manual SPM (3)

Prévia do material em texto

Parent/Guardian Information 
AutoScore™ Form 
L. Diane Parham, Ph.D. , 0TR/L, FA0TA, 
and Cheryl Ecker, M.A. , 0TR/L 
WP-Se IU•111UI 
Test wltll Confidence 
Your Name/ID#: ___________________ _ Your Relationship to Child: _____ __ _ Today's Date: _____ _ 
Child lnlormation 
Child's Name/ID#: ________ __________ _ Child's Gender: 0 M OF Child 's Age: __ Years _ _ Months Child 's Grade: __ 
Race/Ethnicity: 
O American Indian/Alaska Nalive O Asian OBlack/African American O Hispanic/Latino O Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander O White O Other 
Comments on child's behavior/ functioning: --------- ------------------- -----------
DIRECTIO NS 
Please answer the questions on this form based on your child's typical behavior during the past month. Use the following rating scale: 
Never: the behavior never or almost never happens Frequently: the behavior happens much of the time 
Occasionally: the behavior happens some of the time Always: the behavior always or almost always happens 
Circle the one answer that best describes how often the behavior happens. Try your best to answer all of the questions. 
Several questions ask whether your child shows "distress" in certain situations. Showing distress may include ve rbal expressions (whining, crying, yelling) 
or nonverbal expressions (withdrawing, gesturing, pushing something away, running away, wincing, striking out). 
You may use the space provided above to add any additional comments on your child's behavior or functioning. 
PLEASE PRESS HARD WHEN CIRCLING YOUR RESPONSES. 
SOCIAL PARTICIPATION Does your child .. 
N ........ 0 .. .F ........ A....... 1. Play with friends cooperatively (without lots of arguments)? 
N ........ 0 ........ F ....... A .. 2. Interact appropriately with parents and other significant adults (communicates well, follows directions, 
shows respect , etc. )? 
N ........ 0 .. .F .... A....... 3. Share things when asked? 
N ........ 0 ........ F ....... A .. 4. Carry on a conversation without standing or sitting too close to others? 
N ........ 0 .. .F .... A ....... 5. Maintain appropriate eye contact during conversation? 
N ........ 0 ........ F ....... A .. 6. Join in play with others without disrupting the ongoing activity? 
N ........ 0 .. .F .... ... A 7. Take part in appropriate mealtime conversation and interaction? 
N ........ 0 ........ F ....... A .. 8. Participate appropriately in family outings, such as dining out or going to a park, museum, or movie? 
N ........ 0 .. .F .... A 9. Participate appropriately in family gatherings, such as holidays, weddings, and birthdays? 
N ........ 0 ........ F ........ A ........ 10. Participate appropriately in activities with friends, such as parties, going to the mall, and riding 
bikes/skateboards/scooters? 
VISION Does your child .. 
N ........ 0 ........ F .... A ..... 11. Seem bothered by light, especially bright light (blinks, squints, cries, closes eyes, etc.)? 
N ........ 0 ........ F ....... A ........ 12. Have trouble finding an object when it is part of a group of other things? 
N .... 0 .. .F .... A ..... 13. Close one eye or tip his or her head back when looking at something or someone? 
N ........ 0 ........ F ....... A ........ 14. Become distressed in unusual visual environments, such as a bright, colorful room or a dimly lit room? 
N ........ 0 .. .F ....... A ..... 15. Have difliculty controlling eye movement when following objects like a ball with his or her eyes? 
N ........ 0 ........ F ....... A ........ 16. Have difficulty recognizing how objects are similar or different based on their colors , shapes, or sizes? 
N ........ 0 .. .F ........ A ...... 17. Enjoy watching objects spin or move more than most kids his or her age? 
N ........ 0 ........ F ....... A 18. Walk into objects or people as if they were not there? 
N ........ 0.. .. .F ........ A.... 19. Like to flip light switches on and off repeatedly? 
N ........ 0 ........ F .. ...... A ....... 20 . Dislike certain types of lighting , such as midday sun, strobe lights, flickering lights, or fluorescent lights? 
N ........ 0 .. .F .... A.... 21 . Enjoy looking at moving objects out of the corner of his or her eye? 
HEARING Does your child .. 
N ........ 0 ........ F ....... A ........ 22 . Seem bothered by ordinary household sounds, such as the vacuum cleaner, hair dryer, or toilet flushing? 
N ........ 0 .. .F .... A .... ..... 23. Respond negatively to loud noises by running away, crying, or holding hands over ears? 
N ........ 0 ........ F ....... A .. ...... 24. Appear not to hear certain sounds? 
N ........ 0 .. .F .... ... A ..... 25 . Seem disturbed by or intensely interested in sounds not usually noticed by other people? 
N ........ 0 ........ F ....... A .. ...... 26 . Seem frightened of sounds that do not usually cause distress in other kids his or her age? 
N ........ 0 .. .F .... A ...... 27. Seem easily distracted by background noises such as a lawn mower outside, an air conditioner, 
a refrigerator, or fluorescent lights? 
N ........ 0 ........ F ........ A ....... 28. Like to cause certain sounds to happen over and over again, such as by repeatedly flushing the toilet? 
N ........ 0 .. .F ........ A .......... 29. Show distress at shrill or brassy sounds, such as whistl es, party noisemakers, flutes, and trumpets? 
continue on back page ... 
PLEASE PRESS HARD WHEN CIRCLING YOUR RESPONSES . 
TOUCH Does your child ... 
N ......... 0 ........ .F ......... A ..... . ... 30. Pull away from being touched lightly? 
N .• ..... .. 0 ......... .F .......... A .......... 31. Seem to lack normal awareness of being touched? 
N .•....... 0 ........ .F .......... A .. ....... 32. Become distressed by the feel of new clothes? 
~ ........ O ......... .F .. ........ A .......... 33 . Prefer to touch rather than to be touched? 
N ........ O .... ..... .F ..... .. .. A .......... 34. Become distressed by having his or her fingernails or toenails cut? 
N ......... O .......... F .......... A .......... 35. Seem bothered when someone touches his or her face? 
N ......... 0 ........ .F ......... A ......... 36 . Avoid touching or playing with finger paint, paste, sand, clay, mud, glue, or other messy things? 
N ..... ..... o ......... .F .......... A ....... .. . 37. Have an unusually high tolerance for pain? 
N ......... o ...... .F ......... A ... ....... 38 . Dislike teeth brushing, more than most kids his or her age? 
N .. .. ..... o ........ .F .... ...... A ..... ..... 39. Seem to enjoy sensations that should be painful, such as crashing onto the floor or hitting his or her own body? 
N ......... 0 ........ .F ......... A . ........ 40. Have trouble finding things in a pocket, bag, or backpack using touch only (without looking)? 
TASTE AND SMELL Does your child ... 
N ..... O ..... .... .F ... .A .......... 41 . Like to taste nonfood items, such as glue or paint? 
N ......... 0 ........ .F ......... A .......... 42 . Gag at the thought of an unappealing food, such as cooked spinach? 
N .......... o ......... .F .......... A .......... 43. Like to smell nonfood objects and people? 
N ........ o ......... .F ......... A ......... 44. Show distress at smells that other children do not notice? 
N .......... o ......... .F .......... A .......... 45. Seem to ignore or not notice strong odors that other children react to? 
BODY AWARENESS Does your child .. 
46. Grasp objects (such as a pencil or spoon) so tightly thal it is difficult to use the object? 
N .... 0 ........ .F .......... A ....... ... 47. Seem driven to seek activities such as pushing, pulling, dragging, lifting, and jumping? 
N ......... 0 ........ .F ......... A .......... 48 . Seem unsure of how far to raise or lower the body during movement such as sitting down or stepping over an object? 
N ...... .... o ......... .F .......... A ....... ... 49. Grasp objects {such as a pencil or spoon) so loosely that it is difficult to use the object? 
N .... o ......... .F ..... A ......... 50. Seem to exert6. 
	0 	 A 	 7. 
	0 	 	 A 	 8. 
0 	F 0 	9. 
0 0 A 	 10. 
0 F 	 A 	 11. 
	0 	 F . A 	 12. 
	0 	F 	 A 	 13. 
 	F 	 A 	 14. 
	0 	F 	 A 	 15. 
	0 	F 	 A 	 16. 
	0 	F 	 A 	 17. 
	0 	F 	 A 	 18. 
0 	 F A 	 19. 
	0 0 A 	 20. 
	0 	F 	 A 	 21. 
	0 0 A 	 22. 
	0 0 A 	 23. 
	0 	F 	A 	 24. 
	0 0 A 	 25. 
	0 0 A 	 26. 
0 F 	 A 	 27. 
	0 	F 	 A 	 28. 
	0 0 A 	 29. 
PLEASE PRESS HARD WHEN CIRCLING YOUR RESPONSES, 
SOCIAL PARTICIPATION 	Does your child... 
Play with friends cooperatively (without lots of arguments)? 
Interact appropriately with parents and other significant adults (communicates well, follows directions, 
shows respect, etc.)? 
Share things when asked? 
Carry on a conversation without standing or sitting too close to others? 
Maintain appropriate eye contact during conversation? 
Join in play with others without disrupting the ongoing activity? 
Take part in appropriate mealtime conversation and interaction? 
Participate appropriately in family outings, such as dining out or going to a park, museum, or movie? 
Participate appropriately in family gatherings, such as holidays, weddings, and birthdays? 
Participate appropriately in activities with friends, such as parties, going to the mall, and riding 
bikes/skateboards/scooters? 
VISION 	Does your child... 
Seem bothered by light, especially bright light (blinks, squints, cries, closes eyes, etc.)? 
Have trouble finding an object when it is part of a group of other things? 
Close one eye or tip his or her head back when looking at something or someone? 
Become distressed in unusual visual environments, such as a bright, colorful room or a dimly lit room? 
Have difficulty controlling eye movement when following objects like a ball with his or her eyes? 
Have difficulty recognizing how objects are similar or different based on their colors, shapes, or sizes? 
Enjoy watching objects spin or move more than most kids his or her age? 
Walk into objects or people as if they were not there? 
Like to flip light switches on and off repeatedly? 
Dislike certain types of lighting, such as midday sun, strobe lights, flickering lights, or fluorescent lights? 
Enjoy looking at moving objects out of the corner of his or her eye? 
HEARING 	Does your child... 
Seem bothered by ordinary household sounds, such as the vacuum cleaner, hair dryer, or toilet flushing? 
Respond negatively to loud noises by running away, crying, or holding hands over ears? 
Appear not to hear certain sounds? 
Seem disturbed by or intensely interested in sounds not usually noticed by other people? 
Seem frightened of sounds that do not usually cause distress in other kids his or her age? 
Seem easily distracted by background noises such as a lawn mower outside, an air conditioner, 
a refrigerator, or fluorescent lights? 
Like to cause certain sounds to happen over and over again, such as by repeatedly flushing the toilet? 
Show distress at shrill or brassy sounds, such as whistles, party noisemakers, flutes, and trumpets? 
continue on back page... 
W-466A 
Figure 1 
Completed SPM Home AutoScoreTM Form 
11 
PLEASE PRESS HARD WHEN CIRCLING YOUR RESPONSES. 
elsǸsI 
,501 oz. , 
TOUCH 	Does your child... 
O 0 	F 	A 	 30. Pull away from being touched lightly? 
O 0 	F 	A 	 31. Seem to lack normal awareness of being touched? 
	
CI 	0 	F 	A 	 32. Become distressed by the feel of new clothes? 
	
N 	0 	F 	A 	33. Prefer to touch rather than to be touched? 
	
N 	0 	A 	 34. Become distressed by having his or her fingernails or toenails cut? 
	
N 	F 	A 	 35. Seem bothered when someone touches his or her face? 
O 0 	F 	A 	 36. Avoid touching or playing with finger paint, paste, sand, clay, mud, glue, or other messy things? 
	0 	F 	A 	 37. Have an unusually high tolerance for pain? 
	0 	F 	A 	 38. Dislike teeth brushing, more than most kids his or her age? 
	
ID 	0 	F 	A 	 39. Seem to enjoy sensations that should be painful, such as crashing onto the floor or hitting his or her own body? 
	• 	0 	F 	A 	 40. Have trouble finding things in a pocket, bag, or backpack using touch only (without looking)? 
TASTE AND SMELL 	Does your child... 
	
0 	0 	F 	A 	 41. Like to taste nonfood items, such as glue or paint? 
	A 	 42. Gag at the thought of an unappealing food, such as cooked spinach? 9 	F 	A 	43. Like to smell nonfood objects and people? 
	
6. 
	A 	44. Show distress at smells that other children do not notice? 
F 	A 	 45. Seem to ignore or not notice strong odors that other children react to? 
BODY AWARENESS 	Does your child... 
O 0 	F 	A 	 46. Grasp objects (such ass pencil or spoon) so tightly that it is difficult to use the object? 
O 0 	F 	A 	 47. Seem driven to seek activities such as pushing, pulling, dragging, lifting, and jumping? 
O 0 	F 	A 	 48. Seem unsure of how far to raise or lower the body during movement such as sitting down or stepping over an object? 
	
0 	0 	F 	A 	 49. Grasp objects (such as a pencil or spoon) so loosely that it is difficult to use the object? 
	▪ 	0 	F 	A 	 50. Seem to exert too much pressure for the task, such as walking heavily, slamming doors. 
or pressing too hard when using pencils or crayons? 
0 	F 	A 	51. Jump a lot? 
O 0 	F 	A 	 52. Tend to pet animals with too much force? 
	
0 	0 	F 	A 	 53. Bump or push other children? 
	
0 	0 	F 	A 	 54. Chew on toys. clothes, or other objects more than other children? 
	
0 	0 	F 	A 	 55. Break things from pressing or pushing too hard on them? 
BALANCE AND MOTION 	Does your child... 
	
N 	0F 	A 	56. Seem excessively fearful of movement, such as going up and down stairs or riding swings, teeter-totters, slides, 
or other playground equipment? 
	• 	0 	 	 57. Have good balance? 
	0 	F 	A 	 58. Avoid balance activities, such as walking on curbs or on uneven ground? 
	0 	F 	A 	 59. Fall out of a chair when shifting his or her body? 
O 0 	F 	A 	 60. Fail to catch himself or herself when falling? 
0 	0 	F 	A 	 61. Seem not to get dizzy when others usually do? 
O 0 	F 	A 	 62. Spin and whirl his or her body more than other children? 
O 0 	F 	A 	 63. Show distress when his or her head is tilted away from the upright, vertical position? 
O 0 	F 	A 	 64. Show poor coordination and appear to be clumsy? 
	F 	A 	 65. Seem afraid of riding in elevators or on escalators? 
	F 	A 	 66. Lean on other people or furniture when sitting or when trying to stand up? 
PLANNING AND IDEAS 	Does your child... 
N F 	A 	 67. Perform inconsistently in daily tasks? 
CD0 	F 	A 	 68. Have trouble figuring out how to carry multiple objects at the same time? 
	
N 	0 	F 	A 	69. Seem confused about how to put away materials and belongings in their correct places? 
O 0 	F 	A 	 70. Fail to perform tasks in proper sequence, such as getting dressed or setting the table'? 
O 0 	F 	A 	 71. Fail to complete tasks with multiple steps? 
O 0 	F 	A 	 72. Have difficulty imitating demonstrated actions, such as movement games or songs with motions? 
N F 	A 	 73. Have difficulty building to copy a model, such as using Legos or blocks to build something that matches a model? 
	
N 	j 	F 	A 	74. Have trouble coming up with ideas for new games and activities? 
O 0 	F 	A 	 75. Tend to play the same activities over and over, rather than shift to new activities when given the chance? 
Figure 1 (continued) 
Completed SPM Home AutoScorem Form 
12 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
4 
0 (1.1 ,..., 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
1 
1 
0 
1 	 
1 
1 
0 
1 
W-466A 
15 
Item 	 Value 
30. 	 4 	 
31. 4 	 
32. 4 	 
33. 4 	 
-34. 4 
35. 4 	 
36. 4 	 
37. 4 	 
3 4 	 
39. 4 	 
4 	 40. 	 
41. 4 	 
-42. 4 	 
43. 4 	 
44. 4 	 
45. 4 	 
46. 4 	 
47. 4 	 
48 4 	 
49. 4 	 
50. 4 	 
51. 4 	 
52. 4 	 
53. 4 	 
54. 4 	 
55. 4 	 
56. 4 	 
57. 0 
58. 4 	 
4 	 59. 
60. 4 	 
61. 4 	 
62. 4 	 
63. 4 	 
64. 4 	 
65. 4 	 
66. 4 	 
67. 4 	 
68. 4 	 
-69. 4 	 
70. 4 	 
71. 4 	 
4 	 -72.73. 4 	 
74. 4 	 
75. 4 	 
2
8. 
	
3 	2 	0 
	
3 	2 	.0 
	
3 	2 	et 
3 
3 
	
3 	2 
8 3 
	
3 	2 	
 
	
3 	2 	0 
	
3 	2 	0 
3 	2 0 
3 	 
3 	2 
3 	0 	1,,, 
3 	2 	(.13 
3 	2 	 
3 	2 	0 
3 	2 0 
3 	2 
3 	2 	0 
3 	1 
3 	2 
3 	2 
3 	2 
3 	2 
3 	0- 	1 
2 	3 	4 
3 	2 8 3 	2 
3 	2 	 
3 	2 	8 
3 	2 	0 
3 	2 	0 
3 	2 	10 
3 	1 
3 	1 
3 c) 	1 
2 3 	 0 
3 	1 
3 	2 
§ 
3 	2 
3 	2 
3 	0 	1 
3 	Q 	1 
3 	2 	0 
0 
2 	1 
i:11) 
0 
Sensory 	Processing Measure 
Home Form 
Scoring Worksheet 
W PS® 
Test with Confidence 
	3 
	3 	 
Value 
2 	 
2 	 
Item 
TOU 
raw score 
0 
0 
1 
3 
	3 
	3 
	3 
	3 
	3 
3 
3 
 	0 	 
2 
 	2 
0 
 	2 	 
 	0 	 
	
2 	 
	
0 	 
1 
-0 
-C.) 
0 
1 
1 
0 
1 
	 4 
	
		5. 
	
		8. 
7 
Items 
41-45 
14 
6. 
7 
SOC 
raw score 
9. 
10. 11 
°3 2 	3 
2 	3 
0 	 3 
2 	3 
	2 	3 
	2 	3 
2 	3 
0 	 3 
4 
 	4 	 
 	4 	 
 	4 	 
 	4 	 
 	4 	 
 	4 	 
 	4 	 
 	4 	 
	 11. 
BOO 
raw score 
12. 
13. 
14. 
15. 
16. 16 
17. 82 
18. 
V'S 
raw score 
19. TOT 
raw score 1 	2 
	2 
	2 
	2 
	2 
2 
2 
0 
2 	 
0 
3 
 	3 
	
0 	 
	
3 	 
	
0 	 
	
3 	 
	
0 	 
	
0 	 
 	4 
 	4 
 	4 
 	4 	 
 	4 
 	4 
4 
 	4 	 
4 	 
20. 
21. BAL 
raw score 
22. 
23. 
24. 
25. 
26. 19 
27. 
28. 
HEA 
raw score 
13 
2 	0 	 4 29. 
PLA 
raw score 
Figure 1 (continued) 
Completed SPM Home AutoScoreTM Form 
13 
Scoring Instructions 
1. Circle the score value in bold typeface for any missing responses. 
(Note: If eight or more responses are missing. do not proceed 
with scoring.) 
2. Calculate the raw score for each scale (except TOT) by summing 
the circled scores for the scale's items and entering the sum in 
the labeled box to the right or left of the items. A bracket indicates 
the item scores that should be summed for each scale. Be sure to 
also sum the scores for Items 41 to 45, which are included in the 
TOT raw score. 
3. Calculate the TOT raw score by summing the raw scores of the 
VIS, HEA, TOU, BOD, and BAL scales, plus the score from Items 
41 to 45. These score boxes are bracketed on the Scoring 
Worksheet. Enter the TOT raw score in the labeled box. 
4. Transfer the scale raw scores to the corresponding spaces on the 
lower half of the Home Form Profile Sheet. (The score from Items 
41 to 45 is nottransferred to the Profile Sheet.) 
5. On the Profile Sheet. circle the raw score value for each scale in 
the column labeled with each scale's acronym. Connect the circled 
values for a visual representation of SPM results. 
6. Read from each circled raw score across its row to the left or 
right margin to obtain the T-score and percentile rank. The SPM 
interpretive ranges are marked by shading: Typical (no shading), 
Some Problems (light shading). and Definite Dysfunction (darker 
shading). 
7. Enter the T-score for each scale in the corresponding space below 
the scale's raw score. Below these spaces. check the appropriate 
interpretive range box for each T-score. 
8. If the Main Classroom Form was administered and scored, enter 
the Main Classroom Form TOT T-score and the Home Form TOT 
T-score in the labeled spaces in the DIF Calculation area. 
9. Subtract the Main Classroom TOT T-score from the Home TOT 
T-score and enter this value in the space for the Environment 
Difference (DIF) score. 
10. Check the box whose range includes the DIF score to determine 
the DIF interpretive condition. 
Figure 1 (continued) 
Completed SPM Home AutoScoreTm Form 
14 
 
Home Form 
 
 
Profile Sheet 
L. Diane Parham. Ph.D.. OTR/L. FAOTA. 
and Cheryl Ecker, M.A., OTR/L 
Age: 7-6 	Grade: 	2 
 
wps. 
Test with Confidence 
Sensory 	Processing Measure 
 
Name (or ID#): 	Lydia 
 
Gender: 	M 	X F 
 
Date this form completed: 11/20/06 	Reason for assessment: screening for sensory issues 
%ile 	T 
ORaw Score 110. 
soc 
14 
T-Score 	47 
Interpretive Range 
Typical 
(40T-59T) 
Some Problems 
(60T-69T) 
Definite Dysfunction 
(70T-80T) 
37-40 	35-44 	29-32 	37-44 
35-36 	33-34 	27-28 	 36 
34 	 32 	 26 	34-35 
31 	 25 	 33 
33 	 30 	 24 
32 	 28-29 	 23 	 32 
27 	 22 	30-31 
31 	 28-29 
26 	 21 	 27 
30 	 25 	 20 26 
29 • 	24 	 n 
SOC 	 VIS 	 HEA 	 IOU 
28 	 23 	 18 	 25 
21-22 	 17 	 23-24 
27 	 20 	 16 	 22 
26 	 15 	 21 
25 	 19 	 20 
24 	 18 	 14 	 19 
23 	 17 	 13 	 18 
22 	 12 
17 
21 
15 	 11 	 16 
20 
14 	 CO 
19 	 10 
18 	 14 
13 
17 
	
9 	 13 
16 
12 
15 
ID 
BOO BAL PLA TOT 
36-40 
34-35 
35-44 
34 
33-36 
31-32 
170-224 
164-169 
33 33 154-163 
32 31-32 30 142-153 
31 29-30 140-141 
30 27-28 29 137-139 
29 26 28 133-136 
28 27 131-132 
27 25 26 129-130 
26 24 122-128 
25 25- 119-121 
24 23 24 110-118 
23 22 106-109 
22 23 103-105 
21 21 22 99-102 
20 20 21 94-98 
19 19 20 92-93 
18 18 19 88-91 
84-87 
17 17 18 0 16 17 79-80 
15 16 77-78 
16 75-76 
14 15 15 73-74 
71-72 
13 14 70 
10 69 
11111 67-68 
12 66 
13 12 65 
64 
CD 11 63 
12 62 
61 
10 
60 
59 
10 11 9 56-58 
BOO BAL PLA TOT 
11 14 13 82 
48 54 53 061 
T 	%ile 
80 
79 
78 
77 
76 
75 
74 >99 
73 	99 
72 
71 	98 
70 
69 	97 
68 	96 
67 
66 	95 
65 	93 
64 	92 
63 	90 
62 	88 
61 	86 
60 	84 
59 	82 
58 	79 
57 	76 
56 	73 
55 	69 
54 	66 
53 	62 
52 	58 
51 	54 
50 	50 
49 	46 
48 	42 
47 	38 
46 	34 
45 	31 
44 	27 
43 	24 
42 	21 
41 	18 
40 	16 
T %ile 
4 Raw Score 
4 T-Score 
T 
80 
79 
78 
77 
76 
75 
>99 74 
99 73 
72 
98 71 
70 
97 69 
96 68 
67 
95 66 
93 65 
92 64 
90 63 
88 62 
	
86 	61 
84 60 
82 59 
79 58 
76 57 
73 56 
69 55 
66 54 
62 53 
58 52 
	
54 	51 
50 50 
46 49 
42 48 
38 47 
34 46 
	
31 	45 
27 44 
24 43 
	
21 	42 
	
18 	41 
	
16 	40 
111) 
	
12 
13 
12 	 8 
11 
10-11 	 11 
viS 	 HEA 	 TOU 
16 
	
19 
	
15 
61 	70 	57 
X 	 7 	 X 	X 	X 	X 
0 	X 	0 	0 	0 	0 	0 	X 0 
0 	0 	X 	0 	0 	0 	0 	0 
DIF Interpretation 
E 	DIE >15 	DEFINITE difference: More problems in Home than in Main Classroom 
E 145 DIF a• 10 	PROBABLE difference: More problems in Home than in Main Classroom 
X 9> DIE -9 	NO difference in amount of problems between Main Classroom and Home 
0 -10 DIF -14 PROBABLE difference: More problems in Main Classroom than in Home 
Ei 
 
-15> DIF 	DEFINITE difference: More problems in Main Classroom than in Home 
OW Calculation 
Home Form TOT T-score 	61 
	
CIMain Classroom Form TOT 7-score - 	59 
	
Environment Difference (DIF) = 	2 
W-466A 
Figure 1 (continued) 
Completed SPNI Home AutoScoreTm Form 
15 
Sensory• Processing Measure 
Main Classroom Form 
Profile Sheet 
Heather Miller Kuhaneck. M.S.. OTR/L. FAOTA. 
Diana A. Henry. M.S., OTR/L, FAOTA. 
and Tara J. Glennon. Ed.D.. OTR/L, FAOTA 
wps. 
Test wtth Confidence 
Name (or ID#): 	Lydia Age: 	7 Grade: 	2 Gender 	EM 	X F 
Date this form completed: 
Reason for assessment: 
%He 	T 
11/30/06 school: South Bay Elementary Teacher: 	Harris 
screen for sensory problems 
SOC 	 VIS 	 HEA 	 TOG 	 BOO BAL PIA TOT T 	%ile 
80 39-40 26-28 24-28 25-32 25-28 34-36 40 130-168 80 
79 25 23-24 23-24 33 39 119-129 79 
78 38 24 22-23 21-22 31-32 38 117-118 78 
77 37 22-23 21 22 115-116 77 
76 36 20-21 19-20 20 30 37 109-114 76 
75 19 18 19 21 28-29 36 108 75 
>99 	74 35 17 27 34-35 99-107 74 	>99 
99 	73 34 18 18 26 32-33 96-98 73 	99 
72 33 17 16 17 20 24-25 30-31 94-95 72 
98 	71 23 29 88-93 71 	98 
70 32 16 16 19 22 28 87 70 
97 	69 31 15 18 21 84-86 69 	97 
96 	68 30 15 17 27 82-83 68 	96 
67 15 14 16 20 26 80-81 67 
95 	66 29 15 19 25 78-79 66 	95 
93 	65 28 14 13 13 14 74-77 65 	93 
92 	64 27 13 18 24 71-73 64 	92 
90 	63 26 12 12 13 17 23 69-70 63 	90 
88 	62 25 12 21-22 67-68 62 	88 
86 	61 24 11 11 12 16 64-66 61 	86 
84 	60 23 15 19 62-63 60 	84 
82 	59 11 10 11 18 59 	82 
79 	58 14 17 58-59 58 	79 
76 	57 21 10 16 56-57 57 	76 
73 	56 20 9 55 56 	73 
6955 15 53-54 55 	69 
66 	54 19 9 14 52 54 	66 
62 	53 18 9 9 12 51 53 	62 
58 	52 17 8 13 50 52 	58 
54 	51 8 11 49 51 	54 
50 	50 16 12 48 50 	50 
46 	49 15 47 49 	46 
42 	48 8 48 	42 
38 	47 14 10 11 46 47 	38 
34 	46 46 	34 
31 	45 13 45 45 	31 
27 	44 12 8 44 	27 
24 	43 44 43 	24 
21 	42 42 	21 
18 	41 11 41 	18 
16 	40 10 7 9 10 42-43 40 	16 
%ile 	T SOC VIS HEA IOU BOO BAL PLA TOT T 	%ile 
Raw Score O• 22 10 14 10 _7_ 13 20 6 la 41 Raw Score 
TScore 59 57 67 58 42 56 61 T-Score 
Interpretive Range 
Typical 
(40T-59T) X 	 X 	 E X X X 	 — 	 X 
Some Problems 
(607-697) El E X 0 0 0 X 	 0 
Definite Dysfunction 
(707-807) 
Scores from SPM School Environments Form 
03) 	
ART mus PHY REC CAF 
	
20 	
BUS 
22 	28 	30 	31 1 1 
Cutoff value: 	29 	 29 	 28 	 29 	 27 	 19 
n 	 n 	 X 	 X 	 0 	 7 _ 
Check box if score is greater than or equal to cutoff value. Check indicates that student displays more problems than is typical in that environment. 
W-4660 
Figure 2 
Completed SPM Main Classroom Form Profile Sheet 
16 
Student's Name/ID#: 	Lydia Grade: 2 	Rater's Name: Lisa Manning 
Never 
4 
Never 
4 
Never 
4 
Never 
4 
Never 
1 
Never 
1 
1. Follows classroom rules and routines. 
2. Resolves peer conflicts without teacher intervention. 	 
3. Handles frustration without outbursts or aggressive behavior. 	 
4. Has friends and chooses to be with them when possible. 	 
5. Becomes distracted by nearby visual stimuli (pictures, 
items on walls, windows, other children). 	 
6. Shows distress when hands or face are dirty (with glue, 
finger paints, food, dirt, etc.). 	 
7. Does not perform consistently in daily tasks; quality 
of work varies widely. 	 Never 
1 
8. Does not return materials and belongings to correct places. 	 Never 
1 
9. Fails to complete tasks with multiple steps. 	 (Neve) 
10. Writes or colors with excessive pressure (may break 
crayon or pencil tip, or tear paper). 	 
Always 
4 
Always 
4 
Frequently 
3 
Frequently 
3 
This student... 
11. Writes or colors with very light pressure (marks on paper 
may be too light to read). 	 
12. Does not open or close scissors far enough to cut properly. 	 
13. Does not use scissors for smooth, continuous cutting 
(instead, does single snips). 
14. Has difficulty using two hands together for tasks 
(cutting, using ruler, opening containers). 	 
15. Shows poor organization of materials in, on, or around desk area. 	 
Occasionally Frequently (Always) 
3 	 2 	1 	 1 
Occasionally FrequenD Always 
3 	 2 	1 	2 
Occasionally Frequently (away) 
3 	 2 	1 	 1 
Occasionally Frequently Always 
3 	 2 	1 	 1 
Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 
Qc...casional) Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 
Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 	 2 
Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 	 2 
Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 	 1 
Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 	 1 
Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 	 2 
Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 	 1 
Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 
Occasionally 
2 
eccasiona3 
2 
Art Class (ART) Total Score: 
wps. 
Test with Confidence 
W-466C(1 ) 
School Environments Form Art Class (ART) Rating Sheet 
Heather Miller Kuhaneck, M.S., OTR/L. FAOTA, Diana A. Henry. M.S., OTR/L. FAOTA 
and Tara J. Gleason, Ed.D., OTR/L, FAOTA 
Never 
1 
Never 
Never 
Never 
1 
2 
2 
1 
1 
2 
22 
Sensory 	Processing Measure 
Directions 
Please answer the questions on this form based on this student's 
typical behavior in art class during the past month. 
Circle the one answer that best describes how often the behavior 
happens. Use the following rating scale: 
Never: the behavior never or almost never happens 
Occasionally: the behavior happens some of the time 
Frequently: the behavior happens much of the time 
Always: the behavior always or almost always happens 
Some questions ask whether this student shows "distress" 
in certain situations. Showing distress may include verbal 
expressions (whining, crying, yelling) or nonverbal expressions 
(withdrawing, gesturing, pushing something away, running 
away, wincing, striking out). 
Write any additional comments on this student's behavior or 
functioning on the back of this sheet. 
Figure 3 
Completed SPM School Environments Form Art Class Rating Sheet 
17 
INTERPRETATION 
This chapter presents a strategy for interpreting SPM 
results. The strategy emphasizes three dimensions of 
interpretation: scale scores, item responses, and differences 
across environments. First, the SPM provides norm-
referenced standard scores to measure problems in social 
participation, planning and ideas (praxis), and five sensory 
systems: visual, auditory, tactile, body awareness 
(proprioceptive), and balance and motion (vestibular). 
Second, the SPM items are sensitive to important sensory 
integration vulnerabilities, including over-responsiveness, 
under-responsiveness, sensory seeking, and perceptual 
problems. The item responses also provide information on 
the function of the taste and smell systems. Third, the SPM 
allows assessment of sensory functioning across different 
environments through an interrelated set of forms: the Home 
Form (completed by a parent or home-based caregiver), the 
Main Classroom Form (completed by the child's primary 
classroom teacher), and the School Environments Form 
(completed by school staff members who see the child in 
various school settings outside of the main classroom). 
Because of these features, the SPM can be used as 
either a quick screening instrument or as one component of a 
comprehensive diagnostic evaluation. In this latter 
application, the SPM is well suited for use with classification 
frameworks such as the International Classification of 
Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF; World Health 
Organization, 2001) and the Occupational Therapy Practice 
Framework (American Occupational Therapy Association, 
2002). As with any assessment instrument, diagnostic and 
intervention decisions should be made only after considering 
the widest possible sampling of available data, including other 
standardized rating scales, performance measures such as the 
Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests (SIPT; Ayres, 1989), 
curriculum-based measures, clinical observations, 
occupational profiles, and interviews with parents, school 
staff, and (when appropriate) the child being assessed. 
The SPM Home and Main Classroom Forms 
The Home and Main Classroom Forms share many 
structural and interpretive similarities, and so are discussed 
together in this section. The School Environments Form is 
described later in this chapter. The three SPM forms are 
intended to be used together as an integrated system to 
provide a comprehensive overview of the child's sensory 
functioning across home, school, and community contexts. 
As described in chapter 2, scoring the Home and Main 
Classroom Forms yields eight scale scores for each form: 
Social Participation (SOC), Vision (VIS), Hearing (HEA), 
Touch (TOU), Body Awareness (BOD), Balance and Motion 
(BAL), Planning and Ideas (PLA), and Total Sensory 
Systems (TOT). The VIS, HEA, TOU, BOD, and BAL 
scales are referred to as the sensory systems scales because 
they address a child's ability to process direct sensory 
inputs. The SOC and PLA scales, on the other hand, 
represent higher level integrative functions that are strongly 
influenced by sensory inputs while encompassing other 
cognitive and contextual factors. The TOT scale is a 
composite of all of the sensory systems scales, plus 
additional items that reflect taste and smell inputs. 
Standard Scores and Interpretive Ranges 
The SPM items employ a rating scale based on how 
frequently behaviors occur. Each item is thus rated Never, 
Occasionally, Frequently, or Always. A numerical score (1 
through 4) is assigned to each rating, with higher scores 
representing more problematic or dysfunctional behavior. The 
raw score ofan SPM scale is simply the numerical total of the 
item ratings for that scale. Because of the way the SPM items 
are coded, a higher raw score always indicates a higher level 
of problems or dysfunction than does a lower raw score. 
For interpretation, the SPM raw scores are converted 
into standard scores. A standard score allows comparison of 
results among scales with different characteristics (different 
numbers of items, different psychometric properties, etc.). 
A standard score also enables a child's test results to be 
compared with a reference group, such as a normative 
sample of typically developing children. 
A common standard score, especially in school settings, 
is the percentile score. This score represents the percentage of 
children in the normative sample who scored lower than the 
child who is being evaluated. For example, a percentile score 
of 57 indicates that the child's raw score for that scale was 
higher than 57% of the raw scores in the normative sample. 
19 
20 	 Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation Guide 
Another widely used standard score is the T-score (see 
Anastasi, 1988, P. 88). The T-score has a mean of 50 and a 
standard deviation of 10. The mean T-score of 50 represents 
the functioning of the typical child in the normative sample. 
When used together, T-scores and percentile scores make it 
easy to see how far a particular child's functioning deviates 
from that of the typical child. For example, a T-score of 60 is 
one standard deviation above the mean of the normative 
sample. It is associated with a percentile score of 84, 
meaning that the child being assessed scored higher than 
84% of typical children. 
In test interpretation, it is conventional to view T-
scores in the range of 40 to 59 as representing normal or 
typical functioning. The T-score range of 60 to 69 usually 
represents mild to moderate problems, and a T-score of 70 
or above usually represents severe problems. These 
conventions are followed in the SPM to yield three 
interpretive ranges. 
Typical range (T-score range of 40 to 59). A score in 
the Typical range indicates that the child's behavioral and 
sensory functioning is similar to that of typical children. On 
most of the scale items, the child is rated as never having 
problems, with a few items indicating occasional problems. 
These few problems are within the normal variability in 
function that characterizes typically developing children. 
Some Problems range (T-score range of 60 to 69). A 
score in the Some Problems range indicates mild-to-
moderate difficulties in behavioral or sensory functioning. 
A child with these difficulties may respond well to 
intervention, with resulting improvements in the child's 
ability to learn and participate in daily activities. 
When a child scores in the Some Problems range on a 
particular scale, it is important to examine the individual 
item ratings for that scale. These item ratings may suggest a 
specific sensory integration vulnerability that is amenable to 
treatment (e.g., over-responsiveness to tactile stimulation). 
A method for interpreting item responses is described in 
more detail later in this chapter. 
Definite Dysfunction range (T-score range of 70 to 
80). A score in the Definite Dysfunction range indicates a 
significant sensory processing problem that may have a 
noticeable effect on the child's daily functioning. On many 
of the scale items, the child is rated as frequently or always 
demonstrating problems. Depending on the overall SPM 
results, these difficulties may manifest across multiple 
sensory systems or multiple environments. Examination of 
individual item responses may help to clarify which sensory 
integration vulnerabilities are in most immediate need of 
treatment. 
A particular SPM scale score is considered elevated 
when it is in either the Some Problems or Definite 
Dysfunction range. Although the three SPM interpretive 
ranges are defined by specific T-score boundaries, you 
should take a flexible approach to borderline scores. For 
example, a T-score of 59 is on the border between the 
Typical and Some Problems ranges. To interpret this score, 
you should examine both ranges and determine which 
description fits best based on all of the information you have 
about the child. 
Tables for converting SPM raw scores to T-scores, 
percentile scores, and interpretive ranges are provided on the 
Profile Sheets included with the Home and Main Classroom 
AutoScoreTm Forms, as well as in Appendix B of this manual. 
Interpreting the SPM Scales 
The SPM Home and Main Classroom Forms have 
identical scales, which facilitates comparison of the child's 
functioning between these two environments. This section 
describes the content of these eight scales. The item 
composition of each scale is provided in Table 3 for the 
Home Form and Table 4 for the Main Classroom Form. 
Social Participation (SOC) Scale 
The Social Participation (SOC) scale has 10 items on 
both the Home and Main Classroom Forms. Unlike almost 
all of the other SPM items, the SOC items are phrased with 
positive valence. For example, Home Item 3 ("Share things 
when asked?") is phrased so that a rating of Always indicates 
positive, healthy behavior. Except for Home Item 57 ("Have 
good balance?"), the rest of the SPM items are phrased with 
negative valence, so that a rating of Always indicates 
problematic, dysfunctional behavior. 
On the Home Form, the SOC items measure the 
child's participation in social activities in the home and the 
community. The item content addresses the child's general 
interactions with friends, parents, and other significant 
adults, as well as specific conversational skills. On the Main 
Classroom Form, the SOC items represent the child's ability 
to get along with peers and participate appropriately in 
classroom activities. The item content reflects specific 
aspects of verbal and nonverbal communication, conflict 
resolution, and flexibility in peer play. 
Higher scores on the SOC scale reflect increasing 
difficulties with social participation. When a child scores in 
the Some Problems range, it is important to examine the 
item responses to see whether problems are apparent across 
most or all of the items of the scale, or whether a few items 
rated Never are accounting for the score elevation. A child 
who scores in the Definite Dysfunction range is likely to 
demonstrate more pervasive social problems across multiple 
settings and with both other children and adults. 
A child's ability to engage with others can be 
influenced by sensory processing issues. For example, a 
child with an elevated score on SOC frequently also has 
elevated scores on one or more of the sensory systems 
scales. Often, difficulties in social-relational skills are 
related to problems with sensory modulation or sensory 
seeking. However, a child's score on the SOC scale may be 
elevated for reasons unrelated to sensory processing. In 
interpreting the SOC score, you should consider medical, 
developmental, cognitive, and environmental factors that 
may have an impact on social functioning. 
Table 3 
SPM Home Form Items 
Item Scale 
Sensory integration 
vulnerability 
Social Participation (SOC) 
1 Play with friends cooperatively (without lots of arguments)? 
2 Interact appropriately with parents and other significant adults 
(communicates well, follows directions, shows respect, etc.)? 
3 Share things when asked? 
4 Carry on a conversation without standing or sitting too close to others? 
5 Maintain appropriate eye contact during conversation? 
6 Join in play with others without disrupting the ongoing activity? 
7 Take part in appropriate mealtime conversation and interaction? 
8 Participate appropriately in family outings, such as dining out, or 
going to a park, museum, or movie? 
9 Participate appropriately in family gatherings, such as holidays, 
weddings, and birthdays? 
10 Participate appropriately in activities with friends, suchas parties, 
going to the mall, and riding bikes/skateboards/scooters? 
Vision (VIS) 
11 Seem bothered by light, especially bright light (blinks, squints, cries, 
closes eyes, etc.)? 
Over-responsive 
12 Have trouble finding an object when it is part of a group of other things? Perception 
13 Close one eye or tip his or her head back when looking at something or someone? Over-responsive 
14 Become distressed in unusual visual environments, such as a bright, 
colorful room or a dimly lit room? 
Over-responsive 
15 Have difficulty controlling eye movement when following objects like a 
ball with his or her eyes? 
Ocular-motor 
16 Have difficulty recognizing how objects are similar or different based 
on their colors, shapes, or sizes? 
Perception 
17 Enjoy watching objects spin or move more than most kids his or her age? Seeking 
1 8 Walk into objects or people as if they were not there? Under-responsive 
19 Like to flip light switches on and off repeatedly? Seeking 
20 Dislike certain types of lighting, such as midday sun, strobe lights, 
flickering lights, or fluorescent lights? 
Over-responsive 
21 Enjoy looking at moving objects out of the corner of his or her eye? Seeking 
Hearing (HEA) 
22 Seem bothered by ordinary household sounds, such as the vacuum 
cleaner, hair dryer, or toilet flushing? 
Over-responsive 
23 Respond negatively to loud noises by running away, crying, or 
holding hands over ears? 
Over-responsive 
24 Appear not to hear certain sounds? Under-responsive 
25 Seem disturbed by or intensely interested in sounds not usually 
noticed by other people? 
Over-responsive 
26 Seem frightened of sounds that do not usually cause distress in other 
kids his or her age? 
Over-responsive 
27 Seem easily distracted by background noises such as a lawn mower 
outside, an air conditioner, a refrigerator, or fluorescent lights? 
Over-responsive 
continued on next page... 
21 
Table 3 (continued) 
SPM Home Form Items 
Sensory integration 
Item 
	 Scale 	 vulnerability 
Hearing (HEA) (continued) 
28 	Like to cause certain sounds to happen over and over again, such as 
	
