Article

A brief mental health outcome scale-reliability and validity of the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF).

Institute of Psychiatry, London.
The British Journal of Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 7.34). 06/1995; 166(5):654-9. DOI: 10.1192/bjp.166.5.654
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is a quick and simple measure of overall psychological disturbance. However, there is little research on the reliability and validity of this measure in severely mentally ill populations.
Multidisciplinary keyworkers assessed 103 patients at monthly intervals over a 6-month period. Overall GAF scores were obtained, with additional separate ratings for symptoms and disability. These were compared with changes in antipsychotic medication and support needs over the same period.
Satisfactory reliability was obtained for total GAF score and for symptom and disability measures, in spite of raters having only one brief training session. All GAF scores were associated with current support needs of patients. Symptom and disability scores were associated with changes in antipsychotic medication in the previous month. Only symptom score was associated with increases in antipsychotic medication at time of rating.
GAF proved to be a reliable and, within the limits of the indicators used, a valid measure of psychiatric disturbance in our sample of the severely mentally ill. Differences in relationships between the three GAF scores and medication/support needs indicate the usefulness of obtaining all three scores for monitoring levels and type of psychiatric disturbance in this population.

0 Followers
 · 
188 Views
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prior studies with schizophrenia patients described a reduced ability to discriminate between correct and false memories in terms of confidence compared to control groups. This metamemory bias has been associated with the emergence and maintenance of delusions. The relation to neuropsychological performance and other clinical dimensions is incompletely understood. In a cross-sectional study, metamemory functioning was explored in 32 schizophrenia patients and 25 healthy controls. Metamemory was assessed using a verbal recognition task combined with retrospective confidence level ratings. Associations of metamemory performance with six neuropsychological domains (executive functioning/problem solving, speed of processing, working memory, verbal and visual learning, and attention/vigilance) and psychopathological measures were analyzed. Results revealed a significantly smaller discrepancy between confidence ratings for correct and incorrect recognitions in the patient group. Furthermore, patients showed significantly lower recognition accuracy in the metamemory task and marked deficits in all neuropsychological domains. Across all participants, metamemory performance significantly correlated with executive functioning and working memory. No associations with delusions were found. This data confirms prior findings of metamemory biases in schizophrenia. Selective neuropsychological abilities seem to be modulating factors of metamemory functioning. Longitudinal studies in at risk mental state and first-episode patients are needed to reveal causal interrelations. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Psychiatry Research 12/2014; 225(3). DOI:10.1016/j.psychres.2014.11.040 · 2.68 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The clinical high risk (CHR) period is a phase denoting a risk for overt psychosis during which subacute symptoms often appear, and cognitive functions may deteriorate. To compare biological indices during this phase with those during first episode schizophrenia, we cross-sectionally examined sex- and age-matched clinical high risk (CHR, n=21), first episode schizophrenia patients (FESZ, n=20) and matched healthy controls (HC, n=25) on oddball and novelty paradigms and assessed the N100, P200, P3a and P3b as indices of perceptual, attentional and working memory processes. To our knowledge, this is the only such comparison using all of these event-related potentials (ERPs) in two paradigms. We hypothesized that the ERPs would differentiate between the three groups and allow prediction of a diagnostic group. The majority of ERPs were significantly affected in CHR and FESZ compared with controls, with similar effect sizes. Nonetheless, in logistic regression, only the P3a and N100 distinguished CHR and FESZ from healthy controls, suggesting that ERPs not associated with an overt task might be more sensitive to prediction of group membership. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Psychiatry Research Neuroimaging 11/2014; 231(2). DOI:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2014.11.012 · 2.83 Impact Factor