The Sensory Processing Measure – Second Edition: A Critical Review and Appraisal

AbstractThis paper aims to provide an overview and critique of the newly updated Sensory Processing Measure – second edition (SPM-2) to assist clinicians in understanding its strengths and limitations and in selecting an appropriate sensory processing scale that best meets their clients' needs. Using four established research methodological quality critique tools, the SPM-2's family of age-related versions was evaluated by administering the tools separately and discussed their scoring and findings to reach a consensus on all ratings. The tools identified several strengths and weaknesses of the SPM-2. The SPM-2's items on its age-related versions scored well in the criteria of internal consistency, test-retest reliability, explanation of the instrument design, construct validity, content validity, criterion validity and ease of administration, and scoring. However, a lack of normative data for participant groups outside of the United States, methodological limitations, and a lack of investigation into some important psychometric properties, particularly responsiveness, were identified as notable weaknesses of the SPM-2's items on its age-related versions based on the critique criteria. Overall, despite the areas needing further development and investigation, the SPM-2 is considered a psychometrically sound tool that provides a reliable and valid approach to measuring aspects of the sensory processing construct across the lifespan.Keywords: Occupational therapypediatricspsychometricsreliabilityvalidityreviewsensory processingsensory integration Disclosure statementThe authors confirm that there are no conflicts of interest relevant to the contents of the article.SponsorshipNo sponsorship was involved in any part of the preparation and drafting of this manuscript.Writing assistanceThe authors did not receive any medical writing or editorial assistance in the preparation of the article at any time. No artificial intelligence software or any other time of text generating software was used at any time in the drafting of the article text.Additional informationFundingThe authors received no formal funding related to the drafting of this manuscript. There was no involvement of a pharmaceutical/other company in the writing of this manuscript.