J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:867–875
DOI 10.1007/s10803-007-0459-0
ORIGINAL PAPER
The Relationship Between Sensory Processing Patterns
and Behavioural Responsiveness in Autistic Disorder:
A Pilot Study
Amy E. Z. Baker Æ Alison Lane Æ Manya T. Angley Æ
Robyn L. Young
Published online: 25 September 2007
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007
Abstract Sensory processing (SP) difficulties have been
reported in as many as 95% of children with autism,
however, empirical research examining the existence of
specific patterns of SP difficulties within this population
is scarce. Furthermore, little attention has been given to
examining the relationship between SP and either the core
symptoms or secondary manifestations of autism. In the
current study, SP patterns in children with autistic disorder
(AD) were investigated via a caregiver questionnaire and
findings were correlated with the social, emotional and
behavioural responsiveness of participants. Results indi-
cated the presence of specific SP patterns in this sample of
children with AD and several significant relationships were
found between SP and social, emotional and behavioural
function.
Keywords Sensory processing
Autistic disorder

Pervasive developmental disorder
Behaviour

Short sensory profile
A. E. Z. Baker
A. Lane
School of Health Sciences, Sansom Institute, University of South
Australia, Adelaide, Australia
M. T. Angley
Sansom Institute, School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences,
University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
R. L. Young
School of Psychology, Flinders University of South Australia,
Adelaide, Australia
A. E. Z. Baker (&)
School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of South Australia,
Adelaide 5000, Australia
e-mail: amy.baker@postgrads.unisa.edu.au
Autism is characterised by impairments in three main areas
of development: social relatedness, communication skills,
and the presence of stereotyped behaviour, interests
and activities (American Psychiatric Association 2000;
Szatmari 2000). Stereotyped behaviours typically associ-
ated with autism include hand-flapping, finger flicking,
rocking, spinning and self-injury such as head-banging
and hand biting (Aarons and Gittens 1999; American
Psychiatric Association 2000; Case-Smith and Bryan 1999;
Volkmar 1998). Self-stimulation and adopting unconven-
tional postures, such as walking on tiptoes, have also been
observed in individuals with autism (Aarons and Gittens
1999; American Psychiatric Association 2000; Ermer and
Dunn 1998). One hypothesis for the presence of stereo-
typed behaviours in autism is that dysfunction in
processing sensory information characteristic of the disor-
der results in the adoption of aberrant behaviours in an
attempt to make sense of and regulate stimulation from the
environment (Baranek et al. 1997; Nelson 1984; Paluszny
1979).
Sensory processing (SP) refers to the way that sensory
information e.g. visual, auditory, vestibular or proprio-
ceptive stimuli is managed in the cerebral cortex and
brainstem for the purpose of enabling adaptive responses to
the environment and engagement in meaningful daily life
activities (Johnson-Ecker and Parham 2000). SP theory
suggests that optimal functioning in daily environments
requires efficient reception and integration of incoming
sensory stimuli. Adaptive behaviour, learning and coordi-
nated movement are considered products of effective
sensory integration (Bundy et al. 2002; Kranowitz 1998).
Disorders of SP in children are increasingly discussed in
the literature (Bundy et al. 2002). Dunn (1997) proposed a
model for classifying patterns of dysfunction in SP
according to individuals’ behavioural response to stimuli
123
868
and neurological thresholds, describing four patterns of SP
dysfunction: Low Registration, Sensation Seeking, Sensory
Sensitivity and Sensation Avoiding.
Unusual responses to sensory stimuli and SP difficulties
exhibited by individuals with autism have been widely
documented (Baranek et al. 2006; Tomchek and Dunn
2007). Abnormalities have been reported to occur across all
sensory domains, including tactile, vestibular, auditory and
visual (Harrison and Hare 2004; Rogers 1998) and in the
absence of known peripheral dysfunction such as a visual
or hearing loss (Baranek 2002). A recent study comparing
SP in children with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD;
n = 235) to age-matched, typically developing controls
(n = 221) reported that 95% of the sample with ASD
versus 16.8% of the controls demonstrated some degree of
