OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to use the Generalizability Theory to investigate the reliability and precision of the split version of the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). MATERIALS: Six case vignettes were assessed by 2 samples; one by 19 experienced and independent raters and another by 58 experienced raters from 8 different day-treatment units, evaluating both symptom and function scores of GAF. METHODS: Generalizability studies were conducted to disentangle relevant variance components accounting for error variance in GAF scores. Furthermore, decision studies were conducted to estimate the reliability of different measurement designs, as well as precision in terms of error tolerance ratio. RESULTS: Both symptom and function scores of GAF were found to be highly generalizable, and a measurement design of 2 raters per subject was found to be most efficient with respect to reliability, precision, and use of resources. CONCLUSION: Both symptom and function scores of GAF seem highly consistent across experienced raters.
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to use the Generalizability Theory to investigate the reliability and precision of the split version of the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). MATERIALS: Six case vignettes were assessed by 2 samples; one by 19 experienced and independent raters and another by 58 experienced raters from 8 different day-treatment units, evaluating both symptom and function scores of GAF. METHODS: Generalizability studies were conducted to disentangle relevant variance components accounting for error variance in GAF scores. Furthermore, decision studies were conducted to estimate the reliability of different measurement designs, as well as precision in terms of error tolerance ratio. RESULTS: Both symptom and function scores of GAF were found to be highly generalizable, and a measurement design of 2 raters per subject was found to be most efficient with respect to reliability, precision, and use of resources. CONCLUSION: Both symptom and function scores of GAF seem highly consistent across experienced raters.
Authors: Johannes Langeveld; Inge Joa; Svein Friis; Wenche ten Velden Hegelstad; Ingrid Melle; Jan O Johannessen; Stein Opjordsmoen; Erik Simonsen; Per Vaglum; Bjørn Auestad; Thomas McGlashan; Tor K Larsen Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2012-03-23 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Melissa A Weibell; Wenche Ten Velden Hegelstad; Bjørn Auestad; Jørgen Bramness; Julie Evensen; Ulrik Haahr; Inge Joa; Jan Olav Johannessen; Tor Ketil Larsen; Ingrid Melle; Stein Opjordsmoen; Bjørn Rishovd Rund; Erik Simonsen; Per Vaglum; Thomas McGlashan; Patrick McGorry; Svein Friis Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: John A Engh; Svein Friis; Astrid B Birkenaes; Halldóra Jónsdóttir; Ole Klungsøyr; Petter A Ringen; Carmen Simonsen; Anja Vaskinn; Stein Opjordsmoen; Ole A Andreassen Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2009-01-27 Impact factor: 9.306
Authors: Trine V Lagerberg; Ole A Andreassen; Petter A Ringen; Akiah O Berg; Sara Larsson; Ingrid Agartz; Kjetil Sundet; Ingrid Melle Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2010-01-27 Impact factor: 3.630