The GOAL (Goal-Oriented Assessment of Lifeskills) in Pediatric OT: Activities, Scores, and IEP Tips

Most motor tests show how a student does on test items. The Goal-Oriented Assessment of Lifeskills (GOAL) shows how a student handles the motor side of real daily tasks: cutting food, opening a padlock, putting on a T-shirt, carrying a lunch tray. For school OTs asked "how does this affect him at school?" at every IEP meeting, that is the main appeal.

Note the spelling. The publisher writes it as one word, "Lifeskills," not "Life Skills" (Western Psychological Services [WPS], n.d.-a).

Why school and clinic therapists use the GOAL

The GOAL is a standardized, individually administered measure of functional motor abilities needed for daily living. WPS describes it as giving an ecologically valid description of a child's competencies and opportunities for growth in the fine and gross motor domains (WPS, n.d.-a). It fits best when the referral question is about function ("she can't manage her binder") and you still need standard scores. The publisher states it can help determine eligibility for special services and inform OT, PT, and adaptive physical education planning (WPS, n.d.-a).

What the GOAL is

• Authors: Lucy Jane Miller, PhD, OTR; Thomas Oakland, PhD; and David S. Herzberg, PhD (Miller et al., 2013).
• Publisher: Western Psychological Services (WPS), 2013. Pearson Clinical sells it in the UK (Pearson, n.d.-a).
• Ages: 7 to 17 years.
• Format: Individually administered, seven activities.
• Time: About 45 to 60 minutes.
• Who uses it: Primarily occupational therapists, though the publisher notes psychologists, physical therapists, and other childhood intervention specialists can use it, in schools, clinics, hospitals, and private practice (Pearson, n.d.-a; WPS, n.d.-a). Qualification levels differ by distributor, so check with yours before ordering.
• Kit: Manual, record forms, a pad of Paper Box sheets, a stimulus easel, and test materials (WPS, n.d.-a). WPS notes the GOAL is not currently available online.

The test is grounded in A. Jean Ayres' sensory integration theory, which the publisher says describes many of the key concepts underlying the GOAL activities (WPS, n.d.-a). That shows up most clearly in the Intervention Targets, described below.

What it measures: the seven activities

The GOAL has four fine motor activities and three gross motor activities (Pearson, n.d.-a; WPS, n.d.-a):

Fine motor

• Utensils: using a knife, fork, and spoon to cut, spear, and scoop.
• Locks: opening keyed and combination padlocks.
• Paper Box: coloring, cutting, folding, and taping a paper construction.
• Notebook: organizing and filling a three-ring binder.

Gross motor

• Clothes: putting on and taking off a T-shirt and shorts.
• Ball Play: bouncing and kicking a ball.
• Tray Carry: carrying a loaded tray while avoiding obstacles.

In middle and high school, these map neatly onto real routines: locker locks, binders, cafeteria trays, and changing for PE.

How it is scored

The seven activities are broken into 54 Steps. Each Step is scored pass or fail based on accuracy, independence, and speed. Step scores are then summed to produce three scores (Pearson, n.d.-a; WPS, n.d.-a):

• Fine Motor Standard Score
• Gross Motor Standard Score
• Progress Score, a single index of the child's overall ability to perform functional tasks, designed to track change over time.

The standard scores compare the child with peers of the same age and gender (WPS, n.d.-a). The publisher's sample case reports a Gross Motor Standard Score of 80 at the 9th percentile and a Fine Motor Standard Score of 92 at the 30th percentile, which is consistent with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 (WPS, n.d.-a). Confirm the metric and the descriptive ranges in your manual before you write them into a report.

The record form also includes a Progress Chart, used to graph overall functional ability, and a Progress Range built around the Progress Score. The range helps you spot unexpected successes and unexpected challenges on individual Steps (WPS, n.d.-a). Those Steps then link to Intervention Targets in four areas: Sensory, Postural, Praxis, and Motor Proficiency (Pearson, n.d.-a; NZCER, n.d.).

A realistic school example

Marcus is a 12 year old sixth grader with an IEP, newly in a middle school with lockers and a binder for every class. His teacher reports lost papers and daily locker trouble, and he is being reevaluated for OT.

On Notebook and Locks, Marcus fails several Steps on speed and independence. On Paper Box he cuts accurately but struggles to fold and tape in sequence. Gross motor Steps are mostly passed.

Sample score summary (FICTIONAL)

The scores below are invented for illustration. They assume standard scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, consistent with the publisher's case example; confirm the metric and any descriptive labels in your manual.

• Fine Motor Standard Score: 84 (about the 14th percentile)
• Gross Motor Standard Score: 95 (about the 37th percentile)
• Progress Score: charted as a baseline
• Unexpected challenges: Locks (combination sequence), Notebook (opening rings and inserting pages), Paper Box (folding and taping)

How to write it up

Lead with function, give the numbers, then connect to goals:

Marcus was administered the Goal-Oriented Assessment of Lifeskills (GOAL), a standardized assessment of the fine and gross motor abilities needed for daily living, normed on children ages 7 to 17. His Fine Motor Standard Score of 84 (approximately the 14th percentile) indicates that fine motor performance on daily tasks is below that of same age, same gender peers. His Gross Motor Standard Score of 95 (approximately the 37th percentile) falls within the expected range. Item level performance showed specific difficulty sequencing a combination lock, managing a three-ring binder, and completing multistep folding and taping tasks within the expected time. These match his daily routines for locker use and organizing class materials.

