Abstract
Date Presented 04/20/2023
The concurrent and construct validity of the Sensory Profile Interoception (SPI) was supported by statistically significant relationships with the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile and other measures associated with interoception. With the more precise information the SPI provides, professionals can design tailored interventions to support everyday life goals, and researchers can study interoception in authentic activities.
Primary Author and Speaker: Winnie Dunn
Additional Authors and Speakers: Catana Brown
PURPOSE: One’s ability to notice and respond to internal body sensations (i.e., interoception) contributes to a sense of wellbeing (Ceuhen et al, 2016). Currently, however, tools for evaluating one’s interoception lack the conceptual foundation and clarity necessary to identify everyday behaviors that specifically reflect interoceptive awareness (i.e., interoceptive impact) (Garfinkel et al, 2015). The Sensory Profile Interoception (SPI) scale is participation-based and grounded in Dunn’s Sensory Processing framework. The purpose of this study was to examine the concurrent and construct validity of the SPI.
DESIGN: A cross sectional psychometric design was used. 74 college-aged participants were recruited from 3 occupational therapy programs, and 1 psychology program.
METHOD: Using the REDCAP online platform participants completed the measures. We investigated concurrent validity by correlating the SPI with the Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (A/ASP); we investigated construct validity by correlating the SPI with the Perth Alexithymia Scale (PAS), the Body Awareness Scale (BAS), and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI).
RESULTS: Using Spearman rank order correlations there were statistically significant relationships between the corresponding sensory pattern subscales on SPI and A/ASP (r = 0.277 to r = 0.582). The PAS was only weakly related to the registration subscale of the SPI (r=0.260). The BAS had significant relationships with seeking and avoiding on the SPI (r=0.496 and r=0.385). The STAI had significant relationships with sensitivity and registration of the SPI (r=0.266 and r=0.361 respectively for state; r=0.403 and r=0.321 respectively for trait).
CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these findings provide evidence of construct validity of the SPI to identify participation patterns associated with both high and low interoception. This study extends conceptual models of interoception by examining interoceptive impact, not just awareness.
IMPACT STATEMENT: With the more precise information the SPI provides, professionals can design tailored interventions to support everyday life goals and researchers can study interoception within authentic activities.
References
Ceuhen, E., Vlaeyen, J. W. S., & Van Diest, I. (2016). On the origin of interoception. Frontiers.of Psychology, 7, 743. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00743
Garfinkel, S. N., Seth, A.K., Barrett, A.B., Suzuki, K., & Critchley, H.D. (2015). Knowing your own heart: Distinguishing interoceptive accuracy from interoceptive awareness. Biological Psychology, 104, 65-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2014.11.004
