Goal Attainment Scaling: An Efficient and Effective Approach to ...

Figure 1. Template for Developing Goal Attainment ScalesGoal Attainment Scale WorksheetStudent:Date of Birth:Today's Date: Grade: Gender: ❑ Male ❑ FemaleTeacher:School:Target Behavior(s):Goal Attainment Scale With Descriptive Criteria for Monitoring Academic or Social Behavior Change+2+10-1-2Graph of Academic or Social Behavior ProgressNote. From Academic Competence Evaluation Scales, by J. C. DiPerna and S. N. Elliott, 2000, San Antonio, TX: ThePsychological Corporation. Copyright 2000 by The Psychological Corporation. Adapted with permission.ments to solving the assessmentpuzzle. (p.13)By contributing additional and potentiallyunique information regarding students’academic needs and progress,GAS ratings represent an important“piece of the assessment puzzle.”An Alternate Approach to GoalAttainment Scaling for Use inEducational SettingsDrs. Thomas Kratochwill and StephenElliott used a modified version of GASas part of a U.S. Department ofEducation research project entitled “AnExperimental Analysis of Teacher/Parent Mediated Interventions forPreschoolers with Behavioral Problems.”Robertson-Mjannes (1999) outlinedthe differences betweenKratochwill and Elliott’s modified GASand the original approach developed byKiresuk and Sherman. Beyond its utilityas a follow-up measure of clinician orprogram effectiveness, Kratochwill andElliott conceptualized GAS as a forma-10 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Case Examples From Current ResearchThe following cases were gathered as part of an investigation of the utility of the Academic Competence Evaluation Scales(ACES; DiPerna, & Elliott, 2000) and Academic Intervention Monitoring System (AIMS; Elliott et al., 2001) for developing andmonitoring prereferral interventions in elementary school settings. To protect the confidentiality of the participants, we havechanged any identifying information about the cases.Case #1: JacobJacob is an 8-year-old boy who is in second grade at RedHawk Elementary School. Jacob was originally referred tothe student assistance team as a kindergartner due to concernsabout his ability to remember and retaining basic conceptsskills. As a kindergartner, Jacob was referred by histeacher to the student assistance team—a small group ofgeneral and special education teachers, support staff, andadministrators—for help in addressing her concerns abouthis ability to remember and retain basis concepts and skills.The results of a psychoeducational evaluation, conductedwhen Jacob was a first grader, indicated he had averageintelligence and academic skills in all areas. After consultationbetween his parents and school staff, it was decidedJacob should repeat first grade, and he was referred to aphysician for an ADHD evaluation.Early in second grade, Jacob’s teacher referred him to thestudent assistance team because of concerns with attentionand academic performance, particularly in the area of readingand language arts. His teacher reported having used avariety of strategies to improve his performance includingusing preferential seating, modified materials and assignments,and pretesting/teaching important concepts. A considerationof work samples and a teacher-completed ACESrating scale resulted in the identification of the following targetbehavior: To increase Jacob’s ability to read secondgradevocabulary (i.e., sight words).Jacob’s initial performance in reading second-gradewords was at a level of less than 50% accuracy.Interventions included guided practice of text and sight wordreading, frequent checks of Jacob’s independent work, andmonitoring his progress through informal assessments witha goal of achieving at least 80% accuracy in the targetbehavior. Jacob’s teacher and members of the student assistanceteam collaborated to construct a GAS rating scale (seeFigure 2) for monitoring Jacob’s progress in reading gradeleveltext.Data on Jacob’s progress toward the target behavior wasgathered periodically (via teacher-completed GAS rating) forapproximately 4 weeks. Examination of the GAS ratingsdemonstrated improvements on the target behavior on 40%of the assessment dates. Subsequent