Sensory Processing in Children With and Without Autism:

A Comparative Study Using the Short Sensory Profile

Scott D. Tomchek, Winnie Dunn

KEY WORDS OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to investigate differences in sensory processing among age-
• autism matched children between ages 3 and 6 years with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and those who are typi-
• autism spectrum disorders (ASD) cally developing.
• pediatric METHOD. Reported sensory processing abilities of 281 children with ASD were compared to age-matched
peers who were typically developing, using the Short Sensory Profile (SSP).
• sensory integration
• sensory processing RESULTS. Ninety-five percent of the sample of children with ASD demonstrated some degree of sensory pro-
cessing dysfunction on the SSP Total Score, with the greatest differences reported on the Underresponsive/
• Short Sensory Profile (SSP)
Seeks Sensation, Auditory Filtering, and Tactile Sensitivity sections. The ASD group also performed signifi-
cantly differently (p < .001) on 92% of the items, total score, and all sections of the SSP.
CONCLUSION. These findings, considered with similar published studies, begin to confirm the prevalence
and types of sensory processing impairments in autism. Further research is needed to more clearly define pat-
terns of sensory processing in people with ASD.

Tomchek, S. D., & Dunn, W. (2007). Sensory processing in children with and without autism: A comparative study using the
Short Sensory Profile. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 190–200.

Scott D. Tomchek, PhD, OTR/L, is Manager of Devel- utism is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by qualitative impair-
opmental Services, Chief of Occupational Therapy, and
Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, Weisskopf Child Evalua-
A ments in social interaction and communication skill, along with a restricted
repetitive and stereotyped pattern of behavior (American Psychiatric Association
tion Center, University of Louisville (HSC), School of
Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, 571 South Floyd [APA], 2000). In addition to these core features of autism, researchers have
Street, Suite 100, Louisville, KY 40202. reported that children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders (ASD)
Winnie Dunn, PhD, OTR, FAOTA, is Professor and
respond to sensory experiences differently from peers without disabilities. These
Chair, Department of Occupational Therapy Education, sensory processing disorders are well documented in the basic science literature
School of Allied Health, University of Kansas Medical (Ornitz, 1989; Ornitz, Lane, Sugiyama, & de Traversay, 1993; Yeung-Courchesne
Center, Kansas City.
& Courchesne, 1997), clinical literature (Ermer & Dunn, 1998; Kientz & Dunn,
1997; Watling, Deitz, & White, 2001), and first-person accounts of living with
autism (Cesaroni & Garber, 1991; Grandin, 1995). In fact, the initial appearance
of these sensory processing findings often predates diagnosis (Adrien et al., 1993;
Baranek, 1999; Dahlgren & Gillberg, 1989; Lord, 1995).

