Tests & Measures: A Resource for Pediatric Physical Therapy Practitioners

Assessment evaluation and programming system for infants and children (AEPS)

Purpose: To accurately assess the target populations’ current skill levels, focus instruction for these skills, monitor progress, and aid in identifying disabilities and determining eligibility.

Target Population: Children from birth to age six who are at risk for developmental delays or have a disability.

Standardization/Normative Data: No norms have been created

Strength: Excellent for goal development, as this measure links the assessment, evaluation, and interventions together.

Weakness: AEPS was not specifically designed to determine eligibility for the services a child can receive, so the norms for children at different ages are not included. However, you can use AEPS in one of two ways depending on your state. It can be used as a standalone measure if your state allows the provider to make informed clinical judgment, or it can be used as a corroborating source if your state requires criterion-referenced assessments for eligibility. This test needs to be repeated throughout the intervention process.

Clinical Application: Because of the duration needed for this test, school systems are an ideal place to conduct testing. it could also be used in a home health setting in which eligibility for disability services are being conducted

Studies supporting AEPS as an accurate, reliable, valid, and highly sensitive assessment tool and intervention planning instrument:

Bailey, E., & Bricker, D. (1986). A psychometric study of a criterion-referenced assessment designed for infants and young children. Journal of the Division of Early Childhood, 10(2), 124–134.

Bricker, D., Bailey, E., & Slentz, K. (1990). Reliability, validity, and utility of the Evaluation and Programming System: For Infants and Young Children (EPS-I). Journal of Early Intervention, 14(2), 147–160.

Bricker, D., & Pretti-Frontczak, K. (1997). A study of psychometric properties of the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming Test for Three to Six Years. Unpublished report, Center on Human Development, Early Intervention Program, University of Oregon, Eugene.

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.

Cripe, J.W. (1990). Evaluating the effectiveness of training procedures in a linked system approach to individual family service plan development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.

Grisham-Brown, J., Hallam, R., & Pretti-Frontczak, K. (2008). Preparing Head Start personnel to use a curriculum based assessment: A model for implementation in the age of accountability. Journal of Early Intervention (Innovative Practices). Prepublished June, 12, 2008; DOI: 10.1177/0123456789123456

Hamilton, D.A. (1995). The utility of the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System in the development of quality IEP goals and objectives for young children, birth to three, with visual impairments. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56 (08), 2994A. (UMI No. AA195-41906).

Hsia, T. (1993). Evaluating the psychometric properties of the Assessment, Evaluation, and

Programming System for Three to Six Years: AEPS Test. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

Kim, Y. H. (1997). Activity-based assessment: A functional approach to determining the eligibility of young children for special education services. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

Macy, M.G., Bricker, D.D., & Squires, J.K. (2005). Validity and reliability of a curriculum-based assessment approach to determine eligibility for part C services. Journal of Early Intervention, 28(1), 1–16.

Notari, A., & Bricker, D. (1990). The utility of a curriculum-based assessment instrument in the development of individualized education plans for infants and young children. Journal of Early Intervention, 14(2), 117–132.

Notari, A., & Drinkwater, S.G. (1991). Best practice for writing child outcomes: An evaluation of two methods. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11(3), 92–106.

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.

Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Bricker, D. (2001). Use of the embedding strategy during daily activities by early childhood education and early childhood special education teachers. Infant and Toddler Intervention: The Transdisciplinary Journal, 11(2), 29–46.

Sher, N. (1999). Activity-based assessment: Linkage between eligibility and intervention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

Slentz, K. (1986). Evaluating the instructional needs of young children with handicaps: Psychometric adequacy of the Evaluation and Programming System–Assessment Level II. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 (11), 4072A.

Straka, E. (1994). Assessment of young children for communication delays. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56 (02), 456A. (UMI No. AAT95-19689)

 

 

Summary

Grisham-Brown J, Hallam R, Brookshire R (2006). Using Authentic Assessment to Evidence Children’s Progress Toward Early Learning Standards. Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 34, No. 1, August 2006

This article’s goal is to determine the effectiveness of using the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System (AEPS) as an authentic tool in the documentation of children’s’ progress towards a set of set standards. In this case, the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework is being utilized to set the standards. While this study utilizes the AEPS as a means of curriculum planning in the classroom for different levels of developmental needs, the methodology behind this system can be utilized in physical therapy for different motor skills and functional goals.The AEPS is also used to plan curriculum around the framework established by the Head Start program. The study claims that AEPS is used because it is performed in the natural environment of the child, it uses multiple methods, it is highly related to functional tasks, and it incorporates family participation in the assessment process. The study notes that the AEPS is unique in that it aligns assessment and curriculum planning. The authors note that the AEPS can be utilized in a classroom setting and can serve a wide range of developmental needs. This study shows how AEPS creates a broad goal based on the child’s assessment, and builds towards this goal with underlying objectives. For example, the goal of “demonstrating phonological awareness” is accomplished by scoring a 2 (independent ability) on the following series: using rhyming words, segmenting sentences and words, blending single sounds and syllables, identifying same and different sounds at the beginning and ends of words. This same approach can be used towards identifying areas of weakness and developing physical therapy goals around them. For instance, a student who cannot get climb stairs in school would have a goal of “ascend and descend school stairs in timely manner”. The objective goals within this might be as follows: manage backpack while using assistive device during gait, ascend/descend stairs using handrail, ascend/desend stairs without handrail, increase speed of stair ascension/descent. This study used motor skills such as manipulating objects, untying and fastening strings, zippers, and Velcro as well as a number of cognitive tasks as items that each child had to complete, and made goals for each child based on their AEPS scores. This study showed that AEPS is not only effective for interventions and adjusting curriculum, but it is an efficient means of data collection and future evaluation. The authors conclude that education, like physical therapy, requires a sense of accountability in order to improve practice. Using authentic assessment, such as AEPS, is superior in allowing children to attain their pre-set goals. Obviously this article was focused on educational interventions and not physical therapy. It lacked the raw numbers and data that I am accustomed to seeing in our field of research, and because AEPS is not standardized, it is not often used in research. However, it was obvious how the type of systematic assessment, evaluation, and programming used for goals and intervention used in the education real would be effective for improving functional status in pediatric physical therapy. This improvement in functional status would be achieved by the accountability of the therapists through focused, child-specific goals and adjustable interventions that allowed them to meet each objective within their goals. I feel like this would be a great way to organize and track progress with my patients.