Meta Analisis

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2019) 49:4974–4996
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-019-04180-0
ORIGINAL PAPER
Update of a Meta‑analysis of Sensory Symptoms in ASD: A New

Decade of Research
Ayelet Ben‑Sasson1 · Eynat Gal1 · Ronen Fluss2 · Neta Katz‑Zetler1 · Sharon A. Cermak3
Published online: 9 September 2019

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract
This meta-analysis updated evidence regarding sensory over-responsivity (SOR), under-responsivity (SUR) and seeking
symptoms in individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) relative to typical controls and those with other conditions.
Fifty-five questionnaire studies included 4606 individuals with ASD. Moderators tested were age, IQ, male ratio, matching
group, and self-report. Compared to typical controls, effect size was large and significant for SOR, SUR, and Seeking but
heterogeneous. For Seeking, age, IQ and self-report were significant moderators. Compared with developmental disorders
(DDs) groups, effect size was significantly positive for SOR and Seeking; whereas compared with other clinical groups,
only SOR was significant. These findings highlight the core nature of sensory symptoms in ASD and particularly SOR.
Explanatory factors are yet to be revealed.
Keywords Autism spectrum disorders · Sensory symptoms · Sensory profile · Meta-analysis
Introduction to as impairments in sensory modulation in which an indi-

vidual has difficulty regulating and organizing the type
Although sensory symptoms have been associated with and intensity of behavioral responses to sensory inputs to
autism spectrum disorder (ASD) since autism was first match environmental demands (Miller et al. 2007). These
described (Kanner 1943), they were not considered a core can manifest in response to touch, sight, sound, taste, smell
component (DSM-IV, American Psychiatric Association and movement, with many individuals presenting several
1994; DSM-IV TR, American Psychiatric Association types of symptoms. Sensory features can be classified into
2000) until 2013, despite research reporting that 45% to three patterns known as, sensory over-responsivity (SOR),
95% of individuals with ASD demonstrated sensory symp- sensory under-responsivity (SUR), and sensation seeking
toms (Tomcheck and Dunn 2007; Baranek et al. 2006) (Miller et al. 2007) with many individuals with ASD show-
and almost all first-hand accounts of ASD included sen- ing more than one sensory pattern.
sory issues (Chamak et al. 2008; Grandin 2009). Over the In 2009, we published a meta-analysis examining symp-
past two decades, professionals in numerous disciplines toms of sensory modulation in individuals with ASD
have increasingly recognized the sensory features of ASD (Ben-Sasson et al. 2009). While several authors published
(DuBois et al. 2017). These features often have been referred literature reviews or critical reviews on the topic prior to
that time (e.g. Rogers and Ozonoff 2005), this was the first
meta-analysis of the subject. It examined the magnitude
* Ayelet Ben‑Sasson of sensory symptoms overall and specifically for each of
asasson@univ.haifa.ac.il
the three sensory modulation patterns, SOR, SUR, and
1
Occupational Therapy Department, University of Haifa, Seeking in individuals with ASD. It investigated whether
Abba Khoushy Ave 199, 3498838 Haifa, Israel these findings were consistent across studies and could be
2
Biostatistics and Biomathematics Department, The Gertner explained by various moderators. We identified 14 studies
Institute, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, 52621 Tel Hashomer, that used parent questionnaires to compare sensory modula-
Israel tion in ASD versus typically developing (TD) and/or other
3
Chan Division of Occupational Science and Occupational developmental disorders (DDs) groups. We found strong
Therapy, University of South California, 1540 Alcazar St., evidence that, compared to TD groups, children with ASD
CHP 133, Los Angeles, CA 90089‑900, USA
13
Vol:.(1234567890)
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2019) 49:4974–4996 4975
Fig. 1 The number of articles between 1963 and 2017 with autism and sensory (filtered by humans) in PubMed
displayed atypical patterns of SOR, SUR, and Seeking. Of bridging inter-disciplinary methodologies towards sensory
the ASD–TD comparisons, mean effect size was high for all symptoms in ASD at the assessment and neurobiology lev-
types of sensory scores (d = 0.82–2.14), but larger for SUR. els. This includes a literature review by Hazen et al. (2014),
SOR and Seeking symptoms were highest in the 6–9 years a review integrating symptom and neural literature in this
old group and decreased thereafter. The three sensory pat- area (Schauder and Bennetto 2016), and a scoping review
terns showed different relations relative to severity of ASD about measures of sensory symptoms in adolescents and
and relative to whether they were compared to a mentally adults (DuBois et al. 2017). None of the recent reviews used
versus chronologically age matched control group support- a meta-analysis design.
ing their differentiation. The distinct relations of these three There has been increasing acknowledgement that these
sensory patterns with developmental, psychological, and sensory symptoms are neurobiologically grounded since
maturational indices in ASD was also supported in more our 2009 publication, with individuals with ASD showing
recent reviews (Glod et al. 2015; Schauder and Bennetto different neural processing compared to peers (Cascio et al.
2016). While the 2009 review contributed to our understand- 2012; Chang et al. 2012; Green et al. 2015, 2016b; Hazen
ing of sensory features, findings were limited by the small et al. 2014; Madsen et al. 2014; Marco et al. 2011). Review
number of available studies, with only four studies including of fMRI research points to abnormalities in the activation
a DD comparison group. patterns across sensory brain areas, and MEG evidence
Since our 2009 paper, there has been increasing recogni- indicates the presence of maturational and lateralization
tion of the prominence of sensory features of ASD. In 2013, atypicalities in sensory processing in ASD (Schauder and
DSM-5 added both sensory hypo-reactivity (referred to as Bennetto 2016). Nonetheless, the correspondence between
SUR hereafter) and sensory hyper-reactivity (referred to as observable sensory symptoms and neurobiological atypicali-
SOR) to the diagnostic criteria for ASD (American Psy- ties is yet to be determined.
chiatric Association 2013). Sensation seeking was already Evidence attests to the association of sensory symptoms
captured in DSM-IV within the rubric of unusual sensory with developmental and other facets of the disorder, as well
interests. Since the DSM-5 publication, research on sensory as the likelihood of co-morbid conditions. Sensory symp-
features in ASD has skyrocketed, as shown by a simple Pub- toms are associated with compromised adaptive perfor-
Med search (October 2018) using the terms sensory AND mance, participation (Dellapiazza et al. 2018; Tomchek et al.
autism, limited to humans (see Fig. 1). Several systematic 2015) and performance of activities of daily living (Dunn
reviews about sensory features and ASD have been pub- et al. 2016; Ismael et al. 2018), including eating (Cermak
lished recently, mostly highlighting correlates of sensory et al. 2010; Mazurek et al. 2013; Zobel-Lachiusa et al. 2015)
symptoms such as adaptive behavior and attention impair- and sleeping (Mazurek and Petroski 2015). Sensory symp-
ments (Dellapiazza et al. 2018), psychological symptoms toms have been associated with greater severity of restricted
(i.e., emotional, affective and behavioral symptoms; Glod and repetitive behaviors (Chen et al. 2009; Gabriels et al.
et al. 2015) and participation in daily functioning (Ismael 2008), and reduced social functioning (Glod et al. 2015;
et al. 2018). Additional recent literature reviews focused on Hilton et al. 2010). They are also associated with increased
13
4976 Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2019) 49:4974–4996
affective symptoms (Ben-Sasson et al. 2008; Glod et al. decrease with age due to neuro-hormonal changes and/or
2015), particularly anxiety (Green et al. 2012; Lane et al. the establishment of coping strategies. The inconsistency
2012). In addition, sensory symptoms have been shown to in findings calls for testing the moderating effects of age
interplay with communication and language deficits (Glod in explaining differences between groups.
et al. 2015; Tomchek et al. 2015) and attention competen- Gender may also play a moderating role as recent
cies (Dellapiazza et al. 2018; Glod et al. 2015). Further, research suggests gender differences in severity of repetitive
sensory symptoms negatively impact family life (Bagby and restricted behaviors (Antezana et al. 2019; Van Wijn-
et al. 2012; Kirby et al. 2015). It is possible that the inherent gaarden-Cremers et al. 2014). In a meta-analysis, females
involvement of sensory processing in every interaction and with ASD over the age of 6 years compared to males showed
learning process during development explains its pervasive a lower severity in the repetitive and restricted domain (Van
impact upon functional impairment and well-being. Given Wijngaarden-Cremers et al. 2014). Other evidence in ado-
that adaptive living skills contribute to a person’s ability lescents with ASD points to an increased likelihood of spe-
to participate successfully in the environment, it is critical cific types of repetitive and restricted behaviors in males and
to fully understand sensory processing and make it a high others in females. Given the DSM-5 inclusion of sensory
priority for research and practice. symptoms in ASD diagnotic criteria, we tested for gender
Sensory symptoms and specifically SOR also appear early differences in sensory symptoms.
in other types of developmental and psychopathological con- In a recent scoping review focused on 66 studies of
ditions such as ADHD (Cheung and Siu 2009), intellectual sensory processing of adolescents and adults with ASD,
disability (Gal 2006), Fragile X (Baranek et al. 2008), anxi- DuBois et al. (2017) reported that proxy reporting was the
ety disorders (Conelea et al. 2014), and obsessive compul- most prevalent (78.7%) method of measurement. The Ado-
sive disorder (OCD; Lewin et al. 2015). This raises questions lescent/Adult Sensory Profile was the most frequently used
regarding their distinct manifestation in ASD, both in mag- measure (71.1%) and was used as self-report and adapted
nitude and nature. Aside from their unique co-occurrence for proxy report. While observation tools and physiological
with social–communication symptoms in ASD, it is unclear measurement were included in a few of the recent studies,
how much these symptoms are related to developmental overall there was too much variability in the conceptualiza-
level. There is evidence associating higher mental capac- tion of the target behaviors for the quantitative demands of
ity with fewer sensory symptoms in young children with a meta-analysis. Thus, we decided to continue limiting the
ASD (Baranek et al. 2006) as well as adults (Kargas et al. current meta-analysis to questionnaire-based methodology.
2015). In our 2009 review there was not sufficient IQ data To summarize, 10 years have passed since the publication
to test this moderator across studies and sensory patterns. of the first meta-analysis examining the magnitude of sen-
We hypothesized that there would be fewer significant and sory symptoms in individuals with ASD. During this time,
smaller effect sizes between ASD and other clinical groups sensory symptoms have become part of the diagnostic crite-
compared to TD groups, as well as moderating effects ria for ASD and the number of new studies including clinical
related to developmental level. groups with and without ASD has increased tremendously
There is conflicting evidence regarding the course of (DuBois et al. 2017; Glod et al. 2015; Schauder and Ben-
sensory symptoms in ASD throughout the life span. Age netto 2016). Further, the new DSM-5 ASD criteria groups
related changes in sensory symptoms are important indica- all ASD subtypes together potentially impacting the nature
tors for determining their role in early identification, matu- of samples studied. As such, it is critical to examine current
rational mechanisms and for allocating services addressing research and update the meta-analysis to understand the fac-
sensory features. Some studies found a reduction in sen- tors that moderate sensory processing in individuals with
sory symptoms in adolescents and adults compared with ASD more fully. Some of our previous moderators were no
children with ASD (Kern et al. 2006; Leekam et al. 2007), longer relevant such as percent of autism diagnosis in sam-
some showed an increase in symptoms with age (Talay- ple (e.g., autism category omitted from DSM-5) and some
Ongan and Woods 2000), while others showed stability became relevant with more studies reporting them (e.g.,
throughout childhood (McCormick et al. 2016; Rogers male ratio, IQ). The objectives of the meta-analysis were:
et al. 2003). In our previous meta-analysis, we found a (1) to characterize the magnitude of sensory symptoms (i.e.,
non-linear course of symptom development, the 6–9-year- SOR, SUR, and Seeking) in ASD compared with typical and
old age group presented with greater SOR and Seeking clinical samples and (2) to identify the contribution of demo-
effect sizes compared to younger and older age groups. graphic and methodological moderators to the variability in
Note that in 2009 there were many more samples with findings across studies. We hypothesized that there would
mixed age groups (e.g., sample of children and adults) to be fewer significant and smaller effect sizes between ASD
rely upon, hence the recent evidence is of value for exam- and other clinical groups compared to effect sizes relative
ining distinct age related changes. Sensory symptoms may
13
to TD groups. Furthermore, we expected to find moderating