Sensory Processing in ASD

The majority of evidence describing sensory processing disorders stems from
parental reports, retrospective videotape analysis, and firsthand accounts of living
with autism. Findings are limited to studies describing observable behaviors
indicative of sensory processing patterns and do include studies investigating neu-
rophysiological processes. To accurately reflect the significant number of studies
describing sensory processing from multiple disciplines in addition to occupational
190 March/April 2007, Volume 61, Number 2
Downloaded from http://ajot.aota.org on 05/03/2019 Terms of use: http://AOTA.org/terms
 therapy, we use terminology that is consistent with the ter- touch has been described as an intense feeling that can be
minology used by the studies’ authors, and, when possible, overwhelming and confusing (Cesaroni & Garber, 1991).
link the terms to current consensus terminology in sensory Grandin (1995) noted that certain clothing textures could
integration and practice (Miller, Lane, Cermak, Osten, & make her extremely anxious, distracted, and fidgety. Chil-
Anzalone, 2005). dren with higher levels of tactile hypersensitivity in one
study also were more likely to display inflexible behaviors,
Differences in Sensory Responding
repetitive verbalizations, visual stereotypies, and abnormal
Impairments with modulating incoming sensory input have focused attention (Baranek et al., 1997).
been widely reported in the literature describing autism Attention and arousal impairments have been reported
characteristics (Adrien et al., 1987, 1992, 1993; Baranek, (Dawson & Lew, 1989; Ornitz, Guthrie, & Farley, 1977,
1999; Dahlgren & Gillberg, 1989; Kientz & Dunn, 1997; 1978; Volkmar et al., 1986) and could be explained as relat-
Ornitz, 1989; Ornitz et al., 1993; Osterling & Dawson, ing to impairments in modulating sensory input. Early
1994). These difficulties have also been reported by people studies by Ornitz and colleagues (1977, 1978) described a
with autism themselves (Cesaroni & Garber, 1991; pattern of disturbances in sensory modulation and motility
Grandin, 1995). Incidence of sensory processing disorders having an impact on all sensory systems in more than 70%
reported in the autism literature range from 42% to 88% of the children younger than age 6 years with autism in
(Baranek, 2002; Kientz & Dunn, 1997; LeCouteur et al., their sample. Similar sensory findings have included no
1989; Volkmar, Cohen, & Paul, 1986; Watling et al., 2001). response to sound (81%), sensitivity to loud noises (53%),
Differences in auditory processing are one of the more visual inspection of hands or fingers (62%), and arm flap-
commonly reported sensory processing impairments with ping (52%) (Volkmar et al., 1986).
the full range of atypical responding noted. In one retro- Sensory processing behaviors of children ages 3–6 years
spective chart review of developmental patterns in 200 cases with (n = 40) and without (n = 40) autism, gathered via par-
with autism, Greenspan and Weider (1997) reported that ent report on the Sensory Profile (SP; Dunn, 1999), also
100% of the participants demonstrated difficulties with have been compared (Watling et al., 2001). Sensory pro-
auditory responding. Several authors have reported auditory cessing of children with autism was significantly different
hypersensitivity (Bettison, 1994; Dahlgren & Gillberg, from the sample without autism on 8 of 10 factors (Sensory
1989; Gillberg & Coleman, 1996; Rimland & Edelson, Seeking, Emotionally Reactive, Low Endurance/Tone, Oral
1995; Vicker, 1993). Further, Dahlgren and Gillberg (1989) Sensitivity, Inattention/Distractibility, Poor Registration,
found that sensitivity to auditory stimuli in infancy was a Fine-Motor/Perceptual, and Other). Similarly, Mayes and
powerful discriminator between children with and without Calhoun (1999) reported that 100% of children with
autism. Other studies have reported auditory underrespon- autism (n = 143) had 1 or more of the 10 symptoms in a
sivity (Baranek, 1999; Osterling & Dawson, 1994; Wing, somatosensory disturbance subscale (average of 6.2 symp-
1966). This hyporeactivity (e.g., diminished response to toms) of an autism diagnostic screener. A love of move-
name) has been an early diagnostic consideration in that ment, roughhouse play, and climbing (91%); atypical feed-
children who appeared to be deaf early in life have subse- ing patterns (75%); unresponsiveness to verbal input
quently been diagnosed with autism (Wing, 1966). (71%); and unusual sensory inspection of objects (68%)
Paradoxical visual responding also is reported in the lit- were the most commonly reported items.
erature. Avoidance of eye contact and inefficient use of eye
gaze have been described as early social features of autism Discriminative Function of Sensory Processing
(Baranek, 1999; Gillberg & Coleman, 2000; Gillberg et al., Empirical data from clinical evaluations (Adrien et al.,
1990; Kientz & Dunn, 1997). Several authors (Dawson & 1987; Gillberg et al., 1990), parent report measures
Lew, 1989; Gillberg & Coleman, 2000; Gillberg et al., 1990; (Dahlgren & Gillberg, 1989; Ermer & Dunn, 1998; Gill-
Miller, 1996; Wing, 1980) have theorized these features to be berg et al., 1990; Hoshino et al., 1982; Kientz & Dunn,
a self-regulatory mechanism that compensates for difficulties 1997; Watling et al., 2001), and retrospective videotape
with modulating visual input. Other reports have noted that analysis (Adrien et al., 1992, 1993; Baranek, 1999) are
children with ASD often inspect objects (e.g., hands, moving emerging to suggest that behavioral features of children
objects) in an unusual way with their peripheral vision with autism attributed to sensory processing differ qualita-
(LeCouteur et al., 1989; Lord, Rutter, & LeCouteur, 1994). tively from children who are typically developing or those
Overresponsivity to tactile input also has been reported with other developmental disorders. These qualitative dif-
in the literature (Baranek, Foster, & Berkson, 1997; Cesaroni ferences in sensory processing also have frequently been key
& Garber, 1991; Grandin, 1995). In firsthand accounts, features discriminating between these groups.
The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 191
Downloaded from http://ajot.aota.org on 05/03/2019 Terms of use: http://AOTA.org/terms
 Adrien and colleagues (1987) used observations and the social and behavior characteristics often used in differ-
frequency counts of behaviors during a structured play ses- ential diagnosis.
sion to differentiate between children who were typically In a follow-up study, Ermer and Dunn (1998) sought
developing, children with mental retardation, and children to determine which of the 9 factors on the SP best discrim-
with autism and very low developmental ages. Although inated between children with ASD (n = 38), children with
many behaviors overlapped between the groups, 9 behav- attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; n = 61),
iors (rubbing surface, finger flicking, body rocking, repeti- and children without disabilities (n = 1,075). The results
tive jumping, decreased eye contact, limited or inappropri- yielded two discriminant functions: one that differentiated
ate social smile and laugh, using object ritualistically, children with disabilities from those without disabilities and
ignoring objects, and absent response to stimuli) discrimi- another that differentiated the two groups with disabilities
nated children with autism from both children who were from each other. Nearly 90% of the cases were classified
typically developing and children with mental retardation. correctly using these two functions. Specific to children
These findings were replicated by Rapin (1996), who found with ASD, 4 of the 9 factors best discriminated: a low inci-
