The feasibility of goal attainment scaling to measure case resolution in elder abuse and neglect adult protective services intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This pilot study describes implementation procedures of goal attainment scaling (GAS) and examines the feasibility of using GAS to measure the multifarious intervention outcome of case resolution in elder mistreatment (EM) adult protective services (APS). METHODS: Substantiated EM victims (n = 27) were recruited prospectively from the State of Maine APS. An adapted GAS approach was implemented involving development of a pre-populated goal scale menu and web-based GAS application. RESULTS: The GAS menu comprised 18 goals and corresponding scales spanning several domains of case resolution: social support, service access, health/functioning, enhancing independence, and protective measures. The overall GAS process had mean length 33.8 min per case. The mean GAS summary t-score (54.3) aligned with theoretical expectations. DISCUSSION: Without a measure of case resolution, research cannot compare the effectiveness of different EM intervention models. Findings suggest that GAS is a feasible, client-centered strategy to measure the multifarious EM intervention case resolution outcome.
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 | 0.039 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".