Cited by 82Occupational Therapy Practice and ResearchPsychometric Methodologies and TestingCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders

Measurement in sensory modulation: the sensory processing scale assessment

Open access
Schoen, Sarah A., Miller, Lucy J., Sullivan, Jillian C.·2014·American Journal of Occupational Therapy

Abstract

OBJECTIVE. Sensory modulation issues have a significant impact on participation in daily life. Moreover, understanding phenotypic variation in sensory modulation dysfunction is crucial for research related to defining homogeneous groups and for clinical work in guiding treatment planning. We thus evaluated the new Sensory Processing Scale (SPS) Assessment. METHOD. Research included item development, behavioral scoring system development, test administration, and item analyses to evaluate reliability and validity across sensory domains. RESULTS. Items with adequate reliability (internal reliability >.4) and discriminant validity ( p < .01) were retained. Feedback from the expert panel also contributed to decisions about retaining items in the scale. CONCLUSION. The SPS Assessment appears to be a reliable and valid measure of sensory modulation (scale reliability >.90; discrimination between group effect sizes >1.00). This scale has the potential to aid in differential diagnosis of sensory modulation issues.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5014/ajot.2014.012377

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schoen, S. A., Miller, L. J., & Sullivan, J. C.
Affiliations
Sensory Processing Disorder Foundation (US)
Corresponding author
Schoen, Sarah A.
Venue
American Journal of Occupational Therapy
Published
2014-09
Volume
68
Issue
5
Pages
522-530
ISSN
  • 0272-9490 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-7676
OpenAlex
W1990490289
Cited by
82
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
FWCI
15.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Occupational Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ohio State University
  • Washington University in St. Louis
  • Virginia Commonwealth University
  • National Institutes of Health (1r21hd041614-01)
  • University of California, San Francisco
  • National Institute of Mental Health (T32 MH15442, T32MH015442)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R21 HD41614-01)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Keywords
sensory modulation, sensory processing disorders, scale development, reliability statistics, validity, differential diagnosis, item analysis
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Child, Preschool, Humans, Psychometrics, Sensation Disorders, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult

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