Sensory Processing In Children
Research Paper #3 - Tammy Havey – 7/14/15
1. I used the University of North Florida’s Database named OneSource. The key words “sensory processing in children with autism” were used. While working with my students last year, one of the greatest challenges in teaching them was overcoming their sensory challenges. Before I could provide instruction, I had to create a learning environment to increase their attention. This included lighting, sound, allowing movement, and other sensory modalities. It is important for me to understand these challenges of autism in order to present quality instruction to my students.
2. Previous researchers report sensory experiences differ in children and adolescents with and without Autism Spectrum Disorder …show more content…
Tomchek, Huebner, and Dunn focused on “identifying the underlying factor structure of the SSP for Children with ASD” in comparison to typically developing children (p. 1217).
4. The research involved a total of 400 participants representing three groups: 322 (80.5%) represented ASD, 67 (16.8%) represented pervasive development disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS), and 11 (2.8%) Asperger disorder. The ratio of male to female was 6.7:1 and within the range of prevalence. The researchers did not report a range of age, just an average of 49.58 months (5 years, 1 month). Tomchek, Huebner, and Dunn measured the participants’ sensory processing using the SSP. The instrument consisted of 38 items and required caregivers to rate each items on a 1 to 5 point scale. The SSP is the recommended procedure for use with research because the “social-communication and motor items in the SP were eliminated in the early phase” (p. 1217). Therefore the SSP isolates items for sensory responses and has validity greater than 95% by correlating the SSP score with abnormal psychophysiological …show more content…
After Cronbach’s alpha determined the internal reliability of the SSP, the next step was to determine the fracture structure. The researchers used various factor solutions ranging from 11 to 6. After much consideration, it was decided a 6-factor structure was the best fit. It was “consistent with concepts of sensory processing and accounted for 52.27% of the variance” (p. 1218). Three of the 6 factors (1-low energy/weak, 2-tactile and movement sensitivity, and 3-taste/smell sensitivity) include the same or similar items from the SSP with the sample of typically developing children. The remaining 3 factors (4-auditory and visual sensitivity, 5-sensory seeking/distractibility, and 6-hypo-responsitivity) represent a different cluster pattern than typically developing children. The scores of the 6-factor solution were normally distributed. The research study indicated that 3 of the 6 factors, 1, 3, and 6, were ranked as significantly higher in children with ASD to typically developing children. Two of the factors, 2 and 5, were assessed to be low-incidences of sensory behavior. The final factor, 4, as a whole, is an area of weakness for Children with ASD and contributes to communicative difficulties. Sensory processing deficits decrease a child’s ability to “sustain attention, regulate arousal, and ultimately achieve and maintain an optimal range of performance” (p.
1. I used the University of North Florida’s Database named OneSource. The key words “sensory processing in children with autism” were used. While working with my students last year, one of the greatest challenges in teaching them was overcoming their sensory challenges. Before I could provide instruction, I had to create a learning environment to increase their attention. This included lighting, sound, allowing movement, and other sensory modalities. It is important for me to understand these challenges of autism in order to present quality instruction to my students.
2. Previous researchers report sensory experiences differ in children and adolescents with and without Autism Spectrum Disorder …show more content…
Tomchek, Huebner, and Dunn focused on “identifying the underlying factor structure of the SSP for Children with ASD” in comparison to typically developing children (p. 1217).
4. The research involved a total of 400 participants representing three groups: 322 (80.5%) represented ASD, 67 (16.8%) represented pervasive development disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS), and 11 (2.8%) Asperger disorder. The ratio of male to female was 6.7:1 and within the range of prevalence. The researchers did not report a range of age, just an average of 49.58 months (5 years, 1 month). Tomchek, Huebner, and Dunn measured the participants’ sensory processing using the SSP. The instrument consisted of 38 items and required caregivers to rate each items on a 1 to 5 point scale. The SSP is the recommended procedure for use with research because the “social-communication and motor items in the SP were eliminated in the early phase” (p. 1217). Therefore the SSP isolates items for sensory responses and has validity greater than 95% by correlating the SSP score with abnormal psychophysiological …show more content…
After Cronbach’s alpha determined the internal reliability of the SSP, the next step was to determine the fracture structure. The researchers used various factor solutions ranging from 11 to 6. After much consideration, it was decided a 6-factor structure was the best fit. It was “consistent with concepts of sensory processing and accounted for 52.27% of the variance” (p. 1218). Three of the 6 factors (1-low energy/weak, 2-tactile and movement sensitivity, and 3-taste/smell sensitivity) include the same or similar items from the SSP with the sample of typically developing children. The remaining 3 factors (4-auditory and visual sensitivity, 5-sensory seeking/distractibility, and 6-hypo-responsitivity) represent a different cluster pattern than typically developing children. The scores of the 6-factor solution were normally distributed. The research study indicated that 3 of the 6 factors, 1, 3, and 6, were ranked as significantly higher in children with ASD to typically developing children. Two of the factors, 2 and 5, were assessed to be low-incidences of sensory behavior. The final factor, 4, as a whole, is an area of weakness for Children with ASD and contributes to communicative difficulties. Sensory processing deficits decrease a child’s ability to “sustain attention, regulate arousal, and ultimately achieve and maintain an optimal range of performance” (p.