Perceived Efficacy and Goal-Setting System

The Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting System (PEGS) enables young children with disabilities to self-report their perceived competence in everyday activities and to set goals for intervention (Missiuna, Pollock, & Law, 2004).

Link to Instrument

Area of Assessment

Assessment Type

Administration Mode

Cost

Actual Cost

Cost Description

Populations

Key Descriptions

• Includes card sort activity with 27 items for provider-child semi-structured interview.
• Caregiver and teacher complete separate questionnaires.
• Scores based on child’s self-perception and caregiver ratings of 5 self-care items, 9 school/productivity items, and 10 leisure items.
• Goals formed collaboratively among caregivers, child, and therapist.
• Administration instructions: see scoring manual
  
• Caregiver/teachers score sheet:
  A) 27 items for caregiver, 23 for teacher
  B) Skip items 22-24 if child does not use wheel chair
  C) Four possible answers for each item: a lot like the “less competent” answer, a little like the “less competent” answer, a little like the “more competent” answer, a lot like the “more competent” answer
  D) A written question asking: “are there any additional items with which your child has difficulty?”
  E) Ask caregiver/teacher to list four activities they would like to see the child improve in
• Child card-sort:
  A) 27 pairs of test cards, one pair of blank cards
  B) Each pair contains a card with a child doing an activity with “competence” and a card with a child performing an activity with “less competence”
  C) Child asked to identify which child is more like them
  D) The child is asked a follow-up question of how much is this child like you? (a lot, a little)
  E) Cards sorted on a placemat (one pile for each answer)
  F) Cards from the “a lot like the ‘less competent’ child” are taken to the side by the therapist. The therapist reviews the cards with the child and asks which cards are most important for them to improve on
  G) The same items are skipped as the caregiver/teacher section, under the same circumstances
• Child score sheet & summary score sheet:
  A) Each card from the four pile are associated a score, 1-4, corresponding to that of the caregiver/teacher scoring system
  B) The score from each sheet (caregiver, child, teacher) are transferred item by item onto the summary score sheet
  C) Four goals from each questionnaire/interview are included on the summary score sheet
  D) Comments and interpretations are also added onto the summary score sheet

Number of Items

27 paired items

2 sample card pairs

1 blank card pair

Equipment Required

• Manual
• Card set
• Card placemats
• Child score sheet
• Caregiver questionnaire
• Teacher questionnaire
• Pen or pencil
• Colorful self-adhesive notes

Time to Administer

Required Training

Age Ranges

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by University of Illinois at Chicago Master of Science in Occupational Therapy students Kevin Jorgensen, Bianca Joseph, and Ryan Walsh.

ICF Domain

Measurement Domain

Considerations

• When comparing PEGS total mean scores between genders, girls’ mean competence ratings were lower than the mean competence ratings of the boys participating in the study (Costa & Lindenthal, 2015).
• “There may have been a gender effect with girls and boys rating themselves in a similar fashion on gross and fine motor items but parents far more likely to rate girls as more competent than boys on fine motor items (Girls FM x = 33/48; Boys FM x = 24/48)” (Missiuna & Pollock, 2000, p. 106).

• “Children with ADHD and psychiatric diagnoses rated themselves as more competent than children with other types of disabilities. This is not surprising as many of the tasks shown in the PEGS cards have a high motor demand, and these children are likely more motorically competent than those in the other groups” (Missiuna, Pollock, Law, Walter & Cavey, 2006, p. 212).
• “Children with physical disabilities were most likely to indicate that they had some difficulty performing many of these tasks and were more likely to be rated by their caregivers and teachers as performing less competently (MIssiuna, Pollock & Law, 2004, p. 43).
• “Children with mild motor problems perceived themselves to be more competent than children with physical disabilities on the GM subscale but the FM scores did not differ between the two groups. Parents of children with mild motor problems rated them much higher, or more competent, on gross motor than fine motor items while the reverse was true for parents of children with physical disabilities” (Missiuna & Pollock, 2000, p. 106).

