finn SE, Eyde LD, Kay GG, Moreland KL, Dies RR, Eisman EJ, Kubiszyn TW, Reed GM. Psychological testing and psychological assessment. A review of evidence and issues. Am Psychol. 2001;56:128–165. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.128.
    1. Shermis MD. Book review. Int J Testing. 2007;7:409–411. doi: 10.1080/15305050701632288.
    1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) Washington, DC, USA: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.
    1. Aas IHM. Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): properties and frontier of current knowledge. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2010;9:20. doi: 10.1186/1744-859X-9-20.
    1. Yamauchi K, Ono Y, Ikegami N. The actual process of rating the Global Assessment of Functioning scale. Compr Psychiatry. 2001;42:403–409. doi: 10.1053/comp.2001.26268.
    1. Loevdahl H, Friis S. Routine evaluation of mental health:reliable information or worthless 'guesstimates'? Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1996;93:125–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1996.tb09813.x.
    1. Vatnaland T, Vatnaland J, Friis S, Opjordsmoen S. Are GAF scores reliable in routine clinical use? Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2007;115:326–330. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2006.00925.x.
    1. Burlingame GM, Dunn TW, Chen S, Lehman A, Axman R, Earnshaw D, Rees FM. Selection of outcome assessment instruments for inpatients with severe and persistent mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2005;56:444–451. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.56.4.444.
    1. Hilsenroth MJ, Ackerman SJ, Blagys MD, Baumann BD, Baity MR, Smith SR, Price JL, Smith CL, Heindselman TL, Mount MK, Holdwick DJ Jr. Reliability and validity of DSM-IV axis V. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157:1858–1863. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.157.11.1858.
    1. Moos R, McCoy L, Moos BS. Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) ratings: determinants and role as predictors of one-year treatment outcomes. J Clin Psychol. 2000;56:449–461. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(200004)56:4<449::AID-JCLP1>;2-8.
    1. Söderberg P, Tungström S, Armelius BÅ. Reliability of Global Assessment of Functioning ratings made by clinical psychiatric staff. Psychiatr Serv. 2005;56:434–438.
    1. Startup M, Jackson MC, Bendix S. The concurrent validity of the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) Br J Clin Psychol. 2002;41:417–422. doi: 10.1348/014466502760387533.
    1. Bates LW, Lyons JA, Shaw JB. Effects of brief training on application of the global assessment of functioning scale. Psychol Rep. 2002;91:999–1006. doi: 10.2466/PR0.91.7.999-1006.
    1. Goldman HH, Skodol AE, Lave TR. Revising axis V for DSM-IV: a review of measures of social functioning. Am J Psychiatry. 1992;149:1148–1156.
    1. Hall RCW. Global Assessment of Functioning. A modified scale. Psychosomatics. 1995;36:267–275.
    1. Hay P, Katsikitis M, Begg J, Da Costa J, Blumenfeld N. A two-year follow-up study and prospective evaluation of the DSM-IV Axis V. Psychiatr Serv. 2003;54:1028–1030. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.54.7.1028.
    1. Jones SH, Thorncroft G, Coffey M, Dung G. A brief mental health outcome scale reliability and validity of the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) Br J Psychiatry. 1995;166:654–659. doi: 10.1192/bjp.166.5.654.
    1. Niv N, Cohen AN, Sullivan G, Young A. The MIRECC Version of the Global Assessment of Functioning scale:Reliability and validity. Psychiatr Serv. 2007;58:529–535. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.58.4.529.
    1. Patterson DA, Lee M-S. Field trial of the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale - Modified. Am J Psychiatry. 1995;152:1386–1388.
    1. Pedersen G, Hagtvedt KA, Karterud S. Generalizability studies of the Global Assessment of Functioning - split version. Compr Psychiatry. 2007;48:88–94. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2006.03.008.
    1. Piersma HL, Boes JL. Agreement between patient self-report and clinician rating:concurrence between the BSI and the GAF among psychiatric inpatients. J Clin Psychol. 1995;51:153–157. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(199503)51:2<153::AID-JCLP2270510203>;2-Z.
    1. Robert P, Aubin V, Dumarcet M, Braccini T, Souetre E, Darcourt G. Effect of symptoms on the assessment of social functioning:comparison between Axis V of DSM III-R and the psychosocial aptitude rating scale. Eur Psychiatry. 1991;6:67–71.
    1. Roy-Byrne P, Dagadakis C, Unutzer J, Ries R. Evidence for limited validity of the revised Global Assessment of Functioning Scale. Psychiatr Serv. 1996;47:864–866.
    1. Salvi G, Leese M, Slade M. Routine use of mental health outcome assessments:choosing the measure. Br J Psychiatry. 2005;186:144–152. doi: 10.1192/bjp.186.2.146.
    1. Tungström S, Söderberg P, Armelius B-Å. Relationship between the Global Assessment of Functioning and other DSM Axes in routine clinical work. Psychiatr Serv. 2005;56:439–443.
    1. Bacon SF, Collins MJ, Plake EV. Does the Global Assessment of Functioning assess functioning? J Ment Health Counsel. 2002;24:202–212.
    1. Fallmyr Ø, Repål A. Evaluering av GAF-skåring som del av Minste Basis Datasett. Tidsskrift for Norsk Psykologforening. 2002;39:1118–1119.
    1. Parker G, O'Donell M, Hadzi-Pavlovic D, Proberts M. Assessing outcome in community mental health patients: a comparative analysis of measures. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2002;48:11–19. doi: 10.1177/002076402128783046.
    1. Laderman ER, Stein SM, Papanastassiou M. Flattened hierarchies and equality in clinical judgement. Therapeut Commun. 1999;20:81–92.
    1. Schorre BEH, Vandvik IH. Global assessment of psychosocial functioning in child and adolescent psychiatry. A review of three unidimensional scales (CGAS, GAF, GAPD) Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2004;13:273–286. doi: 10.1007/s00787-004-0390-2.
    1. Kersting M, Hornke LF. Improving the quality of proficiency assessment: the German standardization approach. Psychol Sci. 2006;48:85–98.
    1. Groth-Marnat G. Handbook of Psychological Assessment. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2009.
    1. Rosse RB, Deutsch SI. Use of the Global Assessment of Functioning scale in the VHA: moving toward improved precision. Veterans Health Syst J. 2000;5:50–58.
    1. Breslow RA, Ross SA, Weed DL. Quality of reviews in epidemiology. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:475–477. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.88.3.475.
    1. Cooper H. Synthesizing Research. A guide for literature reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications; 1998.
    1. Garrard J. Health Sciences Literature Review Made Easy. The Matrix Method. Sudbury, MA, USA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 2007.
    1. Hart C. Doing a Literature Review. Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd; 1998.
    1. Oxman AD. Systematic reviews: checklists for review articles. BMJ. 1994;309:648–651.
    1. Egger M, Jüni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1–76.
    1. Shojania KG, Bero LA. Taking advantage of the explosion of systematic reviews:an efficient MEDLINE search strategy. Eff Clin Pract. 2001;4:157–162.
    1. Endicott J, Spitzer RL, Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The Global Assessment Scale, a procedure for measuring overall severity of psychiatric disturbance. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1976;33:766–771.
    1. Karterud S, Pedersen G, Løvdal H, Friis S S-GAF. Global Funksjonsskåring - Splittet Versjon [Global Assessment of Functioning - Split version]. Bakgrunn og skåringsveiledning. Oslo, Norway: Klinikk for Psykiatri, Ullevål sykehus; 1998.
    1. Kennedy JA. Mastering the Kennedy Axis V. A new psychiatric assessment of patient functioning. Washington DC, USA: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc; 2003.
    1. Poole R, Higgo R. Psychiatric Interviewing and Assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2006.
    1. Foxcroft CD. Reflections on implementing the ITC's international guidelines for test use. Int J Testing. 2001;1:235–244. doi: 10.1207/S15327574IJT013&4_4.
    1. International Test Commission. International guidelines for test use. Int J Testing. 2001;1:93–113. doi: 10.1207/S15327574IJT0102_1.
    1. Bartram D. The need for international guidelines on standards for test use:a review of European and international initiatives. Eur Psychol. 1998;3:155–163. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.3.2.155.
    1. Rey JM, Starling J, Weaver C, Dossetor DR, Plapp JM. Inter-rater reliability of global assessment of functioning in a clinical setting. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1995;36:787–792. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1995.tb01329.x.
