Sensory Processing Measure

Normative Sample: (Parham, Ecker, Miller Kuhaneck, Henry, & Glennon, 2007; n = 1,057; age = [5, 12])

Note: SEM = standard error of measurement.

Cut-off scores for School Environments Forms:

Art Class (ART): (n = 311; age = [5, 12]; M (SD) = 20.3 (6.0))

• Cut-off score of 29 accurately identified most sensory processing issues (% ≥ cutoff = 10.0)

Music Class (MUS): (n = 306; age = [5, 12]; M = 20.1 (5.7))

• Cut-off score of 29 accurately identified most sensory processing issues (% ≥ cutoff = 10.1)

Physical Education (PHY) Class: (n = 308; age = [5, 12]; M (SD) = 19.6 (4.9))

• Cut-off score of 28 accurately identified most sensory processing issues (% ≥ cutoff = 9.4)

Recess/Playground (REC): (n = 280; age = [5, 12]; M (SD) = 20.2 (5.7))

• Cut-off score of 29 accurately identified most sensory processing issues (% ≥ cutoff = 11.1)

Cafeteria (CAF): (n = 279; age = [5, 12]; M (SD) = 19.7 (5.0))

• Cut-off score of 27 accurately identified most sensory processing issues (% ≥ cutoff = 10.0)

School Bus (BUS): (n = 171; age = [5, 12]; M (SD) = 13.4 (3.7))

• Cut-off score of 19 accurately identified most sensory processing issues (% ≥ cutoff = 9.9)

Note: Cut-off scores are not reported for Home and Main Classroom Forms.

The SPM - Home Form and SPM - Main Classroom Form were standardized on a sample of 1051 typically developing children aged between 5 and 12 years.

Clinic-Referred Children Receiving OT Services versus Typically Developing Children: (Parham et al., 2007)

• Reliability was assessed with a sample of 77 children between the ages of 5-12 using the SPM Class and Home forms 2 weeks apart (r > 0.94)

Children with Sensory Processing Difficulties aged 5-12: (Lai, Chung, Chan, & Li-Tsang, 2011; Chinese sample)

• Good to excellent test-retest reliability of the SPM-HKC Home Form: (ICC = [0.70, 0.95])

• Good to excellent test-retest reliability of the SPM-HKC Main Classroom Form: (ICC = [0.82, 0.98])

Parent and Classroom Teacher Responses for Australian Children Aged 5-10: (Brown, Morrison, & Stagnitti, 2010b)

Adequate interrater reliability was found for the SPM Home Form (ICC = 0.63, p = 0.005) and subscales (ranged from 0.58 (p = 0.011) to 0.81 (p = 0.000))

Clinic-referred Children Receiving OT Services versus Typically Developing Children: (Parham et al., 2007)

• High Internal Consistency for the SPM-Home Form (Cronbach's Alpha = [0.77, 0.95])

• High Internal Consistency for the SPM-Class Form (Cronbach's Alpha = [0.75, 0.95])

Chinese Children with Sensory Processing Difficulties aged 5-12: (Lai, Chung, Chan, & Li-Tsang, 2011)

• Good internal consistency of the SPM-HKC in 3 of 8 Home scales (Cronbach’s Alpha ≥ 0.80)

• Good internal consistency of the SPM-HKC in 7 of 8 Main Classroom scales (Cronbach’s Alpha ≥ 0.80)

• TNS and BAL Home Form Coefficients > -0.70.

