CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 341Psychometric Methodologies and TestingMental Health and PsychiatryPsychological Testing and Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 98 of the 98 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): properties and frontier of current knowledge

Open access
Aas, IH Monrad·2010·Annals of General Psychiatry
DOI 10.1186/1744-859x-9-20PMC PMC2880316
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is well known internationally and widely used for scoring the severity of illness in psychiatry. Problems with GAF show a need for its further development (for example validity and reliability problems). The aim of the present study was to identify gaps in current knowledge about properties of GAF that are of interest for further development. Properties of GAF are defined as characteristic traits or attributes that serve to define GAF (or may have a role to define a future updated GAF). METHODS: A thorough literature search was conducted. RESULTS: A number of gaps in knowledge about the properties of GAF were identified: for example, the current GAF has a continuous scale, but is a continuous or categorical scale better? Scoring is not performed by setting a mark directly on a visual scale, but could this improve scoring? Would new anchor points, including key words and examples, improve GAF (anchor points for symptoms, functioning, positive mental health, prognosis, improvement of generic properties, exclusion criteria for scoring in 10-point intervals, and anchor points at the endpoints of the scale)? Is a change in the number of anchor points and their distribution over the total scale important? Could better instructions for scoring within 10-point intervals improve scoring? Internationally, both single and dual scales for GAF are used, but what is the advantage of having separate symptom and functioning scales? Symptom (GAF-S) and functioning (GAF-F) scales should score different dimensions and still be correlated, but what is the best combination of definitions for GAF-S and GAF-F? For GAF with more than two scales there is limited empirical testing, but what is gained or lost by using more than two scales? CONCLUSIONS: In the history of GAF, its basic properties have undergone limited changes. Problems with GAF may, in part, be due to lack of a research programme testing the effects of different changes in basic properties. Given the widespread use, research-based development of GAF has not been especially strong. Further research could improve GAF.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1744-859x-9-20

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Fallmyr Ø, Repål A: Evaluering av GAF-skåring som del av Minste Basis Datasett [Evaluation of GAF-scoring as part of minimum basis dataset]. Tidsskr Nor Psykologforening. 2002, 39: 1118-1119.
  2. Rosse RB, Deutsch SI: Use of the Global Assessment of Functioning scale in the VHA: moving toward improved precision. Veterans Health Syst J. 2000, 5: 50-58.
  3. Karterud S, Pedersen G, Løvdal H, Friis S: S-GAF. Global funksjonsskåring - splittet versjon (Global Assessment of Functioning - Split version). Bakgrunn og skåringsveiledning. 1998, Oslo, Norway: Klinikk for Psykiatri, Ullevål sykehus
  4. Breakwell G, Millward L: Basic evaluation methods. 1995, Leicester, UK: British Psychological Society Books
  5. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH: Psychometric theory. 1994, New York, USA: McGraw-Hill Inc
  6. Hansagi H, Allebeck P: Enkät och intervju inom hälso- och sjukvård. Handbok för forskning och utvecklingsarbete [Questionnaires and interviews in healthcare. Handbook for research and development]. 1994, Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur
  7. Lingjærde O, Bech P, Malt U, Dencker SJ, Elgen K, Ahlfors UG: Skalaer for diagnostikk og sykdomsgradering ved psykiatriske tilstander. Del 1: Metodologiske aspekter [Diagnostic scales and disease grading in psychiatry. Part 1: Methodologic aspects]. Nord J Psychiatry. 1989, 43 (Suppl 19): 1-39.
  8. Gonella JS: Clinical criteria for disease staging. 1983, Santa Barbara, CA, USA: Systemetrics Inc
  9. First MB: Mastering DSM-IV Axis V. J Pract Psychiatry Behav Health. 1995, 1: 258-259.
  10. Aas IHM: Poliklinikker og dagkirurgi. Virksomhets-beskrivelse for ambulant helsetjeneste [Outpatient clinics and daysurgery. Describing the activity of ambulatory care]. 1991, Göteborg, Sweden: NHV-rapport 1991:4, Nordic School of Public Health
  11. Gelder M, Mayou R, Geddes J: Psychiatry. 2006, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 341

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Aas, I. M.
Venue
Annals of General Psychiatry
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2010-05-07
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
20-20
ISSN
1744-859X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1744-859x-9-20
PMC
PMC2880316
OpenAlex
W2157799751
Cited by
341
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 9
FWCI
15.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Annals of General Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Mental Health and Psychiatry
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
Global Assessment of Functioning, disease severity, psychiatric rating scales, scale development, anchor points, scale reliability and validity, positive mental health, prognosis

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