Child Adolesc Soc Work J (2014) 31:61–70

DOI 10.1007/s10560-013-0308-2

The Relevance of Sensory Processing Disorder to Social

Work Practice: An Interdisciplinary Approach

Katherine M. Walbam

Published online: 7 June 2013

Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Sensory processing disorder (SPD) is a disruption in the organization of

sensory input, and affects up to three million children in the United States. SPD can
have a serious impact on the ways that children behave, play, and learn, and yet, it
may be overlooked or misunderstood by social work practitioners. The purpose of
this article is to inform social work practice regarding SPD, strengthening the
biological component of biopsychosocial assessment. After an introduction to the
disorder, this article discusses differential diagnosis and practice implications, and
concludes with a statement on interdisciplinary treatment.

Keywords Sensory processing disorder
Social work
Children

Interdisciplinary
Differential diagnosis

Sara is a 4 year old girl. Her parents have a hard time getting her to preschool
in the mornings because Sara cries and fights with them about getting dressed.
She doesn’t like the way her shirt feels, and the seams on her socks make her
scream. She also has a hard time with breakfast—her parents call her a picky
eater, and Sara won’t touch most breakfast foods. Oatmeal and eggs are slimy,
cereal is too crunchy. Bagels are ok. Sara’s mother worries about feeding her
daughter a plain bagel every morning, but some days it is just too hard to
continue arguing about it. It feels like a constant struggle for Sara to even
begin her day. And then she gets to preschool, where the problem only
becomes magnified.
Sensory processing disorder (SPD) is a disruption in the organization of sensory
input, which shapes our perception of the world and impacts our responses to it.
Children with SPD may either get so much information about their world that it

K. M. Walbam (&)
Simmons College, 300 Fenway, Boston, MA 02115, USA
e-mail: katherine.walbam@simmons.edu

123
62 K. M. Walbam

becomes overwhelming, as in the case example of Sara, or they may not get enough
information to make sense of what they experience. As a result, children with SPD
often present with behavioral or emotional difficulties. Mental health practitioners,
however, may have limited information or understanding of the disorder. This is
concerning, as SPD is estimated to occur in 5 % of the general population (Ahn
et al. 2004), equating to three million children in the United States (United States
Census Bureau 2008).
The purpose of this article is to provide an introduction to the basic concepts of
sensory integration theory, the ways that SPD may affect children and, therefore,
how SPD impacts mental health treatment and diagnosis. It is in no way intended to
be an exhaustive or in-depth review of occupational therapy theory, practice, or
treatment. Instead, it is hoped that this article will generate interest among mental
health professionals, and create increased interdisciplinary partnerships between
social workers and occupational therapists (OTs). The collaboration of these two
disciplines would be of great benefit to children with SPD and their families. Since
up to three million children in the United States have SPD, social workers are likely
already in contact with these children, whether or not they know it. In order to better
help these children, they will need knowledge of the disorder and relevant services.
Recently, SPD was under consideration for inclusion in the fifth edition of the
diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-V) (Champagne et al.
2010; Strzelecki 2008), which may have increased its interdisciplinary recognition.
Ultimately, however, the decision was made not to include SPD in this version of
the DSM. This is likely because of arguments that SPD is only vaguely defined, or
that its symptoms overlap with those of other diagnoses (Koziol et al. 2011). These
critics call for more empirical research to determine the validity of, as well as need
for, the SPD diagnosis.
Despite these critiques, however, there continue to be many proponents of the
inclusion of SPD in the DSM. Caregivers argue that SPD accounts for their child’s
symptoms and that treatment for SPD is working (Wallis 2007a). Additionally,
while SPD symptoms may overlap with other diagnoses, this does not necessarily
mean that the child meets the full DSM criteria or will benefit from treatment for
those diagnoses. Though SPD is not included in DSM-V, awareness of the disorder
is growing, as is research pertaining to SPD. The SPD foundation promises to
continue to push for increased recognition and the eventual inclusion of SPD in the
DSM (Miller 2012).
SPD is typically treated by OTs, and children may be referred through their
school or primary care doctor. The OT will conduct an evaluation to determine if
SPD is present and to what extent. Then a treatment program suited to the child’s
needs will be created. OTs provide services intended to help children integrate
sensory input, tolerate stimuli, and better receive sensory messages in the brain.
Treatment in children is effective, in part, because their brains are still plastic. Thus,
children’s responses to sensory stimuli can be adapted.
The field of OT is well-versed in the disorder, and there is a wide array of
literature regarding SPD in the medical and allied health databases. This, however,
is not the case for the mental health field. A review of electronic databases suggests
that the medical and allied health fields have much more access to information about

