Sign Up
Login
Try for Free
Login
The Sensory Profile 2 (SP2) is a family of five caregiver and teacher questionnaires (birth through 14 years 11 months) measuring sensory processing patterns through Dunn's four quadrants. OTs and evaluation teams use it in autism, feeding, and school evaluations. The write-up must name the form and respondent, and report patterns without diagnosing. This page covers how to write up SP2 results, with a fictional sample.
Occupational therapists most centrally, plus school psychologists, developmental teams, and autism evaluators; Pearson qualification level B
Autism diagnostic teams, IEP and school-support teams, referring physicians and psychologists, OTs planning intervention, NDIS planners, families
300 to 700 words for the results section · the respondent completes the questionnaire independently; scoring (manual or Q-global) and integration add clinician time
Norm-referenced caregiver and teacher questionnaire family (five forms; Dunn's four-quadrant model plus sensory-system and behavioral sections)
Autism evaluations (DSM-5 criterion B.4 evidence), feeding, dressing, and self-regulation referrals, school evaluations and IEP planning, birth through 14:11
Published by Pearson (2014; current edition as of August 2026); scored by hand or via Q-global; described here for write-up purposes, no items or cut values reproduced
The Sensory Profile 2 (SP2; Winnie Dunn, Pearson, 2014) is not a single test but a family of five norm-referenced questionnaires: the Infant form (birth to 6 months, caregiver report, 25 items), Toddler form (7 to 35 months, caregiver, 54 items), Child form (3:0 to 14:11, caregiver, 86 items), Short form (3:0 to 14:11, a 34-item screening subset of the Child form), and School Companion (3:0 to 14:11, teacher report, 44 items). The 2014 revision cut items on every form except the Toddler form, so first-edition item counts still circulating online are wrong. Respondents rate how often behaviors occur on a five-point frequency scale, and results come back in two layers: quadrant scores from Dunn's model, in which neurological threshold (low to high) crossed with self-regulation strategy (passive to active) yields Seeking, Avoiding, Sensitivity, and Registration, plus sensory-system sections (auditory, visual, touch, movement, body position, oral) and behavioral sections, with the School Companion adding school factors. Every score is expressed as a classification band against same-age norms, in frequency language running from "Much Less Than Others" to "Much More Than Others." The upper age bound is 14 years 11 months, not 15; from age 11 the separate self-report Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (Brown and Dunn, 2002) becomes an alternative, and the evaluator's choice between them belongs in the report.
Three facts carry most of the write-up's weight. First, the five forms have different items, respondents, and norms, so a results section that does not name the form and the respondent is uninterpretable; no reader can know what "the Sensory Profile 2" measured without it. Second, the bands describe frequency relative to peers, not severity and not disorder: "Much More Than Others" means the respondent reports that behavior much more often than the standardization sample's caregivers or teachers did, and an elevation is a pattern description, not a diagnosis. Third, when caregiver and teacher forms disagree, the disagreement is information about context rather than error, because each form measures behavior in its own setting and cross-informant convergence is only moderate. In autism evaluations the SP2 typically serves as supporting evidence for DSM-5 criterion B.4, the sensory-reactivity criterion, alongside instruments covered on the ADOS-2 page and the broader synthesis covered on the autism evaluation report page; it never carries the diagnosis alone.
Occupational therapists are the core users, in outpatient clinics, early intervention, and schools, where the SP2 documents how sensory processing affects feeding, dressing, play, and classroom participation; Pearson gates materials at qualification level B. Autism diagnostic teams are the second major group: psychologists and developmental pediatricians fold a caregiver SP2, often paired with a teacher School Companion, into multidisciplinary evaluations as sensory-reactivity evidence, alongside rating scales covered on the SRS-2 and CARS-2 pages. School teams use the School Companion for IDEA evaluations and IEP planning, framed around educational participation rather than medical diagnosis. In Australia, SP2 findings feed the functional evidence inside an NDIS functional capacity assessment. The report's readers mirror those uses: an IEP team that must honor IDEA's prohibition on any single measure deciding eligibility, a diagnosing clinician weighing criterion B.4, a payer seeing the questionnaire inside OT evaluation codes 97165 to 97167, an NDIS planner looking for functional impact, and a family who deserves plain language about what the pattern means at the dinner table. Visual-motor assessment, the other staple of pediatric OT batteries, lives on the Beery VMI page, and the broader evaluation frame on the developmental assessment page.
