Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System

[ Contact Info ] [ Training Info ] [ History ]

The Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System (AEPS) is a criterion-referenced tool developed to be used by direct service personnel (e.g., classroom interventionists, home visitors) and specialists (e.g., communication specialists, occupational therapist, physical therapists, psychologists) to assess and evaluate the skills and abilities of infants and young children who are at risk and who have disabilities. This comprehensive and linked system includes assessment/evaluation, curricular, and family participation components for the developmental range from birth to six years.

For more information on ordering the AEPS, please visit the Paul Brookes Publishing website at www.brookespublishing.com

AEPS Contact Info

Individuals interested in technical assistance on the AEPS can contact:

Misti Waddell, M.S.
Early Intervention Program
5253 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-5253 phone
541- 346-2635/ fax 541- 346-5639

AEPS Training Info

Training on the AEPS is currently provided as part of the CASCADES Project. If you are interested in being trained to use the AEPS contact:

Misti Waddell - waddesmis@uoregon.edu

AEPS History

At the October 1974 organizational meeting of the American Association for the Education of the Severely and Profoundly Handicapped, which is now called The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, a group of frustrated people convened. The meeting was not planned but occurred spontaneously in a dining room over breakfast. The topic of conversation was the need for a functional and accurate measurement tool for young children with severe disabilities. The conversation was a magnet that drew people from adjoining tables as well as those who happened to pass by. It seemed everyone within earshot who worked with young children was feeling a strong and urgent need for some alternative to the use of standardized norm-referenced tests or home-made tests with questionable validity and reliability. The interest was intense then and has remained so for many into the new millenium.

From 1974 to 1976, conversations continued periodically among a group of people who were highly motivated to address this pressing measurement need. In the spring of 1976, professionals from six universities met in New Orleans to discuss the possibility of developing a tool that was specifically designed for children who ranged developmentally from birth to 2 years of age and that would yield educationally relevant outcomes. In addition, the group discussed the possibility of developing this tool through a consortium effort. Personnel from five of the six universities agreed to work toward a collaborative effort to fill this measurement gap. The initial participants included: Diane Bricker, then at the University of Miami; Dale Gentry, Owen White, and Robin Beck, then at the University of Washington; Lizbeth Vincent-Smith, then at the University of Wisconsin; Verna Hart, then at the University of Pittsburgh; and Evelyn Brown-Lynch, then at the University of Indiana.

A second official meeting was held in Madison, Wisconsin, in June 1976, when the group, whose constellation had changed slightly, formalized responsibilities and adopted the name the Consortium of Adaptive Performance Evaluation. Two other meetings were held in 1976, one in Kansas City in October and one in Pittsburgh in November. During these meetings, plans were formulated to write an application to be submitted to the Research Branch of the Division of Innovation and Development, Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, now the Office of Special Education Programs. The grant application, written primarily by Dale Gentry and Own White, was submitted in December with the American Academy for Education of the Severely and Profoundly Handicapped as the sponsoring agency.

The application was approved and funded, permitting formal continuation of the work begun by the consortium members. During the 3-year period of the grant, a number of individuals from the five participating universities shared in the development of the instrument. The major players during this period were Dale Gentry, Diane Bricker, Own White, Lizbeth Vincent, Evelyn Lynch, and Verna Hart. During this period, conceptual as well as empirical work was undertaken. The principles underlying the tool were refined and the first data collection on the preliminary instrument conducted. It was perhaps at this time that members of the consortium began to realize the magnitude of the task they had set for themselves. Owen White argued that one area be developed, tested, and modified before tackling the other test areas. Although outvoted, hindsight suggests he was probably correct, and development might have proceeded more rapidly had the group followed his suggestion. The size of the task was particularly intimidating because other commitments prevented the major players from allotting sufficient time to the project. In addition, although the consortium players could agree on the need for a tool, compromise between developmentalists and behavior analysts was time-consuming and exhausting, and often led to contentious meetings; however, much of the strength of the ensuing instrument was the result of divergent views represented.

