Skip to main content

Table 5 Reported content validity of GAS in included studies

From: A systematic review to investigate the measurement properties of goal attainment scaling, towards use in drug trials

First author Year Drug study N Methods and results Quality
Palisano 1993 No 21 10 physical therapists rated 10 randomly selected GAS-goals on a five-point scale on importance (88 % rated a 4 or 5), the expected level of goal attainment (77 % rated 4 or 5) and clinical relevance (79 % rated a 4 or 5). Between 77 and 88 % of the ratings met the criterion. +
A clear description is provided of the measurement aim, and target population is inherently involved in item selection
Stolee 1999 No 173 Goals were grouped in major categories, of which the most common were mobility, future care, personal care and bowel and bladder problems. The categorization was reviewed by clinicians of the geriatric rehabilitation unit. The results of this review were not mentioned in the article. -
No results mentioned
Stolee 2012 No 90 Clinicians rated the use of GAS with a mean of 3 (SD 0.9) on a 5-point scale, indicating a “good overall usefulness” of GAS. +
A clear description is provided of the measurement aim, and target population is inherently involved in item selection
Turner-Stokes 2013 Yes 456 Goal statements for the primary goal in each patient were independently evaluated by three lead clinical investigators, in two rounds. The purpose was to check that clinicians were setting SMART function-related goals in accordance with the training. Goal statements were rated an A, B or C, where an A-rating means ‘Some goal statements contain reference to functional activities at the level of disability or participation—may be ‘active’ or ‘passive’ function’, a B-rating means that ‘Goal statements contain reference to impairment only’, and a C-rating means ‘Goal statements contain reference to anatomical structures only’. Also, a ++, + or – was added, where ++ means ‘There is a SMART goal description, sufficiently detailed and specific to make accurate GAS rating’, + means ‘There is some clear goal description sufficient to support GAS rating, but still reliant on subjective interpretation’ and – means ‘No clear goal \description’. The rating was done in two rounds: after the first round, 62.7 % recorded function-related statements rated A or AB, and 40.3 % of the goal statements received a SMART quality rating of A+/A++. In round two these figures rose to 70.9 and 46.8 % respectively. The authors conclude that even after this goal refinement process, there is residual heterogeneity between the quality of the goals in the different sites that were included in the study. +
A clear description is provided of the measurement aim, and target population is inherently involved in item selection
Yip 1998 No 143 Content validity was evaluated by comparison of identified goal areas with the essential components of geriatric assessment recommended by several position papers. All the recommended domains were assessed. +/−
Unclear how and by whom the evaluation was scored