The Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting System (PEGS) Authors: Cheryl Missiuna, ancy Polloc!

and Mary "a#

P$%P&SE:

The PEGS is designed to enable young children with disabilities to self-report their perceived competence in everyday activities and to set goals for intervention. The information gathered from this report can help therapists create meaningful and engaging treatment programs. This PEGS was designed primarily for occupational therapists working in the area of pediatrics. Other professionals e.g. PT! school psychologist or educational professionals" may also be interested in using this. This assessment is based upon the All About Me #issiuna! $%%&" measure. #ost appropriate for children who are chronologically or developmentally at a ' ( % year-old level. )t can be used with children of all type of disabilities and severity! as long as they can formulate a response. The PEGS includes* #anual + set of ', cards -, pairs" .hild Score sheet includes the Summary Score Sheet" .aregiver /uestionnaire Teacher /uestionnaire .ard Placemats .olourful Sticky 0otes 1, ( -, minutes to administer Teacher and caregiver 2uestionnaire take appro3imately 4 ( $, minutes Scoring takes about $, minutes

P&P$"AT'& :

TEST MATE%'A":

T'ME T& A(M' :

TEST C&MP& E TS: The items of the test are grouped into three categories* self-care! school5productivity and leisure. A(M' ST%AT'& : Specific administration process is in page $' ( 14 of the manual! along with specific wording. Child 'ntervie#: The placemats are arranged in a 6forced choice format7 and administration begins with two sample items designed to teach the child this concept. Elaboration and discussion around the child8s response is encouraged to ensure the selection process is clear to the child. 9or each item! the child first has to choose which child card" is most like him or her and then indicate whether the child card" is a lot or a little like him or her. )tems $ ( 1: are the scored items do not include the sample item". 9or each item! place the appropriate cards in front of the child! making sure the card with the asterisk is always on the left. Point to each card and read the statement below the card. )t is all right to use alternative wording to convey the idea as well. ;hen the child identifies which card depicts the child who is more like him or her! remove the card that is not selected and place it off to the side. Then! ask the child whether he or she is a lot or a little like the child on the remaining card. )f necessary! discuss the child8s choices. +fter each item! record the score for that item on the .hild Score Sheet! and place the card selected on the appropriate placement in the correct pile. The scoring is as follows* The <eft +sterisk Placemat* o 6+ <ot7 = a lot less competent = score of $

6 + <ittle7 = a little less competent = score of 1

The >ight Placemat* o 6+ <ittle7 = a little more competent = a score of o 6+ <ot7 = a lot more competent = a score of ? The first 1$ cards are administered to all children. Then! if a child does not typically use a wheelchair! walker or crutches for mobili@ation! items 11-1? are completed using the corresponding cards. Aowever! if a child does typically use those mobility devices! items 11-1? are skipped and items 14-1: are completed instead. The child8s mobility level can be determined by looking at which items were filled out by the caregiver on the .aregiver /uestionnaire. +ll children complete item 1& using the blank pair of cards" and the goal setting process. )tem 1& is two blank cards that allows the child to identify an activity that is hard to do or that they would like to get better at! and allows the child to write a few words that represents that activity. Goal-Setting Discussion: +fter this procedure is completed! take the cards that are in the 6+ <ot <ess .ompetent7 pile and lay them out in front of the child. )f the child selected fewer than four activities in the 6a lot less competent7 category! use the 6a little less competent7 cards as well. +lso include the blank cards that the child has written on. See page 1- and 1? of the manual for discussions 2uestions. Teacher and Caregiver )uestionnaire: )t is not re2uired for both of these 2uestionnaires to be completed as part of the assessment but they are useful tool in helping to determine therapeutic goals for the child. Each of these 2uestionnaires is self-administered. The 2uestionnaire is completed by having the adult make two choices. 9irst! whether the child is like the statement describing the 6more7 or 6less7 competent child. Secondly! marking whether the child is a little or a lot like the child in the statement. +ll respondents complete the first 1$ items. Then! if a child does not typically use a wheelchair! walker or crutches for mobili@ation! items 11-1? are completed. Aowever! if a child does typically use those mobility devices! items 11-1? are skipped and items 14-1: are completed instead. ST%E GT*S: .lient-.entered self-report +llows children to articulate what they would like to work on in therapy + good alternative to the .OP# when working with young children /uick and easy to administer .hildren enBoying using this tool .an use this interview to develop rapport .hild gets to participate in the therapy process and caregivers get to learn about the child8s priorities .an help therapist negotiate the focus of intervention

"'M'TAT'& S: STA (A%('+AT'& : .hild may be unaware of difficulties decreased self-awareness" .hild may not want to divulge difficulties .ards take time to sort if taken out of order

Standardi@ation study completed consisting of $$: children! ages '-% years old. 1,,-C"

,A"'('T-:

The test items for the predecessor All About Me tool were drawn from developmental literature and from other measures of self-concept and perceived efficacy. The items have been revised over the course of the development of PEGS using feedback from e3pert clinicians and from participating children. )n the standardi@ation study for PEGS n = $$:"! 14 occupational therapists OT" confirmed that the items in PEGS were relevant for the children who were going to receive OT intervention. Other e3amples of validity in the manual are primarily based on the All About Me predecessor. #oderate correlation between All About Me and the DTE#) r=.'?" and FOT#P r = .:-" All About Me and PCSA highly correlated r = .&," in regards to assessing a child8s perceived competence All About Me was a valid measure to distinguish between children with and without motor impairments e.g. children in the D.D group had mean scores that were two to three standard deviations below the scores of the matched group" Internal Consistency: information only provided for predecessor tool All About Me Test-Retest: information only provided for predecessor tool All About Me r = ,.::" Goal Stability: children8s goals appear to be stable over time

%E"'A.'"'T-: