From a general goal, I have defined a specific goal and formulated it precisely
I have chosen a target activity i.e. an objective and measurable behaviour that reflects goal achievement
I have taken into account and listed environmental factors (fatigue, time of the day) and context variations (prompts, guidance...) that can modify the patient’s performance during the rating, and I will try to control those to have similar conditions for defining initial level pre-intervention and final post-intervention rating
I have verified the initial level of the patient, and the way they realize the “target activity” before intervention is clearly described at –1/–2 level
I have precisely described at least 3 GAS levels (–2; 0; +2) or all 5 levels
The vocabulary/formulation of the goal and the scale is precise enough and unequivocal to be easily understood by an independent rater who does not know the patient
All GAS levels are realistic
The goal is meaningful for the patients and/or his family or represents an important step towards autonomy/better quality of life
I have honestly not defined the GAS levels so that I am sure to succeed (too easy levels) but each GAS level represents a clinically meaningful change
I have defined a time frame to achieve the goal and the 0 level is attainable in the time frame I have defined with my patient
The scale is as interval as possible: the different levels are as equidistant as possible (although true equidistance cannot be achieved nor tested for), i.e. that the difficulty to pass from one level to the next is approximatively equal
There is no “gap” between levels (i.e. a performance/behaviour not entering in any of the levels) and levels are not overlapping (i.e. a performance/behaviour corresponding to two levels)
My scale has only one dimension of change, i.e. throughout GAS levels, the same function is tested
