The Sensory Observation Autism Rating Scale (SOAR): Developed using the PROMIS® framework

Abstract

Autistic people experience the sensory world differently, impacting behavior. First‐hand accounts and group‐based research have found that sensory differences impact a range of things including family life, anxiety, participation, and daily living. Early sensory differences are widely reported to be associated with a cascade of developmental difference, suggesting that early autism diagnosis and sensory mapping could enable the provision of supports to facilitate flourishing. However, appropriate measurement tools are not available as all rely on proxy report or are observation measures which include limited modalities or domains and require the administration of stimuli. Therefore, following the gold‐standard recommendations for measurement development outlined by the PROMIS® framework, we created the Sensory Observation Autism Rating scale (SOAR). We identified sensory behaviors across all primary domains and modalities through an extensive autism‐sensory literature review and from focus groups with autism stakeholders. The initial item bank was then refined by an expert panel and through video coding five‐minutes of free play from Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule assessments of 105 age‐ and gender‐matched autistic and developmentally delayed children (aged 13–36 months; 38 female). An additional 25% of the sample were double coded to investigate interrater reliability. Observational data and expert review supported the reduction of the item bank to 37 items. We propose that the refined SOAR has excellent face and ecological validity, along with interrater reliability (Intraclass correlation = 0.87–0.99). Following further data collection and refinement, SOAR has promise to fully characterize sensory behaviors in autistic children and indicate useful supports.

Examining the latent structure and correlates of sensory reactivity in autism: a multi-site integrative data analysis by the autism sensory research consortium

“…Therefore, for applied researchers hoping to investigate these aspects of the autism phenotype using caregiver-report questionnaires, we strongly recommend that these two HYPO subconstructs in particular be studied at the single-modality level, as the nuanced associations between modality-specific variables and external correlates may be obscured by the use of supra-modal HYPO scores that combine subconstructs into a single variable when assessing individual differences. Notably, it is currently unclear whether these HYPO subconstructs demonstrate equally divergent patterns of external correlations when measured using other techniques (e.g., clinician observation [ 84 , 85 ]), and this remains an important avenue for future research.…”

“…[170,171]), clinician-rated behavioral observation (e.g. [84,85,172,173]), and parent/caregiver interview (e.g. [84]) tools.…”

“…Thus, additional research is needed to more conclusively determine whether sensory reactivity differences in autism are most appropriately studied at the level of a response pattern score (HYPER, HYPO, or SEEK) combined across modalities (e.g. [30,66,[82][83][84][85]), at the level of modality-specific response pattern scores (e.g. [75,[77][78][79][80]86]), or some combination of the two (e.g., interpreting both types of scores; favoring one level of analysis at different points in a study based on the research question or the specific construct(s) being studied).…”