123
The Relevance of Sensory Processing Disorder 63

SPD. An April 2013 search for the terms ‘‘sensory processing disorder,’’ ‘‘sensory
integration disorder,’’ or ‘‘sensory modulation disorder’’ (SID and SMD, as SPD
have sometimes been referred to in the literature), indicates as much. CINAHL and
Medline returned a combined total of 55 articles that reference SPD, SID or SMD in
the abstract. A search for the same terms in social service abstracts, SocIndex, and
PsycInfo return a combined total of 34 articles, with social service abstracts
returning none and SocIndex returning only one. Though this is an improvement
over a year ago, when the same search returned a mere five articles from PsycInfo,
the mental health field is still lacking in information regarding SPD, comparatively.

An Introduction to Sensory Processing Disorder

A Jean Ayres was an occupational therapist who identified sensory integration

problems (now known as SPD) as its own unique disorder, and developed sensory
integration theory. Ayres proposed that children with sensory processing problems
may be either hyper-sensitive (over-responsive) or hypo-sensitive (under-respon-
sive) to stimuli, and therefore unable to process sensory input as typically
developing children would (Ayres 1979). This means that children with SPD cannot
properly organize sensory information from the world around them into meaningful
knowledge. According to sensory integration theory, one must be able to take cues
from the environment and process them into useful information in order to
comprehend the world and one’s place in it.
SPD takes place at a neurobiological level, and often results in hyper-sensitivity
or hypo-sensitivity. Children who are hypo-sensitive require more stimulation in
order to glean sensory messages. These children, who exhibit poor sensory
registration, may present as withdrawn or uninterested because they lack the neural
activation needed in order to sustain focused attention. They often engage in
repetitive play to increase stimulation, and seek out movement, touch, and visual
stimuli. When children are hyper-sensitive, however, they respond more quickly or
more dramatically to stimuli; it can be overwhelming for them. These children are
bombarded with sensory messages. They may appear hyperactive or distractible,
resistant to participation in activities, fearful or anxious, and may seek less
stimulating activities (Dunn 1997).
SPD has been defined by Miller as ‘‘a lack of neurological interconnectivity at
the level of neurons between two or more sensory modalities’’’ (in Strzelecki 2008,
p. 20). Children with SPD do not habituate to stimuli, referred to as sensory gating,
in the same was that typically developing children do (Reynolds and Lane 2007;
Schneider et al. 2007; Schoen et al. 2008; Wallis 2007b). While the system of a
typically developing child will eventually suppress insignificant stimuli, the sensory
processing system of a child with SPD is less able to do so. Using EEG measures,
Davies and Gavin (2007) found that this does not improve with age, as it will in a
typically developing child. This difficulty can lead children who are sensitive to
stimuli to feel overwhelmed by competing messages (Miller et al. 2009). It has also
been suggested that differences in the regulation of dopamine, a neurotransmitter
that modulates brain activity and signals excitatory and inhibitory messages (key for