SP difficulty (Tomchek and Dunn 2007). Sensory respon-
ses have also been shown to fluctuate such that both hyper-
and hypo-responsiveness to sensory stimuli can occur in
the same individual (Baranek 2002; Baranek et al. 2006;
Greenspan and Wieder 1998; Kranowitz 1998; Volkmar
1998). Further, findings from six studies, which specifically
compared the SP patterns of individuals with autism or
another pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) with
controls, all revealed the presence of significantly different
SP profiles for individuals with autism/PDD (Baranek et al.
2006; Ermer and Dunn 1998; Kern et al. 2006; Kientz
and Dunn 1997; Miller et al. 2005; Watling et al. 2001).
These findings suggest that SP dysfunction is a feature of
autism.
Despite the abundance of descriptive literature and
anecdotal reports documenting unusual responses to sen-
sory stimuli in this population, the nature of SP difficulties
in autism and the relationship to the core functional and
behavioural disturbances of the disorder remains poorly
understood (Baranek 2002). In particular, there is incon-
sistency in reports regarding the nature of SP patterns
within autistic disorder (AD) (Rogers and Ozonoff 2005;
Schaaf and Miller 2005). Further, the relationship between
SP and behavioural difficulties in autism has only recently
received attention from researchers and warrants further
investigation (Miller et al. 2005; Rogers et al. 2003).
Patterns of SP dysfunction may be related to core fea-
tures of the disorder and the development of unusual
behaviours. They may also give insight into prognosis,
therefore having significant implications for early diagno-
sis and intervention (Baranek 2002; Ermer and Dunn
1998). Improved understanding of the way in which chil-
dren with autism process sensory information is required
(Tomchek and Dunn 2007). The purpose of this pre-
liminary study was to: (1) describe SP patterns of children
who have AD, and (2) explore the relationship between SP
patterns and emotional, social and behavioural respon-
siveness in this group.
123
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:867–875
Methods
Participants
Children diagnosed with AD were recruited from the Early
Intervention Research Program (EIRP) for children with
autism at Flinders University, South Australia, Australia.
Children are eligible to take part in the EIRP if they are
under the age of 5 years and meet DSM-IV criteria for AD.
Inclusion criteria ensured that only children who had
received a diagnosis of AD by a multi-disciplinary team
using standard diagnostic tools were included. Standard
diagnostic tools used to diagnose participants included the
Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R; Rutter et al.
2003), the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS; Scho-
pler et al. 1988), CHAT (Baron-Cohen et al. 2000), the
Autism Detection in Early Childhood tool (ADEC; Young
2006), the Adaptive Behaviour Assessment System (2nd
ed.; ABAS-II; Harrison and Oakland 2003) and the Diag-
nostic and Statistical Manual (4th ed.; DSM-IV; American
Psychiatric Association 2000). Children were eligible to
take part in this study if they were either on the waiting list,
currently enrolled, or had completed the EIRP. Children
who met the criteria for AD but who presented with a
co-morbid diagnosis that impaired intellectual functioning,
i.e., additional disorders such as a chromosomal abnor-
mality, were excluded from the study.
Materials
Short Sensory Profile (SSP):
The SSP is a 38-item parent questionnaire designed to
measure behaviours associated with abnormal responses to
sensory stimuli in children aged 3–10 years (McIntosh
et al. 1999). The SSP is administered as a questionnaire in
which the caregiver rates the child’s typical responses to
tactile, vestibular, auditory and visual stimuli on a five
point Likert scale ranging from ‘never’ responds in this
manner to ‘always’ responds in this manner. Item scores
cluster meaningfully into patterns of SP such as Tactile
Sensitivity and Low Energy/Weak, enabling sensory sen-
sitivity and performance to be interpreted in each of these
areas. Higher scores relate to typical performance expected
from children whereas lower scores demonstrate that a
definite difference is present. The SSP was derived from a
longer caregiver questionnaire, the Sensory Profile (Dunn
1999) but is accepted as the most appropriate version to use
in research protocols (Dunn 1999; McIntosh et al. 1999).
Good reliability of the SSP has been demonstrated in a