effects related to developmental level.
Methods
Literature Search Methods
This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA-P: Moher
et al. 2009, 2015) including the careful definition of selec-
tion criteria and data points of interest.
The inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis were studies
in which the investigators: (a) used or administered a sensory
processing questionnaire, (b) compared an ASD group to
another group, (c) measured at least one of the three sensory
patterns SOR, SUR or Seeking distinctly and across several
sensory modalities, and (d) provided sensory scores from Fig. 2 Flow of article search
which we could gather means and SDs for all groups either
in the published paper or the researchers provided them upon Descriptor term processing OR integration OR
request. Excluded were studies (a) of animals, (b) evaluating modulation OR regulation OR profile OR symptom
sensory symptoms only in family members of individuals OR unusual OR hypo OR hyper OR over OR under.
with ASD, (c) measuring sensory traits only in the general The databases searched were EBSCO (which com-
population, (d) with single case research design, and (e) bines Medline/PubMed and CINAHL), Web of Sci-
reporting of sensory scores which mix SOR, SUR and/or ence, PsychInfo and ProQuest Dissertations and The-
Seeking. The current meta-analysis relied for the most upon ses. The search was restricted to studies published in
similar search procedures, research inclusion criteria and English, with humans (PsychoInfo), and June 2007
consisted of the 14 studies included originally in the 2009 to June 2018. This resulted in 4351 articles which
meta-analysis. Note that self-report studies were included in were imported into Covidence data management sys-
the current meta-analysis as they were not available in 2009. tem (Veritas Health Innovation 2018) for filtering to
Three search methods were used and further described select qualifying, non-duplicate references. In cases of
below: (a) database search, (b) reference list review, and (c) duplicate authors, they were contacted to ensure that
direct contact with authors to identify grey literature. To the samples did not overlap between papers. In case of
minimize risk of publication bias the search was expanded overlap, only the study with the largest quantity of sta-
beyond journal publications to theses and unpublished data. tistical information needed for this meta-analysis was
The literature search was conducted by a research assistant included.
under the guidance of a librarian with expertise in meta anal- (b) Reference lists of literature reviews and relevant papers
yses. The first author verified search results independently. were screened for additional potential papers. Two
Any questions or conflicts regarding study eligibility were papers included in the meta-analysis were identified
discussed and resolved among the authors of the paper. See through this process (Matsushima and Kato 2013;
Fig. 2 for the filtering process of articles. Mattard-Labrecque et al. 2013).
(c) Authors from main labs who study sensory process-
(a) The database search involved the following keywords ing in ASD were approached for any relevant unpub-
entered for identifying relevant published studies: lished data they had to minimize publication bias. This
Population term autism OR Asperger OR pervasive resulted in three additional studies (Katz-Zetler et al.
developmental disorder OR autistic disorder OR autism 2017; Lane 2017; Tavassoli 2017). We also contacted
spectrum disorder OR autistic syndrome disorder. authors of studies that were missing means and/or SDs
Sensory term sensory OR reactivity OR response for the sensory questionnaires. This enabled the inclu-
OR auditory OR tactile OR vestibular OR oral OR sion of 15 studies of the 41, which would not have been
hypo-responsivity OR hyper-responsivity OR hyper- included without author communication (see Table 1).
reactivity OR hyper-responsive OR hypo-responsive
OR seeking.
13
Table 1 Study characteristics

Author Group N CA mean/median CA range years IQ (SD) Levelix % Boys Sensory questionnaire
(SD) years
Ermer and Dunn (1998)i ASD 38 3–13 SPa

TD 1075 3–10
ADHD 61 3–15
Talay-Ongan and Wood (2000) ASD 30 4–14 90 SSQ-Rb
TD 30 4–14 90
Watling et al. (2001) ASD 40 3–6.92 87.50 SPa
TD 40 3–6.92 87.50
Dunn (2002) ASD 24 0.58–3 83.33 ITSPc
TD 24 0.58–3 83.33
Dunn et al. (2002) ASD 42 11.33 8–14 92.86 SPa
TD 42 9.6 8–14
Rogers et al. (2003)i ASD 26 2.81 (0.3) 2.17–3.42 62 (18)1a 2 SSPd
TD 24 1.63 (0.4) 1–2.92 108 (14)1a
DD 32 2.77 (0.56) 2–3.92 67 (16)1a
Gabriels et al. (2005)i ASD 63 10.44 2.99–19.73 82.6 (28)2–9 1 85.71 SPa
DD 18 10.19 6.09–16.59 54.41 (11) 86.36
Baranek et al. (2006)i ASD 80 3.34 (1.06) 1.92–6.67 59.11,2b 2 85.54 SEQ-1e
TD 110 2.44 (0.96) 0.42–6.67 100.9 (40)1,2b 46.80
DD 68 2.8 (0.84) 0.92–5.33 75.63 (29)1,2b 76.15
Gal (2006)i ASD 56 9.71 6–13 46.66 SSPd
TD 30 11.86 6–13 30
DD 29 10.35 6–13 58.62
Liss et al. (2006)iii ASD 216 7.13 (3) 4–21 85 SSSf
Saulnier (2003)i TD 195 4.5 (1.75) 1.5–23.33 52 SSSf
Schaaf et al. (2006)i ASD 14 8.5 (2.5) 5–12 92.86 SSPd
TD 12 9.2 (2.3) 5–12 30.77
Ben-Sasson et al. (2007)i ASD 170 2.34 (0.33) 1.5–2.75 64.18 (16)1 2 75.25 ITSPc
TD 100 2.3 (0.33) 1.67–2.75 74
Kern et al. (2007) ASD 103 19.9 (11.4) 3–43 75.73 SPa
TD 103 3–43 75.73
Tomcheck and Dunn (2007) ASD 281 4.3 3–6 83.62 SSPd
TD 221 4.3 3–10
Cheung and Siu (2009)i ASD 72 5.4 (5.4) 2.58–11.5 CSPg
ADHD 114 7.9 (1.4) 4.67–12
TD 1840 7.25 (2.8) 3–10
Corbett et al. (2009) ASD 22 8.8 6–12 87.9 (12)11 1 95.45 SSPd
TD 22 9.4 6–12 113.6 (16) 86.36
Crane et al. (2009) ASD 18 41.78 (15.24) 18–65 118.2 (11)11 1 55.56 AASPh
TD 18 39.5 (13.26) 19–64 114.9 (12) 55.56
O’Brien et al. (2009) ASD 34 9.8 (4.54) 54.5 (13)12c 2 SSPd + 9 SPa factors
TD 33 9.7 (5.3)
LD 22 9.3 (5) 44.8 (11)12
Provost et al. (2009) ASD 25 3.8 3–5.92 76 SPa
TD 25 3.8 3–5.92 76
Wiggins et al. (2009) ASDb 17 2.75 1.42–3.75 72.73 (13)b 1 79 SSPd
b
DDb 17 2.75 1.42–3.75 72.73 (13) 79
Hilton et al. (2010)i ASD 36 8.89 6–10 102.2PR 1 86.11 SPa
TD 26 8.57 6–10 106.5PR 84.61
Hochhauser and Engel-Yeger (2010) ASD 25 8.41 (1.44) 6–11 Psychologist report 1 68 SSPd
TD 25 8.41 (1.47) 6–11 Parent report 72
Joosten and Bundy (2010) ASD 29 9.7 5–18 VABS10 2 82.76 SPa
10
DD 23 9.5 5–18 VABS 65.22
Reynolds et al. (2011)i ASD 26 8.88 (1.7) 6–12 94.7 (17)7 1 88.46 SPa
TD 26 8.83 (1.95) 6–12 111.5 (13)7 46.15
13
Table 1 (continued)
(SD) years
Watson et al. (2011)i ASD 72 4.36 (1.38) 52.68 (30)1,13d 2 85 SEQ-1e
DD 44 4 (1.83) 111.5 (13)7 57