123
64 K. M. Walbam

directing attention and focus), may be related to increased tactile sensitivity and
failure to habituate (Schneider et al. 2008; Ungerstedt and Ljungberg 1974).
Several areas of the brain are specifically involved in sensory processing. For
example, the brain stem and cerebellum (sometimes jointly referred to as the
‘‘reptilian brain’’) regulate arousal with the goal of survival. Kranowitz (2005) refers
to these areas as gate-keepers, deciding what stimuli to pay attention to and what to
tune out. If extraneous stimuli are not filtered out, this can cause alarm and distress,
shutting down higher level thinking in favor of fight or flight responses (Kranowitz
2005). In addition, the spinal column connects with the brain stem, where two or
more senses come together to create one experience (Ayres 1979). Children who are
hyper-sensitive may not be able to effectively weed out unnecessary information,
which creates a confusing and often scary view of the experience, and even the
world. Similarly, children who are hypo-sensitive may not receive important
sensory messages and feel blind-sided by events and activities around them, or
disconnected from the world.
The limbic system has an important role in interpreting sensory stimuli and the
experiences associated with them. This region of the brain receives sensory input
that helps regulate emotion (Ayres 1979) and integrates meaning and social
experience (Kranowitz 2005). For example, the limbic system takes the sensory
experience of being hugged (too tight, not enough, just right) and attributes emotion
to that experience. A child who is hyper-sensitive may experience a hug as painful
or frightening, while a hypo-sensitive child may experience the same hug as
insufficient and not feel regulated or contained by it.
The cerebral cortex is responsible for more precise integration of sensation and
experience and compares new experiences with previous ones (Ayres 1979).
Therefore, a child who has SPD is likely to associate new sensory input with prior
negative sensory experiences. What also stands out about the cerebral cortex is the
potential that it will be shut down by the brain stem, cerebellum, and limbic system
in the event of a breakdown in sensory processing (Kranowitz 2005). When this
happens, the cerebral cortex is cut off from information and unable to do its job—to
analyze and solve problems. This leads to overly emotional and inappropriate
behavioral responses (Kranowitz 2005). As Kranowitz (2005) notes, ‘‘impaired
processing produces impaired output’’ (p. 106).
Sensory integration, the ability to process information from multiple sensory
systems at once, is complex. Visual, olfactory, auditory, taste, tactile, vestibular
(pertaining to balance), and proprioceptive (regarding one’s body position)
information come at us continuously. These systems interact almost simultaneously.
Sensory integration ‘‘sorts, orders, and eventually puts all of the individual sensory
inputs together into whole brain function’’ (Ayres 1979, p. 28), and allows us to
make sense of our daily experiences. This includes the ability to tune into important
stimuli (what the teacher is saying) and tune out extraneous stimuli (the sounds from
the playground outside). Typically developing children (without SPD) are able to
take information from multiple sensory modalities, and sort through them for the
most relevant information. They can more easily participate in daily routines and
activities, such as playing a game of tag, or participating in music class. Without this
ability, children with SPD often miss out on important developmental tasks (Ayres

123
The Relevance of Sensory Processing Disorder 65

1979; Dunn 1997a; Miller et al. 2009), and may display behavioral or emotional
symptoms. When over-stimulated, they may appear to have a tantrum for no reason.
When under-stimulated, they may appear to be ‘‘checked out.’’
SPD can have a serious impact on the ways that children behave, play, and learn.
Children who are hypo-sensitive often seek stimuli—they make noises, fidget, touch
things or people, or act impulsively. Children who are hyper-sensitive avoid stimuli;
they may appear resistant, withdrawn, or have tantrums (Dunn 1997). These
behaviors may be distracting to the child and others, and may impact important
social or learning experiences. SPD can impact a child’s social, academic,
emotional, and behavioral functioning. All of these facets of the child’s life are
significant to social workers, who seek to help children function more effectively
within their classrooms, peer group, and families.

Impact of SPD on Child Behavior and Differential Diagnosis

Identification of SPD can be a complex process. According to Kranowitz (2005,

p. xxxiv), ‘‘many parents, educators, doctors, and mental health professionals have
difficulty recognizing SPD