Parent and Classroom Teacher Responses for Australian Children Aged 5-10: (Brown, Morrison, & Stagnitti, 2010b)

• Adequate internal consistency in the Home Form (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.93; subscale coefficients ranged from 0.33-0.88; subscale coefficients = [0.04-0.87])

• Adequate internal consistency in the Class Form (Cronbach's Alpha = 0.86; subscale coefficients = [0.04, 0.87])

Convergent Validity:

The Sensory Profile and The Sensory Processing Measuring: (Brown, Morrison, & Stagnitti, 2010)

• Moderate convergent validity between the Sensory Profile and the SPM Home Form (Spearman's Rho = 0.86, p < .01)
• Moderate convergent validity between the Sensory Profile School Companion (SPSC) and the SPM Main Classroom Form (Spearman's Rho = .74, p < .01)

Children with Sensory Processing Difficulties Aged 5 to 12: (Lai, Chung, Chan, & Li-Tsang, 2011)

• Significant and moderate correlations between the SPM-HKC Home Form and Chinese Sensory Profile were obtained in 6 sensory scales: VIS, HEA, TOU, TNS, BOD, and BAL (r ranging from .483 to .673, p < .05)

Children with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders: (Hansen & Jirikowic, 2013)

• A strong negative relationship was found between the Sensory Profile and Sensory Processing Measure (r = −0.93, p < .001)

Discriminant Validity:

Clinic-referred Children Receiving OT Services Versus Typically Developing Children: (Parham et al., 2007)

• Scale means were significantly higher in the clinic sample than in the typical sample (Home Form: Wilks’s Lambda = 0.674, F(8,1308) = 79.1, p < .001, Main Classroom Form: Wilks’s Lambda = 0.708, F(8, 1294) = 66.9, p < .001), providing evidence of reliable differentiation between typically developing and clinic-referred children

Children with Sensory Processing Difficulties ages 5-12: (Lai, Chung, Chan, & Li-Tsang, 2011)

• On both Home Forms and Main Classroom Forms, children with Autism Spectrum Disorder had statistically significant higher scores in all eight scales of SPM-HKC (all p < .001) than their typically developing age and gender peers.

Clinic referred children receiving OT services versus Typically Developing Children: (Parham et al., 2007)

SPM is the product of two prior assessments including the School Assessment of Sensory Integration (SASI) and the Evaluation of Sensory Processing (ESP). Items from both measures are based on sensory integration theory and assess individuals' sensory integration difficulties. The early stages of these two prior assessments' development have enhanced the content validity of the Sensory Processing Measure.

Effect sizes:

SPM Home and Main Classroom Raw Scale Scores: Descriptive Statistics: (Parham et al., 2007)

Note: Higher raw scale scores indicate more problems and poorer functioning; Social Participation items and Home Form Item 57 are scored as follows: Never = 4, Occasionally = 3, Frequently = 2, Always = 1; All other items are scored as follows: Never = 1, Occasionally = 2, Frequently = 3, Always = 4.

SPM Raw Scale Scores: Descriptive Statistics and Effect Sizes by Age Group

Ages 5-8: n = 572; Ages 9-12: n = 479; Effect size refers to the difference between the group mean and the grand mean divided by the pooled standard deviation.

SPM Raw Scale Scores: Descriptive Statistics and Effect Sizes by Gender

Males: n = 547; Females: n = 504; Effect size refers to the difference between the group mean and the grand mean divided by the pooled standard deviation.

SPM Raw Scale Scores: Descriptive Statistics and Effect Sizes by Black and Hispanic Ethnicity

Black: n = 108; Hispanic n = 130; Effect size refers to the difference between the group mean and the grand mean divided by the pooled standard deviation.

SPM Raw Scale Scores: Descriptive Statistics and Effect Sizes by Parent Educational Attainment

No high school degree: n = 142; High school graduate: n = 212; Effect size refers to the difference between the group mean and the grand mean divided by the pooled standard deviation.

SPM Raw Scale Scores: Descriptive Statistics and Effect Sizes by Clinical Disorder

Notes: Effect size of .2 is small, 5 medium, and .8 is large; Sensory processing: n = 33; Autism spectrum: n = 107; ADHD: n = 62; Mental retardation/developmental delay: n = 43; Effect size (Cohen’s d) = scale mean in clinical sample minus scale mean in standardization sample divided by pooled standard deviation.