Comparable achievement of client-identified, self-rated goals in intervention and no-intervention groups: reevaluating the use of Goal Attainment Scaling as an outcome measure. Issue 10 (26th November 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Herdman, Katherine A.; Vandermorris, Susan; Davidson, Sylvia; Au, April; Troyer, Angela K.
• Is Part Of: Neuropsychological rehabilitation. Volume 29:Issue 10(2019)
• Page Start: 1600
• Page End: 1610
• Publication Date: 2019-11-26
• Subjects: Goal Attainment Scaling -- Rehabilitation interventions -- Randomised controlled trial -- Measurement instrument -- Goal setting; Brain damage -- Patients -- Rehabilitation -- Periodicals; Clinical neuropsychology -- Periodicals; 617.4810443
• DOI: 10.1080/09602011.2018.1432490
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0960-2011

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is widely used as a measure of client-centered outcomes in clinical interventions. There are few well-controlled studies using GAS, however, and this limits the conclusions that can be drawn about the determinants of goal attainment post-intervention. In collaboration with researchers, 67- community-dwelling older adults used GAS to establish individualised goals for lifestyle change and memory strategy use in a randomised controlled trial of a multidimensional memory program (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02087137). Participants were allocated to an intervention or no-contact control group. Goal attainment was self-rated by participants at baseline, immediate post-intervention, and six-week follow-up. A mixed-model analysis of variance revealed a main effect of time, but no main effect of group and no interaction between time and group. In both the intervention and control groups, respectively, T-scores increased from baseline ( M s = 37 and 37) to post-intervention ( M s = 52 and 50) and were stable at follow-up ( M s = 52 and 51). Results were similar using ordinal data interpretation. Comparable goal attainment in participants receiving intervention versus no intervention underscores the importance of control groups in evaluation studies utilising GAS as an outcome measure, and supports a possible therapeutic contribution of setting and rating goals with GAS.