Cited by 16Occupational Therapy Practice and ResearchBehavioral and Psychological StudiesEarly Childhood Education and Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Sensory Processing Measure–Preschool (SPM-P)—Part Two: Test–Retest and Collective Collaborative Empowerment, Including a Father's Perspective

Henry, Diana A., McClary, Michael·2011·Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention

Abstract

As a follow-up to “The Sensory Processing Measure–Preschool (SPM-P)—Part One: Description of the Tool and Its Use in the Preschool Environment” (CitationMiller Kuhaneck, Glennon, & Herzberg, 2011/this issue), this case illustrates the use of the SPM-P as a test and retest in promoting understanding of how sensory processing issues drive challenging behaviors. A father's unique perspective illustrates how the SPM-P promotes collaborative empowerment among SPM-P team members, including the occupational therapist, occupational therapy assistant, preschool teacher, paraprofessionals, grandparents. and parents.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/19411243.2011.576891

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Blanche E. I., 2010, Proprioception: Relationship between clinical signs and difficulties
  2. Cermak S., 2010, Lessons learned from international sensory integration-based occupational therapy: Implications for practice at home
  3. Henry D. A., 2011, Stepping beyond assessments: Linking sensory integration, the sensory processing measures and a Quick Tips school team empowerment approach
  4. Lane S. J., 2006, Participation and adaptation: An ecocultural perspective
  5. Marr D., 2009, Sensory stories: Manual & instructions
  6. Miller Kuhaneck H., 2010, Sensory Processing Measure-Preschool: Manual
  7. Mollo K., 2008, AOTA: SISIS Quarterly, 33, 1
  8. Monteiro M. J., 2010, Autism conversations: Evaluating children on the autism spectrum through authentic conversations
  9. Parham L. D., 2007, Sensory Processing Measure (SPM): Manual
  10. Watling R., 2011, Occupational therapy practice guidelines for children and adolescents with difficulty processing and integrating sensory information

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 16

Metadata

Authors
Henry, D. A., & McClary, M.
Venue
Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention
Published
2011-01
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
53-70
ISSN
  • 1941-1243 (ISSN-L)
  • 1941-1251
OpenAlex
W2010918872
Cited by
16
References
6
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 4
FWCI
3.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Occupational Therapy Schools & Early Intervention (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
Keywords
sensory processing, preschool children, test-retest reliability, behavioral problems, father's perspective, occupational therapy, early intervention, parental involvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review