No authority prescribes an SP2 report format, but the instrument's architecture dictates what a defensible results section must contain: which of the five forms and who answered it, the referral question, one plain sentence of the model so the labels mean something, classifications in honest frequency language tied to function, cross-rater differences read as context, and boundaries that keep a questionnaire from becoming a diagnosis. Each section below carries the pitfall that most often undermines it.
Identification: form, respondent, ages. Open with the full instrument name and the specific form (Infant, Toddler, Child, Short, or School Companion), the respondent by role and relationship (which caregiver; which teacher, and how long they have known the child), the child's age against the form's age band, the administration date, platform (paper or Q-global), and language. The Spanish kit supplies Spanish Infant, Toddler, Child, and Short forms but an English School Companion, so language of administration is worth a clause. Pitfall: "Sensory Profile 2 completed" with no form and no respondent. The five forms have different items, respondents, and norms; unnamed, the results are uninterpretable and unreproducible.
Referral question and battery context. State why sensory assessment was undertaken (feeding and dressing struggles, self-regulation concerns, an autism evaluation's sensory criterion, classroom participation) and what the SP2 sits alongside: observation, history, and any diagnostic instruments. A questionnaire only answers a question the report has actually posed. Pitfall: An SP2 dropped into a battery with no stated purpose, leaving the reader to guess whether it was screening, diagnosis support, or intervention planning.
The model, briefly, before the numbers. Spend one or two sentences on Dunn's framework: neurological threshold crossed with self-regulation strategy yields four patterns (Seeking, Avoiding, Sensitivity, Registration), and scores describe how often the child's responses occur compared with same-age peers. Without this, classification language reads as jargon or, worse, as verdicts. Pitfall: Bare quadrant labels presented as self-explanatory. Readers meet "Avoiding: Much More Than Others" and hear a disorder unless the report has told them it is a frequency pattern.
Quadrant results in frequency language, tied to function. Report each relevant quadrant's classification in Dunn's own band language and immediately anchor it to observed daily life: mealtime refusal, distress at clothing tags, missed instructions, movement during seatwork. Exact score values from the protocol belong in the clinical record; the interpretation rides on the band and the function, and combinations (high Seeking with high Avoiding) describe mixed patterns, not types. Pitfall: Bands inflated into severity ("severe sensory issues") or cut values reproduced from the manual. The bands describe reported frequency relative to peers; the cut ranges are proprietary.
Section scores connected to participation. Bring in sensory-system sections (auditory, visual, touch, movement, body position, oral) and behavioral sections only where they inform the referral, and connect each to participation: what feeding, dressing, attention, or play actually looks like. On the School Companion, use the school factors to organize classroom observations. Pitfall: A bare list of section classifications with no participation link. A reader learns the child is "More Than Others" on touch and still knows nothing about the school day.
Cross-rater comparison as context, never error. When caregiver and teacher forms both exist, name both respondents and compare by setting: home routines versus a structured classroom. Convergence between sensory questionnaires and raters is only moderate, so discordance is expected and informative. Interpret it (structure, predictability, demands), never average it, and never frame one rater as wrong. Pitfall: Averaging the two forms or writing "mother over-reported." Each form measures behavior in its own setting; the gap is the finding.
Interpretation boundaries and recommendations. Close with the boundaries stated outright: the SP2 describes sensory processing patterns and is not diagnostic; sensory processing disorder is not a DSM-5-TR diagnosis; in autism evaluations the findings support, never establish, criterion B.4. Recommendations should be environmental and routine modifications matched to the pattern, with no outcome promises for sensory-integration therapy, and progress framed through function rather than re-administered bands. Pitfall: "Results confirm sensory processing disorder," or a sensory diet promised as treatment. Both claims outrun the instrument and the evidence.
