Goal attainment scaling: Does it provide added value as a person-centred measure for evaluation of outcome in neurorehabilitation following acquired brain injury?
Lynne Turner-Stokes, Heather Williams, Jane Johnson
Objective: To compare goal attainment scaling (GAS) and standardized measures in evaluation of person-centred outcomes in neurorehabilitation.
Design: A prospective cohort analysis from a tertiary inpatient neuro-rehabilitation service for younger adults with complex neurological disability.
Subjects/patients: Consecutive patients (n = 164) admitted for rehabilitation following acquired brain injury (any cause) over 3 years. Mean age 44.8 (standard deviation 14.4) years. Diagnosis: 66% strokes, 18% trauma, 16% other. Male:female ratio 102:62.
Methods: GAS-rated achievement of 1–6 patient-selected goals was compared with the Functional Assessment Measure (UK FIM+FAM), and Barthel Index (BI), rated on admission and discharge. Personal goals were mapped retrospectively to the FIM+FAM and International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).
Results: Median (interquartile range; IQR) GAS T-scores were 50.0 (44.2–51.8) and moderately correlated with changes in FIM+FAM and BI (both rho 0.38 (p < 0.001)). Standardized response means were 2.2, 1.6 and 1.4 for GAS, FIM+FAM and BI, respectively. Of 667 personal goals set, 495 (74%) were fully achieved. Although 413 (62%) goals were reflected by changes in FIM+FAM, over one-third of goals were set in other areas.
Conclusion: GAS appeared to be more responsive, and captured gains beyond the FIM+FAM, thus providing added value as an adjunct to outcome measurement in patients with complex disability.
Do you want to comment on this paper? The comments will show up here and if appropriate the comments will also separately be forwarded to the authors.
You need to login/create an account to comment on articles. Click here to login/create an account