that atypical sensory modulation and motor stereotypies dence of behaviors reported within the Sensory Seeking
discriminated children with autism from children with Factor, and a high incidence of behaviors noted within Oral
other developmental disorders. Sensitivity, Inattention/Distractibility, and Fine Motor/Per-
ceptual Factors.
Parent Report A recent study (Rogers, Hepburn, & Wehner, 2003)
Some data suggest that early sensory processing disorders assessed parent report of sensory reactivity of 102 young
noted on parent report measures or interview may be children across four groups: autism (n = 26), Fragile X syn-
among the first signs of autism (Dahlgren & Gillberg, drome (n = 20), developmental disabilities of mixed etiol-
1989; Gillberg et al., 1990; Hoshino et al., 1982). In an ogy (n = 32), and children who were typically developing (n
early study (Hoshino et al., 1982), infants with autism did = 24). All groups were comparable in socioeconomic status,
not respond to certain sounds, were sensitive to the tastes of ethnic status, and mental age. Clinical groups were also
certain foods, and were insensitive to pain more frequently comparable in mean chronological ages. On the Short Sen-
than infants who were typically developing or infants with sory Profile (SSP; McIntosh, Miller, & Shyu, 1999), find-
other developmental disorders. More recently, sensory pro- ings indicated that the groups of children with Fragile X
cessing differences (i.e., overexcited when tickled, does not syndrome and autism had significantly more sensory
listen when spoken to, interested in looking at things that responses overall than the two comparison groups, although
move, unusual eye gaze to objects, plays only with hard the children with autism did not differ significantly from
objects) reported retrospectively by parents discriminated children with Fragile X syndrome. Further, this abnormal
between children with ASD and children who were typi- sensory reactivity had a significant relationship with overall
cally developing younger than age 3 (Dahlgren & Gillberg, adaptive behavior.
1989; Gillberg et al., 1990). Further, whole body, hand and
finger mannerisms, and unusual sensory interests (especially Videotape Analysis
visual inspection of objects), as recorded on the Autism Investigations also have used retrospective videotape analy-
Diagnostic Interview, discriminated children with autism sis to explore early sensory and motor features of children
from those with other developmental delays (LeCouteur et later diagnosed with autism (Adrien et al., 1992, 1993;
al., 1989; Lord et al., 1994). Baranek, 1999; Osterling & Dawson, 1994; Werner, Daw-
Some studies (Ermer & Dunn, 1998; Kientz & son, Osterling, & Dinno, 2000). Stereotypic behaviors,
Dunn, 1997) have investigated sensory processing using auditory underresponsiveness and overresponsiveness,
the SP. Kientz and Dunn (1997) used scores on the SP, in unusual postures, and unstable visual attention were char-
its test development phase, to determine whether these acteristic of infants later diagnosed with autism when com-
scores discriminated between children with autism (n = pared to those with other developmental disorders or with
32) and without autism (n = 64). Multivariate analysis children who were typically developing (Adrien et al., 1992,
showed that children with ASD were reported to have 1993).
higher rates of sensory processing dysfunction than the Baranek (1999) used retrospective videotape analysis to
children without autism on all categories of the SP, with explore the predictive capability of sensory and social
84 of the 99 items (85%) differentiating the sensory pro- behavior observations in children ages 9–12 months who
cessing skills of the groups. The items reflected both sen- were later diagnosed with autism. Here, sensorimotor fea-
sory modulation and praxis deficits in autism, as well as tures of social touch aversion and excessive mouthing of
192 March/April 2007, Volume 61, Number 2
Downloaded from http://ajot.aota.org on 05/03/2019 Terms of use: http://AOTA.org/terms
 objects, as well as delayed response to name and decreased (APA, 2000). A total of 400 participants with an ASD diag-
affect rating, were subtle yet salient predictors at ages 9–12 nosis were collected.
months of a subsequent autism diagnosis and discriminated Typically developing group. This sample was taken from
between children with autism (n = 11), children with devel- data collected for a national study (Dunn & Westman,
opmental disabilities (n = 10), and children who were typi- 1997). The group consisted of 1,075 children from ages 3
cally developing (n = 11). In contrast, other researchers also to 10 years who were not receiving special education ser-
using retrospective videotape analysis have not found early vices or taking medications regularly.
sensorimotor abnormalities in children with ASD (Osterling Participant matching. The groups of participants were
& Dawson, 1994; Werner et al., 2000). matched on chronological age and, when possible, gender.
The preceding review of sensory processing findings in Complete matching on gender was not possible given the
ASD confirms the presence of sensory processing difficulties disproportionate male to female gender ratio seen in autism
for most people at some point in development. What also and in the total ASD group in this study. Therefore, the
should be evident is the lack of consistency among these total sample (N = 562) included 281 participants in each
studies in the size and ages of their samples, method(s) of group with a mean age of 51.58 months (10.30 standard
measurement, and lack of replication. As a whole, sensory deviation). Specific to the ASD group, 256 had a diagnosis
processing has received less attention in the literature than of autism (211 boys, 45 girls), 21 had pervasive develop-
other developmental variables in autism (Baranek, 2002; mental disorder, not otherwise specified (20 boys, 1 girl),
National Research Council, 2001). As a result, findings and 4 had Asperger syndrome (all boys). In the typical
have lacked consistency and likely reflect the variability in group, 235 were boys and 43 were girls.
research questions and methods used in the studies. The
purpose of this study was to investigate differences in sen- Instrumentation
sory processing between age-matched preschool to early The primary variable in this study was reported behavioral
school-age children with ASD and those who were typically sensory processing as measured by the SSP (McIntosh,
developing. The research questions were Miller, & Shyu, 1999). The SSP is a 38-item caregiver
1. What domains of sensory processing (e.g., tactile, report measure comprising the items that demonstrated the
auditory, oral–sensory, sensory seeking) are significantly dif- highest discriminative power of atypical sensory processing
ferent in this sample of children with ASD as measured by among all the items from the long version, the Sensory Pro-
the SSP? file (SP; Dunn, 1999). The full SP, from which the norms
2. Do significant differences exist in sensory processing were established, was standardized on 1,200 children. Items
behavior identified in this group of children with ASD are scored on a 1-point to 5-point scale. The 7 sections of
when compared to children who are typically developing? the SSP found in a normative sample are Tactile Sensitivity,
Taste/Smell Sensitivity, Movement Sensitivity, Under-
responsive/Seeks Sensation, Auditory Filtering, Low
Methods Energy/Weak, and Visual/Auditory Sensitivity. Internal
consistency of the sections within the scale ranged from .70
Participants
to .90 (Dunn, 1999). Internal validity correlations for the
ASD group. A retrospective chart review was used to sections ranged from .25 to .76 and were all significant at
