Skip to main content

Table 8 Reported responsiveness 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
Cusick 2006 Yes 41 Ability to detect change overtime, and ability to detect difference in change between groups was measured with regression coefficients and effect sizes. Effect size for the weighted GAS scale: 0.55 (p = 0.036), and for the Likert scale 0,91 (p = 0.003). +/−
Doubtful design or method
Gordon 1999 No 53 GAS was the most responsive measure, with the highest effect size (1.29) and the highest relative efficiency (53.7). +/−
Doubtful design or method
Hartman 1997 No 10 Effect size statistic of 2.34; paired t-test before-after of 2.9 (df = 9, p = 0.017). +/−
Doubtful design or method
Khan 2008 No 24 Effect size 9.0, t = 10.0, Standardized response mean = 2.4 +/−
Doubtful design or method
Palisano 1993 No 21 Of the 84 goals that were formulated for the study, similar information was obtained with the behavioral objective and GAS formats for 33 (39 %) of the goals, and change that could not be measured with the behavioral objective format was measured with the GAS format for 51 (61 %) of the goals. Of the 17 behavioral objectives that were not achieved, the corresponding GAS score documented progress toward the expected outcome (score of - 1) for 2 (12 %) of the goals. Of the 67 behavioral objectives that were achieved, the corresponding GAS score documented progress that exceeded he criteria for achievement of the behavioral objective (score of +1 or +2) for 49 (73 %) of the goals. +/−
Doubtful design or method
Rockwood 1993 No 45 RE = 4.5; ES = 5.0 +/−
Doubtful design or method
Rockwood 1997 No 44 Relative efficiency: 7.8; Effect size: 5.11 +/−
Doubtful design or method
Rockwood 2003 No 265 GAS was more responsive than other measures for functional improvement in the elderly; Effect size Cohen’s D: 7.8; SRM: 1.2; NRS: 0.58; Relative efficiency: 57. +/−
Doubtful design or method
Steenbeek 2011 No 23 Individual change score was found in 9/23 (physical), 18/23 (occupational) and 12/18 (speech), and for only one patient a change score was found in the GMFM-66 +/−
Doubtful design or method
Stolee 1999 No 173 GAS ES = 3.52; Standardized response mean = 1.73; Relative efficiency = 3.14 +/−
Doubtful design or method
Stolee 2012 No 90 All three measures of responsiveness indicated that GAS was able to detect meaningful change in this setting: Paired t-test: T(89) = −17.48; p <0.001, SRM = 1.85 (95 % CI 1.50–2.19), ES = 3.27 +/−
Doubtful design or method
Turner-Stokes 2009 No 164 SRM: non-weighed GAS = 2.23, weighed GAS = 2.29. Effect sizes: non-weighed GAS = 3.16, weighed GAS = 3.54 +/−
Doubtful design or method
Turner-Stokes 2010 Yes 90 The group was divided in responders and non-responders, based on the basis of their mean global benefit at the end of the study; across the whole sample, a change in GAS score from baseline of 6 predicted a positive response, with 52 % sensitivity, 85 % specificity, 81 % positive predictive value and 60 % negative predictive value. +/−
Doubtful design or method
Yip 1998 No 143 Standardized Response Mean was calculated for each instrument, by dividing the mean difference between post-treatment and pre-treatment status by the standard deviation of the mean change score. The SRM was 1.56 for GAS, compared with 0.89, 0.82, 0.72 and 0.54 for the Barthel, Katz, OARS-IADL, and SMMSE, respectively. +/−
Doubtful design or method