Comparar métodos
Examine os métodos selecionados lado a lado; as linhas que diferem ficam destacadas.
| Self-Anchored Rating Scale× | Goal Attainment Scaling× | |
|---|---|---|
| Área | Social Work | Social Work |
| Família | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Ano de origem≠ | 2009 | 1968 |
| Autor original≠ | Codified in social-work practice evaluation by Bloom, Fischer & Orme | Thomas J. Kiresuk & Robert E. Sherman |
| Tipo≠ | Individualized self-report rating scale with client-defined anchors | Individualized, criterion-referenced outcome measurement procedure |
| Fonte seminal≠ | Bloom, M., Fischer, J., & Orme, J. G. (2009). Evaluating Practice: Guidelines for the Accountable Professional (6th ed.). Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. ISBN: 9780205458066 | 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 ↗ |
| Outros nomes | SARS, Self-Anchored Scale, Individualized Rating Scale, Client-Anchored Scale | GAS, Goal Attainment Scale, Kiresuk-Sherman Goal Attainment Scaling, Individualized Goal Scaling |
| Relacionados≠ | 4 | 3 |
| Resumo≠ | A self-anchored rating scale (SARS) is an individualized measurement tool in which a client rates a personally relevant target — a feeling, thought, or behavior that may not be captured by any standardized instrument — on a fixed numeric scale whose points the client and worker have anchored in advance with concrete, individually meaningful descriptions. Widely taught in social-work practice evaluation through Bloom, Fischer, and Orme's work, it lets a worker measure highly idiosyncratic internal states repeatedly and reliably, supplying the data for single-system designs when no off-the-shelf scale fits. | 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. |
| ScholarGateConjunto de dados ↗ |
|
|