compile data on the children diagnosed with ASD at a ter- p < .01. Both section scores and a Total Score are interpreted
tiary diagnostic center. Data used in this study represent on the SSP and will be treated as the independent variables.
existing clinical data; no new data were collected. People The Total Score is the most sensitive indicator of sensory
referred for evaluation because of suspected autism had dysfunction.
received comprehensive medical, psychological, speech and Given its short administration time (10 min) and
language, and occupational therapy team evaluations. Clin- value in screening for atypical sensory processing, the SSP
ical specialists in each discipline used test administration is recommended for research protocols (Dunn, 1999;
procedures, methods, and measurements appropriate to McIntosh et al., 1999). In this study, the SSP is most
people on the autism spectrum; data from the assessment appropriate because in the early phase of its development
were included in this study. The ASD diagnosis was estab- the social–communication and motor items in the SP were
lished by meeting the criteria on at least one of the follow- eliminated. Thus, the SSP isolates sensory processing that
ing: Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised (Lord et al., is less confounded by items overlapping with the diagnos-
1994); Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (Lord, tic features of autism. Initial studies of the validity of the
Rutter, DiLavore, & Risi, 1999); or DSM-IV-TR criteria SSP have demonstrated discriminate validity of > 95% in
The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 193
Downloaded from http://ajot.aota.org on 05/03/2019 Terms of use: http://AOTA.org/terms
 identifying children with and without sensory modulation in the standardization sample, whereas a probable differ-
difficulties (McIntosh et al., 1999). Miller and colleagues ence indicates scores greater than 1 and less than 2 standard
(2001) also correlated dysfunctional sensory processing deviations from the mean. Findings indicated that 83.6%
scores with abnormal psychophysiological responses to a (n = 235) of the participants with ASD obtained definite
series of sensory challenges. Together, these findings provide difference scores in sensory processing for the SSP Total
initial support for use of the SSP as a valid measure of sen- Score in comparison to 3.2% (n = 7 of 221) in participants
sory processing. in the typically developing group. The ASD group scores
exceeded the typical group in all definite difference section
Data Collection scores, with participants in the typically developing group
Children between ages 3 and 6 years who participated in an consistently scoring more often in the typical performance
interdisciplinary diagnostic evaluation that resulted in an range. Sensory processing sections of the SSP that yielded
ASD diagnosis were located using a query of the scheduling the highest reported definite differences in the ASD group
and billing software. The query output was sorted by date included underresponsive/seeks sensation (86.1%, n =
of service and represented a registry of the potential sample 242), auditory filtering (77.6%, n = 218), tactile sensitivity
for inclusion in this study. Chart review began with chil- (60.9%, n = 171), and taste and smell sensitivity (54.1%, n
dren evaluated most recently and worked back until 400 = 152). Other SSP sections had somewhat lower percent-
participants with complete SSPs (i.e., no blank items) were ages of reported sensory processing differences in the defi-
enrolled. Chart reviews and data entry directly into SPSS nite difference range but still a much higher percentage
version 12.0 for Windows (SPSS, 2003) were completed by than the typically developing group. Notably, when proba-
the first author. ble and definite differences classifications were summed as
an indicator of some degree of sensory processing differ-
Data Analysis ences, 95% (n = 267) of the sample of children with ASD
Several analyses were conducted on the data set to charac- were rated as having some degree of difference in sensory
terize sensory processing and to investigate group differ- processing based on the SSP Total Score (i.e., falling more
ences. First, descriptive statistics were used. Item analysis than 1 standard deviation from the mean).
identified items yielding the highest reported sensory pro- The preceding analysis of sensory processing sections
cessing dysfunction in this sample on the SSP. Percentages provides some insight into sensory processing sections that
of performance on SSP sections for the samples by group yielded the highest reported differences. Table 2 presents
for section summary classifications on the SSP were cal- percentages of children reported as always or frequently
culated. Second, multivariate analyses of variance demonstrating the behaviors on the SSP, with items yielding
(MANOVAs) were conducted to investigate differences in a 50% or higher threshold in bold. Items were noted in the
SSP items and sections between the groups. To be included Tactile Sensitivity, Taste/Smell Sensitivity, Underresponsive/
in these analyses, caregivers had to have completed all items Seeks Sensation, Auditory Filtering, Visual/Auditory Sensi-
in a section. Complete SSPs were available on all 281 par- tivity sections. The typically developing sample had no
ticipants in the ASD group; however, in the typically devel- items that met the 50% criteria.
oping group, caregivers occasionally rated items as not
applicable. As a result, the section the item was contained MANOVA: SSP Sections and Items by Group
in and the SSP Total Score could not be calculated. There- Using item raw scores, MANOVA findings indicated that
fore, complete SSPs were available on 221 participants in participants in the ASD group performed differently from
the typically developing group, with complete sections the participants in the typically developing group (p < .000)
ranging from 254 to 278 participants. in all SSP sections and for the Total Score (see Table 3).
These comparisons yielded excellent power (.994–1.00)
(i.e., there were enough participants to find differences
Results between the groups). Small to moderate effect sizes
(.219–.628; i.e., the differences are likely to be meaningful)
Descriptive Statistics: Sensory Processing were noted for Tactile Sensitivity, Taste/Smell Sensitivity,
Performance on the SSP
Underresponsive/Seeks Sensation, Auditory Filtering, and
Reported performance classifications on the SSP for both Visual/Auditory Sensitivity. Figure 1 shows the differences
groups are summarized in Table 1. On the SSP a definite in section mean scores by group. Follow-up analysis indi-
difference indicates scores greater than 2 standard deviations cated that there were significant differences (p < .001)
from the mean for children who were typically developing between the groups on 35 of the 38 items (92%), with
194 March/April 2007, Volume 61, Number 2
Downloaded from http://ajot.aota.org on 05/03/2019 Terms of use: http://AOTA.org/terms
 Table 1. Performance Classification on the SSP Sections by Group
Typical Performance Probable Difference Definite Difference
Section ASD Typical ASD Typical ASD Typical
Tactile Sensitivity 20.6% 75.6% 18.5% 15.5% 60.9% 8.9%
Taste/Smell Sensitivity 32.0% 84.5% 13.9% 8.7% 54.1% 6.8%
Movement Sensitivity 55.9% 71.6% 21.0% 21.6% 23.1% 6.8%
Underresponsive/Seeks Sensation 6.4% 74.9% 7.5% 19.1% 86.1% 6.0%
Auditory Filtering 7.8% 87.8% 14.6% 9.1% 77.6% 3.1%
Low Energy/Weak 58.0% 86.5% 18.9% 9.5% 23.1% 4.0%
Visual/Auditory Sensitivity 31.0% 77.3% 25.3% 17.8% 43.8% 4.8%
Total SSP 5.0% 83.3% 11.4% 13.6% 83.6% 3.2%
Note. ASD = autism spectrum disorders; SSP = Short Sensory Profile (McIntosh, Miller, & Shyu, 1999).