Seeking 
by repeatedly flushing the toilet? 
29 	Show distress at shrill or brassy sounds, such as whistles, party 
	 Over-responsive 
noisemakers, flues, and trumpets? 
Touch (TOW 
30 	Pull away from being touched lightly? 	 Over-responsive 
31 	Seem to lack normal awareness of being touched? 	 Under-responsive 
32 	Become distressed by the feel of new clothes? 	 Over-responsive 
33 	Prefer to touch rather than to be touched? 	 Over-responsive 
34 	Become distressed by having his or her fingernails or toenails cut? 	 Over-responsive 
35 	Seem bothered when someone touches his or her face? 	 Over-responsive 
36 	Avoid touching or playing with finger paint, paste, sand, clay, mud, 	 Over-responsive 
glue, or other messy things? 
37 	Have an unusually high tolerance for pain? 	 Under-responsive 
38 	Dislike teeth brushing, more than most kids his or her age? 	 Over-responsive 
39 	Seem to enjoy sensations that should be painful, such as crashing 	 Seeking 
onto the floor or hitting his or her own body? 
40 	Have trouble finding things in a pocket, bag, or backpack using touch 	 Perception 
only (without looking)? 
Taste and Smell items 
41 	Like to taste nonfood items, such as glue or paint? 	 Seeking 
42 	Gag at the thought of an unappealing food, such as cooked spinach? 	 Over-responsive 
43 	Like to smell nonfood objects and people? 	 Seeking 
44 	Show distress at smells that other children do not notice? 	 Over-responsive 
45 	Seem to ignore or not notice strong odors that other children react to? 	 Under-responsive 
Body Awareness (BOB) 
46 	Grasp objects (such as a pencil or spoon) so tightly that it is difficult 	 Perception 
to use the object? 
47 	Seem driven to seek activities such as pushing, pulling, dragging, 	 Seeking 
lifting, and jumping? 
48 	Seem unsure of how far to raise or lower the body during movement 	 Perception 
such as sitting down or stepping over an object? 
49 	Grasp objects (such as a pencil or spoon) so loosely that it is difficult 	 Perception 
to use the object? 
50 	Seem to exert too much pressure for the task, such as walking 	 Seeking 
heavily, slamming doors, or pressing too hard when using pencils or crayons? 
51 	Jump a lot? 	 Seeking 
52 	Tend to pet animals with too much force? 	 Perception 
53 	Bump or push other children? 	 Perception 
54 	Chew on toys, clothes, or other objects more than other children? 	 Seeking 
55 	Break things from pressing or pushing too hard on them? 	 Perception 
continued on next page... 
22 
Table 3 (continued) 
SPM Home Form Items 
Sensory integration 
Item Scale vulnerability 
Balance and Motion (BAL) 
56 Seem excessively fearful of movement, such as going up and down 
stairs or riding swings, teeter-totters, slides, or other playground equipment? 
Over-responsive 
57 Have good balance? Postural control 
58 Avoid balance activities, such as walking on curbs or on uneven ground? Over-responsive 
59 Fall out of a chair when shifting his or her body? Postural control 
60 Fail to catch himself or herself when falling? Postural control 
61 Seem not to get dizzy when others usually do? Under-responsive 
62 Spin and whirl his or her body more than other children? Seeking 
63 Show distress when his or her head is tilted away from the upright, 
vertical position? 
Over-responsive 
64 Show poor coordination and appear to be clumsy? Postural control 
65 Seem afraid of riding in elevators or on escalators? Over-responsive 
66 Lean on other people or furniture when sitting or when trying to stand up? Postural control 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) 
67 Perform inconsistently in daily tasks? Motor planning 
68 Have trouble figuring out how to carry multiple objects at the same time? Motor planning 
69 Seem confused about how to put away materials and belongings in 
their correct places? 
Motor planning 
70 Fail to perform tasks in proper sequence, such as getting dressed or 
setting the table? 
Motor planning 
71 Fail to complete tasks with multiple steps? Motor planning 
72 Have difficulty imitating demonstrated actions, such as movement 
games or songs with motions? 
Motor planning 
73 Have difficulty building to copy a model, such as using Legos or 
blocks to build something that matches a model? 
Motor planning 
74 Have trouble coming up with ideas for new games and activities? Ideation 
75 Tend to play the same activities over and over, rather than shift to 
new activities when given the chance? 
Ideation 
23 
Table 4 
SPM Main Classroom Form Items 
Item Scale 
Sensory integration 
vulnerability 
Social Participation (SOC) 
1 Works as part of a team; is helpful with others. 
2 Resolves peer conflicts without teacher intervention. 
3 Handles frustration without outbursts or aggressive behavior. 
4 Willingly plays with peers in a variety of games and activities. 
5 Enters into play with peers without disrupting ongoing activity. 
6 Has friends and chooses to be with them when possible. 
7 Uses and understands humor when playing with peers. 
8 Maintains appropriate "personal space" (doesn't stand too close to 
others during conversation). 
9 Maintains appropriate eye contact during conversation. 
10 Shifts conversation topics in accordance with peer interests; doesn't 
stay stuck on one topic. 
Vision (VIS) 
11 Squints, covers eyes, or complains about classroom lighting or bright sunlight. Over-responsive 
12 Shows distress at the sight of moving objects. Over-responsive 
13 Becomes distracted by nearby visual stimuli (pictures, items on walls, 
windows, other children). 
Over-responsive 
14 During instruction or announcement, student looks around or at peers, 
rather than looking at person speaking or at blackboard. 
Under-responsive 
15 Spins or flicks objects in front of eyes. Seeking 
16 Stares intensely at people or objects. Seeking 
17 Showsdistress when lights are dimmed for movies and assemblies. Over-responsive 
Hearing (HEA) 
18 Shows distress at loud sounds (slamming door, electric pencil 
sharpener, PA announcement, fire drill). 
Over-responsive 
19 Shows distress at the sounds of singing or musical instruments. Over-responsive 
20 Does not respond to voices or new sounds. Under-responsive 
21 Cannot determine location of sounds or voices. Perception 
22 Makes noises, hums, sings, or yells during quiet class time. Seeking 
23 Speaks too loudly or makes excessive noise during transitions. Seeking 
24 Yells, screams, or makes unusual noises to self. Seeking 
Touch (TOU) 
25 Shows distress when hands or face are dirty (with glue, finger paints, 
food, dirt, etc.). 
Over-responsive 
26 Does not tolerate dirt on hands or clothing, even briefly. Over-responsive 
27 Shows distress when touching certain textures (classroom materials, 
utensils, sports equipment, etc.). 
Over-responsive 
28 Is distressed by accidental touch of peers (may lash out or withdraw). Over-responsive 
29 Does not respond to another's touch. Under-responsive 
30 Seeks hot or cold temperatures by touching windows, other surfaces. Seeking 
31 Touches classmates inappropriately during class and when standing in line. Seeking 
32 Does not clean saliva or food from face. Under-responsive 
continued on nex 
24 
Table 4 (continued) 
SPM Main Classroom Form Items 
Sensory integration 
Item 
	