Caron et al. (2012)i ASD 57 8.48 (3.01) 5–12 78.65 (8.01)10 1 75.44 SSPd
TD 54 8.38 (3.23) 5–12 101.06 (16.19) 50
Chuang et al. (2012) ASD 67 5.35 (0.75) 4–7 85.10 CSPg
TD 44 5.3 (0.85) 4–7 50
De la Marche et al. (2012) ASD 80 13.91 (1.84) 11.08–17.75 104.64 (18.63)14 1 80 AASPi
TD 33 14.75 (2.12) 11–17.67 55
Woodard et al. (2012)i ASD 8 2.75 2–3.17 MSEL1 1 87.50 ITSPc
TD 8 2.58 2–3.17 BSID2 87.50
Mattard-Labrecque et al. (2013) ASD 13 9.82 (2.83) 5–14 95.6 (17)11 1 100 SPa
5
ADHD 17 8.48 (2.15) 5–14 102.5 (12) 58.80
Matsushima and Kato (2013)i ASD 42 5.12 4–6 87.7 (10)4,15,16 1 85.71 JSI-Ri
TD 42 5.08 4–6 76.19
Ausderau et al. (2014)i ASD 1037 7.7 (2.7) 2–12 81.4 (29)18b 1 82.30 SEQ-3k
TD 77 6.75 2.58–13.25 10818 83.12
Karhson (2014) ASD 12 22.5 (4.1) 18–31 105.1 (19)17,19 1 66.66 AASPh
17,19
TD 13 22.83 (5.1) 18–31 101.3 (10) 66.66
Schupak (2014) ASD 14 4–11 100 SSPl
TD 18 4–11 100
Tavassoli et al. (2014a)i ASD 196 38.67 (12.7) RPM17 1 51.02 SPQl
TD 163 36.8 (12.3) RPM17 30.06
Tavassoli et al. (2014b) ASD 221 38.7 (1) RPM17 1 47.96 SensORj
17
TD 181 37.1 (1.08) RPM 28.73
Al-Heizan et al. (2015) ASD 46 6.5 3–10 84.78 SSPd
TD 30 6.4 3–10 80
Kirby et al. (2015) ASD 71 7.14 (2.56) 2–12 68.75 (28)1,20b 2 84.51 SEQ-3m
DD 36 7.4 (2.85) 2–12 61.93 (17)1,20 63.89
Zobel-Lachiusa et al. (2015)i ASD 34 8.61 (2.32) 5–12 97.10 SSPd
TD 33 8.76 (2.23) 5–12 79.41
Stewart et al. (2016)i,iii ASD 25 13.1 (2.8) 8–18 110.6 (15.5)11 1 AASPh
11
TD 14 13.3 (2.7) 8–18 110.8 (12.9)
Clince et al. (2016) ASD 27 1 81.48 AASPh
ADHD 28 64.28
Elwin et al. (2017) ASD 71 18–65 36.6 SR-ASm
TD 162 18–65 42.6
Gonthier et al. (2016) ASD 148 32.32 (8.19) 19–59 70.27 AASPh
TD 148 31.08 (2.67) 19–62 70.27
Green et al. (2016a) ASD 116 11.6 (0.87) 10–13.8 73.9 (23)4,10,17 1 87 SSPd
DD 72 12.7 (0.87) 10.1–14 77 (20.5)4,10,17 82[a1]
Green et al. (2016b)iii ASD 28 12.95 (1.98) 7.67–17.25 103.68 (14.37)5,11 1 96 SOR compositen
5,11
TD 31 12.93 (2.98) 7.67–17.25 107.73 (12.25) 85
Hilton et al. (2016)i ASD 115 8.11 4.01–10.95 84.21 SPa
TD 39 8.18 4.59–10.90 79.48
McCormick et al. (2016)i,iv ASD 29 2.81 (0.31) 2.17–3.42 58.07 (19)1b 2 SSPd
TD 24 1.63 (0.39) 2–3.92 119.3 (32)1b
DD 26 2.78 (0.56) 1–2.92 66.2 (19)1b
Sabatos-DeVito et al. (2016)i ASD 19 8.9 (2.5) 4–13 79 (25)20 1 79 SEQ-3k
20
TD 20 7 (2.5) 4–13 108 (11) 70
DD 11 10.3 (2) 4–13 54 (9)20 54.50
Van Etten et al. (2017)i,iv ASD 12 15 (1.1) 13.58–17.75 100.4 (19.1)11 1 75 AASPh
TD 11 16.67 (1.26) 13.25–19.42 113.7 (13.3)11 54.5
Chistol et al. (2018) ASD 53 6.6 (2.1) 3–11 85.7 (22)10,6 83 SPa
TD 58 6.7 (2.4) 3–11 78
13
Table 1 (continued)
(SD) years
Chistol et al. (2018) ASD 53 6.6 (2.1) 3–11 85.7 (22)10,6 83 SPa
TD 58 6.7 (2.4) 3–11 78

Little et al. (2018) ASD 77 7.83 (3.01) 3–14 81.8 SP-2o
ADHD 78 9.71 (2.89) 3–14 78.2
TD 84 8.78 (2.75) 3–14 75
Tavassoli et al. (2018) ASD 68 8.5 (2.4) 5–15 83.82 SensORj
SPD 79 7.5 (1.9) 5–12 60.76
TD 63 7.58 (2.4) 4–15 53.97
Katz-Zetler et al. (unpublished)i ASD 41 7.98 6–11 98.68 1 85.40 SSPd
TD 41 7.56 6–11 115.4 85.40
Lane (unpublished)i ASD 24 8.22 (1.23) 6.3–10.65 83.33 SSPd
TD 33 8.45 (1.21) 5.97–10.78 51.51
Tavassoli (unpublished)i ASD 8.4 78.32 SensORj
TD 20 9.5 (3.1) 40
iFor these studies raw data was sent by authors for sensory scores and/or demographic information
iiThe reason for matching data is that it reflects the whole sample, no specific data for the separate groups was given for these variables
(only in sensory variables)
iiiDemographics are based on a larger sample size than the sensory data available
ivOne subgroup or one wave was selected for the meta-analysis based on sensory scores available or age group with the least studies
vIQ = DQ
viIQ computed from MA by authors or by us

