1. PROGRAM & POLICY EVALUATION ‘Goal Attainment Scaling’
CRJS 4466
PROGRAM & POLICY EVALUATION
‘Goal Attainment Scaling’
1. Evaluation projects
2. Test #3 – November 23
3. Take-home exam November 30

2. 4. Goal Attainment Scaling
the quantification of individualized goal sets with clients
usually use of 5-point Likert scale
measurement of progress toward goals is individualized
for each client
use of a ‘follow-up’ guide to chart progress toward goals
‘success’ scores for individual clients/aggregated groups
can be compared across programs/agencies

3. GAS Scoring Guide Level Expected Outcome Goal 1: Social Play -2
most unfavourable outcome
isolated play -1
present level of performance
parallel play
expected level of success
interactive play +1
more than expected level of success
interactive play 80% +2
most favourable expected level of success
cooperative play

4. 4. Goal Attainment Scaling
used primarily in mental health field, but now branching
out into general health assessments, corrections, CAS,
etc.
use of GAS helps to clarify goals, expectations for
clients, to measure progress, plan interdisciplinary case
management strategies, compare effectiveness of
different programs

5. 5. Steps in GAS
Selection of goals (at least three, well-defined,
individualized client goals, measurable)
Weighting goals (reflective differential importance of
goals)
Follow-up time selection (post-intervention)
Scaling (usually, using Likert format -2 through +2)
Specify other scale levels (e.g. less than expected/more)
Client assessment as per GAS

6. 6. GAS and Evaluation
to use in evaluation, requires that program staff be taught
to write relevant, realistic, measurable goals
computation of average or summary scores across
clients - summing (simple index) versus true scaling
(weighted) versus conversion to t-scores (text)

7. 7. Variations of Goal Attainment Scaling
can use alternate scoring systems (e.g. 0 to 100, or
a ‘percentage’ system related to how much progress has
been made toward the goal)
but note: criticism that goal attainment scaling is
inherently subjective – so how much measurement
refinement should we assume?

8. 7. Problems with Goal Attainment Scaling
measurement validity and reliability
lack of control over selection of goals
confusion of goals with activities (e.g. attendance)
lack of staff training in use of GAS
cannot simply combine goal score statistically, as may
hide progress in particular areas (e.g. marks in courses)