Proxy-reported sensory measures for children and adolescents with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review.
Nicolette Soler, Reinie Cordier, Iain E Perkes and 2 others
PMID 35906897WHAT IT FOUND
Only the Participation and Sensory Environment Questionnaire had clear evidence its caregiver questions were relevant, complete, and understandable for children with neurodevelopmental disorders.
Most other sensory questionnaires lacked this evidence, so check the evidence before using them.
Key findings
01The PSEQ was the only measure with evidence that its caregiver questions were relevant, complete, and understandable.
02Many included studies were developed for children with autism, and no child-reported sensory measures were found.
03No included study reported whether the measures can detect change over time.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review included only measures for children aged 3 to 18 years, so it says nothing about infants or younger children. Most measures had only one publication reporting psychometric properties. Many studies were developed for children with autism, and some included typically developing children without a clinical sample, so evidence for broad neurodevelopmental groups is limited. No measure had child-reported data, so the results reflect caregiver report only. No study reported responsiveness, so the review cannot tell whether these measures can detect change after intervention. The studies did not report whether children had received sensory-based intervention, which may have affected caregiver answers. Measures without evidence that questions are relevant, complete, and understandable cannot be recommended for clinical use.
Declared interests
The work was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Petre Foundation, Indiana University, the University of Sydney, and the Sydney Medical School. The provided text does not list other author conflicts.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume a sensory questionnaire is ready for clinical use because it has good internal consistency. Most measures lacked evidence that their questions were relevant, complete, and understandable, and none showed whether they can detect change after therapy.