Date of Award:


Document Type:


Degree Name:

Master of Science (MS)


Family Consumer Human Development

Committee Chair(s)

Scot M. Allgood


Scot M. Allgood


Brent C. Miller


Thomas R. Lee


Relationship issues underlie most problems that people bring to therapy. Global relationship assessment_ has great potential in helping therapists account systemically for global issues in individual, couple, and family functioning . The purpose of this thesis was to assess the concurrent validity of the Global Assessment of Relationship Functioning (GARF) with standardized self-report measures on individual, couple, and family levels of relationship functioning and to assess the GARF's discriminant validity in distinguishing between clinical and nonclinical groups. It was hypothesized that GARF scores would correlate with scores obtained on the self~ report assessments and that a statistically significant difference would be found between clinical and nonclinical volunteer groups on both types of assessments.

Data were collected from 27 indivi dual s. 30 couples. and 14 families. of which half were currently receiving therapy and the other half were nonclinical volunteer panicipants from Utah State University. Both groups were given the same selfcrepon assessments and were each assigned GARF scores by the interviewing therapist. The Outcome Questionnaire 45 .2 (OQ-45 .2) was used to assess individual and family selt: reponed relationship functioning. The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) was used to assess couple self-reponed relationship functioning.

The data were analyzed using correlational analysis and independent 1 tests to compare GARF scores to scores obtained on the self-report assessment measures The GARF was found to be significantly correlated with the self-report assessment scores of volunteer individuals and couples, supponing the concurrent validity for two of the six groups. In addition, for couples and families, the GARF and the selfreport assessments showed statistically significant differences between clinical and volunteer groups in the same direction, supposing its discriminant validity. These findings are limited due to the small group size and the inconsistency of the results across all three groups. Possible explanations for the results are discussed along with implications for using the GARF as a measure of global assessment in therapy. Based on these findings, there is limited evidence that the GARF is a valid measure in its current computer rater form.