Sensory processing measure-HK Chinese version: psychometric properties and pattern of response across environments.

The team translated the Sensory Processing Measure into Hong Kong Chinese. They gave the Home and Classroom forms to the children . Half had autism, half were typical peers. Parents, teachers, and the kids themselves filled out the forms. Then the researchers ran reliability and validity checks.

The Chinese SPM works. Internal consistency was good (above 0.80) for every scale. Test-retest numbers were solid. Yet Home and Classroom scores did not match well. A child could look “typical” at home and “at-risk” at school, or the other way around.

Kaiser et al. (2022) saw the same rater split with the SDQ. Parent reports held up better than teacher or self reports in kids with IDD. The pattern echoes here: one informant is never enough.

Chiu et al. (2014) also adapted a Western scale into traditional Chinese. Their WHODAS 2.0 showed strong psychometrics, but it was for adults. Together these studies show translation can work, yet each new culture needs its own data.

Rojahn et al. (1994) reminds us that method matters. They found paired preference tests beat group tests for reliability. Likewise, using both SPM forms beats using just one.

If you screen sensory needs in Chinese-speaking families, use the SPM-HKC. Always collect both Home and Classroom forms. A single setting can hide problems or create false alarms. When scores clash, schedule an observation before you write goals.