SENSORY PROFILE 2 RESULTS SECTION SKELETON Child: [initials] Age: [ ] Date(s): [ ] Form: [Infant / Toddler / Child / Short / School Companion] Age-band check: [child's age within the form's band] Respondent: [role + relationship; for teachers, time known child] Administration: [paper / Q-global; language; any accommodations] Referral question: [ ] Battery context: [observation, history, diagnostic instruments this feeds] Model statement: [1-2 sentences: threshold crossed with self-regulation strategy -> Seeking / Avoiding / Sensitivity / Registration; bands = frequency vs same-age peers] Quadrant results (band language, no cut values): [Quadrant]: [band, e.g. "Much More Than Others"] -> functional illustration: [mealtime, dressing, classroom, play] Section scores (only referral-relevant ones): [Sensory system / behavioral section]: [band] -> participation impact: [feeding, dressing, attention, transitions] Cross-rater comparison (if two forms): [respondent A setting vs respondent B setting; discordance interpreted by context, never averaged, no rater blamed] Interpretation boundaries: [patterns, not a diagnosis; SPD not a DSM-5-TR diagnosis; supports (not establishes) DSM-5 criterion B.4 when autism is the question] Recommendations: [environmental + routine modifications matched to the pattern; no sensory-integration outcome promises; progress monitored through function] Integration: [how findings sit with observation / history / other measures] Evaluator signature / credentials: Date:
Free to use and share, no signup. The PDF includes a one-page cheat sheet with section-by-section pitfalls and a pre-sign checklist; the DOCX is the blank results-section skeleton, ready to adapt. Neither reproduces test items, forms, norms, or classification cut values.
Scenario: a 7-year-old in an autism diagnostic evaluation, with a caregiver Child form and a teacher School Companion that disagree, written up so the discordance becomes context rather than error. All details are fictional.
Patient: L.M., 7 years · Setting: Autism diagnostic evaluation, outpatient developmental clinic · Clinician: R. Okafor, OTD, OTR/L · Note date: 08/18/2026
Identification and forms: Sensory Profile 2 administered as part of a multidisciplinary autism evaluation that also includes the ADOS-2, developmental history, and classroom observation. L.M., age 7 years 3 months, falls within the 3:0 to 14:11 band for both forms used: the Child Sensory Profile 2, completed by his mother on 08/12/2026, and the School Companion Sensory Profile 2, completed by his second-grade classroom teacher on 08/14/2026; the teacher has known him for six months. Both forms were administered in English through Q-global.
Model and caregiver-form results: The SP2 describes how often a child's sensory responses occur compared with same-age peers, organized by Dunn's four patterns: Seeking, Avoiding, Sensitivity, and Registration. On his mother's Child form, Avoiding fell in the "Much More Than Others" range and Sensitivity in the "More Than Others" range, while Seeking and Registration fell in the "Just Like the Majority of Others" range. Touch and oral sensory sections drove the elevations, matching the referral concerns: refusal of most food textures with gagging, distress at clothing tags and seams that dictates the morning routine, and leaving the table at family meals. Exact score values accompany each classification in the clinical record; they are omitted here because the classification ranges are proprietary.
Teacher-form results: On the School Companion, most patterns fell in the "Just Like the Majority of Others" range, with Seeking in the "More Than Others" range concentrated in unstructured times: he moves through the classroom during transitions, seeks movement at recess, and handles routine seatwork without incident in a highly structured classroom with predictable routines. School factors reflected good use of visual supports and advance warning of changes.
Cross-rater interpretation: The caregiver and teacher forms disagree, and that disagreement is context, not error. Each form samples behavior in its own setting: home presents mealtimes, dressing, and unpredictable demands, while the classroom is structured, predictable, and low in the specific triggers his mother reports. Only moderate agreement between raters and settings is the empirical norm for sensory questionnaires, so the two forms were not averaged; together they suggest sensory reactivity that is most visible where tactile and oral demands are unavoidable, and better regulated where routines are predictable.
