Relationship between the Sensory Processing Measure and the Sensory Profile 2: do they measure similar sensory processing factors and patterns in children?

Ted Brown, Emma Swayn, Eli Chu, Carissa Louise Lyons

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting AbstractOtherpeer-review

Abstract

Introduction/Rationale:The Sensory Processing Measure (SPM) and Sensory Profile 2(SP2) are both commonly used scales by paediatric occupational therapists to gain anoverview of children’s sensory processing issues. This begs the question: what is therelationship between the sensory processing variables measured by the SPM andSP2?Objective:To investigate the association between the sensory processing variablesmeasured by the SPM and SP2Method:The parents of 40 typically developing children (7.42 years, SD=0.95; 20boys and 20 girls) completed the SPM and the SP2. Raw scores were analysed usingSpearman rho correlations.Results / Practice Implications:The majority of the SP2 and SPM sensory processingscales were significantly correlated with each other at theP<0.05 level. However,three SP2 scales that were found to not be significantly associated with several of theSPM scales: (i) SP2 Seeking/Seeker Quadrant score; (ii) SP2 Body Position Sec-tion score; and (iii) SP2 Conduct Behavioural Section score.Conclusion:The majority of the sensory processing variables measured by the SPMand SP2 were significantly associated with each other. However, three SP2 scaleswere found not be correlated with several SPM scales. This provides useful informa-tion for clinicians when selecting an appropriate sensory processing scale to use toassess children. This project also provides insights into the use of the recently revisedSP2 and the SPM in an Australian context
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)84-84
Number of pages1
JournalAustralian Occupational Therapy Journal
Volume66
Issue numberS1
Publication statusPublished - 2 Jul 2019
EventOccupational Therapy Australia National Conference and Exhibition 2019: Together Towards Tomorrow - International Convention Centre, Sydney, Australia
Duration: 10 Jul 201912 Jul 2019
Conference number: 28th
http://www.otaus2019.com.au/events/occupational-therapy-australia-28th-national-conference-and-exhibition-2019/event-summary-de4c35633e774e10beab607c7ad481cf.aspx

Keywords

  • sensory processing
  • children
  • assessment
  • Occupational therapy assessment

Cite this

@article{a412c11b450f4752a6f07c7465b36972,
title = "Relationship between the Sensory Processing Measure and the Sensory Profile 2: do they measure similar sensory processing factors and patterns in children?",
abstract = "Introduction/Rationale:The Sensory Processing Measure (SPM) and Sensory Profile 2(SP2) are both commonly used scales by paediatric occupational therapists to gain anoverview of children’s sensory processing issues. This begs the question: what is therelationship between the sensory processing variables measured by the SPM andSP2?Objective:To investigate the association between the sensory processing variablesmeasured by the SPM and SP2Method:The parents of 40 typically developing children (7.42 years, SD=0.95; 20boys and 20 girls) completed the SPM and the SP2. Raw scores were analysed usingSpearman rho correlations.Results / Practice Implications:The majority of the SP2 and SPM sensory processingscales were significantly correlated with each other at theP<0.05 level. However,three SP2 scales that were found to not be significantly associated with several of theSPM scales: (i) SP2 Seeking/Seeker Quadrant score; (ii) SP2 Body Position Sec-tion score; and (iii) SP2 Conduct Behavioural Section score.Conclusion:The majority of the sensory processing variables measured by the SPMand SP2 were significantly associated with each other. However, three SP2 scaleswere found not be correlated with several SPM scales. This provides useful informa-tion for clinicians when selecting an appropriate sensory processing scale to use toassess children. This project also provides insights into the use of the recently revisedSP2 and the SPM in an Australian context",
keywords = "sensory processing, children, assessment, Occupational therapy assessment",
author = "Ted Brown and Emma Swayn and Eli Chu and Lyons, {Carissa Louise}",
note = "Brown, T., Swayn, E., Chu, E., & Lyons, C. (2019). Relationship between the Sensory Processing Measure and the Sensory Profile 2: do they measure similar sensory processing factors and patterns in children? Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 66(Suppl. 1), 84. Paper presented at the Occupational Therapy Australia 28th National Conference and Exhibition “Together Towards Tomorrow”, 10–12 July 2019, International Convention Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12586",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "2",
language = "English",
volume = "66",
pages = "84--84",
journal = "Australian Occupational Therapy Journal",
issn = "0045-0766",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "S1",

}

Relationship between the Sensory Processing Measure and the Sensory Profile 2: do they measure similar sensory processing factors and patterns in children? / Brown, Ted; Swayn, Emma; Chu, Eli; Lyons, Carissa Louise.