Table 2. Percentages of Children Who Always or Frequently Displayed Behaviors on the Short Sensory Profile
% Typically
Item % ASD Developing
Tactile Sensitivity
1. Expresses distress during grooming 65.1 13.0
2. Prefers long-sleeved clothing even when it is warm or short sleeves when it is cold 10.0 13.8
3. Avoids going barefoot, especially in grass or sand 13.2 1.8
4. Reacts emotionally or aggressively to touch 22.1 5.0
5. Withdraws from splashing water 13.5 3.2
6. Has difficulty standing in line or close to other people 41.6 6.5
7. Rubs or scratches out a spot that has been touched 13.9 2.3
Taste/Smell Sensitivity
8. Avoids certain tastes or food smells that are typically part of children’s diets 45.9 17.8
9. Will only eat certain tastes 52.7 7.4
10. Limits self to particular food textures/temperatures 45.6 5.8
11. Picky eater, especially regarding food textures 56.2 9.7
Movement Sensitivity
12. Becomes anxious or distressed when feet leave the ground 8.2 1.4
13. Fears falling or heights 15.3 4.6
14. Dislikes activities where head is upside down 10.7 2.5
Underresponsive/Seeks Sensation
15. Enjoys strange noises/seeks to make noise for noise’s sake 52.0 17.3
16. Seeks all kinds of movement and this interferes with daily routines 70.5 2.2
17. Becomes overly excitable during a movement activity 66.9 19.1
18. Touches people and objects 62.3 3.2
19. Doesn’t seem to notice when face and hands are messy 31.3 29.2
20. Jumps from one activity to another so that it interferes with play 61.9 1.4
21. Leaves clothing twisted on body 28.1 20.9
Auditory Filtering
22. Is distracted or has trouble functioning if there is a lot of noise around 58.0 2.9
23. Appears to not hear what you say 73.0 4.3
24. Can’t work with background noise 12.5 2.9
25. Has trouble completing tasks when the radio is on 16.4 2.7
26. Doesn’t respond when name is called but you know the child’s hearing is OK 51.2 1.8
27. Has difficulty paying attention 79.0 1.8
Low Energy/Weak
28. Seems to have weak muscles 12.5 3.6
29. Tires easily, especially when standing or holding particular body positions 7.5 4.6
30. Has a weak grasp 11.4 2.1
31. Can’t lift heavy objects 7.5 2.5
32. Props to support self 8.9 6.5
33. Poor endurance/tires easily 7.8 3.6
Visual/Auditory Sensitivity
34. Responds negatively to unexpected loud noises 50.9 7.9
35. Holds hands over ears to protect ears from sound 45.6 11.9
36. Is bothered by bright lights after others have adapted to the light 16.0 1.1
37. Watches everyone when they move around the room 31.3 9.4
38. Covers eyes or squints to protect eyes from light 23.8 13.3
Note. Bold items are those with “always” or “frequently” reported behaviors by 50% or more of the caregivers of children with autism. ASD = autism spectrum
disorders; SSP = Short Sensory Profile (McIntosh, Miller, & Shyu, 1999).