previous study and acceptable internal and discriminative
validity has also been established (Dunn 1999). A separate
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:867–875
study also demonstrated adequate construct validity (Miller
et al. 2005). The SSP takes approximately 10 min to
complete.
Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales (VABS), Interview
Edition:
The VABS is a semi-structured interview administered to
caregivers to assess the current adaptive behaviour of the
child, defined as the development and application of
abilities required for the attainment of personal indepen-
dence and social competence (Sparrow et al. 1984). The
VABS assesses adaptive behaviour by obtaining standard
scores in the domains of communication, daily living,
socialisation and motor skills. An optional Maladaptive
Behaviour domain measures undesirable behaviours that
may hinder the adaptive skills of the subject. Items in
each domain are scored from 0 to 2, with decreasing
scores indicating skills/behaviours that are sometimes or
never performed. The raw scores are then converted to
standard scores. The sum of standard scores in each
domain yields an adaptive behaviour composite score
reflecting the overall ability of the subject to live inde-
pendently. All domains, with the exception of motor
skills, were analysed within the current study. The VABS
is routinely administered to caregivers of children enrol-
led in the EIRP.
Developmental Behaviour Checklist—Parent (DBC-P):
The DBC-P is a 96-item parent checklist developed to
assess a range of behavioural and emotional problems in
children and young people (4–18 years) with an intellec-
tual disability (Einfeld and Tonge 2002). The total score
provides a threshold for clinically significant behavioural
and emotional problems and sub-scales assess individuals
in the areas of disruptive and anti-social behaviour, self-
absorbed behaviour, communication disturbances, anxiety,
social relatedness and autism specific behaviours (DBC-
ASA). The parent edition of the DBC (DBC-P) reflects
behaviours exhibited by the child over a 6-month period.
The DBC-P is routinely administered to caregivers of
children enrolled in the EIRP.
Procedures
Ethics
Ethics approval was gained from the Division of Health
Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee at the
869
University of South Australia and Flinders University
Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee.
Recruitment
Information packages were mailed to individuals who were
on the wait list, enrolled in or who had completed the EIRP
for children with autism at Flinders University and who
met the inclusion criteria. Informed consent was obtained
and data collection occurred at the EIRP House, Flinders
University in a single face-to-face session, except for one
participant who completed the caregiver questionnaire at
home and mailed it to the researcher.
Data Collection and Analysis
The SSP was administered to parents according to the
guidelines outlined in the SSP manual (Dunn 1999).
DBC-P and VABS data were obtained by gathering each
participant’s most recent data set for these assessments
from their EIRP records. As SP and behavioural data were
gathered at separate times, counterbalancing was not con-
sidered to be relevant. Although the most recent data sets
for most participants were dated within 12 months of the
current study, data for six participants were from assess-
ments conducted between 1 and 2 years prior and two
participants’ results were of assessments administered
more than two years prior. Given the relatively small
sample size within this pilot study, analysis of results
excluding the eight participants’ older data sets was not
considered appropriate. SSP results and findings from
behavioural assessments were analysed initially using
descriptive statistics. Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient
method was then used to correlate data from the SSP, the
DBC-P and the VABS.
Results
Participants
Twenty-two children with AD were recruited to the study
and all had completed the EIRP at the time of data col-
lection. Participants were aged between 33 and 101 months
(2 year 9 months–8 year 5 months), with a mean age of
64.86 months (5 year 5 months; 20.70 SD). Eighteen par-
ticipants were male, resulting in an approximate ratio of
5:1 male to female which is consistent with gender ratios
currently reported in the literature for autism (American
Psychiatric Association 2000; Dempsey and Foreman
2001).
123
870 J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:867–875

