Global Assessment of Functioning

Last updated

The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is a numeric scale used by mental health clinicians and physicians to rate subjectively the social, occupational, and psychological functioning of an individual, i.e., how well one is meeting various problems in living. Scores range from 100 (extremely high functioning) to 1 (severely impaired).

Contents

The scale was included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) version 4 ( DSM-IV), but replaced in DSM-5 with the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS), a survey or interview with detailed items. The WHODAS is considered more detailed and objective than a single global impression. The main advantage of the GAF is its brevity. [1]

Development and exclusion from DSM-5

Interest in a quantifiable global rating of functioning dates back to as early as 1962 with the publication of the Health-Sickness Rating Scale (which was rated 0 to 100) by Luborsky et al. in the paper "Clinicians' Judgements of Mental Health". This was subsequently revised in 1976 as the Global Assessment Scale (GAS) in the paper "The Global Assessment Scale:Procedure for Measuring Overall Severity of Psychiatric Disturbance" by Endicott et al. The rating scale was further modified and published as the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale in the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV. Some versions of the scale stopped at 90 as the maximum score, and others extended to 100. Because the scale was most often used with people seeking health services, it would be rare to have scores over 90, as they would indicate not just a lack of symptoms, but also "superior functioning."

The related Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS) was initially described in a paper by Goldman et al. in 1992 in the paper "Revising Axis V for DSM-IV: A review of measures of social functioning." The DSM-IV included the SOFAS within the section "Criteria Sets and Axes Provided for Further Study." The SOFAS scale is similar to the GAF, but it only looks at social and occupational functioning rather than also considering symptom severity.

DSM-5 removed the multiaxial system, including Axis V disability and functioning; and the DSM-5 Task Force recommended the GAF be replaced by the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) in an effort to increase the reliability of scores.

Scale

91 – 100 No symptoms. Superior functioning in a wide range of activities, life's problems never seem to get out of hand, is sought out by others because of his or her many positive qualities. [Note that this range is not included in some versions of the GAF]
81 – 90 Absent or minimal symptoms (e.g., mild anxiety before an exam), good functioning in all areas, interested and involved in a wide range of activities, socially effective, generally satisfied with life, no more than everyday problems or concerns.
71 – 80 If symptoms are present, they are transient and expectable reactions to psychosocial stressors (e.g., difficulty concentrating after family argument); no more than slight impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., temporarily falling behind in schoolwork).
61 – 70 Some mild symptoms (e.g., depressed mood and mild insomnia) or some difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., occasional truancy, or theft within the household), but generally functioning pretty well, has some meaningful interpersonal relationships.
51 – 60 Moderate symptoms (e.g., flat affect and circumlocutory speech, occasional panic attacks) or moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., few friends, conflicts with peers or co-workers).
41 – 50 Serious symptoms (e.g., suicidal ideation, severe obsessional rituals, frequent shoplifting) or any serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning (e.g., no friends, unable to keep a job, cannot work).
31 – 40 Some impairment in reality testing or communication (e.g., speech is at times illogical, obscure, or irrelevant) or major impairment in several areas, such as work or school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood (e.g., depressed adult avoids friends, neglects family, and is unable to work; child frequently beats up younger children, is defiant at home, and is failing at school).
21 – 30 Behavior is considerably influenced by delusions or hallucinations or serious impairment, in communication or judgment (e.g., sometimes incoherent, acts grossly inappropriately, suicidal preoccupation) or inability to function in almost all areas (e.g., stays in bed all day, no job, home, or friends)
11 – 20 Some danger of hurting self or others (e.g., suicide attempts without clear expectation of death; frequently violent; manic excitement) or occasionally fails to maintain minimal personal hygiene (e.g., smears feces) or gross impairment in communication (e.g., largely incoherent or mute).
1 – 10 Persistent danger of severely hurting self or others (e.g., recurrent violence) or persistent inability to maintain minimal personal hygiene or serious suicidal act with clear expectation of death.
0 Inadequate information

Use in litigation

Montalvo attempts to substitute "social, occupational, or school functioning" for "overall level of functioning and carrying out activities of daily living". [2] It is possible to see the recourse of some degree of overlap because "social functioning" is arguably a subset of overall functioning and activities of daily living. However, it is arguable whether equivalence is clearly stated in DSM-IV-TR.

