This is the public-facing research page. The detailed version lives at /about/research (24_about_research_heritage). This page is the entry point from /evidence: shorter, more prospect-focused, links across to the deeper page for academic buyers.
Most vocational assessment tools validate the program, not the measurement. PAES is built on peer-reviewed, instrument-level validation, which gives schools, districts, and VR agencies evidence they can stand behind in audits, placement decisions, and family conversations.
The distinction that matters
Many programs in this space point to gains after intervention. That measures the program, not the measurement. PAES validates the assessment tool itself. The scoring system has been examined by academic reviewers. The reliability and predictive value have been tested. The data is consistent, transferable, and holds up across settings and over time.
When a district has to defend a placement decision, when a VR agency has to justify a Pre-ETS plan, when a state reviewer asks "how do you know?", the reliability of the measurement matters as much as any reported gain.
The published evidence base
- Foundational peer review: Educational Measurement, Issues and Practice, 1999.
- Companion paper: AERA conference, 1999.
- Predictive validity study: peer-reviewed work examining whether PAES scores predict post-secondary outcomes.
- Content validity study: peer-reviewed work examining whether the assessment measures what it claims to measure.
A new multi-site outcome study is underway in 2026 to refresh the foundational evidence. Details will be added here as results clear academic review.
The 2026 Customer Impact Survey
In early 2026, we surveyed 308 active PAES supervisors across the US, UK, Canada, and Guam. Every headline below is verified and sourced.
The headline findings:
- 82% rate PAES positive overall (C01)
- 81% say PAES reveals strengths traditional assessment misses (C02)
- 74% trust PAES data for high-stakes decisions (C04)
- 86% report students show increased transition readiness (C11)
- 75% say PAES reduces subjectivity in decisions about students (C14)
- Recently trained sites score 0.3 to 0.7 points higher on impact items than untrained sites (C17)
We also acknowledge the weaker items:
- Only 53% reported improved student attendance, the lowest score in the survey. We name it rather than hide it. (C16)
How supervisors use the evidence
The evidence base matters because supervisors use it. Schools cite the peer review in grant applications. Districts cite the survey data in state reviews. VR agencies cite the instrument-level validation in interagency agreements. Families are given the research summary before the transition meeting.
For academics and research partners
If you are evaluating PAES for a research study, doctoral thesis, or meta-analysis, see the detailed research page at /about/research or get in touch via the contact page. Where ethics approval permits and we have capacity, we can share published papers, connect you with active PAES sites, and support academic acknowledgment.
Next step
Primary: Download the research summary (PDF) Secondary: Read the full evidence story at /about/research