Interpretation, boundaries, and recommendations: The SP2 describes sensory processing patterns relative to same-age peers; it is not diagnostic, and sensory processing disorder is not a DSM-5-TR diagnosis. Within this evaluation, the reported hyperreactivity to touch and texture provides supporting evidence relevant to DSM-5 autism criterion B.4, to be integrated with the ADOS-2, history, and observation; the questionnaire does not by itself establish that criterion or any diagnosis. Recommendations are matched to the pattern rather than to a label: a graded texture plan built with the family, clothing choices that remove daily flashpoints, preserved predictability around transitions at school, and movement opportunities before seated work. No claim is made that sensory-based therapy will resolve feeding difficulties; progress will be tracked through function, specifically foods accepted and mornings without distress, reviewed with the family in eight weeks at an appointment booked today.
This sample is fictional and for educational purposes. It does not describe a real child or record; the details are invented to show write-up structure and are not clinical guidance. No score values, norms, or classification cut ranges are reproduced.
Writing these after every session? BastionGPT drafts complete notes from bullets, dictation, or a transcript.
Generate a note from bulletsUnited States: the frames are legal and they are specific. In autism evaluations, DSM-5 added hyper- or hyporeactivity to sensory input as criterion B.4 in 2013, and DSM-5-TR retains it; SP2 findings serve as supporting evidence for that criterion, integrated with observation and history, never as the sole basis for it (CONVENTION anchored to the nosology). In schools, IDEA requires a variety of technically sound assessment tools and prohibits any single measure from serving as the sole criterion for eligibility (34 CFR 300.304), lists occupational therapy among related services (300.34), and expects IEP content to translate findings into present levels, goals, supports, and progress monitoring (300.320), so School Companion results appear as educational participation needs, not as a stand-alone sensory label (LAW). Billing runs through the OT evaluation codes 97165 to 97167; there is no SP2-specific code, and the questionnaire is reported inside the evaluation subject to payer rules (PAYER POLICY). The intervention side is where writers overreach: UnitedHealthcare's policy effective January 2026 classes sensory integration therapy broadly as unproven, Aetna considers it experimental for all indications, and Cigna's policy effective June 2026 conditionally covers fidelity-defined Ayres Sensory Integration for autism under stated criteria while excluding it otherwise, so a report should describe function and the proposed service precisely rather than converting an SP2 classification into a coverage conclusion (PAYER POLICY). The American Academy of Pediatrics' 2012 report advised against diagnosing sensory processing disorder and called the intervention evidence limited, while allowing a monitored trial inside a comprehensive plan (CONVENTION).
Canada and Australia shift the frame from diagnosis to participation and function. Canadian education is provincial, with no national IDEA equivalent: in Ontario, Regulation 181/98 requires the IEP to contain educational expectations, the program and services to be provided, and progress-review methods, so SP2 findings enter as needs, services, and expectations for the named province rather than as a generic Canadian requirement, and Ontario classroom resources organize sensory programming around Dunn's four patterns (LAW and CONVENTION, provincial). Sensory-integration therapy is not a guaranteed insured service anywhere in Canada; coverage varies by province and plan. In Australia, the Disability Standards for Education require consultation and reasonable adjustments so students participate on the same basis, with obligations extending to covered early-childhood services from August 2026, and the SP2 neither is mandated nor itself determines adjustment entitlement: the report describes the functional barrier, the consultation, and the adjustment (LAW). For the NDIS, funding follows functional impact rather than diagnosis, and current guidance asks for recent professional evidence of day-to-day function, supports tried, and outcomes, expressly distinguishing what was observed, assessed, or reported; an SP2 classification supports that evidence but is not an access threshold, which is why findings are written into the functional capacity assessment as participation impact across self-care, learning, and social domains (PROGRAM POLICY).
Instrument facts, psychometric honesty, and rights complete the picture. The 2014 SP2 remains the current edition as of August 2026, with no successor announced by Pearson; the STAR Institute's SP-3D work is a separate research program, not an SP2 revision. The strongest published critique, a 2023 COSMIN-based review of all five forms, credited internal consistency but rated structural validity and cross-cultural validity as weaknesses, found the manual thin on factor-analytic and Rasch detail, judged the Toddler form's evidence comparatively weak, and left responsiveness essentially unestablished, which is why change in classification bands should not be offered as proof of treatment response; the four-factor model's own confirmatory support comes from the standardization database, whose authors acknowledged no prior study had shown that model to be the best fit. Cross-informant and cross-instrument convergence is moderate at best, the empirical basis for treating rater discordance as expected. On rights: Pearson sells materials at qualification level B, items and norms are copyrighted, cut values circulating on flash-card and protocol sites are not citable content, Q-global is the sanctioned digital route, no authorized public web scorer exists, and the Spanish kit's School Companion is English. A report may always contain the child's classifications and your interpretation. Sensory Profile is a registered trademark of NCS Pearson, Inc. BastionGPT is not affiliated with, or endorsed by, Pearson. This page reproduces no test items, stimuli, norms, or classification cut values.
