HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS Psychiatric Bulletin Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by OLIVER, P. Articles by CICCHETTI, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by OLIVER, P. Articles by CICCHETTI, D.

Use of the Global Assessment of Function scale in learning disability^*

Imperial College, Paterson Centre, London, UK

SHERVA COORAY, FRCPsych

Parkside Health NHS Trust, Kingsbury Community Unit, Brent, London, UK

PETER TYRER, FRCPsych and DOMENIC CICCHETTI, PhD

Department of Psychological Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK

Correspondence: Sherva Cooray, Consultant Psychiatrist, Parkside Health NHS Trust, Kingsbury Community Unit, Honeypot Lane, London NW9 9QY, UK

Declaration of interest None.

^* Paper presented at the second conference of the British and Irish Group for the Study of Personality Disorders (BIGSPD), University of Leicester, UK, 31 January to 3 February 2001.

Background The Global Assessment of Function (GAF) scale is widely used in adult psychiatric practice and research but it has not often been used in learning disability, which is inherently more complex.

Aims To evaluate the reliability of GAF in the assessment of learning disability.

Method GAF reliability was tested by simultaneous multiple rating of unselected case vignettes (n=19-25) from health professionals of different disciplines, under controlled conditions. Analysis of reliability was made with the intraclass correlation coefficient (R₁) with separate assessments to determine rater bias and individual performance of raters.

Results The results of three data-sets showed generally poor overall levels of agreement, with R₁ levels of 0.35 and 0.28 and somewhat better levels for current GAF scores (R₁=0.49). However, a subset of raters was identified that achieved much higher levels (R₁=0.54 to 0.74).

Conclusions The GAF, in its current format, is not reliable enough to be used in the routine assessment of learning disability. A subgroup of raters, however, have ratings that are, by current biostatistical criteria, sufficiently reliable.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. TYRER, C. DUGGAN, and J. COID Ramifications of personality disorder in clinical practice The British Journal of Psychiatry, January 1, 2003; 182 (44): s1 - s2. [Full Text] [PDF]