In 1980, under the leadership of Dale Gentry with the able assistance of Katie McCarton, a supplemental award to the Handicapped Children's Early Education Project grant of the University of Idaho provided support for the project. (By this time Gentry had moved to Idaho and Bricker to Oregon.) During this period, the first complete and usable assessment/evaluation tool became available for comprehensive field testing. The tool was called the Adaptive Performance Instrument or the API. The data and informal feedback on the API were extremely interesting but troublesome. The tool had more than 600 items for the developmental range of birth to 2 years. This depth of coverage provided detailed and useful descriptions of children's behavioral repertoires, but also took 8-10 hours to administer. Thus, the tool's strength -- generation of detailed behavioral profiles -- was also its weakness --excessive administration time.

After the termination of the federal supplemental grant, consortium members considered seeking a commercial publisher to disseminate the API. However, several consortium members believed that adequate psychometric data had not been collected on the test and thus continued study was in order. Also, there was a nagging problem of administration time. A complete copy of the API was sent to the Bureau for the Education of the Handicapped as part of the final project report. In addition, copies of the API that had been made during the granting period were distributed to interested parties as long as the supply lasted.

During the 1983-84, the Idaho and Oregon group found creative ways to maintain support for work on the instrument. The API was modified considerably by reducing the number of test items from more than 600 to less than 300, and extending the developmental range to 36 months. Most items were rewritten and the presentation format changed. The modifications were so extensive that the measure was renamed the Comprehensive Early Evaluation and Programming System. A dissertation conducted by E.J. Bailey (Ayers) at the University of Oregon examined the psychometric properties of the modified instrument and was completed in August of 1983.

Using the Bailey (Ayers) dissertation data as a base, a research grant was written and submitted to the field-initiated research program of the Division of Innovation and Development, Office of Special Education Programs. In October 1984, a 3-year grant was awarded to the University of Oregon. During the ensuing 3 years, another extensive revision was conducted on the instrument and the name was changed to the Evaluation and Programming System: For Infants and Young Children (EPS). In addition, an associated curriculum was developed and field tested.

From 1984 to 1989, extensive data were collected on the EPS Birth to Three Years and have been published elsewhere (Bailey & Bricker, 1986; Bricker, Bailey, & Slentz, 1990; Cripe, 1990; Notari & Bricker, 1990). In 1993, the EPS Test for Birth to Three Years and its associated curriculum were published by Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company. At that time, the name was changed to the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System (AEPS) for Infants and Children to reflect accurately its purpose and use. In this first edition, the AEPS for Birth to Three Years was composed of a test (AEPS Measurement for Birth to Three Years) and an associated curriculum (AEPS Curriculum for Birth to Three Years). The success of the AEPS Test and Curriculum for the developmental range from birth to 3 years served as the major impetus for expanding the AEPS to cover the developmental range from 3 to 6 years.

From the time of the first field testing of the AEPS Birth to Three Years, there was pressure to expand the system to cover the entire preschool age range. In 1985, work was begun on the developmental of a test and associated curriculum to address the developmental range from 3 to 6 years. The first version was field tested by Slentz (1986). The results from this study served as a basis for extensive revisions of the test. The revised test was called the Evaluation and Programming System for Young Children -- Assessment Level II: Developmentally 3 Years to 6 Years (Bricker, Janko, Cripe, Bailey, & Kaminski, 1989). Selected psychometric properties of the revised test were examined by Hsia (1993). The findings from this study were encouraging and suggested only minor modifications in test items were needed in the third revision, entitled the Assessment, Evaluation and Programming System Test for Three to Six Years (Bricker, Ayers, Slentz, & Kaminski, 1992).

Between 1992 and 1995 a curriculum linked to the 3-6 years test was developed. In 1996, the companion volumes 3 and 4 of the AEPS series were published by Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company. Volume 3 was entitled AEPS Measurement for Three to Six Years (Bricker & Pretti-Frontczak, 1996) and Volume 4, AEPS Curriculum for Three to Six Years (Bricker & Waddell, 1996).

Since the mid 1990's, study of the treatment validity of the AEPS has been ongoing (e.g., Pretti-Frontczak & Bricker, 1997, 2000). In addition, feedback from formal AEPS training sessions has been collected and studied. Using these sources of information, a working team composed of Diane Bricker, Betty Capt, Kristie Pretti-Frontczak, JJ Johnson, Natalya McComas, Kris Slentz, Elizabeth Straka, and Misti Waddell has completed the latest iteration of the AEPS.