Goal Attainment Scaling: WHY?

                Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is not a panacea for evaluation, but it is an effective evaluative tool that can be employed under two conditions.   

            First, the focus of the presenting problem must be relative in nature or operationally defined on a continuum.    Some examples include:

The above five examples are issues that I have seen or have personally used on GAS.    All of these issues are operationally defined ordinal, interval or ratio scales.

            Second, GAS assessments must include a time series element.    That is, a client’s issue (i.e., Level of Depression) is assessed over time.   Thus, GAS assumes that the relative nature of the phenomena address varies over time.    In more practical terms, clients get better or worse.  GAS has proven to be an impressive methodology to assess change over time.   

            GAS does not require a baseline, which is the central problem with Single System Designs.   In addition, a great deal of research has been completed related to reliability and validity issues for GAS [see GAS's Bibliography hot link for more information].   Academically, GAS is a simple idea that complies with some rigorous research standards.

            GAS has three impressive elements: a) assessment of the relative nature of the human experience; b) assessment of change over time; and c) impressive research support.    The normal human service practitioner will reply with "SO WHAT!!!!   GAS means nothing more except more paper work and less time with clients."    Just the opposite.   When GAS is used properly and in an earnest manner, it cuts back on paper work and facilitates greater focused interaction with clients.

 

            Next introduce the concept of mutuality.