In: Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, Vol. 66, No. S1, 02.07.2019, p. 84-84.

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting AbstractOtherpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Relationship between the Sensory Processing Measure and the Sensory Profile 2: do they measure similar sensory processing factors and patterns in children?

AU - Brown, Ted

AU - Swayn, Emma

AU - Chu, Eli

AU - Lyons, Carissa Louise

N1 - Brown, T., Swayn, E., Chu, E., & Lyons, C. (2019). Relationship between the Sensory Processing Measure and the Sensory Profile 2: do they measure similar sensory processing factors and patterns in children? Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 66(Suppl. 1), 84. Paper presented at the Occupational Therapy Australia 28th National Conference and Exhibition “Together Towards Tomorrow”, 10–12 July 2019, International Convention Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12586

PY - 2019/7/2

Y1 - 2019/7/2

N2 - Introduction/Rationale:The Sensory Processing Measure (SPM) and Sensory Profile 2(SP2) are both commonly used scales by paediatric occupational therapists to gain anoverview of children’s sensory processing issues. This begs the question: what is therelationship between the sensory processing variables measured by the SPM andSP2?Objective:To investigate the association between the sensory processing variablesmeasured by the SPM and SP2Method:The parents of 40 typically developing children (7.42 years, SD=0.95; 20boys and 20 girls) completed the SPM and the SP2. Raw scores were analysed usingSpearman rho correlations.Results / Practice Implications:The majority of the SP2 and SPM sensory processingscales were significantly correlated with each other at theP<0.05 level. However,three SP2 scales that were found to not be significantly associated with several of theSPM scales: (i) SP2 Seeking/Seeker Quadrant score; (ii) SP2 Body Position Sec-tion score; and (iii) SP2 Conduct Behavioural Section score.Conclusion:The majority of the sensory processing variables measured by the SPMand SP2 were significantly associated with each other. However, three SP2 scaleswere found not be correlated with several SPM scales. This provides useful informa-tion for clinicians when selecting an appropriate sensory processing scale to use toassess children. This project also provides insights into the use of the recently revisedSP2 and the SPM in an Australian context

AB - Introduction/Rationale:The Sensory Processing Measure (SPM) and Sensory Profile 2(SP2) are both commonly used scales by paediatric occupational therapists to gain anoverview of children’s sensory processing issues. This begs the question: what is therelationship between the sensory processing variables measured by the SPM andSP2?Objective:To investigate the association between the sensory processing variablesmeasured by the SPM and SP2Method:The parents of 40 typically developing children (7.42 years, SD=0.95; 20boys and 20 girls) completed the SPM and the SP2. Raw scores were analysed usingSpearman rho correlations.Results / Practice Implications:The majority of the SP2 and SPM sensory processingscales were significantly correlated with each other at theP<0.05 level. However,three SP2 scales that were found to not be significantly associated with several of theSPM scales: (i) SP2 Seeking/Seeker Quadrant score; (ii) SP2 Body Position Sec-tion score; and (iii) SP2 Conduct Behavioural Section score.Conclusion:The majority of the sensory processing variables measured by the SPMand SP2 were significantly associated with each other. However, three SP2 scaleswere found not be correlated with several SPM scales. This provides useful informa-tion for clinicians when selecting an appropriate sensory processing scale to use toassess children. This project also provides insights into the use of the recently revisedSP2 and the SPM in an Australian context

KW - sensory processing

KW - children

KW - assessment

KW - Occupational therapy assessment

M3 - Meeting Abstract

VL - 66

SP - 84

EP - 84

JO - Australian Occupational Therapy Journal

JF - Australian Occupational Therapy Journal

SN - 0045-0766

IS - S1

ER -