Social and family

• “For children going to a school for children with special needs, the child’s efforts would possibly be given more credit, while children going to a regular school might be measured based on their actual occupational performance” (Costa & Lindenthal, 2015, p. 28).
• “There also appeared to be a birth order effect in that first-born children and only children were scored higher in competence by the parents than were second or later-born children” (Missiuna & Pollock, 2000, p. 10).

Pediatric Disorders

Test/Retest Reliability

Children with Impairments: (Missiuna, Pollock, & Law, 2004; n = 24; Mean Age = 7.0 (0.55); Canadian sample)

• Excellent test-retest reliability for fine motor items: (ICC = .79*)
• Excellent test-retest reliability for gross motor items: (ICC = .76*)
• Excellent test-retest reliability for total score items: (ICC = .77*)

*Test-retest reliability statistical figures are based on testing of items from the All About Me (AAM) assessment that are used as PEGS assessment items.

Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder: (Engel-Yeger & Hanna Kasis, 2010; n = 37; Mean Age = 7.57 (1.05); Arab-Israeli sample)

• Excellent test-retest reliability: (ICC = [.92, .98]

Internal Consistency

Child semi-structured Interview:

Children with Impairments: (Missiuna et al., 2004)

• Excellent internal consistency for fine motor items: (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.85*)
• Excellent internal consistency for gross motor items (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.85*)
• Excellent internal consistency for total score items (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.91*)

*Internal consistency statistical figures are based on testing of items from the All About Me (AAM) assessment that are used as the PEGS assessment items.

Children with Impairments: (Missiuna, Pollock, Law, Walter, & Cavey 2006; n = 117; Canadian sample)

• Adequate internal consistency for total score (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.795)

Healthy Children: (Ricon, Hen & Keadan-Hardan, 2013; n = 62; Mean Age = 5.16 (.92); Arab-Israeli sample)

• Adequate internal consistency for total score: (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.79)

Caregiver Questionnaire:

Parents of Healthy Children: (Ricon, Hen, & Keadan-Hardan, 2013; Mean (Standard Deviation) Age of Mother = 31.23 (4.63); Mean (Standard Deviation) Age of Father = 35.24 (4.37); Arab-Israeli sample)

• Excellent internal consistency reliability: (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.87)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Predictive Validity:

Children with Normal Hearing: (Engel-Yeger & Weissman, 2009; n = 26; Mean (Standard Deviation) Age = 6.56 (1.41); Arab-Israeli sample)

• Adequate predictive validity of involvement in extracurricular activities at predicting self-efficacy scores in PEGS total score (r = 0.591)
• Adequate predictive validity of involvement in extracurricular activities at predicting self-care subscale score (r = 0.408)
• Adequate predictive validity of involvement in extracurricular activities at predicting school productivity subscale score (r = 0.596)
• Adequate predictive validity of involvement in extracurricular activities at predicting leisure subscale scores in PEGS total score (r = 0.42)
• Adequate predictive validity of age at predicting self-efficacy scores in PEGS total score (r = 0.531)
• Adequate predictive validity of age at predicting self-care subscale score (r = 0.464)
• Adequate predictive validity of age at predicting school productivity subscale score (r = 0.463)
• Adequate predictive validity of age at predicting leisure subscale score (r = 0.447)

Concurrent Validity:

Healthy Children: (Ricon, Hen, & Keadan-Hardan, 2013)

