ArticleCommunity mental health journal2018
A Qualitative Study of Clinicians Experience with Rating of the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) Scale.
Article in Community mental health journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protocol of the randomized double blind sham controlled AddVNS study of transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation mechanisms in depression.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- A process-oriented functional capacity assessment: First application of the neuropsychological evaluation of the UPSA (NEUPSA).Applied neuropsychology. Adult · 2026Article
- Article
- Clinical characteristics of 217 Chinese cases with depersonalization/derealization disorder.BMC psychiatry · 2024Article
- Moderate Alcohol Consumption Increases the Risk of Clinical Relapse in Male Depressed Patients Treated with Serotonin-Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Alcohol Consumption Is a Coping Mechanism for Male Patients with Severe Anxiety Disorders Treated with Antidepressants Monotherapy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Multiomics and blood-based biomarkers of electroconvulsive therapy in severe and treatment-resistant depression: study protocol of the DetECT study.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2024Article
- Serum Levels of Tumor Necrosis Factor-α and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor in the Subtypes of Clinical High Risk Individuals: A Prospective Cohort Study.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2023Article
- Correlation between duration of untreated psychosis and long-term prognosis in chronic schizophrenia.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Article
- Differences in functional connectivity density among subtypes of schizophrenic auditory hallucination.Brain imaging and behavior · 2020Article
- Self-esteem instability and affective instability in everyday life after remission from borderline personality disorder.Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation · 2020Article
- Functional brain alterations in auditory hallucination subtypes in individuals with auditory hallucinations without the diagnosis of specific neurological diseases and mental disorders at the current stage.Brain and behavior · 2020Article
- Brain function differences in drug-naïve first-episode auditory verbal hallucination-schizophrenia patients with versus without insight.Chinese medical journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The severity of illness in psychiatry is rated using the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale. The GAF scale is often used in both research settings and in the clinic. The scale ranges from 1 to 100 and is subdivided into ten 10-point intervals, each with verbal rating instructions called anchor points and examples. GAF is an instrument that needs improvement. Studying clinicians' experiences with this rating system may be important for developing improvements. The aim of this study was to collect information from clinicians about their experiences with the GAF instrument, and to collect their ideas on how the GAF scale can be improved, particularly in the area of verbal instructions (i.e., anchor points and examples). Qualitative interviews were performed with 25 clinicians. Through this interview process, several weaknesses of the GAF scale were revealed. We found that clinicians have unique experiences that can be important for the development of a better GAF scale. Rating with the GAF scale also requires sufficient collection of patient information.
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.