Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System (AEPS)
Descriptive Information
Title, Edition, Dates of Publication and Revision* – Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System, (AEPS) published initially in 1993, most recent publication in 2002
Author (s) – Diane Bricker Ph.D., Betty Capt Ph.D., OTR, JoAnn (JJ) Johnson Ph.D., Kristie Pretti-Frontczak Ph.D., Misti Waddell M.S., Elizabeth Straka Ph.D., CCC-SLP With Author: Kristine Slentz Ph.D.
Source (publisher or distributor, address) – Brookes Publishing Company P.O. Box 10624
Baltimore, MD 21285-0624 .
Costs – All 4 volumes $260.00
Purpose* The test is designed to gauge a child’s present level of function across six different developmental areas including fine motor, gross motor, adaptive, cognitive, social-communication, and social along with providing goals and objectives, and guide subsequent individualized activities as the child works towards certain targets.
Type of Test – observation
Target Population and Ages* – children from birth to 6 years of age
Time Requirements – Time for completion can take up to two weeks
Test Administration – A child is observed in multiple settings performing certain types of activities.
Scoring – scoring is done on a scale of 0, 1, or 2. A 2 indicates that the child was able to perform the activity independently, a 1 indicating that they needed assistance and a 0 meaning they were unable to complete the task. These tasks are divided into strands (i.e. play skills), goals which are pooled together to make a strand, and then the smaller objectives which are combined to make a goal
Type of information, resulting from testing – standard scores
Environment for Testing – the environment can be anywhere the child can be observed. It can be a classroom or a playground or in the home.
Equipment and Materials Needed – there are no specific materials needed to perform an examination
Examiner Qualifications – None necessary however, seminars are available to assist administration of the test
Standardization/normative data – None mentioned
Evidence of Reliability – Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from r = .77 in the social area to r = .95 in the gross motor area for birth to three years. In ages three to six years test-retest reliability ranged from adequate to good except in the gross motor and adaptive areas
Evidence of Validity- In children from three to six years validity was shown to have a range between an r = .37 for the Adaptive area and a .97 for the cognitive area
Summary Comments*
Strengths – There is limited setup necessary for the test and training also isn’t necessary. Easy to turn deficits exhibited by patient into goals. Does well to identify those who may qualify for IDEA services. Able to be utilized for those across the disability spectrum including those who are highly disabled.
Weaknesses: Time consuming due to it occurring over a two week period. Not specifically tailored to physical therapy.
Clinical Applications – Its most beneficial use would be in a school setting for a PT. The time commitment is a restraint on its applicability in other settings.
References:
Bricker, D., Yovanoff, P., Capt, B., & Allen, D. (2003). Use of a curriculum-based measure to corroborate eligibility decisions. Journal of Early Intervention, 26(1), 20–30
Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Bricker, D. (2000). Enhancing the quality of Individualized Education Plan (IEP) goals and objectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 23(2), 92–105
http://aepsinteractive.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AEPS_PsychometricProperties.pdf
Research article:
Bricker, D., Yovanoff, P., Capt, B., & Allen, D. (2003). Use of a curriculum-based measure to corroborate eligibility decisions. Journal of Early Intervention, 26(1), 20–30
The purpose of this article was to determine how well the AEPS was in determining whether children with developmental delays could be qualified for funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Act. There was a sample size of 861 children gathered that was comprised of two groups; being those displaying normal developmental trends and the second group being those who had slower developmental trends. As demonstrated by the study those who didn’t reach the cutoff scores for AEPS were also correctly identified as students who would qualify for IDEA. The study sheds light into the use of standardized testing to help identify students who would qualify for additional services in school and supports the sentiment that the AEPS is an appropriate indicator to allocate services for these students.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.