The numbers behind these errors are specific. The five forms carry different item counts (25 to 86) and norms; a 2023 COSMIN review rated the SP2's structural and cross-cultural validity as weaknesses; convergence between the Child form and the SPM-2 runs only about 0.38 to 0.77 across subscales; and an Australian chart audit found the Short form discriminates autism from ADHD well (AUC 0.82) but ADHD from no diagnosis poorly (AUC 0.59). The BastionGPT Clinical Advisory Board sees the same errors most often in SP2 documentation reviews:
BastionGPT is specifically trained, tuned, and clinically tested on psychological and psychoeducational evaluation reports.
See how clinicians use it day to day on the AI therapy notes page.
Many BastionGPT users report saving more than 90 minutes per day on documentation.
HIPAA-compliant with a signed BAA on every plan. Your data is never used to train models. BastionGPT drafts, you review and sign.
The one actually used, every time: Infant (birth to 6 months, caregiver, 25 items), Toddler (7 to 35 months, caregiver, 54 items), Child (3:0 to 14:11, caregiver, 86 items), Short (3:0 to 14:11, a 34-item screening subset), or School Companion (3:0 to 14:11, teacher, 44 items). The forms differ in items, respondents, and norms, so "the SP2 was administered" is not a reportable statement. Name the respondent by role and relationship (which caregiver; which teacher and how long they have known the child), confirm the child's age sits inside the form's band, and note the platform and language, remembering that the Spanish kit provides Spanish Infant, Toddler, Child, and Short forms but an English School Companion. For ages 11 to 14, say why a caregiver form was chosen over the separate self-report Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile, which begins at 11.
They are the four intersections of Dunn's two axes: neurological threshold (how much input the nervous system needs before responding) and self-regulation strategy (passive or active). Seeking is high threshold with an active strategy, the degree to which a child obtains sensory input; Avoiding is low threshold with an active strategy, the degree to which a child is bothered by input and works to escape it; Sensitivity is low threshold with a passive strategy, the degree to which a child detects input; Registration is high threshold with a passive strategy, the degree to which a child misses input. They are dimensional patterns, not types: every child has a score in all four, combinations (high Seeking with high Avoiding) describe mixed self-regulation patterns, and an elevation is a description of reported frequency, not a disorder. The write-up should say this in a sentence before any classification appears.
That the respondent reported those behaviors much more frequently than the standardization sample's respondents reported them for same-age children. The SP2's classification bands run from "Much Less Than Others" through "Just Like the Majority of Others" to "Much More Than Others," defined by standard-deviation ranges around the normative mean; the exact cut values are proprietary and should not be reproduced in reports or on public pages. Two disciplines follow. First, the language is frequency, not severity: how often, compared with peers, not how bad. Severity and impairment come from the functional evidence the report pairs with each band. Second, the comparison is to the norms, filtered through one respondent's observation in one setting, which is why the band is always attributed ("his mother's ratings placed Avoiding in the Much More Than Others range") rather than stated as a property of the child.
No, on two independent grounds. The instrument ground: the SP2 describes sensory processing patterns relative to peers and its own framework treats elevations as pattern descriptions, not disorders. The nosology ground: sensory processing disorder is not a diagnosis in DSM-5-TR or ICD-11, where sensory features live inside the autism criteria; DC:0-5, the infant and early-childhood classification, does list it, which is the one nuance that keeps "SPD is not a recognized diagnosis" from being fully accurate. The American Academy of Pediatrics' 2012 report advised against diagnosing SPD (a statement that technically lapsed under the AAP's five-year rule yet is still cited as authority by payers), and the STAR Institute has stepped back from its own 2007 SPD nosology while awaiting new data. The defensible phrasing: describe the pattern, its functional impact, and what it supports, and let diagnoses come from diagnostic systems.