Scale 	 vulnerability 
Taste and Smell items 
33 	Shows distress at the tastes or odors of different foods. 	 Over-responsive 
34 	Does not notice strong or unusual odors (glue, paint, markers, etc.). 	 Under-responsive 
35 	Cannot distinguish between odors; does not prefer good smells to bad smells. 	Perception 
36 	Tries to taste or lick objects or people. 	 Seeking 
Body Awareness (BOD) 
37 	Spills contents when opening containers. 	 Perception 
38 	Chews or mouths clothing, pencils, crayons, or classroom materials. 	 Seeking 
39 	Moves chair roughly (shoves chair under desk or pulls out chair with 	 Perception 
too much force). 
40 	Runs, hops, or bounces instead of walking. 	 Seeking 
41 	Stomps or slaps feet on the ground when walking. 	 Seeking 
42 	Jumps or stomps on stairs. 	 Seeking 
43 	Slams doors shut or opens doors with excessive force. 	 Seeking 
Balance and Motion (BAL) 
44 	Runs hand along wall when walking. 	 Seeking 
45 	Wraps legs around chair legs. 	 Postural control 
46 	Rocks in chair while seated at desk or table. 	 Seeking 
47 	Fidgets when seated at desk or table. 	 Seeking 
48 	Falls out of chair when seated at desk or table. 	 Postural control 
49 	Leans on walls, furniture, or other people for support when standing. 	 Postural control 
50 	When seated on floor, cannot sit up without support. 	 Postural control 
51 	Slumps, leans on desk, or holds head up in hands while seated at desk. 	 Postural control 
52 	Has poor coordination; appears clumsy. 	 Postural control 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) 
53 	Does not perform consistently in daily tasks; quality of work varies widely. 	 Motor planning 
54 	Is unable to solve problems effectively. 	 Ideation 
55 	Bobbles or drops items when attempting to carry multiple objects. 	 Motor planning 
56 	Does not perform tasks in proper sequence. 	 Motor planning 
57 	Fails to complete tasks with multiple steps. 	 Motor planning 
58 	Has difficulty correctly imitating demonstrations (movement games, 	 Motor planning 
songs with motions). 
59 	Has difficulty completing tasks from a presented model. 	 Motor planning 
60 	Demonstrates limited imagination and creativity in play and free time 	 Ideation 
(such as being unable to create new games). 
61 	Plays repetitively during free time; does not expand or alter activity 	 Ideation 
when given opportunity. 
62 	Shows poor organization of materials in, on, or around desk area. 	 Ideation 
25 
26 	 Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation Guide 
Vision (VIS) Scale 
The Vision (VIS) scale has 11 items on the Home Form 
and 7 items on the Main Classroom Form. The items 
represent a range of visual processing vulnerabilities, 
including over- and under-responsiveness to visual 
stimulation, inordinate seeking of visual input, and problems 
with perception and ocular-motor function. The sensory 
integration vulnerability associated with each item can be 
found in Table 3 and Table 4. A later section of this chapter 
describes item interpretation in more detail, including further 
explanation of the sensory integration vulnerabilities. 
As with the other sensory systems scales, a VIS score 
in the Some Problems range may indicate occasional 
negative reactions to a wide range of visual inputs, or it may 
represent stronger negative responses to specific stimuli. 
Looking at the individual item responses will clarify the 
picture. A VIS score in the Definite Dysfunction range 
usually indicates consistent and significant problems with 
visual processing. A child who scores in this range may 
appear distracted in environments that are visually rich and 
may try to avoid environments that are visually overwhelming. 
Often, such a child will perform poorly in important 
functional activities that depend on vision, such as reading 
or copying material from a blackboard. 
Hearing (HEA) Scale 
The Hearing (HEA) scale has eight items on the Home 
Form and seven items on the Main Classroom Form. The 
items reflect the auditory processing vulnerabilities of over-
and under-responsiveness, seeking behavior, and perceptual 
difficulties. 
When a child's HEA score is in the Some Problems 
range, the item responses should be examined to determine 
whether there is a consistent pattern of Occasionally and 
Frequently ratings, or whether the score is elevated due to a 
few Always ratings for one type of auditory processing issue. 
A HEA score in the Definite Dysfunction range 
usually indicates multiple difficulties with auditory 
processing in a variety of settings. These difficulties may be 
associated with functional impairment at home and at 
school. A child who scores in the Definite Dysfunction 
range on HEA may avoid auditory stimuli, may make noise 
to drown out other sounds, or may cover the ears or retreat 
from noisy environments. Sounds that others may not notice 
(such as the humming sound from a fluorescent light bulb 
or an overhead projector) may be distracting or 
uncomfortable for a child who scores in this range. This 
child may also be unable to determine the location or 
loudness of sounds. Such a child may appear unable to 
follow directions or hear well from a distance. Some 
children may be particularly distressed by intense, 
repetitive, or high-pitched sounds, such as a vehicle's back-
up signal or a shrill whistle. 
Touch (TOU) Scale 
The Touch (TOU) scale has 11 items on the Home 
Form and 8 items on the Main Classroom Form. The TOU 
scale includes many items representing tactile defensiveness, 
or over-responsiveness to tactile stimulation. There are also 
items addressing under-responsiveness and various tactile-
seeking behaviors, such as seeking out temperature 
extremes or sensations that others would experience as 
painful. 
As with the other sensory systems scales, a TOU score 
in the Some Problems range may indicate occasional 
negative reactions to a wide range of tactile inputs, or it may 
represent stronger negative responses to specific stimuli. 
Looking at the individual item responses will clarify the 
picture. A child who scores in the Definite Dysfunction 
range is likely to demonstrate consistent problems with the 
processing of tactile information. If the score elevation 
reflects ratings on the over-responsiveness items, the child 
may avoid touch experiences and physical nearness to others 
to the point that it interferes with social participation. An 
elevated TOU score may also represent a child who seeks 
out experiences that provide deep and heavy touch or a child 
whohas difficulty perceiving the location, intensity, or 
duration of tactile stimulations. Any of these problems may 
interfere with the child's functioning across a range of 
environments. 
Body Awareness (BOD) Scale 
The Body Awareness (BOD) scale has 10 items on the 
Home Form and 7 items on the Main Classroom Form. Body 
awareness is a lay term that refers to the proprioceptive 
sensory system. Proprioception describes a child's ability to 
sense the position in space of limbs, fingers, and other body 
parts. When integrated with other sensory input, 
proprioception is an essential component of coordinated 
movements, such as grasping a utensil or catching a ball. 
The BOD scale includes items that assess two sensory 
integration vulnerabilities in proprioception: inordinate 
sensory-seeking behavior, in which the child seeks intense 
inputs into the muscles and joints; and disordered 
perception, in which the child is unable to judge and control 
the forcefulness, direction, or speed of his or her motions. 
When a child's BOD score is in the Some Problems range, 
the item responses should be examined to determine 
whether there is a consistent pattern of Occasionally and 
Frequently ratings or whether the score is elevated due to a 
few Always ratings for one type of proprioceptive issue. A 
child who scores in the Definite Dysfunction range on the 
BOD scale will likely demonstrate frequent and consistent 
difficulties across many areas of proprioceptive processing 
and body awareness. This child is likely to appear clumsy 
and uncoordinated and may often be too rough with objects 
and people. He or she may be unable to regulate his or her 
own motions, which may affect participation in sports and 
other activities that require coordinated movement. 
Balance and Motion (BAL) Scale 
The Balance and Motion (BAL) scale has 11 items on 
the Home Form and 9 items on the Main Classroom Form. 
Balance and motion is a lay term that refers to the vestibular 
Chapter 3 Interpretation 
	 27 
sensory system. The vestibular system comprises a child's 
ability to maintain balance and upright posture by sensing 
his or her own orientation with respect to gravity. As with 
proprioception, the vestibular system is directly involved in 
the execution and control of coordinated body movements, 
such as running and jumping. 
The BAL items on the Main Classroom Form address 
two vestibular integration vulnerabilities: excessive seeking 
of intense vestibular input and poor postural control 
(difficulty maintaining an upright position without slumping 
or leaning). The Home Form BAL items also reflect these 
issues, as well as vestibular over- and under-responsivity. 
As with the other sensory systems scales, a BAL score 
in the Some Problems range may indicate occasional 
negative reactions to a wide range of vestibular inputs, or it 
may represent stronger negative responses to specific 
stimuli. Looking at the individual item responses will clarify 
the picture. A child who scores in the Definite Dysfunction 
range on the BAL scale usually demonstrates multiple 
difficulties with movement and balance, as well as postural 
control. This child may frequently move with poor control, 
may seem fatigued or weak, or may appear clumsy and 
uncoordinated. Such a child may also display fear of having 
his or her feet off the ground, such as when stepping on a 
stool or climbing on playground equipment. The child is 
likely to have difficulty participating in sports and other 
activities that require coordinated movement. 
On the Home Form BAL scale, Item 57 ("Have good 
balance?") is the only item other than the SOC items to be 
phrased with positive valence (i.e., an Always rating 
indicates healthy functioning). 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) Scale 
The Planning and Ideas (PLA) scale has 9 items on the 
Home Form and 10 items on the Main Classroom Form. 
Planning and ideas is a lay term that refers to praxis, the 
ability to conceptualize, plan, and organize movements in 
order to complete unfamiliar motor tasks. Praxis is not itself 
a sensory system, but rather it is a higher level cognitive 
function that depends on the integration of multiple sensory 
systems, particularly tactile perception and proprioception, 
in order to function efficiently. For example, if a child is 
having difficulty figuring out how to carry multiple items 
(Home Item 68), the underlying process may involve 
deficiencies in both praxis and the body awareness 
(proprioception) necessary to support such an activity. 
The PLA items address two aspects of praxis: ideation 
(the ability to create a concept or mental image of a novel 
task) and motor planning (the ability to organize and plan 
novel actions). A child who scores in the Some Problems 
range of the PLA scale may be having difficulty with either 
ideation or motor planning, and it is important to examine 
the item responses to determine which aspect is the most 
problematic. Mild-to-moderate difficulties with praxis often 
manifest as variable "up and down" performance across a 
range of activities, as the child is not able to maintain the 
level of effort that is required for consistent performance. 
By contrast, a child who scores in the Definite 
Dysfunction range of the PLA may show consistently poor 
performance in many activities that require motor skill and 
flexible problem solving. Such a child may not know what 
to do with an object or how to begin a task. He or she may 
resist unfamiliar tasks, preferring repetitive play to novel 
activities. This child may appear "bossy" or "manipulative" 
to others because of his or her need to feel in control of the 
situation and to know exactly what to expect. 
Because praxis is a higher level, integrative process, 
an elevated PLA score usually indicates more severe 
problems in overall daily functioning than does an elevated 
score on any single one of the sensory systems scales. A 
more thorough assessment of praxis using the SIPT (Ayres, 
1989) may be desirable if the PLA score is in the elevated 
range. In addition, a child's score on the PLA scale may be 
elevated for reasons unrelated to sensory processing. In 
interpreting the PLA score, you should consider medical, 
developmental, cognitive, and environmental factors that 
may have an impact on the ability to conceptualize, plan, 
and execute complex motor activities. 
Total Sensory Systems (TOT) Scale 
The Total Sensory Systems (TOT) scale has 56 items 
on the Home Form and 42 items on the Main Classroom 
Form. It is a composite score that includes the items from 
the five sensory systems scales (VIS, HEA, TOU, BOD, 
BAL), plus additional items representing taste and smell 
processing. The taste and smell items (five on the Home 
Form, four on the Main Classroom Form) address the issues 
of over- and under-responsiveness, seeking, and perception. 
These items do not have a scale of their own, but they do 
contribute to the TOT score. Table 3 and Table 4 provide the 
item content and classifications for the taste and smell items. 
The TOT score is useful if you need a single score that 
represents general dysfunction in sensory processing. It is also 
used to compare the child's functioning in home and school 
environments. If the TOT score is in the Some Problems or 
Definite Dysfunction range, you should always check to see 
which of the individual sensory systems scales is also elevated. 
The individual sensory systems scales are more useful 
clinically than TOT, as they provide more specific information 
that can be used in treatment and program planning. 
Some children will have specific sensory systems 
scores that are elevated and may benefit from intervention, 
even when the TOT score is not elevated. For example, a 
child with solely tactile problems may have an elevated 
score on the TOU scale and may benefit from intervention 
targeting the tactile system, even though the TOT score is 
within normal limits. 
Interpretation of Item Responses 
Althoughthe SPM scales are identical across the 
Home and Main Classroom Forms, the items themselves are 
specific to each environment. Thus, the individual item 
responses can help to illuminate how sensory difficulties 
28 	 Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation Guide 
manifest in these two different settings. Table 3 and Table 4 
list the items on the two SPM forms. These tables also show 
the primary sensory integration vulnerability associated 
with each item. These vulnerabilities, which were introduced 
in the previous section, are now described in more detail in 
this section. 
Several caveats apply to item-level interpretation. 
First, individual item responses are much less reliable than 
scale scores in terms of identifying problems. Item ratings 
can suggest hypotheses to pursue in the overall assessment 
process, but they cannot by themselves be used to identify a 
sensory integration problem or guide a treatment plan. This 
statement is supported by factor-analytic research (Su and 
Parham, in press) on a previous version of the SPM Home 
Form (the Evaluation of Sensory Processing [ESP]). These 
analyses showed that the sensory integration vulnerabilities 
(i.e., the SPM item classifications of over- and under-
responsiveness, sensory-seeking behavior, and perceptual 
problems) did not form robust or replicable factors in the 
SPM data. These findings suggest that the sensory 
integration vulnerabilities are best used as descriptive 
clinical data, as opposed to being used to create a 
psychometric score. Properly employed, the individual SPM 
item responses provide context and detail to the more 
reliable findings yielded by the SPM scale scores. 
The second caveat concerns the background and 
training necessary to interpret the individual items. The 
items are classified by sensory integration vulnerabilities, 
using the theoretical system developed by Ayres (2005). The 
SPM authors believe that formal, postprofessional training 
in sensory integration is required to support competent 
interpretation of item-level responses. Until you obtain this 
training, you should interpret the SPM under the mentorship 
of an occupational therapist who has demonstrated expertise 
at interpreting sensory processing and praxis vulnerabilities. 
The third caveat concerns the rigidity of the 
classifications themselves. The SPM authors assigned a 
single vulnerability that best fits each item, in accordance 
with the Ayres model of sensory integration. However, many 
items include content that is relevant to more than one 
vulnerability. For example, Table 3 shows that Item 21 
("Enjoy looking at moving objects out of the corner of his or 
her eye?") is classified as a sensory-seeking behavior. In 
some children, this behavior might also indicate over-
responsiveness, as the child is turning his or her head to 
avoid an overload of visual input that may come from 
looking directly at the object. Thus, although each item has 
a single classification, application of the sensory integration 
model may suggest additional relevant vulnerabilities. 
In a related issue, past research on the ESP (Lai, 
Parham, & Ecker, 1999; Vermaas Lee, 1999; Su & Parham, 
in press) suggests that when a child's sensory functioning is 
compromised, multiple types of sensory integration 
difficulties often co-occur and may even be manifested 
within a single sensory system. These findings were 
supported by Miller's recent estimate that 70% of children 
with sensory processing disorders have more than one type 
of sensory problem (e.g., sensory modulation difficulties 
plus postural ocular disorder), a condition that she calls 
"combination disorders" (Miller, 2006). 
Environmental factors are important to consider in 
determining which type of problem is most salient for the 
child being assessed. For example, a child may 
predominantly demonstrate tactile over-responsiveness at 
home and tactile under-responsiveness at school, a situation 
that would call for different intervention strategies in the two 
environments. 
When one or more of the SPM scale scores is in the 
Some Problems or Definite Dysfunction range, you should 
proceed to examine the item responses using Table 3 and 
Table 4. Use the items to describe how particular sensory 
integration vulnerabilities may contribute to a child's 
dysfunction within a sensory system. 
Over-responsiveness and under-responsiveness 
represent problems of sensory modulation, in which a 
child's attention or emotional reaction to sensory input 
departs from a typical, expected response. The abnormality 
in response may reflect overreacting, or not reacting enough. 
Thus, over-responsiveness often manifests as fearful or 
aggressive behavior, or avoidance of certain sensory 
experiences. By contrast, under-responsiveness is the lack 
of an expected response, or apathy or indifference to a 
sensory experience. 
Sensory-seeking behavior is often considered to be 
related to under-responsiveness. According to Ayres's 
theory, a child may seek strong levels of sensory input to 
compensate for limited experience with the sensory 
environment, which often is a consequence of under-
responsiveness. Some children seek sensations as a result of 
previous environmental sensory deprivation (Cermak, 
2001). Others may seek sensations due to abnormal internal 
processes, such as unstable sensory modulation, where past 
sensory experiences were limited due to over-responsive, 
sensory-avoidant states. Some children may seek sensations 
only under circumstances in which they feel in control of the 
sensations, but otherwise avoid or over-respond to such 
stimuli. Because sensory seeking can co-occur with either 
under- or over-responsiveness, you must consider the item 
responses for all three of these vulnerabilities together. 
Perception is the capacity to interpret the meaning of 
sensory input, including the efficient use of feedback from 
environmental or internal sensory information. Problems 
with perception can be related to modulation issues, such as 
an inability to filter out extraneous information (over-
responsiveness), or to other cognitive processes (e.g., a child 
with visual-perceptual difficulties who is unable to 
distinguish between shapes). Although sometimes used 
interchangeably with perception, discrimination is actually 
a subcategory of the former term. Discrimination usually 
refers to detecting the location, intensity, and timing of a 
specific stimulus, or to detecting the differences in these 
qualities between two or more stimuli. 
There are two sensory integration vulnerabilities 
related to motor control. Ocular-motor control refers to the 
Chapter 3 Interpretation 	 29 
ability to move the eyes in a smooth, functional manner, 
such as when tracking a moving object or quickly shifting 
gaze from one object to another. Postural control refers to 
the ability to integrate multisensory information—
particularly from the vestibular, proprioceptive, and visual 
systems—in order to control body movement and position. 
For example, a child who is unable to sit up straight in a 
chair, or who needs to lean his or her head on one hand while 
writing, may be demonstrating poor postural control. 
Table 3 and Table 4 include classifications for the 
praxis items on the PLA scale. As noted previously, the two 
aspects of praxis are ideation (the ability to create a concept 
or mental image of a novel task) and motor planning (the 
ability to organize and plan novel actions). These two 
concepts are useful in specifying praxis difficulties for 
planning treatment. 
When examining item responses, you should be alert 
for clusters of items representing the same sensory integration 
vulnerability. For example, if Items 18 (distressed by loud 
sounds) and 19 (distressed by singing or music) of the Main 
Classroom Form are rated Always, this would be a meaningful 
indicator that the child is over-responsive to auditory input. 
As noted previously, it is alsopossible for the child to exhibit 
over- and under-responsiveness in the same sensory system 
(Lai et al., 1999; Vermaas Lee, 1999). An example from the 
tactile system would be a child who avoids messy substances 
(Home Item 36) but also seems to seek out sensations that 
should be painful (Home Item 39). 
Using the SPM in Multiple Environments 
Up to this point, the narrative has focused on 
interpretive features within the Home and Main Classroom 
Forms, without explicitly considering the relationship 
between the two forms. A unique feature of the SPM is that it 
permits direct comparison of the child's functioning in the 
home and school environments. The SPM School 
Environments Form, to be discussed in the next section. 
allows examination of sensory and participation issues in 
diverse school settings outside of the child's main classroom. 
Comparison of the Home and Main Classroom 
environments is accomplished by means of the Total 
Sensory Systems (TOT) score. As previously noted, TOT is 
a composite scale consisting of all of the SPM items in the 
visual, auditory, tactile, proprioceptive, vestibular, gustatory, 
and olfactory sensory systems. As described in chapter 2, 
the TOT T-scores from both forms are recorded on the Home 
Form Profile Sheet, and the Environment Difference (DIF) 
score is then calculated by subtracting the Main Classroom 
TOT T-score from the Home TOT T-score. 
As with the SPM scale scores, the Environment 
Difference score is interpreted by means of three ranges. If 
the DIF score is in the range of —9 to 9, this is considered to 
represent No Difference and is assumed to mean that the 
child's sensory functioning is roughly similar across home 
and main classroom environments. When a child's DIF 
score is in the No Difference range, you should look for 
environmental similarities between home and school that 
may affect certain sensory systems. For example, with a 
child who is visually over-responsive, you might inquire 
into the quantity and quality of artificial and natural light in 
the two settings to determine whether a certain type of 
lighting is causing problems. 
If the DIF score is in the range of —14 to —10 or 10 to 
14, this represents the Probable Difference range. A score in 
this range introduces the concern that sensory functioning 
differs between home and main classroom environments. 
DIF scores of 15 and above or —15 and below represent the 
Definite Difference range and point to a significant and 
consistent difference in the child's sensory functioning 
between the two environments. When the DIF score is 
positive, the child is demonstrating more difficulties at home 
than in his or her classroom at school. When the DIF score 
is negative, the reverse is true. 
If a child's DIF score is in the Probable Difference or 
Definite Difference range, you should examine the sensory 
systems scores on the Home and Main Classroom Forms. 
Typically, one of two patterns emerges. There may be 
consistent differences across most or all sensory systems, 
suggesting that some aspect of the home or main classroom 
environment is having a pervasive negative effect on the 
sensory functioning of this child. Alternatively, you may 
find that one or two sensory systems show far greater 
interenvironment differences than the rest. In either case, 
you should investigate further to determine what aspects of 
the home and classroom environments are associated with 
the score discrepancies. Returning to an earlier example, 
when a child scores in the Definite Difference range and the 
VIS T-score is higher on the Main Classroom Form than on 
the Home Form, it may reflect the use of bright fluorescent 
lighting at school and subsequent problems with visual over-
responsiveness in that environment. 
The SPM School Environments Form 
The SPM School Environments Form is a screening 
measure that allows you to identify other settings within the 
school where a child is experiencing difficulties with 
sensory processing and social participation. The School 
Environments Form is divided into six Rating Sheets, with 
15 items each on the Art Class, Music Class, Physical 
Education Class, Recess/Playground, and Cafeteria Rating 
Sheets, and 10 items on the School Bus Rating Sheet. Table 
5 lists the School Environments Form items and shows how 
are they are distributed among the six environments. Each 
item is classified along two dimensions: whether it 
represents social participation, praxis, or one of the sensory 
systems; and its associated sensory integration vulnerability. 
Although it is ideal to find raters for all six 
environments, the School Environments Form can be used 
with fewer raters. Indeed, even if only a single rater is 
available, the School Environments Form still provides 
valuable information on the child's functioning outside of 
the main classroom. 
Table 5 
SPM School Environments Form Items 
Item classification 
Art Class (ART) 
1 Follows classroom rules and routines. Social participation 
2 Resolves peer conflicts without teacher intervention. Social participation 
3 Handles frustration without outbursts or aggressive behavior. Social participation 
4 Has friends and chooses to be with them when possible. Social participation 
5 Becomes distracted by nearby visual stimuli (pictures, items on 
walls, windows, other children). 
Vision/Over-responsiveness 
6 Shows distress when hands or face are dirty (with glue, finger 
paints, food, dirt, etc.). 
Touch/Over-responsiveness 
7 Does not perform consistently in daily tasks; quality of work varies widely. Planning and ideas/Motor planning 
8 Does not return materials and belongings to correct places. Planning and ideas/Motor planning 
9 Fails to complete tasks with multiple steps. Planning and ideas/Motor planning 
10 Writes or colors with excessive pressure (may break crayon or 
pencil tip, or tear paper). 
Body awareness/Perception 
11 Writes or colors with very light pressure (marks on paper may be 
too light too read). 
Body awareness/Perception 
12 Does not open or close scissors far enough to cut properly. Body awareness/Perception 
13 Does not use scissors for smooth, continuous cutting (instead, 
does single snips). 
Body awareness/Perception 
14 Has difficulty using two hands together for tasks (cutting, using 
ruler, opening containers). 
Planning and ideas/Motor planning 
15 Shows poor organization of materials in. on. or around desk area. Planning and ideas/Ideation 
Music Class (MUS) 
1 Follows classroom rules and routines. Social participation 
2 Resolves peer conflicts without teacher intervention. Social participation 
3 Handles frustration without outbursts or aggressive behavior. Social participation 
4 Has friends and chooses to be with them when possible. Social participation 
5 Shows distress at the sounds of singing or musical instruments. Hearing/Over-responsiveness 
6 Becomes distracted when noise level increases. Hearing/Over-responsiveness 
7 Speaks too loudly or makes excessive noise during transitions. Hearing/Seeking 
8 Fidgets when seated on the floor. Balance and motion/Seeking 
9 Does not maintain attention well. Hearing/Over-responsiveness 
10 Has difficulty correctly imitating demonstrations (movement 
games, songs with motions). 
Planning and ideas/Motor planning 
11 Shows distress when others play musical instruments. Hearing/Over-responsiveness 
12 Moves body too forcefully when dancing or playing musical instruments. Body awareness/Perception 
13 Has difficulty moving body to rhythm (clapping hands, tapping feet, etc.). Balance and motion/Postural control 
14 Has difficulty using two hands to hold or play musical instruments. Planning and ideas/Motor planning 
15 Has difficulty blowing to play musical instruments (horns, woodwinds, etc.). Body awareness/Perception 
Physical Education Class (PHY) 
1 Resolves peer conflicts without teacher intervention. Social participation 
2 Handles frustration without outburstsor aggressive behavior. Social participation 
3 Has friends and chooses to be with them when possible. Social participation 
4 Does not keep up with peers in physical activities. Balance and motion/Postural control 
5 Does not perform tasks in proper sequence. Planning and ideas/Motor planning 
6 Has difficulty completing tasks from a presented model. Planning and ideas/Motor planning 
7 Throws ball too hard or too softly for distance of target. Body awareness/Perception 
8 Acts fearfully about climbing; may refuse to climb. Balance and motion/ Over-responsive 
9 Loses balance when running or playing with peers. Balance and motion/Postural control 
10 Seeks out heights; climbs excessively. Balance and motion/Seeking 
11 Jumps excessively; seeks out "crash landings" from heights. Body awareness/Seeking 
12 Does not notice nearby motion of others (might collide with others). Body awareness/Perception 
13 Plays by self away from others. Touch/Over-responsiveness 
14 Acts impulsively and without caution while playing on playground equipment. Body awareness/Perception 
15 Shows poor timing of motion (misses ball when kicking or swinging Body awareness/Perception 
bat, brings hands together too slowly or too quickly to catch ball). continued on next page... 
30 
Table 5 (continued) 
SPM School Environments Form Items 
Item classification 
Recess/Playground (REC) 
1 Resolves peer conflicts without teacher intervention. Social participation 
2 Handles frustration without outbursts or aggressive behavior. Social participation 
3 Has friends and chooses to be with them when possible. Social participation 
4 Is distressed by accidental touch of peers (may lash out or withdraw). Touch/Over-responsive 
5 Does not keep up with peers in physical activities. Balance and motion/Postural control 
6 Demonstrates limited imagination and creativity in play and free 
time (such as being unable to create new games). 
Planning and ideas/Ideation 
7 Throws ball too hard or too softly for distance of target. Body awareness/Perception 
8 Plays too roughly with peers (shoves, kicks, hits) during games 
like tag or chase; classmates complain. 
Body awareness/Perception 
9 Loses balance on playground or gym equipment. Balance and motion/Under-responsive 
10 Seeks out heights; climbs excessively. Balance and motion/Seeking 
11 Jumps excessively; seeks out "crash landings" from heights. Body awareness/Seeking 
12 Does not notice nearby motion of others (might collide with others). Body awareness/Perception 
13 Plays by self away from others. Touch/Over-responsiveness 
14 Acts impulsively and without caution while playing on playground equipment. Body awareness/Perception 
15 Shows poor timing of motion (misses ball when kicking or swinging 
bat, brings hands together too slowly or too quickly to catch ball). 
Body awareness/Perception 
Cafeteria (CAI') 
I Resolves peer conflicts without teacher intervention. Social participation 
2 Handles frustration without outbursts or aggressive behavior. Social participation 
3 Has friends and chooses to be with them when possible. Social participation 
4 Becomes distracted when noise level increases. Hearing/Over-responsive 
5 Speaks too loudly or makes excessive noise during transitions. Hearing/Seeking 
6 Does not clean saliva or food from face. Touch/Under-responsive 
7 Shows distress about food temperatures; complains that foods are Touch/Over-responsive 
"too hot" or "too cold." 
8 Refuses to try new foods or snacks. Taste and smell/Over-responsive 
9 Tilts food tray while carrying; items may spill or fall off. Balance and motion/Postural control 
10 Spills or knocks over items on tray or table. Body awareness/Perception 
11 Handles food and drink containers too roughly (may dent, break, 
or spill containers). 
Body awareness/Perception 
12 Shows distress when sitting on benches, stools, or other seats without backs. Balance and motion/Postural control 
13 Is disorganized with tray, utensils, food. Planning and ideas/Ideation 
14 Stuffs mouth with very large bites of food. Body awareness/Perception 
15 Has difficulty using two hands together for opening food containers, 
opening milk cartons, or placing straws in juice containers. 
Planning and ideas/Motor planning 
School Bus (BUS) 
1 Handles frustration without outbursts or aggressive behavior. Social participation 
2 Has friends and chooses to be with them when possible. Social participation 
3 Speaks too loudly or too softly. Hearing/Perception 
4 Is distressed by accidental touch of peers (may lash out or withdraw). Touch/Over-responsive 
5 Runs, hops, or bounces instead of walking. Body awareness/Seeking 
6 Is constantly active or in motion. Balance and motion/Seeking 
7 Consistently jumps off (rather than stepping off) when exiting bus. Body awareness/Seeking 
8 Leaves seat repeatedly throughout bus ride. Balance and motion/Seeking 
9 Fails to secure self and belongings in seat as bus begins to move. Planning and ideas/Motor planning 
10 Does not gather belongings or otherwise take notice of 
approaching bus stop. 
Planning and ideas/Motor planning 
31 
32 	 Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation Guide 
The School Environments Form is scored by 
calculating the Total score for each environment, similar to 
the manner described previously for the Home and Main 
Classroom Form scales. The first several items for each 
environment are social participation items, meaning that 
their scoring is reversed from the remainder of the items in 
that environment. The scoring for each rating scale option is 
marked on the School Environments Form Rating Sheets. 
As with the Home and Main Classroom Forms, higher 
scores on the School Environments Form indicate higher 
levels of problems or dysfunction than do lower scores. 
The Total score for each environment is interpreted by 
means of a cutoff criterion. If a child scores at or above the 
cutoff score, the child is demonstrating more problems in 
that environment than about 90% of the typically developing 
children in the SPM School Environments Form research 
sample (see chapter 4 for a description of this sample). Such 
a score indicates a need to gather more information about 
that environment to determine what aspects of it may cause 
problems for the child's sensory functioning and social 
participation. 
The remainder of this section provides the cutoff 
scores for each environment and lists aspects of each setting 
that may cause problems for children with sensory 
processing disorders. (Note: As described in chapter 2, the 
cutoff scores are also provided on the Main Classroom Form 
Profile Sheet, along with spaces to record the Total score for 
each school environment.) 
Art Class 
Cutoff score = 29. Elements that may cause problems 
for children with sensory processing disorders include 
sitting on stools, smells and touch sensations from art 
materials (glue, paint, etc.), visual overload from artwork on 
walls, participating with others in creative projects, 
manipulating tools (scissors, paintbrushes, etc.), and 
drawing and other visual-spatial tasks. 
Music Class 
Cutoff score = 29. Elements that may cause problems 
for children with sensory processing disorders include 
sitting on the floor, sitting on chairs without tables, paying 
attention to music instructor, listening to music, singing, 
playing musical instruments, and participating in movement 
activities (e.g., dancing). 
Physical Education Class 
Cutoff score = 28. Elements that may cause problems 
for children with sensory processing disorders include large 
open spaces (indoors and outdoors), paying attention to 
physical education instructor, learning new athletic skills, 
need for physical endurance, playing games on a team, and 
wearing gym clothes. 
Recess/Playground 
Cutoff score = 29. Elements that may cause problems 
for children with sensory processing disorders include large 
open spaces, lack of structure, inexperiencedtoo much pressure for the task, such as walking heavily, slamming doors, 
or pressing too hard when using pencils or crayons? 
N ........ O ...... ... .F .......... A .......... 51 . Jump a lot? 
N ..... .... 0 ........ .F ......... A ......... 52 . Tend to pet animals with too much force? 
N .......... o ......... .F .......... A ..... ..... 53. Bump or push other children? 
N .......... O ........ .F ......... A .......... 54 . Chew on toys, clothes, or other objects more than other children? 
N ......... O .......... F .......... A .......... 55. Break things from pressing or pushing too hard on them? 
BALANCE AND MOTION Does your child ... 
N ......... o ........ .F ......... A .......... 56. Seem excessively fearful of movement, such as going up and down stairs or riding swings, teeter-totters, slides. 
or other playground equipment? 
N ......... 0 .... ..... .F ..... .. .. A....... ... 57 . Have good balance? 
N .•...... 0 ........ .F ......... A .... ...... 58. Avoid balance activities, such as walking on curbs or on uneven ground? 
~ ......... 0 ......... .F .......... A ....... ... 59 . Fall out of a chair when shifting his or her body? 
N ........ O ......... .F ......... A 60 . Fail to catch himself or herself when falling? 
N ........ O ......... .F .... ...... A .......... 61. Seem not to get dizzy when others usually do? 
N ......... 0 ........ .F ......... A. 62 . Spin and whirl his or her body more than other children? 
N .......... o ......... .F .......... A .......... 63 . Show distress when his or her head is tilted away from the upright, vertical position? 
N ........ o ......... .F ......... A......... 64. Show poor coordination and appear to be clumsy? 
N ......... o .......... F ......... A .......... 65 . Seem afraid of riding in elevators or on escalators? 
N ......... 0 .... .... .F ......... A .. 66. Lean on other people or furniture when sitting or when trying to stand up? 
PLANNING AND IDEAS Does your child .. 
N ......... 0 ......... .F .... ...... A ....... ... 67. Perform inconsistently in daily tasks? 
N .•...... 0 ........ .F .. ....... A .. ........ 68 . Have trouble figuring out how to carry multiple objects at the same time? 
~ ........ 0 ......... .F .......... A ....... .. . 69 . Seem confused about how to put away materials and belongings in their correct places? 
N ........ O ......... .F ......... A .. 70. Fail to perform tasks in proper sequence. such as getting dressed or setting the table? 
N ......... O ... .. .. .. .F .... ...... A ..... ..... 71. Fail to complete tasks with multiple steps? 
N ...... O ......... .F .......... A. 72. Have difficulty imitating demonstrated actions, such as movement games or songs with motions? 
N .......... o ......... .F .......... A .......... 73. Have difficulty building to copy a model, such as using Legos or blocks to build something that matches a model? 
N .......... o ......... .F .......... A .......... 74. Have trouble coming up with ideas for new games and activities? 
N ....... ... o ......... .F .......... A .......... 75. Tend to play the same activities over and over, rather than shift to new activities when given the chance? 
Sco_ring Instructions 
1. Circle the score value in bold typeface for any missing responses. 
(Note: If eight or more responses are missing, do not proceed 
with scoring.) 
2. Calculate the raw score for each scale (except TOT) by summing 
the circled scores for the scale's items and entering the sum in 
the labeled box to the right or left of the items. A bracket indicates 
the item scores that should be summed for each scale. Be sure to 
also sum the scores for Items 41 to 45, which are included in the 
TOT raw score. 
3. Calculate the TOT raw score by summing the raw scores of the 
VIS, HEA, TOU, BOD, and BAL scales, plus the score from Items 
41 to 45. These score boxes are bracketed on the Scoring 
Worksheet. Enter the TOT raw score in the labeled box. 
4. Transfer the scale raw scores to the corresponding spaces on the 
lower half of the Home Form Profile Sheet. (The score from Items 
41 to 45 is nottransferred to the Profile Sheet.) 
5. On the Profile Sheet, circle the raw score value for each scale in 
the column labeled with each scale's acronym. Connect the circled 
values for a visual representation of SPM results. 
6. Read from each circled raw score across its row to the left or 
right margin to obtain the T-score and percentile rank. The SPM 
interpretive ranges are marked by shading: Typical (no shading), 
Some Problems (light shading), and Definite Dysfunction (darker 
shading). 
7. Enter the T-score for each scale in the corresponding space below 
the scale's raw score. Below these spaces, check the appropriate 
interpretive range box for each T-score. 
8. If the Main Classroom Form was administered and scored, enter 
the Main Classroom Form TOT T-score and the Home Form TOT 
T-score in the labeled spaces in the DIF Calculation area. 
9. Subtract the Main Classroom TOT T-score from the Home TOT 
T-score and enter this value in the space for the Environment 
Difference (DIF) score. 
10. Check the box whose range includes the DIF score to determine 
the DIF interpretive condition. 
Home Form 
Scoring Worksheet 
WP-Se 
Tes~ wltti Conficlenct 
Vtln 
4 ........• 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......•.. 1 . 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 2. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 3. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 4. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 5. - -+----; 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 6. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 7. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 8. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 9. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 10. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 .... ..... 11. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 12. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ········· 13. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 14. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 15. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 16. - -+----; 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 17. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 18. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 19. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 20. · 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 21. 
4 .......•. 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......•.. 22. 
4 .......•. 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......•.. 23. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 24. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 25. 
4 .......•. 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 26. --;---, 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 27. 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 28 . 
4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 ......... 29. 
W-4o6A 
soc 
raw score 
VIS 
raw score 
HEA 
raw score 
TOT 
raw score 
TOU 
raw score 
Items 
41-45 
BOD 
raw score 
BAL 
raw score 
PLA 
raw score 
Jtem Valut 
30, ........ 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ..•...... 1 
31 •........ 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
32 • ........ 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
33
• ......•. 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 .......... 1 
34~ ......•. 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
I---+- 35 .......•. 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
36 •......•. 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
37 .. ........ 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
38,········ 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
39 .. ······•· 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
40 .. ......... 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
41 ......... 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
42.-. ....•. 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
--- 43 ......... 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
44 ......... 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
45 ......... 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
46 ......... 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
47 •........ 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
411 ......... 4adult 
supervisors, crowded play areas, excessive noise, bright 
sunlight, inclement weather, limited amount of balls and play 
equipment, playing games on a team, and sandy play surfaces. 
Cafeteria 
Cutoff score = 27. Elements that may cause problems 
for children with sensory processing disorders include large 
crowded space, inexperienced adult supervisors, need to make 
choices quickly, excessive noise, bright lighting, smell of food 
and cleaning products, waiting and moving in line, carrying 
tray, opening cartons, manipulating food and utensils, sitting 
on benches, and sitting close to other students. 
School Bus 
Cutoff score = 19. Elements that may cause problems 
for children with sensory processing disorders include 
inexperienced adult supervisors, using steps, carrying 
belongings onto and off of bus, excessive noise, movement 
of bus, smell of gasoline and exhaust fumes, sitting close to 
other students, and long bus rides. 
Child Disorders With 
Sensory Processing Involvement 
In clinical and school practice, it is common to 
encounter children with certain medical or psychiatric 
diagnoses that frequently are associated with sensory 
processing dysfunction. The SPM scales are based on 
sensory integration theory, rather than a medical diagnostic 
classification system, so it is not expected that particular 
score patterns would correspond closely with medical 
diagnoses. However, the SPM is very useful for description 
and quantification of comorbid sensory processing 
difficulties, as well as devising treatment and program plans 
that make use of sensory integration techniques and sensory 
processing strategies. 
This section outlines some considerations associated 
with specific diagnoses. 
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) 
Sensory integration problems are quite common among 
children diagnosed with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity 
Disorder (ADHD). Miller (2006) reported that among a group 
of children with preexisting diagnoses of sensory processing 
disorders and/or ADHD, 60% had symptoms of both sensory 
processing disorder and ADHD, whereas 20% had a sensory 
processing disorder only, and the remaining 20% solely had 
ADHD. Children with ADHD tend to have widely varying 
score patterns on the SPM. Children with this disorder may 
avoid or seek sensations in one sensory system and not in 
another, or may exhibit both seeking and over-responsiveness 
in the same sensory system. 
Autism Spectrum Disorders 
Children with autism are expected to show elevated 
scores on the SPM SOC and PLA scales. Social functioning 
Chapter 3 Interpretation 
	 33 
deficits form part of the diagnostic criteria for autism, as do 
repetitive and stereotyped play activities. In autism, these 
deficits in participation and praxis may be caused or 
exacerbated by processing deficits in specific sensory 
systems. In a study that used a previous version of the SPM 
Home Form, Vermaac Lee (1999) identified many items that 
significantly differentiated children with autism from a 
matched control group without disabilities. In addition, the 
total score for every sensory system scale, including 
gustatory/olfactory, discriminated between groups. Auditory 
and tactile modulation problems, as well as proprioception 
seeking, were especially prevalent among the children with 
autism in this study. With moderate to severe autism, it is not 
uncommon to see all SPM scales elevated in the Definite 
Dysfunction range. However, some children with autism may 
not have sensory processing problems and therefore may not 
have elevated scores on SPM sensory systems scales. 
Cerebral Palsy 
Due to the motor deficits that are part of cerebral palsy 
(CP), the items of the SPM PLA scale should be interpreted 
cautiously. For example, Home Item 72 ("Have difficulty 
imitating demonstrated actions, such as movement games or 
songs with motions?") may be rated Always due to motor 
control deficits (CP) instead of motor planning deficits 
(dyspraxia). These cautions apply to all SPM items that 
concern motor control. For example, Always ratings on Main 
Classroom Item 37 ("Spills contents when opening 
containers") and Home Item 40 ("Have trouble finding things 
in a pocket, bag, or backpack using touch only (without 
looking)?") could be explained either by motor control 
problems due to CP or by deficient sensory processing in the 
proprioceptive and tactile systems, respectively. 
Down Syndrome 
Down syndrome is often accompanied by problems 
with muscle tone and flexibility. Because of this, the items 
in the BUD and BAL scales should be interpreted 
cautiously. Treatment may focus on sensory strategies for 
proprioception, in a "bottom-up" approach (see discussion 
in next section, titled "Further Interpretive Considerations"). 
On the other hand, items of the PLA scale could provide 
useful information for "top-down" interventions that focus 
on the two aspects of praxis: ideation and motor planning 
(Fidler, Hepburn, Manldn, & Rogers, 2005). 
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) 
Children with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) 
characteristically exhibit controlling and repetitive 
behaviors that are covered by certain SPM items. Thus, 
sensory processing disorders can sometimes mimic the 
symptoms of OCD. Consider Home Item 28, in which the 
preference for repetitive sounds could represent an OCD 
symptom or, alternatively, could reflect auditory sensation 
seeking. Another example is Main Classroom Item 25 
("Shows distress when hands or face are dirty (with glue, 
finger paints, food, dirt, etc.)"), which could be related to 
either an obsession with cleanliness (OCD) or tactile over-
responsiveness. A third example is Home Item 58 ("Avoid 
balance activities, such as walking on curbs or on uneven 
ground?"), which could represent obsessively rule-bound 
behavior (OCD) or a vestibular processing problem. These 
examples illustrate the need to consider diagnostic 
alternatives when reviewing the individual item responses of 
the SPM. 
Other Mental Health Issues 
There is a growing need for occupational therapists to 
be able to address mental health issues in schools and 
clinical settings. However, precautions must be taken to 
ensure that problems are accurately identified and addressed 
in program development. Not all mental health problems 
have a sensory component. The purpose of the SPM is to 
help to identify when sensory issues are present and also to 
identify when the behavioral issues are not driven by 
sensory processing dysfunction. It is crucial that the 
clinician sort these problems accurately. 
Some children present with mental health challenges 
that can be directly related to sensory issues. Studies have 
found that institutionalized children tend to have more 
problems with modulation of tactile and vestibular stimuli 
than do noninstitutionalized children (Gilbert, 1997; 
Leipprandt, 1997). In children adopted from Eastern 
European orphanages, longer length of institutionalization 
was associated with more atypical scores on measures of 
modulation, praxis, and sensory discrimination (Lin, 
Cermak, Coster, & Miller, 2005). In children exposed to 
early environmental deprivation, the SPM may be helpful in 
determining sensory issues that are related to observed 
deficits in social participation at home and at school. 
Further Interpretive Considerations 
Earlier sections of this chapter considered the 
meaning of the SPM scales individually. The current section 
expands the interpretive strategy to examine the meaning of 
scale elevations in relation to one another. In using the SPM 
scale scores to guide intervention, a key issue is the amount 
of emphasis placed on the SOC and PLA scales, as opposed 
to the five sensory systems scales. In regard to this issue, 
three general approaches are available: top-down, bottom-
up, and global. 
Top-Down 
The top-down model described by Coster (1998) 
builds on the conceptual framework of the ICF (World 
HealthOrganization, 2001). Assessment begins at the 
highest level of functioning, the child's social participation. 
The process then looks at the child's ability to engage in 
specific activities, followed by specific impairments that 
may interfere with participation in those activities. At each 
of these levels, the evaluator considers the influences of 
environmental opportunities and barriers, as well as client 
factors. 
34 
	 Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation Guide 
To apply this model to the SPM, begin by determining 
whether the SOC score is elevated (in the Some Problems or 
Definite Dysfunction range). At the same time, you should 
also consider other sources of information about obstacles 
and assets within the child's social environment. The next 
step is to identify the tasks and activities that the child wants 
to do and is expected to do in his or her everyday life. You 
must evaluate how successful the child is in these activities, 
again integrating information from parents and possibly 
other assessment instruments. Consider whether there are 
performance differences across home, community, and 
school environments by comparing the results from the 
Home, Main Classroom, and School Environments Forms. 
Just as it is important to identify environments where the 
child's performance is deficient, you must also emphasize 
contexts of relative success, to find strengths that you can 
build on in treatment. 
Next, review the PLA scale score to evaluate whether 
the higher level integrative skills of ideation and motor 
planning are deficient and perhaps impacting the child's 
daily functioning. Finally, examine the sensory systems 
scale scores and sensory integration vulnerabilities 
(individual item responses) to identify which sensory 
systems may bear upon the previously identified difficulties 
with participation and performance of daily activities. 
In the top-down approach, assessment of social 
participation sets priorities for further clinical assessment 
and for intervention. The primary question behind this 
approach is "Does this child currently experience social 
participation difficulty?" A secondary question is "Do 
sensory problems play a role in this child's social 
participation problems?" If the child does not demonstrate 
social participation problems, then intervention might not be 
recommended, even if sensory problems are evident. An 
advantage of the top-down approach is that costly 
intervention will be implemented only if there is clear 
evidence of ongoing problems in a child's social 
participation. A disadvantage of this approach is that, if 
strictly followed, it may not allow for prevention or 
minimization of social participation problems before they 
emerge as significant difficulties. 
Bottom-Up 
In the bottom-up approach, interpretation begins with 
the sensory systems scale scores, followed by the PLA 
(praxis) scale, and finally the SOC (social participation) 
scale. The primary question behind this method is "Do 
sensory problems affect this child's everyday functioning?", 
and secondarily, "Is this child's social participation 
generally compromised by sensory problems?" As with the 
top-down approach, you must consider the activities and 
contextual elements that are implicated in the child's daily 
problems, in addition to examining the SPM items for 
suggestions of specific sensory integration vulnerabilities. 
In using the bottom-up approach to formulate an 
intervention plan, give highest priority to sensory issues that 
seem to be strongly related to the daily life difficulties of the 
child and his or her family. A key difference between this 
method and the top-down approach is that intervention may 
be recommended even if the SOC score is in the Typical 
range. Strict use of the bottom-up approach may therefore 
lead to unnecessary intervention, because some children 
with sensory problems may adapt so well that they do not 
need outside help. An advantage of the bottom-up approach, 
however, is that it may lead to prevention of social 
participation difficulties before they emerge. 
Global 
The global approach places equal importance on all of 
the SPM scales. The goal of the global method is to 
construct a snapshot of the child's current functioning in 
everyday life. This snapshot should describe the role of 
sensory problems, if any, in the child's and family's lives, as 
well as the trajectories of the child's physical, social, and 
emotional development. This developmental emphasis is 
unique to the global approach. In using the SPM results to 
plan intervention, you must consider not only the child's 
present functioning, but where he or she appears to be 
heading in the future. Interviews and discussions with 
parents and/or teachers are likely to play a critical role in 
defining treatment recommendations. 
A disadvantage of this approach is that it is potentially 
more time-consuming and often requires additional 
assessment data, particularly from important adults in the 
child's life. The global approach, therefore, is not well 
suited for large-scale screening, where the top-down and 
bottom-up strategies offer a more sequential, streamlined 
approach for analyzing scores. The advantage of the global 
strategy, however, is that it offers a more balanced approach 
to assessment, where intervention is recommended not on 
the basis of specific scores, but rather on the overall 
trajectory of the life situation of the child. 
Elements of Intervention 
When the SPM assessment yields elevated scores on 
any of the sensory systems scales or on the PLA scale, 
occupational therapy using Ayres's sensory integration 
approach should be considered. Intervention may involve 
remedial and/or compensatory techniques. Individual 
remedial occupational therapy should be performed by a 
therapist who has completed postprofessional training in 
sensory integration, preferably with clinical mentorship. 
Furthermore, it is important for the therapist to 
educate parents, teachers, and school staff members about 
the purpose and process of sensory integration—based 
occupational therapy. Ayres's sensory integration 
intervention is a play-based method of treatment that is 
typically incorporated within a comprehensive occupational 
therapy program. As in any method of occupational therapy, 
the intended outcome is improvement in occupational 
performance. Sensory integration—based treatment has 
specific core features and guiding principles that make it 
unique in occupational therapy (Parham et al., in press). The 
36 
	 Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation Guide 
Case Studies 
This section presents six case studies that demonstrate the principles of interpretation and treatment planning 
discussed in this chapter. For each case, the Profile Sheet for the relevant SPM form is displayed. 
Case 1: Melissa 
Melissa was an 8-year-old girl of Latino heritage who 
had a diagnosis of autism. She attended a public school in a 
special day class. She performed at the second-grade level 
for all academic areas except reading, in which she 
performed at the sixth-grade level. She lived with both 
parents and an older sister. Her father worked as a computer 
programmer for a large pharmaceutical company, and her 
mother was her full-time caregiver. 
Melissa's psychologist referred her to occupational 
therapy because of her parents' concerns about behaviors 
that affected her safety at home. For example, Melissa 
would become intensely interested in something and 
disregard safety rules, such as looking both ways before 
crossing the street, to get to her object of interest. She 
constantly touched things, and she alarmed strangers by 
approaching them to touch clothing or a purse. She preferred 
not to engage in sports or other social activities with peers. 
On the positive side, Melissa enjoyed coloring, painting, 
reading, and swinging on her swing in the backyard. 
Melissa's occupational evaluation included theSPM 
Home Form and clinical observations. Her Home Form 
Profile Sheet is displayed in Figure 4. On the Home Form 
Melissa scored in the Some Problems range for the VIS, 
HEA, TOU, BAL, PLA, and TOT scales. She scored in the 
Definite Dysfunction range on the SOC and BOD scales. 
On the VIS scale, and among the taste and smell items 
on the TOT scale, the items rated as most problematic were 
those reflecting sensory-seeking behavior. On the HEA scale, 
problems clustered in the seeking and over-responsive 
categories. Two auditory processing items in the over-
responsive category (Home Item 25, "Seem disturbed or 
intensely interested in sounds not usually noticed by other 
people?", and Home Item 27, "Seem easily distracted by 
background noises such as a lawn mower outside, an air 
conditioner, a refrigerator, or fluorescent lights?") appeared 
connected to Melissa's habit of seeking auditory input, instead 
of over-responsiveness per se. Typically, over-responsiveness 
is associated with avoidance rather than seeking. 
The problematic items on the BAL scale fit a similar 
pattern. For example, Melissa's parents indicated that she 
seemed relatively immune to dizziness (Home Item 61). She 
thus sought vestibular input by spinning or whirling her 
body more than other children do (Home Item 62). Although 
the TOU score fell only in the Some Problems range, 
Melissa's parents reported that she seemed to seek tactile 
input constantly. There is only a single item on the Home 
Form TOU scale that reflects seeking behavior, so the TOU 
score may have underestimated problems with Melissa's 
tactile processing. 
Based on the information from the full evaluation and 
discussions with the parents, the evaluating occupational 
therapist recommended a twice-weekly, clinic-based 
treatment program and a home program of sensory activities 
to be conducted on a daily basis. The program included 
provision of safe, appropriate ways for Melissa to satisfy her 
need for sensory input. After 6 months of therapy, Melissa's 
parents reported a significant decrease in her level of unsafe 
and socially inappropriate behavior. 
/40 	7 SOC V1S TOU ZOO 	... 	. 	TOT i TA. 
4i, 7.7,0 35-0 79-32 27-0 35-0 	SE-. 0 	ro. 	170-224 80 
23 55-0 0-34 2428 A . 	31-0 	164-10 . 
7 8 24 0 26 34-15 . 	m 	 54-02 78 
° 2, . 0 0 	21-0 	50 	02-162 0 
76 0 24 31 	2430 	 1.4141 76 
75 28-07 0 32 27-26 	 127-10 . 
5.5 	74 27 ° 
,s_s, /Z) 	0 	 10-10 74 >99 
0. 	73 
az 
e 
. :a 
0-79 
n 
54 	 27 	131-10 
or 	 25 	1.29-00 
73 
72 
0 
0 	71 25 20 ° 122-128 71 94 
. 24 19 0.121 70 
97 	53 
96 	59 
33 23 
1-27 
75 
17 
25 22 	0 	24 	MID 
72 	 106,9 
0 
SS 
37 
.93 
67 21 23 lb 22 za 	 0 	1413-1. 27 
95 	66 . lb. TI 
2, 	 54102 
20 	 94-98 
. 
0 
0 
0 
53 	0 21 1 0 la 12 	18 	IS 	45-31 23 00 
e12 	52 0 0-87 62 aE 
0 0 77-76 Sa aa 
79 	61 20 7,76 5Z 71 
76 	57 1., 73-74 57 76 
71 	0 71-72 Se 73 
69 	SS 14 	70 55 S9 
56 	5/ ,5 54 66 
0 	53 13 	67-68 53 67 
53 	0 9 0 0 58 
56 	SI 
0 	SO 
12 
FA 
s, 
50 
s., 
50 
.6 	69 49 66 
42 	4.8 0 48 42 
31 	47 47 36 
11 	0 6, 46 I/ 
31 	0 
27 	44 ao 
45 
11 
31 
27 
24 	43 8 43 24 
71 	62 .2 21 
13 	0 0 18 
16 	40 1411 11 10 	 5.58 9 40 16 
44. 	I' SOL • LS 108 mu aore 	upu. 	PIA 	 TOT I 1414 
5845 9221.1. 	31 19_ 13 21 _29, 	23 	23 	ilk 	45345 V.. 
_63_ _6_6 74f_35 	6_7_ 	6_2_ 	II T-S84349 
1.141814723 9329 
_ 
E. X 
--- 
 _ X X X X 	X 
Dee,. Or.1,-.7Sen 
170,89. X 0 a-, :_. 0 g 	0 	, 	/70 
1119 CaIcalalion 010 151e/0800n 
,- 0 .1.,45 Wore Dr0,211.1 cn .4601/07 xi Ka, Lusa, oram 
ala n OW.. in hr. 7171 7, , . - 505 0115,50 Mar, 343.ms .3 013.,, .3 m Idan t4asSto,a, 
:- ....--,..- ......, 	- —, MOM ',O., al 41a, aesstrxx, nan . Nome 
,408 5659100 m Mao Davao, than m Home 
Figure 4 
Case 1: Home Form Profile Sheet for Melissa 
Case 2: Noah 
Noah was a 6-year-old White boy who was in the first 
grade in a private religious school. He was an only child who 
lived with his parents and the family dog. Noah's parents 
were both writers with unpredictable schedules, making 
them unavailable for extended periods of time. Noah's care 
was provided by a nanny during weekdays, and often on 
weekends as well. 
Noah was initially referred for an occupational 
therapy evaluation by his school principal because of 
Chapter 3 Interpretation 	 37 
disruptive behavior in the classroom. For example, Noah's 
teacher reported that he was easily distracted by even barely 
audible background noises. He often was unable to complete 
his classroom assignments and had to do them for 
homework. He also leaned on other children when sitting on 
the floor for group lessons. By contrast, he was able to 
complete his work at home efficiently and with very little 
adult intervention. Overall, Noah's academic performance 
was at expected levels for his grade. At the onset of the 
evaluation, Noah's parents did not have any concerns about 
his behavior at home. Noah's favorite activities included 
video games and tag. He was also on a basketball team at 
the local park, but resisted going to practice and games. 
Noah's occupational therapy evaluation included the 
SPM Home Form and Main Classroom Form. The Profile 
Sheets for these forms are displayed in Figures 5 and 6, 
respectively. On the Home Form, Noah scored in the Some 
Problems range for the SOC, VIS, HEA, PLA, and TOT 
scales. He scored in the Definite Dysfunction range on the 
BOD scale. His scores on the TOU and BAL scales were in 
the Typical range. On the Main Classroom Form, the pattern 
of scale elevation was similar, but the T-scores were markedly 
higher. In fact, the DIF score was -15, suggesting that Noah 
experienced significantly more sensory processing difficulties 
at school than at home. On neither SPM form did the item 
responses coalesce into a clear pattern of sensory integration 
vulnerability. Items that received problematic ratings were 
scattered across the categories of over-responsiveness, under-
responsiveness, seeking, and perception. 
80 37-19 35.4 .32 17. E. 35. 33-36 1T0-226 X 
rs 35-36 2,23 36 34-.. 34 11-32 161-169 75 
78 . 25 34-35 -.4 63 154-1. 71 
. 24 21 Pi-. 140-1. 
73 . 29-29 . . -X 27-26 29 137-166 TS 
4. 	71 27 22 .31 X .. 23 133-1. 34 996 
72 15 21 27 27 . . 120460 72 
SS 	71 
ro 
. 
n 22 10 0 
25 24 
. 
122-126 
119-721 
il 
70 
46 
Si 	65 28 . . 24 .3-116 . 57 
. 	68 21-. 1 32-24 Ea . 106-1. id 56 
67 21 20 22 23 103-1. 
21 
. 	65 25 79 20 25 50 21 01-68 SS . 
92 	64 24 18 14 15 15 n 64 62 
50 	63 18 19 19 63 90 
63 	62 e m 62 dB 
36 	. CD 24 II 71115 n-ta 61 . 
St 	60 21 79. 60 di 
. 	Sa 77.1 59 62 
76 	58 20 76-76 59 76 
. 	57 1" 76 71et79 73-71 57 76 
73 	56 15 71-72 PS . 
65 	SS II 0 . 70 55 69 
62 	51 67-66 53 fa 
. 	52 9 13 66 52 5S 
ai 	49 49 . 
43 	421 a m . 
13 	4: 14 12 . Ji 33 
. 	46 61 IS 31 
r 	64 
13 0 
. 44 27 
24 	43 43 24 
21 	42 . 42 21 
16 	40 ID-11 10 56-58 40 .6 
..., x.... 22 16 12 14 25 15 18 91 
7.51518. 	62 61 62 55 70 57 61 63 	17..0, 
Ineryrellre 6.6.0 
7.94 
90/53. 	9= = X 1 X 2 2 
561.7801008 
.02-06. 	X X X 1 1 ii X X 
7740_94061168.5. 
771-471, 	,:' 1:- 1: 2 X : 2 
0E3 C81.141.8 0..1.9.198 
209.0 17, 711 7.4:c4e 63 -- 
,,,Onsra. iorm TOT 1154273 - 78 
6445.47.04.4. ..• . - 1 5 - -.- - . 	. 
Figure 5 
Case 2: Home Form Profile Sheet for Noah 
The occupational therapist arranged to discuss the 
assessment results with both parents and teacher present. 
Upon learning about the SPM findings, Noah's parents 
realized that he showed difficulties with sensory processing 
at home, as well as at school. For example, in the taste and 
smell section of the Home Form, both items for over-
responsiveness were rated as problematic. Noah's mother 
acknowledged her son's narrow range of food preferences, 
and she admitted that mealtimes were stressful because 
Noah was so selective about even his preferred foods. 
Completing the SPM Home Form helped Noah's mother to 
recognize that Noah frequently sought input to his joints and 
muscles.He also often misinterpreted how hard he was 
pushing, pulling, or hugging. 
As a result of the evaluation, Noah's teacher was able 
to see beyond Noah's distractibility to some of the 
underlying sensory processing issues. For instance, she 
recognized that Noah's frequent turning around in his seat 
involved some extreme stretching and twisting actions, as if 
Noah was craving proprioceptive input. 
The occupational therapist recommended a once-
weekly, clinic-based treatment program, a home program of 
sensory activities to be conducted on a daily basis, and a 
similar program of sensory strategies and environmental 
modifications that could be implemented at school. After 3 
months of this treatment program, Noah's parents noticed 
that his over-responsive and seeking behaviors at home had 
decreased. In addition, Noah's teacher reported that his 
ability to pay attention had improved and that he was able to 
work in the classroom with greater efficiency than before. 
54 19. 24-21 25-32 e-, 31-36 40 166-120 10 
. 
n 
. 
37 
54 22-23 
21 
22422 42488 at a, 79 
15-916 
-., 
77 
75 14 CD 70 r31 um 15 
665 	74 . 24; 3135 99-10/ 14 .99 
06 	10 
X 
53 e 96-96 13 99 
72 X C' 16 2... ... U. r2 
58 	71 
79 . 75 
23 
X 
6T1 
X 
34-93 
87 
71 99. 
97 	fa 0 rI 21 54-66 69 99 
. 	68 16 132--K 68 56 
67 14 X 
sp, V 
55 	66 
X 
78-76 . . 
13 
92 	64 V TB 24 71-73 64 92 
50 	63 26 17 . 84-10 63 . 
id 	62 E 12 21-22 67-68 62 38 
BS 	92 24 11 20 54-56 61 86 
84 	60 33 62.3 60 . 
62 	55 . 10 .6, 59 tt 
76 	57 X TO 56-57 57 76 
69 	55 
. . i 
53-54 
. 
55 
. 
66 
. 
62 	53 9 S3 62 
SS 	52 8 SO 52 58 
54 	Si 8 49 51 . 
50 	50 46 50 50 
4 . 47 49 46 
42 	42 
aa 	47 10 . 
. 
47 
42 
3a 
14 	46 46 34 
11 	. 4S 45 31 
27 	44 
' 
. 27 
24 	43 
21 	42 
44 . 
42 
24 
21 
16 	41 • 41 1t 
. . 
95.4542,93 71 ;; 78 18 1**5 l'. 2.; 117 	....... 
,5.,.. 	69 72 75 73 80 74 71 78 	4 14cm 
190575115e 511968 
I 0 00 0 0 
S. 86.7.5 
9016E1 	X 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 
M.. Dv s.k-We 
107-871 	0 X X X X g 2 - 	- 	• NI- 
Scar. trim SPY .001 E•Yroameset Fatin 
497 	.5 .. 1796 LAS 895 
-I 0 
ro NB/ .21 welyares teas.. .4115 99444 040.9 7.41 .2 9.4.114140903071e11 
Figure 6 
Case 2: Main Classroom Form Profile Sheet for Noah 
38 
	 Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation Guide 
Case 3: Robert 
Robert, a 9-year-old African American boy, had 
recently begun the fourth grade at a new school. Robert lived 
with both parents and two sisters, one older and one 
younger. Both parents worked full-time, and Robert was 
cared for after school by his maternal grandmother. Robert 
participated in a variety of organized after-school activities, 
including baseball, football, soccer, and swimming. Robert 
enjoyed playing with peers, but other boys sometimes 
avoided him because he played roughly and could be quite 
bossy. He was a good athlete but had difficulty with 
following the rules of sports and with maintaining his 
assigned position on the field. 
At home, Robert's behavioral difficulties had 
escalated since the family had moved and he changed 
schools. For years, Robert's parents thought these behaviors 
were typical for a boy of his age. However, his mother 
reported that Robert had been increasingly difficult to 
manage outside the home. He impulsively ran away from 
her, to the point that she was reluctant to take him on 
outings. His mother also worried about her own mother's 
ability to provide child care for a boy who had problems 
with impulse control. Robert was easily frustrated and often 
reacted angrily, yelling and occasionally lashing out 
physically at his sisters. 
Robert's parents shared their concerns with Robert's 
teacher. Although Robert performed at an average level on 
his schoolwork, his teacher noticed problems with his 
behavior in the classroom. Specifically, he often did not 
complete classroom assignments, was often out of his seat 
or talking to peers, and frequently appeared not to have 
heard what was said in class. Robert was often found joking 
and bothering his neighbors in the classroom rather than 
doing his independent work. 
At the recommendation of the special education team, 
Robert was assessed with the SPM Main Classroom and 
School Environments Forms. The School Environments Form 
was seen as especially important because the team members 
noted that Robert's behavior varied in different settings. The 
Main Classroom Form Profile Sheet is shown in Figure 7. 
On the Main Classroom Form, Robert scored in the 
Definite Dysfunction range on the SOC scale and in the 
Typical range on all other scales. On the School Environments 
Form, all environments except Physical Education Class 
exceeded the cutoff for problematic functioning. An 
examination of the School Environments items revealed that 
the elevated scores were caused primarily by problematic 
ratings on the social participation items. 
Based on these results, the treatment team focused on 
ways to improve Robert's social functioning. Because 
Robert's functioning in Physical Education Class 
represented a relative strength, the team hypothesized that 
Robert performed and maintained attention best when he 
was able to move. His setting of greatest challenge, on the 
other hand, was in the classroom when he was required to 
remain seated for long periods of time. The occupational 
therapist on the team provided suggestions for movement 
activities that could be implemented at school and at home 
without disrupting Robert's functioning or the routines of 
his class and family. In addition, Robert was referred to a 
social skills group run jointly with the school social worker 
and the occupational and speech therapists. 
12073 	r 50C 315 4E4 TOU WO 3. 2. TOT 
50 .-473 26-26 2,28 2.32 25-28 34-36 30 532-135 E. 
a a 21-23 23-23 a a 119-126 75 
a 24 22. Z. 31-3-7 . 117-17 6 
a X-37 16-20 . 30 37 509-114 6 
75 15 18 21 25,4 a Ica 
39 	73 e) la a 92. 96-33 73 ?D 
72 7E 17 20 2.-a 30.1 64-30 a 
99 	71 
70 
23 29 83. 71 
73 
98 
. 
57 
32 
, 
25 . 
274-36 
5,51 
57 	. 
67 
62 
67 
37 
32 	. r t: 24 77-73 63 . 
65 	62 25 
2 
21-22 67-68 62 88 
33 	61 2, 11 20 621-66 61 . 
31 	60 a 19 62-63 30 . 
. 	56 
. 	56 
n n 
0 /4 
,a 60-6 , 
5.56 
59 
53 
92 
76 
75 	67 56-57 57 75 
72 	65 
39 	55 
9 
0 
55 
56. 
. 
55 
73 
65 
66 	61 . 0 57 54 66 
62 	53 75 0 0 . 91 53 52 
55 	. 77 0 
11 
© 52 58 
50 	50 16 45 SO 50 
0 4 8 40 42 
15 	4773 ED 7 46 47 26 
. 	46 36 74 
57 	45 45 45 27 
27 	44 a 44 77 
27 	42 42 57 
15 	4/ 41 15 
2 9 
LIM 	t Mt ' REA 10U woo ea P. TOT 
Ras 53520k 	34 _9_ _5_ _9_ ._9_ IQ_ 15_ 5.4. 
53_ 5Z .53 51 41 55 51 	4 9.0235, 
10187.111.1,17r 
.7-5.. 	E. 
3.5.6 Pre.eas 
X X X X X X X 
.011-6737, 	E Et C 0 0 0 0 0 
Z 0 0 PtiFF7-27realized that this assessment 
was an opportunity to learn about others' views of her son's 
functioning. The SPM Home and Main Classroom Profile 
Sheets for Jarod are displayed in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. 
Because Jarod's school does not offer an art program, the Art 
Class rating sheet from the SPM School Environments Form 
was completed by Jarod's classroom teacher. 
Chapter 3 Interpretation 
	 39 
On the SPM Home Form, Jarod scored in the Some 
Problems range for the SOC and TOTscales. Items 8, 9, and 
10, which refer to participation in group gatherings, were all 
rated in the problematic direction. According to his mother, 
Jarod lurched around, crashing into people and objects at 
these events, causing disruption. 
On the Home BOD scale, Jarod scored in the Definite 
Dysfunction range. On this scale, the six items representing 
proprioceptive seeking and perception (e.g., Home Items 53 
and 55, "Bump or push other children?" and "Break things 
from pressing or pushing too hard on them?") were rated to 
indicate frequent problems. 
On the Main Classroom Form, Jarod scored in the 
Some Problems range for the HEA, BAL, and TOT scales, 
and in the Definite Dysfunction range for the BOD scale. On 
all three scales, most items were rated as problematic 
because of seeking behaviors (Item 23, "Speaks too 
loudly..." and Item 46, "Rocks in chair while seated...") 
and disordered perception (Item 39, "Moves chair 
roughly..."). 
On the School Environments Form, Jarod scored above 
the cutoff values in the Physical Education Class, Recess/ 
Playground, and School Bus environments. The items rated 
in the problematic direction suggested that Jarod experienced 
several sensory integration vulnerabilities, including 
difficulties with perception (Physical Education Class Item 7, 
"Throws ball too hard..."; Recess/Playground Item 8, "Plays 
too roughly with peers..."; School Bus Item 3, "Speaks too 
loudly..."), under-responsiveness (Physical Education Class 
Item 10, "Seeks out heights..."; Recess/Playground Item 11, 
"Jumps excessively..."), and seeking behaviors (School Bus 
Item 7, "Consistently jumps off..."). 
%He 	T 808 	.9 	NU 	YOU 	669 	561 	64 	TOT T 	6114 
63 
79 
a 
76 
As 	74 
2294 
93 	71 
70 
77-40 	.--84 	.-. 	37-44 	36-49 	.44 	76-66 	170-224 
.35 	33-34 	27,9 	36 	,I-. 	. 	31-32 	162-10 
34 	r 	a 	14-15 	. 	32 	 134-123 
. 	 241 	 at 	26,3 	 146-141 
27 	22 	X-21 	 28 	7ra 	13,138 
31 	 94-0. 	g 	 r, 	157-102 
. 	 27 	 a 	. 	163-139 
30 	 . 	. 	24 	 1,128 
26 	 25 	 25 	4.69-1.21. 
20 
79. 
74 	/91 
-.-,-, 	99 
42 
al 	. 
76 
97 	69 
96 	66 
67 
35 	65 
la 	65 
92 	64 
90 	63 
82 	62 
66 	61 
84 	20 
23 	 25 	7 	 n 	et 	11,116 
27-27 	 . 	 196-139 
222 	 94 	 IS 	 22 	 22 	 25 	1574105 
15 	 21 	21 	22 	.6102 
29 	26 	 21 	64-66 
a 	 ,, 	8, 	q 	. 	9243 
M 	 12 	 16 	 88-92 
22 	 64-29, 62 
17 	12 	 18 	e 
16 
63 	97 
68 	96 
67 
id 	. 
65 	93 
64 	92 
. 	92 
66 
21 	86 
20 	87 
22 	59 
16 	57 
71 	. 
69 	55 
66 	54 
. 	52 
50 	50 
46 	49 
42 	45 
19 	47 
31 	45 
27 	. 
2.4 	. 
IS 	41 
15 	46 
0 	 14 	 . 	 5 	 el 	 78 
15 	 74 
10 	 n 
14 
It 
0 	12 	 2 	 65 
0 	 . 
53 a 	12 	 52 
0 
60 
8 
11 
10-11 	 66-69 10 	 9 
59 	92 
57 	76 
55 	72 
55 	66 
54 	66 
52 	59 
50 	59 
49 	46 
88 	42 
47 	38 
45 	31 
44 	27 
43 	24 
41 	15 
40 	. 
We 	1 
9a. same,. 
r.s... 1. 
Inter.8028 !Woe 
7.727.02213.7 
ara-Ear, 
W. form 
118, C4s5700711 50774 
11118 
SOC 	VS 	 KB 	TOU 	BOO 	W. 	 eat 	70, 
27 	12 	_9_ 	12 	28 	16_ 	10 	83 	4112122.042 
67 	8_0 	52 	47 	73._ 	59 	45_ 	ht. 
_ 	 8 	 . 	 X 	 0 	 . 	 $ 	 7 
ii 	 X . 	$ 	 .7. 	 — 	 0 	
_ 
L.-, 	 0 	 2.1 	 0 	 $ 
0.4.a.tios 	 vs 1.4,4.444 
151 755716 	__6i__ 	0 Wen 	 7. 
TOT awn - 	65 	I 	D 12' ' ' ' 	-- • ' 
-: 
Figure 8 
Case 4: Home Form Profile Sheet for Jarod 
All of the school raters participated in the team 
meeting to discuss the SPM results. The school bus driver, in 
particular, indicated that he wanted to learn how to help 
Jarod be "calmer" on the bus. All raters noted that despite 
their limited observations in their own environments, the 
SPM had given them the ability to see the "whole picture" of 
Jarod's functioning. The school-based occupational 
therapist explained that proprioceptive vulnerabilities 
related to modulation issues were resulting in the seeking 
behaviors (i.e., speaking too loudly, jumping and bouncing 
instead of walking), as well as Jarod's inability to control the 
forcefulness of his motions (i.e., writing with excessive 
pressure and crashing into his peers). 
The school-based occupational therapist also explained 
to the raters how they could integrate sensory strategies into 
each of their environments, providing Jarod with "heavy 
jobs," intense and directed movement breaks, chair balls, and 
even the use of gum and hand fidgets on the bus (see Henry, 
2000, for a more detailed explanation of these strategies). All 
team members agreed to provide Jarod with more appropriate 
opportunities to receive a combination of vestibular and 
proprioceptive input throughout the day in each of the 
environments. The classroom teacher, physical education 
teacher, and recess aide worked together to help Jarod learn 
how to control his movements when playing with his peers. 
Jarod's mother obtained a doctor's prescription for 
occupational therapy to address Jarod's sensory processing 
challenges. She encouraged Jarod to use the trampoline daily 
at home and enrolled him in a noncompetitive karate class. 
Following a month of home, clinic, and school collaboration, 
the team met again to acknowledge the significant 
improvements in Jarod's social participation. 
Nile 	T 209 BOO au at. TOT T 1,18 
ae 35-. 26-M 24-26 n-n a-a .65 . fa,. BO 
23-24 2,24 33 . 112-12.9 a 
. . 11-21 1420 23 . r al-na 
a a IS 21 .. 36 106 
266 	74 . 17 . 34-05 54107 17 799 
. . II 16 17 ea a,. .31 94-95 72 
98 	71 . 641-. 71 96 
20 16 . nr 70 
17 	69 0 24-02 59 97 
. 	66 IS 27 C-83 68 . 
67 72 0 . 0 20 n 80-31 67 
. 	fis 2$ ft 14 13 15 sQ 65 93 
32 	. 7: 13 18 ia 22 92 
99 	63 
ea 	62 
a 
4 ,, 12 13 23 
21-22 
6 
-65 
63 
62 
50 
63 
66 	61 24 11 20 61 
60 
86 
84 . . 
42 	59 
23 
. 
133-63 
60-61 59 82 
79 	58 10 . 76 
75 	57 a 57 76 
. 	56 13 Se 73 
69 	. SS 69 
42 	53 
9 
51 53 62 
51 	51 a 19 51 54 
SO 	50 73 x 50 
47 	46 0 45 42 
0.00 le 0 . 87 58 
38 	88 . 34 
31 	45 . 45 31 
2, 	44 0 44 27 
241 	42 
49 
44 47 
42 
24 
21 
. 	41 Al la 
2 9 70 42-0 40 15 
Via 	T me wtS xat 700 Ma ea at. Mt r 26.118 
ilas Saxe* 	21 _a_ 1_4_ _8_ 2_4_ 21 11 71 	4 Paw 206. 
5,92216 24 	57 45 AZ 44 72 61 47 .65 	1556616 
Interpretive Range 
..477-15, 	X X — X D X ii 
Sient 223.20. 
:607-697, 	C C X 7 ii X 0- X 
6.1.--,72122627.12 
im-etn 	0 0 7 2 X 7 2 7 
sa........ sem a... e......... corm 
9.67 MIA an 0.E 25.7 aue 
2/ 21 15 1 2121 
2701 020.2 	29 29 29 29 27 
C 0 2 2 n 
Cis, t ..i? seair is mer man of epua i w croal fr. a t a e. Gne a tadcttes - - ------- 
Figure 9 
Case 4: Main Classroom Form Profile Sheet for Jarod 
40 
	 Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation Guide 
Case 5: Katie 
Katie, a 6-year-old White kindergarten student, was 
having trouble adapting to classroom routines. The 
occupational therapist, assigned to the kindergarten class for the 
inclusion of the special education students, recognized Katie's 
difficulties and requested an evaluation. Katie's kindergarten 
screening yielded no difficulties with academic tasks, but she 
seemed unable to master age-appropriate fine- and visual-
motor tasks. She also was not making any new friends. 
Katie had previously attended preschool for 6 months 
but was kicked out for repeatedly biting her classmates. Since 
that time, she had remained at home with her mother, nanny, 
4-year-old sister, and 2-year-old brother. As Katie's father was 
an international attorney who traveled extensively, the 
childrearing was left to Katie's mother and the nanny, who 
had lived with the family for thepast 6 years. 
The occupational therapist administered the SPM 
Home and Main Classroom Forms in order to determine if 
Katie's difficulties were sensory based. The Profile Sheets 
are shown in Figures 10 and 11, respectively. On both forms, 
Katie's scores were in the Definite Dysfunction range on the 
PLA, BOD, TOT, and SOC scales. In additions, the IOU 
score was in the Some Problems range on both forms. 
Examining the item responses revealed evidence of sensory 
integration vulnerabilities in the areas of over-responsiveness, 
seeking behaviors, and perceptual problems. These 
vulnerabilities appeared more prominent at school than at 
home. This might have been due to the fact that Katie's 
mother and nanny were able to make adjustments at home in 
the level of scaffolding or assistance provided. 
Interestingly, Katie reportedly had demonstrated 
difficulties only since the arrival of her younger brother. At 
first, her mother thought that she was simply seeking 
attention by refusing to get dressed, fussing at mealtime, and 
hitting her baby brother. It became apparent that the routine 
and order that Katie had relied upon for successful 
participation in the home environment was altered following 
the birth of her brother. Changes noted by Katie's mother 
included more frequent "melt downs," refusal to attend 
birthday parties, and needing assistance for most home tasks 
expected to be independently completed by a child of 6. 
Katie's teacher reported that in the classroom Katie 
was constantly on the go, had difficulty remaining with one 
activity for any length of time, and was not mastering new 
skills related to the kindergarten curriculum. The SPM 
results suggested that Katie could have been having trouble 
sitting still and paying attention because she was seeking 
additional sensory input, perhaps in the proprioceptive and 
tactile systems. This hypothesis was further bolstered by 
reports of Katie's inability to stay seated on her designated 
92 22-20 25-49 37-14 3 25-11 77-173 
. 36 21 
73 26 34-3S 6.6 
77 25 a 30 
76 . 24. M 1.35- 36 
70 
319 	. 
o 5508.49 
22 
25 
a 
21-25 
a 
. 
a 134136 
75 
7. a.a 
72 . 27 77 27 . 0 '25.153 72 
a . 24 IS 
0 5 95 9I 70 
97 	69 
96 	68 
67 
22 
27 
22 
27 
. 
17 
16 
, 
a 
24 
a 
a 
22 
. 
72 119.113 
22 
1116-1. 
103-108 
65 
66 
67 
.99 
96 
95 	. 15 541. 62 95 
M 	66 ,- 20 20 94-56 66 ga 
90 	63 . 13 18 16 8451 63 90 
66 	62 . 12 84-97 62 37- 
.5 21 
0 0 
17 
16 7420 SO 64 
82 	59 
79 	56 .. 
16 15 0 17-72 
i0-76 
59 
66 
22 
79 
76 	57 14 74 13-74 57 76 
73 	56 „ 10 71, 56 774 
69 	55 18 5 13 70 56 . 
13 
62 17 Um. 56 62 
54 	51 16 12 . 51 . 
11 
31 	46 13 46 3, 
77 	Br 
12 8 
21 	42 . 42 21 
18 	m . 79 
16 	45 14,1 10 9 .-59 . 16 
.308 	8 a° va 07.6 TOY MO 130. PLA 707 I SIM 
Pow km. is 	32 15 11 25 _1_ a6_ U9 	...,... 
7-985m M 	75 
irnerpret,e tl..77: 
59 69 80 5/ 72 n 	. 75.6534 
,467:597, 	0 X itC 2 X 0 C 
Some 2,434371 
1597-6971 	0 
orftle [...ewe 
2, 0 8 2.: 
- 
0 
" 	-- -5 
0 	- 0 
0 111. 7-'_. -, 2707-021I 	M 0 C C X X 
019.1colition 513 InterprO13.11 
omit Fom , 01 7.177:, 70 - 	7 7,..7 73,...,.. --xt: 
14.02853557 Frsan101 T.score - 71 _ 	,4==,-,.2 ........,--E ,,,,,-,,,,,. 
215757518792•83025
.,, 	.. .
II, 217 
Figure 10 
Case 5: Home Form Profile Sheet for Katie 
TOO 	BOO 	Loa 	 MI .14. 
53 
25 
m 
IS 
.93 	74 
99 	23 
M 
SS 	71 
M 
97-03 	26-20 	 a-a., .S' 	 au-la 
25 	 76-21 	44 	51 	CI 	329-729 
0 	 33 	117-119 
22-63 	rr 	 22 	 115-115 
2421 	19-M 	M 	 37 	104114 
16 	19 	 na 
27 	34- 	Mo-114 
M 	 /941,9s 
24-25 	32-31 	9,65 
23 	23 	C3/5 
19 	 Si 
VI 
n 
76 
N 
76 
. 
N . 
73 	M 
M 
71 	98 
97 	. 
9989 
67 
M 	96 
53 	SS 
. 	64 
90 	63 
SO 	62 
86 	61 
84 	93 
18 	 8,15 
97 	 0 	 27 	32-83 
16 	 6481 
16 	 76-76 
„ 	 14-77 
71-73 
13 	 69-70 
2 	 67-65 
12 	16 	26 	23-26 
19 	62-66 
65 	97 
68 	95 
67 
. 	M 
65 	M 
64 	M 
. 	90 
62 	28 
61 	66 
5,1 	84 
B2 	59 
79 	56 
76 	57 
73 	56 
69 	S5 
54 	61 
SO 	50 
46 	. 
42 	46 
16 	fi 
11 	46 
31 	45 
27 	44 
21 	.2 
16 	40 
22 	0 	(1) 	11 	 18 	60-61 
10 	 0 	17 	55-59 
10 	 10 	 16 	66_67 
g 	 13 	 55 
	
