Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-zrtmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-05T10:22:32.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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 ,
Graham Thornicroft ,
Michael Coffey  and
Graham Dunn
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
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 166 , Issue 5 , May 1995 , pp. 654 - 659
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 Scholar
Dunn, G. (1989) The Design and Analysis of Reliability Studies. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Dunn, G. (1992) The design and analysis of reliability studies. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 1, 123–157.Google Scholar
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, 335–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Endicott, J., Spitzer, R. L., Fleiss, J. L., et al (1976) The global assessment scale. Archives of General Psychiatry, 33, 766–771.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, 1148–1156.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, 910–915.Google Scholar
Phelan, M., Wykes, T. & Goldman, H. (1994) Global functioning scales: A review. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 29, 205–211.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, 1–11.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.