Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-8bbf57454-lxvzl Total loading time: 0.219 Render date: 2022-01-21T10:48:27.737Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

A Brief Mental Health Outcome Scale

Reliability and Validity of the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Steven H. Jones*
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, London
Graham Thornicroft
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, London
Michael Coffey
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, London
Graham Dunn
Affiliation:
Maudsley Hospital, London
*
Dr Jones, Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, DeCrespigny Park, London SE5 8AF

Abstract

Background

The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is a quick and simple measure of overall psychological disturbance. However, there is little research on the reliability and validity of this measure in severely mentally ill populations.

Method

Multidisciplinary keyworkers assessed 103 patients at monthly intervals over a 6-month period. Overall GAF scores were obtained, with additional separate ratings for symptoms and disability. These were compared with changes in antipsychotic medication and support needs over the same period.

Results

Satisfactory reliability was obtained for total GAF score and for symptom and disability measures, in spite of raters having only one brief training session. All GAF scores were associated with current support needs of patients. Symptom and disability scores were associated with changes in antipsychotic medication in the previous month. Only symptom score was associated with increases in antipsychotic medication at time of rating.

Conclusion

AF proved to be a reliable and, within the limits of the indicators used, a valid measure of psychiatric disturbance in our sample of the severely mentally ill. Differences in relationships between the three GAF scores and medication/support needs indicate the usefulness of obtaining all three scores for monitoring levels and type of psychiatric disturbance in this population.

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1995 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychiatric Association (1987) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edn, revised) (DSM–III–R). Washington, DC: APA.Google ScholarPubMed
Dunn, G. (1989) The Design and Analysis of Reliability Studies. London: Edward Arnold.Google ScholarPubMed
Dunn, G. (1992) The design and analysis of reliability studies. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 1, 123157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dworkin, R. J., Friedman, L. C., Telschow, R. L., et al (1990) The longitudinal use of the Global Assessment scale in multiple rater situations. Community Mental Health Journal, 26, 335344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Endicott, J., Spitzer, R. L., Fleiss, J. L., et al (1976) The global assessment scale. Archives of General Psychiatry, 33, 766771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldman, H. H., Skodol, A. E. & Lave, T. R. (1992) Revising axis V for DSM–IV: A review of measures of social functioning. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 11481156.Google ScholarPubMed
Lyness, J. M., Caine, E. D., Conwell, Y., et al (1993) Depressive symptoms, medical illness and functional status in depressed psychiatric patients. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 910915.Google Scholar
Phelan, M., Wykes, T. & Goldman, H. (1994) Global functioning scales: A review. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 29, 205211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanks, J. (1994) How are things? Developing outcome measures for mental health services. Health Trends (in press).Google Scholar
Wykes, T. & Sturt, E. (1986) The measurement of social behaviour in psychiatric patients: An assessment of the reliability and validity of SBS. British Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.
621
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A Brief Mental Health Outcome Scale
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A Brief Mental Health Outcome Scale
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A Brief Mental Health Outcome Scale
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *