18/03/2015
Evaluate children’s sensory processing patterns
at home, school, and in the community
Strengths-Based Approach to Assessment and Planning
Shelley Hughes, SROT
Senior Product Manager: Occupational Therapy
Pearson Clinical Assessment
Winnie Dunn,
PhD, OTR, FAOTA
1
18/03/2015
Agenda
Sensory Profile 2
History
Theoretical Underpinnings
What is Sensory Profile 2
What’s New
Administration/Scoring
How is it used
Target Populations
Intervention Planning
Case Studies
Further Information
Appendix
History
(Since original 1999 Publication)
Originally 5 separate assessments
•
•
•
•
•
Sensory Profile (1999)
Infant Toddler Sensory Profile (2002)
Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (2002)
Sensory Profile School Companion (2006)
Sensory Profile Supplement (2006)
Now 2 assessments
• Sensory Profile 2 (2014)
• Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (2002)
Theoretical Underpinnings
Old
New
2
18/03/2015
Sensory Profile 2 Forms
Infant Sensory Profile 2:
birth‐6 months
Toddler Sensory Profile 2:
7‐35 months
Child Sensory Profile 2:
3‐14 years
Short Sensory Profile 2:
3‐14 years
School Companion Sensory Profile 2:
3‐14 years
The Sensory Profile 2 is:
6. 2.
Family
Contextually
5.
7.
1.
4.3.
Evidence
Strength
8.
Simple
Theory
and
Integrated
Inclusive
Child
to
Based
Based
Relevant
Use
Centered
Sensory Profile 2: What’s New?
1. Updated content
– International Relevance
– No double negatives, improved readability
– Approx. 50% new items
2. Shorter administration time with reduced number of items (except Toddler Form)
3. Increased validity and reliability studies
4. Greater consistency between forms
5. Infant and Toddler record forms now two separate forms
6. Infant, Toddler, Child, Short, and School Companion combined in one kit, with one manual
7. Web‐based administration and scoring
8. Strengths based
3
18/03/2015
Sensory Profile 2: What’s New?
9. Ability to compare responses across caregivers with new multi‐rater report in Q‐global™
10.Percentile ranges added for an additional level of analysis
11.Expanded upper age range to 14:11 on Child, School Companion, and Short Forms
12.No longer separate score sheets: Score summary included on questionnaire
13.Weighting on questions now changed – almost always now yields 5 instead of 1
Sensory Profile 2: What’s New?
14.Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (11 yrs and older)
–
–
–
–
Self‐report
Available as a separate product
Not included in the Sensory Profile 2 revision
Q‐global migration with on‐screen and remote on‐screen administration
Retained Item Summary Form
Infant
Toddler
Child
School
Short
Sensory Previous Profile 2 Number of Number of version % of items items items number of total number Number of modified
retained
of Items
new items
retained
Items
25
11
9
4
52%
36
54
28
18
8
48%
48
86
29
43
14
66%
125
44
10
24
10
77%
62
34
25
8
1
27%
38
4
18/03/2015
Administration and Scoring Updates
Sensory Profile 2: Digital Options
1. Reporting Options in Q-global:
– Score Report
– Item Analysis Report
– Assessment & Planning Report
• To help determine the next steps based on
results
– Multi-rater Report
2. Administration Options in Q-global:
– Ability to administer on-screen in the office or
remotely by sending a link by email through Qglobal
Example Items, Icon Key, & Ratings
5
18/03/2015
How is the Sensory Profile 2 used?
What are the target
populations?
• Autism spectrum disorders – Can also contribute to DSM–5™ criteria for autism spectrum disorder i.e. [B.4] manifestation of “hyper‐ or hypo‐reactivity to sensory input or unusual interest in sensory aspects of environment”
•
•
•
•
ADHD
Developmental delays
Anxiety and mental health Ccnditions
Children presenting with vulnerable conditions What are the benefits of using
the Sensory Profile 2?
SP2 is anchored in Dunn’s
framework
•Focus on activity demands
and contexts – making
adjustments to these to
increase participation
•Strengths based
•Strong links with participation
•Strong evidence base across
professional groups
•Age Range birth through
adult
6
18/03/2015
Intervention Planning
• Whole chapter on intervention planning to address the ‘what next’ question
• Whole chapter on case studies to address different scenarios
• Assessment and planning report’s main function is to support the clinician to relate findings from the questionnaire[s] to participation
Intervention Planning
Generally, planning interventions happens after noticing that a particular pattern of sensory processing interferes with something the child, parent, and/or teacher want and need the child to do.
