Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3-2007
Teresa A. May-Benson
Occupational Therapy Associates
Clare A. Summers
The Children’s Hospital
Barbara Brett-Green
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center
Recommended Citation
Mailloux, Zoe; May-Benson, Teresa A.; Summers, Clare A.; Miller, Lucy Jane; Brett-Green, Barbara;
Burke, Janice P.; Cohn, Ellen S.; Koomar, Jane A.; Parham, L Diane; Roley, Susanne Smith; Schaaf,
Roseann C.; and Schoen, Sarah A., "Goal attainment scaling as a measure of meaningful outcomes
for children with sensory integration disorders." (2007). Department of Occupational Therapy Faculty
Papers. Paper 46.
http://jdc.jefferson.edu/otfp/46
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Jefferson Digital Commons. The Jefferson Digital Commons is a service of Thomas
Jefferson University's Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL). The Commons is a showcase for Jefferson books and journals, peer-reviewed scholarly
publications, unique historical collections from the University archives, and teaching tools. The Jefferson Digital Commons allows researchers and
interested readers anywhere in the world to learn about and keep up to date with Jefferson scholarship. This article has been accepted for inclusion in
Authors
Zoe Mailloux, Teresa A. May-Benson, Clare A. Summers, Lucy Jane Miller, Barbara Brett-Green, Janice P.
Burke, Ellen S. Cohn, Jane A. Koomar, L Diane Parham, Susanne Smith Roley, Roseann C. Schaaf, and Sarah
A. Schoen
KEY WORDS Goal attainment scaling (GAS) is a methodology that shows promise for application to intervention effective-
• goal attainment scaling (GAS) ness research and program evaluation in occupational therapy (Dreiling & Bundy, 2003; King et al., 1999;
• pediatric Lannin, 2003; Mitchell & Cusick, 1998). This article identifies the recent and current applications of GAS to
occupational therapy for children with sensory integration dysfunction, as well as the process, usefulness, and
• sensory integration
problems of application of the GAS methodology to this population. The advantages and disadvantages of
• sensory processing using GAS in single-site and multisite research with this population is explored, as well as the potential solu-
tions and future programs that will strengthen the use of GAS as a measure of treatment effectiveness, both
in current clinical practice and in much-needed larger, multisite research studies.
Zoe Mailloux, MA, OTR/L, FAOTA, is Director of
Administration, Pediatric Therapy Network, 1815 West 213th
Street, Suite 100, Torrance, CA 90501; zoem@PTNmail.org. Mailloux, Z., May-Benson, T. A., Summers, C. A., Miller, L. J., Brett-Green, B., Burke, J. P., et al. (2007). The Issue Is—
Teresa A. May-Benson, ScD, OTR/L, is Research Goal attainment scaling as a measure of meaningful outcomes for children with sensory integration disorders. Amer-
Director, The SPIRAL Foundation; and Clinical Specialty ican Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 254–259.
Director, Occupational Therapy Associates, Watertown, MA.
Clare A. Summers, MA, OTR, is Occupational Thera-
pist, The Children’s Hospital, Denver, CO.
Lucy Jane Miller, PhD, OTR, FAOTA, is Associate
Clinical Professor, Departments of Rehabilitation Medicine
and Pediatrics, University of Colorado at Denver and Health
Sciences Center; Director, Sensory Therapies and Research
(STAR) Center; and Director, KID Foundation, Greenwood
W ith the ultimate aim of enhancing par-
ticipation and engagement in mean-
ingful life activities, occupational therapists
measures (Miller, 2003a; Miller & Kin-
neally, 1993). Identifying standardized
means to capture the diversity of meaning-
Village, CO.
Barbara Brett-Green, PhD, is Assistant Professor, establish goals with individual people and ful, functional outcomes that are noted by
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences their families that are infinitely unique and therapists, families, and individuals who
Center; Senior Researcher, KID Foundation, Greenwood
Village, CO.
diverse (Crepeau, Cohn, & Schell, 2003). participate in occupational therapy apply-
Janice P. Burke, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA, is Professor and The array of potential outcomes after inter- ing a sensory integration approach (OT-SI)
Chair, Department of Occupational Therapy; and Dean, vention creates rich clinical practice but presents a special challenge to conducting
wJefferson School of Health Professions, Thomas Jefferson
University, Philadelphia.
makes implementing effectiveness research reliable and relevant effectiveness research.
