Concurrent Validity of the Adult Sensory Processing Scale and the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile

This study aims to establish concurrent validity of the Adult Sensory Processing Scale (ASPS) published in the American Journal of Occupational Therapy in 2014 using the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (AASP) as the external criterion. The AASP is a standardized assessment used to determine sensory processing patterns in adolescents and adults. The AASP has been shown to have strong internal consistency and content validity and moderate convergent validity. This indicates its suitability for use in establishing concurrent validity for the ASPS.

One hundred sixty-three eligible adults ages 18–64 (mean = 36.0 yr, standard deviation = 11.2) completed the two questionnaires. Respondents were recruited through convenience and snowball sampling. Both AASP and ASPS assessments utilize a 5-point Likert scale (1 = always/strongly agree, 5 = never/strongly disagree), indicating the frequency of exhibiting sensory behaviors, which include the areas of audition, proprioception, touch, vision, and vestibular. Each sensory score was calculated along with 11 factor scores from the ASPS and four quadrant scores (sensory seeking, sensory avoidance, sensory sensitivity, and low registration) from the AASP. Pearson’s correlation was used to examine the relationship between the sensory variables in the two assessments. SPSS was used, and the significance level was set at .05.

Results showed that there are significant correlations between sensory scores from the AASP and the ASPS (all p < .05). The strengths of correlations between sensory scores were moderate to moderately high (rs = .32–.70) except the proprioception scale score on the ASPS and the Taste/Smell score on the AASP. For the quadrant scores in the AASP and factors in the ASPS, Sensory Sensitivity in AASP is significantly correlated with four factors in ASPS, which include overresponsiveness to vestibular (r = .75), overresponsiveness to auditory (r = .77), overresponsiveness to visual (r = .60), and overresponsiveness to social touch (r = .72). Sensory seeking in AASP is significantly correlated with proprioceptive seeking (r = .65) and auditory seeking (r = .54). These results suggest the existence of concurrent validity between the ASPS and the AASP.

Overall, the results showed a positive relationship to support the validity of the ASPS. It may be used as an instrument for examining the relationship between the diverse modes of processing within specific sensory systems and the occupational choices of adults with a variety of diagnoses and disabilities. The ASPS can potentially become a valuable clinical assessment tool used in developing intervention strategies to address adult occupational needs on the basis of individual sensory processing patterns within specific environments. The ASPS could significantly assist occupational therapists, both in research and in clinical practice.

IMPACT STATEMENT: Practitioners can use the ASPS to develop interventions for clients and identify the potential relationship between occupational activities and sensory processing. This is yet another tool useful in determining implications for adults who experience sensory processing difficulties.