Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T22:21:41.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research Note: Inter-Rater Reliability of the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale in a Psychogeriatric Population*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2010

Roger Hildebrand ,
Erin McCann ,
Monty Nelson  and
Peter Wass
Roger Hildebrand*
Affiliation:
Alberta Mental Health Board, Ponoka Site
Erin McCann
Affiliation:
Alberta Mental Health Board, Ponoka Site
Monty Nelson
Affiliation:
Alberta Mental Health Board, Ponoka Site
Peter Wass
Affiliation:
Alberta Mental Health Board, Ponoka Site
*
Requests for offprints should be sent to: / Les demandes de tirés-a-part doivent être adressé e s à: Roger Hildebrand, Alberta Mental Health Board, Ponoka Site, P.O. Box 1000, Ponoka, ABT4J 1R8. ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this study was an examination of the inter-rater reliability for a psychogeriatric population of the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), Axis V of the DSM-IV Classification System,. One-hundred-and-eight psychogeriatric patients, admitted to an acute-care psychiatric hospital, were rated on the GAF by three clinicians: a psychiatrist, a physician, and a psychologist. The psychologist also conducted a cognitive screening assessment at the time of admission, as well as a second rating of global functioning, which was carried out at the time of transfer/discharge from the admission unit. Results indicated good inter-rater reliability, with values ranging from 0.78 to 0.86. Comparisons were also made between the admission and transfer/discharge GAF scores. Implications for improving the inter-rater reliability of the GAF are discussed.

Résumé

La raison d'être de cette recherche était l'examen de la fidélité inter-juges du « Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), Axis V » du Système de classification DSM-IV au sein d'une population psychogériatrique. Au total, 108 patients psychogériatriques admis à un hôpital psychiatrique de soins de courte durée ont été classés à l'aide du GAF par trois cliniciens : un psychiatre, un médecin et un psychologue. De plus, le psychologue a administré une évaluation de dépistage cognitif à l'admission de même qu'une deuxième classification du fonctionnement global lors du transfert / congé de l'unité d'admission. Les résultats démontrent une fiabilité inter-corrélative, les valeurs se chiffrant entre 0,78 et 0,86. Il y a comparaisons entre les résultats GAF lors de l'admission et du transfert / congé. La recherche discute des retombés pour l'amélioration de la fiabilité inter-corrélative du GAF.

Keywords

aginginter-rater reliability GAFvieillissementfidélité inter-juges GAF
Type
Research Note
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , Summer/L'été 2003 , pp. 229 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 2003

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.)

Footnotes

*

The authors wish to thank Cindy Berg, M.D., Isabelita Cesar, M.D., Christina Korsak, M.D., Jane Robinson, M.D., and Stephan Toal, M.D., for their assistance with this project. In addition, we would like to thank Charles Beck, Ph.D. for his helpful critique and comments in preparing this manuscript. Finally, the authors wish to express their gratitude to the Alberta Mental Health Board and especially to the geriatric psychiatry program for sponsoring this study.

References

Canadian Study of Health and Aging Working Group. (1994). Canadian study of health and aging: Study methods and prevalence of dementia. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 150 (6), 899–912.Google Scholar
Edson, R., Lavori, P., Tracy, K., Adler, L.A., Rotrosen, J., & the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study no. 394. (1997). Interrater reliability issues in multicenter trials, Part II: Statistical procedures used in Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study #394. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 33, 59–67.Google Scholar
Endicott, J., Spitzer, R.L., Fleiss, J.L., & Cohen, J. (1976). The Global Assessment Scale: A procedure for measuring overall severity of psychiatric disturbance. Archives of General Psychiatry, 33, 766–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
First, M.B. (1998, June). GAFTREE. Paper presented at the meeting on the Global Assessment of Functioning, Calgary, AB.Google Scholar
Hall, R.C.W. (1995). Global Assessment of Functioning: A modified scale. Psychosomatics, 36, 267–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kennedy, C.C., Madra, P., & Reddon, J.R. (1999). Assessing treatment outcome in psychogeriatric patients: The utility of the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale. Clinical Gerontologist, 20, 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loevdahl, H., & Friis, S. (1996). Routine evaluation of mental health: Reliable information or worthless “guesstimates”? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 93, 125–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luborsky, L. (1962). Clinician's judgement of mental health. Archives of General Psychiatry, 7, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piersma, H.L., & Boes, J.L. (1995). Agreement between patient self-report and clinical rating: Concurrence between the BSI and the GAF among psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53, 153–157.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piersma, H.L., & Boes, J.L. (1997). The GAF and psychiatric outcome: A descriptive report. Community Mental Health Journal, 33, 35–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Portney, L.G., & Watkins, M.P. (1993). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice. Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange.Google Scholar
Rey, J.M., Starling, J., Weaver, C., Dossetor, D.R., & Plapp, J.M. (1995). Inter-rater reliability of Global Assessment of Functioning in a clinical setting. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 787–792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shrout, P.E., & Fleiss, J.L. (1979). Intraclass Correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SPSS for Windows, Version 9.0 [Computer Software]. (2001). Chicago, IL: SPSS.Google Scholar
Teng, E.L., & Chui, H.C. (1987). The Modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) Examination. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 48, 314–318.Google ScholarPubMed
Yaffee, R.A. (1998). Enhancement of reliability analysis: Application of intraclass correlations with SPSS/Windows V.8. Retrieved May 15, 2003, from http://www.nyu.edu/its/socsci/Docs/intracls.htmlGoogle Scholar