Performance Across SSP Sections performance in both Movement Sensitivity and Visual/
100
DD PD TP
Auditory Sensitivity sections. Remaining participants in
80 both the Movement Sensitivity and Visual/Auditory Sen-
16
% of Participal

15 15 sitivity sections were equally divided between the Definite

12
60
11 11 Difference and Probable Difference performance
10

40
8 9 8 categories.
5 6
4 3 3
20
1 1
0
1. TS 2. TSS 3. MS 4. USS
SSP Section
Fig. 1 Sensory processing performance by SSP section. Key:
TS = Tactile Sensitivity; AF = Auditory Filtering; TSS = Taste/
Smell Sensitivity; LEW = Low Energy/Weak; MS = Movement
Sensitivity; VAS = Visual/Auditory Sensitivity; USS = Under-
responsive/Seeks Sensation; DD = definite difference; PD = probable
difference; TP = typical performance
Patterns of Sensory Processing Performance
For the 22 children recruited to the study, SSP scores were
classified as an overall score, into three performance cat-
egories and across seven areas of SP. The mean overall
score for the SSP was 133.36 (SD = 20.70) and scores
ranged between 83 and 160. Eighteen participants (82%)
demonstrated either a probable or definite difference in SP
(probable, n = 6; definite, n = 12). Figure 1 shows the
distribution of participant scores across SSP sections. Most
participants demonstrated a definite difference in the
Under-responsive/Seeks Sensation and Auditory Filtering
sections (n = 15, 68%). Twelve (80%) of these participants
exhibited a definite difference in both sections. Typical
performance was demonstrated by 16 participants (73%) in
Movement Sensitivity and by 12 (55%) in Visual/Auditory
Sensitivity. Ten (45%) participants demonstrated typical
6 5 5
Other notable SP performance patterns included (a) an
equal number of participants showed a definite difference
0 and typical performance in Low Energy/Weak, with no
5. AF 6. LEW 7. VAS participants demonstrating probable difference in this sec-
tion, and (b) performance by the sample on Tactile
Sensitivity and Taste/Smell Sensitivity was relatively
equally distributed between definite, probable and typical
performance.
Table 1 displays the results of the correlational analyses.
As seen in Table 1 moderate, significant associations
were observed between Movement Sensitivity and Tactile
Sensitivity, Tactile Sensitivity and Visual/Auditory Sensi-
tivity and Taste/Smell Sensitivity and Low Energy/Weak.
Moderate correlations, which were significant at the 0.01
level included Movement Sensitivity and Visual/Auditory
Sensitivity, Taste/Smell Sensitivity and Under-responsive/
Seeks Sensation and Under-responsive/Seeks Sensation
and Low Energy/Weak. Two clusters of association
between areas of SP performance were revealed in this
analysis—Cluster One: Visual/Auditory, Tactile and
Movement Sensitivity and Cluster Two: Low/Energy
Weak, Taste/Smell Sensitivity and Under-responsive/Seeks
Sensation.
Behavioural Responsiveness
From Table 2 it is evident that most participants showed
low levels of performance for each of the VABS domains

Table 1 Correlational analysis of SP performance patterns

SSP section TS MS VAS LEW TSS USS AF

Tactile r=1 *r = .440, *r = .447, r = .397, r = .192, r = .049, r = .241,

sensitivity (TS) p = 0.041 p = 0.037 p = 0.067 p = 0.392 p = 0.830 p = 0.281
Movement *r = .440, r=1 *r = .615, r = .303, r = .021, r = –.023, r = .071,
sensitivity (MS) p = 0.041 p = 0.002 p = 0.171 p = 0.927 p = 0.920 p = 0.754
Visual/auditory *r = .447, *r = .615, r=1 r = .281, r = .135, r = .169, r = .168,
sensitivity (VAS) p = 0.037 p = 0.002 p = 0.205 p = 0.550 p = 0.451 p = 0.454
Low energy/ r = .397, r = .303, r = .281, r=1 **r = .510, **r = .652, r = .294,
weak (LEW) p = 0.067 p = 0.171 p = 0.205 p = 0.015 p = 0.001 p = 0.184
Taste/smell r = .192, r = .021, r = .135, **r = .510, r=1 **r = .639, r = .238,
sensitivity (TSS) p = 0.392 p = 0.927 p = 0.550 p = 0.015 p = 0.001 p = 0.286
Under-responsive/seeks r = .049, r = –.023, r = .169, **r = .652, **r = .639, r=1 r = .260,
sensation (USS) p = 0.830 p = 0.920 p = 0.451 p = 0.001 p = 0.001 p = 0.243
Auditory filtering (AF) r = .241, r = .071, r = .168, r = .294, r = .238, r = .260, r=1
p = 0.281 p = 0.754 p = 0.454 p = 0.184 p = 0.286 p = 0.243
* Cluster One; ** Cluster Two

123
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:867–875 871

Table 2 Participants’ scores on VABS and DBC-P

Low n (%) Mod. Low n (%) Adequate n (%) Mod. High n (%) High n (%)

Communication (n = 22) 14 (63.64%) 4 (18.18%) 3 (13.64%) 0 (0%) 1 (4.55%)

Daily living skills (n = 22) 18 (81.82%) 3 (13.64%) 1 (4.55%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Socialisation (n = 22) 12 (54.55%) 5 (22.73%) 5 (22.73%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Total VABS (n = 22) 13 (59.09%) 7 (31.82%) 1 (4.55%) 1 (4.55%) 0 (0%)
VABS maladaptive behaviour
Significant n (%) Intermediate n (%) Non-significant n (%)

Maladaptive behaviour (n = 22) 12 (55%) 8 (36%) 2 (9%)

DBC-P

Significant level Non-significant level

of behavioural of behavioural/ emotional
and emotional problems; n (%)
problems; n (%)

