Compară metode
Examinează metodele selectate una lângă alta; rândurile care diferă sunt evidențiate.
| Standardized Clinical Cutoff× | Goal Attainment Scaling× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domeniu | Social Work | Social Work |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anul apariției≠ | 1991 | 1968 |
| Autorul original≠ | Neil S. Jacobson & Paula Truax | Thomas J. Kiresuk & Robert E. Sherman |
| Tip≠ | Method for judging whether individual change on a standardized measure is reliable and clinically meaningful | Individualized, criterion-referenced outcome measurement procedure |
| Sursa seminală≠ | Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 12–19. 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 ↗ |
| Denumiri alternative | Clinical Cutoff Score, Clinical Significance Method, Reliable Change Index, Jacobson-Truax Method | GAS, Goal Attainment Scale, Kiresuk-Sherman Goal Attainment Scaling, Individualized Goal Scaling |
| Înrudite | 3 | 3 |
| Rezumat≠ | The standardized clinical cutoff approach, developed by Jacobson and Truax, judges whether an individual client's change on a standardized measure is both statistically reliable and clinically meaningful. It pairs a Reliable Change Index — which asks whether a pre-to-post change is larger than the measurement error of the instrument — with a cutoff score that marks the boundary between the dysfunctional and functional (normal) populations. A client who moves reliably across that cutoff is counted as recovered, giving practice and research a defensible, individual-level definition of meaningful improvement. | 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. |
| ScholarGateSet de date ↗ |
|
|