Goal Attainment Scaling: A Framework for Research and Practice in the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Field

Shogren, Karrie A.; Dean, Evan; Burke, Kathryn; Raley, Sheida K.; Taylor, Julie Lounds

doi:10.1352/1934-9556-59.1.7

Cited by 12 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Suggestions to address concerns with implementation include: requirements for adequate training and procedures 19,23,44,45 ; quality controls such as third-party review of the goals set and the outcomes attained 6,7,19,23,44,46,47 ; and, con rmation that goals are related to the intervention being assessed 44,47 . Such steps would also favourably affect the content validity and reliability of GAS, which has been criticised by some 21,44 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Goal Attainment Scaling as an Outcome Measure for Randomised Controlled Trials: A Systematic Scoping Review

Logan

Jegatheesan²,

Viecelli³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is an individualised outcome measure which can be used in research settings to assess achievement of participant-important priorities and goals. METHODS: A systematic scoping review was completed with the objective of: (1) Identifying the healthcare settings in which GAS has been used as an outcome measure. (2) Describing how GAS has been implemented by researchers in those trials. PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched without limits from their inceptions to 1 September 2021 for randomised controlled trials conducted in healthcare settings where GAS was used as an outcome measure for adults. Two reviewers independently completed both the screening and data extraction, with a third adjudicating conflicts. RESULTS: Of 1,764 articles screened, 37 studies were included. Most trials (86%) were solely undertaken in outpatient settings. They were frequently conducted within the disciplines of rehabilitation (57%), geriatric medicine (24%) and neurology (11%). Sample sizes ranged from 8 to 468, with a mean of 84 participants. GAS was a primary outcome measure in 38% of studies. There were inconsistencies between trials in the use of scales and the calculation of GAS scores. Implementation aspects such as the personnel involved, the training provided, and calibration and review mechanisms, were heterogeneously and scarcely reported. CONCLUSIONS: GAS has been used as an outcome measure across a wide range of disciplines and trial settings. However, there are inconsistencies in how it has been applied and implemented. Developing a cross-disciplinary practical guide to support a degree of standardisation in its implementation may be beneficial in increasing the reliability and comparability of trial results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Goal Attainment Scaling as an Outcome Measure for Randomised Controlled Trials: A Systematic Scoping Review

Logan

Jegatheesan²,

Viecelli³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These levels of goal attainment are to be directly linked to the goal and reasonable expectations of attainment within a specific timeframe. Researchers have developed specific procedures to promote reliability and validity of GAS ratings (Krasny-Pacini et al, 2016), including different protocols for identifying goals for GAS and for developing and rating attainment using the GAS rubric (Shogren, Dean, et al, in press). In this C-RCT, students identified their own goals and developed their own GAS rubrics, after receiving instruction delivered by teachers as part of SDLMI implementation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, little is known about having students lead the GAS process. Although researchers have stressed the importance of directly involving research participants in goal setting when using GAS (e.g., Krasny-Pacini et al, 2016; Shankar et al, 2020; Shogren, Dean, et al, in press), there is no agreement on how to involve participants in developing the GAS rubric, making ratings, and determining the implications for data analysis and interpretation of outcomes. Such issues are particularly important to consider when scaling-up evidence-based interventions that target goal attainment in secondary settings, such as the SDLMI, as requiring teachers or research team members to establish individualized GAS rubrics for each student in an inclusive, general education class would be time-intensive.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Student and Teacher Perceptions of Goal Attainment During Intervention With the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major instructional focus of interventions designed to promote self-determination, such as the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI), is to engage students in learning to set their goals, identify action plans, and evaluate their performances. However, little is known about how students define their goal attainment outcomes, or the degree to which students and teachers agree the attainment of goal set using the SDLMI in inclusive general education classes. This study examined the relation between student and teacher ratings of goal attainment during the first semester of a longitudinal, cluster randomized controlled trial of the SDLMI, as well as the impact of student disability status and teacher supports for implementing the SDLMI (i.e., online resources vs. online resources + in-person coaching) on goal attainment. Findings suggested the feasibility of engaging students with and without disabilities in rating their goal attainment process during SDLMI in secondary schools, with kappa analysis indicating that, when credit is given for at least partial agreement between students and teachers, there is a fair amount of interrater agreement using conventional interpretation criteria. Importantly, however, conclusions drawn about the impact of student (i.e., disability status) and teacher factors (i.e., teacher implementation supports) on goal attainment outcomes are impacted by whether student or teaching ratings of goal attainment are utilized as the outcome measure. Implications for future research and practice are described.

