{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028183716075156576, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0041753653444676405, 'mean_word_length': 6.672, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Goal oriented measurement with the IRES questionnaire: a critical interim statement].

This paper gives a critical view on "Goal Oriented Measurement" (ZOE, Zielorientierte Ergebnismessung) with the IRES (Indicators of Rehabilitation Status) questionnaire. Gerdes (1998) proposed this method for individualizing outcome measurement in rehabilitation research. The rationale of Goal Oriented Measurement is described and differentiated from Goal Attainment Scaling and Patient Preferences. Subsequently, important shortcomings of Goal Oriented Measurement are pointed out: insufficient validity with regard to selecting clinically relevant problems, possible regression artifacts, unsuitably aggregated scores, possible reactivity, possible changes of individual problems, possible deteriorations in problems not initially selected, and plurality as well as small size of subsamples. Overall, Goal Oriented Measurement has to undergo substantial improvement.