Unless they are educated about SPD, few people
understand that bewildering behavior may stem from a poorly functioning nervous
system.’’ This lack of understanding is only complicated by the fact that behavior
that commonly stems from a child’s difficulty processing stimuli appears similar to
behaviors associated with other disorders. SPD may present similarly to attention
deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Mulligan 1996; Reynolds and Lane 2007),
or learning disabilities (LDs) (Reeves 1998). For example, one possible criterion of
ADHD is that the child does not seem to listen when spoken to (American
Psychiatric Association 2000), yet this behavior may in actuality be a result of a
child’s hypo-sensitivity; the child may simply not register this verbal stimulus.
Another criterion of ADHD is that the child is easily distracted by extraneous
stimuli (American Psychiatric Association 2000), an obvious hallmark of SPD. SPD
is also common among children diagnosed with autism (Kern et al. 2007; Schoen
et al. 2008; Tomchek and Dunn 2007), although it is not exclusive to children on the
autism spectrum.
SPD may be co-morbid with other disorders, or it may simply be masquerading
as them (Byrne 2009). Yet it is the task of the clinician to be able to distinguish one
disorder from another, and make a referral, if necessary. Social workers may not
recognize SPD for what it is, but are charged with the responsibility of providing
diagnosis and treatment for what they see. This puts clinicians at risk of attributing
the social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties associated with SPD to other
disorders.
Other disciplines are beginning to address their own responsibilities for
recognition of SPD. An article by Byrne (2009), for example, examines the role
of nurse practitioners. She notes that, while SPD has been a recognized term since
2000, it is not ‘‘substantively incorporated into nurse practitioner (NP) curricula or
practice’’ and that this ‘‘represents lost opportunities in diagnosis, treatment, and
research’’ (p. 314). She outlines two case scenarios in which children with SPD,

123
66 K. M. Walbam

who have each met certain developmental milestones, are struggling in other areas
or have been diagnosed with other disorders, like autism. Byrne concludes with
implications for nurse practitioners. She encourages them to seek out their own
information, as ‘‘SPD is rarely mentioned in contemporary nursing or medical
curricula’’ and asserts that SPD needs to be part of a nurse practitioners repertoire
‘‘because the health of their child patients and the families of these children are at
stake’’ (p. 318). Certainly the same can be argued of the mental health of the
children and families with SPD, and the responsibility of the mental health
practitioners that serve them, including social workers.

What Do Social Workers Need to Know?

Social workers may be the first point of contact for a child exhibiting the emotional
and behavioral symptoms of SPD. Caregivers and teachers may make a referral to a
social worker for assistance in finding out what is going on, and helping their child
to cope. Yet social workers may not be adequately informed about SPD, despite
having ‘‘first-line’’ access to children through schools, hospitals, and community
service agencies. Though certainly not a replacement for OTs who are trained to
assess for and treat SPD, contact with social workers can be an important step for
children with SPD.

Assessment and Referral

Social workers have a great deal of responsibility when it comes to assessing

children and formulating a diagnosis. Social work assessment is grounded in the
biopsychosocial model, acknowledging a connection between the mind, body, and
relationships of the client on his or her overall functioning. Social workers may have
expertise in the latter two components but may be less versed in the biological
aspect, particularly for those not routinely exposed to it in their work settings. In the
case of SPD, however, social workers may need to think more about how biological
(specifically, sensory) processes may impact child behavior.
Social workers assisting children who present with symptoms of ADHD, anxiety,
autism spectrum disorders, social withdrawal, or who are resistant, seemingly
inflexible, or have poor social skills, should consider hyper- or hypo- sensitivity as a
possible factor. As previously discussed, SPD is often mistaken for, or may appear
in conjunction with, these and other disorders and behaviors. SPD may not be the
sole underlying cause, but it could be one aspect of the child’s difficulties.
Social workers may want to ask questions about both early and current
preferences of the child with regard to sensory experiences. Is the child picky about
certain tastes or textures when eating? Does the child have difficulty getting dressed
or finding comfortable clothing? Has the child been sensitive to sounds? Does the
child withdraw when there is noisy group play? Do sensory experiences like these
interfere with social or academic functioning? The SPD resource center website
offers a checklist of symptoms that may be a helpful beginning point for discussions

