A Systematic Review of Validation Practices for the Goal Attainment Scaling Measure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Goal attainment scaling (GAS) is an internationally recognized measure that is widely used in educational, counseling, and clinical settings to identify and evaluate relevant goals for an individual. The GAS is an unusual measure because its content, which consists of goals, is formed by the respondent and/or users in the process of completing the GAS. Using the unified view of validity as a guiding framework, this systematic review examines validation practices and how goals are represented in this measure. This review demonstrates that validation practices tend to focus on aspects that do not support the overall construct validity of the measure, as well as reference to the GAS measure or GAS scores as a property. Several gaps in validity evidence and the various ways goals are conceptualized are described and discussed. The varying ways goals are considered suggest clarity is needed to enhance explanations and score meaning. This review urges researchers to consider ways validity and validation evidence can help verify the many claims that are made about this measure. Future validity research needs to consider application of a theoretical framework and response processes as key aspects of substantiating the construct measured by the GAS.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it