The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 195

Downloaded from http://ajot.aota.org on 05/03/2019 Terms of use: http://AOTA.org/terms
 Table 3. Group MANOVA F Values, Significance, Effect Size,
and Power
F (1, 502) p Effect Size Power
Tactile Sensitivity 305.07 .000 .379 1.000
Taste/Smell Sensitivity 239.06 .000 .323 1.000
Movement Sensitivity 20.13 .000 .039 .994
Underresponsive/Seeks Sensation 788.79 .000 .612 1.000
Auditory Filtering 845.86 .000 .628 1.000
Low Energy/Weak 61.04 .000 .109 1.000
Visual/Auditory Sensitivity 140.21 .000 .219 1.000
Total SSP 64.90 .000 .115 1.000
Note. Effect size as measured by eta square. MANOVA = multivariate analysis
of variance; SSP = Short Sensory Profile (McIntosh, Miller, & Shyu, 1999).

small to moderate effect sizes (.243–.652) and excellent

power (.996–1.00). The only items not reaching the signif-
Figure 1. Mean scores by Short Sensory Profile Section by group.
icance level were “prefers long-sleeved clothing even when it
is warm or short sleeves when it is cold,” “dislikes activities
where head is upside down,” and “covers eyes or squints to
protect eyes from light.” tion). A similar behavioral pattern was noted in other stud-
ies involving children with ASD (Kientz & Dunn, 1997;
Rogers et al., 2003; Watling et al., 2001). These findings are
Discussion in contrast, however, to the Ermer and Dunn study (1998)
in which a low incidence of behaviors in the sensory-seeking,
Sensory Processing Performance on the SSP
factor was noted in a small group of children with ASD.
The first research question asked whether sensory process- Sensory processing differences also were noted within
ing was different in this sample of children with ASD. the Auditory Filtering section among 77.6% of the sample.
Using the SSP Total Score as an overall indicator of sensory In general, children with autism in this sample appeared to
processing responses, children with ASD were often tune out language (e.g., “appears to not hear what you say,”
reported to have sensory processing impairments, whereas “doesn’t respond when name is called,” “has difficulty pay-
children in the typically developing group were not. Sen- ing attention”), which to some degree also reflects the audi-
sory processing section and item findings on the SSP tory processing deficits common in autism. These children
reported in this study also are consistently elevated in stud- also were noted to be distracted or to have trouble func-
ies involving children with ASD (Kientz & Dunn, 1997; tioning if there was background noise. In contrast to the
Rogers et al., 2003; Watling et al., 2001). Using children previously noted sensory seeking, in which children
from the same national sample who were typically develop- appeared to be actively seeking ways to regulate their behav-
ing, items yielding the highest frequency of dysfunctional ior, children with these auditory sensitivities appeared to be
sensory processing in independent groups of children with more passive in relation to this input. These findings sup-
ASD were the same in the present study as those identified port previous research reports documenting similar auditory
by Kientz and Dunn (1997). Although direct comparison sensory responsivity patterns (Adrien et al., 1987; Baranek,
of items in the other investigations is not possible given 1999; Gillberg et al., 1990; Osterling & Dawson, 1994).
how data were reported, it should be noted that the items Tactile sensitivity difficulties noted in this study also are
that make up the SSP sections (Rogers et al., 2003) and SP well documented in the autism literature that discusses sen-
factors (Watling et al., 2001) that best discriminated chil- sory processing, especially in firsthand accounts of living
dren with autism contained these same high-frequency with autism (Baranek et al., 1997; Cesaroni & Garber,
items. Together, these findings begin to elucidate consistent 1991; Grandin, 1995). Tactile sensitivity symptoms
patterns of inattention/distractibility, sensory seeking, audi- occurred in this study among 60.9% of the ASD sample (n
tory sensitivity, and tactile sensitivity in children with ASD. = 171) in a difference classification, with the most reported
In this study, more than 90% of the ASD sample had difficulty tolerating grooming and hygiene tasks.
significant differences in the Underresponsive/Seeks Sensa-
tion section. Analysis of section items indicated that the Comparison of Group Differences on the SSP
sample appeared to seek sensory input from multiple sen- A second research question asked whether group differences
sory systems (e.g., auditory, vestibular, tactile, propriocep- on SSP Total Score, sections, and items existed between
196 March/April 2007, Volume 61, Number 2
Downloaded from http://ajot.aota.org on 05/03/2019 Terms of use: http://AOTA.org/terms
 participants with ASD and typical controls. Consistent Implications for Practice
with previous reports of sensory processing in people with Together, the sensory processing findings noted in this
ASD (Kientz & Dunn, 1997; Rogers et al., 2003; Watling study reflect a pattern of dysfunctional sensory modula-
et al., 2001), current results indicated significant group tion; that is, children with ASD demonstrate difficulty
differences. The participants in the ASD group performed with filtering and changing to sensory stimuli to develop
differently from the participants in the typically developing an adaptive response. Sensory modulation has been
group on all SSP sections and for the Total Score. Interest- defined as the capacity to regulate and organize the degree,
ingly, as seen in Figure 1, the pattern of mean scores by sec- intensity, and nature of responses to sensory input in a
tion is similar between the groups, although the ASD group graded and adaptive manner (Miller & Lane, 2000). In
consistently demonstrated lower mean scores (indicating turn, sensory modulation allows a person to achieve and
more frequent behaviors). maintain an optimal range of performance and to adapt to
Furthermore, significant differences were noted challenges in daily life.
between the groups on 35 of the 38 items (92%). The The present study, like most previous studies, illustrates
items that were most commonly reported in the ASD that sensory responses are significantly different for children
group were uncommon behaviors in the typically develop- who have ASD. Given the prevalence of these findings and
ing group. For instance, items relating to difficulty paying their early onset, sensory processing disorders may represent
attention, appearing not to hear what you say, and move- another core diagnostic criterion for autism, a view that is
ment seeking that yielded the highest frequencies in the supported by several authors (Coleman, 1976; Coleman &
ASD group were rarely reported in the typically developing Gillberg, 1985; Gillberg & Coleman, 2000; Ornitz, 1989).
group. Each of the 3 items not reaching significance repre- However, what also is important for practice is our abil-
sented a different SSP section and so may not reflect a gen- ity to link these observations with challenges in participa-
eral pattern but rather may indicate behaviors that are less tion. Sensory modulation impairments represent a mis-
relevant to ASD. match between the external contextual demands of the
The group differences noted in this study may not, child’s environment and his or her internal characteristics
however, be unique to autism. Wing’s (1966) initial writ- (e.g., attention, emotion, sensory processing) (Miller et al.,
ings noted impaired sensory responses across clinical groups 2001) and can impair the ability of the child with autism to
of children. Rogers and colleagues (2003) confirmed these sustain engagement with people or in activities. Children
early behavior observations with similar patterns of sensory with ASD in the present study, as in previous studies, have
processing impairment reported in comparison groups of been found to be inattentive and distractible. In a small
children with Fragile X syndrome and autism. In this study, study, Fertel-Daly and colleagues (2001) found that provid-
auditory filtering and tactile sensitivity differences were ing touch pressure input through weighted vests enabled
reported in both the ASD and Fragile X groups, and preschoolers with ASD to be less distractible and more
although these groups did not differ significantly, both attentive at school. More studies linking sensory-responding
groups were more impaired than the other comparison to participation are needed.
groups of children who were developmentally delayed and As previously noted, differences in sensory modulation
children who were typically developing. Further, the results among people with autism have been well documented in
indicated that impaired sensory processing was associated the literature, and the findings in this study add to the evi-
with clinical diagnosis (either autism or Fragile X), although dence. Sensory processing skills are fundamental to func-
that did not differentiate these clinical groups. Here, high tional performance and therefore likely play a role in the
levels of repetitive behavior and the restricted behavioral variable developmental performance of people with ASD
repertoire were the best discriminators. A similar discrimi- (Baranek, 2002). Recognizing these sensory processing con-
nant function was noted by Ermer and Dunn (1998). Their tributions as a vital component of the complex develop-
results, however, yielded two discriminant functions: one mental presentation of people with ASD provides direction
that differentiated children with disabilities from those for intervention planning and highlights the importance of
without disabilities and another that differentiated two occupational therapy practice in facilitating engagement in
groups with disabilities (e.g., autism or ADHD) from each occupations.
other. Together, these findings indicate that sensory pro-
cessing disorders are often seen in children with disabilities,
although they are not always unique to a specific disorder. Study Limitations and Future Research Directions
They also highlight the discriminative power of sensory The major limitation of this study was the use of a conve-
processing and the SSP in particular. nience sample of people with ASD from one region of the
The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 197
Downloaded from http://ajot.aota.org on 05/03/2019 Terms of use: http://AOTA.org/terms
 country. Further, sensory responses were considered only in with autism were compared to age-matched peers who were
the context of behavioral observations via a parent report typically developing. These present findings, considered
measure and not in direct observation. To validate the SSP, with similar studies reported in the literature, begin to con-
additional studies linking sensory response behaviors with firm the presence of sensory processing disorders in children
neurophysiological evidence are needed. with ASD and begin to unravel the types. Further research
The findings of this study with a large sample of peo- is needed to more clearly define patterns of sensory pro-
ple with ASD, considered with previous research investigat- cessing in people with ASD and to investigate the relation-
ing sensory processing in autism, establish clear trends ships of these patterns on the occupational performance of
showing differences in sensory responses between children children from this population. ▲
with and without ASD. Although this question of differen-
tiation between children with and without autism is an
important one, this line on research will describe only the Acknowledgments
prevalence and types of sensory processing disorders within The first author expresses sincere appreciation to the fol-
this single population. It fails, however, to establish the rela- lowing for their support and encouragement during com-
tionships among these sensory responses and core diagnos- ponents of this project: Ruth Huebner, PhD; Lori Gonza-
tic features or other developmental variables in autism. Fur- lez, PhD; Susan Effgen, PhD; Colleen Schneck, ScD; and
ther research is needed to investigate the relevance of Hazel Forsythe, PhD. Additionally, gratitude is extended by
sensory processing aspects on the variable developmental both authors to the University of Kentucky Department of
presentation and occupational performance of people with Rehabilitation Sciences, Weisskopf Child Evaluation Cen-
ASD. Therefore, studies with large samples that yield statis- ter at the University of Louisville, and the University of
tical power are needed so that researchers can conduct fac- Kansas Medical Center Department of Occupational Ther-
tor and path analyses to identify clusters of observations apy Education for supporting this study.
that link sensory processing responses and functional Components of this article were presented at the 85th
behaviors. The findings also may differentiate groups of Annual Conference & Expo of the American Occupational
people with autism by sensorimotor pattern to investigate Therapy Association in May 2005 in Long Beach, California.
differential responding to various interventions (Huebner
& Dunn, 2001).
Beyond autism, future research investigating differ-
References
ences in sensory responses across clinical groups appears Adrien, J. L., Lenoir, P., Martineau, J., Perrot, A., Hameury, L.,
Larmande, C., et al. (1993). Blind ratings of early symptoms
warranted to more clearly define the sensory processing pat-
of autism based upon home movies. Journal of the American
terns unique to each disorder as a mechanism for better Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 617–626.
understanding these disorders, which in turn will guide Adrien, J. L., Ornitz, E., Barthelemy, C., Sauvage, D., & Lelord,
intervention. Doing so not only will allow for identification G. (1987). The presence or absence of certain behaviors asso-
of discriminating sensory processing factors by diagnosis, ciated with infantile autism in severely retarded autistic and
but also may validate the sensory processing taxonomy nonautistic retarded children and very young normal chil-
dren. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 17,
(Miller et al., 2005).
407–416.
Adrien, J. L., Perrot, A., Sauvage, D., Leddet, I., Larmande, C.,
Hameury, L., et al. (1992). Early symptoms in autism from
Conclusions family home movies. Acta Paedopsychiatrica, 55, 71–75.
The majority of children with ASD in this sample were American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statisti-
reported to have difficulties with processing and responding cal manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washing-
ton, DC: Author.
to sensory input on the SSP. Ninety-five percent of the sam-
Baranek, G. T. (1999). Autism during infancy: A retrospective
ple demonstrated some degree of sensory processing dys- video analysis of sensory–motor and social behaviors at 9–12
function on the SSP Total Score. Children were reported to months of age. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disor-
be inattentive, underresponsive, and sensitive to tactile ders, 29, 213–224.
input. They also were reported to seek sensory input and to Baranek, G. T. (2002). Effectiveness of sensory and motor inter-
have difficulty filtering auditory input. The ASD group also ventions in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Dis-
orders, 32, 397–422.
performed significantly differently on 92% (35 of 38) of the
Baranek, G. T., Foster, L. G., & Berkson, G. (1997). Tactile
individual items; a total score and scores for all sections of defensiveness and stereotyped behaviors. American Journal of
the SSP were likewise significantly different when children Occupational Therapy, 51, 91–95.