consultation withJacob’s teacher indicated that he had made moderate overallprogress in reading during the assessment period and thatadditional practice opportunities and frequent informalassessments appeared to be more successful interventionpractices than monitoring his independent work.Case #2: WiltonWilton is a 9-year-old boy who is in fourth grade at GreenMeadows Elementary School. Prior to this year, Wilton hadnever been referred to the student assistance team.Wilton’sthird-grade teacher referred him to the student assistanceteam because of her concerns about his reading and writingskills, which were both at least one grade below gradelevel. His teacher reported having used a variety of strategiesto improve his performance such as reducing thelength of assignments, peer tutoring, one-on-one tutoringoutside of his reading group, and giving him extended timeto complete his written work. A consideration of work samplesand a teacher-completed ACES rating scale resulted inthe identification of the following target behavior: Toincrease Wilton’s ability to identify the main idea of a storypassage.At the beginning of progress monitoring, Wilton couldidentify the main idea from a grade-level passage approximately60% of the time. Interventions included reducingthe reading level of texts, working with a lower readinggroup, allowing Wilton to take home reading materials, andmonitoring his progress through informal assessments witha goal of achieving at least 90% accuracy in the targetbehavior. Wilton’s teacher and members of the studentassistance team collaborated to construct a GAS rating scale(see Figure 3) for monitoring Wilton’s progress in readinggrade-level text.Data on Wilton’s progress towards the target behaviorwas gathered periodically (via teacher-completed GAS rating)for approximately 6 weeks. Examination of the GASratings demonstrated improvements on the target behavioron 10% of the assessment dates with no overall improvementin the target behavior. Subsequent consultation withthe classroom teacher indicated that the recommendedinterventions had been seen as acceptable and were implementedwith integrity, and also that Wilton’s overall readingperformance had not improved during the assessmentperiod. In light of the assessment results suggesting resistanceto intervention, the student assistance team referredWilton for additional evaluation with “confidence that testingmay be indicated.”TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ MAR/APR 2005 ■ 11

Figure 2. Goal Attainment Scale Ratings for the Case of JacobGoal Attainment Scale WorksheetStudent: Jacob Jones Date of Birth: 8-17-1984Today's Date: 10-19-02 Grade: 2nd Gender: X Male ❑ FemaleTeacher: Ms. Smith School: Red Hawk ElementaryTarget Behavior(s):Jacob will improve his accuracy in reading 2nd grade vocabulary words.Goal Attainment Scale with Descriptive Criteria for Monitoring Academic Change+2 Jacob reads 2nd grade vocabulary with greater than 75% accuracy.+1 Jacob reads 2nd grade vocabulary with 56%-75% accuracy.0 Jacob reads 2nd grade vocabulary with 45%-55% accuracy.-1 Jacob reads 2nd grade vocabulary with 30%-44% accuracy.-2 Jacob reads 2nd grade vocabulary with less than 30% accuracy.Graph of Academic ProgressNote. From Academic Competence Evaluation Scales, by J. C. DiPerna and S. N. Elliott, 2000, San Antonio, TX: ThePsychological Corporation. Copyright 2000 by The Psychological Corporation. Adapted with permission.tive assessment that could be repeatedperiodically to monitor students’ academicor behavior progress.Using GAS as a repeated measure ofstudents’ progress required changes inthe original scaled descriptions developedby Kiresuk and Sherman.Although Kratochwill and Elliott maintainedthe 5-point scale, the modifiedGAS included initial assessments toestablish a baseline, which was subsequentlyassigned a score of “0.” Thus,the new scale levels ranged from thebest possible outcome (+2) to theworst possible outcome (-2). In addition,the modified GAS allowed for ratingsof both over- and underattainmentof behavioral or academic objectives(Kratochwill, Elliott, & Rotto, 1995).12 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Figure 3. Goal Attainment Scale Ratings for the Case of WiltonGoal Attainment Scale WorksheetStudent: Wilton Phillips Date of Birth: 9-15-1983Today's Date: 10-20-02 Grade: 4th Gender: X Male ❑ FemaleTeacher: Ms. Powers School: Green Meadows ElementaryTarget Behavior(s):Wilton will identify the main idea of a story passage 90% of the time.Goal Attainment Scale with Descriptive Criteria for Monitoring Academic Change+2 Wilton correctly identifies main idea 90% to 100% of the time.