Sensory Processing Measure

The SPM (Sensory Processing Measure) is a caregiver- and teacher-rated scale that assesses sensory processing across eight scales in children aged 5–12. A T-score of 70 or above indicates definite dysfunction ^[2].

What does the SPM measure?

The Sensory Processing Measure (SPM) is a standardized, norm-referenced caregiver and teacher rating scale developed by Miller-Kuhaneck, Henry, Glennon and colleagues to assess sensory processing abilities and related social participation in children ages 5–12 ^[1]. The companion SPM-P (Preschool) covers ages 2–5, and the SPM-2 (2019 revision, WPS) is an updated edition with age-banded forms spanning from infancy through adulthood.

The SPM is designed to be completed by both caregivers/parents (Home Form) and teachers (Main Classroom Form) to capture sensory processing differences across environments. It assesses how the brain interprets and organizes sensory information from the environment and from the body, identifying patterns consistent with sensory over-responsivity, under-responsivity, and sensory seeking.

Scores are converted to age-normed T-scores (mean=50, SD=10). T-scores of 60–69 indicate some problems with sensory processing; T-scores ≥70 indicate definite dysfunction requiring further evaluation and intervention planning ^[2]. The SPM is used by occupational therapists, school psychologists, and developmental pediatricians as part of autism, ADHD, and sensory integration evaluations.

How do you give the SPM?

The SPM uses informant ratings rather than direct testing:

• Home Form: completed by a parent or caregiver.
• Main Classroom Form: completed by the child's teacher.

The two forms are scored independently, because home and school can produce meaningfully different sensory profiles for the same child ^[3].

Results are interpreted by a qualified occupational therapist or psychologist as part of a broader developmental evaluation. The SPM is a published, norm-referenced measure; scoring uses the age norms in the manual ^[2].

How do you score and interpret the SPM?

SPM raw item responses are converted to age-normed T-scores (mean=50, SD=10). Each of the eight scales produces its own independent T-score; there is no single summed total raw score. The bands below represent the standard clinical convention established in the SPM manual.

Because each scale is interpreted independently, a child may show typical performance on some scales and definite dysfunction on others. This profile approach is one of the SPM's key clinical strengths — it directs intervention planning to the specific sensory systems most affecting daily function.

What are the SPM's eight scales?

The SPM measures sensory processing and related functions across eight scales. Each scale produces an independent T-score; the Total Sensory Systems score provides an overall summary.

Note that the SPM uses consumer-friendly scale labels (Body Awareness, Balance & Motion, Planning & Ideas) rather than the corresponding neurological terms (proprioception, vestibular, praxis). Clinicians reporting results should clarify which underlying sensory system each label represents.

Sensory patterns and what they mean

The SPM identifies three response patterns that can co-exist within the same individual, even within the same sensory system.

Sensory over-responsivity means the nervous system reacts more strongly or quickly than typical to a given input level. A child who is over-responsive to touch may resist clothing tags, avoid being touched, or become dysregulated during routine grooming.

Sensory under-responsivity means the nervous system fails to register or respond to sensory input at the level typical peers do. An under-responsive child may appear inattentive, seem unaware of injuries, or require intense input to produce a reaction.

Sensory seeking describes an active, motivated drive to obtain more sensory input — the child actively crashes into furniture, touches everything, or seeks spinning and swinging. Unlike under-responsivity, seeking is a behavioural strategy rather than simply a registration failure.

These three patterns are not mutually exclusive; a child may show over-responsivity in one sensory system while seeking input in another.

An elevated T-score on any single SPM scale does not on its own identify which pattern is present: over-responsivity, under-responsivity, and seeking can each contribute to a high score. The specific response pattern is identified through examination of the individual item-level responses and clinical observation.

Identifying the pattern within each domain guides intervention: sensory integration therapy, environmental modification, and sensory diet strategies differ meaningfully depending on whether the primary pattern is over-responsivity, under-responsivity, or seeking.

SPM Versions Overview

The SPM family has expanded since the 2007 original to cover the full developmental lifespan. The table below summarizes the main versions available from Western Psychological Services (WPS).

The SPM-P was developed alongside the original SPM and shares the same publisher and T-score framework. The SPM-2 (2019) is a comprehensive revision by Western Psychological Services that maintains backward conceptual compatibility with the original SPM while providing updated normative data and forms covering ages outside the original 5–12 range. Clinicians should specify which version was used when reporting results, as norms differ across editions.

Cross-cultural adaptations of the SPM have been studied. A Hong Kong Chinese version (SPM-HKC) was valid and reliable for screening sensory processing difficulty in 547 typically developing children and 140 children with autism spectrum disorder ^[3].

Psychometric properties

• Development pilots. The SPM-School correctly classified 92.3% of typically developing children and 72% of children with sensory issues, with internal consistency (Cronbach's α) of .93 to .99 in the first pilot study and .70 to .99 in the second ^[1]. These are early pilot data; the manual reports separate normative statistics from the full standardization sample.
• Hong Kong Chinese version. In 547 typically developing children and 140 autistic children aged 5–12, the SPM was valid and reliable for screening sensory processing difficulty, but correlations between the Home Form and the Main Classroom Form were low, supporting separate forms and norms for each setting ^[3].
• SPM-2. A pilot study of 30 parents of neurotypical children aged 7–12 found moderate-to-strong correlations (0.40 to 0.74) between the SPM2 Home Form and the sensory subscales of the Child Sensory Profile 2 ^[4].

Limitations

• Not a diagnosis. The SPM describes patterns of sensory processing difficulty; it does not diagnose sensory processing disorder, autism or ADHD.
• Informant and setting effects. Home and classroom ratings often differ, so each form must be read on its own norms.
• Scores do not identify the pattern. An elevated scale score can reflect over-responsivity, under-responsivity or seeking; item-level review and observation are needed.
• Edition-specific norms. Norms differ between the SPM, SPM-P and SPM-2, so report which version was used.
• Pilot-stage evidence in the cited studies. The published development data are early pilot results; the full standardization statistics are in the publisher's manual.

Which measures pair with the SPM?

The SPM is often used alongside complementary standardized measures when monitoring sensory and developmental outcomes across settings. Common pairings include the CARS-2 for autism severity, the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales for adaptive function, and the Conners or Vanderbilt assessments for attention difficulties.

Using a consistent battery across re-assessment points lets clinicians detect change in specific sensory domains while also tracking broader developmental and behavioural outcomes, supporting measurement-based care in pediatric, autism and school-based programmes.