Overall DBC score (n = 22) 4 (18%) 18 (82%)

included in this study as well as significant scores for
maladaptive behaviour however no significant behavioural
difficulties as measured by the DBC-P were evident.
Relationship Between SP Performance Patterns and
Behavioural Responsiveness
Pearson’s correlation analyses of SSP and VABS and
DBC-P scores showed several significant relationships, as
displayed in Table 3.
Total SSP scores and total DBC-P scores were found to
be strongly negatively associated as were total SSP and
VABS Maladaptive Behaviour domain scores. A moderate,
positive correlation was calculated between total SSP and
VABS Daily Living Skills scores. Moderate, negative
correlations were found between the VABS Maladaptive
Behaviour domain and Movement Sensitivity, Under-
responsive/Seeks Sensation, Auditory Filtering and Low
Energy/ Weak. Total DBC-P scores were also moderately,
negatively correlated with several SSP sections, including
Underresponsive/Seeks Sensation, Auditory Filtering, Low
Energy/Weak and Visual/Auditory Sensitivity. These
results indicate that, in general, higher VABS Maladaptive
Behaviour domain and DBC-P total scores were associated
with lower SSP scores.
Discussion
In this study, overall SSP results showed that most par-
ticipants in this sample (82%) exhibited some degree of SP
difficulty. These results are consistent with the findings of
recent studies that report the prevalence of SP dysfunction
in children with autism to range between 69% and 95%
(Baranek et al. 2006; Schaff and Benevides 2007; Tomchek
and Dunn 2007). Despite the lack of a control group,
normative data reported in the SSP suggests these SP dif-
ficulties are of greater magnitude than might be expected in
the typically developing population. In order to assess the
uniqueness of these difficulties to autism, these data need
to be compared with data collected from other disability
groups. Results from the current study were also based on
the chronological age of children only and previous
research supports a stronger relationship between SP and
developmental age than SP and chronological age (Baranek
et al. 2006). SSP results from the current study showed that
the majority of participants had marked impairment in
several areas of SP while demonstrating typical respon-
siveness in others, indicating the presence of specific
patterns of SP functioning.
Areas of Impairment in SP
Most participants showed a definite difference in the
Under-responsive/Seeks Sensation and Auditory Filtering
sections with only one participant in each of these sections
demonstrating typical performance. Kern (2002) suggested
that under-responding to sensory stimuli in individuals with
autism may be explained by the depression of sensory
afferents in the cerebellum, resulting in inconsistent sen-
sory modulation. In a study by Watling et al. (2001),
Sensation Seeking was identified as a section in which
children with a PDD demonstrated significantly lower
scores from the typically developing group, congruent with
the findings of the current study. However, conflicting
results were observed by Ermer and Dunn (1998), who

123
 872

123
Table 3 Analyses between sensory and behavioural data
n = 22 r VABS VABS VABS VABS VABS DBC DBC DBC DBC DBC DBC ASA DBC total
(p-level) commu- daily socialisa- maladaptive total disruptive/ self- comm. anxiety social
nication living tion behaviour antisocial absorbed disturbance relating
skills

Tactile –.216 (0.335) .268 (0.227) –.211 (0.346) –.342 (0.119) –.055 (0.808) –.432 (0.045) –.340 (0.122) –.364 (0.096) –.517* (0.014) –.322 (0.143) –.221 (0.324) –.366 (0.094)
sensitivity
Taste/smell –.053 (0.814) .228 (0.307) –.150 (0.560) –.416 (0.054) –.054 (0.811) –.331 (0.132) –.324 (0.141) –.105 (0.641) –.347 (0.114) –.246 (0.270) –.408 (0.059) –.370 (0.090)
sensitivity
Movement .166 (0.460) .312 (0.157) .247 (0.268) –.487* (0.022) .342 (0.120) –.208 (0.353) –.425* (0.048) –.426* (0.048) –.590** (0.004) –.414 (0.055) –.306 (0.166) –.420 (0.051)
sensitivity
Under– .069 (0.759) .301 (0.174) –.018 (0.938) –.482* (0.023) .115 (0.609) –.408 (0.059) –.523* (0.012) –.280 (0.206) –.302 (0.172) –.370 (0.090) –.533* (0.011) –.491* (0.020)
responsive
/seeks
sensation
Auditory –.120 (0.595) .341 (0.120) –.071 (0.752) –.438* (0.042) .034 (0.880) –.252 (0.258) –.313 (0.156) –.252 (0.258) –.096 (0.670) –.295 (0.182) –.549** (0.008) –.503* 0.017
filtering
Low Energy/ –.306 (0.166) .261 (0.241) –.104 (0.644) –.596** (0.003) –.038 (0.866) –.482 (0.023) –.516* (0.014) –.470* (0.027) –.515* (0.014) –.365 (0.095) –.447* (0.037) –.558** (0.007)
weak
Visual/ .145 (0.519) .396 (0.068) –.007 (0.977) –.407 (0.060) .225 (0.314) –.553** (0.008) –.554** (0.008) –.620** (0.002) –.671** (0.001) –.319 (0.148) –.319 (0.148) –.508* (0.016)
auditory
sensitivity
Total SSP –.120 (0.594) .433* (0.044) –.101 (0.656) –.702** (0.000) .076 (0.735) –.608** (0.003) –.665** (0.001) –.541** (0.009) –.649** (0.001) –.492* (0.020) –.616** (0.002) –.705** (0.000)

