Psychometric Properties of Turkish Version of Perceived Efficacy and Goal-Setting System

Abstract

Goal setting is essential in pediatric rehabilitation to enhance participation and meaningful goals. This study examined the construct validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability of the Turkish version of the Perceived Efficacy and Goal-Setting System (PEGS) in children with disabilities. A methodological cross-sectional design was used with 120 children aged 7 to 9 years (90.9% cerebral palsy, 9.1% spina bifida), their caregivers, and teachers from three rehabilitation centers in Turkey. The adaptation process followed WHO guidelines. Data were collected with PEGS-Child, PEGS-Caregiver, PEGS-Teacher forms, and demographics. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses confirmed a single-factor structure consistent with the original, with factor loadings above 0.320 and acceptable fit indices (CFI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.08). Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.72 to 0.77. Test–retest reliability was high (ICC = 0.876–0.943). The Turkish PEGS is valid and reliable, supporting child participation in goal-setting and fostering collaboration between home and school.

Plain Language Summary

Adaptation of the “Perceived Efficacy and Goal-Setting System (PEGS)” Scale, Assessing the Participation of Children With Physical Disabilities in the Goal-Setting Process, Into Turkish

This study tested whether the Turkish version of the Perceived Efficacy and Goal-Setting System (PEGS) is a useful and trustworthy tool for children with physical disabilities. PEGS helps children show what they can do and choose goals that are meaningful to them. We worked with 120 children aged 7 to 9 years (most with cerebral palsy, some with spina bifida), together with their parents and teachers, in three rehabilitation centers in Turkey. The forms were carefully translated and adapted to Turkish following international guidelines. The results showed that the Turkish PEGS works well: children, parents, and teachers gave consistent answers, and repeating the test after 2 weeks gave very similar results. The structure of the test was also the same as the original version. In conclusion, the Turkish PEGS is a reliable and valid tool that can help children, families, and teachers work together to set goals during rehabilitation and support children’s participation in daily life.

Keywords

disability children participation psychometrics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alpar

(2016). Applied statistics and validity-reliability with examples from sports, health, and educational sciences. Detay Publishing. (In Turkish)

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.

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 (AGPEGS) version. International Journal of Health Professions, 1, 1–14.

Cruchinho

López-Franco

M. D.

Capelas

M. L.

Almeida

Bennett

P. M.

Silva

M. M.

Teixeira

Nunes

Lucas

Gaspar

(2024). Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of measurement instruments: A practical guideline for novice researchers. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 17, 2701–2728. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S419714

Fisher

A. G.

Bray Jones

(2017). Occupational therapy intervention process model. In Perspectives on human occupations: Theories underlying practice (pp. 237–286).

Gagnier

J. J.

Lai

Mokkink

L. B.

Terwee

C. B.

(2021). COSMIN reporting guideline for studies on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 30, 2197–2218.

Gefen

(2020). Who sets the goals in pediatric rehabilitation? Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 62(4), 410–410.

Hair

Black

Babib

Anderson

Tatham

(2009). Multivariate data analysis [Internet]. Prentice Hall.

Hidecker

M. J. C.

Paneth

Rosenbaum

P. L.

Kent

R. D.

Lillie

Eulenberg

J. B.

. . .Taylor

(2011). Developing and validating the Communication Function Classification System for individuals with cerebral palsy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 53(8), 704–710.

10.

L. t.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

11.

Kang

Kim

M. Y.

Lipsey

K. L.

Foster

E. R.

(2022). Person-centered goal setting: A systematic review of intervention components and level of active engagement in rehabilitation goal-setting interventions. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 103(1), 121–130, e123.

12.

Keller

Kafkes

Kielhofner

(2005). Psychometric characteristics of the Child Occupational Self Assessment (COSA), part one: An initial examination of psychometric properties. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 12(3), 118–127.

13.

Kline

R. B.

(2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.

14.

Kramer

Heckmann

Bell-Walker

(2012). Accommodations and therapeutic techniques used during the administration of the Child Occupational Self Assessment. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 75(11), 495–502.

15.

Law

Baptiste

McColl

Opzoomer

Polatajko

Pollock

(1990). The Canadian occupational performance measure: An outcome measure for occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57(2), 82–87.

16.