15 	6454 
8 	 49 
	
12 	6. 
47 
8 
6 	 5. 
13 	 45 
12 	 . 
. 
10 	
. 	
10 	42-46 
59 	132 
56 	a 
57 	76 
. 	73 
. 	69 
51 	64 
50 	SO 
49 	46 
48 	42 
47 	38 
46 	. 
45 	31 
44 	27 
42 	21 
40 	16 
...,s.„.. 
7.8691222 
loterprelme Rao. 
.401-291. 
Sorm 30.3.3 
1657-627, 
0033961.44476 
1727-2272 
Scores Irom 2221530031 
Cowl rm. 
38 	11 	10 	15 	28 	14 	39 	.. :. 	-4111mr 
 .6_8. 	8_0_ 	5.11 	Z9_it4 
0 	R 	X 	2 	17. 	X 	0 	0 
0 	0 	0 	22 	50 	0 	0. 	0 
'7'
- --' 
Q 	0 	0 	-- 	0 	E 	0 	22 
Ermir.ments Form 
456 	 6E2 	C. 
M. 	29 
0 
3. 	 ,... 
,., 
 
Seem 
,..... 
Figure 11 
Case 5: Main Classroom Form Profile Sheet for Katie 
Chapter 3 Interpretation " 	 41 
carpet square, constantly touching classmates next to her, 
and chewing on her shirt sleeve. During lunch and snack, 
Katie needed to be reminded to chew and swallow before 
stuffing more food into her mouth, and at recess after lunch, 
Katie did not play with her peers, appeared exhausted, and 
often cried that she wanted to go home. 
At Katie's individualized education program (IEP) 
meeting, the educational team recommended occupational 
therapy services twice weekly for 30 minutes each session. 
Initially, the therapy focused on curriculum-based fine-, 
gross-, and perceptual-motor skills so that Katie could keep 
up with her peers. The treatment also included "sensory 
diet" strategies of movement and heavy-work patterns. 
Specifically, the therapist identified socially appropriate 
mechanisms for Katie to obtain sensory input (i.e., mild 
cough drops, and snacks of pretzel nuggets, gummy bears, 
and chunks of cheese in order to get oral input, so that she 
would stop chewing on her shirt). Fortunately, regular 
kindergarten activities could be expanded to include these 
movement and body-oriented tasks. For example, the 
kindergarten program already had "red day" and "pajama 
day." It could easily be expanded to include snake, frog, or 
crabwalk day, where all the children moved around the 
classroom using these motor patterns. 
During subsequent discussion, Katie's mother realized 
that she could access her insurance company for private, 
medically based occupational therapy services utilizing 
Ayres's sensory integration approach. Unlike the school 
environment, private therapy often includes specialized 
equipment to provide therapeutic activity for the vestibular 
and proprioceptive systems, in a setting that is physically 
and emotionally safe. 
Case 6: Paul 
Paul was a 5-year-old kindergarten student of Native 
American heritage living with his mother in low-income 
housing. Paul qualified for special education services under 
the diagnosis of autism and was placed in the special 
education classroom for his education. The IEP team 
recommended classroom-based strategies to decrease his 
nonfunctional behavior patterns (e.g., lining up objects, 
repeatedly playing with the same toy). Paul's mother sought 
out an independent evaluation to determine if Paul could 
benefit from occupational therapy. The assessment included 
the SPM Home, Main Classroom, and School Environments 
Forms. Paul's SPM Home and Main Classroom Profile 
Sheets are shown in Figures 12 and 13, respectively. 
On both the Home and Main Classroom Forms, the 
VIS, BOD, BAL, and PLA scores were in the Definite 
Dysfunction range. The SOC score was in the Some 
Problems range on the Main Classroom Form but in the 
Typical range on the Home Form. On the School 
Environments Form, all of the social participation items 
were rated in the nonproblematic direction, with the 
exception of those on the Art Class Rating Sheet (which, 
like the Main Classroom Form, was completed by Paul's 
primary classroom teacher). Most of the praxis items, 
particularly those related to ideation, were rated in the 
problematic direction.The examiner was able to interview 
the bus driver, who stated, "Paul has this one toy that he 
takes apart and puts together over and over again. I gave him 
a new part to add to his toy one day. He didn't seem to know 
what to do with it. When I showed him how to put it on a few 
times, he started using the one I gave him too." The 
playground monitor reported that Paul "doesn't play with 
his own classmates but tries to play with the kids in the 
regular kindergarten class. He trips and falls a lot and then 
gives up. Then he just goes to the sand pile and starts lining 
up the trucks by himself." 
The occupational therapist observed Paul during an art 
activity. Consistent with the elevated scores on the BOD 
scale, he squeezed the glue tube too hard and tore the paper 
a bit when trying to cut with scissors. Paul seemed to lack a 
clear goal or understanding of the project until a classroom 
aide provided step-by-step directions. However, he shared 
materials and interacted with his peers in a friendly manner, 
in contrast to the teacher's ratings of his social participation 
on the Main Classroom Form and Art Class Rating Sheet. 
The primary classroom teacher admitted that due to time 
constraints she had not really attended to Paul's specific 
social abilities. She also commented that "Paul just can't 
seem to get anything started. I have to show him 'how and 
what to do' with every new activity." Paul's mother made 
similar comments: "When Paul's aunt sent him a new toy, 
he just put it in the corner of his bedroom and ignored it. 
When I sat down with him and played with the new toy, he 
started to play with it too. Then the next time I saw him with 
it, he played and said exactly what we did the day before. 
He didn't change anything, but at least he was playing with 
the new toy." 
The occupational therapy assessment suggested that 
Paul had dyspraxia (especially with respect to ideation), as 
well as visual, vestibular, and proprioceptive processing 
42 
	
Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation Guide 
deficits. The IEP team decided that Paul should have 
occupational therapy based on Ayres's sensory integration 
theory. At his next IEP, Paul showed improvements in using 
playground equipment without falling, using an appropriate 
amount of body force in classroom activities, and coming up 
with a plan for activities if given proper cues from an adult. 
Through working with Paul and completing the SPM forms, 
the school team gained a greater understanding of sensory 
processing disorders and dyspraxia. Paul was successfully 
transitioned to a general education classroom with some 
continued supports. 
5.11e 	1' SOO V1S MBA 102 BOO BAL PIA 127 7 7.,le 
30 .40 35-84 25-22 37-44 36-72 2544 33-36 120224 60 
79 35-4 M-34 V-M X 34 31-32 154-166 79 
76 51 4 X 56-M X M 154-462 72 
77 31 4 4 4 . 242-1. 77 
76 33 45 25 37 5- 140-151 76 
75 32 22-4 aa 32 4 21 	. 4 131-14 75 
ii 	13 31 25-22 M el ,21-57 al 45 
72 5 21 27 27 25 4 , 22,793 .„ 
63 	71 . 70 4 4 74 722-125 71 . 
70 4 24 IS el. 25 119-121 16 
57 	. 
96 	62 
aa 23 
21-21 
19 
17 
25 
23-74 
ei 
3 
4 
4 
aa 845E* 
106,9 
49 
. 
67 
56 
67 27 24 76 r .2 21 112.-193 67 
97 	56 26 15 21 20 21 22 79-102 55 X 
. 	65 25 n zs n 64-5E 55 SG 
92 	64 24 19 14 IS 7 19 20 92-93 94 X 
5.3 	63 23 13 . 15 19 .1-51 53 . 
55 	62 22 5.-27 52 X 
. 	51 16 II ,, 17 15 81-13 61 tE 
62 	59 15 ., 15 77-72 . 22 
72 	55 0 16 25-79 58 76 
75 	S7 . „ 
' a 15 73-74 57 76 
T3 	56 75 0 71-72 56 23 
69 	Ss 79 0 14 70 SS 65 
66 	55 69 51 . 
62 	53 17 13 67-56 . 62 
51 	52 , °a 52 53 
50 	50 12 . SO 50 
46 	.16 15 49 .6 
.2 	46 11 . 42 42 
15 	.7 1.1 62 .2 A 
34 	46 
3, 	33 13 70 
3, 46 
46 
14 
31 
27 	41 
24 	45 12 , 
50 44 27 
21 	42 65 „ 2, 
16 	. 10-11 10 5 5,6.6,5 . 16 
%IN 	7 SOC 115 MA TOU 100 Md. no ear i a.m. 
flaw 5.7e lir 	202 10 14 25 29 27 113 
r-sc.. I. 	58 72 56 55 70 76 73 69 	441 T.Soare 
757- 
17€ Tip. _ 
1402-59a, 	X 7 X X 7 .7. 
,501-691: 	7 7 7 7. 7 :-.. 7 X 
;2.6621 	7 X 0 0 X X X 0 
DIF Ex141,161ion OIF imeraretation 
4.2., 44, 711 1....44. 69 	.7_ , , 75 46, '4 4 -•4,-,4 7,4 ,,,..- 3-, .- ,,-.74.:-..4 4,, C'usra, 
..04085540640 E.. X4 '4.. - -.6.9-_. !„19.,7"71 
f 
',.''''' ',.1.'
...11-1-
'..1 '..''. 1,7,7: 
Mont Mem. f1/01 • X0 _0_ 	-10 ,D,F4 -74 
0 -15,014 
-Z511.71-577-7.5., 7705A :277t 7,711i-7::12 , 71.ss.7-2:. 7:.:,;-," 
aiiaari attra,. 4.....,..aaas „ U.. ass., man a .44.44. 
Figure 12 
Case 6: Home Form Profile Sheet for Paul 
SOC WS NES TOU 502 BAL RA Tor 
N .80 26-29 24-29 25-32 25,2 34-N .4 156-169 X 
7, 25 23-2. 2.9-24 33 3, 1.3-1X 71 
75 . 2. 31-4 32 1,7-115 it 
77 
12 
37 
A 22-27 
21 
11-20 20 
22 
M 5 
115-116 
152-115 
27 
75 0 19 21 29-29 . 105 75 
5. 	74 ... 17 27 4 A 93-12,2 33 ,33 
4: 33 76 72 0 ...... 30-31 94-95 72 
96 	2 
70 
46.9 29 66-93 :1 
70 
5t 
15 21 
S6 22 M 8, 
1.- 0 97 	59 65 5a 
95 	45 5 11 41 22-57 53 96 
5940 21 25 ,..3-33 65 X 
M X 26 - , 
_ .. 
92 	64 27 18 24 71-73 64 92 
- 19 .7.7 M 69-22 63 90 
68 	X :2 27-E 92-58 X 66 
ES 	61 24 12 ,, zo 6465 61 66 
Si 	60 
62 	59 
23 
22 „ 
15 19 .63 
50-61 
. 
44 
2.4 
E.7 
79 	Sa 14 17 69-59 , -, 
76 	57 21 12 16 55-57 
73 	55 20 0 . 55 52 
69 	55 75 51-54 55 69 
66 	51 15 5 51 . 
6299 18 9 0 . 51 53 62 
53 	52 17 6 13 50 X 58 
54 	51 6 11 51 54 
50 	50 16 12 42 . 62 
4 	48 8 49 42 
38 	47 74 10 11 .6 Cr 35 
27 	4.4 72 6 44 24, 
2. 	43 
11 	41 
7 
7 
.74 43 
49 
24 
2. 
18 	at 17 al 15 
16 	40 70 , , ,0 42-.3 40 16 
sa. 	r 10C 616 KA Tau eao ea no TOT I Id. 
1555.6.1111117 	3_G 1, _9_ _9_ 2.0. 21 3L 
09s P' 	511 
irnerarelka Ra9.9 
75_ 5_6 53 72_ 21 7_6_ 69. 	4 749,60.6 
Tn.., _ 
X X 0 7 
6,7,3,3,3 
.7-6617 	X 0 . 7 .7 0 0 8 
rm.--son 	r_. 8 _____ _C .. 0 X X , P- 
Scores frorn SPal 50281 Environments face 
411S ilff 5E7 77,1 5,5 
30 28 32 33 24 22 
29 26 X 27 119 
X 	0 	X 	X 5 	X 
or sensory 
discrimination, and sensory-based motor problems. 
Sensory integration theory arguably has given rise to 
more research than any other conceptual framework in the 
occupational therapy field (Miller & Kinnealey, 1993). Most 
of this work has expanded on the original ideas of Ayres 
regarding the behavioral expression of sensory integration. 
For example, Dunn (2001) incorporated Ayres's (1979) 
work on sensory registration (the process of noticing or 
attending to stimuli) and defensiveness (a state involving a 
withdrawal or avoidance response to a stimulus). Dunn 
created an innovative model that addresses individual 
differences in sensory processing within the general 
population. 
Another important extension of Ayres's work was 
initiated by Miller and her colleagues, who reported 
psychophysiological correlates of sensory defensiveness 
using measures of sympathetic and parasympathetic 
responses to sensory stimuli (McIntosh, Miller, Shyu, & 
Hagerman, 1999; Miller et al., 1999; Miller & Summers, 
2001; Schaaf, Miller, Sewell, & O'Keefe, 2003). 
One of Ayres's most fundamental ideas is that the 
early developing, body-centered senses (tactile, vestibular, 
and proprioceptive) provide a foundation for the 
development of later maturing visual and auditory systems 
(Ayres, 1972,2005). In her synthesis of neurobiological and 
developmental research, Ayres theorized that development 
and integration of the tactile, vestibular, and proprioceptive 
systems allow for the formation of body schema, object 
concepts, and body-centered spatial mapping of the 
environment. These elementary functions eventually 
become automatized and serve as a platform for the layering 
of more complex auditory and visual functions (Ayres, 
2005; Smith Roley, 2005). 
Ayres (1979) defined sensory integration as the 
"organization of sensation for use" (p. 184). The last two 
words in that definition, "for use," are revealing. Unlike 
those scientists who study the neural mechanisms of sensory 
integration in isolation, Ayres's central concern as an 
occupational therapist was the relationship between these 
neural processes and the child's real-world functioning. This 
concern with occupation strongly influenced the evolution 
of Ayres's ideas about assessment and intervention. Sensory 
integration—based occupational therapy became a tool for 
helping children to engage in occupations and, in so doing, 
to participate as fully as possible in meaningful life 
activities. 
45 
46 
	 Technical Guide 
The Evaluation of 
Sensory Processing (ESP) 
The ESP is the predecessor of the SPM Home Form. 
Development of the ESP began in the early 1990s, with a 
project to assemble published and unpublished sensory 
items then in use by occupational therapists (LaCroix, 
1993). This set of 679 items was subject to content validity 
analysis, in which sensory integration experts rated each 
item for its validity as a measure of a particular sensory 
system. As a result of this study, the item set was trimmed to 
the 200 items with the best ratings of content validity. 
A later interview study with parents (Johnson-Ecker & 
Parham, 2000) led to the revision and elimination of some 
items, reducing the item count to 192. Several reliability studies 
were done on this version, using scales based on sensory 
systems. Alphas were .83 or above for all scales except those 
representing the gustatory (taste) and olfactory (smell) systems. 
An interrater reliability study (Chang, 1999) looked at 
mother-father agreement for 15 children with sensory 
integration disorders and 20 typical children. Parent 
agreement was defined as item ratings that differed by no 
more than 1 rating scale point between mother and father. 
Most ESP items achieved parent agreement across more than 
75% of the combined samples. Vermaas Lee (1999) 
conducted a criterion validity study using children aged 2 to 
11. Forty-one children with autism were compared to 41 
typical children matched by age, sex, and ethnicity. One-
hundred fourteen of the ESP items were rated significantly 
higher (more problematic behavior) in the autism group than 
in the typical group. Another criterion validity study 
(Johnson-Ecker & Parham, 2000) compared 30 children with 
sensory integration dysfunction to 59 typically developing 
children (all children were 3 to 6 years old). Significant 
differences emerged between the two groups for 84 items. 
The most recent research version of the ESP (Parham 
& Ecker, 2002) included 149 items (73 for ages 2 to 5, 76 for 
ages 6 to 12). This item set underwent confirmatory factor 
analysis in a sample consisting of 231 children aged 2 to 5 
and 223 children aged 6 to 10 (Su, 2002). All participants 
were receiving occupational therapy for sensory processing 
problems, and many had additional developmental or 
medical diagnoses. The factor model that best fit the data 
consisted of sensory system factors (e.g., auditory, tactile, 
visual), with the proprioceptive and vestibular systems 
combined in a single factor. An alternative factor structure 
composed of sensory processing vulnerabilities (e.g., over-
vs. under-responsiveness) did not show adequate goodness-
of-fit. These factor-analytic findings parallel those reported 
in chapter 5 of this manual. The finding supports the scoring 
of SPM scales based on sensory systems. 
The School Assessment of Sensory 
Integration (SASI) 
The SPM Main Classroom Form is based on the SASI, 
first developed in 1999-2000 by Heather Miller Kuhaneck 
and Amy Weber. The SASI was intended to measure issues 
of sensory processing and praxis in a variety of school 
environments and to examine the relationships between 
these issues and a child's occupational performance and 
social participation in the schools. With the goal of applying 
sensory integration theory to school behavior, a table of 
specifications was developed and sensory histories were 
reviewed to create an initial pool of more than 200 SASI 
items. SPM authors Diana A. Henry and Tara J. Glennon 
joined the SASI development project in 2001 and 2002, 
respectively. 
The initial item pool was reviewed by experts in test 
development and sensory integration, leading to deletion of 
some items and rephrasing of others to increase clarity. In 
2003, this streamlined SASI item set was used with a sample 
of elementary school students in the Midwest. Further 
revisions in the wording of items were implemented as a result 
of this study (Glennon, Henry, & Miller Kuhaneck, 2003). 
Additional focus groups and small-scale implementation 
studies were conducted in 2003 and 2004, resulting in more 
item refinements and other changes to the SASI in order to 
make it useful in a variety of educational processes, such as 
evaluation for special education and prereferral assessment 
(Glennon, Henry, & Miller Kuhaneck, 2004; Glennon, Henry, 
& Miller Kuhaneck, 2005). 
Also in 2003 and 2004, two pilot studies were 
conducted to examine the reliability and validity of the SASI 
(Glennon et al., 2004; Glennon et al., 2005). The first pilot 
study included 23 typically developing children, in 
kindergarten through sixth grade. Scales were scored for 
multiple school environments, for both sensory processing 
issues and social participation. Internal consistency 
estimates (alphas) were high, ranging from .97 to .99 across 
environments for the sensory processing items and .93 to .99 
for the social participation items. 
The second pilot study included 26 typically 
developing children and 25 children receiving occupational 
therapy for sensory integration problems. Alphas for the 
sensory processing items ranged from .70 to .99 for the 
typical sample, while the range was .87 to .99 for the clinical 
sample. For the social participation items, alphas ranged 
from .98 to .99 for the typical sample and .91 to .97 for the 
clinical sample. In a discriminant function analysis, the 
SASI accurately classified 82.4% of the entire sample, 
correctlyclassifying 92.3% of the typically developing 
children and 72% of the children receiving treatment. 
The SPM: An Integrated Instrument 
In 2005, the ESP and SASI projects were merged into 
a single test-development effort, the SPM. Both author 
groups desired maximum clinical utility for their measures, 
and both groups realized that this could be achieved by 
joining the ESP and SASI into an integrated assessment 
system covering both home and school environments. 
The initial stages of the SPM project comprised the 
reanalysis of extant ESP and SASI data in order to develop 
Chapter 4 Development and Standardization 	 47 
new item sets for large-scale standardization and clinical 
validity studies. At this point, the ESP form included 76 
items, while the SASI Classroom Environment Form (the 
direct precursor of the SPM Main Classroom Form) 
included 106 items. The full SASI form included more than 
500 items, with many identical items spread across the 
classroom, art, music, physical education, cafeteria, 
recess/playground, and school bus environments. Each 
SASI environment also included items unique to that 
environment. 
Both the ESP and SASI used a 5-point, Likert-type 
rating scale for item ratings. The rating anchors for these 
scales referred to the observed frequency of behavior (e.g., 
for the SASI, Never, Rarely, Occasionally, Frequently, 
Always). Initial analyses using the Rasch modeling program 
WINSTEPS (Linacre, 2005) suggested that the 5-point 
rating scale did not function optimally for either the SASI or 
the ESP. Specifically, two of the rating scale points (for the 
SASI, Rarely and Occasionally) did not measure distinct 
portions of the putative underlying variable of level of 
sensory processing dysfunction. Because of these findings, 
the rating scales were revised to create a single 4-point SPM 
rating scale with the following anchors: Never, 
Occasional/v. Frequently, Always. The Rasch analyses are 
described in more detail in chapter 5 of this manual. 
Two new SPM research forms were then developed. 
The SPM Home Form-R (Research) included 150 items, 
comprising the ESP items (some of which were revised for 
clarity) plus new items assessing social participation, praxis, 
and various sensory integration vulnerabilities. The SPM 
School Form-R totaled 145 items, including 99 items 
completed by raters in all school environments. The 
remaining 46 items were specific to one or two particular 
environments: 7 for Main Classroom and Art Class, 5 for 
Music Class, 14 for Physical Education Class and 
Recess/Playground, 14 for Cafeteria, and 6 for School Bus. 
Two studies were conducted to evaluate the SPM 
research forms. These studies are described in the next 
sections. 
The SPM Standardization Study 
The SPM standardization sample consisted of 1,051 
children, ranging in age from 5 to 12 years. All children in 
the sample were assessed with the SPM Home Form-R 
(completed by a parent) and the SPM School Form-R 
(completed by the child's primary classroom teacher). The 
children were recruited from regular elementary school 
classrooms (kindergarten through sixth grade). The study 
included only full-day kindergarten programs and only sixth 
graders who attended elementary schools (not middle 
schools). Seventy-six SPM study coordinators from across 
the United States contributed data to this study. 
None of the children in the study were enrolled in full-
time special education programs or special schools for 
students with learning disabilities or emotional or behavioral 
problems. However, beyond sampling from regular 
education classrooms, no attempt was made to exclude 
children with mild academic or behavioral difficulties. To 
be considered demographically representative, the 
standardization sample should reflect the base rate of such 
mild problems in the general population. 
Table 6 presents the demographic characteristics of 
the standardization sample, along with corresponding 
percentages from the U.S. Census (U.S. Census Bureau, 
2001a, 2001b) for comparison. The distribution of males 
and females parallels the Census figures. In terms of 
ethnicity, the composition of the sample is a fairly close 
approximation of the Census figures. Whites are slightly 
overrepresented, whereas Blacks and Asians are slightly 
underrepresented. In terms of U.S. geographic distribution, 
the Midwest is overrepresented compared to Census figures, 
whereas the South and West are underrepresented. The 
parent's highest educational attainment serves as an 
indicator of socioeconomic status (SES). The highest 
category (4-year college degree or more) is overrepresented 
compared to the Census figures. However, the lowest SES 
category (less than high school graduate) is very close to the 
U.S. Census proportion. The next section examines the 
potential moderating effects of demographic variables on 
SPM scores. 
Moderator Variables 
When demographic groups (e.g., those defined by age, 
gender, ethnicity, and SES) differ meaningfully in test 
performance, it can be difficult to interpret the results 
without separate norms for each group. Such differences are 
said to reflect the moderating effects of the demographic 
factors. 
An effect size metric was used to determine if the 
demographic moderator variables were associated with any 
clinically meaningful differences between groups in the 
SPM raw scale scores. This effect size metric was calculated 
as the difference between the mean raw scale score of the 
demographic group in question and the grand mean of the 
standardization sample, divided by the pooled standard 
deviation (the grand mean and pooled standard deviation for 
each SPM scale are listed in Table 7). Using this method, an 
effect size of .2 is considered small, .5 is considered 
medium, and .8 is considered large (see Cohen, 1992). In 
general, moderating effects are considered clinically 
meaningful only if they are associated with medium-to-large 
effect sizes and if the findings are consistent with other 
knowledge of the groups in question. 
Preliminary analyses suggested a statistically 
significant effect of age on SPM scale scores, in which the 
scores tend to decrease gradually with increasing age (Home 
Form: Wilks's Lambda = .938, F(8, 1042) = 8.65, p3.9 17.4 5.4 0.98 
Balance and Motion (BAL) 11 13.8 3.3 18.2 5.1 1.03 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) 9 13.0 4.3 20.2 5.9 1.27 
Total Sensory Systems (TOT) 56 69.3 15.4 92.4 22.3 1.15 
Main Classroom Form 
Social Participation (SOC) 10 17.1 5.9 25.3 7.2 1.15 
Vision (VIS) 7 9.1 2.5 12.1 3.1 1.02 
Hearing (HEA) 7 8.5 2.3 11.6 3.7 1.05 
Touch (TOU) 8 9.2 2.1 11.6 3.3 0.90 
Body Awareness (BOD) 7 8.9 3.0 11.9 4.1 0.84 
Balance and Motion (BAL) 9 12.0 3.6 15.8 4.6 0.90 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) 10 14.0 5.2 21.6 6.6 1.19 
Total Sensory Systems (TOT) 42 52.0 12.2 68.4 15.5 1.10 
Note. Higher raw scale scores indicate more problems and poorer functioning. Social Participation items and Home Form Item 57 are scored as 
follows: Never = 4, Occasionally = 3, Frequently = 2, Always = I. All other items are scored as follows: Never = I, Occasionally = 2, Frequently = 3, 
Always = 4. 
aN = 1,051. bN = 345. 'Effect size (Cohen's d) = scale mean in clinical sample minus scale mean in standardization sample, divided by pooled 
standard deviation. 
48 
Chapter 4 Development and Standardization 	 49 
Table 8 
SPM Raw Scale Scores: Descriptive Statistics and Effect Sizes by Age Group 
Scale 
Ages 5-8a Ages 9-12b 
Mean SD Effect size' Mean SD Effect size 
Home Form 
Social Participation (SOC) 17.1 5.0 0.12 15.8 4.8 0.14 
Vision (VIS) 13.5 3.4 0.10 12.8 2.9 0.11 
Hearing (HEA) 10.1 3.0 0.13 9.3 2.4 0.15 
Touch (TOU) 14.1 3.8 0.07 13.5 3.5 0.08 
Body Awareness (BOD) 13.5 4.3 0.19 11.9 3.1 0.23 
Balance and Motion (BAL) 14.3 3.5 0.14 13.3 3.0 0.16 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) 13.5 4.5 0.13 12.3 4.1 0.15 
Total Sensory Systems (TOT) 71.5 16.3 0.14 66.7 13.7 0.17 
Main Classroom Form 
Social Participation (SOC) 17.9 6.3 0.14 16.2 5.2 0.16 
Vision (VIS) 9.5 2.7 0.16 8.6 2.2 0.19 
Hearing (HEA) 8.8 2.5 0.13 8.1 2.0 0.16 
Touch (TOU) 9.5 2.2 0.13 8.9 1.8 0.16 
Body Awareness (BOD) 9.4 3.2 0.15 8.4 2.5 0.18 
Balance and Motion (BAL) 12.5 3.8 0.14 11.3 3.3 0.17 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) 14.7 5.7 0.15 13.0 4.5 0.18 
Total Sensory Systems (TOT) 54.1 12.9 0.17 49.6 10.8 0.20 
an = 572. b = 479. 'Effect size refers to the difference between the group mean and the grand mean, divided by the pooled standard deviation. 
demonstrating that the effect of age on SPM scores was not 
clinically meaningful. Similar results were noted in the 
gender analyses (see Table 9). Although boys tend to receive 
higher scores than girls on the SPM scales, the consistently 
small effect sizes indicate that these differences are not 
clinically meaningful. 
In analyzing the moderating effects of ethnicity, only the 
Black and Hispanic ethnic groups had sample sizes large 
enough to be included. The effect sizes for these two groups are 
shown in Table 10. All of the effect sizes were small (......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
41· ........ 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
50
· ........ 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
51.········ 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
52. ········ 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
53 .......•. 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
54 ........ 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
55 .......... 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
56 ......... 4 ......... 3 ....•.... 2 ......... 1 
51.········ 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
58 ......... 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
59 ......... 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
60 ......... 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
61· ........ 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
62· ........ 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
63. 
64 ......... 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
55 ........ 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
66 ......... 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
67 .......•. 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
68 .......•. 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
69 ......... 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
70 .......•. 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
t---+-- 71 ......... 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
72 .......•. 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
7a' ........ 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
1L ..... 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
75 ......... 4 ......... 3 ......... 2 ......... 1 
~~nmrf~J 
Sen$Ory ~ es$lng Measure 
Name {or ID#): 
Date this form completed: 
¾ile T 
80 
79 
78 
71 
76 
75 
>99 74 
99 73 
72 
98 71 
70 ,-
97 69 
96 6& 
67 
95 66 
93 65 
92 64 
90 63 
88 62 
86 61 
84 60 
82 59 
79 58 
76 57 
73 56 
69 55 
66 54 
62 53 
58 52 
54 51 
50 50 
46 49 
42 48 
38 47 
34 46 
31 45 
27 44 
24 43 
21 42 
18 41 
16 40 
%ile T 
Raw Score .­
T·Store ., 
Interpretive Range 
i-ypical 
(401'-597) 
Some Probltms 
(60T-69T) 
DetlnTw 01Sfunc11on 
(707-807) 
soc 
37-40 
35-36 
34 
33 
32 
31 
30 
29 -
21! 
27 
26 
25 
2-4 
23 
22 
21 
20 
19 
18 
17 
16 
15 
14 
13 
12 
10-11 
soc 
D 
D 
D 
Dlf Calculation 
Home Form TOT T-score 
Main Cla$srcom Form TOl" T-sccre -
Enllironment Difference (DIF) 
W-466A 
VIS 
35--44 
33-34 
32 
31 
30 
2~29 
27 
26 
25 
24 
23 
21-22 
20 
19 
18 
17 
16 
15 
14 
13 
12 
11 
VIS 
D 
D 
D 
Reason tor assessment: 
HEA 
2!!--32 
27-28 
26 
25 
24 
23 
22 
21 
20 
19 
18 
17 
16 
15 
14 
13 
12 
11 
10 
9 
HEA 
0 
D 
D 
TOU 
37--44 
36 
34--3~ 
33 
32 
3o-31 
28--29 
27 
26 
25 
13-24 
22 
21 
20 
19 
18 
17 
16 
15 
14 
13 
12 
11 
TOU 
D 
D 
D 
DIF Interpretation 
[ 
0 Olf:e1S 
0 14l,.DIFle.10 
0 9~ DIF~-9 
0 -10.!0IF~-14 
0 - 15~DIF 
Home Form 
Profile Sheet 
L. Oiane Parham, Ph.D., OTR/l, FAOTA. 
and Cheryl Ecker, M.A., OTR/L 
wgs® 
Test with Confidence 
Age: Grade: Gender: 0 M OF 
BOD BAL PLA 
3&-40 3~ 33-36 
34--35 34 31-32. 
33 33 
32 31-32 30 
31 29-30 
30 27-28 29 
29 26 28 
21\ 27 
27 25 26 
26 24 
25 ZS 
24 23 24 
23 22 
22 23 
21 21 22 
20 20 21 
19 19 20 
18 18 19-
17 17 18 
16 17 
15 16 
16 
14 15 15 
13 H 
14 
13 
12 
13 12 
11 11 
12 
10 
10 11 9 
TOT 
170-224 
164-169 
15-4-163 
142-153 
140-141 
137-139 
133-136 
131-132 
12!H30 
122-128 
119-121 
110-118 
106-109 
103-105 
99-102 
94-98 
92-93 
8&-91 
84-87 
8143 
79-60 
77-78 
75-76 
7!1--74 
71-72 
70 
69 
67~8 
66 
65 
64 
63 
62 
61 
60 
59 
56-58 
T 
80 
79 
78 
77 
76 
75 
74 
73 
72 
71 
70 
69 
68 
67 
66 
65 
64 
63 
62 
61 
60 
59 
58 
57 
56 
55 
54 
53 
52 
51 
50 
49 
48 
47 
46 
45 
44 
43 
42 
41 
40 
o/oilt 
>99 
99 
98 
97 
96 
95 
93 
92 
90 
88 
86 
64 
82 
79 
76 
73 
69 
66 
62 
58 
54 
50 
46 
42 
38 
3,j 
31 
27 
24 
21 
18 
16 
800 BAL PLA TOT T 'Y,ita 
1 Raw Score 
0 
0 
0 
D 
D 
0 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
1 T·Score 
DEFINITE ditference: More problems in Home than In Mai11 Classroom 
PROBABLE difference: More problems in Hometllan i11 Main Cllssro~m 
NO difference in amount of problems between Main Classroom and Home 
PROBABLE difference: More problems in Main Classroom than in Home 
DfflNIT£ difference: More problem$ In Main Cllssroom than in Home 
ryffiplîfËffi AutoScore" Form
Heather M¡ller Kuhaneck, M.S., 0TR/1,
D¡ana A. Henry, M.S., 0TR/1, and
Tara J. Glennon. Ed.D., 0TR/1. FAoTA
Your Relat¡onship to
Publ¡shêd by
WESTERN PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES
WÞ '1 2031 W¡lsh¡re Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1 251
P.blish¿ls aø/ Distr;bators 
-
Teacher lnformation
Your Name/lD#:
Student lnlormation
Student's Name/lD#: Student's Gender: n M ! F Student's Age: Years
Race/Ethn¡city:
E American lndian/Ataska Native ! Asian ¡ BlacldAfr¡can American ! H¡spanic/Latino E Nat¡ve Hawa¡ian/Pacific lslander
Today's Dale:
_Months Student'sGrade:_
n wn¡te E 0tner
C0mmenls on child's behavi0r/functi0ni n0:
DIRECTIONS
Please answer the questions on this form based on this sfudenf's typical behavior during the past month.Use the following rating scale:
Never: the behavior never or almost never happens Frequenily: the behavior happens nuch of the time
0ccasionally: the behavior happens some 0f the t¡me Always: the behavior always or almost alwayshappens
Circle the one answer that best describes how often the behavior happens. Try your best to answer all of the questions.
Several questions ask whether this student shows "distress" in certain situations. Showing distress may include verbal expressions (whining, crying, yelling)
or nonverbal expressions (withdrawing, gesturing, pushing something away, running away, wincing, striking out).
You may use the space provided above to add any additional comments on this student's behavior or functioning.
u""* 
"***."11ì"*"þ
PLEASE PRESS HARD WHEN GIRGLING YOUR RESPONSES.
SOCIALPARTICIPATION Thisstudent...
W0rks as part of a leam; ¡s helpful w¡th others.
Resolves peer conflicts without teacher ¡ntervent¡on.
Handles frustration with0ut outüursts 0r,aggress¡ve behavior.
Willingly plays with peers in a variety of games and activities.
Enters into play with peers without disrupting ongoinþ activ¡ty,
Has friends and chooses io be with them when possible.
Uses and understands humor when playing with peers.
Maintains appropriate "personal space" (doesn't stand too close to others during conversation).
Maintains appropriate eye c0ntact during conversation.
Shifts conversation topics in accordance with peer interests; doesn'Î stay stuck 0n one topic.
VlSlON This student...
Squints, covers eyes, or complains about classroom lighting 0r br¡ght sunl¡ght.
Shows distress at the sight of moving objects.
Becomes distracted by nearby visual stimuli (pictures, items on walls, windows, other children).
During instruction or announcement, student looks around 0r at peers, rather than looking at person
speaking or at blackboard.
Spins or flicks obiects in front of eyes.
Stares intensely at people or obiecls.
Shows distress when lighls are dimmed for movies and assemblies.
HEARING Th¡sstudent...
Shows distress at loud sounds (slamming door, electric pencil sharpener, PA announcement, fire drill)
Shows distress at the sounds of singing or musical ¡nstruments.
Ooes not respond to voices or new sounds.
Cannot determine location of sounds or voices.
Makes noises, hums, sings, or yells during quiet class time.
Speaks too loudly or makes excessive noise during transitions.
Yells, screams, or makes unusual noises to self.
N.........0.".......F.........4......... 1.
N.........0.........F.........A......... 2.
N.........0......"..F.........4......... 3.
N.........0.........F.........4......... 4.
N.........0.........F.....^...4......... 5.
N.........0.........F.........A......... 6.
N..-......0....."...F......,..4......... 7.
N.........0.........F.........A......... 8.
N.........0.........F.........4".......- S.
N.........0.........F.........4.........Other emotional/behavioral disorders' 9 2.6 
Unclassifiable/missing data 30 8.7 
Note. N = 345. 
'Includes Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), depression, anxiety, 
and disruptive behavior problems. 
Table 13 
Demographic Characteristics of the 
SPM Clinical Sample 
Sample % 
Gender 
Male 253 73.3 
Female 92 26.7 
Age in years 
5-6 83 24.0 
7-8 118 34.2 
9-10 84 24.3 
11-13 60 17.4 
Race/Ethnicity 
Asian 8 2.3 
Black/African American 15 4.3 
Hispanic/Latino 18 5.2 
White 302 87.5 
Other 2 0.6 
Parents' educational level 
Less than high school graduate 6 1.7 
High school graduate 53 15.5 
Some college 62 18.1 
Four-year college degree or more 222 64.7 
U.S. geographic region 
Northeast 54 16.0 
South 17 5.0 
Midwest 183 54.3 
West 83 24.6 
Note. N = 345. Missing data and/or rounding error account for slight 
discrepancies in some percentages. 
Table 14 provides frequency counts of the types of 
disorders present in the SPM clinical sample. This 
information was provided by the SPM study coordinators, 
based on chart review and/or report of the treating therapist. 
Many of the children had multiple disorders or diagnoses; 
these cases were classified by the disorder that was the 
primary source of problems for the child. 
Scale Development 
The data from the standardization and clinical validity 
studies were used to determine the item and scale 
composition of the final SPM forms. The full standardization 
study supported the derivation of norm-referenced standard 
scores for the final SPM Home Form and the final SPM Main 
Classroom Form. The school environments subsamples 
supported raw scores for each environment on the final SPM 
School Environments Form. 
In developing the scales for the Home and Main 
Classroom Forms, several goals were defined: 
• Scales should represent functioning in the sensory 
systems (e.g., vision, tactile, etc.), praxis, and 
social participation 
• Items on scales should represent a wide range of 
sensory integration vulnerabilities, including 
over- and under-responsiveness, seeking behavior, 
and perceptual problems 
• Scales should have robust internal consistency 
and stable, well-defined factor structure 
• Scales should discriminate between typically 
developing and clinical samples 
• Scale structure should be identical across Home 
and Main Classroom Forms 
Chapter 4 Development and Standardization 	 53 
Various data analytic methods were employed in the 
pursuit of these goals, including exploratory factor analysis 
and multivariate analysis of variance. The outcomes of many 
of these analyses are described in more detail in chapter 5, in 
the sections on construct and criterion validity. It was 
expected that Home and Main Classroom scales would 
coalesce to represent sensory systems. This hypothesis was 
generated by a previously described study (Su, 2002), which 
used structural equation modeling to reveal a sensory 
system—based factor structure among the ESP items. The 
clinical judgment of the SPM authors also played an 
important role in determining the final SPM item set. Table 
7 presents descriptive statistics for the final SPM Home and 
Main Classroom scales, in both standardization and clinical 
samples. 
With the SPM School Environments Form, the authors 
sought to define brief scales that could be completed by 
raters in 5 minutes or less. This was in response to the 
practical difficulties encountered in collecting data from 
these raters during the SPM research phase. Items were rank 
ordered by how much variability they demonstrated in the 
school environments subsamples. Maximization of scale 
variability was then employed as the primary numerical 
criterion in selecting items for scales. The authors also used 
clinical judgment to select items with specific content 
relevant to each environment, as well as items representing 
social participation and various sensory systems. Table 12 
presents descriptive statistics for the final SPM School 
Environments Form scales. Also listed are the screening 
cutoffs used for interpretation and the percentage of each 
subsample scoring at or above the cutoff. 
Derivation of Standard Scores 
To interpret the results of the SPM Home and Main 
Classroom Forms, the user converts raw scale scores into 
normalized T-scores using the procedure described in chapter 
2. To construct the normalized T-scores, the original 
distributions of SPM raw scores in the standardization sample 
were transformed so that each approximated a normal 
distribution. The normalized raw scores were transformed 
into Z-scores, which were then converted to T-scores, which 
have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. The use of 
normalized T-scores means that a given T-score value 
corresponds to the same percentile rank for all SPM scales. 
In all of the raw score distributions, there was a strong 
floor effect (i.e., the mean of the distribution was close to 
the lowest possible score). This type of distribution is 
commonly seen when clinical scales are studied in samples 
of typically developing children. Because of the floor effect, 
the lower-bound of the raw-to—T-score conversion tables 
was truncated at T= 40. 
5 
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES 
This chapter presents reliability and validity evidence 
from the SPM standardization and clinical validity studies. 
Validation of a scale is an ongoing process, and it is hoped 
that the research discussed here will provide a foundation 
for further study of the SPM's psychometric characteristics. 
Reliability 
The major purpose of any behavior rating scale is to 
enable clinical inferences, in support of diagnostic and 
treatment decisions. If these inferences are to be valid, they 
must be based on reliable scores. Two customary procedures 
for estimating reliability are the internal consistency and 
test-retest methods. 
Internal Consistency 
Internal consistency expresses the idea that all items on 
a rating scale consistently measure the same dimension or 
trait. In statistical terms, internal consistency is a measure of 
the average intercorrelations among the items that compose a 
scale. For items with a continuous rating scale, Cronbach's 
coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1988) is used to estimate internal 
consistency. Alpha takes the form of a correlation coefficient 
with a range of 0 to 1. Internal consistency estimates mark a 
lower bound on a scale's reliability. The internal consistency 
method has the advantage of requiring only a single test 
administration per case. 
Table 15 presents alphas for the SPM Home and Main 
Classroom scales. Separate estimates are provided for the 
clinical and standardization samples, with the latter also 
stratified by age. For behavior rating scales, alphas of .70 or 
greater are considered acceptable, and alphas of .80 or 
greater are considered ideal. In the standardization sample, 
seven of eight Home scales and five of eight Main 
Classroom scales have alphas of .80 or greater. In the 
clinical sample, six of eight Home scales and four of eight 
Main Classroom scales have alphas of .80 or greater. Across 
the matrix in Table 15, there are three coefficients less than 
.70: the Main Classroom Hearing (HEA) and Touch (TOU) 
scales in the 9- to 10-year-old group of the standardization 
sample, and the Main Classroom Vision (VIS) scale in the 
clinical sample. The short length of these scales (7 to 8 
items) may partially explain the lower alphas. Table 16 
shows internal consistency estimates for the SPM School 
Environments scales. All alphas are greater than .80. 
Test-Retest Reliability 
Test-retest reliability, also known as temporal stability, 
refers to the stability of scale scores over time. Test-retest 
reliability coefficients are determined by administering the 
rating scale on two separate occasions and correlating the 
resulting scores. The SPM test-retest sample consisted of 77 
typically developing children, aged 5 to 12 years. These 
children were assessed twice with the Homeand Main 
Classroom Forms: an initial assessment, and a second 
assessment 2 weeks later. The sample was fairly 
representative in terms of gender (34 males, 43 females) and 
ethnicity (21 Blacks, 28 Hispanics, and 28 Whites). Table 
17 demonstrates that the SPM scale scores were highly 
correlated across the 2-week retest interval (all rs .94). 
These findings indicate excellent temporal stability. 
Standard Error of Measurement and 
Confidence Intervals 
The standard error of measurement (SEM) statistic 
translates a reliability estimate into more practical terms by 
providing an index of how close a child's observed score is 
likely to be to the "true" score that would be obtained if 
there were no measurement error. (The formula for 
calculating SEM for a given scale is SD V1— r, where SD is 
the standard deviation and r is the reliability coefficient for 
that scale.) SEM values can be converted into confidence 
intervals that give a range of possible values for the true 
score. For example, the 95% confidence interval represents 
the range of scores that has a 95% probability of containing 
the true score. 
Table 18 presents SEM values and 95% confidence 
intervals for the SPM scale T-scores, calculated separately 
for the test-retest and internal consistency reliability 
methods. The confidence intervals are expressed in T-score 
points. To obtain a specific confidence interval for any 
observed SPM score, add and subtract the tabled value from 
the observed T-score to create a score range. For instance, if 
a child's observed T-score on the Home TOT scale is 55, 
55 
LE — 
Processing Measure 
Chapter 5 Psychometric Properties 
	 57 
Table 18 
95% Confidence Intervals for Scale T-Scores Based on Two Reliability Methods 
Scale 
Test-retest reliability (r) Internal consistency (a) 
SEMa 95% CI (±) SEM 95% CI (±) 
Home Form 
Social Participation (SOC) 2.35 4.6 3.03 5.9 
Vision (VIS) 1.56 3.0 3.70 7.3 
Hearing (HEA) 1.93 3.8 3.44 6.8 
Touch (TOU) 1.60 3.1 3.91 7.7 
Body Awareness (BOD) 1.29 2.5 3.40 6.7 
Balance and Motion (BAL) 1.84 3.6 4.40 8.6 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) 2.07 4.1 3.07 6.0 
Total Sensory Systems (TOT) 1.40 2.7 2.21 4.3 
Main Classroom Form 
Social Participation (SOC) 2.13 4.2 2.52 4.9 
Vision (VIS) 1.79 3.5 4.20 8.2 
Hearing (HEA) 1.48 2.9 4.00 7.8 
Touch (TOU) 1.44 2.8 4.14 8.1 
Body Awareness (BOD) 1.52 3.0 3.16 6.2 
Balance and Motion (BAL) 1.80 3.5 3.49 6.8 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) 1.82 3.6 2.57 5.0 
Total Sensory Systems (TOT) 1.37 2.7 2.17 4.2 
Note. 95% CI (±) = 95% confidence interval around the observed T-score. 
'SEM = standard error of measurement. 
then there is a 95% probability that the true T-score lies in 
the range of 52.3 to 57.7, using the test-retest method. 
Table 18 enables a choice of reliability methods in 
calculating confidence intervals. It is recommended to use 
the test-retest method, which is more relevant to practical 
use of the SPM because it concerns variability of observed 
test scores over time. The alpha method, on the other hand, 
represents the more abstract issue of the extent to which a 
scale measures a nonheterogeneous construct. As noted 
previously, alpha provides a lower bound on a scale's 
reliability and thus is a conservative estimate that results in a 
wider (and less precise) confidence interval. 
Validity 
The concept of test validity can be parsed along 
theoretical and practical dimensions. The theoretical aspects 
of validity deal with whether a scale measures the constructs 
that it purports to measure. The practical components of 
validity concern what sorts of clinically relevant information 
can be inferred from test scores. To address these issues, this 
section will present evidence regarding the content, construct, 
and criterion-related validity of the SPM scales. 
Content Validity 
Content validity is defined as the extent to which a 
rating scale adequately samples the psychological or 
behavioral domain that it was designed to measure. Content 
validity is usually built into a scale by carefully describing 
the domain to be sampled, writing items that represent the 
domain, and subjecting those items to expert scrutiny. 
Content validity is enhanced when the item-writing 
process is guided by a comprehensive and coherent theory 
of the measurement domain. As described in chapter 4, the 
SPM is a product of two prior test development efforts, the 
Evaluation of Sensory Processing (ESP) and the School 
Assessment of Sensory Integration (SASI). In both of those 
projects, the items were written to reflect the principles of 
Jean Ayres's sensory integration theory (Ayres, 1979). As 
chapter 4 attests, both items sets were subject to several 
rounds of expert review, in which items were retained only if 
they were judged to be adequate representations of function 
in the sensory systems, praxis, and social participation. 
These earlier development phases generate confidence in the 
content validity of the current SPM items and scales. 
Construct Validity 
Construct validity refers to how well a test performs 
in measuring a theoretical construct of interest. With respect 
to the SPM, Ayres's theory defines the primary constructs 
of interest: processing in the visual, auditory, tactile, 
olfactory/gustatory, proprioceptive, and vestibular systems, 
along with motor planning and ideation (praxis), and social 
participation. 
The SPM is designed to provide access to these 
theoretical constructs through its scale scores. Thus, 
58 
	 Technical Guide 
structural validity, or the relationship of the scales to each 
other and to their composite items, is a cornerstone of 
construct validity. The evidence to follow illuminates two 
aspects of structural validity: (a) each SPM scale represents 
a theoretical construct that is defined by its item content; and 
(b) the scales can be scored and interpreted separately from 
one another. 
Factor analysis. Factor analysis begins with a 
correlation matrix encompassing a large set of responses to 
all items on a test. It reduces that multitude of inter-
relationships to a much smaller set of underlying (or latent) 
variables. Because these latent variables often represent 
usable scales, factor analysis is an essential part of 
establishing a test's structural validity. 
As an example, Ayres postulated a further set of 
theoretical constructs related to sensory integration 
vulnerabilities (e.g., under- and over-responsiveness to 
stimuli, sensation-seeking behavior, perceptual problems, 
etc.). In the early development of the ESP, the precursor 
measure to the SPM Home Form, the ESP authors used 
confirmatory factor analysis to investigate whether these 
sensory integration vulnerabilities could form cohesive 
rating scales (Su and Parham, in press). This study evaluated 
the two competing factor models (sensory systems vs. 
sensory integration vulnerabilities) in samples of clinic-
referred children, aged 2 to 5 years (n = 231) and 6 to 12 
years (n = 223). Across both age groups, the data showed 
better fit to the sensory systems factor model than they did to 
the vulnerabilities factor model. These findings support the 
basic scale structure that is evident in the current SPM 
Home and Main Classroom Forms. 
The SPM standardization sample provided 
opportunities for additional factor analytic studies. In these 
studies, the exploratory method was used. Unlike 
confirmatory factor analysis, in which the researcher 
specifies a factor model in advance of the procedure, 
exploratory factor analysis permits items to coalesce freely 
into factors, in order to represent best the variability of the 
data set at hand. The principal axis extraction method with 
oblimin rotation was employed, because it does not require 
factors to be orthogonal (uncorrelated with each other). 
Table 19 presents the structure matrix for the first 
seven factors of the SPM Home Form items in the 
standardization sample. This matrix consists of factorloadings (item-factor correlations), showing only absolute 
values of .40 and greater. As is typical of exploratory factor 
analysis, the first factor accounted for the largest share 
(27.7%) of the item variance. The first factor usually has a 
strong component of "generally problematic behavior" 
reflecting the overall content of the item set. 
It is customary to apply labels based on the content of 
the items that load most strongly on each factor. Because the 
SPM items are organized by content, appropriate labels may 
emerge from visible patterns in the matrix. Thus the first 
three factors appear to represent proprioception (Body 
Awareness), social participation, and praxis (Planning and 
Ideas), respectively. Factor IV has more scattered loadings, 
but the items seem to coalesce in the domain of auditory 
function (Hearing). Factor V also has weaker and less 
coherent loadings, but probably reflects the vestibular 
(Balance and Motion) items. The last two factors appear to 
represent the tactile (Touch) and visual items, respectively. 
Several additional aspects of the analysis deserve 
comment. First, the factor structure is remarkably similar to 
the best fitting model of the Su and Parham (in press) study. 
This congruence of models across different methods 
(confirmatory vs. exploratory) and different samples 
(clinical vs. typically developing children) supports the 
structural validity of the SPM scales. Second, the fact that 
some items within a scale did not correlate strongly with the 
factor for that scale (e.g., Items 61 and 62) may represent 
the interference of subfactors representing the sensory 
integration vulnerabilities. Items 61 and 62 capture under-
responsiveness and seeking in the vestibular system, 
whereas most of the other vestibular items reflect over-
responsiveness and postural control (see Table 3). Thus the 
sensory integration vulnerabilities, while not coherent 
enough among the items to form dominant factors, do 
nevertheless influence the assembly of the sensory systems 
factors. Finally, the olfactory and gustatory items (Taste and 
Smell) fail to load consistently on any factor, which matches 
previous findings that these items do not cohere into usable 
scales (see Su & Parham, in press). 
Table 20 presents the structure matrix for the first 
seven factors of the SPM Main Classroom Form items in the 
standardization sample. Only loadings with absolute values 
of .40 and greater are shown. The structure is similar to that 
of the Home Form matrix, but the factors are less clearly 
delineated. The first factor appears to represent both 
proprioception and vestibular function, mirroring the results 
of a previous factor analysis of the ESP items, in which 
these two sensory systems loaded on a single factor (see Su 
& Parham, in press). In the current analysis, these items also 
loaded strongly on the third factor, and to a lesser extent, on 
the fourth factor. 
The second factor also represents two sensory 
systems, vision and hearing. Interestingly, the Short Sensory 
Profile (described in Dunn, 1999) has a scale named 
Visual/Auditory Sensitivity, suggesting meaningful 
intercorrelations between visual and auditory items in that 
data set. In the SPM Main Classroom data set, the 
relationship between the visual and auditory items cannot be 
explained by the interference of subfactors, as the items that 
load strongly on the second factor run the gamut of sensory 
integration vulnerabilities (see Table 4). The tactile items 
load most uniformly on the sixth factor. However, it is 
exclusively the items representing tactile over-responsiveness 
that determine that factor. The most well-defined factors in 
the Main Classroom item set are those representing praxis and 
social participation. This is expected, as these latter two 
factors are conceptually distinct from the sensory systems. 
The two factor analyses underpin a more general 
finding: the evidence of structural validity is stronger in the 
Home Form than in the Main Classroom Form. A possible 
Table 19 
Factor Loadings for SPM Home Form Items 
in the Standardization Sample 
Scale item 
	 II 	III 	IV 	V 	VI 	VII 
Social Participation (SOC) 
1. 
2. 
3. 
Play with friends cooperatively (without lots of arguments)? 
Interact appropriately with parents and other significant adults 
(communicates well, follows directions, shows respect, etc.)? 
Share things when asked? 
-.68 
-.67 
-.61 
4. Carry on a conversation without standing or sitting too close to others? .45 -.64 
5. Maintain appropriate eye contact during conversation? -.63 -.46 
6. Join in play with others without disrupting the ongoing activity? -.70 -.40 
7. Take part in appropriate mealtime conversation and interaction? -.67 
8. Participate appropriately in family outings, such as dining out or 
going to a park, museum, or movie? -.79 
9. Participate appropriately in family gatherings, such as holidays, 
weddings, and birthdays? -.79 
10. Participate appropriately in activities with friends, such as parties, 
going to the mall, and riding bikes/skateboards/scooters? -.78 
Vision (VIS) 
11. Seem bothered by light, especially bright light (blinks, squints, cries, 
closes eyes, etc.)? 
12. Have trouble finding an object when it is part of a group of other things? 
13. Close one eye or tip his or her head back when looking at something 
or someone? 
14. Become distressed in unusual visual environments, such as a bright, 
colorful room or a dimly lit room? 
15. Have difficulty controlling eye movement when following objects like 
a ball with his or her eyes? 
16. Have difficulty recognizing how objects are similar or different based 
on their colors, shapes, or sizes? 
17. Enjoy watching objects spin or move more than most kids his or her age? 	.41 
18. Walk into objects or people as if they were not there? 	 .46 
19. Like to flip light switches on and off repeatedly? 	 .41 
20. Dislike certain types of lighting, such as midday sun, strobe lights, 
flickering lights, or fluorescent lights? 
21. Enjoy looking at moving objects out of the corner of his or her eye? 	 .40 
Hearing (HEA) 
22. Seem bothered by ordinary household sounds, such as the vacuum 
cleaner, hair dryer, or toilet flushing? 
23. Respond negatively to loud noises by running away, crying, or 
holding hands over ears? 
24. Appear not to hear certain sounds? 
25. Seem disturbed by or intensely interested in sounds not usually 
noticed by other people? 	 .42 
26. Seem frightened of sounds that do not usually cause distress in 
other kids his or her age? 
27. Seem easily distracted by background noises such as a lawn mower 
outside, an air conditioner, a refrigerator, or fluorescent lights? 	 .50 
28. Like to cause certain sounds to happen over and over again, such as 
by repeatedly flushing the toilet? 	 .44 
29. Show distress at shrill or brassy sounds, such as whistles, party 
noisemakers, flutes, and trumpets? 
.47 -.46 
-.56 -.54 
-.65 
.46 -.63 
-.54 
-.55 
-.43 -.46 
-.45 -.52 
-.44 
.45 -.60 
-.41 -.52 
.61 
.76 
.75 -.41 
.77 
-.50 .54 -.45 
.60 -.41 
continued on next page... 
59 
II 111 IV 	V VI 
-.63 
-.55 
.40 -.52 
.42 -.40 -.66 
-.45 
-.71 
.40 -.47 
.42 
-.45 
.64 -.51 
.44 -.59 
.41 
-.46 
-.42 
-.47 
-.42 
VII 
Table 19 (continued) 
Factor Loadings for SPM Home Form Items 
in the Standardization Sample 
Scale item 
Touch (TOU) 
30. Pull away from being touched lightly? 
31. Seem to lack normal awareness of being touched? 
32. Become distressed by the feel of new clothes? 
33. Prefer to touch rather than to be touched? 
34. Become distressed by having his or her fingernails or toenails cut? 
35. Seem bothered when someone touches his or her face? 
36. Avoid touching or playing with finger paint, paste, sand, clay, mud, 
glue, or other messy things? 
37. Have an unusually high tolerance for pain? 
38. Dislike teeth brushing, more than most kids his or her age?39. Seem to enjoy sensations that should be painful, such as crashing onto 
the floor or hitting his or her own body? 
40. Have trouble finding things in a pocket, bag, or backpack using touch 
only (without looking)? 
Taste and Smell 
41. Like to taste nonfood items, such as glue or paint? 
42. Gag at the thought of an unappealing food, such as cooked spinach? 
43. Like to smell nonfood objects and people? 
44. Show distress at smells that other children do not notice? 
45. Seem to ignore or not notice strong odors that other children react to? 
Body Awareness (BOD) 
.47 -.48 
-.40 
46. 	Grasp objects (such as a pencil or spoon) so tightly that it is difficult 
to use the object? .54 
47. 	Seem driven to seek activities such as pushing, pulling, dragging, 
lifting, and jumping? .68 
48. Seem unsure of how far to raise or lower the body during 
movement such as sitting down or stepping over an object? .51 -.57 .44 
49. 	Grasp objects (such as a pencil or spoon) so loosely that it is difficult 
to use the object? 
50. 	Seem to exert too much pressure for the task, such as walking heavily, 
slamming doors, or pressing too hard when using pencils or crayons? .64 -.42 -.51 
51. Jump a lot? .65 
52. Tend to pet animals with too much force? .59 -.40 
53. Bump or push other children? .62 -.49 -.43 
54. Chew on toys, clothes, or other objects more than other children? .51 -.46 .40 
55. Break things from pressing or pushing too hard on them? .60 -.43 -.42 
Balance and Motion (BAL) 
56. Seem excessively fearful of movement, such as going up and down stairs 
or riding swings, teeter-totters, slides, or other playground equipment? .55 
57. Have good balance? 
58. 	Avoid balance activities, such as walking on curbs or on uneven ground? .47 
59. Fall out of a chair when shifting his or her body? .49 
60. 	Fail to catch himself or herself when falling? .46 -.44 
61. Seem not to get dizzy when others usually do? .48 
62. Spin and whirl his or her body more than other children? .65 .49 -.45 
63. 	Show distress when his or her head is tilted away from the upright, 
vertical position? .52 -.40 
64. Show poor coordination and appear to be clumsy? .43 -.69 .42 
65. 	Seem afraid of riding in elevators or on escalators? .43 
66. 	Lean on other people or furniture when sitting or when trying to stand up? .44 -.50 
continued on next page... 
-.45 
-.45 
-.41 
-.41 
-.40 
60 
Table 20 (continued) 
Factor Loadings for SPM Main Classroom Form Items 
in the Standardization Sample 
Scale item II III IV V VI VII 
Hearing (HEA) 
18. 	Shows distress at loud sounds (slamming door, electric pencil sharpener, 
PA announcement, fire drill). .53 -.50 
19. Shows distress at the sounds of singing or musical instruments. .57 -.45 .48 
20. Does not respond to voices or new sounds. .44 -.40 .44 
21. Cannot determine location of sounds or voices. .48 .42 
22. Makes noises, hums, sings, or yells during quiet class time. .63 -.49 -.41 -.45 
23. Speaks too loudly or makes excessive noise during transitions. .62 -.48 -.53 
24. Yells, screams, or makes unusual noises to self. .56 .41 -.42 
Touch (TOU) 
25. Shows distress when hands or face are dirty (with glue, finger paints, 
food, dirt, etc.). -.83 
26. Does not tolerate dirt on hands or clothing, even briefly. -.72 
27. Shows distress when touching certain textures (classroom materials, 
utensils, sports equipment, etc.). .45 -.65 .41 
28. 	Is distressed by accidental touch of peers (may lash out or withdraw). .42 -.49 -.47 .40 
29. Does not respond to another's touch. .49 
30. Seeks hot or cold temperatures by touching windows, other surfaces. .46 
31. Touches classmates inappropriately during class and when standing in line. .62 -.52 
32. 	Does not clean saliva or food from face. .53 -.42 
Taste and Smell 
33. Shows distress at the tastes or odors of different foods. 
34. Does not notice strong or unusual odors (glue, paint, markers, etc.). 
35. Cannot distinguish between odors; does not prefer good smells to 
bad smells. 
36. Tries to taste or lick objects or people. .49 
.46 -.50 
.42 
.53 
Body Awareness (BOD) 
37. 	Spills contents when opening containers. .60 -.46 -.51 
38. Chews or mouths clothing, pencils, crayons, or classroom materials. .60 -.42 -.42 
39. Moves chair roughly (shoves chair under desk or pulls out chair with 
too much force). .72 -.45 
40. Runs, hops, or bounces instead of walking. .71 -.43 -.42 
41. Stomps or slaps feet on the ground when walking. .75 -.47 
42. Jumps or stomps on stairs. .73 -.40 
43. Slams doors shut or opens doors with excessive force. .72 -.42 
Balance and Motion (BAL) 
44. Runs hand along wall when walking. .67 -.52 -.41 
45. Wraps legs around chair legs. .59 
46. Rocks in chair while seated at desk or table. .64 
47. Fidgets when seated at desk or table. .67 -.52 -.56 	-.41 
48. Falls out of chair when seated at desk or table. .65 -.43 
49. Leans on walls, furniture, or other people for support when standing. .61 
50. When seated on floor, cannot sit up without support. .46 .46 
51. Slumps, leans on desk, or holds head up in hands while seated at desk. .50 -.50 
52. Has poor coordination; appears clumsy. .49 -.45 -.61 
continued on next page... 
62 
Chapter 5 Psychometric Properties 
	 63 
Table 20 (continued) 
Factor Loadings for SPM Main Classroom Form Items 
in the Standardization Sample 
Scale item 
	 I 	II 	III 	IV 	V 	VI VII 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) 
53. Does not perform consistently in daily tasks; quality of work varies widely. .55 -.59 -.70 
54. 	Is unable to solve problems effectively. .45 -.54 -.68 
55. Bobbles or drops items when attempting to carry multiple objects. .55 -.45 -.65 
56. Does not perform tasks in proper sequence. .49 -.53 -.82 
57. 	Fails to complete tasks with multiple steps. .46 .40 -.56 -.80 
58. Has difficulty correctly imitating demonstrations (movement games, 
songs with motions). .42 .41 -.56 -.70 -.42 
59. Has difficulty completing tasks from a presented model. .45 .40 -.54 -.78 -.43 .44 
60. Demonstrates limited imagination and creativity in play and free time 
(such as being unable to create new games). -.52 -.53 -.41 .47 
61. 	Plays repetitively during free time; does not expand or alter activity 
when given opportunity. -.54 -.51 -.40 .46 
62. Shows poor organization of materials in, on, or around desk area. .51 -.50 -.69 
Note. N = 1,051. Principal axis extraction method with oblimin rotation. Loadings are item-factor correlations. Loadings with absolute values of less 
than .40 are not displayed. 
explanation refers to the differences between the observers 
who complete each form. The parent (Home Form) has 
better opportunities to observe the child's functioning than 
does the teacher (Main Classroom Form), who has less time 
with each child and is subject to the distractions of the other 
children in the classroom. In addition, the parent sees the 
child in various home and community environments (e.g., 
on the playground, while participating in sports, during 
meals, when traveling). In contrast, the main classroom 
teacher usually observes the child only in the classroom. 
These facts do not, however, erode the value of the 
teacher's ratings on the Main Classroom Form. The 
classroom presents many important and unique challenges 
to the child's sensory functioning, challenges that may not 
be apparent in the home environment. Furthermore, the 
SPM School Environments Form allows the inclusion of 
observations from school settings other than the child's 
main classroom. 
Interscale correlations. Table 21 displays the 
correlations among SPM scales on the Home and Main 
Classroom Forms. As expected, all scales are strongly 
related to each other, probably due to the dominant first 
factor of generally problematic behavior described in the 
previous section. Structural validity is enhanced, however, 
when a scale's internal consistency (alpha) is greater than 
its correlation with other scales. When thisoccurs, it 
indicates that the scale's items are more strongly related to 
each other than they are to other scales, thus supporting the 
separate scoring and interpretation of that scale. In 
comparing the alphas to the interscale correlations, it is 
important to exclude any scales that share items, because 
these common items inflate interscale correlations. Thus, 
the Total Sensory Systems (TOT) scale is not included in 
any of the comparisons involving the individual sensory 
systems scales. 
Examining Tables 15 and 21, it is apparent that for all 
SPM scales across both forms, the scale alphas are higher 
than any of the interscale correlations. The differences are 
smaller on the Main Classroom Form, especially with 
respect to the Body Awareness (BOD) and Balance and 
Motion (BAL) scales. These scales correlate at .83, whereas 
the scale alphas for the total standardization sample are .87 
(BOD) and .85 (BAL). This result is expected in light of the 
Main Classroom factor analysis, which revealed a first 
factor largely determined by both proprioceptive (BOD) and 
vestibular (BAL) items. 
Table 22 shows the correlations between identical 
scales across the two SPM forms. The table refers to cross-
rater concordance (as opposed to interrater reliability) to 
emphasize that the results are properly viewed as a test of 
validity, not reliability. Parents and teachers observe 
children in different settings, during different time periods, 
and with different background knowledge and expectations. 
Thus, the between-form correlations (same trait, different 
observer) are uniformly smaller than the interscale 
correlations (different trait, same observer). This suggests 
that the differences between observers or between 
environments have a stronger effect on SPM ratings than do 
the differences among the sensory systems and the 
constructs of praxis and social participation. The findings 
attest to the utility and clinical value of having separate 
forms and raters for the home and school environments. 
Within the school setting, Table 23 demonstrates that 
correlations between the Main Classroom Form scales and 
the School Environments Form scales are strong, almost 
uniformly representing large effect sizes. (For r, effect sizes 
Table 21 
Interscale Correlations in the Standardization Sample 
Scale SOC VIS HEA TOU BOD BAL PLA 
Home Form 
Social Participation (SOC) - 
Vision (VIS) .50 
Hearing (HEA) .50 .66 
Touch (TOU) .52 .68 .66 
Body Awareness (BOD) .57 .65 .62 .67 - 
Balance and Motion (BAL) .50 .65 .64 .66 .69 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) .59 .61 .62 .60 .66 .67 
Total Sensory Systems (TOT) .60 .85 .82 .87 .85 .86 .74 
Main Classroom Form 
Social Participation (SOC) - 
Vision (VIS) .61 
Hearing (HEA) .62 .72 - 
Touch (TOU) .57 .60 .66 
Body Awareness (BOD) .62 .64 .71 .61 - 
Balance and Motion (BAL) .63 .67 .69 .62 .83 - 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) .70 .70 .69 .63 .66 .73 
Total Sensory Systems (TOT) .70 .83 .86 .79 .89 .90 .80 
Note. N= 1,051. 
Table 22 
Cross-Rater (Home-Main Classroom) Concordance 
in the Standardization Sample 
Scale 
Social Participation (SOC) .53 
Vision (VIS) .39 
Hearing (HEA) .40 
Touch (TOU) .33 
Body Awareness (BOD) .46 
Balance and Motion (BAL) .31 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) .55 
Total Sensory Systems (TOT) .47 
Note. N= 1,051. Correlations are between the same scale on the Home 
and Main Classroom Forms. 
TOT 
64 
Chapter 5 Psychometric Properties 
	 65 
Table 23 
Correlations Between SPM Main Classroom Form Scales and School Environments Form Scales 
Main Classroom 
Form scale 
School Environments Form scale 
Art Class 
(ART) 
Music Class 
(MUS) 
Physical 
Education 
Class 
(PHY) 
Recess/ 
Playground 
(REC) 
Cafeteria 
(CAF) 
School Bus 
(BUS) 
Social Participation (SOC) .68 .60 .64 .68 .63 .55 
Vision (VIS) .67 .59 .52 .58 .54 .50 
Hearing (HEA) .65 .63 .59 .59 .55 .50 
Touch (TOU) .54 .51 .50 .56 .48 .34 
Body Awareness (BOD) .56 .57 .55 .54 .54 .56 
Balance and Motion (BAL) .55 .53 .48 .59 .54 .49 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) .70 .61 .56 .70 .57 .56 
Total Sensory Systems (TOT) .67 .66 .60 .65 .60 .56 
303 302 301 275 273 168 
Note. pthe latter point, an item such as "child has a short attention 
Table 24 
SPM Home Form Item Statistics 
Item 
Corrected item-scale correlationsa 
Effect 
sizeb SOC VIS HEA TOU BOD BAL PLA TOT 
1. Play with friends cooperatively (without lots of arguments)? .66 .37 .36 .37 .44 .36 .44 .44 0.79 
2. Interact appropriately with parents and other significant adults (communicates 
well, follows directions, shows respect. etc.)? .64 .30 .31 .30 .35 .29 .41 .35 0.72 
3. Share things when asked? .58 .27 .24 .27 .32 .25 .35 .31 0.50 
4. Carry on a conversation without standing or sitting too close to others? .63 .46 .39 .41 .51 .47 .43 .52 0.84 
5. Maintain appropriate eye contact during conversation? .62 .46 .45 .44 .46 .46 .52 .53 0.90 
6. Join in play with others without disrupting the ongoing activity? .68 .39 .44 .42 .49 .44 .47 .51 0.90 
7. Take part in appropriate mealtime conversation and interaction? .65 .35 .34 .37 .38 .34 .41 .42 0.94 
8. Participate appropriately in family outings, such as dining out or going to a 
park, museum, or movie? .72 .34 .34 .35 .41 .32 .41 .41 0.65 
9. Participate appropriately in family gatherings, such as holidays, weddings, 
and birthdays? .72 .36 .38 .39 .42 .33 .43 .44 0.77 
10. Participate appropriately in activities with friends, such as parties, going to 
the mall, and riding bikes/skateboards/scooters? .73 .43 .40 .44 .47 .39 .49 .50 0.89 
11. Seem bothered by light, especially bright light (blinks, squints, cries. closes eyes, etc.)? .26 .50 .43 .40 .34 .39 .35 .48 0.60 
12. Have trouble finding an object when it is part of a group of other things? .39 .53 .44 .43 .47 .47 .57 .54 0.69 
13. Close one eye or tip his or her head back when looking at something or someone? .33 .55 .37 .43 .37 .39 .37 .50 0.42 
14. Become distressed in unusual visual environments, such as a bright, colorful 
room or a dimly lit room? .37 .61 .49 .47 .48 .47 .42 .59 0.63 
15. Have difficulty controlling eye movement when following objects like a ball 
with his or her eyes? .31 .48 .36 .38 .36 .36 .38 .45 0.75 
16. Have difficulty recognizing how objects are similar or different based on their 
colors, shapes, or sizes? .32 .49 .34 .32 .38 .35 .41 .44 0.78 
17. Enjoy watching objects spin or move more than most kids his or her age? .30 .45 .39 .42 .37 .38 .28 .48 0.74 
18. Walk into objects or people as if they were not there? .37 .55 .45 .45 .51 .50 .45 .58 0.63 
19. Like to flip light switches on and off repeatedly? .28 .42 .33 .36 .37 .33 .27 .43 0.62 
20. Dislike certain types of lighting, such as midday sun, strobe lights, flickering 
lights, or fluorescent lights? .27 .59 .46 .47 .40 .44 .36 .55 0.62 
21. Enjoy looking at moving objects out of the corner of his or her eye? .31 .51 .40 .43 .39 .37 .33 .49 0.43 
22. Seem bothered by ordinary household sounds, such as the vacuum cleaner, 
hair dryer, or toilet flushing? .31 .39 .58 .44 .37 .39 .38 .49 0.82 
23. Respond negatively to loud noises by running away, crying, or holding hands over ears? .36 .46 .65 .45 .45 .48 .45 .57 0.90 
24. Appear not to hear certain sounds? .34 .45 .44 .44 .42 .39 .42 .50 0.58 
25. Seem disturbed by or intensely interested in sounds not usually noticed by other people? .38 .47 .72 .51 .46 .50 .43 .62 0.76 
26. Seem frightened of sounds that do not usually cause distress in other kids 
his or her age? .30 .43 .65 .44 .37 .43 .38 .54 0.80 
27. Seem easily distracted by background noises such as a lawn mower outside. 
an air conditioner, a refrigerator, or fluorescent lights? .42 .53 .59 .49 .55 .55 .55 .63 0.75 
28. Like to cause certain sounds to happen over and over again, such as by 
repeatedly flushing the toilet? .33 .43 .38 .42 .41 .35 .35 .47 0.69 
29. Show distress at shrill or brassy sounds, such as whistles, party noisemakers, 
flutes, and trumpets? .30 .43 .57 .45 .34 .39 .40 .50 0.64 
30. Pull away from being touched lightly? .35 .39 .37 .57 .37 .36 .31 .49 0.61 
31. Seem to lack normal awareness of being touched? .33 .45 .41 .52 .41 .38 .28 .51 0.53 
32. Become distressed by the feel of new clothes? .25 .36 .40 .49 .31 .34 .32 .44 0.34 
33. Prefer to touch rather than to be touched? .41 .49 .45 .60 .46 .45 .38 .58 0.62 
34. Become distressed by having his or her fingernails or toenails cut? .23 .31 .36 .43 .29 .32 .30 .41 0.57 
35. Seem bothered when someone touches his or her face? .34 .47 .44 .63 .45 .45 .38 .58 0.58 
36. Avoid touching or playing with finger paint, paste, sand, clay, mud, glue. 
or other messy things? .27 .33 .36 .40 .24 .35 .31 .40 0.70 
37. Have an unusually high tolerance for pain? .23 .36 .33 .38 .39 .36 .31 .43 0.59 
38. Dislike teeth brushing, more than most kids his or her age? .32 .38 .39 .49 .40 .38 .39 .48 0.69 
39. Seem to enjoy sensations that should be painful, such as crashing onto the 
floor or hitting his or her own body? .35 .50 .44 .54 .57 .47 .37 .60 0.62 
40. Have trouble finding things in a pocket, bag, or backpack using touch only 
(without looking)? .40 .48 .47 .44 52 .53 .57 .58 0.81 
41. Like to taste nonfood items, such as glue or paint? .24 .42 .43 .41 .41 .38 .31 .48 0.35 
42. Gag at the thought of an unappealing food, such as cooked spinach? .21 .34 .31 .35 .26 .34 .28 .38 0.30 
43. Like to smell nonfood objects and people? .21 .33 .32 .38 .31 .37 .31 .41 0.41 
44. Show distress at smells that other children do not notice? .24 .39 .45 .45 .30 .42 .29 .48 0.41 
45. Seem to ignore or not notice strong odors that other children react to? .21 .37 .29 .38 .31 .35 .25 .40 0.37 
continued on next page... 
66 
Table 25 
SPM Main Classroom Form Item Statistics 
Corrected item-scale correlations' 
Effect 
sizeb Item 	 SOC VIS HEA TOU BOD BAL PIA TOT 
I. Works as part of a team; is helpful with others. .77 .52 .53 .48 .54 .56 .61 .61 0.92 
2. Resolves peer conflicts without teacher intervention. .70 .48 .46 .44 .49 .49 .53 .54 1.04 
3. Handles frustration without outbursts or aggressive behavior. .65 .43 .49 .44 .51 47 49 .54 0.90 
4. Willingly plays with peers in a variety of games and activities. .72 .42 .47 .43 .44 .43 .49 .50 0.80 
5. Enters into play with peers without disrupting ongoing activity. .79 .53 .57 .48 .58 .56 .58 .62 0.95 
6. Has friends and chooses to be with them when possible. .71 .48 .48 .43 .45 .44 .57 .52 0.92 
7. Uses and understands humor when playing with peers. .69 .46 .42 .40 .39 .41 .55 .48 0.87 
8. Maintains appropriate "personal space" (doesn't stand too close to others 
during conversation). .73 .47 .49 .49 .52 .56 .54 .58 0.90 
9. Maintains appropriate eye contact during conversation. .72 .48 .46 .43 .45 .48 .57 .53 0.98 
10. Shifts conversation topics in accordance with peer interests; doesn't stay stuck on one topic. .72 .46 .48 .42 .44 .46 .56 .52 1.02 
11. Squints, covers eyes, or complains about classroom lighting or bright sunlight. .30 .46 .4/ .38 .34 .35 .40 .45 0.49 
12. Shows distress at the sight of moving objects. .26 .45 .35 .42 .30 .32 .32 .42 0.38 
13. Becomes distracted by nearby visual stimuli (pictures, items on walls, 
windows, other children). .53 .65 .56 .46 .55 .58 .61 .64 0.85 
14. During instruction or announcement, student looks around or at peers, rather 
than looking at person speaking or at blackboard. .55 .65 .57 .44 .54 .57 .61 .64 0.89 
15. Spins or flicks objects in front of eyes. .41 .59 .56 .40 .49 .47 .43 .58 0.61 
16. Stares intensely at people or objects. .43 .59 .50 .40 .39 .41 .48 .52 0.73 
17. Shows distress when lights are dimmed for movies and assemblies. .21 .34 .44 .44 .32 .33 .35 .44 0.32 
18. Shows distress at loud sounds (slamming door, electric pencil sharpener, 
PA announcement, fire drill). .36 .44 .43 .45 .29 .32 .45 .44 0.75 
19. Shows distress at the sounds of singing or musical instruments. .35 .42 .47 .48 .32 .31 .39 .46 0.62 
20. Does not respond to voices or new sounds. .34 .47 .46 .36 .39 .40 .47 .49 0.63 
21. Cannot determine location of sounds or voices. .30 .44 .44 .44 .38 .39 .45 .48 0.59 
22. Makes noises,hums, sings, or yells during quiet class time. .52 .53 .58 .46 .63 .59 .49 .65 0.75 
23. Speaks too loudly or makes excessive noise during transitions. .51 .53 .60 .46 .64 .58 .49 .65 0.69 
24. Yells, screams, or makes unusual noises to self. .44 .51 .61 .43 .56 .52 .46 .61 0.78 
25. Shows distress when hands or face are dirty (with glue, finger paints, food, dirt, etc.). .28 .33 .33 .50 .27 .29 .37 .39 0.59 
26. Does not tolerate dirt on hands or clothing, even briefly. .21 .30 .25 .48 .20 .22 .28 .32 0.58 
27. Shows distress when touching certain textures (classroom materials, utensils, 
sports equipment, etc.). .30 .39 .42 .55 .28 .34 .36 .45 0.59 
28. Is distressed by accidental touch of peers (may lash out or withdraw). .47 .40 .50 .54 .39 .40 .42 .51 0.51 
29. Does not respond to another's touch. .24 .31 .39 .35 .27 .28 .34 .37 0.35 
30. Seeks hot or cold temperatures by touching windows, other surfaces. .31 .25 .34 .35 .42 .37 .29 .41 0.28 
31. Touches classmates inappropriately during class and when standing in line. .53 .51 .56 .45 .60 .59 .48 .64 0.58 
32. Does not clean saliva or food from face. .39 .39 .38 .39 .48 .48 .48 .51 0.69 
33. Shows distress at the tastes or odors of different foods. .32 .41 .43 .48 .36 .35 .38 .47 0.62 
34. Does not notice strong or unusual odors (glue, paint, markers, etc.). .07 .18 .18 .21 .11 .17 .21 .21 0.47 
35. Cannot distinguish between odors; does not prefer good smells to bad smells. .16 .25 .26 .29 .25 .25 .25 .31 0.47 
36. Tries to taste or lick objects or people. .30 .33 .41 .36 .47 .41 .37 .46 0.50 
37. Spills contents when opening containers. .49 .51 .49 .52 .56 .59 .57 .63 0.68 
38. Chews or mouths clothing, pencils, crayons, or classroom materials. .45 .47 .46 .44 .52 .57 .48 .58 0.54 
39. Moves chair roughly (shoves chair under desk or pulls out chair with too much force). .49 .49 .59 .47 .69 .66 .49 .68 0.70 
40. Runs, hops, or bounces instead of walking. .47 .50 .53 .44 .69 .65 .50 .66 0.62 
41. Stomps or slaps feet on the ground when walking. .49 .47 .58 .47 .75 .65 .54 .68 0.63 
42. Jumps or stomps on stairs. .43 .45 .54 .43 .71 .61 .43 .64 0.51 
43. Slams doors shut or opens doors with excessive force. .44 .48 .59 .45 .68 .64 .49 .67 0.59 
44. Runs hand along wall when walking. .54 .55 .54 .52 .67 .60 .51 .67 0.47 
45. Wraps legs around chair legs. .33 .37 .40 .34 .55 .55 .34 .53 0.30 
46. Rocks in chair while seated at desk or table. .37 .43 .46 .40 .60 .62 .45 .59 0.59 
47. Fidgets when seated at desk or table. .56 .61 .58 .47 .68 .68 .60 .71 0.89 
48. Falls out of chair when seated at desk or table. .40 .42 .47 .44 .59 .63 .51 .60 0.36 
49. Leans on walls, furniture, or other people for support when standing. .38 .39 .41 .42 .53 .59 .46 .56 0.45 
50. When seated on floor, cannot sit up without support. .27 .35 .39 .34 .40 .47 .39 .46 0.40 
51. Slumps, leans on desk, or holds head up in hands while seated at desk. .42 .42 .44 .39 .48 .56 .54 .54 0.63 
52. Has poor coordination; appears clumsy. .47 .48 .49 .46 .51 .50 .65 .57 0.93 
53. Does not perform consistently in daily tasks; quality of work varies widely. .62 .62 .61 .50 .61 .64 .73 .69 0.91 
54. Is unable to solve problems effectively. .56 .55 .49 .49 .50 .55 .72 .60 0.95 
55. Bobbles or drops items when attempting to carry multiple objects. .48 .53 .52 .51 .57 .61 .66 .64 0.85 
56. Does not perform tasks in proper sequence. .56 .60 .59 .49 .54 .62 .81 .67 0.86 
57. Fails to complete tasks with multiple steps. .59 .62 .57 .46 .53 .59 .80 .65 0.95 
58. Has difficulty correctly imitating demonstrations (movement games, songs with motions). .56 .56 .52 .52 .49 .53 .74 .61 0.98 
59. Has difficulty completing tasks from a presented model. .55 .58 .56 .55 .51 .58 .81 .65 0.92 
60. Demonstrates limited imagination and creativity in play and free time 
(such as being unable to create new games). .48 .37 .39 .45 .36 .42 .61 .47 0.98 
61. Plays repetitively during free time; does not expand or alter activity when given opportunity. .51 .42 .46 .48 .39 .46 .60 .52 0.94 
62. Shows poor organization of materials in, on, or around desk area. .54 .57 .56 .45 .57 .61 .66 .64 0.85 
aItem-scale correlations are from standardization sample, N = 1,051. Values in bold typeface are for each item's assigned scale(s). bEffect size (Cohen's d) = item mean 
rating in clinical sample minus item mean rating in standardization sample, divided by pooled item standard deviation. 
68 
CATEGORY PROBABILITIES: MODES - Structure measures at intersections 
P ++ 	 + 	 + 	 + 	 + 	 + 	 
444 1 ++11 
R 	1 . 0 
O I 
B I 
A 	1111 
B . 8 + 	11 	 444 	+ 
I 	I 	111 	 444 	1 
L I 	11 	 44 	 I 
I 	I 	 11 	 44 	 I 
T 	. 6 + 	 11 	 4 
Y 	I 	 11 	 44 	 I 
.5 	 1 	 44 	 + 
O I 	 1*2222222222 	33333 4 	 I 
F 	.4 	 222 1 	 22*333 	**333 	 + 
I 	 222 	11 	33 22 	4 	333 	 I 
R 	I 	 222 	 11 333 	22 44 	 333 	 I 
E I 	222 	 ** 	 4*2 	 33 	 I 
S .2 + 	222 	 33 11 	44 	22 	 3333 	+ 
P 1 2 2 2 	 333 	11 44 	222 	 3333 1 
O I 	 3333 	 44*11 	 2222 	 I 
N I 	3333333 	444444 	111111 	222222 	 I 
S .0 +********44444444444444 	 11111111111111********+ 
E ++ 	 + 	 + 	 + 	 + 	 + 	 ++ 
-3 	-2 	-1 	 0 	 1 	 2 	 3 
PERSON [MINUS] ITEM MEASURE 
Figure 14 
SPM Home Form: Rating Scale Function in the Standardization Sample 
Table 26 
Correlations Between SPM Home Form 
Scale Scores and Select Sensory Profile Scores 
Home Form scale 
Sensory Profile scale 
Auditory 
Processing 
Visual 
Processing 
Vestibular 
Processing 
Touch 	Multisensory Endurance/ 
Processing 	Processing 	Tone' 
Body 
Position and 
Movement" 
Modulation 
of Visual 
Input` 
Emotional/ 
Social 
Responses 
Behavioral 
Outcomes 
Social Participation (SOC) .40 .26 .34 .41 .48 .17 .25 .44 .12 .36 
Vision (VIS) .46 .49 .43 .50 .51 .34 .38 .49 .23 .38 
Hearing (HEA) .56 .33 .31 .47 .44 .21 .29 .41 .17 .39 
Touch (TOU) .45 .36 .38 .55 .46 .26 .38 .48 .21 .42 
Body Awareness (BOD) .40 .22 .29 .32 .40 .04 .34 .35 .19 .39 
Balance and Motion (BAL) .37 .34 .48 .42 .46 .48 .47 .38 .18 .32 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) .44 .32 .34 .42 .57 .39 .26 .48 .20 .45 
Total Sensory Systems (TOT) .55 .44 .48 .57 .56 .33 .47 .53 .25 .48 
Note. N= 182. All rs .40 are in bold type. All rs .15 are nonsignificant. For .165. r5 .20, pthere are four content-similar scale pairs on 
the SPM Main Classroom Form and the Sensory Profile that 
merit between-form analysis. Table 28 shows this set of 
correlations. Each correlation between content-similar 
scales is statistically significant, though, as expected, the 
values of r are smaller in magnitude (and thus in effect size) 
than for the content-similar pairs involving the SPM Home 
Form scales (see Table 26). 
As described previously, the items on the SPM sensory 
systems scales are written to represent various sensory 
integration vulnerabilities. Although these item classifications 
are not used to form psychometric scales on the SPM, item 
ratings can nevertheless be summed and treated as scores in 
validity studies. Because the Sensory Profile has scales 
representing under-responsiveness and sensory seeking, a 
study was conducted to examine these scales' relationships to 
the summed ratings for the SPM Home Form items that 
reflect similar sensory integration vulnerabilities. For the 
Short Sensory Profile Underresponsive/Seeks Sensation raw 
score, the correlation coefficients were .58 (n = 47, pchild has clinically significant problems 
with sensory processing or integration. 
Detection of differential functioning between home 
and school environments. The Environment Difference 
(DIF) score was developed to quantify differences in the TOT 
score between the Home and Main Classroom Forms. The 
DIF score is calculated by subtracting the Main Classroom 
TOT T-score from the Home TOT T-score. Because each T-
score is normalized, the DIF score distribution is also 
approximately normal (mean = .04, SD = 9.50). 
Table 31 shows the score frequencies for the 
interpretive ranges of DIF, in both standardization and clinical 
samples. The No Difference range (-9 to +9, or 
approximately ±1 SD) represents differences between the two 
TOT scores that are within the normal range of variability. 
The Probable Difference (-10 to —14 or 10 to 14, or 
approximately ±1 to ±1.5 SD) and the Definite Difference 
range N-15 or 15, or approximately ±1.5 SD and greater) 
represent two levels of certainty about the difference between 
the TOT scores. The interpretive ranges were set to 
approximate conventional cutoffs for interpreting T-scores as 
normal, mildly atypical, and moderately to extremely 
atypical. The DIF score valence is relevant only for the 
Probable and Definite Difference ranges, with a positive score 
indicating that the child demonstrates more problems at home 
than at school and a negative score indicating the reverse. 
Of note is the near-equivalence between the DIF score 
Table 30 
Conditional Probability Analysis for Detection 
of Sensory Processing/Integration Disorders 
T-score 
cutoff points 
Home TOT scale Main Classroom TOT scale 
Sensitivity Specificity Sensitivity Specificity 
55 .94 .70 .84 .72 
60 .85 .85 .53 .85 
65 .46 .94 .34 .94 
70 .18 .98 .16 .98 
75 .06 .99 .01 .99 
Note. Sample analyzed included 33 children with sensory integration/processing disorders and 1,051 typically developing children. 
Table 31 
Frequencies of Environment Difference (DIF) Scores 
in the SPM Standardization and Clinical Samples 
DIF score range 
Standardizationa Clinicalb 
Sample % n Sample % 
.-15 (Definite Difference) 46 4.4 14 4.3 
-10 to -14 (Probable Difference) 75 7.3 36 11.1 
-9 to 9 (No Difference) 765 74.0 226 69.5 
10 to 14 (Probable Difference) 83 8.0 26 8.0 
15 (Definite Difference) 65 6.3 23 7.1 
Note. Sample size discrepancies are due to missing data. 
= 1,034. bri = 325. 
74 
Chapter 5 Psychometric Properties 
	 69 
span" would receive a low Rasch score because it represents 
a common behavior pattern in normal and clinical children, 
and it is not difficult for raters to indicate that it occurs 
frequently. In contrast, an item such as "child attempts to eat 
bricks and other stone fixtures" would receive a high Rasch 
score because it is a rare behavior that signals a serious 
problem, and thus raters in general have difficulty indicating 
that it occurs frequently. 
The two sets of Rasch scores, for the children and the 
SPM items, are expressed by means of a common numerical 
metric called a logit scale. This is a true equal-interval scale 
with a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. The use of a 
common logit scale facilitates an understanding of item 
function, with respect to specific levels of child pathology, 
that is not possible with conventional analytic methods. 
Among other things, the Rasch method illuminates 
how the categories of the SPM item rating scale operate 
together to measure varying amounts of sensory processing 
dysfunction. Figure 14 shows the category probability curve 
for the SPM item rating scale. This graph was generated by 
the WINSTEPS Rasch measurement computer program 
(Linacre, 2005). Figure 14 is based on the SPM Home Form 
data in the standardization sample, but the graphs are 
virtually identical in the clinical sample and for the Main 
Classroom Form data from both samples. 
The y-axis of the graph represents the probability that 
a rater will choose one of the four rating scale categories. 
The probability for any given category is shown in a curve 
composed of the numerals for that category. The x-axis 
represents, for any given situation in which a particular child 
is being rated on a particular item, the numerical difference 
between the Rasch scores of that child and that item. The x-
axis is analogous to a measure of overall sensory processing 
dysfunction in the child, with dysfunction increasing from 
left to right. The graph as a whole reflects central tendency, 
meaning that it essentially averages rating scale function 
across all items on the Home Form. 
A rating scale functions well when each category is 
the most probable response for a distinct portion of the 
underlying pathology variable. The categories should also 
be ordered in logical sequence with respect to the latent 
variable. Ideally, the category probability curve should 
appear as a series of small hills, each with a distinct peak 
(Bond & Fox, 2001). 
Visual inspection of Figure 14 reveals that the SPM 
item rating scale meets these criteria for validity. Each of the 
categories (Never, Occasionally, Frequently, Always) is the 
most probable response for a distinct level of underlying 
sensory processing dysfunction. Therefore, none of the 
categories are redundant, and each offers the respondent a 
useful choice with respect to the particular problems of the 
child being rated. In addition, the category sequence of 
increasing behavioral frequency is properly aligned with the 
continuum of increasing sensory pathology. 
Convergent validity. The method of convergent 
validation is often used to investigate construct validity. This 
method examines a scale's relationship to existing measures 
of similar constructs. Strong correlations with such 
convergent measures are seen as supporting the construct 
validity of the scale under study. 
For the present purposes, the chief convergent 
measure of interest is the Sensory Profile (Dunn, 1999). The 
Sensory Profile is a 125-item, caregiver-rated inventory of 
children's sensory processing abilities. The Sensory Profile 
yields 23 interpretable scores, some of which are directly 
analogous to the SPM scale scores. Because its items refer 
mostly to the home environment, the Sensory Profile is most 
relevant as a convergent measure to the SPM Home Form. 
Table 26 presents correlations between the SPM Home 
Form scale scores and select Sensory Profile scores. The 
sample consisted of 182 children (137 boys, 45 girls) from the 
SPM clinical sample. The age range was 5 to 13 years. Table 
26 includes the 10 Sensory Profile scores judged most similar 
to the SPM scales, based on item content. 
The table provides evidence of convergent validity. 
Reading down the four left columns, the Sensory Profile 
Auditory, Visual, Vestibular, and Touch Processing scores all 
correlate more strongly with their content-similar SPM 
sensory system than with any of the other SPM sensory 
systems scales. The SPM BOD scale correlates at .34 with the 
Sensory Profile Body Position and Movement scale, which is 
statistically significant and represents a medium-size effect. 
The Sensory Profile does not have praxis or social 
participation scales, but the SPM scales representing these 
constructs both correlate significantly (medium effect size) 
with the Sensory Profile Behavioral Outcomes scale. This is 
expected, because praxis and social participation reflect 
higher level integrative faculties that have a direct bearing on 
adaptive behavioral functioning. Curiously, though, the SPM 
SOC scale did not correlate significantly with a seemingly 
similar scale on the Sensory Profile (Emotional/Social 
Responses). This may be due to the latter scale's inclusion of 
items relating to negative emotional states (e.g., crying, 
tantrums), content that is not present in the SPM SOC scale. 
The Short Sensory Profile (as described in Dunn, 
1999) is an abbreviated version of the longer measure, 
consistingof 38 items and modified scales. Table 27 
displays correlations between the SPM Home Form scale 
scores and the Short Sensory Profile scores. The sample 
consisted of 47 children, aged 5 to 12 years, from the SPM 
clinical sample. There were 38 boys and 9 girls. 
In general, the correlations between the two measures 
are strongest where there is content similarity between the 
scales in question (e.g., SPM TOU and Short Sensory Profile 
Tactile Sensitivity; SPM HEA and Short Sensory Profile 
Auditory Filtering). The Short Sensory Profile Total score 
correlates strongly with all of the SPM scales, with all 
correlations representing large effect sizes. Table 27 also 
yields evidence of divergent validity, or the lack of 
relationship between measures of different constructs. The 
Short Sensory Profile Taste/Smell Sensitivity scale does not 
correlate significantly with any of the SPM sensory systems 
scales, which is to be expected because the latter scales lack 
item content related to olfactory and gustatory functioning. 
Chapter 5 Psychometric Properties 
	 73 
distributions in the standardization and clinical samples. 
There is no theoretical reason to expect the two distributions 
to differ, and thus their similarity tends to support the 
validity of the DIF score. 
Summary 
This chapter has reported on an initial psychometric 
database for the SPM. The SPM scales perform well on two 
key indexes of reliability: internal consistency and temporal 
stability. Analysis of scale structure and intercorrelations 
supports the scoring of separate sensory systems, praxis, and 
social participation scales on the Home and Main Classroom 
Forms. The SPM Home scales correlate in expected ways 
with another home-based measure of sensory function, the 
Sensory Profile. The SPM Main Classroom and School 
Environments scales are strongly related to each other, 
demonstrating consistency of measurement across school 
environments with many shared features. Finally, the SPM 
scales distinguish between typically developing and clinic-
referred children, with robust and clinically meaningful 
effect sizes. 
The authors of the SPM hope that its publication will 
stimulate additional research. Projects that will build 
constructively on the current database include the following: 
• Cross-validation of the SPM factor structure across 
diverse clinical samples, using confirmatory factor 
analysis 
• Concurrent validity studies employing the SPM 
Main Classroom Form and the Sensory Profile 
School Companion (Dunn, 2006) 
• Studies of the relationship between the SPM 
scales and direct performance assessments of 
children's sensorimotor function (e.g., Sensory 
Integration and Praxis Tests [SIPT; Ayres, 19891, 
Peabody Developmental Motor Scales, Second 
Edition [PDMS-2; Folio & Fewell, 2000]) 
• Treatment outcome studies using the SPM as the 
measure of change following sensory integration-
based occupational therapy and/or school-based 
sensory and environmental strategies 
• Development of sensory processing items for use 
with preschool children and older adolescents 
Table 29 
SPM Raw Scale Scores: Descriptive Statistics and Effect Sizes by Clinical Disorder 
Sensory processine Autism spectrumb 	ADHIY 
Mental 
retardation/ 
developmental 
delay' 
 
