Assessing recovery in mental health is difficult and often subjective. Mental illness is not subject to one system of the body; rather, it must be assessed through a biopsychosocial lens whereby a person is able to make decisions that influence how he or she thinks, feels, behaves, and interacts. Assessment measures for determining outcome and recovery used in community mental health centers, although required, can be quite subjective. There is a need for an objective measure to optimally assess treatment outcomes. The purpose of this quantitative study is to compare the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF), the Multnomah Community Ability Scale (MCAS), and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) to examine if one instrument yielded superior inter-rater and test-retest consistency when compared to the others. To assess the reliability of the GAF, the MCAS, and the BPRS, 62 clinicians from various backgrounds working in community mental health assigned scores to two case studies for comparison using each of the three assessments. These instruments provide scores translated into symptom pictures that coincide with psychopathologies addressed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4^th ed. text revision). It was hypothesized that there would be no mean differences between the case studies, assessments, and variables such as age, education, experience, and supervisory capacity. Results from paired t tests and ANOVAs found no mean differences in inter-rater reliability or test-retest consistency, suggesting that the assessment tools resulted in fundamentally consistent clinician ratings. This study is an important contribution to the existing literature and can effect positive social change by advising the training and professional development of clinicians in symptom assessment that can improve care planning for their clients.