viiIQ based on VMA
viiiLangQ based on expressive and receptive Mullen DQs
ixLevel of functioning 1 = high functioning and 2 = low functioning. This was based on description of inclusion criteria and/or self-report meas-
ure applied and not on mean IQ scores
1
Mullen Scales of Early Learning (1995), 2Bayley Scales of Infant Development-Second Edition (1993), 3Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-
Third Edition (1997), 4Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (1991), 5Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition
(2003), 6Differential Ability Scales-II (Elliot 2007), 7Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised (Roid and Miller 1997), 8Wechsler Pre-
school and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Third Edition (2002), 9Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised (1989), 10Vine-
land Adaptive Behavior Scales (Sparrow et al. 1984), 11Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (2011), 12British Picture Vocabulary Scale
(Dunn et al. 1997), 13Preschool Language Scale. 4 (Zimmerman et al. 2002), 14Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-unspecified, 15Tanaka–
Binet Intelligence Scale-V (Matsubara et al. 2005), 16Kyoto Scale of Psychological Development (Ikuzawa et al. 2001), 17The Raven’s Standard
or Coloured progressive matrices (1990a, b), 18Parent Estimated Developmental Age (PEDA; Ausderau et al. 2014), 19Kaufman’s Brief Intel-
ligence Test-Second edition (Kaufman and Kaufman 2004), 20Stanford–Binet intelligence scales. 5 (Roid 2003)
a
Sensory Profile (Dunn and Westman 1995; Dunn 2002)
b
Sensory Sensitivity Questionnaire-Revised (Talay-Ongan and Wood 2000)
c
Infant/Toddler Sensory Profile (Dunn 2002)
d
Short Sensory Profile (McIntosh et al. 1999)
e
Sensory Experiences Questionnaire: Version 1 (Baranek et al. 2006)
f
Sensory Sensitivity Survey (60 items from The Sensory Profile, Dunn 1999; Liss et al. 1998)
g
Chinese Sensory Profile (Tseng and Cheng 2008)
h
Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile (Brown and Dunn 2002)
i
Japanese Sensory Inventory-Revised (Ota et al. 2002)
j
The Sensory Processing Scales Inventory: Sensory Over-Responsivity subscale (Miller and Schoen 2012)
k
Sensory Experiences Questionnaire: Version 3.0 (Baranek 2009, Unpublished manuscript)
l
Sensory Perception Quotient (Tavassoli et al. 2014a, b)
m
Sensory Reactivity in Autism Spectrum (Elwin et al. 2016)
n
Composite based on some of the Short Sensory Profile factors and the Sensory Over-Responsivity subscale
o
The Sensory profile-2 (Dunn 2014)
13
Final Set of Studies the SUR effect size. In 2009, we did not include this score as
it has limited items which are not cross-modality. However,
The meta-analysis included 55 studies, 14 from the 2009 in the current review the additional studies using the SSP
meta-analysis and 41 new studies. Table 1 presents the enabled us to test the moderating effect of using the SSP
detailed features of the studies and their samples. (most popular measure) upon the SUR effect size results.
In SSP studies (k = 4) for which we had the raw data, SOR,
Coding Process SUR, and Seeking scores were computed directly to include
a wider range of items under these patterns (personal com-
The 2009 meta-analysis coding guidelines were adapted to munication Dunn August 2002).
meet changes in diagnostic procedures and the availabil- For studies using any version of the Sensory Profile that
ity of more descriptive information in papers (e.g., ratio reported quadrant scores in addition to factor scores or
of Caucasian ethnicity). Two independent researchers (the instead of factor scores, we relied on the quadrant scores.
first and fourth authors) reviewed the coding guideline for This was because they are based on a wider range of items.
extracting background information and sensory data from For these studies, the SOR score was computed as a sum of
the publications, as well as coding examples from the 2009 Avoiding and Sensitivity quadrants following the manual
coding. Both researchers coded the same four papers and guideline (Dunn 2002).
reached 99.95% agreement. The researchers further refined
the guidelines and added variable categories as needed (e.g., Effect Size Computation
new types of sensory questionnaires not studied in 2009).
The papers were coded for: group size, publication year, type Cohen’s d effect size was computed i.e. the standardized
of comparison group, type of group matching, mean age, mean difference using the pooled standard deviation of the
age group, mental level, male ratio, Caucasian ratio, type of ASD and control groups with a bias correction (Hedges and
ASD, ASD diagnostic method and professional diagnosis, Olkin 1985). In two studies (Dunn 2002; Tomcheck and
recruitment setting, type of mental test, type of sensory test, Dunn 2007), only effect sizes were reported and not means
self-report, version of Sensory Profile, Short Sensory Profile and SDs. Therefore, we relied on the effect sizes reported.
(SSP), sensory quadrants reported, direction of the sensory If an eta-squared was the type of effect size reported, it was
scores (+ 1 for studies in which higher scores indicated transformed into a d value (Cooper 2015). When several
higher severity and − 1 vice versa). The remaining papers comparisons were reported leading to several effect sizes of
were coded separately by each of the researchers. Periodic the same study, we averaged them. Since the correlations of
review of coding (for approximately 30% of papers) and dis- these effect sizes were not reported, we estimated the effect
cussions of outstanding examples in studies were regularly size variance by the average of their estimated variances.
conducted. The justification for this is that all effect sizes should have
similar asymptotic variance (i.e. 1/n1 + 1/n2) and they may
be highly correlated.
Data Analysis The following variables were tested as moderators; sig-
nificant moderators were reported in results:
Comparison of Sensory Scores Across Studies
(1) Demographic variables for ASD group mean age
For each study (and group) an effect size was computed for in years, age group (five groups), ratio of males, IQ
the three sensory patterns, SOR, SUR and/or Seeking. As scores, level of functioning (high vs. low), type of
such, studies that reported sensory pattern subcomponents group matching (only chronological age vs. only men-
only (e.g., for SOR they reported sensory avoiding and sen- tal age).
sory sensitivity scores) required the computation of one (2) Methodological variables publication year, Sensory
effect size for each pattern. See “Appendix” for a concep- Profile based measure, SSP used, self-report.
tual comparison of scores between measures. This “Appen-
dix” details the types of scores for which one effect size Some moderators overlap conceptually. They were coded
was computed per pattern. In addition, when mean sensory to enable quantification for studies that had one overlapping
scores were reported for each ASD subgroup (e.g., autism moderator and not the other. For example, the categorical
and PDD-NOS) as opposed to the total ASD sample, com- moderator of level of functioning overlaps with the continu-
putation was weighted by the size of each subgroup. ous IQ variable. Studies that did not report IQ scores for the
The SSP does not provide a distinct Seeking score; hence, ASD group but stated that the ASD group included only
studies using this measure do not have a Seeking effect size. a certain level of functioning could be coded for the cat-
The SSP has a low energy score that was used to compute egorical variable. Self-report measures can be only applied
13
in studies of adolescents/adults who are cognitively able to For 48 studies for which chronological age was reported,
complete them. As such, this variable also captures mental the average age of the ASD group was 10.85 years
level and is not solely an indication of biases of caregiver (SD = 9.26), of the typical group 10.9 (SD = 9.67), of the
versus self-report. The moderation of self-report was tested DD group 6.59 (SD = 3.98) and of the mixed clinical group
only among studies with individuals for whom self-report 8.90 (SD = 0.91). ASD age group data was available for all
measures were available (≥ 9 years). 55 studies: 10.9% (6 of 55) of the studies included children
Each study was included once in each of the nine models. under the age of 3 years, 12.7% (7 of 55) included children
Therefore, if a study had two DD groups, the larger was 3–6 years, 40.0% (22 of 55) included children 6–9 years old,
included in the meta-analysis. The only exception was in 21.8% (12 of 55) were 9–18, and 14.3% (8 of 55) were above
the case of testing the moderating effect of the type of group 18 years of age. For 26 of 55 studies with IQ information
matching on ASD and TD effect sizes. Here, an additional for the ASD group, the mean IQ for the ASD group was
group of 99 TD children from the same study (Ben-Sasson 83.95 (SD = 18.73). For the 15 of 47 studies with IQ for the
et al. 2007) matched on mental age was included, given the TD group, the mean was 110 (SD = 5.24), for 9 of 11 stud-
few mental age-matched studies. All effect size calculations ies with IQ data for the DD group, the average was 65.77
and moderator testing were done with the “metafor” package (SD = 8.39). For the two of seven studies with IQ data for
(Viechtbauer 2010) in the software (R Core Team 2018). the clinical group, the mean was 73.65 (SD = 40.8). Most
studies included higher functioning individuals with ASD
Comparison of Moderators Between Current (70.6% 27 of 34 studies based on study inclusion criteria or
and Previous Meta‑analysis mean IQ). The ASD samples from the 14 studies analyzed
in 2009 versus the 41 new ones, were younger (95.8 vs.
Changes in diagnostic practices (e.g., DSM-5 subtyping does 139.5 months respectively) and had lower average IQ scores
not include autism separately hence coding for percentage (66.97 vs. 83.95 respectively).
of autism diagnosis was no longer relevant) as well as more Forty-nine studies (of 55 studies, 89.1%) reported the
detailed descriptive information reported in research (e.g., gender of participants. The percentage of males in the ASD
with regards to raw IQ values) offered an opportunity for fine group ranged from 36.6 to 100%, with an average of 81.4%
grained coding which in 2009 was not possible. The only as compared to 69.6% in typical group, 75.3% in DD group
identical moderator tested in both meta analyses was type and 78.7% in the clinical group. The study participants were
of matching, i.e., chronological versus mental age matching. predominantly Caucasian (for k = 20, M = 72.6%). Three
Similar moderators but defined differently between meta- studies with large Asian samples appear in the current meta-
analyses were age group which we were able to expand to a analysis, representing a population that was not previously
wider age range in the current analysis, percentage of autism studied (Cheung and Siu 2009; Matsushima and Kato 2013;
diagnosis in 2009 and level of functioning in this analysis. Tseng and Cheng 2008; n = 189 with ASD compared to none
New moderators available only in the current analysis were: in the 2009 meta-analysis), and a Saudi Arabian sample not
IQ score, male ratio, Sensory Profile based measure, SSP previously represented (Al-Heizan et al. 2015).
used, self-report. Fifty-five studies reported the type of matching between
groups. For studies compared to a typical group, most (k = 33
of 47) matched on chronological age, five on mental age,
Results and nine on both. For studies with a DD comparison group,
most (k = 8 of 11) matched on mental and chronological age,
Characteristics of Studies two matched only on chronological age and three only on
mental age. Of studies with a different clinical comparison
The 55 studies included in the meta-analysis included 4606 group, six matched only on chronological age and one on
individuals with ASD, 5508 TD (k = 47 [with k denoting the both chronological and mental age.
number of studies and n the number of participants], 376
with DD [k = 11]), and 399 with other clinical conditions ASD Diagnostic Procedures
(k = 7, 5 ADHD comparison groups, 1 Learning Difficul-
ties, and 1 SPD). Nine of the 47 studies, had another com- The most common diagnostic method reported was meeting
parison group besides the typical group. For five studies this DSM or ICD criteria (k = 30 of 50 that reported diagnostic
was a DD group and for four another clinical group. Studies method) with or without another method. Other diagnostic
were published from 1998 to June 2018 (2009 studies years criteria were ADOS or ADOS-G (k = 21), having a current or
of publication were 1998–2007), with 21 of the 55 studies previous clinical diagnosis of ASD (k = 18), ADI or ADI-R
published after DSM-5 publication in 2013. See Table 1 for (k = 12), and CARS (k = 4). A total of 24 studies required
features of the individual studies. meeting at least two diagnostic methods. Nine studies of
13
the 21 which required meeting ADOS cutoff required also moderators tested did not significantly explain the heteroge-
meeting ADI cutoff for ASD. Five of these nine studies also neity in effect sizes for SOR or SUR models.
required meeting DSM/ICD criteria. In one study, parents For Seeking effect sizes, several moderators signifi-
completed the sensory questionnaire prior to receiving the cantly explained differences between ASD and TD groups.
child’s diagnosis (Wiggins et al. 2009). Effect sizes significantly differed between age groups
Most studies described the professional required to diag- (Qw[df = 3] = 10.51, p = .02), Fig. 6 shows that effect size
nose ASD (k = 36 of 55). Of these, 26 professionals who increased up to Group 3, ages 6–9 years and decreased
diagnosed were an MD and/or psychologist (k = 26 of the 36 thereafter (see Fig. 6). IQ significantly moderated Seeking
studies), and 10 did not specify the profession required for (Qm[df = 1] = 4.71, estimate = − 0.04, p = 0.03), such that the
diagnosing but stated that they were trained professionals. lower the IQ, the larger the effect size. Self-report was also a
significant moderator (Qm[df = 1] = 9.16, estimate = − 1.98,
p = .003). Those who self-reported, had smaller effect sizes
Distribution of Questionnaires Used
than those whose caregivers reported for them.
Forty-one studies (of 55, 74.55%) used some version of the
Comparison of ASD and DD Groups
Sensory Profile or an adapted version of the Sensory Profile,
of which 16 (of 41) were the SSP, and for 19 (of 41) we had
Average effect size for the comparison of ASD and
quadrant scores (i.e., seeking, low registration, avoidance,
DD groups was significant for SOR 0.54 (k = 11, 95%
sensitivity). Three of the 55 studies used the Sensory Expe-
CI = [0.30–0.78]; see Table 2). Significant positive effect
rience Questionnaire, three of 55 used different versions of
sizes were found in six of the 11 studies (54%), ranging from
the SensOR scale (known today as SP3D). The remainder of
0.58 to 1.06. Average Seeking effect size was significant and
measures appeared once. Nine studies relied on self-report
positive but low, 0.49 (95% CI = [0.25–0.73]), with three of
(of 16 studies that could potentially use self-report based on
the six studies showing significant positive effect sizes.
their mean age of at least 11 years).
Average SUR effect size between ASD and DD groups was
not significant 0.22 (k = 11, 95% CI = [− 0.14 to 0.58]).
Comparison of ASD and Typical Groups Further testing showed significant heterogeneity for
SOR (Qw[df = 10] = 28.96, p = .0013) but not for Seek-
Average effect sizes across studies were large and signifi- ing (Qw[df = 5] = 9.50, p = .09). No significant moderators
cant for all types of sensory scores, SOR 1.28 (k = 47, 95% explained the SOR heterogeneity.
CI = [1.11–1.45]), SUR 1.38 (k = 43, 95% CI = [1.17–1.59]),
and Seeking 0.66 (k = 30, 95% CI = [0.25–1.07]: see Figs. 3, Comparison of ASD and Clinical Groups
4, 5). Forty-five of the 47 studies with SOR scores were
positive and significant (d = 0.47–2.57; with 84.4% with The average effect size for the seven studies comparing SOR
large effect sizes greater than 0.8). Two non-significant of ASD to another non-DD clinical group (i.e., ADHD,
studies were Gonthier et al. (2016) with a negative effect SMD, LD) was significant, 0.52 (95% CI = [0.19–0.85];
size and Van Etten et al. (2017) with a positive effect see Table 3). Four of the studies showed significant posi-
size. For SUR, 41 of the 43 studies were positive and sig- tive ds from 0.33 to 1.58. Testing showed significant het-
nificant (d = 0.43–2.82; with 85.4% greater than 0.8). One erogeneity among the SOR effect sizes (Qw[df = 6] = 22.93,
study had a significant negative SUR effect size (− 0.89, p = 0.0008); however, moderators with sufficient data were
95% CI = [− 1.13 to 0.66]). Only 1 study was not signifi- not significant. Average effect size was not significant for
cant (d = 0.06, 95% CI = [− 0.47 to 0.58]). For Seeking, 20 SUR, 0.31 (95% CI = [− 0.16 to 0.76]), and for Seeking
out of 30 studies had positive and significant effect sizes − 0.10 (95% CI = [− 0.41 to 0.21]).
(d = 0.30–2.15; with 75% greater than 0.80). Seven studies
had significant negative Seeking effect sizes. Three stud-
ies had a non-significant positive effect size with a CI that Discussion
crossed ‘0’.
While aggregated average effect sizes were significant, Since the 2009 meta-analysis and the inclusion of sensory
they were not homogeneous (SOR Qw[df = 46] = 486.43, symptoms in the DSM-5 ASD diagnostic criteria, there has
SUR Qw[df = 42] = 724.07, Seeking Qw[df = 29] = 1146.32, been a dramatic increase in research in this area. In addi-
p < .0001 for all). This suggests that studies varied in the tion to our goal to aggregate a larger body of evidence, the
magnitude of difference between groups. Therefore, potential current meta-analysis was able to expand inquiry to mod-
moderators were tested. Demographic and methodological erators for which previously we had limited data such as
age, male ratio, other clinical group comparisons, and type
13
Fig. 3 Effect sizes (d) and 95% CI for SOR between ASD and typically developing groups
of questionnaire. The current meta-analysis focused on 55 groups other than DD/ID. Findings from this meta-analysis
studies comparing individuals with ASD to typical and strongly support the inclusion of sensory symptoms as part
clinical control groups using sensory processing question- of the diagnostic criteria of ASD, given the significant differ-
naires. Particular growth was observed in studying older age ences among most sensory comparisons and their robustness
groups, groups with higher functioning individuals, sam- resulting from their independence of the demographic and
ples from Asian countries, and inclusion of clinical control methodological variations among studies. The main findings
13
Fig. 4 Effect sizes (d) and 95% CI for SUR between ASD and typically developing groups
showed how SOR uniquely differentiates individuals with by age, IQ and self-report. This meta-analysis indicates the
ASD, no matter what the comparison group and with no age, need to examine different types of sensory patterns sepa-
developmental, or methodological explanations. While SUR rately and to investigate factors underlying variability in
distinguished ASD from TD groups, differences diminished their expression.
when related to other clinical groups. Seeking was elevated SOR differences were the most prominent, as shown
in ASD compared to TD and DD groups and was moderated by their consistently positive differences across individual
13
Fig. 5 Effect sizes (d) and 95% CI for Seeking between ASD and typically developing groups
studies and significance across all types of control groups. moderated by age, type of group matching, and whether over
The percentage of individual studies with significant effect 80% of the sample included people diagnosed with autism.
sizes was highest among comparisons to a TD group It is plausible that the current moderators estimating level
(95.74% for TD, 54.55% for DD, and 57% for clinical com- of functioning and development lost their power as a result
parison). TD comparison studies showed significant het- of the addition of older and higher functioning samples in
erogeneity; however, none of the moderators tested could this meta-analysis relative to the previous report. While
account for this. In our previous meta-analysis, SOR was at the individual study level moderators such as IQ were
13
is needed to identify moderators for SOR. Potential can-

