Simge Aykan1, Gözde Vatansever2, Beyza Doğanay-Erdoğan3, Canan Kalaycıoğlu4. 1. Department of Physiology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. Electronic address: saykan@ankara.edu.tr. 2. Department of Interdisciplinary Neuroscience, Institute of Health Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey. Electronic address: gozde.vatansever@ankara.edu.tr. 3. Department of Interdisciplinary Neuroscience, Institute of Health Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey; Department of Biostatistics, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. Electronic address: bdoganay@medicine.ankara.edu.tr. 4. Department of Physiology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey; Department of Interdisciplinary Neuroscience, Institute of Health Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey. Electronic address: kalayci@medicine.ankara.edu.tr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although adults are known to have sensory sensitivity differences, existing sensitivity scales have been mostly developed for children. The limited number of adult scales measure social/emotional features and modalities together. AIMS: To develop scales for adults that evaluate visual, auditory and somatosensory sensitivities as separate domains and independent of social/emotional features. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Two consecutive studies (visual-auditory part and somatosensory part) were conducted using the same methods. Both studies included a pilot (n1 = 405 and n2 = 294) and a main group (n1 = 425 and n2 = 603). An exploratory factor analysis produced a single-factor solution for the visual and auditory domains and a three-factor solution for the somatosensory domain (touch, pain, and itch) of Sensory Sensitivity Scales. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: A confirmatory factor analysis revealed good construct validity in the the visual (CFI = .973, TLI = .965, and RMSEA = .075) auditory (CFI = .943, TLI = .927, and RMSEA = .074) and somatosensory (CFI = .955, TLI = .946, and RMSEA = .048) scales. The categories were internally consistent (αv = .86, αa = .79, αs = .69). As an indicator of convergent validity, higher autistic traits were related to higher sensitivity (rs-v = .17, rs-a = .25, rs-s = .14). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Sensory Sensitivity Scales (SeSS) can be used to screen sensory sensitivity variability or identify and follow up the outcome of sensory interventions in adults.
BACKGROUND: Although adults are known to have sensory sensitivity differences, existing sensitivity scales have been mostly developed for children. The limited number of adult scales measure social/emotional features and modalities together. AIMS: To develop scales for adults that evaluate visual, auditory and somatosensory sensitivities as separate domains and independent of social/emotional features. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Two consecutive studies (visual-auditory part and somatosensory part) were conducted using the same methods. Both studies included a pilot (n1 = 405 and n2 = 294) and a main group (n1 = 425 and n2 = 603). An exploratory factor analysis produced a single-factor solution for the visual and auditory domains and a three-factor solution for the somatosensory domain (touch, pain, and itch) of Sensory Sensitivity Scales. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: A confirmatory factor analysis revealed good construct validity in the the visual (CFI = .973, TLI = .965, and RMSEA = .075) auditory (CFI = .943, TLI = .927, and RMSEA = .074) and somatosensory (CFI = .955, TLI = .946, and RMSEA = .048) scales. The categories were internally consistent (αv = .86, αa = .79, αs = .69). As an indicator of convergent validity, higher autistic traits were related to higher sensitivity (rs-v = .17, rs-a = .25, rs-s = .14). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Sensory Sensitivity Scales (SeSS) can be used to screen sensory sensitivity variability or identify and follow up the outcome of sensory interventions in adults.