Psychometric Evaluation of the Child Sensory Profile 2 (CSP2) Among Children with Dyslexia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sensory integration is a necessary skill for acquiring reading skills because it strongly depends on the rapid and strong relation between written and verbal symbols. There is no standardized test for Iranian children with dyslexia to investigate their sensory processing problems. Therefore, understanding the validity and reliability of the child sensory profile 2 (CSP2) would be essential for a detailed assessment of sensory impairments in dyslexic children. Objectives: The current research aimed to establish the internal consistency, factor analysis, and convergent validity of the Persian version of CSP2 in children with dyslexia. Methods: The sample of this study included 200 dyslexic children aged 6 to 12 years who were referred to learning disabilities centers in Qom from September 2019 to February 2020 by using the multistage sampling method. To collect data, the CSP2 questionnaire and the dyslexia test (NEMA) were used. The factor structure was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis. The internal consistency of the CSP2 was examined by using Cronbach’s alpha. Convergent validity was assessed by examining the relationship between CSP2 and NEMA. Results: Internal consistency was obtained as 0.89, 0.92, 0.77, and 0.94 for the four subscales of sensory processing, namely registration, seeking, sensitivity, and avoiding, respectively. The result of confirmatory factor analysis gained support for Dunn's four-factor model. Total scores of NEMA were correlated with the scores of CSP2 subscales (seeking, avoiding, sensitivity, and registration). Conclusions: The Persian version of the Child Sensory Profile 2 is a valid (via confirmatory factor analysis and convergent validity) and reliable (via internal consistency) tool for assessing sensory processing in children with dyslexia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".