didate moderators to test in future reviews are those with
established correlational evidence, such as psychopathology
symptoms, including anxiety (Green and Ben-Sasson 2010),
gastrointestinal problems (Mazurek et al. 2013), and sleep
disturbances (Mazurek and Petroski 2015).
SUR symptoms, such as delayed reaction to pain and
temperature, have long been associated with ASD (Rog-
ers and Ozonoff 2005). In the 2009 meta-analysis, the SUR
TD model showed a larger effect size (d = 2.02 in 2009 vs.
d = 1.38 in current study) and was moderated by age and type
of matching. While most studies in the current meta-analy-
sis showed positive effects, a larger, Asian study yielded a
significant, negative effect size, which lowered the average
SUR d (Cheung and Siu 2009). Potential cultural factors in
threshold for under-reactivity may have created bias in this
study. It has been proposed that SUR characterizes ASD
Fig. 6 Seeking effect size compared to TD by age groups
earlier rather than later in development (Schauder and Ben-
netto 2016). SUR may have decreased in magnitude given
significantly correlated with sensory symptoms (e.g., Crane the extensive increase in the proportion of older age-groups
et al. 2009; Stewart et al. 2016; Watson et al. 2011), this in the current meta-analysis. There may be methodological
relation was masked at the aggregated level. Future research explanations for the differences in SUR findings. Note that
Table 2 Effect size of sensory Author SOR SUR SEEK

symptoms of ASD compared to
DD groups d CI d CI d CI
Rogers et al. (2003) 0.15 [− 0.37, 0.67] − 1.35 [− 1.87, − 0.84]