+1 Wilton correctly identifies main idea 80% to 89% of the time.0 Wilton correctly identifies main idea 60% to 79% of the time.-1 Wilton correctly identifies main idea 40% to 59% of the time.-2 Wilton correctly identifies main idea 0% to 39% of the time.Graph of Academic ProgressNote. From Academic Competence Evaluation Scales, by J. C. DiPerna and S. N. Elliott, 2000, San Antonio, TX: ThePsychological Corporation. Copyright 2000 by The Psychological Corporation. Adapted with permission.Previous Research onEducational and ClinicalApplications of GAS RatingsMaher’s (1982) evaluation of the Goal-Oriented Approach to Learning (GOAL)program indicated that students whocompleted GAS self-ratings achievedhigher goal attainment scores thanpeers who did not self-evaluate (58.0 to33.3), and were more likely to achievethe “Expected Outcome” level for theirgoals (88% to 0%). A follow-up investigation(Maher, 1983) demonstratedthat student and adult (i.e., guidancecounselor) GAS ratings of school adjustmentand achievement “did not differsignificantly in terms of estimating goalattainment” (p. 533).Single-case studies utilizing GAS ratingshave been conducted with studentswith autism (Oren & Ogletree, 2000),traumatic brain injuries (Mitchell &Cusick, 1998), and conduct problems(Sladeczek, Elliott, Kratochwill,TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ MAR/APR 2005 ■ 13

Figure 4. Goal Attainment Scale Ratings for the Case of EllenGoal Attainment Scale WorksheetStudent: Ellen Jensen Date of Birth: April 6, 1990Today's Date: March 2, 2002 Grade: 6th Gender: ❑ Male X FemaleTeacher: Mrs. WilliamsSchool: Bailey ElementaryTarget Behavior(s):Ellen will demonstrate her ability to work cooperatively with a small group of classmates on a project withoutprompts or cues from an adult.Goal Attainment Scale with Descriptive Criteria for Monitoring Behavior Change+2 When it is time to work with her project team, Ellen will almost always work cooperatively during the entireperiod without an adult prompting or cueing her to do so.+1 When it is time to work with her project team, Ellen will often work cooperatively during the entire period with onlyminimal prompting or cueing from an adult.0 When it is time to work with her project team, Ellen will sometimes work cooperativelyduring the entire period with periodic prompting or cueing from an adult.-1 When it is time to work with her project team, Ellen will almost never work cooperatively during the entireperiod despite frequently and strong prompting or cueing from an adult.-2 When it is time to work with her project team, Ellen never works cooperatively during the entire period regardlessof the amount of prompting and cueing from an adult.Graph of Progress on "Working Cooperatively"Note. From Academic Competence Evaluation Scales, by J. C. DiPerna and S. N. Elliott, 2000, San Antonio, TX: ThePsychological Corporation. Copyright 2000 by The Psychological Corporation. Adapted with permission.Robertson-Mjaanes, & Stoiber, 2001). Ineach case, consultants and consulteesreported GAS ratings helped to clarifyintervention goals and document studentprogress towards those goals.In their study of family therapy efficacy,Santa-Barbara et al. (1977) reportedthat GAS was “the only clinical outcomemeasure that [was] consistentlyrelated to measures of intellectual functioningand academic achievementobtained at follow-up ratings” (p. 54).Follow-up studies on family therapyclients conducted by Woodward et al.