    1. McColl E, Jacoby A, Thomas L, Soutter J, Bamford C, Steen N, Thomas R, Harvey E, Garratt A, Bond J. Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practice applicable to surveys of health service staff and patients. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1–256.
    1. Goodman R, Iervolino AC, Collishaw S, Pickles A, Maughan B. Seemingly minor changes to a questionnaire can make a big difference to mean scores: a cautionary tale. Soc Psychiatr Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2007;42:322–327. doi: 10.1007/s00127-007-0169-0.
    1. First MB. Mastering DSM-IV Axis V. J Pract Psychiatry Behav Health. 1995;1:258–259.
    1. Bech P, Malt UF, Dencker SJ, Ahlfors UG, Elgen K, Lewander T, Lundell A, Simpson GM, Lingjærde O. Scales for assessment of diagnosis and severity of mental disorders. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1993;87(Suppl 372):3–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1993.tb05583.x.
    1. Hesse M, Rasmussen J, Pedersen MK. Standardised assessment of personality - a study of validity and reliability in substance abusers. BMC Psychiatry. 2008;8:7. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-8-7.
    1. Dworkin RJ, Friedman LC, Telschow RL, Grant KD, Moffic HS, Sloan VJ. The longitudinal use of the Global Assessment scale in multiple-rater situations. Community Ment Health J. 1990;26:335–444. doi: 10.1007/BF00752724.
    1. American Medical Association. Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment. 2. Chicago, IL, USA: American Medical Association; 1993.
    1. Bowling A. Measuring Disease. A Review of Disease-Specific Quality of Life Measurement Scales. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press; 1997.
    1. Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, Amorim P, Janavs J, Weiller E, Hergueta T, Baker R, Dunbar GC. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59(Suppl 20):22–33.
    1. Zimmerman M. Diagnosing personality disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51:225–245.
    1. Greenberg GA, Rosenheck RA. Using the GAF as a national mental health outcome measure in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Psychiatr Serv. 2005;56:420–426. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.56.4.420.
    1. Williams JBW, Gibbon M, First MB, Spitzer RL, Davis M, Borus J, Howes MJ, Kane J, Pope HG, Rounsaville B, Wittchen H-U. The structured clinical interview for DSM-III-R (SCID), II: multisite test-retest reliability. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1992;49:630–636.
    1. Mackinnon RA, Michels R, Buckley PJ. The Psychiatric Interview in Clinical Practice. 2. Washington, DC, USA: American Psychiatric Publishing Inc; 2006.
    1. Dixon S. Book review. Psychiatr Serv. 2004;55:196–197. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.55.2.196.
    1. Piersma HL, Boes JL. The GAF and psychiatric outcome: a descriptive report. Community Ment Health J. 1997;33:35–41. doi: 10.1023/A:1022413110345.
    1. Bowling A. Measuring Health. A Review of Quality of Life Measurement Scales. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press; 1993.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales. A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1994.
    1. Andersson B-E. Som man frågar får man svar - en introduktion i intervju - och enkätteknik. Kristianstad, Sween: Rabén Prisma; 1994.
    1. Rogers R. Handbook of Diagnostic and Structured Interviewing. New York, USA: The Guilford Press; 2001.
    1. Lingjærde O, Bech P, Malt U, Dencker SJ, Elgen K, Ahlfors UG. Skalaer for diagnostikk og sykdomsgradering ved psykiatriske tilstander. Del 1:Metodologiske aspekter. Nord J Psychiatry. 1989;43(Suppl 19):1–39.
    1. Gregoire J, Hambleton RK. Advances in test adaptation research: a special issue. Int J Testing. 2009;9:75–7. doi: 10.1080/15305050902880678.
    1. Van De Vijver F, Leung K. Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-cultural Research. London, UK: Sage; 1997.
    1. Lingjærde O, Bech P, Malt U, Dencker SJ, Elgen K, Ahlfors UG. Essentials of the World Psychiatric Association's International Guidelines for Diagnostic Assessment (IGDA) Br J Psychiatry. 2003;182(Suppl 45):s37–s57.
    1. Hansagi H, Allebeck P. Enkät och intervju inom hälso - och sjukvård. Handbok för forskning och utvecklingsarbete. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur; 1994.