As evidence for one criterion, integrated with everything else. DSM-5 added hyper- or hyporeactivity to sensory input or unusual sensory interests as autism criterion B.4, and a caregiver SP2, often paired with a teacher School Companion, is a standard way to document that reactivity across settings. The findings support the criterion alongside direct observation (the ADOS-2), developmental history (the ADI-R), and rating scales; they never establish the criterion or the diagnosis alone. The Short form deserves extra caution: in an Australian chart audit it discriminated autism from ADHD well (AUC 0.82) and autism from no diagnosis nearly as well (0.81), but ADHD from no diagnosis poorly (0.59), screener numbers, not diagnostic ones. Write the SP2 into the sensory-reactivity paragraph of the autism evaluation report as supporting evidence with the setting-by-setting pattern spelled out.
As context, never as error. The caregiver form measures behavior at home as that caregiver sees it; the School Companion measures behavior at school as that teacher sees it; and the published agreement between sensory-questionnaire raters and instruments is only moderate (Child SP2 to SPM-2 subscale correlations of roughly 0.38 to 0.77), so discordance is the expected finding, not a data problem. The write-up names both respondents, states each setting's results in band language, and then interprets the gap by what differs between the settings: structure, predictability, tactile and oral demands, escape options. Never average the two forms into a composite impression, and never write that a rater over- or under-reported; if response style genuinely concerns you, describe the specific inconsistency and gather more observation. Discordance handled this way usually sharpens recommendations, because it identifies the conditions under which the child regulates well.
By the referral question, because the instruments answer different ones. The SP2 operationalizes Dunn's threshold-by-strategy quadrant model, uses strengths-neutral frequency language, and pairs a caregiver form with a teacher School Companion for a cross-setting pattern; it suits questions about a child's overall sensory pattern and home-school comparison. The SPM-2 (Sensory Processing Measure, Second Edition) is grounded in Ayres Sensory Integration, scores by sensory system with praxis and social participation, and offers environment-specific school forms (classroom, art, music, PE, recess, cafeteria, bus); it suits questions about where in the school day breakdowns occur and about praxis. Their convergence is only moderate (subscale correlations roughly 0.38 to 0.77), so they are not interchangeable and a report should not treat one as confirming the other. Questionnaires of either family remain respondent report, complemented by observation and, where praxis is the question, performance-based measures.
The questionnaire, usually, inside the evaluation; the therapy it often leads to, unevenly. There is no SP2-specific billing code: administration and interpretation are reported within the OT evaluation codes 97165 to 97167, subject to the payer's medical-necessity and documentation rules. The intervention side is where reports go wrong, because current policies genuinely contradict each other: UnitedHealthcare's 2026 policy classes sensory integration therapy broadly as unproven, Aetna considers it experimental for all indications, and Cigna's 2026 policy conditionally covers fidelity-defined Ayres Sensory Integration for autism under stated criteria while excluding it otherwise. So it is inaccurate to write either "insurance does not cover sensory integration" or "it is covered for autism." The defensible report names the actual proposed service, its functional goals, baseline, and expected change, and lets coverage be determined by the plan; in schools and the NDIS, the frame is educational participation and functional impact rather than payer coverage at all.
Yes. Give it the facts (which form and who completed it, ages and dates, quadrant and section classifications in band language, functional observations from home and school, the referral question, and the rest of the battery) and it drafts the results section: the model explained in a sentence, bands tied to participation, cross-rater differences interpreted by setting, boundaries stated, and recommendations matched to the pattern, ready for your review. It can also cross-check a finished report for an unnamed form or respondent, severity language, an SPD diagnosis claim, averaged raters, an overreached criterion B.4, or an outcome promise, and it can draft the IEP, NDIS, and family-summary variants of the same findings. BastionGPT is HIPAA-compliant with a signed BAA on every plan, and your data is never used to train models.
The instrument facts and compliance claims on this page trace to these sources, last verified August 2026:
Educational content, not legal or billing advice. Sample notes are fictional. Follow your organization's policies and your board, payer, and jurisdiction requirements.