Gabriels et al. (2005) − 0.24 [− 0.77, 0.28] 0.24 [− 0.28, 0.77] 0.47 [− 0.05, 1]
Baranek et al. (2006) 0.26 [− 0.06, 0.58] 0.42 [0.1, 0.75] 0.17 [− 0.16, 0.49]
Gal (2006) 1.06 [0.62, 1.51] 0.34 [− 0.11, 0.79]
Wiggins et al. (2009) 0.84 [0.17, 1.51] 0.46 [− 0.21, 1.13]
Joosten and Bundy (2010) 0.58 [0.03, 1.12] 0.31 [− 0.23, 0.86] 0.33 [− 0.22, 0.88]
Watson et al. (2011) 1.03 [0.65, 1.40] 0.77 [0.39, 1.14] 0.54 [0.17, 0.92]
Kirby et al. (2015) 0.72 [0.32, 1.12] 0.46 [0.06, 0.86] 0.57 [0.17, 0.98]
Green et al. (2016) 0.64 [0.35, 0.93] 0.33 [0.03, 0.62]
McCormick et al. (2016) 0.20 [− 0.32, 0.73] − 0.48 [− 1.01, 0.05]
Sabatos-DeVito et al. (2016) 0.67 [− 0.08, 1.41] 0.89 [0.14, 1.63] 1.36 [0.62, 2.1]
Average 0.54 [0.3, 0.78] 0.22 [− 0.14, 0.58] 0.49 [0.25, 0.73]
Table 3 Effect size of sensory symptoms of ASD compared to other clinical groups
Author SOR SUR Seeking
d CI d CI d CI
Ermer and Dunn (1998) 0.90 [0.5, 1.31] 0.6 [0.19, 1] − 0.51 [− 0.91, − 0.1]
Cheung and Siu (2009) 0.07 [− 0.22, 0.37] − 0.52 [− 0.81, − 0.22] − 0.27 [− 0.56, 0.03]
O’Brien et al. (2009) 0.60 [0.07, 0.14] 0.54 [0.01, 1.08] 0.63 [0.1, 1.17]
Mattard-Labrecque et al. (2013) 1.58 [0.86, 2.31] 1.32 [0.6, 2.05] 0.47 [− 0.26, 1.19]
Clince et al. (2016) 0.35 [− 0.18, 0.88] 0.26 [− 0.27, 0.78] − 0.62 [− 1.15, − 0.09]
Little et al. (2018) 0.22 [− 0.1, 0.53] − 0.03 [− 0.34, 0.29] − 0.21 [− 0.52, 0.11]
Tavassoli et al. (2018) 0.33 [0.01, 0.66] 0.58 [0.26, 0.9] 0.07 [− 0.25, 0.4]
Average 0.52 [0.19, 0.85] 0.35 [− 0.06, 0.76] − 0.10 [− 0.41, 0.21]
13
in 2009, SUR of the SSP studies was not analyzed due to explained by age and IQ. Alternatively, the inconsistent
the limited number of items in this scale, resulting in very conceptualization of Seeking across studies might lead to
few studies included in the previously tested model. In the this variability (Schauder and Bennetto 2016). Part of this
current review, SUR of the SSP was included given the large inconsistency is that Seeking items in young children’s
number of SSP studies identified as well as several raw data- scales refer to intense sensory exploration, while in adult
sets which became available and enabled a richer computa- questionnaires, such as the AASP, they refer to personal
tion of SUR and Seeking for SSP studies. Even though SSP sensory preferences, which do not capture the repetitive
is very limited in measuring SUR, its use in a study did not circumscribed, idiosyncratic nature of Seeking in ASD
appear to moderate SUR differences. (Elwin et al. 2013).
Surprisingly, SUR average effect size was positive and
significant relative to TD controls but not relative to DD or Developmental Level and Sensory Symptoms in ASD
other clinical groups. The individual DD comparisons indi-
cate a diversity in the direction of the effect size, with two We approached the investigation of the role of developmen-
studies showing a negative effect size for very young chil- tal level in explaining sensory symptoms in ASD from dif-
dren (McCormick et al. 2016; Rogers et al. 2003). The lack ferent angles to capture as many studies as possible and to
of significant SUR effects is surprising as many of the sen- obtain a comprehensive definition of this construct. This
sory questionnaires ask within their SUR scale about social included coding IQ, level of functioning of ASD group, type
under-response which is characteristic of ASD. Hence, of matching (CA- vs. MA-based), and separating effect sizes
one would expect that SUR would be consistently different compared to typical versus DD groups. Nonetheless, the
across comparisons. Although developmental moderators various developmental level variables were not significant,
did not explain the SUR TD model, the lack of significant except in the Seeking TD model. This is consistent with
comparisons with DD supports the role of development in findings of lack of relation between sensory symptoms and
the manifestation of SUR symptoms in ASD. cognitive abilities (O’Donnell et al. 2012). Note that in the
Atypical sensory seeking difference, while smaller in 2009 meta-analysis, the moderation of developmental level
magnitude relative to the other sensory patterns, was the was estimated more crudely by the type of matching and
only pattern with significant moderating factors. Average the dichotomous severity of autism variable (> 80% autism
Seeking effect size was significant when compared with diagnosis). In the current meta-analysis, there was a trend
TD and DD groups (ASD group on average showed greater toward a relation with development level seen by lower aver-
Seeking) but not relative to other clinical groups. None- age d’s and fewer significant d’s when ASD was compared
theless, there was great variability in the direction of the to DD and other clinical groups versus TD comparisons.
effect size and in its significance among the individual In addition, SUR was only significant for TD comparison,
studies. Seven of the 30 studies with Seeking effect sizes, suggesting it is a symptom mostly accounted for by devel-
had significantly negative effect sizes (ASD group shows opmental level.
less Seeking), six of which included adolescents/adults, Conflicting findings for the association between sensory
and five of the six relied on the AASP. Three studies were symptoms and adaptive behaviors (i.e., proxy of develop-
not significant and the rest (k = 20) were significant and mental level) were also reported in a recent review of cor-
positive. The ASD versus TD Seeking effect size was relational research by Dellapiazza et al. (2018). The diver-
moderated by age, IQ and self-report. There was a non- sity in the operational definition of sensory patterns and of
linear relation with age group, with increases through the developmental level among studies requires caution in gen-
6–9 years’ age group and a decrease thereafter. This is erating far-reaching conclusions concerning the contribution
consistent with the non-linear relation we reported in 2009 of developmental level to the severity and type of sensory
for Seeking. Looking at individual studies, we saw stabil- symptoms.
ity in studies with a young narrow age range (McCormick
et al. 2016) versus a decrease in sensory symptoms when Sensory Symptoms in ASD Versus Non‑DD Clinical
looking across a wider age range (3–56 years, Kern et al. Disorders
2006; 3–11 years, Leekam et al. 2007). It seems that in
older samples, the atypicality is in the low level of seek- Compared to other clinical groups that did not include a
ing, which may be an outcome of avoidance. Higher IQ DD/ID, the SOR average d was the only significant pattern.
was associated with a smaller Seeking effect size. In addi- Nonetheless, the magnitude of d and the number of signifi-
tion, there was a smaller effect size for studies using a cant individual d’s was lower relative to the TD and DD
self-report measure; probably a factor of higher IQ. The SOR models. At the individual study level, three (Cheung
great heterogeneity in effect sizes among studies for Sen- and Siu 2009; Clince et al. 2016; Little et al. 2018) of
sory Seeking might be the reason it is the only pattern the five studies comparing ASD to an ADHD group had
13
non-significant SOR d. Further understanding of sensory dif- Kern et al. 2007). The skewed distribution of age as a con-
ferences between ASD and ADHD is needed. These results tinuous variable supported the analysis of age groups. Age
regarding non-DD clinical disorders are based on a very few groups were defined by the mid-age range of the group, how-
studies (k = 7) which looked at clinical comparisons other ever at sometimes this could not fully capture the heteroge-
than DD (k = 5 ADHD, 1 SPD, 1 LD). None of the studies neous age range in the study.
compared ASD to a psychopathological group with anxiety We were limited in our ability to examine the effects of
disorder or OCD, which also present extreme sensory symp- gender upon sensory symptoms, hence its non-significant
toms. There was also no language disorder or social–com- moderation across models was not surprising. This was due
munication disorder control group, conditions important to to the narrow range and variance of the male ratio leading
study, particularly when thinking of the strong social com- to a non-normal distribution among the compared studies.
ponents of tactile and auditory stimuli. To fully examine this effect more sensory data for females
with ASD is needed.
Limitations From a measurement perspective, most measures are rely-
ing upon parental reports about the frequency of the behav-
Several limitations within this body of literature should be ior or the number of symptoms. A few studies included self-
acknowledged when interpreting the findings. Several stud- reports, which differ in that they provide a first-hand account
ies were excluded because they did not publish means or from individuals with high abilities. In addition, current
SDs for the sensory scores or did not report scores reflect- healthcare models (e.g., ICF) stress the need to assess limi-
ing one or more of the three distinct sensory pattern scores. tations based on the condition’s impact upon performing
For example, the SSP does not yield a distinct Seeking activities and participation. The degree of interference/
score, hence if authors did not send us means or raw data functional impairment associated with sensory symptoms
so we could compute distinct SUR and Seeking scores their in ASD need to be measured.
research could not be included in the SUR and Seeking mod- While conceptually, we aimed to examine comparable
els. This may have created bias among SSP studies. While constructs (see “Appendix”), variability in the actual meas-
many authors sent us these scores, others did not or used urement of the construct may have biased results beyond
other questionnaires that do not readily provide these type of what we could identify in this meta-analysis. First, some
scores (e.g., Sensory Processing Measure, Parham and Ecker of the studies modified the use of standard sensory ques-
2007). The publication of the Sensory Profile 2 versions will tionnaires. This included self-report rephrased for caregiver
reduce this limitation by providing the same three pattern report for individuals who are low functioning and living in
scores across age groups. a care center (Gonthier et al. 2016), reducing the number
ASD severity was not examined directly in this meta- of SP items for the Chinese SP to fit culturally (Cheung
analysis due to the studies relying on different metrics, dif- and Siu 2009), or using the SSP for a younger age range
ferent versions of the DSM, or not reporting severity at all. (Wiggins et al. 2009). Second, the number of items and
Studies varied in the homogeneity of the ASD group, with types of modalities covered by each questionnaire varied
some purposefully studying a unique type of ASD, such as between measures. For instance, SUR in the SSP was based
only HFASD (Hilton et al. 2010), LFASD (Gonthier et al. on two modality-specific items compared to 11 items across
2016), or those with ASD and ADHD (Mattard-Labrecque modalities in the ITSP. Third, even for the same measure,
et al. 2013). Our previous moderator testing of percent of scores may have reflected a different set of items, such as,
autism diagnosis was no longer relevant given changes in researchers who used the SSP but added a few factors from
DSM-5 classification. We partially captured ASD severity the SP (O’Brien et al. 2009). The recent publication of one
by examining developmental level. scoring system across versions of Sensory Profile will assist
It is worth noting that IQ was measured in different ways in comparing results across studies.
across studies. Only non-verbal testing was used in some Finally, for studies with multiple scores, we averaged
studies, while full-scale IQ was used in others. Crane et al. their effect size into a composite effect size. Nonetheless, in
(2009) demonstrate how different types of IQ scores yield the absence of information regarding the shared covariance
different correlations with SOR, SUR and Seeking. Set- between the subscores, there is no correct way to estimate
ting unified guidelines for phenotyping in research would the standard error of this composite effect size. Although
strengthen the ability to conduct wide-scale, cross-site the method we used is common practice in meta-analytic
research, as well as large meta-analyses. research (Lipsey and Wilson 2001), its limitations should
The age range within some samples was very wide, with be acknowledged.
some studies including both adolescents and adults (e.g.,
13
At the review level we aimed to reduce risk bias through Conclusions

