Rehab Measures Database
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Sensory Profile

Sensory Profile

Last Updated

Purpose

The Sensory Profile is a norm-referenced assessment used to identify sensory processing patterns and comprehend the impact of different sensory processing patterns on functional performance.

Link to Instrument

https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Motor-Sensory/Sensory-Profile-2/p/100000822.html

Area of Assessment

Hearing
Infant & Child Development
Olfaction
Taste
Touch
Vestibular
Vision & Perception

Assessment Type

Observer

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Not Free

Actual Cost

$339.50

Cost Description

Sensory Profile 2 Complete Kit: $339.50. Sensory Profile 2 Complete Kit and Sensory Profile Adolescent/Adult Complete Kit Combination: $500.00. Combination kit includes Sensory Profile 2 Manual, 25 Infant Record, 25 Toddler Record Forms, 25 Child Record Forms, 25 School Companion Record Forms, 25 Short Form Record Forms, Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile User's Manual, and 25 Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile Self Questionnaire/Summary Reports.

CDE Status

Not a CDE – last searched 9/1/2023.

Populations

Neurological Disorders
Mixed Populations

Key Descriptions

  • Sensory Profile has various versions: Sensory Profile (125 items), Sensory Profile Short Form (38 items), Sensory Profile 2 (192 items), Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (60 items).
  • Sensory Profile is for ages 3 to 10 years. Sensory Profile Short Form is a shortened version of the Sensory Profile for ages 3 to 10 years. Sensory Profile 2 includes an infant, toddler, child, and school companion form for ages 0 to 14 years. Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile is for ages 11 years and older and is conducted through a self-report form.
  • Utilizes a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “almost always” to “almost never” with assigned numerical values of 5 to 1 respectively or 0 for “does not apply”.
  • Latest version includes 9 subscales: Auditory, Visual, Touch, Movement, Body Position, Oral Sensory, Conduct, Social Emotional, and Attentional.
  • Latest version includes 4 quadrants (sensation seeking, sensory sensitivity, sensation avoiding, and low registration) that outline sensory processing patterns.
  • Subscale raw scores are individually calculated, followed by quadrant raw scores. Raw scores are converted into percentile ranks.
  • Percentile ranges rank individuals on four sensory processing patterns.
  • Assessment can be completed by caregivers or educators (using the school companion form). A self-reported version (PROM) is available for specific age ranges.

Number of Items

Sensory Profile: 125 items

Sensory Profile Short Form: 38 items

Sensory Profile 2: 192 items

Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile: 60 items

Equipment Required

  • Paper-and-pencil and web-based administration and scoring available through Q-global (https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Q-global-Video-Proctoring/p/P100032000.html)

Time to Administer

15 to 45 minutes

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Age Ranges

Preschool Children

2 - 5

years

Child

6 - 12

years

Adolescent

13 - 17

years

Adult

18 - 64

years

Instrument Reviewers

Gurpreet Singh, OTD student, OTR/L, Columbia University 

Anna Norweg, PhD, MA, OTR, Columbia University

ICF Domain

Body Function
Participation

Measurement Domain

Sensory

Professional Association Recommendation

None found – last searched 9/1/2023.

Considerations

  • Collaborate with caregivers, educators, and clients when collecting information about sensory processing abilities in different settings.
  • For the Sensory Profile and Sensory Profile Short Form, caregiver reporting is required. For the Sensory Profile 2, caregiver reporting is required with an additional option of educator reporting for ages 3 to 14 years. For the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile, self-reporting is required.
  • Review manuals thoroughly to administer and interpret the Sensory Profile for reliable and accurate results.
  • Although they are not outlined in the manuals, be mindful of developmental milestones when utilizing assessment results for treatment planning.
  • Consider cultural factors when assessing sensory behaviors.

