Tests & Measures: A Resource for Pediatric Physical Therapy Practitioners

51 Sensory Integration and Praxis Test

1. Descriptive Information
   1. Title, Edition, Dates of Publication and Revision*
      1. Sensory Integration and Praxis Test
      2. 1^st edition
      3. Publication: 1989

1. Author (s)
   1. A. Jean Ayres, Ph.D.

1. Source (publisher or distributor, address)
   1. Distributed by Western Psychological Services
      1. 625 Alaska Avenue, Torrance, CA 90503 (800) 648-8857
      2. http://www.wpspublish.com/store/p/2971/sensory-integration-and-praxis-test-sipt

1. Costs (booklets, forms, kit)*
   1. Kit: $1,095.00

1. Purpose* – This test assesses motor planning and sensory integration in children that looks at the following 17 areas
   1. Space Visualization
   2. Figure-Ground Perception
   3. Standing/Walking Balance
   4. Design Copying
   5. Postural Praxis
   6. Bilateral Motor Coordination
   7. Praxis on Verbal Command
   8. Constructional Praxis
   9. Postrotary Nystagmus
   10. Motor Accuracy
   11. Sequencing Praxis
   12. Oral Praxis
   13. Manual Form Perception
   14. Kinesthesia
   15. Finger Identification
   16. Graphesthesia
   17. Localisation of Tactile Stimuli

1. Type of Test (eg, screening, evaluative; interview, observation, checklist or inventory)*
   1. Screening/evaluation tool

1. Target Population and Ages*
   1. 4 years 0 months to 8 years 11 months

1. Time Requirements  – Administration and Scoring*
   1. 2-3 hours for total test – 30 minutes for scoring
   2. 10 minutes per individual test

1. Test Administration
   1. Administration
      1. Test is typically administered by an OT, SLP, or psychologist and covers four main areas of visual perception, somatosensory, praxis, and sensorimotor. Each of the 17 tests has a subset of instructions on the correct administration. The test should be done in a room that is quiet with minimal distractions.

1. Scoring
   1. Computerized results based off standardized scores

1. Type of information, resulting from testing (e.g. standard scores, percentile ranks)
   1. This test uses standardized scores

1. Environment for Testing
   1. Quiet room

1. Equipment and Materials Needed
   1. SIPT Kit

1. Examiner Qualifications
   1. OT, psychologist, or SLP
   2. Recommended to take a course but not necessary

1. Psychometric Characteristics*
   1. This test has been proved to be both reliable and valid among the desired age population.
   2. No reported MCID

1. Standardization/normative data
   1. Scores have been standardized off of 2000 children in the US and a small subset from Canada from all different backgrounds and ethnicities.

1. Evidence of Reliability
   1. Asher AV, Parham LD, Knox S. Interrater reliability of Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests (SIPT) score interpretation. Am J Occup Ther. 2008;62(3):308-19.
      1. Interrater reliability was moderate to high for interpretation of the presence of sensory integrative dysfunction using SIPT scores. Less agreement was apparent regarding specific patterns of dysfunction. Results suggest that additional clinical information, such as clinical observations and case history, may be needed to make reliable distinctions among dysfunctional patterns.

1. Evidence of Validity
   1. Cermak SA, Murray EA. The validity of the Constructional subtests of the Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests. Am J Occup Ther. 1991;45(6):539-43.
      1. The results of this study lend support to the validity of the Design Copying and Constructional Praxis subtests of the SIPT as measures of constructional abilities in children with learning disabilities.

1. Discriminative
   1. The study above has shown this test is capable of determining patients with a learning disability versus a non-learning disability.

1. Summary Comments*
   1. Strengths
      1. Can test individual components to narrow down and specify treatments
      2. Tests a broad range of sensory and praxis integration abilities in children

1. Weaknesses
   1. Long test if done in full which could result in poor results due to inattention of patient that may not accurately represent the patient’s abilities

1. Clinical Applications
   1. Allows for specification of therapy and focus of treatment to maximize time spent during the session working on the most important aspects of care for the development of the child.
   2. After treatment, the therapist can retest a specific area to judge improvement.

References:

1. Asher AV, Parham LD, Knox S. Interrater reliability of Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests (SIPT) score interpretation. Am J Occup Ther. 2008;62(3):308-19.
2. Cermak SA, Murray EA. The validity of the Constructional subtests of the Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests. Am J Occup Ther. 1991;45(6):539-43.

 

Article Summary:

Bundy AC, Shia S, Qi L, Miller LJ. How does sensory processing dysfunction affect play?. Am J Occup Ther. 2007;61(2):201-8.

 

This study looked at children who had sensory processing dysfunction and the effect it has on the playfulness of the child as well as how interventions increase playfulness among this population compared to norms. The study compared two groups of 20 each. One group was comprised of children with deficits in sensory processing while the other group of 20 was typically developing children. The participants were matched up based on age to make comparisons more accurate based on age and level of development. Multiple tests and outcome measures were used to determine the level of SPD in these children. The Test of Playfulness (ToP) was used as the official test to determine playfulness. Six of the seven praxis tests were used from the SIPT to assess praxis and motor aspects in the children.

During the initial stage of testing, both groups scored high on playfulness with no difference in the two groups which was not expected. After these students went through occupational therapy based off the results of the tests and measures, they were reassessed. The authors found that the typically developing children were significantly higher after intervention as was expected. What was unexpected was that the children with SPD did not improve significantly in ToP post interventions. This told the authors that they may need to readdress how they are treating patients with SPD to maximize their playfulness as this is how many children continue to develop. They did find, however, that children with SPD were more likely to partake in sedentary activities versus active play.