Suitability of Goal Attainment Scaling in Older Adult Populations with Neurodegenerative Disease Experiencing Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Identifying responsive outcome measures for assessing functional change related to cognition, communication, and quality of life for individuals with neurodegenerative disease is important for intervention design and clinical care. Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) has been used as an outcome measure to formally develop and systematically measure incremental progress toward functional, patient-centered goals in clinical settings. Evidence suggests that GAS is reliable and feasible for use in older adult populations and in adult populations with cognitive impairment, but no review has assessed the suitability of GAS in older adults with neurodegenerative disease experiencing dementia or cognitive impairment, based on responsiveness. This study conducted a systematic review to evaluate the suitability of GAS as an outcome measure for older adult populations with neurodegenerative disease experiencing dementia or cognitive impairment, based on responsiveness. METHODS: The review was registered with PROSPERO and performed by searching ten electronic scientific databases (PubMed, Medline OVID, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus, OTSeeker, REHABDATA) and four registries (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://Clinicaltrials.gov" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Clinicaltrials.gov</ext-link>, Grey Literature Report, Mednar, OpenGrey). A summary measure of responsiveness (post-intervention minus pre-intervention mean GAS T-score) was compared across eligible studies using a random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias in included studies was assessed using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies with No Control Group. RESULTS: 882 eligible articles were identified and screened by two independent reviewers. Ten studies met inclusion criteria for the final analysis. Of the ten included reports, 3 focus on all-cause dementia, 3 on multiple sclerosis, 1 on Parkinson's disease, 1 on mild cognitive impairment, 1 on Alzheimer's disease, and 1 on primary progressive aphasia. Responsiveness analyses showed pre- and post-intervention GAS goals were significantly different from zero (Z = 7.48, p < 0.001), with post-intervention GAS scores being higher than pre-intervention GAS scores. Three included studies showed a high risk of bias, 3 showed a moderate risk of bias, and 4 showed a low risk of bias. Overall risk of bias of included studies was rated as moderate. CONCLUSION: GAS showed an improvement in goal attainment across different dementia patient populations and intervention types. The overall moderate risk of bias suggests that while bias is present across included studies (e.g., small sample size, unblinded assessors), the observed effect likely represents the true effect. This suggests that GAS is responsive to functional change and may be suitable for use in older adult populations with neurodegenerative disease experiencing dementia or cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".