CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23Occupational Therapy Practice and ResearchBehavioral and Psychological StudiesDown syndrome and intellectual disability research

Clinical incidence of sensory integration difficulties in adults with learning disabilities and illustration of management

Green, Dido, Beaton, Lindsay, Moore, Denise, Warren, Lin, Wick, Vanessa, Sanford, J Ellen, Santosh, Paramala·2003·British Journal of Occupational Therapy
DOI 10.1177/030802260306601004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This project investigated the prevalence of sensory processing problems in a clinical group and also examined the clinical effectiveness of a specialised therapeutic technique, sensory integrative therapy (SIT), in the treatment of maladaptive behaviours in two adults with learning disabilities. The Sensory Integration Inventory — Revised for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities (SII-R, Reisman and Hanschu 1992) was used to identify two clients suspected of having poor sensory processing. A single-subject experimental design (ABAB) was used to assist the objective measurement of the effects of SIT. The results suggest that the SII-R has some limitations in identifying clients who would benefit from SIT. One client (Ms D) was seen to instigate more positive interactions with her environment during and following the treatment phases; however, the overhabituated behaviours of the other client (Mr K) showed little response to SIT. These results are discussed in the form of a practitioner's update, with respect to the indicators of sensory processing dysfunction and the potential therapeutic benefits of SIT as an adjunct to therapeutic interventions for individuals with learning disabilities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/030802260306601004

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sensory atypicalities have also been observed in individuals with intellectual disability and other neurodevelopmental disorders.

    “it is worth noting that sensory atypicalities have also been observed in individuals with intellectual disability and other neurodevelopmental disorders (Green et al., 2003, 2016; Lane et al., 2012; Tomchek and Dunn, 2007; Watling et al., 2001)”

    From Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for psychopathology: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Green et al., 2003

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Green, D., Beaton, L., Moore, D., Warren, L., Wick, V., Sanford, J. E., & Santosh, P.
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Occupational Therapy
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2003-10
Volume
66
Issue
10
Pages
454-463
ISSN
  • 0308-0226 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-6006
DOI
10.1177/030802260306601004
OpenAlex
W1975158595
Cited by
23
References
30
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
British Journal of Occupational Therapy (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Occupational Therapy Practice and Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
Keywords
sensory processing disorders, learning disabilities, adults with developmental disabilities, maladaptive behavior, treatment effectiveness, prevalence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review