Scale Mean SD ESe Mean SD ES Mean SD ES Mean SD ES 
Home Form 
Social Participation (SOC) 22.5 5.0 1.05 25.8 6.1 1.61 20.9 5.7 0.78 23.8 5.3 1.27 
Vision (VIS) 17.4 4.9 1.00 19.2 5.6 1.43 16.2 4.0 0.73 17.5 4.6 1.03 
Hearing (HEA) 15.3 5.8 1.42 15.7 4.9 1.53 12.2 3.7 0.62 14.1 4.8 1.12 
Touch (TOU) 20.7 5.9 1.49 20.3 5.7 1.39 17.2 4.6 0.73 17.8 4.7 0.85 
Body Awareness (BOD) 19.7 5.0 1.43 18.2 5.3 1.12 18.5 5.7 1.19 17.5 4.9 0.98 
Balance and Motion (BAL) 19.9 4.8 1.43 19.1 4.9 1.24 17.3 4.4 0.83 17.4 4.9 0.85 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) 20.0 6.0 1.23 22.0 5.5 1.58 19.1 5.4 1.08 21.5 4.9 1.50 
Total Sensory Systems (TOT) 100.4 22.6 1.55 100.1 22.7 1.53 88.3 18.4 0.94 90.9 20.1 1.07 
Main Classroom Form 
Social Participation (SOC) 23.6 7.3 0.92 29.1 6.3 1.68 23.5 6.1 0.90 26.5 6.0 1.32 
Vision (VIS) 11.4 2.7 0.76 13.0 3.4 1.29 12.1 2.9 0.97 12.9 2.8 1.25 
Hearing (HEA) 10.9 3.2 0.79 13.2 3.8 1.53 11.1 3.4 0.85 12.0 3.4 1.14 
Touch (TOU) 12.5 3.5 1.27 12.7 3.5 1.32 10.4 2.4 0.42 12.1 3.3 1.06 
Body Awareness (BOD) 12.6 4.6 1.02 12.3 4.2 0.94 12.3 4.3 0.93 12.5 3.6 1.00 
Balance and Motion (BAL) 16.8 5.0 1.11 15.9 4.6 0.92 16.6 4.6 1.07 15.9 4.6 0.92 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) 19.9 7.1 0.89 23.4 6.4 1.43 20.9 6.2 1.04 24.3 6.1 1.56 
Total Sensory Systems (TOT) 69.6 15.8 1.15 73.5 15.9 1.41 67.3 15.4 0.99 70.7 14.5 1.22 
an = 33. bri = 107. Cr i= 62. dri = 43. 'ES = 
by pooled standard deviation. 
effect size (Cohen's d) = scale mean in clinical sample minus scale mean in standardization sample, divided 
APPENDIX A 
How TO CITE THE SPM 
IN RESEARCH MANUSCRIPTS 
The Sensory Processing Measure (SPM) consists of 
four components that can be cited in research manuscripts: 
the Manual, the Home Form, the Main Classroom Form, and 
the School Environments Form. The SPM Manual is a 
collaborative product of all five SPM authors. The three 
SPM forms, on the other hand, represent the prior separate 
work of two distinct author groups. The SPM Home Form 
was developed by Diane Parham and Cheryl Ecker. The 
SPM Main Classroom and School Environments Forms 
were developed by Heather Miller Kuhaneck, Diana A. 
Henry, and Tara J. Glennon. 
The citation style described in this appendix is based 
on the Publication Manual of the American Psychological 
Association, Fifth Edition (American Psychological 
Association, 2001). 
Citing the SPM in the Manuscript Body 
The proper way to cite the SPM in the body of your 
manuscript depends on which components you used in your 
study. If your study included both the Home and the Main 
Classroom Forms (with or without the School Environments 
Form), it is sufficient to cite the SPM Manual. The first 
instance of this citation would appear as follows: Sensory 
Processing Measure (SPM; Parham, Ecker, Miller Kuhaneck, 
Henry, & Glennon, 2007). Subsequent instances would be 
abbreviated to "Parham et al., 2007." The reference list would 
include the citation for the SPM Manual. 
If your study used only the Home Form or only the 
Main Classroom Form (with or without the School 
Environments Form), please cite the appropriate form(s), in 
addition to the SPM Manual, to ensure that the authors of 
the forms receive credit for their work. 
Here is an example of the first instance of a text 
citation for a study that used only the Main Classroom 
Form: Sensory Processing Measure (SPM) Main Classroom 
Form (Miller Kuhaneck, Henry, & Glennon, 2007; Parham, 
Ecker, Miller Kuhaneck, Henry, & Glennon, 2007). 
Subsequent instances would be abbreviated to "Miller 
Kuhaneck et al., 2007; Parham et al., 2007." The reference 
list would include the citations for both the Main Classroom 
Form and the Manual. 
Citing the SPM in the Reference List 
Here are the reference list citations for the four SPM 
components: 
Miller Kuhaneck, H., Henry, D. A., & Glennon, T. J. (2007). 
Sensory Processing Measure (SPM) Main Classroom Form. 
Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. 
Miller Kuhaneck, H., Henry, D. A., & Glennon, T. J. (2007). 
Sensory Processing Measure (SPM) School Environments 
Form. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. 
Parham, L. D., & Ecker, C. (2007). Sensory Processing Measure 
(SPM) Home Form. Los Angeles: Western Psychological 
Services. 
Parham, L. D., Ecker, C., Miller Kuhaneck, H., Henry, D. A., & 
Glennon, T. J. (2007). Sensory Processing Measure (SPM): 
Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. 
75 
Table B2 
Main Classroom Form Conversion Table 
% ile T SOC VIS HEA TOU BOD BAL PLA TOT T % ile 
80 39-40 26-28 24-28 25-32 25-28 34-36 40 130-168 80 
79 25 23-24 23-24 33 39 119-129 79 
78 38 24 /2—/3 21-22 31-32 38 117-118 78 
77 37 22-23 21 22 115-116 77 
76 36 10-21 19-2010.
N.........0.........F.^.......4....".".. 11.
N.........0.........F.........A......... 12.
N.........0.........F "........4.....-... 13.
N.........0.........F.........4......... 14.
N.........0.........F.........4......... 15.
N.........0.........F.........4......... 16.
N.........0.........F...-..-.-4......... 17.
N...".....CI.........F.........4......... 18,
N.........0.........F.........4......... 19.
N.........0.........F.........A......... 20.
N.........0.........F.........4......... 21.
N.......".0 "".......F .........4......... 22.
N.........0.........F.........A......... 23.
N........-0 .. ......F .........A ......... 24.
cont¡nue on baek page-..
Additional coô¡es 0f this form (W-4668) may be purchased from WPS. Please contact us at 800-648-8857, Fax 310-478-7838, or www.wpspubl¡sh.com.
23456789
Main
Classroom
w-4668 Copyright O 2007 by WESTERN PSYCH0L0cICAL SERVICES. Not t0 be reproduced in whole or ¡n part w¡thout written perm¡ss¡on. All rights reserved. Printed ¡n U.S.A.
PLEASE PRESS HARD WHEN CIRCLING YOUR RESPONSES.
*"-"' "*$"-ìì.""þ
........4 ......... 25.
........4 ......... 26.
........4......... 27.
..-.....4 ......... 28.
........4 ......... 29.
........4 ......... 30.
........4 ......... 3't.
........4 ......... 32.
N.........0.........F.........A.......-. 33
N.........0 .........F .........4 ......... 34
N .........0 .........t .........A ......... 35
N.........0.........F.........A......... 36
N.........0 .........F .........A ......... 37 .
N.........0.........F .........4 ......... 38.
N .........0 .........F .........A ......... 3S.
N .........0 .........F .........4 .....,... 40.
N .........0 .........F .........A ......... 41.
N .........0 .........F --.......A ......... 42.
N.........0.........F ........-4......... 43.
N ..-......0 .........F .........4 ......... 44.
N.........0.........F.,.......A......... 45.
N.........0 .........F .........A ......... 46.
N .........0 .........F .........4 ......... 47 .
N.........0.........F.........4......... 48.
N.........0.........F.........4 ......... 49.
N .........0 .........F .........A ......... 50.
N.........0.........F.........A......... 5r.
N.........0.....-...F .........A......... 52.
N........,0 .........F
N..-......0 .........F.
N.........0 .......,.F
N.........0......,..F
N.........0 .........F
N.........0 .........F
N.........0 .........F
N.........0 .........F
T0UCH This student...
Shows distress when hands orface are dirty (with glue. f¡nger paints, food, d¡rt, etc.).
Does not tolerate dirt on hands or clothing, even briefly.
Shows distress when touching certain tÊxtures (classroom materials, utens¡ls, sports equipmeût, elc.).
ls disiressed by accidental touch of peers (may lash out or withdraw).
Does not respond to another's tOuch.
Seeks hot 0r cold temperatures by touching w¡ndows, other surfaces.
Touches classmates inappropriately during class and when standing in line.
Does not clean saliva or food from face.
ïASTE AND SMELL This student...
Shows distress at the tastes or odors of different foods.
Does not notice strong or unusual odors (glue, paint, markers, etc.).
Cannol distinguish between odors; does not prefer good smells to bad smells.
Tr¡es t0 taste or lick objects or people.
B0DY AWABENESS Th¡s student...
Spills contents when opening c0ntainers.
Chews or mouths clothing, pencils, crayons, or classroom materials.
Moves chair roughly (shoves chair under desk or pulls out chair with too much force).
Runs, hops, or bounces instead of walking.
Stomps or slaps feet on the ground when walking.
Jumps or stomps on stairs.
Slams doors shut or opens doors with excessive force.
BALANCE AND MOTION Th¡s student...
Runs hand along wall when walking.
Wraps legs around chair legs.
Rocks in chair while seated at desk or table.
Fidgets when seated at desk or table.
Falls out of chair when seated at desk or table.
Leans on walls. furniture, o¡ other people for support when standing.
When seated on floor, cannot sit up without supporl.
Slumps. Ieôns 0n desk, or holds head up in hands while seated at desk.
Has poor coordination; appears clumsy.
PLANNING AND IDEAS Th¡s s|udenT...
Ooes nol perform consistently in daily lasks; quality of work varies widely.
Is unable t0 solve problems effectively.
Bobbles or drops ilems when aitempting l0 carry multiple obiects.
Does not perform tasks in proper sequence.
Fails to complete tasks wìth multiple steps.
Has difficulty correctiy imitat¡ng dem0nsiraiions (movement games, songs with motions).
Has difÍicully c0mplel¡ng lasks from a presenled model.
Demonstrates l¡mited imag¡nation and creativity in play and free time (such as being unable t0 create new games).
Plays repetitively during free time: does not expand or aller activ¡ty when given opportun¡ty.
Shows poor organization of materials in, on, or around desk area.
.......4.....-... 53.
.......4......... 54,
.......4 ......... 55.
.......A ......... 56.
.......4 ......... 57.
.......4 ......... 58.
.......4......... 59.
.......4......... 60.
.......4......... 61.
.......4 ....... . 62.
N.........0 .........F
N.........0 .........F
N.........0 .........F
N.........0 .........F
N.........0 .........F
N.-.......0 .........F
N.........0 .........F
N.........0.........F
N.........0 .........F
N.........0 .........F
Scoring lnstructions
1. Circle the score value in bold typeface for any missing responses.
(NoÏe: lf eight or rnore resp0nses are missing, do not proceed
with scoring.)
2. Calculate the raw score for each scale (except T0T) by summing
the circled scores for the scale's items and entering the sum in the
labeled box to the right or left of the items. A bracket indicates the
item scores that should be summed for each scale' Be sure t0
also sum the scores for ltems 33 to 36, which are included in the
T0T raw score.
3. Calculate the T0T raw score by summing the raw scores of the
VlS, HEA, TOU, B0D, and BAL scales, plus the score from ltems
33 to 36. These score boxes are bracketed on the Scoring
Worksheet. Enter the T0T raw score in the labeled box.
4. Transfer the scale raw scores to the corresponding spaces on the
lower half of the Main Classroom Form Profile Sheet- (The score
from ltems 33 to 36 is nof transferred to the Profile Sheet.)
5. 0n the Profile Sheet, circle the raw score value for each scale in
the column labeled with each scale's acronym. Connect the circled
values for a visual representation of SPM results.
6. Read from each circled raw score across its row to the left or
right margin to obtain the I-score and percentile rank. The SPM
interpretive ranges are marked by shading: Typical (no shading),
Some Problems (light shading), and Definite Dysfunction (darker
shading).
7. Enter the I-score for each scale in the corresponding space below
the scale's raw score. Below these spaces, check the appropriate
interpretive range box for each I-score.
8. lf the School Environments Form was administered and scored,
transfer each School Environments raw score to its corresponding
space near the bottom of the Main Classroom Form Profile Sheet.
9. lnspect the cutoff values for the School Environments scores.
Enter a check mark in the appropriate box for any score ihai is
greater than or equal to the cutoff value.
n Profile Sheet
Heather M¡ller Kuhaneck, M.S., 0ïR/1,
D¡ana A. Henry, M.S., 0TR/1,
and Tara J. Glennon. Ed.D.. 0TR/1. FAoÏA
wps'ti";:L;#:;:l:¿i"wi!
Publ¡shed by
WESTERN PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES
Gender: EM nF
TOT Í %ile
TOT T %ile
{ Raw Score
{ I-Score
Sensory
Name (or lD#)
Date this form completed:
Reason for assessment:
%ile T
o/oile T
Raw Score Þ
I-Sco¡e Þ
lnterpretive Range
Typ¡cal
(40r-59r)
Êome P¡oblems
(60r-69r)
essing Meosure
School:
vrs HEA
vts HEA
n tr
û
Age: _-- Grade:
69n
68 96
67
66 95
6s 93
64 92.
63 90
62 88
61 86
60 84
59 82
58 79
57 76
56 73
55 69
54 66
53 62
52 58
51 54
50 50
49 46
48 42
47 38
46 3420 30 37 109-114 76 
75 19 18 19 21 28-29 36 108 75 
>99 74 35 17 27 34-35 99-107 74 >99 
99 73 34 18 18 26 32-33 96-98 73 99 
72 33 17 16 17 20 24-25 30-31 94-95 72 
98 71 23 /9 88-93 71 98 
70 32 16 16 19 22 28 87 70 
97 69 31 15 18 21 84-86 69 97 
96 68 30 15 17 27 82-83 68 96 
67 15 14 14 16 20 26 80-81 67 
95 66 29 15 19 25 78-79 66 95 
93 65 28 14 13 13 14 74-77 65 93 
9-) 64 27 13 18 24 71-73 64 9/ 
90 63 26 12 12 13 17 23 69-70 63 90 
88 62 25 12 21-22 67-68 62 88 
86 61 24 11 11 12 16 /0 64-66 61 86 
84 60 23 15 19 62-63 60 84 
82 59 77 11 10 11 18 60-61 59 8/ 
79 58 10 14 17 58-59 58 79 
76 57 71 10 10 16 56-57 57 76 
73 56 20 9 13 55 56 73 
69 55 15 53-54 55 69 
66 54 19 9 14 52 54 66 
6/ 53 18 9 9 12 51 53 62 
58 5/ 17 8 13 50 5/ 58 
54 51 8 11 49 51 54 
50 50 16 12 48 50 50 
46 49 15 47 49 46 
42 48 8 48 42 
38 47 14 10 11 46 47 38 
34 46 46 34 
31 45 13 45 45 31 
/7 44 P 8 44 /7 
/4 43 7 44 43 24 
/1 4/ 7 42 /1 
18 41 11 41 18 
16 40 10 7 9 10 42-43 40 16 
78 
APPENDIX B 
SPM RAW SCORE TO STANDARD SCORE 
CONVERSION TABLES 
To use these tables, find the raw score for a particular SPM scale by looking in the column headed by that scale's 
acronym. Then read over in that row to the far left or right column to find the T-score and percentile rank associated with that 
raw score. The SPM interpretive ranges are marked by shading: Typical (no shading), Some Problems (light shading), and 
Definite Dysfunction (darker shading). 
Table B1 
Home Form Conversion Table 
% ile T 	SOC NIS HEA TOU BOD BAL PLA TOT T %Be 
80 37-40 35-44 29-32 37-44 36-40 35-44 33-36 170-224 80 
79 35-36 33-34 27-28 36 34-35 34 31-32 164-169 79 
78 34 32 26 34-35 33 33 154-163 78 
77 31 25 33 32 31-32 30 142-153 77 
76 33 30 24 31 29-30 140-141 76 
75 3/ 28-29 23 32 30 27-28 29 137-139 75 
>99 74 27 11 30-31 29 26 28 133-136 74 >99 
99 73 31 28-29 28 27 131-132 73 99 
7/ 26 /1 27 27 25 26 129-130 72 
98 71 30 25 20 26 /6 /4 122-128 71 98 
70 29 24 19 25 25 119-121 70 
97 69 28 23 18 25 24 23 24 110-118 69 97 
96 68 21-22 17 23-24 23 22 106-109 68 96 
67 27 20 16 22 22 23 103-105 67 
95 66 26 15 21 21 21 22 99-102 66 95 
93 65 25 19 20 20 20 21 94-98 65 93 
92 64 24 18 14 19 19 19 20 92-93 64 92 
90 63 23 17 13 18 18 18 19 88-91 63 90 
88 62 22 12 84-87 6/ 88 
86 61 16 17 17 17 18 81-83 61 86 
84 60 21 16 17 79-80 60 84 
8/ 59 15 11 16 15 16 77-78 59 82 
79 58 20 16 75-76 58 79 
76 57 14 15 14 15 15 73-74 57 76 
73 56 19 10 71-72 56 73 
69 55 18 14 13 14 70 55 69 
66 54 13 14 69 54 66 
62 53 17 13 67-68 53 62 
58 52 9 13 12 66 52 58 
54 51 16 13 12 65 51 54 
50 50 12 64 50 50 
46 49 15 49 46 
42 48 11 11 63 48 42 
.38 47 14 12 12 62 47 38 
34 46 61 46 34 
31 45 13 10 45 31 
27 44 60 44 27 
24 43 12 8 43 24 
21 42 59 42 21 
18 41 11 41 18 
'16 40 10-11 11 10 11 9 56-58 40 16 
77 
REFERENCES 
American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication 
manual of the American Psychological Association. 
Washington, DC: Author. 
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2002). 
Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and 
process. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56, 
609-639. 
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: 
Macmillan. 
Ayres, A. J. (1972). Sensory integration and learning 
disorders. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. 
Ayres, A. J. (1979). Sensory integration and the child. Los 
Angeles: Western Psychological Services. 
Ayres, A. J. (1989). Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests 
(SIPT). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. 
Ayres, A. J. (2005). Sensory integration and the child, 25th 
anniversary edition. Los Angeles: Western Psychological 
Services. 
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: 
Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, 
NJ: Erlbaum. 
Cermak, S. (2001). The effects of deprivation on sensory 
processing, play, and praxis-. In S. Smith Roley, E. I. 
Blanche, & R. C. Schaaf (Eds.), Understanding the nature 
of sensory integration in diverse populations (pp. 385-408). 
San Antonio, TX: Therapy Skill Builders. 
Chang, C. C. (1999). Interrater reliability of the Evaluation of 
Sensory Processing (ESP). Unpublished master's thesis, 
University of Southern California, Los Angeles. 
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 
155-159. 
Coster, W. (1998). Occupation-centered assessment in children. 
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52,337-343. 
Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Internal consistency of tests: Analyses 
old and new. Psychometricka, 53, 63-70. 
Dunn, W. (1999). Sensory Profile. San Antonio, TX: 
Psychological Corporation. 
Dunn, W. (2001). The sensations of everyday life: Empirical, 
theoretical, and pragmatic considerations. American Journal 
of Occupational Therapy, 55, 608-620. 
Dunn, W. (2006). Sensory Profile School Companion. San 
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. 
Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. 
No. 94-142, § 20 U.S.0 1400. 
Fidler, D. J., Hepburn, S. L., Mankin, G., & Rogers, S. J. 
(2005). Praxis skills in young children with Down 
syndrome, other developmental disabilities, and typically 
developing children. American Journal of Occupational 
Therapy, 59, 129-138. 
Folio, M. R., & Fewell, R. R. (2000). Peabody Developmental 
Motor Scales, Second Edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. 
Gilbert, E. S. (1997). Sensory deprivation manifested in the 
domain of touch in post-institutionalized children from 
Romania. Unpublished master's thesis, Boston University, 
Boston. 
Glennon, T. J., Henry, D. A., & Miller Kuhaneck, H. (2003, 
June). The School Assessment of Sensory Integration 
(SASI): A practice framework assessment tool. Paper 
presented at the annual meeting of the American 
Occupational Therapy Association, Washington, DC. 
Glennon, T. J., Henry, D. A., & Miller Kuhaneck, H. (2004, 
May). The School Assessment of Sensory Integration (SASI): 
Fostering best practice in school based therapy. Paper 
presented at the annual meeting of the American 
Occupational Therapy Association, Minneapolis, MN. 
Glennon, T. J., Henry, D. A., & Miller Kuhaneck, H. (2005, 
May). School Assessment of Sensory Integration: 
Applications for school and clinic therapists. Paper 
presented at the annual meeting of the American 
Occupational Therapy Association, Long Beach, CA. 
Henry, D. A. (2000). Tool chest: For teachers, parents and 
therapists. Youngtown, AZ: Henry OT Services. 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, Pub. L. 
No. 101-476, § 20 U.S.C. 1400. 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, Pub. L. 
No. 105-17, § 20 U.S.C. 1400. 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, Pub. L. 
No. 108-448, § 20 U.S.C. 1400. 
Interdisciplinary Council on Developmental and Learning 
Disorders. (2005). Diagnostic manual for infancy and early 
childhood (ICDL-DMIC). Bethesda, MD: Author. 
79 
80 	 References 
Johnson-Ecker, C. L., & Parham, L. D. (2000). The Evaluation 
of Sensory Processing: A validity study using contrasting 
groups. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54, 
494-503. 
LaCroix, J. E. (1993). A study of content validity using the 
Sensory History Questionnaire. Unpublished master's 
thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. 
Lai, J.-S., Parham, L. D., & Ecker. C. (1999). Sensory 
dormancy and sensory defensiveness: Two sides of the same 
coin? Sensory Integration Special Interest Section 
Quarterly, 22, 1-4. 
Leipprandt, J. A. (1997). Sensory processing in post-
institutionalized children from Romania: An analysis of the 
movement scale. Unpublished master's thesis, Boston 
University, Boston. 
Lin, S. H., Cermak, S., Coster, W. J., & Miller, L. (2005). The 
relation between length of institutionalization and sensory 
integration in children adopted from Eastern Europe. 
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 59, 139-147. 
Linacre, J. M. (2005). WINSTEPS Rasch measurement 
computer program. Chicago: Winsteps.com. 
McIntosh, D. N., Miller, L. J.,Shyu, V., & Hagerman, R. 
(1999). Sensory-modulation disruption, electrodermal 
responses, and functional behaviors. Developmental 
Medicine and Child Neurology, 41, 608-615. 
Miller Kuhaneck, H., Henry, D. A., Glennon, T. J., & Mu, K. 
(in press). Development of the Sensory Processing 
Measure-School Form: Initial studies of reliability and 
validity. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 
Miller, L. J. (2006). Sensational kids: Hope and help for 
children with sensory processing disorder (SPD). New 
York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. 
Miller, L. J., & Kinnealey, M. (1993). Researching the 
effectiveness of sensory integration. Sensory Integration 
Quarterly, 2/(2), Torrance, CA: Sensory Integration 
International. 
Miller, L. J., & Lane, S. J. (2000). Toward a consensus in 
terminology in sensory integration theory and practice: Part 
1: Taxonomy of neurophysiological processes. Sensory 
Integration Special Interest Section Quarterly, 23(1), 1-4. 
Miller, L. J., McIntosh, D. N., McGrath, J., Shyu, V., Lampe, 
M., Taylor, A. K., et al. (1999). Electrodermal responses to 
sensory stimuli in individuals with fragile X syndrome: A 
preliminary report. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 
83(4), 268-279. 
Miller, L. J., & Summers, C. (2001). Clinical applications in 
sensory modulation dysfunction: Assessment and 
intervention considerations. In S. S. Roley, E. I. Blanche, & 
R. C. Schaaf (Eds.), Understanding the nature of sensory 
integration with diverse populations (pp. 247-274). San 
Antonio, TX: Therapy Skill Builders. 
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No, 107-110, § 115 
Stat. 1426. 
Parham, L. D., Cohn, E. S., Koomar, J., Spitzer, S., Miller, L., 
Burke, J. P., et al. (in press). Fidelity in sensory integration 
intervention research. American Journal of Occupational 
Therapy. 
Parham, L. D., & Ecker, C. (2002). Evaluation of sensory 
processing: Research version 4. In A. C. Bundy, S. J. Lane, 
& E. A. Murray (Eds.), Sensory integration: Theory and 
practice (2nd ed., pp. 194-196). Philadelphia: F.A. Davis. 
Parham, L. D., & Mailloux, Z. (2005). Sensory integration. In 
J. Case-Smith, A. Allen, & P. N. Pratt (Eds.), Occupational 
therapy for children (5th ed., pp. 356-411). St. Louis, MO: 
Mosby. 
Schaaf, R. C., Miller, L. J., Sewell, D., & O'Keefe, S. (2003). 
Children with disturbances in sensory processing: A pilot 
study examining the role of the parasympathetic nervous 
system. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57, 
442-449. 
Smith Roley, S. S. (2005). Commentary on chapter 8: Visual 
perception and auditory language disorders. In A. J. Ayres, 
Sensory integration and the child, 25th anniversary edition 
(p. 179). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. 
Su, C.-T. (2002). The relationship among five sensory systems 
in children with sensory integration problems as measured 
by the Evaluation of Sensory Processing (ESP). 
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern 
California, Los Angeles. 
Su, C.-T., & Parham, L. D. (in press). An investigation of 
Ayres's sensory integration theory-Part 1: Validity of 
sensory systems as distinct constructs. American Journal of 
Occupational Therapy. 
Vermaas Lee, J. R. (1999). Parent ratings of children with 
autism on the Evaluation of Sensory Processing (ESP). 
Unpublished master's thesis, University of Southern 
California, Los Angeles. 
U.S. Census Bureau. (2001a). Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 
I). [Data file]. Retrieved from 
http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html 
U.S. Census Bureau. (2001b). Census 2000 Summary File 3 
(SF 3). [Data file]. Retrieved from 
http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html 
World Health Organization. (2001). ICF: International 
classification of functioning, disability, and health. Geneva, 
Switzerland: Author. 
Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design. 
Chicago: Mesa Press. 
	
