NINDS CDE Notice of Copyright
Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting System (PEGS)
This instrument is copyrighted: Missiuna, C., Pollock, N., & Law, M. (2004). Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting System (PEGS). San Antonio,TX: Psychological Corporation. For additional information: click here for the Pearson Clinical Assessment website.
Supplemental: Stroke
Short Description of Instrument
The Perceived Efficacy Goal Setting System (PEGS) utilizes a child’s self-reported performance on everyday tasks to establish and prioritize goals for intervention. Assess a child’s daily activities in the home, school, and community environments.
PEGS provides colorful picture cards that illustrate 24 tasks essential for daily living and participation in school. These tasks are age-appropriate and reflect skills that have normally been acquired by children of this age. Each task has two cards associated with it. One card depicts a child successfully performing the task and the other card shows a child not performing the task well.
Assessment takes approximately 20 to 30 minutes.
Children select the card that best represents their ability to perform the task and indicate whether they are "a lot like" or "a little like" the chosen card. The cards that illustrate the most challenging tasks for the child are used in a goal-setting process that enables the child to identify priorities for intervention.
Psychometric Properties
Reported to have good construct and content validity. Internal consistency ranges from 0.92-0.98. Test retest reliability ranges from 0.77 to 0.79. It does appear to  discriminate between children with and without disability, and that the goals selected are adequately stable over a 2-week period.
Other Important Notes
Recommended for use in children aged 5 to 10 years
Missiuna C, & Pollock N.  Perceived efficacy and goal setting in young children. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2000; 67, 101–109.
Missiuna C, Pollock N, Law M, Walter S, Cavey N. Examination of PEGS with children with disabilities, their parents, and teachers. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2006; 60, 204-14.
Page 1 of 1