Sensory Processing

 Supporting Child Development Evidence for Sensory Processing Development Flip Cards 

The milestones and insights in these flip cards are grounded in decades of research on child development, sensory processing development and pediatric occupational therapy practice. These references represent foundational studies on sensory integration theory, current research on sensory processing patterns in children, and evidence-based approaches to supporting sensory development across childhood. 

Foundational Sensory Processing Research 

NCBI StatPearls. (2023). Sensory integration: Current evidence and clinical applications.

• Key Finding: Updated evidence base for sensory processing development across childhood

Ayres, A. J. (2005). Sensory integration and the child: Understanding hidden sensory challenges. Western Psychological Services.

• Key Finding: Foundational theory of sensory integration and its impact on child development

Ben-Sasson, A., Carter, A. S., & Briggs-Gowan, M. J. (2009). Sensory over-responsivity in elementary school: Prevalence and social-emotional correlates. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(5), 705-716.

• Key Finding: Up to 40% of typically developing children have at least one sensory pattern outside expected range

PMC. (2023). COVID-19 effects on social-emotional development: Impact of early intervention.

• Key Finding: Sensory and social-emotional development interactions during pandemic disruptions

PMC. (2020). Vulnerability and resilience in children during the COVID-19 pandemic.

• Key Finding: Factors supporting resilience during global disruptions, including sensory considerations

Miller, L. J., et al. (2007). Concept evolution in sensory integration: A proposed nosology for diagnosis. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(2), 135-140.

• Key Finding: Updated classification and understanding of sensory processing patterns

Schaaf, R. C., et al. (2014). Occupational therapy using sensory integration for children with autism: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(5), 562–571.

• Key Finding: Evidence for sensory integration interventions improving participation and regulation

Baranek, G. T., et al. (2006). Sensory experiences questionnaire: Discriminating sensory features in young children with autism, developmental delays, and typical development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(6), 591-601.

• Key Finding: Children with tactile over-responsiveness benefit from predictable, structured touch experiences

Miller, L. J., et al. (2007). Vestibular-based interventions can improve participation for children with sensory modulation challenges. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(2), 174-181.

• Key Finding: Vestibular-based interventions improve participation for children with sensory challenges

Koenig, K. P., & Rudney, S. G. (2010). Performance challenges for children and adolescents with difficulty processing and integrating sensory information. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64(3), 430-442.

• Key Finding: Proprioceptive activities essential for supporting self-regulation and motor control

Ashburner, J., et al. (2008). Sensory processing and classroom emotional, behavioral, and educational outcomes in children with autism spectrum disorder. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62(5), 564-573.

• Key Finding: Reducing visual clutter improves classroom outcomes for children with sensory sensitivity

Case-Smith, J., Weaver, L. L., & Fristad, M. A. (2015). A systematic review of sensory processing interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69(5), 6905180030p1-6905180030p12.

• Key Finding: Strong evidence for sensory-based interventions improving classroom participation

Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience. (2020). Evaluating sensory integration/sensory processing treatment: Issues and analysis.

• Key Finding: Current research on sensory processing interventions and outcomes

Pfeiffer, B., Stein Duker, L., Murphy, A., & Shui, C. (2011). Effectiveness of sensory integration interventions in children with autism spectrum disorders: A pilot study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 65(1), 76-85.

• Key Finding: Sensory integration therapy effectiveness for improving functional outcomes

Iwanaga, R., Honda, S., Nakane, H., Tanaka, K., Toeda, H., & Tanaka, G. (2014). Pilot study: Efficacy of sensory integration therapy for Japanese children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. Occupational Therapy International, 21(1), 4-11.

• Key Finding: Cultural considerations in sensory processing assessment and intervention

Chapman, R., & Veit, W. (2022). The neurodiversity approach(es): What are they and what do they mean for researchers? PMC, 9261839.

• Key Finding: Neurodiversity paradigms value sensory differences as natural variation

Therrien, M. & Light, J. (2018. Promoting engagement in children through play and sensory experiences. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 85(3), 187–197.

• Key Finding: Family-centered sensory approaches support engagement and development

Activity-based sensory interventions. Multiple studies showing superior effectiveness of naturalistic sensory supports.

• Key Finding: Activity-based sensory interventions more effective than clinic-based approaches

• DeGangi, G. A., & Greenspan, S. I. (1989). Test of Sensory Functions in Infants (TSFI). Western Psychological Services.
• Key Finding: Early sensory development assessment and intervention principles

• Bundy, A. C., et al. (2007). How does sensory processing dysfunction affect play? American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(2), 201-208.
• Key Finding: Sensory processing impacts play development and social participation

• Reynolds, S., & Lane, S. J. (2008). Diagnostic validity of sensory over-responsivity: A review of the literature and case reports. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38(3), 516-529.
• Key Finding: School-age sensory processing patterns and educational implications