The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Goal setting as an outcome measure: a systematic review
Abstract
Background: Goal achievement has been considered to be an important measure of outcome by clinicians working with patients in physical and neurological rehabilitation settings. This systematic review was undertaken to examine the reliability, validity and sensitivity of goal setting and goal attainment scaling approaches when used with working age and older people. Aims and objectives: To review the reliability, validity and sensitivity of both goal setting and goal attainment scaling when employed as an outcome measure within a physical and neurological working age and older person rehabilitation environment, by examining the research literature covering the 36 years since goal-setting theory was proposed. Methods: Data sources included a computer-aided literature search of published studies examining the reliability, validity and sensitivity of goal setting/goal attainment scaling, with further references sourced from articles obtained through this process. Main findings: There is strong evidence for the reliability, validity and sensitivity of goal attainment scaling. Empirical support was found for the validity of goal setting but research demonstrating its reliability and sensitivity is limited. Conclusions: Goal attainment scaling appears to be a sound measure for use in physical rehabilitation settings with working age and older people. Further work needs to be carried out with goal setting to establish its reliability and sensitivity as a measurement tool.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives
Locke, E. A. (1968) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(68)90004-4 · Cited by 2,409
(1991) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.148.1.102 · Cited by 647
Lezak, M. D. (1987) · Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · doi:10.1097/00001199-198703000-00009 · Cited by 236
Cited by
Langhorne, P., Bernhardt, J., & Kwakkel, G. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60325-5 · Cited by 2,726
Writing SMART rehabilitation goals and achieving goal attainment scaling: a practical guide
Bovend'Eerdt, T. J., Botell, R. E., & Wade, D. T. (2009) · Clinical Rehabilitation · doi:10.1177/0269215508101741 · Cited by 754
The effects and experiences of goal setting in stroke rehabilitation – a systematic review
Sugavanam, T., Mead, G., Bulley, C., Donaghy, M., & van Wijck, F. (2013) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.3109/09638288.2012.690501 · Cited by 226
Krasny-Pacini, A., Evans, J., Sohlberg, M. M., & Chevignard, M. (2016) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2015.08.424 · Cited by 151
Schölzel-Dorenbos, C. J. M., Meeuwsen, E. J., & Olde Rikkert, M. G. M. (2010) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607860903046495 · Cited by 124
Metadata
- Authors
- Hurn, J., Kneebone, I., & Cropley, M.
- Venue
- Clinical Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-09
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 756-772
- ISSN
- 0269-2155 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0873
- OpenAlex
- W2162855396
- Cited by
- 374
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 2.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Goal setting as an outcome measure: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0269215506070793
- The paper
- Hurn, J., Kneebone, I., & Cropley, M. (2006). Goal setting as an outcome measure: a systematic review. Clinical Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215506070793
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.