(1981) demonstrated that GAS ratings14 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Table 2. Advantages and Disadvantages to Utilizing GAS Ratings to Monitor Students’Academic GrowthAdvantages of GAS Ratings• Time efficient• Personalized/ individual assessment• Conceptually consistent with behavioral consultation• Requires minimal skills to collect data• Nonintrusive assessment method• Can be used as a self-assessment• Can be used by multiple informants across settings (e.g., home, school, community)• Can be used repeatedly to monitor perceptions of intervention progress• Can be used to document perceptions of intervention outcomes• Inexpensive• Requires minimal skills to interpret dataDisadvantages of GAS Ratings• Limited published, empirical research on the school-based use of the method• Subjective summary of observations collected over time• Not norm-referenced• Guidelines for interpretation are determined by parties involved with the intervention, thus subject to bias• Global (i.e., less discrete) accounting of behaviorwere a more effective predictor thanother outcome measures.GAS Ratings Are Time-Efficientand User-FriendlyAlthough many researchers and policymakersconsider CBM the “gold standard”for assessing students’ academicperformance, practitioners often viewthese techniques as labor-intensive andunmanageable in general, and inappropriatefor students in middle school orhigher who are working on moreadvanced academic skills. For example,Fuchs and Elliott (1997) asserted CBMcan be “time-consuming for teachers orschool psychologists to collect, score,and analyze” (p. 228). Foegen, Espin,Allinder, and Markell (2001) suggestedthe following reasons for teacher’sreluctance to use CBM methods: (a)lack of time to implement and scoreCBM probes, (b) insufficient mastery ofthe skills needed to use CBM, and (c)practitioners’ beliefs about the validityof CBM.Acceptability research with schooland mental health professionals suggeststhat GAS is perceived as highlyacceptable and useful in a variety of settings.Robertson-Mjaanes (1999) askedprofessionals (including teachers, n =36) to rate the ease of use and acceptabilityof GAS. The results indicate thatmost teachers (94%) endorsed GAS as“very feasible” or “feasible” to use withtheir students. Moreover, Robertson-Mjaanes found that 70% of the teachersbelieved that most professionals wouldfind GAS “easy” or “very easy” to usefor monitoring intervention progressand outcomes.According to Carr (1979), specialeducation teachers who participated inan evaluation project described the timenecessary to construct an individualGAS as “worthwhile” and valuable forspecifying goals and facilitating theinclusion process. Cardillo (1994)reported that the existing research onthe implementation of GAS in mentalhealth settings suggests study participantsexperienced the GAS process as(a) “an unexpected, but beneficial learningexperience, with respect to both goalsetting and treatment planning”; and(b) one that lead “to an enhancedawareness of and respect for documentationrequirements” (p. 59). In an evaluationof two adult and family literacyprograms, Sherow (2000) identified thefollowing positive outcomes of usingGAS ratings:• Encouraged cooperative goal settingbetween staff and clients.• Facilitated the development of individualizedprograms for clients.• Clarified and communicating programgoals.TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ MAR/APR 2005 ■ 15

In addition to measuringacademic knowledge andskills, educators may alsochoose to use GAS ratingsto measure students’progress in socialbehaviors or academicenablers.• Provided both formative and summativeevaluations of program effectiveness.Table 2 provides a summary of theadvantages and disadvantages to usingGAS ratings to monitor students’ academicgrowth.Final ThoughtsIn addition to measuring academicknowledge and skills, educators mayalso choose to use GAS ratings to measurestudents’ progress in social behaviorsor academic enablers (i.e., “attitudesand behaviors that allow a studentto participate in, and ultimatelybenefit from academic instruction”;DiPerna & Elliott, 2002, p. 294). A substantialbody of research exists whichdemonstrates the relationship betweenstudents’ social behavior and their academicperformance (DiPerna, Volpe, &Elliott, 2002; Malecki & Elliott, 2002;Wentzel, 1993). Figure 4 provides anexample of a complete