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

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).