Back to all available

Psychometric validation of the Chinese revised version of the Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests in children with amblyopia

epidemiology
ophthalmology
pediatrics
psychiatry-and-psychology
public-health

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese revised version of the Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests (SIPT-R) in children with amblyopia.

Methods: Based on baseline data from the China Amblyopia Behavioral Cohort (CABC), this study included 629 children aged 4 - 9 with amblyopia recruited from April to November 2024. The SIPT-R assessed their sensory integration abilities. Cronbach’s α and split-half reliability were used to evaluate internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analysis examined structural, convergent, and discriminant validity.

Results: The SIPT-R demonstrated favorable psychometric properties among children with amblyopia. The total scale showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.968 - 0.969), with subscale α coefficients ranging from 0.906 to 0.959. All split-half reliability coefficients exceeded 0.80. The correlations between each factor and the total scale ranged from 0.835 to 0.916 (p < 0.01). Regarding structural validity, the modified CFA model showed acceptable fit indices (children aged 4 - 5: χ²/df = 2.712, RMSEA = 0.079, CFI = 0.832, and IFI = 0.833; children aged 6 - 9: χ²/df = 2.951, RMSEA = 0.074, CFI = 0.804, and IFI = 0.805). Convergent validity showed that all items had factor loadings greater than 0.50, except items A2 and A11 in the four-factor model (0.46 - 0.57); composite reliability (CR) values were between 0.91 to 0.96, and average variance extracted (AVE) values were between 0.41 to 0.68. Discriminant validity analysis showed significant interfactor correlations across age groups (p < 0.01); however, partial overlap was observed between the "Tactile Defensiveness" and "Proprioception" subscales (r = 0.86, square root of AVE = 0.69).

Conclusions: These findings provide a systematic validation of the SIPT-R in amblyopic children, confirming its standardized application as a valid tool for assessing sensory integration in children with amblyopia. The results support its applicability for children aged 4 - 9 years, offering clinicians and researchers a reliable instrument for evaluation and potential intervention planning.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].