    1. Del Castillo JC. The influence of language upon symptomatology in foreign-born patients. Am J Psychiatry. 1970;127:242–234.
    1. Payer L. Notions of Health and Sickness in Britain, the US, France and West Germany. London, UK: Victor Gollancz Ltd; 1989. Medicine and culture.
    1. Solano-Flores G, Backhoff E, Contrea-Niño LA. Theory of test translation error. Int J Testing. 2009;9:78–91. doi: 10.1080/15305050902880835.
    1. Bruyn EEJ. A normative-prescriptive view on clinical psychodiagnostic decision making. Eur J Psychol Assess. 1992;3:163–171.
    1. Harel TZ, Smith DW, Rowles JM. A comparison of psychiatrists' clinical-impression-based and social workers' computer-generated GAF scores. Psychiatr Serv. 2002;53:340–342. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.53.3.340.
    1. Kuhlman TL, Sincaban VA, Bernstein MJ. Team use of the Global Assessment scale for inpatient planning and evaluation. Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1990;41:416–19.
    1. Naglieri JA. In: Assessing Impairment. Goldstein S, Naglieri JA, editor. New York, USA: Springer; 2009. Psychometric issues in the assessment of impairment; pp. 49–57. full_text.
    1. Coyne I, Bartram D. Design and development of the ITC guidelines on computer-based and Internet-delivered testing. Int J Testing. 2006;6:133–142. doi: 10.1207/s15327574ijt0602_3.
    1. Foxcroft CD, Davies C. Taking ownership of the ITC's guidelines on computer-based and Internet- delivered testing: a South African application. Int J Testing. 2006;6:173–80. doi: 10.1207/s15327574ijt0602_5.
    1. International Test Commission. International guidelines on computer-based and Internet-delivered testing. Int J Testing. 2006;6:143–171. doi: 10.1207/s15327574ijt0602_4.
    1. Lievens F. The ITC guidelines on computer-based and Internet-delivered testing:where do we go from here? Int J Testing. 2006;6:189–194. doi: 10.1207/s15327574ijt0602_7.
    1. Sale R. International guidelines on computer-based and Internet- delivered testing:a practitioner's perspective. Int J Testing. 2006;6:181–188. doi: 10.1207/s15327574ijt0602_6.
    1. Scheuerman F, Pereira AG. Towards a Research Agenda on Computer-based Assessment. Challenges and Needs for European Educational Measurement. Luxembourg: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, European Communities; 2008.
    1. Del Greco L, Eastridge L, Marchand B, Szentveri K. Questionnaire development: 4. Preparation for analysis. Can Med Assoc J. 1987;136:927–928.
    1. Reed GM, McLaughlin CJ, Newman R. The development and evaluation of guidelines for professional practice. Am Psychol. 2002;57:1041–1047. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1041.
    1. Bern DJ. Writing a review article for Psychological Bulletin. Psychol Bull. 1995;118:172–177. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.118.2.172.
    1. Conn VC, Isaramalai S, Rath S, Jantarakupt P, Wadhawan R, Dash Y. Beyond MEDLINE for literature searches. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2003;35:177–182. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2003.00177.x.
    1. Arnold SJ, Bender VF, Brown SA. A review and comparison of psychology-related electronic resources. J Elect Res Med Lib. 2006;3:61–79.
    1. Bruyn EEJ. In: Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment. Fernández-Ballesteros R, editor. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage; 2003. Assessment process; pp. 93–97.
    1. Forsner T, Wisted AÅ, Brommels M, Forsell Y. An approach to measure compliance to clinical guidelines in psychiatric care. BMC Psychiatry. 2008;8:64. doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-8-64.
    1. Hilsenroth MJ, Ackerman SJ, Blagys MD, Price JL. Dr Hilsenroth and colleagues reply. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158:1936–1937. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.158.11.1936.
    1. Pedersen G, (Ed) Personlighetsfortsyrrelser. Forståelse, evaluering, kombinert gruppebehandling. Oslo, Norway: Pax Forlag; 2000. pp. 237–239.
    1. Spitzer RL, Forman JB. DSM-III field trials, II: initial experience with the multiaxial system. Am J Psychiatry. 1979;136:818–820.
    1. Widiger TA, Clark LE. Toward DSM-V and the classification of psychopathology. Psychol Bull. 2000;126:946–963. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.946.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe