Date Presented 3/31/2017
Concurrent validity between the Sensory Over-Responsivity Inventory and the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile was examined among 556 typical adults. Results indicate a moderate correlation between measures that varies across individual sensory systems.
Primary Author and Speaker: Michelle Kanda
Additional Authors and Speakers: Laura Ruzzano, Emily Cohen, Sharon Cermak
PURPOSE: Sensory processing is recognized as a critical factor involved in the emotional and behavioral response of an individual. Sensory processing is most commonly assessed using the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (AASP; Dunn & Brown, 1997), which characterizes processing into four behaviors patterns: low registration, sensation seeking, sensory sensitivity, and sensation avoiding. However, there is evidence indicating that sensory processing is best interpreted when conceptualized as sensory overresponsivity or sensory underresponsivity (Su & Parham, 2014). The Sensory Over-Responsivity Inventory (SensOR; Schoen, Miller, & Green, 2008) was specifically developed to assess sensory overresponsivity based on discrete sensory systems. To date, there is little research on the SensOR and its association with established sensory processing questionnaires. Thus, the aim of this study was to fill this gap by determining its association with the AASP.
DESIGN AND METHOD: This study used a correlational research design examining concurrent validity. Participants included 556 typically developing adults (n = 154 men, n = 402 women) ages 18–30 yr (M age = 21.8; 68% college educated). Participants were recruited through convenience sampling primarily on the University of Southern California campus, and questionnaires were completed online. The SensOR is a self-report questionnaire consisting of 84 yes–no items that depict a response to sensory stimuli present in everyday activities. The AASP is a self-report questionnaire that consists of 60 items scored on a five-point Likert scale used to assess regulatory behaviors in response to sensory situations. Correlations were computed between the SensOR and the AASP.
RESULTS: Results indicate significant correlations between the SensOR and AASP patterns reflective of overresponsivity: sensory sensitivity (r = .54) and sensory avoiding (r = .52). As predicted, no significant correlations were found between the SensOR and AASP patterns of low registration (r = .28) or sensory seeking (r = .17). Correlations were then computed between the AASP response patterns and each sensory system type on the SensOR. Auditory (r = .46), visual (r = .42), and tactile (r = .46) systems showed the largest correlation with AASP patterns of sensory sensitivity and sensory avoiding, as compared with gustatory (r = .32) and smell (r = .27).
CONCLUSION: These findings show that there is concurrent validity between the SensOR and AASP patterns of sensory sensitivity and sensory avoiding, suggesting that the SensOR does indeed measure the concept of sensory overresponsivity. However, these correlations are moderate in size and lower than reported in previous research (Schoen et al., 2008). The size of correlations is likely attributable to the sample of typically developing participants, reflecting the typical range of sensory behaviors. Furthermore, the association between the SensOR and the AASP varied across sensory systems; thus, overresponsivity may be most accurately interpreted when evaluated within individual systems.
IMPACT STATEMENT: As expected, the SensOR significantly correlated with AASP patterns that pertain to sensory overresponsivity. Consequently, this study provides support for the validity of the SensOR as a measure of sensory overresponsivity and further highlights the importance of examining overresponsivity on an individual and sensory system level. This study is in line with the American Occupational Therapy Association’s (2017) Vision 2025 research priorities as it provides evidence for the SensOR, a sensory overresponsivity instrument that can be used to screen and objectively measure change in daily life activities as a result of sensory processing across the lifespan.
References
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2017). Vision 2025. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71, 7103420010p1. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2017.713002
Dunn, W., & Brown, C. (1997). Factor analysis on the Sensory Profile from a national sample of children without disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51, 490–495. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.51.7.490
Dunn, W., & Brown, C. (2002). Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile: User’s manual. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.
Schoen, S. A., Miller, L. J., & Green, K. E. (2008). Pilot study of the Sensory Over-Responsivity Scales: Assessment and inventory. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 393–406. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.62.4.393
Su, C. T., & Parham, L. D. (2014). Validity of sensory systems as distinct constructs. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68, 546–554. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2014.012518