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:867–875
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:867–875
reported a low incidence of atypical behaviours in the
Sensory Seeking category for the AD/PDD group. Behav-
iours associated with sensory seeking, such as
inappropriate smelling, licking and rubbing, may account
for stereotyped and repetitive behaviours observed in this
population.
Auditory Filtering has also been shown to be an area of
difficulty for children with AD and other PDDs in previous
studies. Findings from studies by Ermer and Dunn (1998)
and Watling et al. (2001) showed a high frequency of
behaviours in the Inattention/Distractibility category of the
Sensory Profile, an equivalent category to the Auditory
Filtering section within the SSP, congruent with current
findings. When a child has difficulties with auditory fil-
tering, he or she may be either hyper-responsive i.e.,
sensitive to sounds, or hypo-responsive, i.e., oblivious to
sounds (Dunn 1999). Children with auditory filtering dif-
ficulties may appear to be distracted and inattentive,
particularly in busy environments, which contain numerous
stimuli such as the school environment.
Areas of Typical Performance in SP
Most participants showed typical performance in the
Movement Sensitivity and Visual/Auditory Sensitivity
sections of the SSP. It is noteworthy that most participants
who demonstrated typical performance in these sections
showed typical performance in both of these sections,
suggesting that these areas may be associated in some way.
A Pearson’s correlation coefficient of .615 (p = .002)
confirmed that a significant, moderate relationship existed
between these sections. Typical responsiveness in move-
ment sensitivity was also observed for a group of children
with AD/PDD in another study (Watling et al. 2001),
whilst a further study yielded contrary results (Ermer and
Dunn 1998). These conflicting results highlight the need
for further investigation of patterns of typical responsive-
ness as this may assist clinicians to maximise areas of
relative strength in SP and consequently support learning
and adaptation for individuals with AD. Individuals with
AD often show superior skills and repetitive behaviours in
visual tasks such as building blocks, pattern recognition
and puzzles, which may be associated with the high level
of performance observed in the Visual/Auditory Sensitivity
section in the current study.
Areas of Varied Response Within SP
In the current study, several SSP sections elicited a mixed
response from participants, with a greater spread of scores
occurring in these sections. The most pronounced example
873
was observed within the Low Energy/Weak section in
which exactly half of the participants demonstrated a
definite difference and half showed typical performance,
illustrating distinct patterns of both hypo- and hyper-
responsiveness within the same section. Taste/Smell
Sensitivity was another area in the current study in which
participants demonstrated varying performance, with
almost even numbers of participants receiving scores for
definite difference and typical performance. Large variance
in the Taste/Smell Sensitivity and Low Energy/Weak sec-
tions was also noted in a study by Watling et al. (2001) but
contrasting results were observed in a study by Ermer and
Dunn (1998) where children with AD/PDD exhibited a
high frequency of behaviours within the SSP Taste/Smell
Sensitivity section.
Clusters of SP Responsiveness
Several clusters of SP responsiveness were noted in the
current study, one of which wholly replicated, and the other
partially replicated, findings from a previous study (Miller
et al. 2005). The first cluster was observed between Tactile
Sensitivity, Movement Sensitivity and Visual/Auditory
Sensitivity, which were also detected by Miller et al. who
titled this cluster ‘Sensory-Over-Responsivity’. Another
cluster of SP symptoms observed by Miller et al. titled
‘Sensory Under-Responsivity’ included Taste/Smell Sen-
sitivity, Low Energy/Weak and Visual/Auditory Sensitivity
to a lesser degree. Results from the current study partially
support this cluster, with a moderate correlation observed
between Low Energy/Weak and Taste/Smell Sensitivity
but with the Under-responsive/Seeks Sensation section
replacing Visual/Auditory Sensitivity.
SP and Behavioural Responsiveness
Various significant relationships were found between SP
patterns and behavioural responsiveness. Strong, negative
correlations between SSP scores and total DBC-P and
VABS Maladaptive Behaviour domain scores indicated
that in general, poor SP ability was associated with higher
levels of behavioural and/or emotional problems for this
sample. A moderate correlation found between total SSP
