Bolm W
Arbeitsbereich Psychosomatische Medizin und Psychotherapie, Universität, Würzburg.
Z Klin Psychol Psychopathol Psychother. 1994;42(2):128-38.
Standardized outcome measures are often criticized, individualized criteria being preferred. Goal attainment scaling (GAS) is such an individual evaluation tool. It aims at measuring, whether a patient attains, what is thought to be his potential. For 36 psychiatric patients outcome estimated by GAS was compared with traditional outcome-measures ("Brief psychiatric rating scale", BPRS, "Clinical global impression", CGI, outcome-scales of Strauss and Carpenter and a patient self-rating. Concurrent validity was sufficient, compared to BPRS, CGI and the scale "absence of symptoms". The other scales of Strauss and Carpenter and the patient self-rating did not correlate closely with GAS. Traditional interraterreliability was sufficient, but if two raters constructed separate scales for one patient, their GAS scores correlated weakly. GAS is recommended for further study in spite of its obvious shortcommings: there seems to be no other way of quantifying, to what degree a patient realized his individual potential.
标准化的结果测量方法常常受到批评，个性化标准更受青睐。目标达成量表（GAS）就是这样一种个体评估工具。它旨在衡量患者是否实现了被认为是其自身潜力的目标。对36名精神科患者采用GAS评估的结果与传统的结果测量方法（“简明精神病评定量表”，BPRS；“临床总体印象”，CGI；施特劳斯和卡彭特的结果量表以及患者自评）进行了比较。与BPRS、CGI和“无症状”量表相比，同时效度足够。施特劳斯和卡彭特的其他量表以及患者自评与GAS的相关性不紧密。传统的评分者间信度足够，但如果两名评分者为一名患者构建单独的量表，他们的GAS评分相关性较弱。尽管GAS存在明显缺点，但仍建议进一步研究：似乎没有其他方法可以量化患者在何种程度上实现了其个人潜力。