systematic search methods, inter-rater reliability testing,
however, there may be literature missed such as non-Eng- This large-scale study attests to the atypical nature of sen-
lish reports. In addition, given the back and forth nature of sory symptoms in ASD, with consistently atypical SOR
the decision making process for paper extraction we were symptoms. Since 2009, additional studies have been pub-
unable to purely differentiate title/abstract based filtering lished, including studies with older, higher functioning,
versus full-text filtering of studies. Also note that one reason and Asian samples, as well as clinical comparison groups.
for research exclusion was selected for each paper based on Although the Sensory Profile remains the most common
predetermined hierarchy of reasons, but many papers quali- measure, new measures are being introduced to the field,
fied for multiple reasons. some of which are perception-focused (e.g., SPQ, Tavassoli
et al. 2014a, b). As opposed to looking at sensory symp-
Clinical Implications toms as one construct or by modality, the varying patterns
of differences for SOR, SUR and Seeking call for separate
The aggregated results from this review are of relevance measurement and research of these patterns, as noted in the
for theory, assessment and intervention. First, our find- conclusion of the systematic review by Glod, et al. (2015).
ings suggest that sensory symptoms in ASD require clini- Seeking differences relative to TD groups were the only pat-
cal attention throughout the lifespan and across levels of tern explained by age and developmental level. Sensory dif-
functioning in terms of professional awareness of their ferences across studies and types of comparison groups often
impact and allocation of resources for the matter. SOR in showed significant heterogeneity; nonetheless, most of the
particular can assist in diagnosis as it was the sensory pat- moderators we tested couldn’t explain this diversity. There
tern with the most consistent distinction of ASD group may be other dimensions not captured in the body of litera-
across comparisons. Nonetheless, diagnostic procedures ture reviewed which can account for such variability and
must examine the co-occurrence of SOR with other ASD assist in identifying a clinical profile associated with sensory
symptoms as of its own it cannot be used for early iden- symptoms in ASD. We believe new discoveries in this area
tification as noted by the presence of SOR in other clini- will be made possible by expanding methods of measure-
cal groups. Second, there is a need to recognize the poor ment and through investigation of effective interventions.
differential property of SUR and Seeking between ASD
and other clinical conditions as suggested by the smaller Acknowledgments We thank all the researchers who sent us the data
magnitude of group differences in these scores as well as needed for their samples to be included in the meta analysis.
their inconsistent effect size significance. The nature of the
Author Contributions AB, EG, and SC conceived of the study and its
sensory features and/or the co-occurrence of sensory symp- design. AB designed and coordinated the study, performed literature
toms with social–communication deficits may be what sig- search, data extraction, coding, analyses, and wrote the manuscript;
nifies ASD. Third, from a measurement perspective, while EG reviewed coding and data interpretation. RF conducted statisti-
the Sensory Profile questionnaires are the most commonly cal analysis; NK was involved in data extraction and coding; SC was
involved in data analsis planning, data interpretation and writing the
used tool internationally there is need for evaluating the manuscript. All authors approved the manuscript.
functional impairment associated with each pattern of sen-
sory symptoms. In addition, clinicians should aim to gain Funding This work has been supported by a National Institute of Psy-
a ‘pure perceptual’ measurement of sensory experiences chobiology Dylan Tauber Young Investigator Grant awarded to Dr. A.
which is independent of affective response such as anxiety Ben-Sasson (Grant Number 204-177-18b).
and stress. Adding observational evaluation methods to the
profiling of sensory symptoms is critical for overcoming Compliance with Ethical Standards
report biases. Finally, SOR, SUR and Seeking symptoms
Conflict of interest The authors declare they have no conflict of in-
require separate acknowledgement given their different pat- terests.
tern of results in the tested models. However, given the
commonality of more than one pattern in an individual Ethical Approval All procedures performed in this meta-analysis were
(Ben-Sasson et al. 2008), we need to examine implications in accordance with the Ethical Standards of the Institutional Research
Committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amend-
of these combinations. ments or comparable ethical standards.
Appendix
See Table 4.
13
Table 4 Comparison of sensory scores across studies
Over-responsivity Under-responsivity Seeking Comment
Sensory Profile (Dunn and Westman 1995; Dunn Sensitivity, oral sensitivity Poor registration, Seeking In 2002 a scoring of the Sensory Profile items by
2002) low endurance/ quadrants was published (Dunn 2002) hence later
tone studies report these scores for the Sensory Profile
Sensory Profile 2 (Dunn 2014) Sensitivity, avoiding Low registration Seeking
Short Sensory Profile (SSP)b (McIntosh et al. Auditory/visual sensitivity, tactile sensitivity, Low energy Auditory filtering, and underresponsive/seeking
1999) taste/smell sensitivity, movement sensitivity scores do not correspond to one pattern
Infant/Toddler Sensory Profile (ITSP) (Dunn Sensitivity, avoiding Low registration Seeking
2002)
Adult/Adolescent Sensory Profile (AASP) (Brown Sensitivity, avoiding Low registration Seeking
and Dunn 2002)
Sensory Experience Questionnaire (SEQ v1 and Hyper-responsive Hypo-responsive Seeking The authors provided us with hypo-responsive sepa-
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2019) 49:4974–4996
v3) (Baranek et al. 2006; Baranek 2009) rated from Seeking scores
Sensory Sensitivity Questionnaire-Revised (Talay- Visual, auditory, taste, smell, tactile, vestibular
Ongan and Wood 2000) sensitivity
Sensory Sensitivity Survey (Liss et al. 1998) Over-reactivity Under-reactivity Seeking 104 Items but based on 60 items from the Sensory
Profile
Japanese Sensory Inventory Revised (Ota et al. Over-reactivity Under-reactivity Seeking Scores reported by modality. Therefore items were
2002) classified into patterns as part of this meta-analysis
using experts’ inter-rater agreement
The Sensory Processing Scales Inventory: Sensory SOR The measure also has SUR and Seeking scores but
Over-Responsivity Subscale (Miller and Schoen not for the studies included
2012)
Sensory Processing Quotient (SPQ) (Tavassoli SOR
et al. 2014a, b)
Sensory Reactivity in Autism Spectrum (SR-AS; Hyper-reactivity Hypo-reactivity Strong
Elwin et al. 2016) Sensory
Interests
Chinese Sensory Profile (CSP; Tseng and Cheng Adapted Sensory Profile. Scores reported by modal-
2008) ity. Therefore, items were classified into patterns
as part of this meta-analysis using experts’ inter-
rater agreement
13
4991
References Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(1), 1–11. https://doi.