and VABS Daily Living Skills scores, indicated that within
this sample, poorer SP ability was associated with
decreased functioning in the area of daily living skills.
Other authors have hypothesised that SP difficulties limit
participation in activities of daily living, work and leisure
activities (Schaaf and Miller 2005). Both the VABS Mal-
adaptive Behaviour domain and total DBC scores showed
moderate correlations with the following SSP sections:
123
874
Under-responsive/Seeks Sensation, Auditory Filtering and
Low Energy/Weak. The DBC Autism subset (DBC-ASA),
which measures autistic behaviour, was also found to be
moderately correlated with these three SSP sections. In a
study by Miller et al. (2005), sensory seeking behaviours
were found to be strongly and consistently related to a
higher incidence of repetitive behaviours. Repetitive
behaviours are likely to constitute much of the maladaptive
behaviour seen in the current sample. If an individual
demonstrates under-responsive or sensory seeking behav-
iours, more stimulation is required in order to regulate and
process sensory information received from the environ-
ment, which in turn may manifest in the form of repetitive
behaviours.
Conclusion
In summary, several areas of marked impairment, typical
responsiveness and varied responsiveness were observed in
this study, suggesting the presence of distinct SP patterns
for children with AD. In general, participants demonstrated
SP difficulties in auditory filtering and a high incidence of
sensation seeking behaviours, areas, which mainly focused
on under-responsiveness in relation to movement and
vestibular input. Other distinctive SP patterns in this
sample included typical responsiveness in the areas of
Visual/Auditory and Movement Sensitivity and varied
responses for Low Energy/Weak and Taste/Smell Sensi-
tivity SSP sections. Of the two distinct clusters observed
which either wholly or partly replicated groupings found
by Miller et al. (2005), most participants in the current
study demonstrated typical performance for all SSP sec-
tions within the Sensory-Over-Responsivity cluster but
showed a definite difference for sections within the Sen-
sory-Under-Responsivity cluster.
Noteworthy findings observed between SP and behav-
ioural data include significant moderate correlations
between both maladaptive behaviour and emotional/
behavioural problems, and the following SSP sections:
Under-responsive/Seeks Sensation, Auditory Filtering and
Low Energy/Weak. Replication of this study with a larger
sample size is warranted to further clarify the observed
relationships and to develop hypotheses regarding the
impact of SP on behavioural responsiveness in autism.
Testing of these hypotheses will then assist in the identi-
fication of specific SP and behavioural typologies within
autism that will enable more targeted approaches to inter-
vention and therefore improved allocation of resources for
this population.
Acknowledgements We wish to express our gratitude to the par-
ticipating children and their parents, and to Ms Carrie Partington, for
123
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:867–875
her involvement in data collection of behavioural data. This study was
supported in part by the Channel 7 Children’s Research Foundation,
South Australia.
References
Aarons, M., & Gittens, T. (1999). The handbook of autism: A guide
for parents and professionals. London: Routledge.
American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV-TR, (4th ed.). Washington
DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Baranek, G. T. (2002). Efficacy of sensory and motor interventions
for children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 32(5), 397–422.
Baranek, G. T., David, F. J., Poe, M. D., Stone, W. L., & Watson, L.
R. (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.
Baranek, G. T., Foster, L. G., & Berkson, G. (1997). Tactile
defensiveness and stereotyped behaviors. The American Journal
of Occupational Therapy, 51(2), 91–95.
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Cox, A., Baird, G., Charman, T.,
Swettenham, J., Drew, A., & Doehring, P. (2000). Early
identification of autism by the Checklist for Autism in Toddlers
(CHAT). Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 93(10), 521–
525.
Bundy, A. C., Lane, S. J., Murray, E. A., & Fisher, A. G. (2002).
Sensory integration: theory and practice. Philadelphia: F.A.
Davis Company.
Case-Smith, J., & Bryan, T. (1999). The effects of occupational
therapy with sensory integration emphasis on preschool-age
children with autism. The American Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 53(5), 489–497.
Dempsey, I., & Foreman, P. (2001). A review of educational
approaches for individuals with autism. International Journal
