Sensory Processing Measure

The SPM examines sensory issues, praxis, and social participation of elementary school children aged 5 through 12.

Link to Instrument

Acronym SPM

Area of Assessment

Activities of Daily Living
Balance – Non-vestibular
Balance – Vestibular
Behavior
Communication
Coordination
Eating
Functional Mobility
Hearing
Occupational Performance
Olfaction
Seating
Smell
Social Relationships
Social Support
Stress & Coping
Taste
Touch
Upper Extremity Function
Vestibular
Vision & Perception

Assessment Type

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Actual Cost

Cost Description

$199.50 includes SPM Comprehensive Print or Online Kit; $322.50 includes SPM/SPM-Preschool Combination Print Kit

Populations

Key Descriptions

SPM is a set of three integrated rating forms assessing sensory processing, praxis, and social participation at home, at school, and in the community. Raters of the SPM have to observe the child in the environment being rated for at least one month, but the child does not need to be present.
Three forms include:
1) Home Form (75 items): completed by child’s care provider
2) Main Classroom Form (62 items): completed by child’s primary teacher
3) School Environments Form (10-15 items per environment): completed by other school personnel who work with and observe the child
Scores for each scale fall into one of three interpretive ranges:
1) Typical
2) Some Problems
3) Definite Dysfunction
Response options include:
1) Never
2) Occasionally
3) Frequently
4) Always
Cutoff scores indicate presence or absence of sensory processing problems in each setting—giving you a more comprehensive picture of the child.

Number of Items

Home Form: 75 items completed by caregiver

Classroom Form: 62 items completed by classroom teacher

Social Environments Form: completed by other school personnel

Equipment Required

Online or print forms
Pen or pencil

Time to Administer

Time estimate is per form

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by University of Illinois at Chicago Master of Science in Occupational Therapy students Julia Bates, Carol Brod, Louis Calderone, and Ariana Rodriguez.

Body Part

Head
Neck
Upper Extremity
Back
Lower Extremity

ICF Domain

Body Function
Body Structure
Participation

Measurement Domain

Professional Association Recommendation

Recommended and used by many healthcare and academic professionals predominantly in home and school settings.

Considerations

The SPM was developed and standardized in the United States with typically developing children. This could result in significant cultural bias.
Efforts to standardize the assessment with a representative sample of the United States population were taken, however there was an overrepresentation of parents with higher education status (college degree or more), geographical distribution (majority from the Midwest), and two-parent households.
Information was not included about whether standardization population was from rural or urban settings, which could result in an additional geographical bias.
The SPM assesses family and professional input, without input from the child.

Pediatric Disorders

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

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

95% Confidence Intervals for Scale T-Scores Based on Two Reliability Methods

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) T-Scores

Scale

Test-retest reliability

Internal Consistency

Home Form

Social Participation (SOC)

Body Awareness (BOD)

Balance & Motion (BAL)

Planning & Ideas (PLA)

Total Sensory Systems (TOT)

Main Classroom Form

Social Participation (SOC)

Body Awareness (BOD)

Balance & Motion (BAL)

Planning & Ideas (PLA)

Total Sensory Systems (TOT)

Note: SEM = standard error of measurement.

Cut-Off Scores

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.

Normative Data

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.

Test/Retest Reliability

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])

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

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))

Internal Consistency

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])

Construct Validity

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)

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.

Content Validity

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.

Responsiveness

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

Scale

Standardization Sample

Versus

Clinical Sample Effect Size

Home Form

Social Participation (SOC)

Body Awareness (BOD)

Balance & Motion (BAL)

Planning & Ideas (PLA)

Total Sensory Systems (TOT)

Main Classroom Form

Social Participation (SOC)

Body Awareness (BOD)

Balance & Motion (BAL)

Planning & Ideas (PLA)

Total Sensory Systems (TOT)

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

Scale

Ages 5-8

Ages 9-12

Home Form

Social Participation (SOC)

Body Awareness (BOD)

Balance & Motion (BAL)

Planning & Ideas (PLA)

Total Sensory Systems (TOT)

Main Classroom Form

Social Participation (SOC)

Body Awareness (BOD)

Balance & Motion (BAL)

Planning & Ideas (PLA)

Total Sensory Systems (TOT)

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

Scale

Males

Females

Home Form

Social Participation (SOC)

Body Awareness (BOD)

Balance & Motion (BAL)

Planning & Ideas (PLA)

Total Sensory Systems (TOT)

Main Classroom Form

Social Participation (SOC)

Body Awareness (BOD)

Balance & Motion (BAL)

Planning & Ideas (PLA)

Total Sensory Systems (TOT)

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

Scale

Black

Hispanic

Home Form

Social Participation (SOC)

Body Awareness (BOD)

Balance & Motion (BAL)

Planning & Ideas (PLA)

Total Sensory Systems (TOT)

Main Classroom Form

Social Participation (SOC)

Body Awareness (BOD)

Balance & Motion (BAL)

Planning & Ideas (PLA)

Total Sensory Systems (TOT)

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

Scale

No High School Degree

High School Graduate

Home Form

Social Participation (SOC)

Body Awareness (BOD)

Balance & Motion (BAL)

Planning & Ideas (PLA)

Total Sensory Systems (TOT)

Main Classroom Form

Social Participation (SOC)

Body Awareness (BOD)

Balance & Motion (BAL)

Planning & Ideas (PLA)

Total Sensory Systems (TOT)

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

Scale

Sensory Processing

Autism Spectrum

ADHD

Mental Retardation/ Developmental Delay

Home Form

Social Participation (SOC)

Body Awareness (BOD)

Balance & Motion (BAL)

Planning & Ideas (PLA)

Total Sensory Systems (TOT)

Main Classroom Form

Social Participation (SOC)

Body Awareness (BOD)

Balance & Motion (BAL)

Planning & Ideas (PLA)

Total Sensory Systems (TOT)

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.

Bibliography

Brown, T., Morrison, I.C., & Stagnitti, K. (2010a). The convergent validity of two sensory processing scales used with school-age children: Comparing the Sensory Profile and the Sensory Processing Measure. New Zealand Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57(2), 56-65.

Brown, T., Morrison, I.C., & Stagnitti, K. (2010b). The reliability of two sensory processing scales used with school-age children: Comparing the response consistency of mothers, fathers, and classroom teachers rating the same child. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 3(4), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/19411243.2010.541775

Hansen, K.D., & Jirikowic, T. (2013). A comparison of the Sensory Profile and Sensory Processing Measure Home Form for children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 33(4), 440-452. https://doi.org/10.3109/01942638.2013.791914

Lai, C.Y.Y., Chung, J.C.C., Chan, C.C.H., & Li-Tsang, C.W.P. (2011). Sensory Processing Measure-HK Chinese version: Psychometric properties and pattern of response across environments. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(6), 2636-2643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.06.010

Miller-Kuhaneck, H., Henry, D.A., Glennon, T.J., & Mu, K. (2007). Development of Sensory Processing Measure-School form: Initial studies of reliability and validity. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 170-175. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.61.2.170

Miller Kuhaneck, H., Henry, D.A., & Glennon, T.J. (2007). Sensory Processing Measure (SPM): Main Classroom Form. Western Psychological Services: Los Angeles.

Miller Kuhaneck, H., Henry, D.A., & Glennon, T.J. (2007). Sensory Processing Measure (SPM): School Environments Form. Western Psychological Services: Los Angeles.

Parham, L.D., & Ecker, C. (2007). Sensory Processing Measure (SPM): Home Form. Western Psychological Services: Los Angeles.

Parham, L.D., Ecker, C., Miller Kuhaneck, H., Henry, D.A., & Glennon, T.J. (2007). Sensory Processing Measure (SPM): Manual. Western Psychological Services: Los Angeles.

Pfeiffer, B., Daly, B.P., Nicholls, E.G., & Gullo, D.F. (2015). Assessing sensory processing problems in children with and without Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 35(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3109/01942638.2014.904471

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.