GAF scores were commonly used by the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) to help determine disability ratings for service-connected psychiatric disorders. The probative value given to GAF scores diminished since the 2013 publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), which eliminated GAF scores from the Manual's nosology because GAF scores do not demonstrate good reliability or construct validity. [3] [4]

On February 23, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), issued an opinion in Golden v. Shulkin. [5] ruling that, except for some older cases on appeal, the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) "... should not use [GAF scores] at all when assigning a psychiatric rating in cases where the DSM-5 applies." [6]

In disability cases before the Social Security Administration, the agency determines if the GAF is consistent with the narrative report and it is addressed as one technique for capturing the "complexity of clinical situations." [7] The agency noted the GAF is just one tool used by clinicians to develop the clinical picture. It cannot be used in isolation from the rest of the evidence to make a disability decision. The Commissioner of Social Security has acknowledged that the GAF system has some problems (anchor points, lack of standardization, not designed to predict an outcome, and requiring more supportive detail), but found that, if provided by an "acceptable medical source, a GAF is a medical opinion as defined in" the Regulations, and must be considered with all of the relevant evidence, but can be given "controlling weight" if well supported and not inconsistent with the other evidence. [8]

See also

Autism

Related Research Articles

<i>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders</i> American psychiatric classification

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is a publication by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) for the classification of mental disorders using a common language and standard criteria. It is an internationally accepted manual on the diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders, though it may be used in conjunction with other documents. Other commonly used principal guides of psychiatry include the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (CCMD), and the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual. However, not all providers rely on the DSM-5 as a guide, since the ICD's mental disorder diagnoses are used around the world, and scientific studies often measure changes in symptom scale scores rather than changes in DSM-5 criteria to determine the real-world effects of mental health interventions.

Pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS) is a historic psychiatric diagnosis first defined in 1980 that has since been incorporated into autism spectrum disorder in the DSM-5 (2013).

Adjustment disorder is a maladaptive response to a psychosocial stressor. It is classified as a mental disorder. The maladaptive response usually involves otherwise normal emotional and behavioral reactions that manifest more intensely than usual, causing marked distress, preoccupation with the stressor and its consequences, and functional impairment.

Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is the persistence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) into adulthood. It is a neurodevelopmental disorder, meaning impairing symptoms must have been present in childhood, except for when ADHD occurs after traumatic brain injury. Specifically, multiple symptoms must be present before the age of 12, according to DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. The cutoff age of 12 is a change from the previous requirement of symptom onset, which was before the age of 7 in the DSM-IV. This was done to add flexibility in the diagnosis of adults. ADHD was previously thought to be a childhood disorder that improved with age, but recent research has disproved this. Approximately two-thirds of childhood cases of ADHD continue into adulthood, with varying degrees of symptom severity that change over time and continue to affect individuals with symptoms ranging from minor inconveniences to impairments in daily functioning.

The Children's Global Assessment Scale (CGAS) is a numeric scale used by mental health clinicians to rate the general functioning of youths under the age of 18. Scores range from 1 to 90 or 1 to 100, with high scores indicating better functioning. Some versions omit the range from 91-100, as scores in this range would mean "superior functioning"—which rarely would be seen among people seeking health services.

The Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure (SWAP-200) is a psychological test for personality diagnosis and clinical case formulation, developed by psychologists Jonathan Shedler and Drew Westen. SWAP-200 is completed by a mental health professional based on their observations and knowledge of a patient, client, or assessment subject. The person being assessed does not interact with the test. Because SWAP-200 is completed by the clinician, diagnostic findings do not depend on the accuracy of information people disclose about themselves and test results can not be faked. The SWAP instruments are based on over two decades of empirical research described in more than 100 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. SWAP-200 has been translated into fifteen languages. Other SWAP instruments include the revised SWAP-II and the SWAP-II-A for adolescents.