123
The Relevance of Sensory Processing Disorder 67

with parents, though the website also warns about following any checklist too
rigidly (Sensory Processing Disorder Checklist: Signs and Symptoms of Dysfunc-
tion 2008). Questions like these will begin to aid the social worker in ruling out
SPD, and selecting necessary referrals for a definitive diagnosis and appropriate
treatment.
A referral to an occupational therapist should be made if a social worker suspects
that a child’s behaviors may be the result of SPD. Many social workers have access
to OTs but may not be aware of it. Like social workers, OTs work in a variety of
settings. Hospitals, schools, and acute care centers often have OTs available to work
with the children, as well as to consult with other staff. Social workers who believe
that a client may have SPD should consider consultation as the first step in further
assessment, as well as identifying treatment strategies.

Diagnosis of SPD and Occupational Therapy Treatment

Once referred to an OT, a child will undergo assessment for SPD. This often
consists of a parent report measure, such as the Sensory Profile (Dunn et al. 2002) or
sensory processing measure (Parham and Ecker 2007), which ask caregivers to
report on the sensory responses and behaviors of their child. Typically, the OT then
completes the sensory integration praxis test (SIPT), created by Ayres (1996). This
battery measures sensory integration processes, and takes about two hours to
complete. Once scores are obtained for the 17 subscales that make up the SIPT,
those scores are compared against a set of normative scores, and the child’s sensory
needs are better explained. The OT must be certified in the SIPT in order to use the
tool.
Once formally diagnosed, the OT who is specifically trained in sensory
integration practices begins treatment with the child. This involves various activities
that engage the central nervous system and promote mastery over sensory
experiences. These may include having arms and legs rubbed with different
textured fabrics, swinging in a special swing, and lying and sitting on large balls.
These activities help the child to integrate different sensations, improve sensory
gating, and begin to be better regulated (Kranowitz 2005). Treatment is tailored to
the individual child’s needs, whether they are hyper- or hypo-sensitive, or display
difficulty with particular sensations. While occupational therapy is the most
common method, other treatment modalities may include kinesthetic training, vision
therapy, martial arts, hippotherapy (utilizing horses), and perceptual-motor training
(Byrne 2009; Kranowitz 2005).
Psychotherapy is often considered an integral part of treatment for SPD. As
Kranowitz (2005) notes, though psychotherapy does not treat the underlying cause,
it can help a child cope with the resulting behaviors and emotions of SPD. Children
with SPD may feel discouraged, depressed, or anxious. The child may have a poor
self-image, and may feel that they are unable to have fun like their peers. Therapy
can help children shift their self-perceptions, while they learn to incorporate
different sensory experiences through occupational therapy.

123
68 K. M. Walbam

The Importance of Social Work Involvement

SPD can impact every facet of a child’s life. For the child with SPD, like Sara, tasks
that are easy for other children become difficult, scary. Daily activities such as
dressing, eating, bathing, and playing become challenging. Imagine starting each
day faced with such challenges, before even getting to school; the world can be a
daunting place for children with SPD.
Social workers are often approached when a child’s behavior is problematic or
changes suddenly. They help children to cope with challenges, and to feel good about
themselves and their world. Social workers who do not have knowledge of SPD are at
a disadvantage, however, since five percent of children in the Unites States have SPD.
In addition, most children are not diagnosed with SPD until they are school-age, when
the behaviors become more evident (Morris 2011). Social workers, however, may be
sought before this diagnosis is made in order to treat the more evident behavioral and
emotional symptoms. Social workers may be the first line of contact when the child
enters school and suddenly begins to display the behavioral outcomes of SPD. If
connected to OTs, social workers can be a great resource for additional referrals and
evaluations. Social workers can also help children and families access support and
accommodations for the child’s needs. They can advocate for the child to have special
accommodations such as quiet spaces, sensory stimulation, or other modifications in
order to play and work their best. Social workers can help teachers, parents, and others
understand what purpose these serve for the child, as well as better understand the
internal emotional world of the child with SPD.