Ellen S. Cohn, ScD, OTR/L, FAOTA, is Clinical Associ- complex. For more than 40 years (Ayres, The purpose of this article is to describe the
ate Professor, Boston University–Sargent College of Health 1965, 1966; Parham & Mailloux, 2004), efforts of a collaborative team of occupa-
and Rehabilitation Sciences, Boston.
occupational therapists have identified tional therapists to explore the potential of
Jane A. Koomar, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA, is Owner and
Executive Director, Occupational Therapy Associates, PC, signs of poor or inefficient sensory process- goal attainment scaling (GAS) as a mea-
and The SPIRAL Foundation, Watertown, MA. ing and motor planning or coordination surement methodology that would cap-
L. Diane Parham, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA, is Associate functions—collectively known as sensory ture, in a reliable and valid manner, the
Professor, Division of Occupational Science and Occupational
Therapy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. integration disorders—among various clin- diverse gains noted after use of the OT-SI
Susanne Smith Roley, MS, OTR/L, FAOTA, is Project ical populations. Research studies examin- approach.
Director, USC/WPC Comprehensive Program in Sensory ing the effectiveness of occupational ther-
Integration, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles; and Coordinator of Education and Research, apy intervention with clients who have
Pediatric Therapy Network, Torrance, CA. sensory integration problems have shown
Goal Attainment Scaling
Roseann C. Schaaf, PhD, OTR/L, FAOTA, is Associate mixed results, as demonstrated by more GAS is a method originally developed for
Professor, Vice Chair, and Director of Graduate Studies,
Department of Occupational Therapy, Thomas Jefferson than 75 original studies, 2 meta-analyses, adults in the mental health arena as a pro-
University, Philadelphia. and 4 review papers (Parham et al., 2007). gram evaluation tool that facilitates patient
Sarah A. Schoen, PhD, OTR, is Clinical Instructor, Uni- These studies clearly point out the chal- participation in the goal-setting process
versity of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center;
Director of Occupational Therapy, STAR Center; and Senior lenge of defining intervention in a standard (Kiresuk, Smith, & Cardillo, 1994). The
Researcher, KID Foundation, Greenwood Village, CO. way and identifying appropriate outcome GAS methodology is congruent with the
CONCERN: Inability to participate in a family dinner due to oversensitivities to textures, tastes, smells, and sound.
GOAL: To be able to participate in a family meal at home, at friends’ and relatives’ homes, and at a restaurant, by decreasing oversensitivities to textures, smells,
taste, and noise.
INTERVENTION PERIOD: 20 sessions
–2 –1 0 +1 +2
Much Less Than Expected Level Less Than Expected Level Expected Level of Performance Better Than Expected Level Much Better Than Expected Level
Tolerates the family eating Tolerates 2 new foods on table Tolerates 2 new foods placed Takes 1 bite of 2 new foods Eats multiple bites of 2 new
area during mealtime without or other family members’ on own plate without signs of during a meal without signs of foods without signs of dis-
signs of discomfort or dis- plates without signs of dis- discomfort or distress (e.g., discomfort or distress (e.g., comfort or distress (e.g.,
tress (e.g., crying, gagging, comfort or distress (e.g., crying, gagging, whining, or crying, gagging, whining, or crying, gagging, whining, or
whining, or leaving the table crying, gagging, whining, or leaving the table or room), leaving the table or room), leaving the table or room),
or room), 4 of 5 opportunities. leaving the table or room), 4 of 5 opportunities. 4 of 5 opportunities. 4 of 5 opportunities.
4 of 5 opportunities.
and posttest changes in behavioral Multisite clinical application of GAS. In the three clinical sites examined the use of
responses using traditional standardized 2001, a federal multisite R21 planning GAS to measure change in clinical practice
assessments, including the Child Behavior grant from the National Center for Medi- on a trial basis as a part of their facilities’
Checklist (Achenbach, 1991), the Short cal Rehabilitation Research (NCMRR) ongoing program evaluation. All of the
Sensory Profile (McIntosh, Miller, Shyu, & (National Institutes of Health/National clinical sites routinely developed therapeu-
Dunn, 1999), and the Leiter International Institute of Child Health and Human tic goals for every child receiving services at
Performance Scale–Parent Rating (Roid & Development/NCMRR) supported collab- their facility as part of their regular inter-
Miller, 1997), as well as physiological mea- oration among four university-based vention programs, so GAS was easily incor-
sures such as electrodermal responses and research programs paired with three well- porated into this process.
