Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): Properties and Frontier of Current Knowledge

Overview

Journal Ann Gen Psychiatry

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Psychiatry

Date 2010 May 13

PMID 20459646

Citations 105

Authors

I H Monrad Aas

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is well known internationally and widely used for scoring the severity of illness in psychiatry. Problems with GAF show a need for its further development (for example validity and reliability problems). The aim of the present study was to identify gaps in current knowledge about properties of GAF that are of interest for further development. Properties of GAF are defined as characteristic traits or attributes that serve to define GAF (or may have a role to define a future updated GAF).

Methods: A thorough literature search was conducted.

Results: A number of gaps in knowledge about the properties of GAF were identified: for example, the current GAF has a continuous scale, but is a continuous or categorical scale better? Scoring is not performed by setting a mark directly on a visual scale, but could this improve scoring? Would new anchor points, including key words and examples, improve GAF (anchor points for symptoms, functioning, positive mental health, prognosis, improvement of generic properties, exclusion criteria for scoring in 10-point intervals, and anchor points at the endpoints of the scale)? Is a change in the number of anchor points and their distribution over the total scale important? Could better instructions for scoring within 10-point intervals improve scoring? Internationally, both single and dual scales for GAF are used, but what is the advantage of having separate symptom and functioning scales? Symptom (GAF-S) and functioning (GAF-F) scales should score different dimensions and still be correlated, but what is the best combination of definitions for GAF-S and GAF-F? For GAF with more than two scales there is limited empirical testing, but what is gained or lost by using more than two scales?

Conclusions: In the history of GAF, its basic properties have undergone limited changes. Problems with GAF may, in part, be due to lack of a research programme testing the effects of different changes in basic properties. Given the widespread use, research-based development of GAF has not been especially strong. Further research could improve GAF.

Citing Articles

Association Between Dynapenia/Sarcopenia, Extrapyramidal Symptoms, Negative Symptoms, Body Composition, and Nutritional Status in Patients with Chronic Schizophrenia.

Kamoi R, Mifune Y, Soriano K, Tanioka R, Yamanaka R, Ito H Healthcare (Basel). 2025; 13(1.

PMID: 39791654 PMC: 11720556. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare13010048.

Developing a European Psychotherapy Consortium (EPoC): Towards Adopting a Single-Item Self-Report Outcome Measure Across European Countries.

Goncalves M, Lutz W, Schwartz B, Oliveira J, Saarni S, Tishby O Clin Psychol Eur. 2024; 6(3):e13827.

PMID: 39678318 PMC: 11636744. DOI: 10.32872/cpe.13827.

A proof-of-concept analysis of data from the first NHS clinic for young adults with comorbid cannabis use and psychotic disorders.

Di Forti M, Bond B, Spinazzola E, Trotta G, Lynn J, Malkin R BJPsych Open. 2024; 11(1):e1.

PMID: 39663754 PMC: 11733490. DOI: 10.1192/bjo.2024.782.

Use and discontinuation of antipsychotic medication in 20 years following a first episode of schizophrenia: results from the OPUS trial.

Hansen H, Speyer H, Sturup A, Hjorthoj C, Ongur D, Nordentoft M Psychol Med. 2024; :1-11.

PMID: 39552396 PMC: 11650151. DOI: 10.1017/S0033291724002678.

Evaluation of a multi-component prevention concept for hazardous substance use among refugees in shared accommodations: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Lorenz M, Uricher J, Pauzar M, Michalak J, Laging M, Heidenreich T Trials. 2024; 25(1):770.

PMID: 39548555 PMC: 11566282. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-024-08558-z.

References

Moos R, Nichol A, Moos B . Global Assessment of Functioning ratings and the allocation and outcomes of mental health services. Psychiatr Serv. 2002; 53(6):730-7. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.53.6.730. View

Rey J, Starling J, Wever C, Dossetor D, Plapp J . Inter-rater reliability of global assessment of functioning in a clinical setting. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1995; 36(5):787-92. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1995.tb01329.x. View

Alaja R, Tienari P, Seppa K, Tuomisto M, Leppavuori A, Huyse F . Patterns of comorbidity in relation to functioning (GAF) among general hospital psychiatric referrals. European Consultation-Liaison Workgroup. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1999; 99(2):135-40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1999.tb07211.x. View

Van Gastel A, Schotte C, Maes M . The prediction of suicidal intent in depressed patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1997; 96(4):254-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1997.tb10160.x. View

Rosenbaum B, Valbak K, Harder S, Knudsen P, Koster A, Lajer M . The Danish National Schizophrenia Project: prospective, comparative longitudinal treatment study of first-episode psychosis. Br J Psychiatry. 2005; 186:394-9. DOI: 10.1192/bjp.186.5.394. View

Burlingame G, Dunn T, Chen S, Lehman A, Axman R, Earnshaw D . Selection of outcome assessment instruments for inpatients with severe and persistent mental illness. Psychiatr Serv. 2005; 56(4):444-51. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.56.4.444. View

Loevdahl H, Friis S . Routine evaluation of mental health: reliable information or worthless "guesstimates'?. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1996; 93(2):125-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1996.tb09813.x. View

First M . Clinical utility: a prerequisite for the adoption of a dimensional approach in DSM. J Abnorm Psychol. 2005; 114(4):560-4. DOI: 10.1037/0021-843X.114.4.560. View

Regier D . Dimensional approaches to psychiatric classification: refining the research agenda for DSM-V: an introduction. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2007; 16 Suppl 1:S1-5. PMC: 6879077. DOI: 10.1002/mpr.209. View

10.

Roy-Byrne P, Dagadakis C, Unutzer J, Ries R . Evidence for limited validity of the revised global assessment of functioning scale. Psychiatr Serv. 1996; 47(8):864-6. DOI: 10.1176/ps.47.8.864. View

11.

Vaillant G . Mental health. Am J Psychiatry. 2003; 160(8):1373-84. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.8.1373. View

12.

Luborsky L . Clinician's judgments of mental health. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1962; 7:407-17. DOI: 10.1001/archpsyc.1962.01720060019002. View

13.

Gift A . Visual analogue scales: measurement of subjective phenomena. Nurs Res. 1989; 38(5):286-8. View

14.

McGorry P . Issues for DSM-V: clinical staging: a heuristic pathway to valid nosology and safer, more effective treatment in psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry. 2007; 164(6):859-60. DOI: 10.1176/ajp.2007.164.6.859. View

15.

Conn V, Isaramalai S, Rath S, Jantarakupt P, Wadhawan R, Dash Y . Beyond MEDLINE for literature searches. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2003; 35(2):177-82. DOI: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2003.00177.x. View

16.

Wells K, Stewart A, Hays R, Burnam M, Rogers W, Daniels M . The functioning and well-being of depressed patients. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA. 1989; 262(7):914-9. View

17.

Rabinowitz J, Modai I . Understanding who improves after psychiatric hospitalization. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1994; 89(3):152-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1994.tb08085.x. View

18.

Feinstein A, Josephy B, Wells C . Scientific and clinical problems in indexes of functional disability. Ann Intern Med. 1986; 105(3):413-20. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-105-3-413. View

19.

McGorry P, Hickie I, Yung A, Pantelis C, Jackson H . Clinical staging of psychiatric disorders: a heuristic framework for choosing earlier, safer and more effective interventions. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2006; 40(8):616-22. DOI: 10.1080/j.1440-1614.2006.01860.x. View

20.

Wilczynski N, Haynes R . Optimal search strategies for identifying mental health content in MEDLINE: an analytic survey. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2006; 5:4. PMC: 1440861. DOI: 10.1186/1744-859X-5-4. View