show abstract

“…Depending on the study, it may not be feasible for community-based interventions to collect objective observational data from participants. Even in studies where direct observation is possible, behaviors related to goals and GAS rubrics may be challenging to consistently observe and rate during a restricted time period (Shogren et al, 2021). This is particularly true when there is a broad range of transition goals that are targeted to different contexts such as home, school, work, or the community.…”

Section: Development Of the Gas-cb Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…video demonstration or work samples) of specific behaviors or via self-, parent-, or professional-report. Although the three steps of GAS are the same across studies, the process can look very different depending on who sets the goals, who scales the goals, who rates attainment and how, and the ways to ensure reliability and validity (for further detail, see Ruble et al, 2012; Shogren et al, 2021).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Goal attainment scaling—community-based: A method to incorporate personalized outcomes into intervention research with youth and adults on the autism spectrum

Lee

Shogren

Segal

et al. 2021

Autism

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the wide heterogeneity in the autism population, one challenge for intervention studies is to identify outcome measures that have similar meaning across individuals. This is particularly pronounced in intervention studies of adults with autism spectrum disorder, where outcomes such as employment, independence, or community living are common targets. However, these outcomes can be more challenging to obtain for those who have greater support needs, for example, and therefore may be more or less salient depending on the sample under study. Goal attainment scaling can help address this issue as it allows individuals to identify personally meaningful goals and track progress toward these goals. While goal attainment scaling is gaining popularity in the autism field as an outcome measure, most intervention studies that use goal attainment scaling have been situated in clinical or school settings. Generating reliable and scalable goals outside of these settings can be challenging. In this article, we describe the promise of goal attainment scaling for tailoring individualized outcomes among youth and adults with autism spectrum disorder and discuss the challenges of current goal attainment scaling methods in community-based intervention research. We then describe a new goal attainment scaling approach that is rigorous, practical, and can be used across research settings to measure individualized outcomes. Lay abstract Among people with autism—all who have the same diagnosis—there are major differences on a nearly limitless number of areas, such as language, daily living skills, intellectual ability, sensory difficulties, and physical and mental health diagnoses. Despite these many differences, the targeted outcomes of intervention studies are often measured the same way across autistic adults, including outcomes such as getting a job, achieving greater independence, or getting more services. People have different goals and abilities, and it is important to have a way for intervention studies to measure outcomes in a way that is more personal to each individual. To address this issue, we developed a new approach—called “Goal Attainment Scaling—Community-based” or GAS-CB—to measure individualized outcomes across different research settings. In this article, we describe the need for individualized outcomes in autism intervention research and current approaches to gathering these outcomes, with our discussion focused on a method called goal attainment scaling. We then describe reasons why current goal attainment scaling approaches might not be useful in intervention research that takes place in the community. Finally, we discuss a new goal attainment scaling approach (GAS-CB) that can be flexibly used for research participants with very different characteristics.

show abstract

Goal Attainment Scaling: A Framework for Research and Practice in the Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Field

Cited by 12 publications

References 42 publications

Goal Attainment Scaling as an Outcome Measure for Randomised Controlled Trials: A Systematic Scoping Review

Goal Attainment Scaling as an Outcome Measure for Randomised Controlled Trials: A Systematic Scoping Review

Student and Teacher Perceptions of Goal Attainment During Intervention With the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction

Goal attainment scaling—community-based: A method to incorporate personalized outcomes into intervention research with youth and adults on the autism spectrum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About