Case Studies
7
18/03/2015
Case Study 1: Noah
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5 Year old Boy
Autism Spectrum Disorder
Wants to be included with peers at school
Transition from small pre‐school environment to larger mainstream school
Previous OT intervention with pre‐school and family; now working on transition
Parent videos
Child Sensory Profile 2
School Companion Sensory Profile 2
Case Study 1: Noah ‐ Scores
• Many Scores different to majority of others
–
–
–
–
Auditory processing = challenges
Visual, touch and movement processing = strengths
Oral processing differences
Behaviours associated with sensory processing differences
Case Study 1: Noah: Interpretation
• Bringing questionnaire responses together with parent videos from home
• School observations
• Therapist, Educational Psychologist, SENCO and Main teacher collaborated
• Observed ritualistic play patterns
• Introduction to new school
‐ ritualistic behaviour ‐ Should we interpret this as seeking or a need for sameness?
8
18/03/2015
Case Study 1: Noah ‐ Intervention
• Primary need: honour what Noah was telling them
• No power struggles
• New teacher spent a day at the pre‐school
‐ Observed visual timetable
‐ Other children playing supportively
‐ Use of headphones
• New school implemented these strategies
‐ Moved desk
‐ Allowed to roam during unstructured time and stand during morning routine
• …and added new strategies
‐ Pushing trolley to deliver snacks and milk to classrooms
‐ Weighted toys
‐ Backpack
Case Study 1: Noah – Intervention Outcomes
• Noah transitioned and participated successfully in his new class
• Other children became comfortable with the routines
• Information was passed on successfully as he transitioned through school
• Circle of friends group
• His peers supported his patterns through school –
they knew him better than each new teacher
Case Study 2: Emily
• 7 year old girl
• Mum wants to participate in family activities
• Mum asked the OT for help managing home life with her 2 children
• Emily has lots of rituals and challenging behaviours in public places – previous early intervention
• Her older brother (Ryan aged 9) says he never gets any of his mum’s attention
• Mum completed the Adolescent/Adult sensory profile on herself, and the Child Sensory Profile 2 for both children
9
18/03/2015
Case Study 2: Emily ‐ Scores
• Mum has mostly expected scores in sensory processing
‐ She does miss cues more than other adults (registration = more than others)
• Ryan’s score are mostly Just Like the Majority of Others
‐ slightly more than peers for movement
• Emily has low sensory thresholds for sounds and touch
Case Study 2: Emily ‐ Interpretation
• Explored home‐life routines for a typical week to determine participation priorities • Major challenge is Ryan’s football games
• The therapist explored insights about why the games were challenging for mum
‐ Mum expressed feeling of guilt about the impact on Ryan’s games, whilst feeling the need to keep Emily safe and not distracting others
‐ Mum expressed the expectation that families ‘do things together’ Case Study 2: Emily ‐ Intervention
•
•
•
•
•
•
Unsuccessful with earplugs (touch)
Tried several strategies over the few weeks
Mum decided to get a babysitter
Everyone was much happier Each individual’s needs were being met
Keeping Emily in her happy natural state at home meant they had more quality family time together
10
18/03/2015
Further Information
Further Information…
• Appendix
• Podcasts on website • Sample Reports
Q‐Global scoring
• Email questionnaires
• Manual entry
• Reports available:
– Assessment and planning
– Multi‐rater
11
18/03/2015
Pricing
• Sensory Profile 2 Starter Kit
– Manual
– 1 pack of each record form
• £244 (£292.80 inc VAT)
• Q‐Global summary report
– £2 (£2.40 inc VAT)
Thank you!
• Questions?
?
Contact us
12
18/03/2015
Appendix
Normative Information
• 1791 Children for standardization with 337 children rated on both the child and school forms
• 774 children with disabilities
• Approx. 10% of sample include children with disabilities
• Data collected both digitally and paper/pencil
Reliability Studies
• Test‐retest
– Caregiver .83 ‐ .97
– School .66 ‐ .93
• Inter‐rater
– Caregiver mostly in .70s and .80s
– Teacher mostly in .70s, .80s and .90s
13
18/03/2015
Reliability Studies
• Test‐retest
– Caregiver .83 ‐ .97
– School .66 ‐ .93
• Inter‐rater
– Caregiver mostly in .70s and .80s
– Teacher mostly in .70s, .80s and .90s
Clinical Comparison Groups
• Discrimination for clinical groups was key for development
• Infant and Toddler forms have comparison group of children with developmental delays
• Child and School Companion Forms have comparison groups of children with: –
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Autism
ADHD
Dual diagnosis of ADHD/ASD
LD
Giftedness
Intellectual Disabilities
Down Syndrome
English as additional language
Other vulnerable conditions
14