The clinical global impression (CGI) rating scales are measures of symptom severity, treatment response and the efficacy of treatments in treatment studies of patients with mental disorders. It is a brief 3-item observer-rated scale that can be used in clinical practice as well as in researches to track symptom changes. It was developed by Early Clinical Drug Evaluation Program (ECDEU) team of researchers for use in NIMH-led clinical trials that could provide clinical judgment based assessment for determining the severity of symptoms and the treatment progress. This was meant to assess the patient's functioning prior to and after initiating medication in trials which is an important part of study process. Its 3 items assess, 1) Severity of Illness (CGI-S), 2) Global Improvement (CGI-I), and 3) Efficacy Index. Many researchers, while recognizing the validity of the scale, consider it to be subjective as it requires the user of the scale to compare the subjects to typical patients in the clinician experience.

The classification of mental disorders, also known as psychiatric nosology or psychiatric taxonomy, is central to the practice of psychiatry and other mental health professions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">DSM-5</span> 2013 edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), is the 2013 update to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the taxonomic and diagnostic tool published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). In 2022, a revised version (DSM-5-TR) was published. In the United States, the DSM serves as the principal authority for psychiatric diagnoses. Treatment recommendations, as well as payment by health care providers, are often determined by DSM classifications, so the appearance of a new version has practical importance. However, some providers instead rely on the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD), and scientific studies often measure changes in symptom scale scores rather than changes in DSM-5 criteria to determine the real-world effects of mental health interventions. The DSM-5 is the only DSM to use an Arabic numeral instead of a Roman numeral in its title, as well as the only living document version of a DSM.

Bipolar II disorder (BP-II) is a mood disorder on the bipolar spectrum, characterized by at least one episode of hypomania and at least one episode of major depression. Diagnosis for BP-II requires that the individual must never have experienced a full manic episode. Otherwise, one manic episode meets the criteria for bipolar I disorder (BP-I).

Personality disorders (PD) are a class of mental disorders characterized by enduring maladaptive patterns of behavior, cognition, and inner experience, exhibited across many contexts and deviating from those accepted by the individual's culture. These patterns develop early, are inflexible, and are associated with significant distress or disability. The definitions vary by source and remain a matter of controversy. Official criteria for diagnosing personality disorders are listed in the sixth chapter of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

The Health Dynamics Inventory (HDI) is a 50 item self-report questionnaire developed to evaluate mental health functioning and change over time and treatment. The HDI was written to evaluate the three aspects of mental disorders as described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM): "clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern...associated with present distress...or disability". This also corresponds to the phase model described by Howard and colleagues Accordingly, the HDI assesses (1) the experience of emotional or behavioral symptoms that define mental illness, such as dysphoria, worry, angry outbursts, low self-esteem, or excessive drinking, (2) the level of emotional distress related to these symptoms, and (3) the impairment or problems fulfilling the major roles of one's life.

Compulsive sexual behaviour disorder (CSBD), is an impulse control disorder. CSBD manifests as a pattern of behavior involving intense preoccupation with sexual fantasies and behaviours that cause significant levels of psychological distress, are inappropriately used to cope with psychological stress, cannot be voluntarily curtailed, and risk or cause harm to oneself or others. This disorder can also cause impairment in social, occupational, personal, or other important functions. CSBD is not an addiction, and is typically used to describe behavior, rather than "sexual addiction".

The Diagnostic Classification of Mental Health and Developmental Disorders of Infancy and Early Childhood is a developmentally based diagnostic manual that provides clinical criteria for categorizing mental health and developmental disorders in infants and toddlers. It is organized into a five-part axis system, which includes domains such as clinical disorders, relational context, medical and developmental conditions, psychosocial stressors, and functional emotional development. The book has been translated into several languages and is used globally for the assessment of children up to five years of age.

