Comparer des méthodes
Examinez les méthodes sélectionnées côte à côte ; les lignes qui diffèrent sont mises en évidence.
| Target Complaint Scaling× | Goal Attainment Scaling× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domaine | Social Work | Social Work |
| Famille | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Année d'origine≠ | 1966 | 1968 |
| Auteur d'origine≠ | Carolyn C. Battle, Jerome D. Frank & colleagues (Johns Hopkins) | Thomas J. Kiresuk & Robert E. Sherman |
| Type≠ | Individualized outcome measure based on client-elicited presenting complaints | Individualized, criterion-referenced outcome measurement procedure |
| Source fondatrice≠ | Battle, C. C., Imber, S. D., Hoehn-Saric, R., Stone, A. R., Nash, E. R., & Frank, J. D. (1966). Target complaints as criteria of improvement. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 20(1), 184–192. DOI ↗ | Kiresuk, T. J., & Sherman, R. E. (1968). Goal attainment scaling: A general method for evaluating comprehensive community mental health programs. Community Mental Health Journal, 4(6), 443–453. DOI ↗ |
| Alias | Target Complaints, Target Complaint Method, Battle Target Complaints, Target Problem Scaling | GAS, Goal Attainment Scale, Kiresuk-Sherman Goal Attainment Scaling, Individualized Goal Scaling |
| Apparentées≠ | 4 | 3 |
| Résumé≠ | Target complaint scaling is an individualized outcome measure in which the client names the specific complaints that brought them to treatment, each complaint is rated for severity at the outset and again at follow-up, and the change in those ratings indexes improvement. Introduced by Carolyn Battle, Jerome Frank, and colleagues at Johns Hopkins in 1966, it grounds outcome measurement in the client's own presenting problems rather than a fixed questionnaire, making it an early and influential model for person-centered, idiographic outcome assessment in psychotherapy and social work. | Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is a method for measuring the outcomes of an individualized intervention by writing, in advance, a small set of client-specific goals and defining for each a graded scale of possible outcomes from much worse than expected to much better than expected. After the intervention, the actual outcome on each goal is scored on this scale and the scores are combined into a single standardized index, allowing idiosyncratic, personally meaningful goals to be aggregated and compared across clients and programs. It was introduced by Thomas Kiresuk and Robert Sherman in 1968 to evaluate community mental health programs. |
| ScholarGateJeu de données ↗ |
|
|