Le Coq

Boeke

Bezemer

Colland

van Eijk

J. T. M

. (2000). Which source should we use to measure quality of life in children with asthma: The children themselves or their parents? Quality of Life Research, 9, 625–636.

17.

Meydan

C. H.

Şeşen

(2011). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi: AMOS uygulamaları [Structural equation modeling: AMOS applications]. Detay Yayıncılık.

18.

Missiuna

(1998). Development of “All About Me,” a scale that measures children’s perceived motor competence. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 18(2), 85–108.

19.

Missiuna

Pollock

(2000). Perceived efficacy and goal setting in young children. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 67(3), 101–109.

20.

Missiuna

Pollock

Law

Walter

Cavey

(2006). Examination of the Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting System (PEGS) with children with disabilities, their parents, and teachers. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60(2), 204–214.

21.

Palisano

R. J.

Chiarello

L. A.

King

G. A.

Novak

Stoner

Fiss

(2012). Participation-based therapy for children with physical disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34(12), 1041–1052.

22.

Palisano

R. J.

Rosenbaum

Bartlett

Livingston

M. H.

(2008). Content validity of the expanded and revised Gross Motor Function Classification System. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 50(10), 744–750.

23.

Pett

Lackey

Sullivan

(2003). Making sense of factor analysis. Sage.

24.

Rosenbaum

King

Law

King

Evans

(2014). Family-centred service: A conceptual framework and research review. In Family-centred assessment and intervention in pediatric rehabilitation (pp. 1–20).

25.

Ruggio

C. I. B.

Missiuna

Costa

S. d. A.

Araújo

C. R. S.

Magalhães

L. d. C.

(2018). Validity and reliability of the Perceived Efficacy and Goal Setting System (PEGS) for Brazilian children. Cadernos Brasileiros de Terapia Ocupacional, 26, 828–836.

26.

Sarısoy

Toy

B. Y.

(2021). Development of the Goal Setting Skills Scale for primary school students: Its validity and reliability across time. International Online Journal of Primary Education, 10(2), 456–468.

27.

Sturgess

Rodger

Ozanne

(2002). A review of the use of self-report assessment with young children. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65(3), 108–116.

28.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson.

29.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

Ullman

J. B.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics (Vol. 5). Pearson Boston.

30.

Tam

Teachman

Wright

(2008). Paediatric application of individualised client-centred outcome measures: A literature review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71(7), 286–296.

31.

Tavşancıl

(2010). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve SPSS ile veri analizi [Measurement of attitudes and data analysis with SPSS]. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.

32.

ten Velden

Couldrick

Kinébanian

Sadlo

. (2013). Dutch children’s perspectives on the constructs of the Child Occupational Self-Assessment (COSA). OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 33(1), 50–58.

33.

Tezbaşaran

A. A.

(1996). Likert tipi ölçek geliştirme kılavuzu [Guide for developing Likert-type scales]. Türk Psikologlar Derneği.

34.

Townsend

E. A.

Polatajko

H. J.

(2007). Advancing an occupational therapy vision for health, well-being, and justice through occupation. CAOT Publications ACE. «Enabling Occupation II présente une vue en coupe tranversale du MCRO-P pour définir et délimiter le domaine de préoccupation des ergothérapeutes, c’est-àdire l’occupation humaine.

35.

Vroland-Nordstrand

Eliasson

A. C.

Jacobsson

Johansson

Krumlinde-Sundholm

(2016). Can children identify and achieve goals for intervention? A randomized trial comparing two goal-setting approaches. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 58(6), 589–596.

36.

Vroland-Nordstrand

Eliasson

A.-C.

Krumlinde-Sundholm

Johansson

(2018). Parents’ experiences of conducting a goal-directed intervention based on children’s self-identified goals, a qualitative study. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 25(4), 243–251.

37.

Vroland-Nordstrand

Krumlinde-Sundholm

(2012). 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.

38.

World Health Organization. (2009). Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/

39.

Wressle

Eeg-Olofsson

A.-M.

Marcusson

Henriksson

(2002). Improved client participation in the rehabilitation process using a client-centred goal formulation structure. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 34(1), 5–11.

40.

Young

N. L.

Williams

J. I.

Yoshida

K. K.

Wright

J. G.

(2000). Measurement properties of the activities scale for kids. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53(2), 125–137.