Responsiveness of Goal Attainment Scaling in comparison to two standardized measures in outcome evaluation of children with cerebral palsy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the responsiveness of Goal Attainment Scaling compared with the Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) and the 66-item Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66) in multidisciplinary rehabilitation practice. DESIGN: Observational study. Pretest-posttest design. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS: Twenty-three children with cerebral palsy, aged 2-13 years. METHODS: Goal Attainment Scaling, PEDI and GMFM-66 assessments were performed before and after six months of treatment. Physical, occupational and speech therapists constructed and scored 6-point Goal Attainment Scaling scales meeting predetermined criteria, describing the main functional goal per discipline. The contents of the three measures were compared using International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health child and youth version (ICF-CY) codes. Spearman's rho correlations between Goal Attainment Scaling change scores per discipline and change scores obtained with the PEDI functional skills scales and GMFM-66 were calculated. Complete goal attainment was compared with significant change in terms of the standardized measures. RESULTS: Twenty per cent of the Goal Attainment Scaling items were not covered by items of the PEDI or the GMFM-66. Inconclusive correlations were found between Goal Attainment Scaling and PEDI change scores (r 0.28-0.64). Even after exclusion of the non-corresponding items, correlations were moderate (r 0.57-0.73). Of 39/64 Goal Attainment Scaling scales scored as complete goal attainment, 16 individual PEDI scores did not show change on the corresponding scale. Low correlation was found between Goal Attainment Scaling change scores and GMFM-66 change scores. CONCLUSION: Goal Attainment Scaling, PEDI and GMFM-66 were complementary in their ability to measure individual change over time in children with cerebral palsy. Using only the standardized instruments could have caused many individual rehabilitation goals actually attained being missed in the outcome evaluation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".