An Argument for Interdisciplinary Social Work

Children with SPD need support from parents, OTs, and social workers. The best
model for treatment is an interdisciplinary model. The occupational therapy field
already seems to recognize an overlap between sensory processing and mental
health. Champagne et al. (2010) suggest that OTs establish guidelines and training
for the use of sensory strategies in mental health treatment. Mental health treatment
of the child with SPD will require specialized information in order to promote and
not conflict with sensory integration techniques. Social workers, on the other hand,
can offer important observations regarding emotional responses and family
dynamics and supports. Using the best that the two disciplines have to offer, the
child and family may truly have their biopsychosocial needs met by a partnership
between occupational therapy and social work.
The first step in this partnership is identifying collaborators. Social workers in
schools may find that the school or district in which they work has an OT on staff.
OTs in schools often do not work with children with SPD. Children with SPD often
do not require or meet the criteria for an individualized education plan (IEP), which
is generally requisite in order for children to access OT services (Cantu 2003;
Epstein 1998). This access also varies from one municipality to another (Jane
Cawley, OT, personal communication, February 1, 2011; Kranowitz 2005).

123
The Relevance of Sensory Processing Disorder 69

However, OTs in the schools are often willing to consult with other professionals,
and can be resources for locating other OTs who can assist children with SPD.
Social workers can also gain knowledge simply by seeking out information on their
own. It can be helpful to examine articles and look for trainings regarding SPD. This may
mean stepping outside of traditional social work journals, and exploring allied health
publications. Many articles can be found online. The internet also has many websites
dedicated to SPD that provide resources, and readings, and can help social workers
formulate a framework for pre-referral assessment of a child’s sensory processing. The
SPD Foundation (http://www.spdfoundation.net/), sensory processing institute for
research and learning (http://www.thespiralfoundation.org), and SPD resource center
(http://www.sensory-processing-disorder.com) websites, for example, provide general
information, research, and resources. In addition, talking with OTs about SPD, asking
questions, and asking about their experiences diagnosing and treating SPD would be an
important step in both gaining knowledge, and identifying partners. Finally, information
about SPD needs to become a regular part of social work training and literature.

Conclusion

While the subject of SPD is an issue familiar to those in the occupational therapy
field, it is not a familiar term or concept to social workers. They may have some
understanding of the disorder, but have not been trained to assess for it, or how to
properly assist children with the effects of it. Yet clinicians do play a role in treating
many of the behavioral outcomes of SPD, such as difficulty engaging with peers in
play or attending to a task. Furthermore, to the untrained eye, SPD may look like
other disorders commonly diagnosed by social workers. The potential for
misdiagnosis of children with SPD is high, as many disorders and conditions
overlap with, or present similarly to SPD. A partnership between social workers and
OTs improves biopsychosocial assessment and treatment, and promotes healthy
emotional and behavioral development of the child with SPD. Improved recognition
of SPD within the social work field not only prepares social workers for the possible
inclusion of SPD in the DSM, but also assures that children have access to treatment
that truly reflects their needs. Sensory processing is a complex process, especially
for the child who has SPD. Assessment and treatment through a partnership of social
work and occupational therapy, however, does not need to be.

References

Ahn, R. R., Miller, L. J., Milberger, S., & McIntosh, D. N. (2004). Prevalence of parents’ perceptions of
sensory processing disorders among kindergarten children. American Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 58, 287–293.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.,
Text Rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Ayres, A. J. (1979). Sensory integration and the child. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Ayres, A. J. (1996). Sensory Integration Praxis Test. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