Linking GOAL results to IEP goals

The publisher frames the GOAL around goal-oriented treatment planning through its Intervention Targets, and its own case example uses the GOAL at a year-end IEP review to decide whether services should continue (WPS, n.d.-a). The publisher does not supply ready-made IEP goals, but the structure makes writing them easier:

1. Start from failed Steps that match school routines. A failed Locks Step becomes a locker goal; a failed Notebook Step becomes a materials management goal.
2. Use the scoring criteria as your measurement terms. Steps are judged on accuracy, independence, and speed, which are also good IEP goal conditions. Example: "Marcus will open his combination locker independently within 30 seconds in 4 of 5 opportunities."
3. Use the Intervention Targets to shape treatment. Keep the IEP goal itself functional and observable.
4. Record the Progress Score so the next evaluation can show change on the same index.

What the research says

Be honest with your team here: most published evidence on the GOAL comes from the developers' standardization work reported by the publisher. According to WPS and Pearson product pages, the GOAL was normed on 616 children ages 7 to 17 from four US regions, plus a clinical sample of 152 children referred to OT for mild to moderate sensory and/or motor challenges (Pearson, n.d.-a; WPS, n.d.-a). Reported internal consistency for the Fine and Gross Motor Standard Scores is above .75 in the standardization sample and above .84 in the clinical sample, with .90 for the Progress Score. Test-retest reliability in the clinical sample was .76 for Fine Motor and .77 for Gross Motor (Pearson, n.d.-a).

For validity, the publisher reports convergent evidence with the SIPT, SPM, BOT-2, and ABAS-II, and that standard scores distinguished typically developing from clinic-referred children. For example, 74% of the clinical sample had Fine Motor Standard Scores of 85 or less, while 85% of the standardization sample scored 86 or above (NZCER, n.d.; WPS, n.d.-a).

An independent review appears in the Twentieth Mental Measurements Yearbook (Buros Center for Testing, n.d.). Independent peer-reviewed studies are scarce; a PubMed search for the full test name returned no articles at the time of writing. Test-retest values in the .70s also mean small score changes should be read cautiously.

Practical cautions

• Age floor. The GOAL starts at age 7.
• Space. Ball Play and Tray Carry need room, and the kit is bulky for traveling therapists.
• Gender based comparison. Standard scores compare the child with same age, same gender peers (WPS, n.d.-a). Know this before you explain scores to families and teams.
• Limited sample of daily life. Seven activities do not cover hygiene, handwriting, or community mobility.
• Check your manual for descriptive ranges, confidence intervals, and the Progress Score metric.

How it compares to related tools

• BOT-2 (Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition): Ages 4 to 21, eight subtests of motor proficiency with fine motor, gross motor, and total motor composites, plus percentile ranks and age equivalents (Pearson, n.d.-b). It says more about motor proficiency; the GOAL says more about functional tasks.
• ABAS-3 (Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, Third Edition): A rating scale completed by parents, teachers, or others, covering conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills from birth to 89 years (WPS, n.d.-b). It reports typical behavior; the GOAL is direct observation.

Bottom line

The GOAL gives school age clients standardized fine and gross motor scores drawn from tasks they actually do, and its Step level results make IEP goal writing straightforward. Its research base is mostly publisher reported, so pair it with observation and teacher or parent report, and keep your manual close.

References

Buros Center for Testing. (n.d.). Goal-Oriented Assessment of Lifeskills [Test review listing, The Twentieth Mental Measurements Yearbook]. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. https://marketplace.unl.edu/buros/test-reviews/alphabetical-list/goal-oriented-assessment-of-lifeskills.html

Miller, L. J., Oakland, T., & Herzberg, D. S. (2013). Goal-Oriented Assessment of Lifeskills (GOAL). Western Psychological Services.

NZCER. (n.d.). Goal-Oriented Assessment of Lifeskills (GOAL). New Zealand Council for Educational Research. https://www.nzcer.org.nz/pts/goal-oriented-assessment-lifeskills-goal

Pearson. (n.d.-a). Goal-Oriented Assessment of Lifeskills (GOAL). Pearson Clinical UK. https://www.pearsonclinical.co.uk/en-gb/Store/Professional-Assessments/Motor-Sensory/Functional/Goal-Oriented-Assessment-of-Lifeskills/p/P100009218

Pearson. (n.d.-b). Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, Second Edition (BOT-2). https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Motor-Sensory/Bruininks-Oseretsky-Test-of-Motor-Proficiency-%7C-Second-Edition/p/100000648.html

Western Psychological Services. (n.d.-a). (GOAL) Goal-Oriented Assessment of Lifeskills. https://www.wpspublish.com/goal-goal-oriented-assessment-of-lifeskills.html

Western Psychological Services. (n.d.-b). ABAS-3: Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, Third Edition. https://www.wpspublish.com/abas-3-adaptive-behavior-assessment-system-third-edition

‍

Speed up your evaluation report writing

You can use the scoring chart for this assessment and many others on Double Time Docs, our software that helps you write your evals significantly faster. Check it out!