Abstract
This study focused on item development of an interoceptive measure grounded in Dunn’s Sensory Processing Framework and participation. Items were identified that correlated with their intended subscale. The resulting subscales had good internal consistency (α = .63 to .88). These initial findings will be valuable for the further development of an interoception scale that OTs can use for intervention planning.
Primary Author and Speaker: Catana Brown
Additional Authors and Speakers: Winifred Dunn
Although scholars believe that interventions targeting interoception are viable, intervention planning requires reliable and valid assessment data. The availability of an interoceptive measure based on Dunn’s Sensory Processing Framework provides a structure for intervention planning in occupational therapy. Currently practitioners are working without that structure. The focus of this study is on the item development of an interoceptive measure grounded in Dunn’s Sensory Processing Framework and participation.
The pilot study of the interoception scale was conducted with a sample of 55 individuals. Participants completed an on-line version of the measure. The primary purpose was to identify the items that best reflect the four sensory processing preferences and contribute to the scales internal consistency. We examined the correlations between each item on the interoception scale to the corresponding subscale score. Items that correlate most strongly with the hypothesized subscale were maintained. A Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to examine the internal consistency for each subscale.
Sensory seeking: 14 items (r = .342 - .654)
Low registration: 15 items (r = .293 - .572)
Sensory sensitivity: 25 items (r = .388 - .7590
Sensation avoiding: 16 items (r = .302 - .533)
Good internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha was found for all subscales: (sensation seeking α = .801, low registration α = .631, sensory sensitivity, – = .882, sensation avoiding – = .717).
Brown, C. & Dunn, W. (2002) Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Ceuhen, E., Vlaeyen, J. W. S. & Van Diest, I. (2016). On the origin of interoception. Frontiers of psychology, 7, article 743. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00743
Khoury, N. M., Lutz, J. & Schuman-Olivier, Z. (2018). Interoception in psychiatric disorders: A review of randomized, controlled trials with interoception-based interventions. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 26, 250-263. doi: 10.1097/HRP.0000000000000170
