Sensory integration for children with autism spectrum disorder: examining the divergence between research and practice
Date
2016
Authors
Citation
(2016) Sensory integration for children with autism spectrum disorder: examining the divergence between research and practice, no. 71.
Abstract
Background. Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects
2.24% of American children. Sensory processing difficulties have been linked to ASD and
can restrict a child's participation in daily living activities and impact social engagement. The
sensory integration approach is widely used by occupational therapists to address these
sensory processing difficulties and improve function, participation and engagement for
children with ASD. Sensory interventions can be separated into two categories, Ayres
Sensory Integration® (ASI) and Sensory Based Interventions (SBI). In the past, research
has grouped both ASI and SBI under the rubric of sensory integration, which has resulted in
controversy regarding the efficacy of sensory integrative practice. However, with the
development of the ASI fidelity measure, there has been an increase in studies that aim to
evaluate the effectiveness of ASI treatment. There is a need to synthesise and critique these
studies to determine the efficacy of ASI as an intervention for children with ASD.
Purpose. This literature review intends to 1) outline the current context of the sensory
integration approach for children with ASD, 2) critically appraise the evidence related to ASI
for children with ASD and 3) explore possible reasons for the divide between research and
practice.
Methods. A literature search was conducted using four scholarly databases. Articles
identified through the literature were evaluated against inclusion/exclusion criteria and
critically appraised.
Conclusions. There are multiple studies showing that ASI continues to be a popular
intervention for children with ASD; parents and therapists seem to find ASI to be very
effective. However, research on the efficacy of ASI for children with ASD is largely
inconsistent. There is a clear divide between research and practice. Various reasons exist to
explain this divide. Reasons discussed in this review are the heterogeneity of the ASD
population, inappropriateness of outcomes and outcomes measures, and the multiple
evidence sources of occupational therapy. While more research is necessary to support the
efficacy of this preferred approach, occupational therapists must also better integrate the
science of 'best evidence' with the art of person-centred practice when using ASI for children
with ASD.