A pilot rating system to evaluate the quality of goal attainment scales used as outcome measures in rehabilitation.

IF 1.7 3区 心理学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES Neuropsychological Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-05-28 DOI:10.1080/09602011.2024.2343150
Charles Pradeau, Severine Estival, Virginie Postal, Virginie Laurier, Céline Maugard, Marie-Eve Isner-Horobeti, Fabien Mourre, Agata Krasny-Pacini
{"title":"A pilot rating system to evaluate the quality of goal attainment scales used as outcome measures in rehabilitation.","authors":"Charles Pradeau, Severine Estival, Virginie Postal, Virginie Laurier, Céline Maugard, Marie-Eve Isner-Horobeti, Fabien Mourre, Agata Krasny-Pacini","doi":"10.1080/09602011.2024.2343150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is a method for writing person-centred approach evaluation scales that can be used as an outcome measure in clinical or research settings in rehabilitation. To be used in a research setting, it requires a high methodological quality approach. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility and reliability of the GAS quality rating system, to ensure that GAS scales used as outcome measures are valid and reliable. Secondary objectives were: (1) to compare goal attainment scores' reliability according to how many GAS levels are described in the scale; and (2) to explore if GAS scorings are influenced by who scores goal attainment. The GAS scales analysed here were set collaboratively by 57 cognitively impaired adults clients and their occupational therapist. Goals had to be achieved within an inpatient one-month stay, during which clients participated in an intervention aimed at improving planning skills in daily life. The GAS quality rating system proved to be feasible and reliable. Regarding GAS scores, interrater reliability was higher when only three of the five GAS levels were described, i.e., \"three milestone GAS\" (0.74-0.92), than when all five levels were described (0.5-0.88), especially when scored by the clients (0.5 -0.88).</p>","PeriodicalId":54729,"journal":{"name":"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuropsychological Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2024.2343150","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is a method for writing person-centred approach evaluation scales that can be used as an outcome measure in clinical or research settings in rehabilitation. To be used in a research setting, it requires a high methodological quality approach. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility and reliability of the GAS quality rating system, to ensure that GAS scales used as outcome measures are valid and reliable. Secondary objectives were: (1) to compare goal attainment scores' reliability according to how many GAS levels are described in the scale; and (2) to explore if GAS scorings are influenced by who scores goal attainment. The GAS scales analysed here were set collaboratively by 57 cognitively impaired adults clients and their occupational therapist. Goals had to be achieved within an inpatient one-month stay, during which clients participated in an intervention aimed at improving planning skills in daily life. The GAS quality rating system proved to be feasible and reliable. Regarding GAS scores, interrater reliability was higher when only three of the five GAS levels were described, i.e., "three milestone GAS" (0.74-0.92), than when all five levels were described (0.5-0.88), especially when scored by the clients (0.5 -0.88).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
试点评级系统,用于评估作为康复成果衡量标准的目标实现量表的质量。
目标达成量表(GAS)是一种编写以人为本的评估量表的方法,可用作康复临床或研究环境中的结果测量。要在研究环境中使用,它需要高方法质量的方法。本研究旨在探索 GAS 质量评级系统的可行性和可靠性,以确保用作结果测量的 GAS 量表有效可靠。次要目标是(1) 根据量表中描述的 GAS 等级的多少,比较目标达成得分的可靠性;(2) 探讨 GAS 评分是否受目标达成评分者的影响。本文分析的 GAS 量表是由 57 名认知障碍成人客户及其职业治疗师共同制定的。目标必须在住院一个月的时间内实现,在此期间,患者参加了旨在提高日常生活规划能力的干预活动。事实证明,GAS 质量评分系统是可行且可靠的。在 GAS 评分方面,如果只描述 GAS 五个等级中的三个等级,即 "三个里程碑 GAS"(0.74-0.92),则相互之间的可靠性要高于描述所有五个等级(0.5-0.88)时的可靠性,尤其是由客户评分时(0.5-0.88)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation 医学-神经科学
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
7.40%
发文量
78
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuropsychological Rehabilitation publishes human experimental and clinical research related to rehabilitation, recovery of function, and brain plasticity. The journal is aimed at clinicians who wish to inform their practice in the light of the latest scientific research; at researchers in neurorehabilitation; and finally at researchers in cognitive neuroscience and related fields interested in the mechanisms of recovery and rehabilitation. Papers on neuropsychological assessment will be considered, and special topic reviews (2500-5000 words) addressing specific key questions in rehabilitation, recovery and brain plasticity will also be welcomed. The latter will enter a fast-track refereeing process.
期刊最新文献
Experiences of caregivers of patients with traumatic brain injury during hospitalization in western China: A qualitative study. Experiences of loss and grief in adults with acquired brain injury (ABI): A systematic review and meta synthesis of qualitative studies. Post-stroke fatigue severity is associated with executive dysfunction in chronic stroke. Introducing a new social cognition online therapy: SoCoBo. Effect of stimulation-driven attention in virtual reality balloon search training of patients with left unilateral spatial neglect after stroke: A randomized crossover study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1