In personality pathology, dimensional models of personality disorders conceptualize personality disorders as qualitatively rather than quantitatively different from normal personality. They consist of extreme, maladaptive levels of certain personality characteristics. Within the context of personality psychology, a "dimension" refers to a continuum on which an individual can have various levels of a characteristic, in contrast to the dichotomous categorical approach in which an individual does or does not possess a characteristic. According to dimensional models personality disorders are classified according to which characteristics are expressed at which levels. This stands in contrast to the traditional categorical models of classification, which are based on the boolean presence or absence of symptoms and do not take into account levels of expression of a characteristic or the presence of any underlying dimension.

The ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS) is a parent-report or teacher-report inventory created by George J. DuPaul, Thomas J. Power, Arthur D. Anastopoulos, and Robert Reid consisting of 18–90 questions regarding a child's behavior over the past 6 months. The ADHD Rating Scale is used to aid in the diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children ranging from ages 5–17.

The Clinically Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) is an in-person clinical assessment for measuring posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The CAPS includes 30 items administered by a trained clinician to assess PTSD symptoms, including their frequency and severity. The CAPS distinguishes itself from other PTSD assessments in that it can also assess for current or past diagnoses of PTSD.

The Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (K-SADS) is a semi-structured interview aimed at early diagnosis of affective disorders such as depression, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorder. There are different versions of the test that have use different versions of diagnostic criteria, cover somewhat different diagnoses and use different rating scales for the items. All versions are structured to include interviews with both the child and the parents or guardians, and all use a combination of screening questions and more comprehensive modules to balance interview length and thoroughness.

The Child and Adolescent Symptom Inventory (CASI) is a behavioral rating checklist created by Kenneth Gadow and Joyce Sprafkin that evaluates a range of behaviors related to common emotional and behavioral disorders identified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, separation anxiety disorder, major depressive episode, mania, dysthymic disorder, schizophrenia, autism spectrum, Asperger syndrome, anorexia, and bulimia. In addition, one or two key symptoms from each of the following disorders are also included: obsessive-compulsive disorder, specific phobia, panic attack, motor/vocal tics, and substance use. CASI combines the Child Symptom Inventory (CSI) and the Adolescent Symptom Inventory (ASI), letting it apply to both children and adolescents, aged from 5 to 18. The CASI is a self-report questionnaire completed by the child's caretaker or teacher to detect signs of psychiatric disorders in multiple settings. Compared to other widely used checklists for youths, the CASI maps more closely to DSM diagnoses, with scoring systems that map to the diagnostic criteria as well as providing a severity score. Other measures are more likely to have used statistical methods, such as factor analysis, to group symptoms that often occur together; if they have DSM-oriented scales, they are often later additions that only include some of the diagnostic criteria.

References

  1. ↑ The GAF scale is presented and described in the DSM-IV-TR on page 34.
  2. ↑ Montalvo v. Barnhart, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44133 (W.D.N.Y. 2005).(RAMS 2011)
  3. ↑ Grootenboer, Esther M. V.; Giltay, Erik J.; van der Lem, Rosalind; van Veen, Tineke; van der Wee, Nic J. A.; Zitman, Frans G. (April 2012). "Reliability and validity of the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale in clinical outpatients with depressive disorders". Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 18 (2): 502–507. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01614.x. PMID   21223457.
  4. ↑ Vatnaland, T.; Vatnaland, J.; Friis, S.; Opjordsmoen, S. (April 2007). "Are GAF scores reliable in routine clinical use?". Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 115 (4): 326–330. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2006.00925.x. PMID   17355524. S2CID   2243075.
  5. ↑ Golden v. Shulkin, U.S. Vet.App. 16-1208 (p. 6) (2018), http://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/GoldenJ_16-1208.pdf Archived 2018-03-24 at the Wayback Machine
  6. ↑ Golden v. Shulkin (2018), p. 6.
  7. ↑ American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Washington, DC 1994 (pp. 25–35).
  8. ↑ AM-13066, Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) Evidence in Disability Adjudication, Effective July 22, 2013.
Listen to this article (3 minutes)
Sound-icon.svg
This audio file was created from a revision of this article dated 16 December 2006 (2006-12-16), and does not reflect subsequent edits.
(Audio help  · More spoken articles)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.