Mixed Populations

back to Populations

Test/Retest Reliability

Healthy Children: (Ohl et al., 2012; n = 55; age range: 36 to 72 months; Sensory Profile Caregiver Questionnaire)

  • Acceptable test-retest reliability across quadrant (sensation seeking, sensory sensitivity, sensation avoiding, and low registration) for Sensory Profile Caregiver Questionnaire (ICC = 0.80 to 0.90)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

School-Age Children: (Brown et al. 2010; n = 60; parent participants (30 mothers and 30 fathers); age range = 5 to 10 years; Sensory Profile Caregiver Questionnaire)

  • Adequate interrater reliability for Sensory Profile Caregiver Questionnaire (ICC = 0.48)

 

Internal Consistency

Healthy Children: (Ohl et al., 2012)

  • Excellent internal consistency across quadrant (sensation seeking, sensory sensitivity, sensation avoiding, and low registration) scores for Sensory Profile Caregiver Questionnaire (Cronbach’s alpha range from 0.89 to 0.95*)

 

Adolescents/Adults: (Brown et al., 2001; n = 93; age range = 18-62 years; Revised Adult Sensory Profile)

  • Poor internal consistency for Sensation Seeking subscale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.60)
  • Adequate internal consistency for Sensory Sensitivity subscale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.78), Sensation Avoiding subscale (0.77), and Low Registration subscale (0.78)

 

School-Age Children: (Brown et al., 2010)

  • Excellent internal consistency for overall Sensory Profile (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.97*)
  • Excellent internal consistency for overall Sensory Profile School Companion (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94*)

*Scores higher than 0.9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions.

 

Construct Validity

Convergent Validity

School-Age Children: (Brown et al., 2010)

  • Excellent convergent validity between total scores on the Sensory Profile and the Sensory Processing Measure Home Form (Spearman’s Rho = 0.86, p < 0.01)
  • Adequate to Excellent convergent validity between subscores of the Sensory Profile and the Sensory Processing Measure Home Form (Spearman’s Rho range from 0.36 (p < 0.05) to 0.74 (p < 0.01)

 

Content Validity

A panel of eight expert judges comprised of three occupational therapists, three graduate students, and two psychology faculty members from a research seminar reviewed 60 items from the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile. They were able to adequately define and categorize the items into the four quadrants of the assessment. The degree of agreement exceeded 75%. A low registration item that was miscategorized by three judges was revised. (Brown et al., 2001).

Neurological Disorders

back to Populations

Internal Consistency

Autism Spectrum Disorder: (Tomchek et al., 2015; Short Sensory Profile) 

  • Excellent internal consistency for Total Scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89)

Bibliography

Brown, C., Tollefson, N., Dunn, W., Cromwell, R., & Filion, D. (2001). The adult sensory profile: Measuring patterns of sensory processing. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55(1), 75–82. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.55.1.75

Brown, T., Morrison, I. C., & Stagnitti, K. (2010). The reliability of two sensory processing scales used with school-age children: Comparing the dof mothers, fathers, and classroom teachers rating the same child. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 3(4), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/19411243.2010.541775

Brown, T., Swayn, E., Lyons, C., &amp; Taylor, J. (2021). Convergent validity between two parent report sensory processing scales: The Child Sensory Profile 2-Caregiver Questionnaire and the sensory processing measure-home form. Annals of International Occupational Therapy, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.3928/24761222-20210601-05

Ohl, A., Butler, C., Carney, C., Jarmel, E., Palmieri, M., Pottheiser, D., & Smith, T. (2012). Test–retest reliability of the Sensory Profile Caregiver Questionnaire. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66(4), 483–487. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2012.003517

Tomchek, S. D., Huebner, R. A., & Dunn, W. (2015). Patterns of sensory processing in children with an Autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8(9), 1214–1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2014.06.006  

Williams, Z. J., Failla, M. D., Gotham, K. O., Woynaroski, T. G., & Cascio, C. (2018). Psychometric Evaluation of the Short Sensory Profile in Youth with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 48(12), 4231–4249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3678-7

 

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Oct 15, 2024

Buss-Durkee Hostility Inve...

read more

updated Sep 11, 2024

Structured Clinical Interv...

read more

updated Aug 28, 2024

NIH Toolbox for Assessment...

read more