Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) in Relation to the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) Scale in Functional Disorders and Organic Disorders in Psychogeriatric Inpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale were used with 70 Functional Disorders (mean age = 74.0 years) and 58 Organic Disorders (mean age = 79.2 years) psychogeriatric inpatients to evaluate treatment outcome; 48.6% of the Functional Disorders patients were discharged home whereas 81.0% of the Organic Disorders patients were discharged to long-term/ continuing care facilities. Mean admission (32.8 versus 18.6), discharge (60.4 versus 29.6), and GAF change scores (27.5 versus 10.9) differed significantly between the two groups of patients, with the Functional Disorders patients obtaining higher scores on all 3 GAF measures. Mean number of GAS goals (2.7 versus 2.6) and mean GAS T-score (50.8 versus 48.8) did not differ between patient groups. The GAF admission score was not significantly correlated with the GAS T-score in either the Functional Disorders or Organic Disorders patient groups but both the GAF change score (r = .30 and .41, respectively) and the GAF discharge score (r = .33 and .30, respectively) were significantly correlated with the GAS T-score.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".