Date Presented 4/9/2016
This study used confirmatory factor analysis to investigate the validity of the Sensory Profile 2 (SP2). The SP2 demonstrated a good fit with the four-factor model (based on Dunn’s Sensory Processing Framework).
Primary Author and Speaker: Evan Dean
Additional Authors and Speakers: Winnie Dunn, Lauren Little
PURPOSE: This research seeks to understand the validity of the Sensory Profile 2 (SP2) for sensory processing measurement. We asked the question “Is the four-factor model of sensory processing patterns the best factor structure for the Sensory Profile 2?”
RATIONALE/BACKGROUND: The factor scores of the Child SP2 were developed using Dunn’s Sensory Processing Framework, which describes four distinct patterns of sensory processing (Avoiding, Seeking, Sensitivity, and Registration; Dunn, 2014). Although the SP2 shows good validity and reliability, no study has demonstrated that the Dunn’s four-factor model is the best fit for the data. Additionally, other studies have identified different factor structures used in the original Sensory Profile (hyporesponsive, hyperresponsive, and seeking; Ben-Sasson et al., 2009). This study investigated how the SP2 fits these different models of SP and compared the four-factor model with structures based on other conceptual models.
DESIGN: We used an experimental design to determine the conceptual models that best fit the items on the SP2.
PARTICIPANTS: We used the national standardization database from the SP2 for the analysis. This database includes 659 children ranging in age from 3 to 14 yr. About 30% of the sample are children who have various conditions such as autism spectrum disorder and learning disabilities.
METHOD: The Pearson testing company used their national contacts to obtain the data for this database. We used the Child SP2 data for this study. This measures parents’ report of the frequency their children respond to sensory events in every day life. There is strong validity and reliability of these measures (Dunn, 2014).
ANALYSIS: Confirmatory factor analysis was used to empirically validate Dunn’s four-factor model of sensory processing.
RESULTS: The four-factor model demonstrates a good fit (χ2 goodness of fit = 15,412.588, p < .0001; root mean square error of approximation = .078; standardized root mean square residual = .076). The presentation will also calculate the fit statistics of the three-factor model (hyporesponsive, hyperresponsive, and seeking) as well as a two-factor and one-factor models. We will compare the models based on Akaike Information Criterion and Schwarz Bayesian Criterion fit statistics.
DISCUSSION: This study further adds to the validly of the SP2. The original Sensory Profile is used extensively in practice and research. As teams decide to switch to the SP2, they need to know that the tool is psychometrically sound. This study provides further evidence of the psychometric properties of the SP2. Practitioners and researchers can use this study to discuss the benefits of using the SP2 with interdisciplinary colleagues.
IMPACT STATEMENT: This study furthers the psychometric testing of the SP2. Users of the SP2 can use this study to discuss the benefits of using the SP2 in practice and research
References
Ben-Sasson, A., Hen, L., Fluss, R., Cermak, S. A., Engel-Yeger, B., & Gal, E. (2009). A meta-analysis of sensory modulation symptoms in individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-008-0593-3
Dunn, W. (2014). Sensory Profile 2 users manual. Bloomington, IN: Pearson.
