GAF ratings made by an individual rater can be used to measure changes and outcomes at the group level. However, the measurement error is too large for assessment of change for an individual patient, in which case it might be necessary to use several raters. If raters are positively inclined to use rating instruments, measurement errors are minimized and reliability is maximized.

No abstract

The GAF can be used as a comprehensive measure of global mental health in routine clinical work for assessment and for outcome management.

Mental health inpatient milieus have repeatedly been found to be associated with passivity, social disengagement, and low levels of interaction with staff. However, little is known about patients' experiences related to different ward activities. In the present study, we aimed to study the reports of activities and associated experiences of patients admitted to acute psychiatric inpatient wards. Disengaged, inactive, and solitary activities were hypothesized to be associated with less reward and more distress than their counterparts. We also aimed to investigate if such activities predicted distress, and if they were associated with clinical severity. Participants (n = 102) recorded their activities along with concurrent ratings of reward and distress in a structured 1-day diary, and nurses provided clinical severity ratings. On average, 3.74 of the 11 hours assessed (34%) were spent doing nothing, only 0.88 hours (8%) were spent with staff, and most of the time was spent in solitude. Doing nothing, being alone, and passivity were associated with the greatest levels of distress and lowest levels of reward, whereas informal socializing demonstrated the opposite pattern. Distress was not predicted by activity or reward when adjusting for baseline distress. Clinical severity was not associated with the amount of time spent alone or the experience of reward during activity. In conclusion, the risk for passivity and social disengagement during admission prevails. This activity pattern could have detrimental emotional consequences and warrants action, but more studies are needed to determine if activity actually precedes emotional experience.

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Swedish version of the self-rated 36-item WHODAS 2.0 in patients from Swedish psychiatric outpatient settings, using classical test theory. Methods: The 36-item WHODAS 2.0, together with the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), was filled in by a sample of 780 participating psychiatric patients: 512 (65.6%) women, 263 (33.7%) men, and 5 (0.6%) who did not report any sex. Results: The internal consistency, measured by Cronbach's alpha, for the different domains of functioning were between 0.70 and 0.94, and interpreted as good. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed two levels: the first level consisted of a general disability factor, while the second level consisted of the six domains of the scale, respectively. The model had borderline fit. There was a significant correlation between WHODAS 2.0 36-item and SDS (n ¼ 395). The WHODAS 2.0 differed significantly between diagnostic groups. Conclusion:The present study demonstrates that the Swedish self-rated 36-item version of WHODAS 2.0, within a psychiatric outpatient population, showed good reliability and convergent validity. We conclude that the self-rated 36-item Swedish version of WHODAS 2.0 can be used for valid interpretations of disability in patients with psychiatric health conditions.