123
70 K. M. Walbam

Byrne, M. W. (2009). Sensory processing disorder: Any of a nurse practitioner’s business? Journal of the
American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 314–321.
Cantu, C. O. (2003). OT in public schools: A 2003 review and prospectus. The Exceptional Parent, 33(9),
136–140.
Champagne, T., Koomar, J., & Olson, L. (2010). Sensory processing evaluation and intervention in
mental health. OT Practice, 15 (5), CE-1–CE-7.
Davies, P. L., & Gavin, W. J. (2007). Validating the diagnosis of sensory processing disorders using EEG
technology. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 176–189.
Dunn, W. (1997). The impact of sensory processing abilities on the daily lives of young children and their
families: A conceptual model. Infants and Young Children, 9, 23–35.
Dunn, W., Miller, L. J., & Shyu, V. (2002). Sensory Profile. San Antonio: PsychCorp.
Epstein, R. (1998). Getting insurance to cover various therapies. The Exceptional Parent, 28(7), 75–77.
Kern, J. K., Trivedi, M. H., Granneman, B. D., Garver, C. R., Johnson, D. G., Andrews, A. A., et al.
(2007). Sensory correlations in autism. Autism, 123-134.
Koziol, L. F., Budding, D. E., & Chidekel, D. (2011). Sensory integration, sensory processing, and sensory
modulation disorders: Putative functional neuroanatomic underpinnings. Cerebellum, 10, 770–792.
Kranowitz, C. S. (2005). The Out of Sync Child: Recognizing and Coping with Sensory Processing
Disorder. London: Skylight Press.
Miller, L. J., Nielsen, D. M., Schoen, S. A., & Brett-Green, B. A. (2009). Perspectives on sensory processing
disorder: A call for translational research. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 3, 1–12.
Miller, L. J. (2012, December 3). Final Decision for DSM-V. Retrieved December 19, 2012, from Sensory
Processing Disorder Foundation: http://spdfoundation.net/sensory-processing-blog/2012/12/05/final-
decision-for-dsm-v/.
Morris, M. (2011). Age of Onset of SPD. Retrieved January 29, 2011, from Sensory Processing Disorder:
http://www.sensory-processing-disorder.com/age-of-onset-of-spd.html.
Mulligan, S. (1996). An analysis of score patterns of children with attention disorders on the Sensory
Integration and Praxis Tests. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50, 647–654.
Parham, L. D., & Ecker, C. (2007). Sensory Processing Measure. Los Angeles: Western Psychological
Services.
Reeves, G. D. (1998). Case report of a child with sensory integration dysfunction. Occupational Therapy
International, 5, 304–317.
Reynolds, S., & Lane, S. J. (2007). Diagnostic validity of sensory over-responsivity: A review of the
literature and case reports. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. doi:10.1007/s10803-
007-0418-9.
Schneider, M. L., Moore, C. F., Gajewski, L. L., Larson, J. A., Roberts, A. D., Converse, A. K., et al.
(2008). Sensory processing disorder in a primate model: Evidence from a longitudinal study of
prenatal alcohol and prenatal stress effects. Child Development, 100–113.
Schneider, M. L., Moore, C. F., Gajewski, L. L., Laughlin, N. K., Larson, J. A., Gay, C. L., et al. (2007).
Sensory processing disorders in a non-human primate model: evidence for occupational therapy
practice. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 247–253.
Schoen, S. A., Miller, L. J., Brett-Green, B., & Hepburn, S. L. (2008). Psychophysiology of children with
autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 417-429.
Sensory Processing Disorder Checklist: Signs and Symptoms of Dysfunction. (2008). Retrieved March 19,
2013, from Sensory Processing Disorder: http://www.sensory-processing-disorder.com/sensory-
processing-disorder-checklist.html.
Strzelecki, M. V. (2008). Moving forward: A look at Sensory Integration. OT Practice, 17-21.
Tomchek, S. D., & Dunn, W. (2007). Sensory processing in children with and without autism: A
comparative study using the short sensory profile. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy,
61, 190–200.
Ungerstedt, U., & Ljungberg, T. (1974). Central dopamine neurons and sensory processing. Journal of
Psychiatric Research, 11, 149–150.
United States Census Bureau. (2008). Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex and Selected
Age Groups for the United States: April 1, 2000-July 1, 2008. Washington, DC: http://
www.census.gov/popest’’vagaltone’’. (2004). Retrieved October 27, 2009, from encyclopedia.com:
http://www.census.gov/popest.
Wallis, C. (2007a). Is this disorder for real? Time, 170, 62–66.
Wallis, C. (2007, November 29). The next Attention-Deficit Disorder? Retrieved March 8, 2013, from
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1689216-2,00.html.

123