Sensory Integrative Therapy and Autism Ranking:

Current Research

Current Research Studies

We have identified 13* studies of sensory integrative therapy for autistic people published in English-language, peer-reviewed journals.

These studies included more than 150 individuals aged from 3 years old to 48 years old but the vast majority looked at primary school-age children.  The length of treatment varied considerably, with most studies lasting several weeks and one study lasting more than a year.  Most of the studies were conducted in a clinic fitted with appropriate equipment (such as big rolls and balls, trampolines, and suspended equipment). 

Most of the studies looked at sensory integrative therapy as a standalone intervention, while a small number of the studies looked at sensory integrative therapy compared to other interventions (such as treatment as usual, group-based activities or table-top activities). One study compared sensory integrative therapy with sensory integrative therapy plus traditional Thai massage.

• Some of the studies (such as Schaaf et al, 2014) reported improvements in sensory processing and related behaviours in some participants.
• Some of the studies (such as Iwanaga R. et al, 2014) reported improvements in a wide range of other areas (such as motor, visual cognition, and visual-motor abilities) in some participants.
• The study which compared sensory integrative therapy with sensory integrative therapy plus traditional Thai massage (Piravej K. et al, 2009) found that both were effective in reducing challenging behaviours but that the combined intervention was also effective in reducing anxiety.
• Some of the studies (such as Smith et al, 2005) which compared sensory integrative therapy with alternative interventions (such as table-top activities) found that sensory integrative therapy was more beneficial than the alternative intervention in some areas (such as reducing self-stimulating behaviours).  
• One study (Reilly et al, 1983) which compared sensory integrative therapy with an alternative intervention (table-top activities) found that sensory integrative therapy was less beneficial than the alternative intervention in some areas (such as increasing speech).  
• Some of the studies (such as Watling and Dietz, 2007) reported no effects of sensory integrative therapy in any participants.

*Please note: We have not included studies with less than three autistic participants, studies which looked at only one specific technique or piece of equipment used within sensory integrative therapy or studies which did not appear to follow the protocols for sensory integrative therapy established by Ayres (1972) and by Parham et al (2010). 

 Status of Current Research Studies

There are a number of limitations to all of the research studies published to date. For example

• The majority of studies (eight of 13) consisted of single-case designs with 7 or less autistic participants.
• Some of these single-case design studies (such as Thompson, 2011) used relatively weak methodologies (such as an A-B-A design).
• One of the larger studies (Karim and Mohammed, 2015) had 34 participants but no control group. 
• One of the group studies (Iwanaga et al, 2014) was a retrospective analysis of existing data rather than a prospective, experimental study.
• One of the group studies (Schaaf et al, 2014) used blinded assessors but the assessors interviewed parents who were not blinded in order to compile data for the main outcome measure (the Goal Attainment Scales).
• Some of the studies (such as Case-Smith and Bryan, 1999) did not provide enough information about the participants (such as whether they had a formal diagnosis of autism, their intellectual ability etc.).
• Some of the studies (such as Piravej et al, 2009) did not provide any information about any sensory difficulties found in the participants in the study or, if they did, did not provide any information on how those difficulties were assessed. 
• Some of the studies (such as Reilly et al, 1983) did not provide a detailed description of the sensory integrative therapy provided.
• Some of the studies (such as Ayres and Tickle, 1980) used non-standard outcome measures (such as an “awareness of environment”).
• Some of the studies (such as Pfeiffer et al, 2008) did not provide an adequate statistical analysis of the results (such as tabulated data on outcomes).
• Some of the studies (such as Thompson, 2011) examined sensory integrative therapy in children with a variety of conditions but did not provide outcome data specific to the autistic children in the study.
• Most of the studies did not identify if sensory integrative therapy had any beneficial effects in the medium to long term (six months or longer).
• One of the studies (Ayres and Tickle, 1980) was undertaken by researchers who were not independent of the intervention being studied. Those researchers may therefore have been biased towards the intervention, however unconsciously.
• There were no studies which involved autistic people in the design, development and evaluation of those studies.

For a comprehensive list of potential flaws in research studies, please see ‘Why some autism research studies are flawed’

Updated

16 Jun 2022

Last Review

01 Apr 2018

Next Review

01 May 2024