The gap
None of the major sensory processing assessment instruments — the Sensory Profile 2, the Sensory Processing Measure (SPM-2), the Sensory Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ), or the MAIA — has a formally validated Dutch-language version with published psychometric data for Dutch-speaking populations. This means that Dutch-speaking practitioners working with autistic people in the Netherlands, Belgium (Flanders), and Suriname lack access to sensory assessment tools that meet basic standards of cross-cultural validity.
Why it matters
Sensory processing assessment is foundational to understanding and supporting autistic people. Without validated Dutch instruments, practitioners face a set of poor choices: administer English-language tools to people who may not be fully proficient in English; use informal or unpublished translations that lack psychometric validation; rely entirely on clinical observation without standardised measurement; or import normative data from US or UK populations that may not apply.
Each of these workarounds introduces risk — of misidentification, of missed sensory needs, and of interventions that are poorly targeted. For autistic people with intellectual disability who are already underserved by existing assessment tools, the lack of Dutch-language options compounds an already significant barrier.
The gap is particularly notable given the Netherlands’ strong tradition of autism research and clinical practice, and the existence of well-developed Dutch practice frameworks like the prikkelprofiel.
What exists so far
Some practitioners use informal Dutch translations of the Sensory Profile, but these have not undergone formal translation-back translation procedures, cultural adaptation, or psychometric validation. The Sensory Profile has been formally validated in several other languages (Korean, Brazilian Portuguese, Malay), demonstrating that cross-cultural adaptation is feasible. The MAIA has been translated into many languages and a Dutch translation may exist, but formal validation data in Dutch-speaking autistic populations has not been published to the best of our knowledge.
The Dutch-language sensory vocabulary developed in this wiki’s glossary (see: prikkelverwerking-glossary) provides a starting point for conceptual alignment, but clinical assessment requires more than vocabulary — it requires instruments with established norms, reliability, and validity.
What would fill it
A programme of work to validate at least one major sensory processing instrument in Dutch, following established cross-cultural adaptation protocols (e.g., Beaton et al., 2000). Priority should be given to the Sensory Profile 2 (as the most widely used instrument globally) and/or the SEQ (as the instrument designed specifically for autism populations). Validation should include Dutch normative data, reliability testing, and validity testing with both typically developing and autistic populations, including autistic people with intellectual disability.