198 March/April 2007, Volume 61, Number 2

Downloaded from http://ajot.aota.org on 05/03/2019 Terms of use: http://AOTA.org/terms
 Bettison, S. (1994). Abnormal responses to sound and the long-term Profile. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51,
effects of a new treatment program. Sydney, Australia: Autism 530–537.
Research Institute. LeCouteur, A., Rutter, M., Lord, C., Rios, P., Robertson, S.,
Cesaroni, L., & Garber, M. (1991). Exploring the experience of Holdgrafer, M., et al. (1989). Autism Diagnostic Interview:
autism through firsthand accounts. Journal of Autism and A standardized investigator-based instrument. Journal of
Developmental Disorders, 21, 303–313. Autism and Developmental Disorders, 19, 363–387.
Coleman, M. (1976). The autistic spectrums. Amsterdam: North Lord, C. (1995). Follow-up of two-year-olds referred for possible
Holland. autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36,
Coleman, M., & Gillberg, C. (1985). The biology of the autistic 1365–1382.
spectrums. New York: Praeger. Lord, C., Rutter, M., DiLavore, P. C., & Risi, S. (1999). Autism
Dahlgren, S. O., & Gillberg, C. (1989). Symptoms in the first Diagnostic Observation Schedule. Los Angeles: Western
two years of life: A preliminary population study of infantile Psychological.
autism. European Archives of Psychology and Neurological Sci- Lord, C., Rutter, M., & LeCouteur, A. (1994). Autism Diagnos-
ences, 238, 169–174. tic Interview—Revised: A revised version of the diagnostic
Dawson, G., & Lew, A. (1989). Arousal, attention, and socioe- interview for caregivers of individuals with possible pervasive
conomical impairments of individuals with autism. In G. developmental disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmen-
Dawson (Ed.), Autism: Nature, diagnosis and treatment (pp. tal Disorders, 24, 659–685.
49–74). New York: Guilford. Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (1999). Symptoms of autism in
Dunn, W. (1999). The Sensory Profile: User’s manual. San Anto- young children and correspondence with the DSM. Infants
nio, TX: Psychological Corporation. and Young Children, 12, 90–97.
Dunn, W., & Westman, K. (1997). The Sensory Profile: The McIntosh, D. N., Miller, L. J., & Shyu, V. (1999). Development
performance of a national sample of children without and validation of the Short Sensory Profile. In W. Dunn
disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51, (Ed.), Sensory Profile manual (pp. 59–73). San Antonio, TX:
25–34. Psychological Corporation.
Ermer, J., & Dunn, W. (1998). The Sensory Profile: A discrimi- Miller, H. (1996, June). Eye contact and gaze aversion: Implica-
nant analysis of children with and without disabilities. Amer- tions for persons with autism. Sensory Integration Special
ican Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52, 283–290. Interest Section Newsletter, 19, 1–3.
Fertel-Daly, D., Bedell, G., & Hinojosa, J. (2001). Effects of a Miller, L. J., & Lane, S. J. (2000, March). Toward a consensus in
weighted vest on attention to task and self-stimulatory terminology in sensory integration theory and practice: Part
behaviors in preschoolers with pervasive developmental dis- 1: Taxonomy of neurophysiological processes. Sensory Inte-
orders. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55, gration Special Interest Section Quarterly, 23, 1–4.
629–640. Miller, L. J., Lane, S., Cermak, S., Osten, E., & Anzalone, M.
Gillberg, C., & Coleman, M. (1996). Autism and medical disor- (2005). Section I—Primary diagnosis: Axis I: Regulatory-
ders: A review of literature. Developmental Medicine and Sensory Processing Disorders. In S. I. Greenspan & S.
Child Neurology, 38, 191–202. Wieder (Eds.), Diagnostic manual for infancy and early child-
Gillberg, C., & Coleman, M. (2000). The biology of autistic syn- hood: Mental health, developmental, regulatory-sensory process-
dromes. London: Cambridge Press. ing and language disorders and learning challenges (ICDL–
DMIC) (pp. 73–112). Bethesda, MD: Interdisciplinary
Gillberg, C., Ehlers, S., Schaumann, H., Jakobsson, G.,
Council on Developmental and Learning Disabilities.
Dahlgren, S. O., Lindblom, R., et al. (1990). Autism under
Miller, L. J., Reisman, J., McIntosh, D., & Simon, J. (2001). An
age 3 years: A clinical study of 28 cases referred for autistic
ecological model of sensory modulation. In S. Smith-Roley,
symptoms in infancy. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychi-
E. Blanche, & R. C. Schaaf (Eds.), Understanding the nature
atry, 31, 921–934.
of sensory integration with diverse populations (pp. 57–82). Los
Grandin, T. (1995). Thinking in pictures: My life with autism.
Angeles: Harcourt.
New York: Doubleday.
National Research Council. (2001). Educating children with
Greenspan, S. I., & Weider, S. (1997). Developmental patterns autism. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
and outcomes in infants and children with disorders relating Ornitz, E. M. (1989). Autism at the interface between sensory and
and communicating: A chart review of 200 cases of children information processing. In G. Dawson (Ed.), Autism: Nature,
with autistic spectrum diagnoses. Journal of Developmental diagnosis and treatment (pp. 174–207). New York: Guilford.
and Learning Disorders, 1, 87–142. Ornitz, E. M., Guthrie, D., & Farley, A. H. (1977). The early
Hoshino, Y., Kumashiro, H., Yashima, Y., Tachibana, R., Watan- development of autistic children. Journal of Autism and
abe, M., & Furukawa, H. (1982). Early symptoms of autis- Developmental Disorders, 7, 207–229.
tic children and its diagnostic significance. Folia Psychiatrica Ornitz, E. M., Guthrie, D., & Farley, A. H. (1978). The early
et Neurologica Japonica, 36, 367–374. symptoms of childhood autism. In G. Sherban (Ed.), Cog-
Huebner, R. A., & Dunn, W. (2001). Introduction and basic nitive defects in the development of mental illness (pp. 24–42).
concepts. In R. A. Huebner (Ed.), Autism: A sensorimotor New York: Brunner/Mazel.
approach to management. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen. Ornitz, E. M., Lane, S. J., Sugiyama, T., & de Traversay, J.
Kientz, M. A., & Dunn, W. (1997). A comparison of the perfor- (1993). Startle modulation studies in autism. Journal of
mance of children with and without autism on the Sensory Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23, 619–637.