of Disability, Development and Education, 48(1), 103–116.
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(4), 23–35.
Dunn, W. (1999). Sensory profile: User’s manual. US: The Psycho-
logical Corporation.
Einfeld, S. L., & Tonge, B. J. (2002). Manual for the developmental
behaviour checklist (2nd ed.). University of New South Wales
and Monash University.
Ermer, J., & Dunn, W. (1998). The sensory profile: A discriminant
analysis of children with and without disabilities. The American
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52(4), 283–290.
Greenspan, S. I., & Wieder, W. (1998). The child with special needs:
Encouraging intellectual and emotional growth. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Harrison, J., & Hare, D.J. (2004). Brief report: Assessment of sensory
abnormalities in people with autistic spectrum disorders. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(6), 727–730.
Harrison, P. L., & Oakland, T. (2003). Adaptive behavior assessment
system – Second Edition. San Antonio: The Psychological
Corporation.
Johnson-Ecker, C. L., & Parham, L. D. (2000). The evaluation of
sensory processing: A validity study using contrasting groups.
The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54(5),
494–503.
Kern, J. K. (2002). The possible role of the cerebellum in autism/
PDD: Disruption of a multisensory feedback loop. Medical
Hypotheses, 59(3), 255–260.
J Autism Dev Disord (2008) 38:867–875
Kern, J. K., Trivedi, M. H., Garver, C. R., Grannemann, B. D.,
Andrews, A. A., Savla, J. S., Johnson, D. G., Mehta, J. A., &
Schroeder, J. L. (2006). The pattern of sensory processing
abnormalities in autism. Autism, 15(5), 480–494.
Kientz, M. A., & Dunn, W. (1997). A comparison of the performance
of children with and without autism on the Sensory Profile. The
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51(7), 530–537.
Kranowitz, C. S. (1998). The out-of-sync child. New York: Skylight
Press.
McIntosh, D. N., Miller, L. J., Shyu, V., & Hagerman, R. J. (1999).
Sensory-modulation disruption, electrodermal responses and
functional behaviors. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurol-
ogy, 41(9), 608–615.
Miller, L. J., Schoen, S., Coll, J., Brett-Green, B., & Reale, M. (2005).
Final report: Cure autism now executive summary. Los Angeles:
Cure Autism Now.
Nelson, D. L. (1984). Children with autism and other pervasive
disorders of development and behavior: Therapy through
activities. Thorofare: SLACK Inc.
Paluszny, M. (1979). Autism: A practical guide for parents and
professionals. New York: Syracuse University Press.
Rogers, S. J. (1998). Neuropsychology of autism in young children
and its implications for early intervention. Mental Retardation
and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 4(2),
104–112.
Rogers, S. J., & Ozonoff, S. (2005). Annotation: What do we know
about dysfunction in autism? A critical review of the empirical
evidence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(12),
1255–1268.
Rogers, S. J., Hepburn, S., & Wehner, E. (2003). Parent reports of
sensory symptoms in toddlers with autism and those with other
developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 33(6), 631–642.
875
Rutter, M., Le Couteur, A., & Lord, C. (2003). ADI-R: Autism
diagnostic interview—revised: Manual. Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services.
Schaff, R. C., & Benevides, T. (2007). Mechanisms of sensory
dysfunction and impact on OT interventions. Paper presented at
the meeting of the American Occupational Therapy Association,
St. Louis, MO.
Schaaf, R. C., & Miller, L. J. (2005). Occupational therapy using a
sensory integrative approach for children with developmental
disabilities. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,
11(2), 143–148.
Schopler, E. C., Reichler, R., & Renner, B. (1988). The Childhood
Autism Rating Scale (CARS). Los Angeles: Western Psycholog-
ical Services.
Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984). Vineland
Adaptive Behavior Scales: Interview edition survey form man-
ual. Minnesota: American Guidance Service.
Szatmari, P. (2000). The classification of autism, asperger’s syn-
drome, and pervasive developmental disorder. Canadian Journal
of Psychiatry, 45(8), 731–739.
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(2), 190–200.
Volkmar, F. R. (1998). Autism and pervasive developmental disor-
ders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Watling, R. L., Deitz, J., & White, O. (2001). Comparison of Sensory
Profile scores of young children with and without autism
spectrum disorders. The American Journal of Occupational
Therapy, 55(4), 416–423.
Young, R. L. (2006). Autism detection in early childhood (ADEC).
Australian Council of Educational Research.
123