GAS rating forEllen, a student with a social behaviorthat directly contributes to her educationalsuccess. Readers should note howthis GAS rating scale operationalizes agroup of behaviors (or “response class”)that pertains to the educational goal:successfully collaborating with classmateson a group project.According to Smith and Cardillo(1994), GAS ratings are especially suited“as a measure of one important aspectof outcome: treatment- (or instruction-)induced change. If interest should be inthe change that has been produced during(an intervention)…GAS can be recommendedas a particularly sensitivemethod of measuring that change”(p. 272). The initial results from ourcase studies of prereferral interventionssuggest GAS ratings can provide efficientand accurate assessments of students’academic and behavior progress.Moreover, in our work designing academicinterventions in collaborationwith teachers, we have found GAS ratingsto be a user-friendly and meaningfulway for conceptualizing and communicatingchange over the course of amultiweek intervention. GAS ratings arerelatively easy-to-use and understand,making them particularly appropriatetools for consulting and collaboratingwith general education teachers, paraprofessionals,and parents.GAS can be utilized to meet a varietyof assessment needs. As part of selfmonitoringintervention, students themselvescan complete GAS ratings.Conversely, educators and parents canuse GAS ratings to record their observationsand perceptions of students’ academicand behavior progress. In comparisonto direct observation or CBMprobes, teachers and paraprofessionalsmay find GAS ratings easier to collectwithin the complex ecologies of theirclassrooms. In addition, GAS promotesclearly operationalized interventiongoals and on-going (i.e., time-series)evaluation of student progress, makingit a potentially useful tool for specialeducators and school psychologistsworking within a responsiveness-tointervention(RTI) model of special educationidentification.ReferencesCardillo, J. E. (1994). Goal setting, follow-up,and goal monitoring. In T. J. Kiresuk, A.Smith, & J. E. Cardillo (Eds.), GoalAttainment Scaling: Application, Theory,and Measurement (pp. 39-60). Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Cardillo, J. E., & Smith, A. (1994).Psychometric issues. In T. J. Kiresuk, A.Smith, & J. E. Cardillo (Eds.), GoalAttainment Scaling: Application, Theory,and Measurement (pp. 173-212). Hillsdale,NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.Carr, R. A. (1979). Goal attainment scaling asa useful tool for evaluating progress inspecial education. Exceptional Children,46, 88-95.DiPerna, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (2000).Academic Competence Evaluation Scales.San Antonio, TX: The PsychologicalCorporation.DiPerna, J. C., & Elliott, S. N. (2002).Promoting academic enablers to improvestudent achievement: An introduction tothe miniseries. School Psychology Review,31, 293-297.DiPerna, J. C., Volpe, R. J., & Elliott, S. N.(2002). A model of academic enablers andelementary reading/language artsachievement. School Psychology Review,31, 298-312.Elliott, S. N., DiPerna, J. C., & Shapiro, E. S.(2001). Academic Intervention MonitoringSystem. San Antonio, TX: ThePsychological Corporation.Elliott, S. N., Sladeczek, I., & Kratochwill, T.R. (1995, August). Goal attainment scaling:Its use as a progress monitoring andoutcome effectiveness measure in behavioralconsultation. Paper presented at theannual convention of the AmericanPsychological Association, New York, NY.Foegen, A., Espin, C. A., Allinder, R. M., &Markell, M. A. (2001). Translatingresearch into practice: Preservice teachers’beliefs about curriculum-based measurement.Journal of Special Education, 34,226-237.Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Best practices in definingstudent goals and outcomes. In A.Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practicesin School Psychology-IV (pp. 539-546).Washington, DC: National Association ofSchool Psychologists.Fuchs, L. S., & Elliott, S. N. (1997). The utilityof curriculum-based measurement andperformance assessment as alternatives totraditional intelligence and achievementtests. School Psychology Review, 26, 224-233.Kiresuk, T. J. (1994). Historical perspective.In T. J. Kiresuk, A. Smith, & J. E. Cardillo(Eds.), Goal Attainment Scaling:Application, Theory, and Measurement(pp. 135-160). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.Kiresuk, T. J., & Sherman, R. E. (1968). Goalattainment scaling: A general method forevaluating community mental health programs.Community Mental Health Journal,4, 443-453.Kratochwill, T. R., Elliott, S. N., & Rotto, P. C.(1995). Best practices in school-basedbehavioral consultation. In A. Thomas, &J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in SchoolPsychology-III (pp. 519-538). Washington,DC: National Association of SchoolPsychologists.Maher, C. A. (1982). Learning disabled adolescentsin the regular classroom:Evaluation of a mainstreaming procedure.Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 82-84.Maher, C. A. (1983). Goal attainment scaling:A method for evaluating special educationservices. Exceptional Children, 49, 529-536.16 ■ COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Malecki, C. M., & Elliott, S. N. (2002).Children’s social behaviors as predictorsof academic achievement: A longitudinalanalysis. School Psychology Quarterly, 17,1-23.Mitchell, T., & Cusick, A. (1998). Evaluationof a client-centered paediatric rehabilitationprogramme using goal attainmentscaling. Australian Occupational TherapyJournal, 45, 7-17.Oren, T., & Ogletree, B. T. (2000). Programevaluation in classrooms for students withautism: Student outcomes and programprocesses. Focus on Autism and OtherDevelopmental Disabilities, 15, 170-175.Robertson-Mjaanes, S. L. (1999). An evaluationof goal attainment scaling as an interventionmonitoring and outcome evaluationtechnique. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Wisconsin-Madison.Santa-Barbara, J., Woodward, C. A., Levin, S.Streiner, D. L., Goodman, J. T., & Epstein,N. B. (1977). Interrelationships amongoutcome measures in the McMasterFamily Therapy Study. Goal AttainmentReview, 3, 47-58.Shapiro, E. S., & Browder, J. L. (1990).Behavioral assessment: Applications forpersons with mental retardation. In J. L.Matson (Ed.), Handbook of BehaviorModification with the Mentally Retarded(pp. 93 -120). New York: Plenum Press.Shapiro, E. S., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2000).Conducting School-Based Assessments ofChild and Adolescent Behavior. New York:Guilford Press.Sherow, S. M. (2000). Adult and family literacyadaptations of goal attainment scaling.Adult Basic Education, 10, 30-38.Sladeczek, I. E., Elliott, S. N., Kratochwill, T.R., Robertson-Mjaanes, S., & Stoiber, K. C.(2001). Application of goal attainmentscaling to a conjoint behavioral consultationcase. Journal of Educational andPsychological Consultation, 12, 45-58.Smith, A., & Cardillo, J. E. (1994).Perspectives on validity. In T. J. Kiresuk,A. Smith, & J. E. Cardillo (Eds.). Goalattainment scaling: Applications, theory,and measurement. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.Wilson, M. S., & Reschly, D. J. (1996).Assessment in school psychology trainingand practice. School Psychology Review,25, 9-23.Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being good makethe grade? Social behavior and academiccompetence in middle school.Journal ofEducational Psychology, 85, 357-364.Woodward, C. A., Santa-Barbara, J., Streiner,D. L., Goodman, J. T., Levin, S., &Epstein, N. B. (1981). Client, treatment,and therapist variables related to outcomein brief, systems-oriented family therapy.Family Process, 20, 189-197.Center for Assessment and InterventionResearch; and Stephen N. Elliott, DunnProfessor of Assessment, Department ofSpecial Education, Peabody College, VanderbiltUniversity, Nashville, Tennessee.Address all correspondence concerning thisarticle to Andrew T. Roach, Center forAssessment and Intervention Research, 405Wyatt, 1930 South St., Nashville, TN 37203(e-mail: roach@vanderbilt.edu)TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 37,No. 4, pp. 8-17.Copyright 2005 CEC.Andrew T. Roach, Research Coordinator,TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN ■ MAR/APR 2005 ■ 17