• Excellent concurrent validity between MMD scores and PEGS caregiver questionnaire scores in performance (r = 0.68)
• Adequate concurrent validity between Make My Day (MMD) scores and PEGS scores in performance (r = 0.43)
• Adequate concurrent validity between Make My Day (MMD) scores and PEGS scores in quality of performance in IADL activities (r = 0.48)
• Adequate concurrent validity between Make My Day (MMD) scores and PEGS scores in independent performance of IADL activities (r = 0.52)
• Adequate concurrent validity between Make My Day (MMD) scores and PEGS scores in satisfaction from IADL activities (r = 0.42)
• Adequate concurrent validity between Make My Day (MMD) scores and PEGS scores in quality of performance in play activities (r = 0.43)
• Adequate concurrent validity between Make My Day (MMD) scores and PEGS scores in independent performance of play activities (r = 0.44)
• Adequate concurrent validity between Make My Day (MMD) scores and PEGS scores in satisfaction from play activities (r = 0.48)
• Excellent concurrent validity between MMD scores and PEGS scores in quality of performance in BADL activities (r = 0.68)
• Excellent concurrent validity between MMD scores and PEGS scores in independent performance of BADL activities (r = 0.69)
• Excellent concurrent validity between MMD scores and PEGS scores in satisfaction from BADL activities (r = 0.61)
• Adequate concurrent validity between MMD scores and PEGS caregiver questionnaire scores in quality of performance in BADL activities (r = 0.54)
• Adequate concurrent validity between MMD scores and PEGS caregiver questionnaire scores in independent performance of BADL activities (r = 0.57)
• Adequate concurrent validity between MMD scores and satisfaction from BADL activities (r = 0.42)
• Adequate concurrent validity between MMD scores and quality of performance in IADL activities (r = 0.51)
• Adequate concurrent validity between MMD scores and independent performance of IADL activities(r = 0.45)
• Adequate concurrent validity between MMD scores and satisfaction from IADL activities (r = 0.34)
• Adequate concurrent validity between MMD scores and quality of performance in play activities (r = 0.36)
• Adequate concurrent validity between MMD scores and independent performance of play activities (r = 0.51)
• Adequate concurrent validity between MMD scores and satisfaction from play activities (r = 0.35)
• Excellent concurrent validity between MMD scores and PEGS caregiver questionnaire scores in performance (r = 0.68)

Construct Validity

Convergent Validity:

Children with Impairments: (Missiuna et al., 2006)

• Adequate convergent validity for child-parent agreement: (r = 0.307)
• Poor convergent validity for child-teacher agreement:: (r = 0.287)
• Poor convergent validity for parent-teacher agreement: (r = 0.261)

Children Aged 7 to 9 with Dysgraphia: (Engel-Yeger, Nagauker-Yanuv, & Rosenblum, 2009; n = 21; Arab-Israeli sample)

• Adequate convergent validity of negative correlation between PEGS total scores and Children’s Questionnaire for Handwriting Proficiency (CHaP) legibility subscale (r = -0.531)
• Adequate convergent validity of negative correlation between PEGS total scores and Children’s Questionnaire for Handwriting Proficiency (CHaP) time performance subscale, and physical and emotional well-being subscale (r = -0.521)
• Adequate convergent validity of negative correlation between PEGS total scores and Children’s Questionnaire for Handwriting Proficiency (CHaP) physical and emotional well-being subscales (r = -0.573)
• Adequate convergent validity of negative correlation between CHaP legibility subscale mean scores and PEGS school/productivity subscale mean scores (r = -0.447)
• Adequate convergent validity of negative correlation between CHaP time subscale mean scores and PEGS school/productivity subscale mean scores (r = -0.492)
• Adequate convergent validity of negative correlation between CHaP legibility subscale mean scores and PEGS leisure subscale mean scores (r = -0.55)
• Adequate convergent validity of negative correlation between CHaP time performance subscale mean scores and PEGS leisure subscale mean scores (r = -0.55)

Children with Developmental Coordination Disorder: (Engel-Yeger & Hanna Kasis, 2009)

