ArticleCurrent psychiatry reviews2014
Collecting Information for Rating Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF): Sources of Information and Methods for Information Collection.
Article in Current psychiatry reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Network analysis of relationships among psychopathology, cognitive function, and psychosocial functioning in independent samples of Chinese with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.Psychological medicine · 2025Article
- Social cognition and bipolar disorder: pending questions and unexplored topics.Revista brasileira de psiquiatria (Sao Paulo, Brazil : 1999) · 2022Article
- Self-esteem instability and affective instability in everyday life after remission from borderline personality disorder.Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation · 2020Article
- Article
- A Qualitative Study of Clinicians Experience with Rating of the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) Scale.Community mental health journal · 2018Article
- A retrospective record review and assessment of cost of quetiapine use in a community psychiatric setting in the Sedibeng district of Gauteng.The South African journal of psychiatry : SAJP : the journal of the Society of Psychiatrists of South Africa · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGlobal Assessment of Functioning (GAF) is an assessment instrument that is known worldwide. It is widely used for rating the severity of illness. Results from evaluations in psychiatry should characterize the patients. Rating of GAF is based on collected information. The aim of the study is to identify the factors involved in collecting information that is relevant for rating GAF, and gaps in knowledge where it is likely that further development would play a role for improved scoring.
methodsA literature search was conducted with a combination of thorough hand search and search in the bibliographic databases PubMed, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, and Campbell Collaboration Library of Systematic Reviews.
resultsCollection of information for rating GAF depends on two fundamental factors: the sources of information and the methods for information collection. Sources of information are patients, informants, health personnel, medical records, letters of referral and police records about violence and substance abuse. Methods for information collection include the many different types of interview - unstructured, semi-structured, structured, interviews for Axis I and II disorders, semistructured interviews for rating GAF, and interviews of informants - as well as instruments for rating symptoms and functioning, and observation. The different sources of information, and methods for collection, frequently result in inconsistencies in the information collected. The variation in collected information, and lack of a generally accepted algorithm for combining collected information, is likely to be important for rated GAF values, but there is a fundamental lack of knowledge about the degree of importance.
conclusionsResearch to improve GAF has not reached a high level. Rated GAF values are likely to be influenced by both the sources of information used and the methods employed for information collection, but the lack of research-based information about these influences is fundamental. Further development of GAF is feasible and proposals for this are presented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.