Z\S 	School Environments Form 
o o, 
	
Sensory 	Processing Measure 
Ph sisal Education Class (PHY) Rating Sheet 
Heather Miller Kuhaneck, M.S., OTR/L, FAOTA, Diana A. Henry, M.S., QTR/L, FAOTA. 
and Tara J. Glennon, Ed.D., OTR/L, FAOTA 
Student's Name/IDt Grade: 
 
Rater's Name: 	 Date: 
 
 
 
Directions 
Please answer the questions on this form based on this student's typical behavior in physical education class during the past month. 
Circle the one answer that best describes how often the behavior happens. Use the following rating scale: 
Never: the behavior never or almost never happens 
Occasionally: the behavior happens some of the time 
Frequently: the behavior happens much of the time 
Always: the behavior always or almost always happens 
Write any additional comments on this student's behavior or functioning on the back of this sheet. 
This student... 
1. Resolves peer conflicts without teacher intervention. 	 Never 	Occasionally 	Fre 
4 	 3 
2. Handles frustration without outbursts or aggressive behavior. 	 Never 	Occasional] 
4 	 3 
3. Has friends and chooses to be with them when possible. 	 Never 	sionally 
4 	 3 
4. Does not keep up with peers in physical activities. 	 nally 
5. Does not perform tasks in proper sequence. 	 
Always 
Always 
1 
ways 
Always 
4 
requently Always 
3 	4 
6. Has difficulty completing tasks from a presented model. 
7. Throws ball too hard or too softly for distance f target. 
8. Acts fearfully about climbing; m ........ 
9. Loses balance when 	g or pl 
10. Seeks out hei 
11. Jumps excessiv 	se 	"c h 	sings" from heights. 
Occasisnally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 
Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	 4 
Never Occasionally Frequently Always 
1 	 2 	 3 	4 
Never Occasionally Frequently Always 
1 	 2 	 3 	4 
Never Occasionally Frequently Always 
1 	 2 	 3 	4 
Never Occasionally Frequently Always 
1 	 2 	 3 	4 
12. Does not notice neckly n_22jie(of others (might collide 
with others). 	 Never 	Occasionally 	Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 
13. Plays by self away from others. 	 Never 	Occasionally 	Frequently 	Always 
1 	 2 	 3 	4 
14. Acts impulsively and without caution while playing 
on playground equipment. 	 Never 	Occasionally 	Frequently Always 
1 	 2 	 3 	4 
15. Shows poor timing of motion (misses ball when kicking or 
swinging bat, brings hands together too slowly or too quickly 
to catch ball). 	 Never 	Occasionally 	Frequently 	Always 
1 	 2 	 3 	4 
Physical Education Class (PHY) Total Score: 
wps 
Test with Confidence 
W-466C(3) 
Sensory Proc P essing Measure Heather Miller Kuhaneck, M.S., OTR/L, FAOTA, Diana A. Henry, M.S.. OTR/L, FAOTA, 
and Tara J. Glennon, Ed.D., OTR/L, FAOTA 
School Environments Form 
	
Cafeteria (CAF) Rating Sheet 
Student's Name/ID#: 	 	 Grade: 	 Rater's Name: 	 Date: 
Directions 
Please answer the questions on this form based on this student's 
typical behavior in the cafeteria during the past month. 
Circle the one answer that best describes how often the behavior 
happens. Use the following rating scale: 
Never: the behavior never or almost never happens 
Occasionally: the behavior happens some of the time 
Frequently: the behavior happens much of the time 
Always: the behavior always or almost always happens 
Some questions ask whether this student shows "distress" 
in certain situations. Showing distress may include verbal 
expressions (whining, crying, yelling) or nonverbal expressions 
(withdrawing, gesturing, pushing something away, running 
away, wincing, striking out). 
Write any additional comments on this student's behavior or 
functioning on the back of this sheet. 
This student... 
I. Resolves peer conflicts without teacher intervention. 	 
2. Handles frustration without outbursts or aggressive behavior. 	 
3. Has friends and chooses to be with them when possible. 	 
4. Becomes distracted when noise level increases. 	 
5. Speaks too loudly or makes excessive noise during transitions. 	 
6. Does not clean saliva or food from face. 	 
7. Shows distress about food temperatures; compla 	 
foodsare "too hot" or "too cold." 
8. Refuses to try new foods or snacks. 
9. Tilts food tray while 
10. Spills or knocks 
Never 	Occasionally 
4 	 3 
Never 	Occasionally 
4 	 3 
Never 	Occa 'onally 
4 
Never 	 ly 
ccasio 
2 
Frequentl 	Always 
1 
Always 
1 
ently 
3 
Frequently 
3 
A . .ys 
ways 
4 
Always 
4 
Always 
4 
ever 
1 
Never 
1 
Never 
1 
Occasionally 
2 
Occasionally 
2 
Occasionally 
2 
Occasionally 
2 
Frequently 
3 
Frequently 
3 
Frequently 
3 
Frequently 
3 
Always 
4 
Always 
4 
Always 
4 
Always 
4 
11. Handles food and 	 ghly 
(may dent, break, or 	 rs 
 
Never Occasionally Frequently Always 
1 	 2 	 3 	4 
 
 
 
12. Shows distress when sitting on benches, stools, or 
other seats without backs. 	 
 
Never Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 
 
13. Is disorganized with tray, utensils, food. 
 
Never Occasionally Frequently Always 
1 	 2 	 3 	4 
 
 
 
14. Stuffs mouth with very large bites of food. 	 Never 	Occasionally 	Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 
15. Has difficulty using two hands together for opening food containers, 
opening milk cartons, or placing straws in juice containers. 	 Never 
1 
Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 
 
 
Cafeteria (CAF) Total Score: 
wps 
Test with Confidence 
W-466C(5) 
Scoring Instructions 
1. Circle the score value in bold typeface for any missing responses. 
(Note: If eight or more responses are missing, do not proceed 
with scoring.) 
2. Calculate the raw score for each scale (except TOT) by summing 
the circled scores for the scale's items and entering the sum in the 
labeled box to the right or left of the items. A bracket indicates the 
item scores that should be summed for each scale. Be sure to 
also sum the scores for Items 33 to 36, which are included i 	e 
TOT raw score. 
core 
n the 
x. 
3. Calculate the TOT raw score by summing the 
VIS, HEA, IOU. BOD, and BAL scales. plus the 
33 to 36. These score boxes are 
	• 
Worksheet. Enter the TOT raw s 	e in th label 
ores of th 
om Items 
Scorin 
the c 
Form Pro 
fer d to t 
4. Transfer the scale raw s 
lower half of the Ma' Class 
from Items 3 i 36 i nottran 
	
file She 	ircl 	he r 
abel wit eac cale' 
	
isual 	resent 
ond gss.cesoP 
Sheet. 	e score 
e Profile Sheet.) 
ore 
	
lue for each scale in 
ac onym. Connect the circled 
SPM results. 
• 
5. On the P 
e column 
val 	for a • 
d 	w score across its row to the left or 
the T-score and percentile rank. The SPM 
es are marked by shading: Typical (no shading), 
rob ems (light shading), and Definite Dysfunction (darker 
ng). 
7. Enter the T-score for each scale in the corresponding space below 
the scale's raw score. Below these spaces, check the appropriate 
interpretive range box for each T-score. 
8. If the School Environments Form was administered and scored, 
transfer each School Environments raw score to its corresponding 
space near the bottom of the Main Classroom Form Profile Sheet. 
9. Inspect the cutoff values for the School Environments scores. 
Enter a check mark in the appropriate box for any score that is 
greater than or equal to the cutoff value. 
eac circ 
Sensory I Processing Measure 
AutoScoreTM Form 
Heather Miller Kuhaneck, M.S.. OTR/L. FAOTA, 
Diana A. Henry. M.S., OTR/L. FAOTA, 
and Tara J. Glennon, Ed.D.. OTR/L. FAOTA 
wps 
Test with Confidence 
Main 
Classroom 
Z\S 
I 	---- 1:i 7_ 
Teacher Information 
Your Name/ID#: 	 Your Relationship to Student: 	 Today's Date: 	 
Student Information 
Student's Name/ID#: 	 Student's Gender: DM EF Student's Age: 	Years 	Months Student's Grade: 	 
Race/Ethnicity: 
0 American Indian/Alaska Native 	10 Asian 	E Black/African American 	D Hispanic/Latino 	E Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 	0 White 	0 Other 
Comments on child's behavior/functioning: 	 
DIRECTIONS 
Please answer the questions on this form based on this student's typical behavior during the past month. Use the following rating scale: 
Never: the behavior never or almost never happens 	Frequently: the behavior happens much of the time 
Occasionally: the behavior happens some of the time 	Always: the behavior always or almost always happens 
Circle the one answer that best describes how often the behavior happens. Try your best to answer all of the questions. 
Several questions ask whether this student shows "distress" in certain situations. Showing distress may include verbal expressions (whining, crying, yelling) 
or nonverbal expressions (withdrawing, gesturing, pushing something away, running away, wincing, striking out). 
You may use the space provided above to add any additional comments on this student's behavior or functioning. 
‘.0 PLEASE PRESS HARD WHEN CIRCLING YOUR RESPONSES. 
SOCIAL PARTICIPATION 	This student... 
N 	 0 	 F A 	 1. Works as part of a team; is helpful with others 
N 	 0 	F A 	 2. Resolves peer conflicts without teache 
N 	0 	F A 	 3. Handles frustration without ou 
N 	0 	F A 	 4. Willingly plays with peers in a variety 	f p. 	es and . 	Ivities. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 5. Enters into pla 	 activity. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 6. Has friends an 	 en 	• 	ible. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 7. with peers. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 8. e- (doesn't stand too close to others during conversation). 
N 	 0 	 F 	9. ontact during conversation. 
N 	 0 	 opics in accordance with peer interests: doesn't stay stuck on one topic. 
This student... 
N 	 0 	 F 11. Squints, covers eyes, or complains about classroom lighting or bright sunlight. 
N 	0 	 F A 	 Shows distress at the sight of moving objects. 
N 	0 	F A 	 13. Becomes distracted by nearby visual stimuli (pictures, items on walls, windows, other children). 
N 	 0 	F A 	 14. During instruction or announcement, student looks around or at peers, rather than looking at person 
speaking or at blackboard. 
N 	0 	F A 	 15. Spins or flicks objects in front of eyes. 
N 	0 	F A 	 16. Stares intensely at people or objects. 
N 	0 	F A 	 17. Shows distress when lights are dimmed for movies and assemblies. 
HEARING 	This student... 
N 	 0 	F A 	 18. Shows distress at loud sounds (slamming door, electric pencil sharpener, PA announcement, fire drill). 
N 	 0 	F A 	 19. Shows distress at the sounds of singing or musical instruments. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 20. Does not respond to voices or new sounds. 
N 	0 	F A 	 21. Cannot determine location of sounds or voices. 
N 	0 	F A 	 22. Makes noises, hums, sings, or yells during quiet class time. 
N 	0 	F A 	 23. Speaks too loudly or makes excessive noise during transitions. 
N 	0 	F A 	 24. Yells, screams, or makes unusual noises to self. 
continue on back page... 
7, 
777 1[1 —11— 
Sensory 	Processing Measure 
Main Classroom Form 
Profile Sheet 
Heather Miller Kuhaneck. M.S.. OTR/L, FAOTA, 
Diana A. Henry, M.S.. OTR/L. FAOTA, 
and Tara J. Glennon. 	OTR/L. FAOTA 
wps. 
Test with Confidence 
Name (or ID#): 
Date this form 
Reason for 
%Ile 
Age: Grade: Gender: EM EF 
completed: 
assessment: 
T 
School: Teacher: 
SOC VIS HEA IOU 	 BOO BAL PLA TOT T %Ile 
80 39-40 26-28 24-28 25-32 	25-28 34-36 40 130-168 80 
79 25 23-24 	23-24 33 39 119-129 79 
78 38 24 22-23 21-22 31-32 38 117-118 78 
77 37 22-23 21 22 115-116 77 
76 36 20-21 19-20 20 30 37 109-114 76 
75 19 18 19 	 21 28-29 36 108 75 
>99 74 35 17 27 34-35 99-107 74 >99 
99 73 34 18 18 26 32-33 96-98 73 99 
72 33 17 16 17 	 20 24-25 30-31 94-95 72 
98 71 23 29 88-93 71 98 
70 32 16 16 	 19 22 28 87 70 
97 69 31 15 18 21 84 	6 69 97 
96 68 30 15 	 17 27 68 96 
67 15 14 14 	 16 20 26 67 
95 66 29 15 19 25 66 95 
93 65 28 14 13 13 	 14 65 93 
92 64 27 13 18 	 24 64 92 
90 63 26 12 12 	 13 23 63 90 
88 62 25 12 21-22 62 88 
86 61 24 11 11 20 61 86 
84 60 23 60 84 
82 59 18 	 60-61 59 82 
79 58 7 58-59 58 79 
76 57 16 56-57 57 76 
73 56 13 55 56 73 
69 55 15 53-54 55 69 
66 54 14 52 54 66 
62 53 12 51 53 62 
58 52 13 50 52 58 
54 51 11 49 51 54 
50 5012 48 50 50 
46 49 47 49 46 
42 48 48 42 
38 47 10 11 46 47 38 
34 46 46 34 
31 45 45 45 31 
27 44 44 27 
24 43 7 44 43 24 
21 42 42 21 
18 41 11 41 18 
16 40 10 7 9 10 42-43 40 16 
%Ile T SOC VIS HEA IOU 	 BOO BAL PLA TOT T %Ile 
Raw Score 
T-Score 
Interpretive Range 
Typical 
(407-597) 
Some Problems 
(607-697) 
 
4 Raw Score 
4 T-Score 
 
 
Definite Dysfunction 
(707-807) 	 0 	 0 	 LI 	 LI 	 0 	0 
 
Scores from SPM School Environments Form 
ART 	 MUS 	 PHY 	 REC 	 CAE 	 BUS 
 
Cutoff value: 	29 	 29 	 28 	 29 	 27 	 19 
E 	El 	E 	El 	E 	0 
Check box if score is greater than or equal to cutoff value. Check indicates that student displays more problems than is typical in that environment. 
W-4668 
Occasionally 
3 
Occasionally 
3 
Occa 'onally 
Frequentl 	Always 
1 
Always 
1 
A 
Never 
4 
Never 
4 
Never 
1 
cast nally 
2 
equently 
3 
Always 
4 
Always 
4 
Ne 
1 
Ne‘ 
1 
'Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 
	
3 	4 
Occasionally 
2 
Occasionally 
2 
Frequently 
3 
Frequently 
3 
Always 
4 
Always 
4 
ver 
1 
Never 
1 
Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 
Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 
School Bus (BUS) Total Score: 
Never 
1 
Never 
1 
S nrito—o 
Sensory Proc P School Environments Form 
	
School Bus (BUS) Rating Sheet 
Heather Miller Kuhaneck, M.S., OTR/L, FAOTA, Diana A. Henry, M.S., OTR/L, FAOTA, 
and Tara J. Glennon, Ed.D., OTR/L, FAOTA 
essing Measure 
Student's Name/ID#: 	 Grade: 
 
Rater's Name: 	 Date: 
 
 
 
 
Directions 
Please answer the questions on this form based on this student's 
typical behavior on the school bus during the past month. 
Circle the one answer that best describes how often the behavior 
happens. Use the following rating scale: 
Never: the behavior never or almost never happens 
Occasionally: the behavior happens some of the time 
Frequently: the behavior happens much of the time 
Always: the behavior always or almost always happens 
Some questions ask whether this student shows "distress' 
in certain situations. Showing distress may include verbal 
expressions (whining, crying, yelling) or nonverbal expressions 
(withdrawing, gesturing, pushing something away, running 
away, wincing, striking out). 
Write any additional comments on this student's behavior or 
functioning on the back of this sheet. 
This student... 
1. Handles frustration without outbursts or aggressive behavior. 	 
2. Has friends and chooses to be with them when possible. 	 
3. Speaks too loudly or too softly. 	 
4. Is distressed by accidental touch of peers (may lash out 
or withdraw). 	 
5. Runs, hops. or bounces instead of walking. 	 
6. Is constantly active or in motion. 
8. Leaves seat repeatedly throughout b 
9. Fails to secure se 
to move. 
7. Consistently jumps off (rather than stepping off) 
when exiting bus. 
10. Does not gather b 	 e notice 
of approaching bus sto 
wps® 
Test with Confidence 
W-466C(6) 
6. Demonstrates limited imagination and creativity in pla and 
(such as being unable to create new games). 	 
7. Throws ball too hard or too softly for d' 	ce oft 
8. Plays too roughly with peers (shov 
like tag or chase; clas 	compl 
9. Loses balance o 
10. Seeks out heights; 
11. Jumps excessively; s rash landings" from heights. 	 
Never 
1 
Never 
1 
Never 
1 
Never 
1 
Occasionally 
2 
 
Frequently Always 
3 	4 
 
 
Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 
Occasionally 
2 
Occasionally 
2 
Occasionally 
2 
Occasionally 
2 
Frequently 
3 
Frequently 
3 
Frequently 
3 
Frequently 
3 
Always 
4 
Always 
4 
Always 
4 
Always 
4 
12. Does not notice nearby motion of others (might collide 
with others). 	 Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 
Never 
1 
Never 
1 
Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 
13. Plays by self away from others. 	 
14. Acts impulsively and without caution while playing on 
playground equipment. 	 Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 
Never 
1 
 
Recess/Playground (REC) Rating Sheet 
 
School Environments Form 
 
 
 
 
Sensory 	Processing Measure 
Heather Miller Kuhaneck, M.S., OTR/L, FAOTA, Diana A. Henry, M.S., OTR/L, FAOTA. 
and Tara J. Glennon, Ed.D., OTR/L, FAOTA 
Student's Name/ID& 	 Grade: 	 Raters Name: 	 Date: 
 
 
 
Directions 
Please answer the questions on this form based on this student's 
typical behavior during recess and on the playground during the past 
month. Circle the one answer that best describes how often the behavior 
happens. Use the following rating scale: 
Never: the behavior never or almost never happens 
Occasionally: the behavior happens some of the time 
Frequently: the behavior happens much of the time 
Always: the behavior always or almost always happens 
Some questions ask whether this student shows distress 
in certain situations. Showing distress may include verbal 
expressions (whining, crying, yelling) or nonverbal expressions 
(withdrawing, gesturing, pushing something away, running 
away, wincing, striking out). 
Write any additional comments on this student's behavior or 
functioning on the back of this sheet. 
This student... 
1. Resolves peer conflicts without teacher intervention. 	 
2. Handles frustration without outbursts or aggressive behavior. 	 
3. Has friends and chooses to be with them when possible. 	 
4. Is distressed by accidental touch of peers (may lash out 
or withdraw). 	 
5. Does not keep up with peers in physical activities. 	 
Never 	Occasionally 
4 	 3 
Never 	Occasionally 
4 	 3 
Never 	Occa onally 
4 
Nev 
1 
c sion 
2 
0 cast nally 
Frequent] 	Always 
1 
Always 
Always 
4 
Always 
4 
6. Shows poor timing of motion (misses ball when kicking 
or swinging bat, brings hands together too slowly or 
too quickly to catch ball). 	 Never 
1 
Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 
 
 
Recess/Playground (REC) Total Score: 
wps, 
Test with Confidence 
W-466C(4) 
Occasionally 
3 
Occasionally 
3 
Occa 'onally 
Frequent! 	Always 
1 
Always 
1 
ways 
1 
casio lly Fre 
equentl 
ently 
equently Always 
3 	4 
0 cas 
2 
Occasionally 
/ 
Occasionally 
2 
Occasionally 
2 
Occasionally 
2 
Frequently 
3 
Frequently 
3 
Frequently 
3 
Frequently 
3 
Always 
4 
Always 
4 
Always 
4 
Always 
4 
Sensory Proc P essing Measure 
School Environments Form Art Class (ART) Rating Sheet 
Heather Miller Kuhaneck, M.S., OTR/L, FAOTA, Diana A. Henry, M.S., OTR/L, FAOTA, 
and Tara J. Glennon, Ed.D., OTR/L, FAOTA 
Student's Name/1D# 	 Grade: 	 Rater's Name: 	 Date. 	 
Directions 
Please answer the questions on this form based on this student's 
typical behavior in art class during the past month. 
Circle the one answer that best describes how often the behavior 
happens. Use the following rating scale: 
Never: the behavior never or almost never happens 
Occasionally: the behavior happens some of the time 
Frequently: the behavior happens much of the time 
Always: the behavior always or almost always happens 
Some questions ask whether this student shows "distress" 
in certain situations. Showing distress may include verbal 
expressions (whining, crying, yelling) or nonverbal expressions 
(withdrawing, gesturing, pushing something away, running 
away, wincing, striking out). 
Write any additional comments on this student's behavior or 
functioning on the back of this sheet. 
This student... 
1. Follows classroom rules and routines. 	 Never 
4 
2. Resolves peer conflicts without teacher intervention. 	 Never 
4 
3. Handles frustration without outbursts or aggressive behavior. 
	
Never 
4 
4. Has friends and chooses to be with them when possible. 	 Never 
5. Becomes distracted by nearby visual stimuli (pictures, 
items on walls, windows, other children). 	 
6. Shows distress when hands or face are dirty (with glue 
finger paints, food, dirt, etc.). 	 
7. Does not performconsistently in daily 
of work varies widely. 	 
belon 
ay break 
8. Does not return maten 
9. Fails to comple 
10. Writes or colors w 
crayon or pencil tip, o 
s; qualit 
Nev 
N er 
1 
Never 
1 
Never 
1 
Never Occasionally Frequently Always 
1 	 2 	 3 	4 
ever 
11. Writes or colors with very light pressure (marks on paper 
may be too light to read). 	 
 
Never Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 
 
 
 
12. Does not open or close scissors far enough to cut properly. 	 Never 	Occasionally 	Frequently Always 
1 	 2 	 3 	4 
13. Does not use scissors for smooth, continuous cutting 
(instead, does single snips). 
 