• Adequate convergent validity of PEGS school/productivity subscale scores with PAC preference to participate in self-improvement activities (r = -0.41)
• Adequate convergent validity of PEGS school/productivity subscale scores with Movement Assessment Battery for Children (MABC) total motor impairment scores (r = -0.337)
• Adequate convergent validity of PEGS leisure subscale scores with MABC total motor impairment scores (r = 0.51)
• Adequate convergent validity of PEGS total self-efficacy scale scores with Preference for Activities of Children (PAC) preference to participate in self-improvement activities (r = -0.386)
• Adequate convergent validity of PEGS leisure subscale scores and PAC preferences to participate in active physical activities (r = -0.345)
• Adequate convergent validity of PEGS leisure subscale scores and PAC preferences to participate in self-improvement activities (r = -0.342)
• Adequate convergent validity of PEGS leisure subscale scores and PAC preferences to participate in formal activities (r = -0.348)
• Adequate convergent validity of PEGS self-care subscale scores with PAC preferences to participate in self-improvement activities (r = -0.548)
• Adequate convergent validity of PEGS self-care subscale scores with PAC preferences to participate in informal activities (r = -0.433)

Content Validity

The AG-PEGS (Austrian-German PEGS) demonstrates strong content validity for use in German-speaking populations (Costa, 2004; Costa & Lindenthal, 2015; Costa, Brauchle & Kennedy-Behr, 2016).

The Swedish translation and adaptation of PEGS required minor adaptations to five items: playing ball games, finishing school work, keeping desk tidy, organizing numbers on the page, and printing/writing. One new item, toileting, was added (Vroland-Nordstrand & Krumlinde-Sundholm, 2012a; Vroland-Nordstrand & Krumlinde-Sundholm, 2012b).

Bibliography

Costa, U.M. (2014). Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting System (PEGS): Results from the first Austrian-German PEGS version exploring meaningful activities for children. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 34(3), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.3928/15394492-20140325-02

Costa, U.M., Brauchle, G., & Kennedy-Behr, A. (2016). Collaborative goal setting with and for children as part of therapeutic intervention. Article in Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2016.1202334

Costa, U.M., & Lindenthal, M. J. (2015). Perceived competences in everyday activities: Children’s self-report and parents’ and teachers’ report using the first Austrian-German Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting System (AG-PEGS) version. International Journal of Health Professions, 2(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijhp-2015-0001

Engel-Yeger, B., & Hanna Kasis, A. (2010). The relationship between Developmental Co-ordination Disorders, child's perceived self-efficacy and preference to participate in daily activities: DCD, self-efficacy and participation. Child: Care, Health and Development, 36(5), 670-677. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01073.x

Engel-Yeger, B., Nagauker-Yanuv, L., & Rosenblum, S. (2009). Handwriting performance, self-reports, and perceived self-efficacy among children with dysgraphia. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63(2), 182-192. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.63.2.182

Engel-Yeger, B., & Weissman, D. (2009). A comparison of motor abilities and perceived self-efficacy between children with hearing impairments and normal hearing children. Disability & Rehabilitation, 31(5), 352-358. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280801896548

Missiuna, C., & Pollock, N. (2000). Perceived efficacy and goal setting in young children. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67(3), 101-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/000841740006700303

Missiuna, C., Pollock, N., & Law, M. (2004). Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting system (PEGS). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Missiuna, C., Pollock, N., Law, M., Walter, S., & Cavey, N. (2006). Examination of the Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting system (PEGS) with children with disabilities, their parents, and teachers. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60(2), 204–214. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.60.2.204

Ricon, T., Hen, L., & Keadan‐Hardan, A. (2013). Establishing reliability and validity for “Make My Day” – A new tool for assessing young Arab‐Israeli children's typical daily activities. Occupational Therapy International, 20(4), 173-184. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.1350

Vroland-Nordstrand, K., & Krumlinde-Sundholm, L. (2012a). The Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting System (PEGS), part I: Translation and cross-cultural adaptation to a Swedish context. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 19(6), 497-505. https://doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2012.684221

Vroland-Nordstrand, K., & Krumlinde-Sundholm, L. (2012b). The Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting System (PEGS), part II: Evaluation of test-retest reliability and differences between child and parental reports in the Swedish version. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 19(6), 506-514. https://doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2012.685759

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.