Comparison of the Sensory Profile and the Sensory Processing Measure In a Cohort of Children Diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorders

Background: Parents of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders often report presence of sensory processing difficulties in their children. According to recent studies, prevalence of sensory processing abnormalities range between 45% and 95% in cohorts of children with autism spectrum disorders. These difficulties can be defined as dysfunctions occurring during the processing of discrimination, interpretation, modulation and organization of sensory stimulations in the central nervous system. Because of these neurological dysfunctions, the child cannot adequately respond to sensory stimulations and consequently, difficulties during daily activities and socio-emotional problems could easily occur. Due to the high prevalence in children with autism spectrum disorders of such difficulties, there is a crucial need for standardized and validated tools to assess their presence. In this perspective, two questionnaires, the Sensory Profile and the Sensory Processing Measure, have been developed. For clinicians and parents, both tools seem to consider similar behaviors to assess the children’s sensory processing. To our knowledge, these two assessment tools used with children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders have not been compared.

Objectives: To compare results obtained with the Sensory Profile and the Sensory Processing Measure from a cohort of children with autism spectrum disorder aged 4 to 7 years old, in order to assess if both questionnaires filled by parents identified the same sensory processing difficulties.  

Methods: Children recruited for this study were part of a longitudinal study on the impact of sensory-motor difficulties on daily living skills. Thirty-five children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders and aged between 4 and 7 years old were assessed with both tools. Parents of these children completed both questionnaires at home and brought them to the clinic at the time of the motor assessment. The scoring was done by an occupational therapist. According to the similarities in objectives and items from both tools, six domains, or sections with available total scores, were retained for the comparison. The sections compared were respectively for the Sensory Profile and the Sensory Processing Measure: Auditory VS Hearing, Visual VS Vision, Tactile VS Touch, Oral VS Taste and Smell, Vestibular VS Balance and motion, and Body Position and Movement VS Body Awareness.  

Results: According to Spearman’s Correlation, raw scores of sections paired together are significantly associated with coefficient ranging from -.354 to -.547 (p ranging from .037 to .001). When the results obtained by the children in each section were categorized according to the respective three categories based on standard deviation (0 to 1 SD = normal, -1 to -2 SD = probable difference and <2 SD = definite difference), Kappa coefficients revealed “poor” to “fair to good” agreement between both tools (Kappa ranging between .091 to .517).

Conclusions: Results from this study reveal differences in the way the questionnaires, both mainly used in clinical and research settings, assessed sensory processing difficulties in a cohort of children with autism spectrum disorders. Professionals have to be cautious in their choice of a tool versus another one and base their selection upon the clinical and specific needs of their cohorts.