GOAL ATTAINMENT SCALING: MEASURING CHANGE IN APS ELDER ABUSE INTERVENTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult protective services (APS) involvement with elder abuse cases carries the primary objective to reduce risk of re-victimization. Knowledge of effective APS intervention in elder abuse cases is scant. Intervention research is constrained by an absence of outcome measures that can assess change on re-victimization risk status over the course of intervention. Re-victimization risk is difficult to measure due to its multifarious/heterogeneous nature across cases. This presentation will present findings from a prospective study with the State of Maine APS to examine the feasibility of goal attainment scaling (GAS). GAS is a client-centered measure of client change that accommodates case heterogeneity. Based on qualitative interviews with APS caseworkers/management, we will present themes of GAS implementation challenges, feasibility, and best practices. We will also present caseworker focus group findings on constructing a menu of pre-worded GAS scales, which span several areas of risk including living arrangement, safety planning, and social support/engagement.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".