The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 199

Downloaded from http://ajot.aota.org on 05/03/2019 Terms of use: http://AOTA.org/terms
 Osterling, J., & Dawson, G. (1994). Early recognition of children Volkmar, F. R., Cohen, D. J., & Paul, R. (1986). An evaluation
with autism: A study of first birthday home videotapes. Jour- of DSM-III criteria for infantile autism. Journal of the Amer-
nal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 247–257. ican Academy of Child Psychiatry, 25, 190–197.
Rapin, I. (1996). Neurologic examination. In I. Rapin (Ed.), Watling, R. L., Deitz, J., & White, O. (2001). Comparison of
Preschool children with inadequate communication: Develop- Sensory Profile scores of young children with and without
mental language disorder, autism, low I.Q. (pp. 98–122). Lon- autism spectrum disorders. American Journal of Occupational
don: MacKeith. Therapy, 55, 416–423.
Rimland, B., & Edelson, S. M. (1995). Brief Report: A pilot Werner, E., Dawson, G., Osterling, J., & Dinno, J. (2000).
study of auditory integration training in autism. Journal of Recognition of ASDs before 1 year of age: A retrospective
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 25, 61–70. study based on home videotapes. Journal of Autism and
Rogers, S. J., Hepburn, S., & Wehner, E. (2003). Parent reports Developmental Disorders, 30, 157–162.
of sensory symptoms in toddlers with autism and those with Wing, J. K. (1966). Diagnosis, epidemiology, aetiology. In J. K.
other developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Devel- Wing (Ed.), Early childhood autism: Clinical, educational and
opmental Disorders, 33, 631–642. social aspects (pp. 3–49). London: Pergamon.
Vicker, B. A. (1993). Tracking facilitated communication and Wing, L. (1980). Early childhood autism. London: Pergamon.
auditory integration training in Indiana. In Proceedings 1993 Yeung-Courchesne, R., & Courchesne, E. (1997). From impasse
International Conference on Autism. Bethesda, MD: Autism to insight in autism: From behavioral symptoms to biological
Society of America. explanations. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 389–419.

BESTSELLER!
AUTISM: A Comprehensive
Occupational Therapy Approach,
2nd Edition
Edited by Heather Miller-Kuhaneck, MS, OTR/L, BCP
A wide range of knowledge, clinical expertise, and
insights about autism and the PDD spectrum is
presented in the 2nd edition of this classic best-seller.
Topics such as social skills, sensory integration,
alternative and complimentary approaches, and play
and praxis are discussed.
It is rare to find such a comprehensive body of
information on autism, with chapters that present
diagnostic criteria, assessment and intervention, work-
sheets, sample assessment tools, resources, case
studies, and more.
TOPICS INCLUDE • Exploring the etiology of autism
spectrum disorders • Autism and peer relationahips
• Evidence-based practice • And more!

Order #1213A-J
$65 AOTA Members, $89 Nonmembers

877-404-AOTA www.aota.org BK-549

200 March/April 2007, Volume 61, Number 2

Downloaded from http://ajot.aota.org on 05/03/2019 Terms of use: http://AOTA.org/terms