heart period variability. Additionally, par- established clinical intervention sites. The To implement the GAS process in the
ents were interviewed at the initiation of teams included the University of Colorado clinical settings, primary GAS goal writers
the study to establish objectives written Health Sciences Center and The Children’s were identified and trained. The occupa-
according to the GAS process. Objectives Hospital, Denver; the University of South- tional therapists practiced writing several
were developed to reflect potential inter- ern California and Pediatric Therapy Net- goals and received feedback from members
vention outcomes that were meaningful to work, Torrance; Boston University and of the collaborative team. A general proce-
the parents and family and that were not Occupational Therapy Associates–Water- dure for goal writing and scaling was devel-
typically reflected in the standardized and town; and Thomas Jefferson University, oped and agreed on by all therapists to
physiological measures. Exit interviews Philadelphia. The goal of this grant was to ensure similar increments for scaling. Next,
with parents were conducted to evaluate the form a multisite team of clinicians and each site used the GAS procedure with sev-
functional gains made by children. researchers to plan for collaborative effec- eral children in their facility. All therapists
Results of this study showed some tiveness studies of OT-SI. The collabora- met with parents in an initial goal-setting
changes on various behavioral and physio- tive team identified three primary issues meeting and wrote 3–5 scaled goals per par-
logical measures. However, GAS measures that had to be addressed before the initia- ticipating child. All children received
reflected the most significant gains with a tion of multisite intervention projects: (a) 20–30 sessions of OT-SI, usually provided
pretreatment and posttreatment difference identify comprehensive physiological and for 1 hr, twice per week. After all sessions
score (M = 25.31, SD = 11.71, p < .0001) behavioral evaluation measures for children were completed, a follow-up meeting was
and a large effect size of 2.16. In contrast, thought to have sensory integration dis- conducted with the parents to rate the chil-
the average effect size of the other outcome orders, (b) identify the primary characteris- dren’s progress on the goals. Three months
measures was .50. Thus, scaling goals using tics of OT-SI so intervention would be reli- after implementing the GAS process in the
GAS appeared to be the most sensitive able across sites and develop a means of clinical setting, participants from the three
means to reflect change in individual chil- assuring fidelity to this intervention, and clinical sites compared the application of
dren after their participation in occupa- (c) identify measurement methodologies GAS in their individual programs, identi-
tional therapy. Further, this study demon- that would reflect the functional and fied strengths and weaknesses of GAS, and
strated that GAS could capture individual meaningful gains made after OT-SI made recommendations for application to
changes in daily life occupations that are (Miller, 2003b). multisite research.
functional, meaningful alterations in occu- The collaborative team identified GAS The team concluded that
pational performance over a short inter- as a potential outcome measure methodol- • GAS was a sensitive measure of clin-
vention period in a small sample (Miller et ogy that could capture and quantify indi- ical change over a short period of interven-
al., 2007). vidual functional changes. The therapists at tion because all children across the sites
a. Tell me about your child. What are his/her strengths, his/her weaknesses?
b. What has led you to seek services for your child?
c. What concerns you most about your child? Tell me more specifically about. . . .
d. What is a typical (day, week) like for him/her?
e. Tell me about your family’s life. What kinds of things do you like to do? What is easy or hard for your family or its members?
f. Tell me about what you or other family members need to do to have things go smoothly for your child.
g. (Review the child’s evaluation and ask questions regarding functional areas of difficulty.) For example: I notice that __________________________
(e.g., mealtime) seems to be hard for him/her. Can you tell me more about that?
h. (After functional areas are covered): Tell me more specifically about ____________________ (each specific sensory area identified as problematic
from the evaluation).
i. (Ask if appropriate): Our evaluations showed some difficulties/delays with ____________________. Is this something that has been of concern to you?
j. What are some goals you have for your child in the next 3 months or so? (Time frame may be variable.)
k. Looking ahead, what are some of the things you are hoping for your child?
l. Imagine we are sitting here talking 3 months [variable] from now. What changes would you like to see by that time?