Sensory Features of Young Children From a Large Community Sample: Latent Factor Structures of the Sensory Experiences Questionnaire (Version 2.1, Short Form)

Abstract

Importance: Although three sensory factors (hyperresponsiveness [HYPO]; hyporesponsiveness [HYPER]; and sensory interests, repetitions, and seeking behaviors [SIRS]) have been demonstrated among a wide age range of clinical populations, they have not been well validated in the general population, especially with a large community sample of young children. Objective: To validate the factor structure of the Sensory Experiences Questionnaire (Version 2.1, Short Form; SEQv2.1) in a community sample and to confirm the factor structure’s existence in this sample. Design: Caregivers completed the SEQv2.1, a parent-reported questionnaire designed to capture children’s everyday sensory experiences. The latent factors of the SEQv2.1 were examined using confirmatory factor analysis. Setting: North Carolina. Participants: Caregivers of 2,195 children age 3 yr were initially recruited through state birth records and were eligible to participate if the child did not have a history of serious medical problems and English was the family’s primary language. Outcomes and Measures: SEQv2.1. Results: The SEQv2.1 showed validity in the community sample. Similar to previous research with clinical populations, the three broad patterns of sensory responsiveness were also confirmed in this large community sample of young children, but associations among the factors differed. Conclusions and Relevance: Validation of the three-sensory-factor structure in the general population suggests that these constructs are similar to those found with samples of participants with autism spectrum disorder and developmental disabilities. This finding underscores the importance of understanding the normative development of sensory features across a wider age range to better delineate qualitative differences underlying sensory features between clinical and general populations. What This Article Adds: Occupational therapists seeking to assess children’s sensory features can use the SEQv2.1 not only with clinical samples but also with children in the general population.

Examining the Latent Structure and Correlates of Sensory Reactivity in Autism: A Multi-site Integrative Data Analysis by the Autism Sensory Research Consortium

“…Notably, we chose to restrict our analyses to autistic children as a way of protecting against both nonnormal latent trait distributions and differential item functioning according to autism diagnostic status (109,110). An additional criterion for inclusion in the current study was the accessibility of cross-sectional item-level data from one of the following sensory questionnaires: the Sensory Pro le 1 (SP1 (55)), the Short Sensory Pro le 1 (SSP1 (111)), the Sensory Pro le 2 (SP2 (56)), the Short Sensory Pro le 2 (SSP2 (56, 112)), the Sensory Experiences Questionnaire, version 2.1 (SEQ-2.1 (57,113)), or the Sensory Experiences Questionnaire, version 3.0 (SEQ-3.0 (49,58)). Although other caregiver questionnaires such as the SP-3D:I were originally considered for inclusion in analyses as well, they were ultimately not included due to a very small number of individuals in our dataset (< 7% of the sample) with usable data on these measures.…”

Self and caregiver report measurement of sensory features in autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review of psychometric properties

“…Overall, we must classify the fundamental bounds of sensory features as a construct related to ASD and test theoretical models to provide a better outline for the construct dimensions. The field continues to see therapies that claim to treat sensory symptoms central to ASD without discretely measuring the symptom or monitoring change in the behavior [ 41 , 42 , 61 ]. Valid and reliable sensory measures are critical to ensuring therapeutic outcomes map onto the claims of the intervention.…”

“…Therefore, no tool met the criteria to be recommended as "appropriate" for measuring sensory features in individuals with ASD. Five assessment tools were classified as "appropriate with conditions" (SEQ, SAND, SPQ, BBCSS, SR-AS) [24,28,34,35,[40][41][42][43]. Six assessments were identified as "inappropriate, " indicating evidence contrary to the quality criteria in one or more indices of reliability or validity (SSP, SSQ-R, AASP, SBS, SSQ, SSC) [26,29,31,37,38,44,45].…”

Early developmental profiles of sensory features and links to school-age adaptive and maladaptive outcomes: A birth cohort investigation

“…Some commonly reported sensory features include sensory hyperresponsiveness (HYPER; e.g., overly sensitive to or distressed by sounds, textures, or lights), hyporesponsiveness (HYPO; e.g., low or no apparent reaction to touch, sound or movement sensation), and sensory interests, repetitions and seeking behaviors (SIRS; e.g., showing unusual interest in flickering lights, intense touch pressure, or particular sounds). The presence of these sensory features has been empirically supported by psychometric validations in autistic as well as general populations Lee et al, 2022). Previous evidence has revealed the early emergence of sensory features within the first year in infants who later developed autism (Sacrey et al, 2015;Van Etten et al, 2017;Wolff et al, 2019), indicating their potential utility as early behavioral markers of autism.…”