A Sensory Integration Therapy Program on Sensory Problems for Children with Autism

Fazlioğlu, Yeşim; Baran, Gülen

doi:10.2466/pms.106.2.415-422

Cited by 63 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently, interventions to address problems associated with difficulty processing sensory information, such as occupational therapy using sensory integration (OT/SI), (Ayres 1972, 1979, 1989) are among the most often requested services by parents of children with ASD (Mandell et al 2005; Green et al 2006; Goin-Kochel et al 2009). There is emerging evidence regarding positive outcomes of OT/SI for children with ASD (Pfeiffer et al 2011; Fazlioglu and Baran 2008; and see Schaaf 2011 for a review), however, methodological limitations preclude definitive conclusions. Hence, there is the need for a rigorous study of OT/SI that includes a manualized protocol and measurement of treatment adherence (Case-Smith and Arbesman 2008; Watling et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Intervention for Sensory Difficulties in Children with Autism: A Randomized Trial

Schaaf

Benevides

Mailloux³

et al. 2013

J Autism Dev Disord

129

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated a manualized intervention for sensory difficulties for children with autism, ages 4–8 years, using a randomized trial design. Diagnosis of autism was confirmed using gold standard measures. Results show that the children in the treatment group (n = 17) who received 30 sessions of the occupational therapy intervention scored significantly higher (p = 0.003, d = 1.2) on Goal Attainment Scales (primary outcome), and also scored significantly better on measures of caregiver assistance in self-care (p = 0.008 d = 0.9) and socialization (p = 0.04, d = 0.7) than the Usual Care control group (n = 15). The study shows high rigor in its measurement of treatment fidelity and use of a manualized protocol, and provides support for the use of this intervention for children with autism. Findings are discussed in terms of their implications for practice and future research.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Intervention for Sensory Difficulties in Children with Autism: A Randomized Trial

Schaaf

Benevides

Mailloux³

et al. 2013

J Autism Dev Disord

129

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many of the inaccuracies and misrepresentations stem from lack of a thorough review and synthesis of available literature. It seems that the authors selectively ignored publications that show promising results (Miller et al 2007;Pfeiffer et al 2011;Fazlioglu and Baran 2008;Schaaf and Nightlinger 2007;MayBenson and Koomar 2010) and report only on those suggesting lack of effects. Many of the sources cited are incorrectly referenced (see Roley et al 2001-title and source are incorrect).…”

Section: Dear Editormentioning

confidence: 87%

Comparison of Behavioral Intervention and Sensory-Integration Therapy in the Treatment of Challenging Behavior

Schaaf

Blanche

2011

J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Rather they examine: social responsiveness, sensory processing, motor skills and social-emotional factors (Pfeiffer et al 2011); goal attainment scaling, attention and cognitive/social measures (Miller et al 2007); sensory characteristics (Fazlioglu and Baran 2008). In addition, our colleagues cite a recent article which provided a systematic review of the research evidence for a sensory integrative approach for children examining 27 studies and concluding that the sensory integration approach may result in positive outcomes in sensorimotor skills, motor planning, socialization, attention, behavioral regulation, reading skills, active play and goal attainment (May-Benson and Koomar 2010).…”

Section: Dear Editorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response to a Letter to the Editors re: “Comparison of Behavioral Intervention and Sensory-Integration Therapy in the Treatment of Challenging Behavior”

Healy

Hughes

Leader

et al. 2011

J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dear Editors,We provide a reply to a letter to the editors in relation to ''Comparison of Behavioral Intervention and SensoryIntegration Therapy in the Treatment of Challenging Behavior'' (Devlin et al. 2010).We conducted a study using a robust design (''alternating treatments design''; Barlow and Hayes 1979) to provide an analysis, without prejudice, comparing the outcomes of two distinct interventions for challenging behavior in children with autism diagnoses. Crucially, this design allows separate interventions to be administered concurrently, by randomizing the order of intervention, giving opportunity for both interventions to be administered under the different stimulus conditions, for an equal number of times, across each of the conditions of administration (see Kazdin 1982). This design allowed for a thorough scientific analysis of two prevalent interventions, both aiming to alter rates of challenging behavior observed in children with autism diagnoses.The letter expresses concern in relation to three specific areas. Firstly, it declares that we have misrepresented sensory integration therapy in the approach that was used in our study. Our colleagues state that the approach used was not at all in keeping with the principles and practices of sensory integration. However, from the description of the design of interventions in our paper it is clear that we, the authors, had no role in the design of the sensory integration intervention for any of the four participants. All sensory integration interventions were designed by an occupational therapist with extensive expertise and experience in SIT, who had completed comprehensive direct observations of each participant over a period of one month. The kernel of this research program was to assess two types of interventions that are provided in ''real world'' school settings on outcomes for challenging behaviors. The sensory integration assessment and interventions were provided by an expert in this field and the functional behavior assessment and interventions were designed and facilitated by behavior analysts. Effectively, what is presented in this study under the intervention of sensory integration is a reflection of practice ''on the ground'' by an expert in sensory integration assessment and therapy. It was our aim to assess the outcomes of such an intervention to alter the rates of challenging behavior, not to design the sensory integration protocol. We therefore, did not misrepresent the practices of sensory integration in anyway but merely assessed the outcomes of an intervention that was recommended for the four participants included in the study.Our colleagues set forth that there was a failure to provide systematic and standardized assessment of the participants' sensory processing challenges. However, during the one month observation periods, prior to the design of sensory integration programs for participants, the occupational therapist did provide detailed assessments including direct and indirect assessments of each participant's sensory profile. Th...

show abstract

A Sensory Integration Therapy Program on Sensory Problems for Children with Autism

Cited by 63 publications

References 22 publications

An Intervention for Sensory Difficulties in Children with Autism: A Randomized Trial

An Intervention for Sensory Difficulties in Children with Autism: A Randomized Trial

Comparison of Behavioral Intervention and Sensory-Integration Therapy in the Treatment of Challenging Behavior

Response to a Letter to the Editors re: “Comparison of Behavioral Intervention and Sensory-Integration Therapy in the Treatment of Challenging Behavior”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About