Search

This paper aims to provide an overview and critique of the newly updated Sensory Processing Measure – second edition (SPM-2) to assist clinicians in understanding its strengths and limitations and in selecting an appropriate sensory processing scale that best meets their clients' needs. Using four established research methodological quality critique tools, the SPM-2's family of age-related versions was evaluated by administering the tools separately and discussed their scoring and findings to reach a consensus on all ratings. The tools identified several strengths and weaknesses of the SPM-2. The SPM-2's items on its age-related versions scored well in the criteria of internal consistency, test-retest reliability, explanation of the instrument design, construct validity, content validity, criterion validity and ease of administration, and scoring. However, a lack of normative data for participant groups outside of the United States, methodological limitations, and a lack of investigation into some important psychometric properties, particularly responsiveness, were identified as notable weaknesses of the SPM-2's items on its age-related versions based on the critique criteria. Overall, despite the areas needing further development and investigation, the SPM-2 is considered a psychometrically sound tool that provides a reliable and valid approach to measuring aspects of the sensory processing construct across the lifespan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Applied Health Sciences is the property of University of Applied Health Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Applied Health Sciences is the property of University of Applied Health Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)