BACKGROUND: Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is a responsive method for individual goal setting and treatment evaluation. However, current knowledge about its reliability when used in paediatric rehabilitation treatment is insufficient and depends highly on standardization of the GAS method. A training programme was developed to introduce GAS to a team of 27 professionals from five disciplines. The purpose of the paper is to share the experiences of professionals and parents during this training. METHODS: The training consisted of three 2-h general discussion sessions and intensive individual feedback from the study leader (i.e. the first author). Feedback was given until the GAS scales met predetermined criteria of ordinality, described specific, measurable, acceptable, realistic abilities and activities in a single dimension, used the 'can-do' principle and could be scored within 10 min. Therapists and parents were asked to give their opinion by completing a questionnaire. RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen GAS scales were developed and scored by professionals. The development of a GAS scale remained a time-consuming procedure, despite the training: 45 (SD = 27) minutes per scale. The content criteria of GAS were found to be useful by all participants. Common issues requiring revision of the initial scales were equal scale intervals, specificity, measurability and selection of a single variable. After the training, 70% of the therapists and 60% of the parents regarded GAS as a suitable tool to improve the quality of rehabilitation treatment. Examples of GAS scales developed by the various disciplines are presented and discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The experiences reported in this paper support the further development of training procedures for GAS before it can be used as an outcome measure in effect studies. The findings may be helpful in introducing GAS in the field of childhood disability.
BACKGROUND: Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is a responsive method for individual goal setting and treatment evaluation. However, current knowledge about its reliability when used in paediatric rehabilitation treatment is insufficient and depends highly on standardization of the GAS method. A training programme was developed to introduce GAS to a team of 27 professionals from five disciplines. The purpose of the paper is to share the experiences of professionals and parents during this training. METHODS: The training consisted of three 2-h general discussion sessions and intensive individual feedback from the study leader (i.e. the first author). Feedback was given until the GAS scales met predetermined criteria of ordinality, described specific, measurable, acceptable, realistic abilities and activities in a single dimension, used the 'can-do' principle and could be scored within 10 min. Therapists and parents were asked to give their opinion by completing a questionnaire. RESULTS: One hundred and fifteen GAS scales were developed and scored by professionals. The development of a GAS scale remained a time-consuming procedure, despite the training: 45 (SD = 27) minutes per scale. The content criteria of GAS were found to be useful by all participants. Common issues requiring revision of the initial scales were equal scale intervals, specificity, measurability and selection of a single variable. After the training, 70% of the therapists and 60% of the parents regarded GAS as a suitable tool to improve the quality of rehabilitation treatment. Examples of GAS scales developed by the various disciplines are presented and discussed. CONCLUSIONS: The experiences reported in this paper support the further development of training procedures for GAS before it can be used as an outcome measure in effect studies. The findings may be helpful in introducing GAS in the field of childhood disability.
Authors: Kenneth Meijer; R Jeroen Vermeulen; Irene Moll; Rik G J Marcellis; Marcel L P Coenen; Sabine M Fleuren; Paul J B Willems; Lucianne A W M Speth; M Adhiambo Witlox Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Laura A Bonouvrié; Jules G Becher; Johannes S H Vles; Karin Boeschoten; Dan Soudant; Vincent de Groot; Willem J R van Ouwerkerk; Rob L M Strijers; Elisabeth Foncke; Joke Geytenbeek; Peter M van de Ven; Onno Teernstra; R Jeroen Vermeulen Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Alexander Hoorntje; Suzanne Waterval-Witjes; Koen L M Koenraadt; P Paul F M Kuijer; Leendert Blankevoort; Gino M M J Kerkhoffs; Rutger C I van Geenen Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2020-08-19 Impact factor: 6.558