Overview
The Sensory Processing Measure (SPM; 2007); and Sensory Processing Measure – Preschool (SPM-P; 2010) (Parham, Ecker, Kuhaneck, Henry, & Glennon, 2007, 2010) are norm-referenced rating scales that measure sensory processing difficulties at school and home for children from 2 through 12 years of age. The SPM-P extends the SPM down to ages 2-5 years (excluding 5-year-old kindergartners, for whom the SPM should be used). These measures assess sensory processing, praxis, and social participation at home, at school, and in the community. Norm-referenced standard scores for two higher level integrative functions (praxis and social participation), as well as for five sensory systems (visual, auditory, tactile, proprioceptive and vestibular function) are yielded. Three forms comprise the SPM: the Home Form, Main Classroom Form, and School Environments Form. The Home Form contains 75 items and is completed by the child’s parent or primary caregiver at home. The Main Classroom Form comprises 62 items and is to be completed by the child’s primary teacher. The School Environments Form contains 10 to 15 items for each of the school environments; it can be completed by school personnel familiar with the child in the context of the environment being assessed. The SPM-P consists of two forms: Home and School. The SPM-P School Form is completed by the preschool or daycare teacher. For each scale on the SPM and SPM-P Home and Classroom forms, standard scores are generated and fall into one of three ranges: Typical, Some Problems, or Definite Dysfunction. The Environment Difference score provides a comparison of sensory functioning at school and at home. The SPM and SPM-P can be administered and scored in paper-pencil or computer-based format via the WPS Online Evaluation System. Both forms are also available in Spanish.
Summary
Age: 5 -12 years for SPM: 2-5 years SPM-P (except those in kindergarten)
Time to Administer: 15-20 minutes each form
Method of Administration: Both: Norm-referenced rating forms to assess sensory integration across settings
Both: Home and Classroom forms yield T-scores (M = 100; SD = 15) that fall into one of three ranges for interpretation: Typical, Some Problems, or Definite Dysfunction
SPM: School Environment form yields cutoff scores to indicate presence or absence of problems in different settings
Subscales: Overall Composite Score (Home and Main Classroom forms): Total Sensory Systems
Subscale Scores (Home and Main Classroom forms): Social Participation; Vision; Hearing; Touch; Body Awareness (proprioception); Balance and Motion (vestibular function); Planning and Ideas
Autism Related Research
Dugas, Simard, Fombonne, & Couture (2018)
Age Range: 5-8 years
Sample Size: 34
Topics Addressed:
Comparison of SPM and Sensory Profile (SP) for children with ASD
Outcome:Dugas, Simard, Fombonne, & Couture (2018)
Raw scores were correlated for some sensory domains (hearing, vision, touch, and proprioception) and for social functioning. The classifications showed a significant level of agreement for most scales (k = .247-589, p < .05) and for the total scores (k = .324, p < .01). Moderate convergent validity between both tools.
Conclusion: SPM Home Form identifies more children with ASD who present with sensory features for every domain measured by both tools.
Fernandez-Andres et al. (2015)
Age Range: 5-8 years
Sample Size: 79
Topics Addressed:
Compare sensory processing, social participation, and praxis in children with ASD compared with typically developing children
Outcome:Fernandez-Andres et al. (2015)
The ASD Group obtained scores that indicate higher levels of dysfunction on all the assessed measures in both environments, with the greatest differences obtained on the social participation and praxis variables. The most affected sensory modalities in the ASD Group were hearing and touch. Only in the ASD Group were significant differences found between the information reported by parents and what was reported by teachers: specifically, the teachers reported greater dysfunction than the parents in social participation (p = .000), touch (p = .003) and praxis (p = .010).
Conclusion: context-specific qualities found in children with ASD point out the need to receive information from both parents and teachers during the sensory profile assessment process, and use context-specific assessments.
Roley et al. (2015)
Age Range: 4-11 years
Sample Size: 89
Topics Addressed:
Characterize sensory integration and praxis patterns of children with ASD; whether these relate to social participation
Outcome:Roley et al. (2015)
Children with ASD showed relative strengths in visual praxis. Marked difficulties were evident in imitation praxis, vestibular bilateral integration, somatosensory perception, and sensory reactivity. Scores from the Sensory Processing Measure’s Social Participation were inversely associated with areas of deficit on SIPT.
Conclusion: children with ASD display strengths in visuopraxis and difficulties with somatopraxis and vestibular functions, which appear to greatly affect participation.