Never Occasionally Frequently Always 
1 	 2 	 3 	4 
 
 
 
14. Has difficulty using two hands together for tasks 
(cutting, using ruler, opening containers). 	 Never 	Occasionally 	Frequently Always 
1 	 2 	 3 	4 
15. Shows poor organization of materials in, on, or around desk area. 	 Never 
1 
Occasionally Frequently Always 
2 	 3 	4 
 
 
Art Class (ART) Total Score: 
wps, 
Test with Confidence 
W-466C(1) 
PLEASE PRESS HARD WHEN CIRCLING YOUR RESPONSES. 
NO° 
N 
N 
N 	 
N 	 
N 	 
N 	 
	 0 
	 0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
 	F 
 	F 
 	F 
 	F 
F 
 	F 
,e`" 
02" 
 	A 	 
 	A 	 
 	A 	 
 	A 	 
 	A 	 
A 	 
25. 
26. 
27. 
28. 
29 
30. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 31. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 32. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 33. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 34. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 35. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 36. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 37. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 38. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 39. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 40. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 41. 
N 	 0 	F 	 42. 
N 	 0 	F 43. 
N 	 0 A 44. 
N 	 0 	F 
N 	 0 	F 46. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 47. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 48. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 49. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 50. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 51. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 52. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 53. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 54. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 55. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 56. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 57. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 58. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 59. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 60. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 61. 
N 	 0 	F A 	 62. 
TOUCH 	This student... 
Shows distress when hands or face are dirty (with glue, finger paints, food, dirt, etc.). 
Does not tolerate dirt on hands or clothing, even briefly. 
Shows distress when touching certain textures (classroom materials, utensils, sports equipment, etc.). 
Is distressed by accidental touch of peers (may lash out or withdraw). 
Does not respond to another's touch. 
Seeks hot or cold temperatures by touching windows, other surfaces. 
Touches classmates inappropriately during class and when standing in line. 
Does not clean saliva or food from face. 
TASTE AND SMELL 	This student... 
Shows distress at the tastes or odors of different foods. 
Does not notice strong or unusual odors (glue, paint. ma 
Cannot distinguish between odors; does not pre 	 d smells. 
Tries to taste or lick objects or people. 
BODY AWARENESS 	This s 
Spills contents when openi 
Chews or mouth 	 oom materials. 
Moves chair r 	 out chair with too much force). 
hen walking. 
ens doors with excessive force. 
AND MOTION 	This student... 
R 	S .nd along wall when walking. 
Wraps legs around chair legs. 
Rocks in chair while seated at desk or table. 
Fidgets when seated at desk or table. 
Falls out of chair when seated at desk or table. 
Leans on walls, furniture, or other people for support when standing. 
When seated on floor, cannot sit up without support. 
Slumps, leans on desk, or holds head up in hands while seated at desk. 
Has poor coordination: appears clumsy. 
PLANNING AND IDEAS 	This student... 
Does not perform consistently in daily tasks; quality of work varies widely. 
Is unable to solve problems effectively. 
Bobbles or drops items when attempting to carry multiple objects. 
Does not perform tasks in proper sequence. 
Fails to complete tasks with multiple steps. 
Has difficulty correctly imitating demonstrations (movement games, songs with motions). 
Has difficulty completing tasks from a presented model. 
Demonstrates limited imagination and creativity in play and free time (such as being unable to create new games). 
Plays repetitively during free time; does not expand or alter activity when given opportunity. 
Shows poor organization of materials in. on. or around desk area. 
Main Classroom Form 
Scoring Worksheet 
wps 
Test with Confidence 
Value Item 
	2 	 1 	 1. 
	2 	 1 	 2. 
	2 	 1 	 3. 
	2 	 1 	 4. 
	2 	 1 	 5. 
	2 	 1 	 6. 
	2 	 1 	 7. 
	2 	 1 	 8. 
	2 9. 
	 10. 
Item 	 Value 
25. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
26. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
27. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
28. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
29. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
30. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
31. 	3 		2 	1 
	
3 	2 	1 
TOU 
raw score 
2 	1 
2 	1 
	
3 	2 	1 
4 	3 	2 	1 
37. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
38. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
39. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
40. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
41. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
42. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
43. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
BUD 
ray/ score 
Sensory Pessing Measure 
VIS 
raw score 
4 	3 
4 	3 
4 	3 
4 	3 
4 	3 
4 	3 
4 	3 
4 	3 
4 	3 
4 	3 
1 	2 	3 	1 
1 	2 	3 	 .4 	 
1 	2 	3 	4 	 13. 
1 	2 	3 	4 	 14. 
1 	2 	3 	4 	 15. 
1 	2 	3 	4 	 16. 
1 	2 	3 	4 	 17. 
1 	2 	3 	4 	 18. 
1 	2 	3 	4 	 19. 
1 	2 	3 	4 	 20. 
1 	2 	3 	4 	 21. 
1 	2 	3 	4 	 22. 
1 	2 	3 	4 	 23. 
1 	2 	3 	4 	 24. 
44. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
45. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
46. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
47. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
48. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
49. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
50. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
51. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
52. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
53.4 	3 	2 	1 
54. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
55. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
56. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
57. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
58. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
59 	4 	3 	2 	1 
60. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
61. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
62. 	4 	3 	2 	1 
HEA 
raw score 
TOT 	 BAL 
raw score 	 raw score 
PLA 
raw score 
W-466645 31
44 27
43 24
42 21
41 18
40 16
97 69
96 68
67
95 66
93 65
92 64
90 63
88 62
86 61
84 60
82 59
79 58
76 57
73 56
69 55
66 54
62 53
58 52
54 51
50 50
46 49
42 48
38 47
34 46
31 45
27 44
24 43
21 42
18 41
16 40
s0c
s0c
TOU
TOU
n
BOD
BOD
n
BAL
BAL
Teacher:
PLA
PLA
I
n nnn
n
n
Main Classroom Form
8H6
82-83
8(H1
7ç79
74-n
71-73
69-70
67-68
6tr6
62.6Ít
60-61
58-59
56-57
55
53-54
52
51
50
49
48
47
'11
10
27
26
25
10
10
15
14
42-43
8
7
I
o
7
q
I
7
I
o
13
12
21
13
12
1l
10
11
10
14 46
45
44
18
17
16
't5
14
13
12
11
15
14
13
12
11
10
31
30
29
28
27
?6
25
24
23
22
21
20
13
12
11
15
14
t3
12
11
10
24
23
21-22
2A
19
18
17
16
15
14
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
19
18
17
16
15
13
12
Scores f¡om SPM School Envi¡onments Form
ART MUS
Guloff value:
REC CAF BUS
29 29 28 29 27 19
trnn¡nn
Check box if score ¡s greater than or equal to cutoff vatue. Check ind¡cates that student d¡sptays more problems than is typ¡cal in that env¡ronment.
Additional copies of th¡s form (W-4668) may be purchased from WPS. Please c0ntact us at 800-648-885¿ Fax 310-478-7838, or www.wpspublish.com.
PHY
w-4668 Copyright @ 2007 by WESTERN PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES. Not to be reproduced ¡n whole or in part without wr¡tten perm¡ss¡on. All r¡qhts reserved. Pr¡nted in U.S.A 23456789
'Kffinm
Main Classroom Form
Scoring Worksheet
Publíshed by
WESTERN PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES
12031 Wilsh¡re Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1251
Þatli'h¿rs aâ/ D¿stríbators 
-
Value Item
4.........3.........2-..,.....1 ......... 1.
4.........3.........2.........1 ......... 2.
4.........3.........2.........1 ......... 3.
4.,....._.3.........2-........1......... 4.
4.........3.........2.........1......... 5.
4.........3.........2.........1 ......... 6.
4.........3.........2.........1 ......... 7.
4.........3.........2.........1 ......... 8.
4.........3.........2.........1 ......... 9.
4 .........3.........2.........1 ......... 10.
1.........2.........3.........4......... 11.
1 .........2 .........3 .........4 ......... 12.
1 .........2.........3.........4 ......... 13.
1 .........2.........3.........4 ......... 14.
1 .........2.........3.........4 ......... 15.
1 .........2.........3.........4 ......... 16.
1.........2.........3.........4......... 17.
1 .........2.........3.........4 ......... 1q.
1.........2.........3.........4......... 1S.
I .........2 .........3 .........4 ......... 20.
1 .........2.........3 .........4 ......... 21.
1 .........2.........3 .........4 ......... 22.
1 .....-...2 .........3 .........4 ......... 23.
1 .........2 .........3 .........4 ......... 24.
s0c
raw sc0re
VIS
raw score
HEA
TOT
raw score
TOU
raw scofe
Items
33- 36
BOD
raw scofe
BAL
raw score
PLA
raw score
Item Va lue
25. ........4.........3.........2.........f
26. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
21. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
28. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
25. .........4.......-.3 .........2 .........1
30. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
31. .........4.........3.........2.........1
32. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
33. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
34. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
35. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
36. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
31. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
38- .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
39. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
40. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
41. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
42. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
43. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
44. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
45. .......,.4.........3 .........2 .........1
46. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
47. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
48. .,.......4.........3 .........2 .........1
49. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
50. .........4.....-...3 .........2.........1
51. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
52. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
53. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
54. .........4.......-.3 .........2 .........1
55. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
56. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
57. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
58. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
59. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
60. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
61. .........4.........3 .........2 .........'l
62. .........4.........3 .........2 .........1
w-4668
raw score
Copyright © 2007 by Western Psychological Services. All rights reserved. 
Not to be reproduced, adapted, and/or translated in whole or in part 
without prior written permission of WPS (rights@wpspublish.com). 
First edition published 2007 
Sixth printing: August 2013 
21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 6 7 8 9 
Printed in the United States of America 
Related products from WPS 
• Sensory Processing Measure—Preschool (SPM-P) 
• Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests (SIPT) 
• Sensory Integration and the Child: Understanding Hidden Sensory Challenges, 
25th Anniversary Edition 
• Goal-Oriented Assessment of Lifeskills (GOAL) 
• Developmental Profile, Third Edition (DP-3) 
• Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, Second Edition (ABAS-II) 
For more information about these and other products available from WPS, please contact 
WPS Customer Service at 800-648-8857 or customerservice@wpspublish.com, 
or visit our website at www.wpspublish.com. 
Child Disorders With Sensory Processing Involvement 	 32 
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) 	 32 
Autism Spectrum Disorders 	 32 
Cerebral Palsy 	 33 
Down Syndrome 	 33 
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD) 	 33 
Other Mental Health Issues 	 33 
Further Interpretive Considerations 	 33 
Top-Down 	 33 
Bottom-Up 	 34 
Global 	 34 
Elements of Intervention 	 34 
Case Studies 	 36 
Case 1: Melissa 	 36 
Case 2: Noah 	 36 
Case 3: Robert 	 38 
Case 4: Jarod 	 38 
Case 5: Katie 	 40 
Case 6: Paul 	 41 
Part II: Technical Guide 
Chapter 4. Development and Standardization 	 45 
Ayres's Sensory Integration Theory 	 45 
The Evaluation of Sensory Processing (ESP) 	 46 
The School Assessment of Sensory Integration (SASI) 	 46 
The SPM: An Integrated Instrument 	 46 
The SPM Standardization Study 	 47 
Moderator Variables 	 47 
School Environments Subsamples 	 49 
The SPM Clinical Validity Study 	 52 
Scale Development 	 52 
Derivation of Standard Scores 	 53 
Chapter 5. Psychometric Properties 	 55 
Reliability 	 55 
Internal Consistency 	 55 
Test-Retest Reliability 	 55 
Standard Error of Measurement and Confidence Intervals 	 55 
Validity 	 57 
Content Validity 	 57 
Construct Validity 	 57 
Criterion-Related Validity 	 71 
Summary 	 73 
iv 
15. SPM Home Form and Main Classroom Form Internal Consistency Estimates 
(Cronbach's Alpha) 	 56 
16. SPM School Environments Form Internal Consistency Estimates 
(Cronbach's Alpha) 	 56 
17. Two-Week Test-Retest Correlations 	 56 
18. 95% Confidence Intervals for Scale T-Scores Based on Two Reliability Methods 	 57 
19. Factor Loadings for SPM Home Form Items in the Standardization Sample 	 59 
20. Factor Loadings for SPM Main Classroom Form Items in the Standardization Sample 	61 
21. Interscale Correlations in the Standardization Sample 	 64 
22. Cross-Rater (Home-Main Classroom) Concordance in the Standardization Sample 	 64 
23. Correlations Between SPM Main Classroom Form Scales and 
School Environments Form Scales 	 65 
24. SPM Home Form Item Statistics 	 66 
25. SPM Main Classroom Form Item Statistics 	 68 
26. Correlations Between SPM Home Form Scale Scores and Select Sensory Profile Scores 	70 
27. Correlations Between SPM Home Form Scale Scores and Short Sensory Profile Scores 	71 
28. Correlations Between SelectSPM Main Classroom Form Scales and 
Content-Similar Sensory Profile Scales 	 71 
29. SPM Raw Scale Scores: Descriptive Statistics and Effect Sizes by Clinical Disorder 	73 
30. Conditional Probability Analysis for Detection of Sensory 
Processing/Integration Disorders 	 74 
31. Frequencies of Environment Difference (DIF) Scores in the SPM Standardization and 
Clinical Samples 	 74 
Bl. Home Form Conversion Table 	 77 
B2. Main Classroom Form Conversion Table 	 78 
vi 
In developing the School Assessment of Sensory 
Integration (SASI), the precursor to the SPM Main 
Classroom Form, one of our goals was to bring school-
based and clinic-based therapists together. This goal was 
met thanks to the many occupational therapists (0Ts)—
experts in sensory integration and school-based services—
who at the beginning were willing to review our test items 
and offer guidance. These therapists included Grace 
Baranek, Anita Bundy, Jane Case-Smith, Sharon Cermak, 
Gloria Frolek Clark, Wendy Coster, Rachel Diamant, 
Winnie Dunn, Barbara Hanft, Patti LaVesser, Pam Levan, 
Zoe Mailloux, Lynn Balzer Martin, Lucy Jane Miller, 
Mary Muhlenhaupt, Tory Nackley, Janet Olson, Diane 
Parham, Jean Pollichino, Susanne Smith Roley, Tracy 
Stackhouse, Janet Stafford, Clare Summers, Yvonne 
Swinth, Renee Watling, and Rondalyn Whitney. 
There were also non-OT professionals who 
contributed to the richness of this tool because of their 
unique perspectives. These individuals included Patricia 
Lemer, educational diagnostician and executive director of 
Developmental Delay Resources; Dee Schilling, physical 
therapist at the University of Washington; Sister Suzette 
Fischer of Double Arc in Toledo, Ohio; Kathleen Morris, 
speech and language pathologist, and founder of S.I. 
Focus magazine; and Carol Kranowitz, music, movement, 
and drama teacher, and author of The Out-of-Sync Child. 
It does take a village, and our heartfelt thanks go to 
those who agreed to spread the word and attempted to 
collect data for the SASI across the United States and 
Canada. These include Carlotta Abbott, Heather Austin, 
Ivan Bachynsky, Chris Boyle, Colleen Basaraba, Julie 
Bissell, Theresa Bosanek, Tere Bowen, Robin Cooper, 
Cecelia Cruise, Susan Cue, Patti Denzler, Neila Dixson, 
Erin Dolin, Sue Ann Dubois, Norma Eigles, Debbie Ellis, 
Sherry Eisenbach, Birte Engmann, Dawn Garfield-Blades, 
Angela Guardiano, Cindy Hahn, Jennifer Hailing, Leni 
Hoffman, Merideth Hirsch, DeLana Honaker, Frances 
Horvath, Eleanor Ingram, Connie Johnson, Anne Jones, 
Ann Kinsella, Emily Lennon, Diane Maxson, Amy 
McLean, Jean McMillan, Rowena Maclure, Shanti 
Malladi, Shelley Margow, Barbara Mohr-Modes, Debbie 
Morgan, Christine Mulle, Mary Jo Newberry, Uyen 
Nguyen, Barbara Nichols, Janet Olsen, Beth Randall, 
Lynne Roberts, Marilyn Runyon, Jessi Saiter, Angela 
Sallerson, Linda Santanam, Jean Schukei, Holly Sinclair, 
Anne Spencer, Rona Stokes, Barbara Thake, Carolyn 
Walker, Susan Wehrmann, Lisa Westfall, Catherine 
Whiting, Diana Woods, Amy Duggan Zimmerman, Laurie 
Zimmerman... and many more. 
Thanks also to special occupational therapist friends 
who participated in several of the data collections 
throughout the years and gave us crucial feedback along 
the way, including Deanna Iris Sava and Debbie Ellis 
(school-based therapists), as well as Maureen Kane 
Wineland of Rehab Dynamics. 
Deep appreciation goes to Keli Mu of Creighton 
University for helping us find our way through research 
design and statistics when we were just beginning our data 
collecting process. 
Our ability to understand the many possible uses of 
the SPM in the school was developed thanks to Diana's 
dear friend and educator Karen Stewart, who provided her 
with the opportunity to work on the tool development over 
several years with Phyllis Metcalf, the students, the 
parents, and the staff at Sandra Day O'Connor Elementary 
School; and to Ann-Christian Hyatt, Sarah Cotton, Tara 
Cerveny and her COTA staff in the Cave Creek School 
District, and Tricia Ramirez and the staff at Horseshoe 
Trails Elementary School. And thank you Diane Desilets, 
OTR, who as a COTA and OT student was willing to 
research information on the SPM as part of her course 
work and worked very hard to "get it right." You all asked 
questions and gave feedback that helped keep our feet "in 
the trenches." 
There are special people and organizations that 
generously offered their time to let us share information 
and spread the news about our need for data collectors, 
including Susanne Smith Roley and the Pediatric Therapy 
Network at their R2K symposiums; Andy Roussey and 
Southpaw Enterprises Inc. by sending announcements and 
supporting our focus groups at the AOTA annual 
conferences; Dave Brown of Sensory Resources by 
offering to distribute flyers; and Rick Ruess of Henry 
Occupational Therapy Services, who provided much time, 
talent, and emotional and financial support. 
And finally, deep gratitude to Diane Parham and 
Cheryl Ecker for joining their wonderful years of work 
with the Evaluation of Sensory Processing (ESP) to create 
the SPM Home Form. Thanks also to Western 
Psychological Services for taking on this project with 
great enthusiasm, including Jeff Manson, Gregg Gillmar, 
Brian Thomas, Meghan Fancier, Melissa PreJean, and 
especially David Herzberg, neuropsychologist and senior 
project director, who taught us much about statistics and 
the techniques of test development research. 
Heather Miller Kuhaneck, M.S., OTR/L, FAOTA 
Diana A. Henry, M.S., OTR/L, FAOTA 
Tara J. Glennon, Ed.D., OTR/L, FAOTA 
viii 
Katherine Newton Inamura Mary Clare Marasco Karen Porter 
Powell, OH Endwell, NY Barrie Galvin and Melissa Skinner 
Associates San Angelo, TX 
Maria Valeria Isaac-Garcia Lisa Martin Beechwood, OH 
Playa del Rey, CA Thera-Kids LLC Shelly Starbuck 
New Milford, CT Rebecca Rego Coatesville, IN 
Cathy Jones GW Miller Elementary 
Danville, VA Pat Martin School Barbara Steva 
Pocomoke, MD Nanuet, NY Saco, ME 
Dee Kahl 
Franklin County ESC Jennifer Small Maza Tim Reidman Jennifer Stewart-Owen 
Columbus, OH Woodland, CA Portland, ME Westborough, MA 
Maureen Kane-Wineland Lisa Peschel McCann Kristen Caldor Angela Stone 
Toledo, OH Mathews, VA Remington Children's Neurotherapy 
Vernal, UT Services 
Anna Kobs Pam McFall Hickory, NC 
Iosco RESA Rockland OT for Children Sara Rice 
Tawas City, MI Spring Valley, NY Lahaina, HI Mary Subra 
McDonough, GA 
Jennifer ICrull Kate Mennenga Brian Riter 
Imagine A Child's Janesville, WI Deposit, NY Kari Thompson 
Capacity El Segundo, CA 
Madison, WI Lucy Miller Valerie Rogeau 
Greenwood Village, CO Pediatric Therapy Lori Vaughn 
Theresa Lavoie Network Southwick, MA 
North Andover, MA Kimberly Moltz Torrance, CA 
Fayetteville, NC Deborah Wells 
Helene Lieberman Susanne Smith Roley Argyle, NY 
Davie, FL Cindy Murrin Pediatric Therapy 
Las Cruces, NM Network Catherine Whiting 
Anne Longo Torrance, CA Bainbridge Island, WA 
Rochester, NY Susan Nickelson 
Rancho Cordova, CA Se1ga Ruzanno Gayle Wray 
Kathleen Lubarsky Pediatric Therapy Redlands, CA 
Basking Ridge, NJ Julie O'Leary Network 
Auburn, ME Torrance, CA 
Zoe Mailloux 
Pediatric Therapy Tessa Ridley Oles Mirela Sasuclark 
Network Warrenville, IL Waterville, ME 
Torrance, CA 
Kim Osborne Deanna Sava 
Shanti Malladi Shawnee, KS Buffalo Grove, IL 
Fremont, CA 
Marie Passaro Maria Scalia 
Tina A. Mankey Farmingville, NY Waldwick, NJ 
University of Central 
Arkansas Diane Peake Jean Schukei 
Conway, AR South Ogden, UT Janesville, WI 
Stephanie Mano Christina Perlak Sandie Sermarini 
Pediatric Occupational Somerville, MA Kaneohe, HI 
Therapist 
Gig Harbor, WA Kimberly Sicheneder 
Chico, CA 
xii 
4 
	 Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation Guide 
Difference (DIF) score allows direct comparison of the 
child's sensory functioning between home and school 
environments. 
The SPM School Environments Form is designed to 
be completed by teachers andother school staff members 
who work with and observe the child in the following six 
settings: Art Class (ART), Music Class (MUS), Physical 
Education Class (PHY), Recess/Playground (REC), 
Cafeteria (CAF), and School Bus (BUS). The School 
Environments Form must always be used in conjunction 
with the Main Classroom Form in order to provide a 
complete picture of the child's functioning at school. 
The School Environments Form is provided on an 
unlimited-use CD that allows the user to print the form as 
needed. The form itself is divided into six separate Rating 
Sheets, one for each of the school environments. Although it 
is ideal to obtain raters for all six environments, the School 
Environments Form can still be used if fewer than six raters 
are available. The user simply prints whatever Rating Sheets 
are needed. 
Each Rating Sheet has 15 items, except for the School 
Bus sheet, which has 10 items. Thus, each rater can complete 
his or her ratings in less than 5 minutes. 
The School Environments Form yields a Total score 
for each environment, which is interpreted by means of a 
cutoff criterion. Children who score at or above the cutoff 
are experiencing an unusually high number of sensory 
processing problems in that environment. 
Table 1 summarizes the forms and scales of the SPM. 
The Home Form and Main Classroom Form were 
standardized on a demographically representative sample of 
1,051 typically developing children in Grades K through 6. 
For the Home Form scale scores, internal consistency (a) 
estimates ranged from .77 to .95 (median = .85), and test-
retest reliability estimates ranged from .94 to .98 (median = 
.97). For the Main Classroom Form scale scores, internal 
consistency estimates ranged from .75 to .95 (median = .86), 
and test-retest reliability estimates ranged from .95 to .98 
(median = .97). 
A subsample of 306 children from the standardization 
sample was used to develop scores and establish cutoff 
criteria for the School Environments Form. The School 
Environments scores yielded internal consistency values 
ranging from .82 to .91 (median = .89). 
A separate sample of 345 children receiving 
occupational therapy intervention was used to verify that the 
SPM scales can differentiate typical children from those 
with clinical disorders. In addition, factor analysis and 
correlational studies provided evidence for the validity of 
the scale scores. For more detail on the standardization and 
validation of the SPM, see chapters 4 and 5 of this manual. 
Principles of Use 
The SPM is intended to support the identification and 
treatment of children with sensory processing difficulties. It 
is therefore appropriate for use in a wide range of 
Table 1 
SPM Forms and Scales 
Number of items 
Home Form scales 
Social Participation (SOC) 10 
Vision (VIS) 11 
Hearing (HEA) 8 
Touch (TOU) 11 
Body Awareness (BOD) 10 
Balance and Motion (BAL) 11 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) 9 
Total Sensory Systems (TOT) 56 
Main Classroom Form scales 
Social Participation (SOC) 10 
Vision (VIS) 7 
Hearing (HEA) 7 
Touch (TOU) 8 
Body Awareness (BOD) 7 
Balance and Motion (BAL) 9 
Planning and Ideas (PLA) 10 
Total Sensory Systems (TOT) 42 
School Environments Form scales 
Art Class (ART) 15 
Music Class (MUS) 15 
Physical Education Class (PHY) 15 
Recess/Playground (REC) 15 
Cafeteria (CAF) 15 
School Bus (BUS) 10 
Note. The Home and Main Classroom scales yield norm-referenced 
standard scores. The School Environments scales yield Total scores 
that are interpreted by means of a cutoff criterion. The TOT scales 
include the VIS, HEA, TOU, BOD, and BAL items, plus several items 
representing taste and smell processing. 
educational, clinical, and research settings. The SPM was 
developed by occupational therapists, but the information it 
provides will also be of value to other professionals, 
including school psychologists, clinical psychologists, 
social workers, counselors, physical therapists, speech and 
language pathologists, psychiatrists, pediatricians, and 
nurses. The SPM School Environments Form incorporates 
the input of school staff members who normally do not 
contribute to assessments. In this way, it serves a team-
building function by educating these staff members about 
sensory processing disorders and by integrating their 
observations to provide a more comprehensive picture of the 
child's functioning. 
The SPM forms are easy to use and can be administered 
and scored by staff members who do not have backgrounds 
in occupational therapy or psychological testing. The SPM 
is intended to be interpreted by an occupational therapist 
with postprofessional training in sensory integration. It is 
strongly recommended that other professionals support their 
2 
ADMINISTRATION AND SCORING 
This chapter describes the administration and scoring 
of the SPM Home AutoScoreTM Form, the SPM Main 
Classroom AutoScoreTm Form, and the SPM School 
Environments Form. 
Administration 
The SPM forms are designed to assess elementary 
school—aged children in kindergarten through the sixth 
grade (ages 5 through 12). The three forms are intended to 
be used together as an integrated system to provide a 
comprehensive overview of the child's sensory functioning 
across home, school, and community contexts. If you have 
access to only one environment, either the Home Form or 
the Main Classroom Form can be used by itself. However, 
the School Environments Form should not be used by itself; 
it should always be administered in conjunction with the 
Main Classroom Form. 
Parents, teachers, and school staff members may be 
unfamiliar with sensory processing disorders or sensory 
integration theory. Before asking these respondents to fill 
out forms, it is important to explain why you are doing the 
assessment and what you hope to learn about the child. Most 
people will be more enthusiastic about completing the SPM 
forms if they understand how valuable the information can 
be in helping children who struggle with sensory processing 
issues. 
SPM Home AutoScoreTm Form 
The SPM Home AutoScoreTm Form (WPS Product 
No. W-466A) can be completed by a parent or other home-
based care provider who lives with the child. The Home 
Form usually requires about 15 to 20 minutes to fill out. If 
possible, the respondent should work on the form in a quiet, 
well-lit room that is relatively free from distractions. 
Prior to giving the AutoScoreTm Form to the parent, 
detach the Profile Sheet and save it for later use in scoring 
the measure. Also, make sure the parent has a hard-tipped 
writing implement (such as a ballpoint pen) to use in filling 
out the form. Explain to the parent that the purpose of the 
SPM is to find out more about how his or her child responds 
to input from senses such as sight, hearing, and touch. Direct 
the parent to read the instructions on the AutoScoreTM Form, 
and answer any questions the parent may have. Remind the 
parent to complete the background information on the front 
of the form, to answer all of the questions, and to press down 
firmly so that responses will be transferred to the Scoring 
Worksheet inside the AutoScoreTm Form. 
When the parent is finished, check to make sure all of 
the items have a response. If there are missing responses, 
return the form to the parent and ask him or her to complete 
those items. 
SPM Main Classroom AutoScoreTm Form 
The SPM Main Classroom AutoScoreTM Form (WPS 
Product No. W-466B) should be completed by the child's 
primary classroom teacher. A teacher's assistant who knows 
the child well may also complete the form. In either case, 
however, the rater must have observed the child in the 
classroom on a daily basis for at least 1 month prior to 
completing the Main Classroom Form. This is to allow the 
respondent to become familiar enough with the child to rate 
the SPM items. The Main Classroom Form usually requires 
about 15 to 20 minutes to fill out. 
Most teachers are accustomed to completingbehavior 
rating scales, and often they will fill out the form outside of 
your presence. Prior to giving the AutoScoreTM Form to the 
teacher, detach the Profile Sheet and save it for later use in 
scoring the measure. Make sure to answer any questions the 
teacher may have, and remind the teacher to use a hard-tipped 
writing implement in filling out the form. When you receive 
the completed form, check for missing responses, and if any 
are missing, ask the teacher to complete those items. 
Teachers may ask how they should rate items that 
refer to behaviors that the child can perform only with the 
assistance of a classroom aide or with environmental 
modifications that have already been put in place. Instruct 
teachers to take all items at face value and rate how 
frequently behaviors occur, even if the behaviors are being 
assisted. In other words, if the child is being assisted, the 
rater should not try to estimate how the child would perform 
without assistance. Teachers may note the kind of assistance 
the child receives in the "Comments" section on the 
AutoScoreTM Form. 
7 
8 	 Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation Guide 
SPM School Environments Form 
The School Environments Form (WPS Product No. 
W-466C) may be used only in conjunction with the Main 
Classroom Form. In addition, each School Environments 
Form rater must have observed the child in the relevant 
setting for at least I month prior to completing the 
appropriate Rating Sheet. 
The School Environments Form is provided on an 
unlimited-use CD that allows you to print the form as 
needed. The form itself is divided into six separate Rating 
Sheets, one for each of the school environments. Once you 
determine which environments/raters are available for a 
particular child, you simply print the corresponding Rating 
Sheets for those environments. (You may also print as many 
of each sheet as you want in order to keep a supply on hand.) 
The suggested raters for each environment are as follows: 
• Art Class: teacher or experienced teacher's 
assistant 
• Music Class: teacher or experienced teacher's 
assistant 
• Physical Education Class: teacher, experienced 
teacher's assistant, or coach 
• Recess/Playground: playground supervisor or 
experienced assistant 
• Cafeteria: cafeteria supervisor or experienced 
assistant 
• School Bus: bus driver or experienced assistant 
School counselors, resource teachers, and clinic-based 
therapists may also serve as raters for a particular 
environment, as long as they have been working with or 
observing the child on a daily or near-daily basis in that 
environment for at least 1 month. 
Many of these school staff members may never have 
filled out a behavior rating scale before and therefore may 
not feel "qualified" to complete the form. Again, it is 
important that you explain to them why you are conducting 
the assessment and how you will use the information they 
provide. Also, you must ensure that they understand the 
directions for completing the items. Encourage them to try 
to provide a rating for all of the items on their sheet. If they 
return the sheet to you with items left blank, ask them to 
read those items again and attempt to make a rating. Because 
of the small number of items (15 for each environment 
except the School Bus, which has 10), it should take raters 
less than 5 minutes to complete their ratings. 
Although it is ideal to find raters for all six 
environments, the School Environments Form can be used 
with fewer raters. If, for example, the child's school does not 
have a music program or an art program, you can still use 
the Rating Sheets for the other environments. Indeed, even if 
only a single rater is available, the School Environments 
Form still provides valuable information on the child's 
functioning outside of the main classroom. 
In some schools, a single person may teach both art 
and music class, or may have the roles of both physical 
education coach and playground supervisor. In these 
instances, that single person may fill out the sheets for both 
environments. Instruct them to, as much as possible, 
complete the items separately for each environment, rather 
than giving global ratings based on their overall impression 
of the child. The same caveat applies when students eat their 
lunch in the main classroom, rather than in the cafeteria. The 
teacher can complete both the Main Classroom Form and 
the Cafeteria sheet of the School Environments Form. 
Items With Negative Phrasing 
Among the three SPM forms, there are some items 
with negative phrasing (e.g., items that begin with "Does 
not..." or "Cannot..."). These items are listed by form in 
Table 2. 
Some respondents may express confusion about how 
to rate these negatively phrased items. In general, you 
should explain that these items refer to the absence or 
nonperformance of a typical (normal) behavior. For 
example, Main Classroom Item 20 reads "Does not respond 
to voices or new sounds." The typical behavior in this item is 
an observable response to voices or new sounds. 
Consequently, a Never rating on Item 20 means that the 
typical behavior is never absent (i.e., the child never fails to 
respond to voices or new sounds, or equivalently, the child 
always responds in the typical manner). On the other hand, 
an Always rating on Item 20 means that the typical behavior 
is always absent (i.e., the child always fails to respond to 
voices or new sounds, or equivalently, the child never 
responds in the typical manner). You may adapt this 
explanation to the other items in Table 2 as needed. 
Interview-Based Administration 
The SPM forms are written at about an eighth-grade 
reading level. Occasionally, you may encounter respondents 
who are not capable of reading at that level (this occurs most 
frequently with parents who are nonnative English 
speakers). In these instances, it is permissible to complete 
the form by interviewing the respondent. You must read the 
instructions and items exactly as they are written on the 
SPM form. You should also exercise caution in interpreting 
the results from such nonstandard administrations. 
Scoring the Home and Main Classroom 
AutoScore TM Forms 
Despite your best efforts to encourage completion of 
every item, some respondents leave items blank. As a rule, if 
either the Home or Main Classroom Form has eight or more 
missing responses you should not proceed with scoring or 
interpretation of that form. If there are seven or fewer 
missing responses, you may proceed with scoring and 
interpretation, substituting median values for the missing 
responses as described in the following section. 
To score either AutoScoreTM Form, first retrieve the 
Profile Sheet that you earlier detached from the form. Enter 
the child's name or identification number on the Profile 
Sheet. Next, prepare the AutoScorem Form for scoring by 
tearing off the perforated strip on the right side and 
Table 2 
SPM Items With Negative Phrasing 
Item 
Home Form 
24 	Appear not to hear certain sounds? 
31 	Seem to lack normal awareness of being touched? 
61 	Seem not to get dizzy when others usually do? 
Main Classroom Form 
20 	Does not respond to voices or new sounds. 
26 	Does not tolerate dirt on hands or clothing, even briefly. 
29 	Does not respond to another's touch. 
32 	Does not clean saliva or food from face. 
34 	Does not notice strong or unusual odors (glue, paint, markers, etc.). 
35 	Cannot distinguish between odors; does not prefer good smells to bad smells. 
53 	Does not perform consistently in daily tasks; quality of work varies widely. 
56 	Does not perform tasks in proper sequence. 
School Environments Form 
Art Class 
	
7 	Does not perform consistently in daily tasks; quality of work varies widely. 
	
8 	Does not return materials and belongings to correct places. 
	
12 	Does not open or close scissors far enough to cut properly. 
	
13 	Does not use scissors for smooth, continuous cutting(instead, does single snips). 
Music Class 
9 Does not maintain attention well. 
Physical Education Class 
4 	Does not keep up with peers in physical activities. 
5 	Does not perform tasks in proper sequence. 
12 	Does not notice nearby motion of others (might collide with others). 
Recess/Playground 
5 	Does not keep up with peers in physical activities. 
Cafeteria 
6 	Does not clean saliva or food from face. 
School Bus 
10 Does not gather belongings or otherwise take notice of approaching bus stop. 
9 
10 	 Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation Guide 
removing and discarding the carbon paper insert. Note that 
the item responses marked on the outside of the form have 
been transferred to the Scoring Worksheet by the carbon 
paper. (Abbreviated scoring instructions appear inside the 
AutoScorellvi Form.) 
Figure 1 shows a completed Home AutoScoreTm Form 
to demonstrate the scoring instructions. (The numbers in 
dark circles in the following text correspond to those in 
Figures 1, 2, and 3.) First, if there are any missing responses, 
circle the score value in bold typeface for that item. The 
bolded value represents the median response for that item in 
the combined SPM standardization and clinical samples 
(which are described in detail in chapter 4) O. 
Next, calculate the raw score for each SPM scale, except 
TOT, by summing the scores for the items assigned to that 
scale. For example, the HEA scale includes Items 22 through 
29, which are set off by a bracket. Summing these item scores 
yields an HEA raw score of 19, which is entered in the 
appropriately labeled box just to the right of the HEA items 0. 
Except for TOT, the other raw scale scores are 
calculated in a similar manner. Note that there is also a box 
to enter the summed item scores from Items 41 to 45 0. 
These items do not have a scale of their own, but they are 
part of the TOT score. (Note: On the Main Classroom Form, 
Items 33 to 36 do not have a scale of their own but are 
included in the TOT score.) 
The TOT scale raw score is calculated by summing the 
raw scores of the VIS, HEA, TOU, BOD, and BAL scales, 
plus the score from Items 41 to 45. These score boxes are 
bracketed on the Scoring Worksheet. The figure shows that 
by adding these sums together, you obtain a TOT raw score 
of 82, which has been entered in the labeled box 0. 
The final step in scoring is to complete the Profile 
Sheet. Transfer the raw scale scores from the Scoring 
Worksheet to the corresponding spaces on the lower half of 
the Profile Sheet 0. Circle the value in each column that 
corresponds to the raw score you have entered for that scale. 
Then connect the circled scores to get a visual representation 
of the child's SPM scores. The T-score and percentile rank 
for each raw score can be found along the right and left 
margins of the Profile Sheet, in the same row where the 
circled raw score value appears. The SPM interpretive 
ranges are marked by shading: Typical (no shading), Some 
Problems (light shading), and Definite Dysfunction (darker 
shading). Enter the SPM scale T-scores in the appropriate 
spaces below the raw scores. Below each T-score, check the 
box corresponding to the interpretive range for that score. In 
Figure 1, the TOT raw score is 82, which has been circled in 
the TOT column 0. The corresponding T-score is 61 0, 
which has been entered below the raw score for TOT (:). 
The interpretive range for a T-score of 61 is Some Problems, 
so that box has been checked for the TOT scale 0. 
Up to this point, the scoring procedures are identical 
for the Home and Main Classroom AutoScoreTm Forms. 
However, each Profile Sheet has a unique feature. If you 
have administered and scored both AutoScoreTM Forms, 
transfer the Main Classroom TOT T-score to the appropriate 
space near the bottom of the Home Form Profile Sheet J. 
Calculate the Environment Difference (DIF) score by 
subtracting the Main Classroom TOT T-score from the 
Home TOT T-score, and enter the result in the labeled space 
Q. You can then check one of the five boxes 0 to indicate 
whether the DIF score indicates no difference, probable 
difference, or definite difference between home and main 
classroom environments, and if there is a difference, which 
environment is associated with more problems. 
A completed Main Classroom Profile Sheet is 
reproduced in Figure 2, and it includes spaces at the bottom 
to record scores from the SPM School Environments Form 
(if administered) 0. 
Scoring the School Environments Form 
Figure 3 shows a completed Art Class (ART) Rating 
Sheet of the School Environments Form. (The other five 
Rating Sheets are reproduced at the back of this manual.) 
The scoring instructions that follow apply equally to all of 
the Rating Sheets. 
In Figure 3, all 15 Art Class items have been completed. 
However, if there are four or more missing responses on any 
of the School Environments Rating Sheets, do not proceed 
with scoring or interpretation of those sheets. If there are 
three or fewer missing responses, you may circle I (the 
median response for all School Environments items) for 
each of the missing items and proceed with scoring. 
For each item, transfer the numerical value associated 
with the circled response to the space for that item along the 
right margin of the form. Then sum the item scores to obtain 
the Total score for the environment, and enter that value in 
the labeled space at the bottom of the Rating Sheet. In 
Figure 3, the item scores for the ART environment sum to 
22, and that value has been entered in the appropriate space 
e. Repeat these scoring procedures for the other School 
Environments Rating Sheets. 
Next, transfer the School Environments scores to the 
corresponding spaces on the Main Classroom Profile Sheet 
(see Figure 2). Below each score is listed the cutoff value for 
that score, and below that is a box to check if the score is 
greater than or equal to the cutoff. In Figure 2, the scores for 
the Physical Education Class (PHY) and Recess/Playground 
(REC) environments exceed their respective cutoff values, 
so check marks have been made in the appropriate boxes Q. 
Now that you have scored the SPM forms, you are 
ready to interpret the results. The next chapter provides 
detailed guidance for interpretation. 
Sensory 	Processing Measure 
AutoScoreTM Form 
L. Diane Parham, Ph.D., OTR/L, FAOTA, 
and Cheryl Ecker, MA., OTR/L 
wps 
Testwncontleence 
Home 
0
 	
0
0
00
- 0
0
 
N 
N 
0 
N 
N 
N 
0 
Parent/Guardian Information 
Your Name/ID#. 	Carol Your Relationship to Child: rn 0 M 
 
Today's Date: 11/20/06 
 
Child Information 
Child's Name/ID#: 	Lydia 
Race/Ethnicity: 
El American Indian/Alaska Native 	El Asian 	Black/African American 	El Hispanic/Latino 	El Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 	0 White 	0 Other 
Comments on child's behavior/functioning: She is bothered by loud sounds. 
DIRECTIONS 
Please answer the questions on this form based on your child's typical behavior during the past month. Use the following rating scale: 
Never: the behavior never or almost never happens 	Frequently: the behavior happens much of the time 
Occasionally: the behavior happens some of the time 	Always: the behavior always or almost always happens 
Circle the one answer that best describes how often the behavior happens. Try your best to answer all of the questions. 
Several questions ask whether your child shows "distress" in certain situations. Showing distress may include verbal expressions (whining, crying, yelling) 
or nonverbal expressions (withdrawing, gesturing, pushing something away, running away, wincing, striking out). 
You may use the space provided above to add any additional comments on your child's behavior or functioning. 
Child's Gender: OM XF Child's Age: 7 Years 6 Months Child's Grade. 2 
vlet 
N 	 
N 	 
N 	 
N 	 
N 	 
N 	 
St 
loos 
	0 	 F 0 1 
0 	 F 0 	2. 
0 	 	0 	 A 3. 
0 	F 	 	4. 
0 	F 0 	5. 
0 	 	F 0