org/10.1007/s10803-008-0593-3.
Brown, C., & Dunn, W. (2002). Adult/adolescent sensory profile:
User’s manual. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies *Caron, K. G., Schaaf, R. C., Benevides, T. W., & Gal, E. (2012).
Cross-cultural comparison of sensory behaviors in children with
included in the meta‑analysis. The in‑text citations autism. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66(5), e77–
to studies selected for meta‑analysis are not e80. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2012.004226.
preceded by asterisks Cascio, C. J., Moana-Filho, E. J., Guest, S., Nebel, M. B., Weisner, J.,
Baranek, G. T., et al. (2012). Perceptual and neural response to
*Al-Heizan, M. O., AlAbdulwahab, S. S., Kachanathu, S. J., & Natho, affective tactile texture stimulation in adults with autism spec-
M. (2015). Sensory processing dysfunction among Saudi chil- trum disorders. Autism Research, 5(4), 231–244. https://doi.
dren with and without autism. Journal of Physical Therapy Sci- org/10.1002/aur.1224.
ence, 27(5), 1313–1316. https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.27.1313. Cermak, S. A., Curtin, C., & Bandini, L. G. (2010). Food selectivity
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statisti- and sensory sensitivity in children with autism spectrum dis-
cal manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: orders. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 110(2),
American Psychiatric Association. ISBN-13 978-0890420614. 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2009.10.032.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and sta- Chamak, B., Bonniau, B., Jaunay, E., & Cohen, D. (2008). What can
tistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). we learn about autism from autistic persons? Psychotherapy and
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. ISBN-13 Psychosomatics, 77(5), 271–279. https://doi.org/10.1159/00014
978-0890420256 0086.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statisti- Chang, M. C., Parham, L. D., Blanche, E. I., Schell, A., Chou, C. P.,
cal manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Dawson, M., et al. (2012). Autonomic and behavioral responses
American Psychiatric Association. ISBN-13 978-0890425558. of children with autism to auditory stimuli. American Jour-
Antezana, L., Factor, R. S., Condy, E. E., Strege, M. V., Scarpa, A., nal of Occupational Therapy, 66(5), 567–576. https: //doi.
& Richey, J. A. (2019). Gender differences in restricted and org/10.1155/2017/2629310.
repetitive behaviors and interests in youth with autism. Autism Chen, Y. H., Rodgers, J., & McConachie, H. (2009). Restricted and
Research, 12(2), 274–283. repetitive behaviours, sensory processing and cognitive style in
*Ausderau, K., Sideris, J., Furlong, M., Little, L. M., Bulluck, J., children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and
& Baranek, G. T. (2014). National survey of sensory features Developmental Disorders, 39, 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/
in children with ASD: Factor structure of the sensory expe- s10803-008-0663-6.
rience questionnaire (3.0). Journal of Autism Developmental *Cheung, P. P., & Siu, A. M. (2009). A comparison of patterns of
Disorders, 44(4), 916–925. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s1080 sensory processing in children with and without developmen-
3-013-1945-1. tal disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30(6),
Bagby, M. S., Dickie, V. A., & Baranek, G. T. (2012). How sensory 1468–1480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2009.07.009.
experiences of children with and without autism affect family *Chistol, L. T., Bandini, L. G., Must, A., Phillips, S., Cermak, S. A.,
occupations. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66, & Curtin, C. (2018). Sensory sensitivity and food selectivity
78–86. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2012.000604. in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Autism
Baranek, G. T. (2009). Sensory experiences questionnaire (Version and Developmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1080
3.0). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina (Unpublished 3-017-3340-9.
manuscript). *Chuang, I. C., Tseng, M. H., Lu, L., & Shieh, J. Y. (2012). Sensory
*Baranek, G. T., David, F. J., Poe, M. D., Stone, W. L., & Watson, correlates of difficult temperament characteristics in preschool
L. R. (2006). Sensory experience questionnaire: Discriminating children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders,
sensory features in young children with autism, developmen- 6(3), 988–995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2012.01.002.
tal delays, and typical development. Journal of Child Psychol- *Clince, M., Connolly, L., & Nolan, C. (2016). Comparing and explor-
ogy and Psychiatry, 47(6), 591–601. https://doi.org/10.111 ing the sensory processing patterns of higher education students
1/j.1469-7610.2005.01546.x. with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum
Baranek, G. T., Roberts, J. E., David, F. J., Sideris, J., Mirrett, P. L., disorder. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. https: //doi.
Hatton, D. D., et al. (2008). Developmental trajectories and cor- org/10.5014/ajot.2016.016816.
relates of sensory processing in young boys with fragile X syn- Conelea, C. A., Carter, A. C., & Freeman, J. B. (2014). Sensory over-
drome. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 28(1), responsivity in a sample of children seeking treatment for anxi-
79–98. https://doi.org/10.1300/j006v28n01_06. ety. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 35(8),
Bayley, N. (1993). Bayley II psychological corporation, San Antonio. 510. https://doi.org/10.1097/dbp.0000000000000092.
*Ben-Sasson, A., Cermak, S. A., Orsmond, G. I., Carter, A. S., Kadlec, Cooper, H. M. (2015). Synthesizing research. In Research synthe-
M. B., & Dunn, W. (2007). Extreme sensory modulation behav- sis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach (5th ed.). Los
iors in toddlers with autism. American Journal of Occupational Angeles: Sage Publications. https: //doi.org/10.1177/193758 6717
Therapy, 61(5), 584–592. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.61.5.584. 734453.
Ben-Sasson, A., Cermak, S. A., Orsmond, G. I., Tager-Flusberg, H., *Corbett, B. A., Schupp, C. W., Levine, S., & Mendoza, S. (2009).
Kadlec, M. B., & Carter, A. S. (2008). Sensory clusters of tod- Comparing cortisol, stress, and sensory sensitivity in chil-
dlers with autism spectrum disorders: Differences in affective dren with autism. Autism Research, 2(1), 39–49. https://doi.
symptoms. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(8), org/10.1002/aur.64.
817–825. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01899.x. *Crane, L., Goddard, L., & Pring, L. (2009). Sensory processing in
Ben-Sasson, A., Hen, L., Fluss, R., Cermak, S. A., Engel-Yeger, B., adults with autism spectrum disorders. Autism, 13(3), 215–228.
& Gal, E. (2009). A meta-analysis of sensory modulation symp- https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361309103794.
toms in individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of *De la Marche, W., Steyaert, J., & Noens, I. (2012). Atypical sensory
processing in adolescents with an autism spectrum disorder and
13
their non-affected siblings. Research in Autism Spectrum Disor- of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2(2), 199–221. https://
ders, 6(2), 639–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2011.09.014. doi.org/10.1007/s40489-015-0047-8.
Dellapiazza, F., Vernhert, C., Blanc, N., Miot, S., Schmidt, R., & *Gonthier, C., Longuépée, L., & Bouvard, M. (2016). Sensory pro-
Baghadadli, A. (2018). Links between sensory processing, adap- cessing in low-functioning adults with autism spectrum disorder:
tive behaviours, and attention in children with autism spectrum Distinct sensory profiles and their relationships with behavioral
disorder: A systematic review. Psychiatry Research. https://doi. dysfunction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.09.023. 46(9), 3078–3089. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2850-1.
DuBois, D., Lymer, E., Gibson, B., Desarkar, P., & Nalder, E. (2017). Grandin, T. (2009). Visual abilities and sensory differences in a per-
Assessing sensory processing dysfunction in adults and adoles- son with autism. Biological Psychiatry, 65(1), 15–16. https: //doi.
cents with autism spectrum disorder: A scoping review. Brain org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.11.005.
Sciences, 7(8), 108. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci7080108. Green, S. A., & Ben-Sasson, A. (2010). Anxiety disorders and sensory
Dunn, W. (1999). The sensory profile: User’s manual. San Antonio, over-responsivity in children with autism spectrum disorders:
TX: Psychological Corporation. Is there a causal relationship? Journal of Autism and Develop-
*Dunn, W. (2002). Infant/toddler sensory profile. San Antonio, TX: mental Disorders, 40(12), 1495–1504. https://doi.org/10.1007/
Psychological Corporation. s10803-010-1007-x.
Dunn, W. (2014). The sensory profile 2: User’s manual. Bloomington, Green, S. A., Ben-Sasson, A., Soto, T. W., & Carter, A. S. (2012).
MN: Pearson. Anxiety and sensory over-responsivity in toddlers with autism
Dunn, L., Dunn, L., Whetton, C., & Burley, J. (1997). British picture spectrum disorders: Bidirectional effects across time. Journal of
vocabulary scale II. Windsor: NFER-Nelson. Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(6), 1112–1119. https
Dunn, W., & Westman, K. (1995). The sensory profile (Unpublished ://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1361-3.
manusctipt), Kansas City: University of Kansas Medical Centet. *Green, D., Chandler, S., Charman, T., Simonoff, E., & Baird, G.
Dunn, W., Little, L., Dean, R. E., Robertson, S., & Evans, B. (2016). (2016a). Brief report: DSM-5 sensory behaviours in children
The state of science on sensory factors and their impact on daily with and without an autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism
life for children: A scoping review. OTJR: Occupation, Participa- and Developmental Disorders, 46(11), 3597–3606. https://doi.
tion, and Health, 36(25), 3S–26S. https://doi.org/10.1177/15394 org/10.1007/s10803-016-2881-7.
49215617923. *Green, S. A., Hernandez, L., Bookheimer, S. Y., & Dapretto, M.
*Dunn, W., Smith-Myles, B., & Orr, S. (2002). Sensory process- (2016b). Salience network connectivity in autism is related to
ing issues associated with Asperger syndrome: A preliminary brain and behavioral markers of sensory overresponsivity. Jour-
investigation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56(1), nal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychia-
97–102. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.56.1.97. try, 55(7), 618–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2016.04.013.
Elliott, C. (2007). Differential ability scales (2nd ed.). San Antonio, Green, S. A., Hernandez, L., Tottenham, M., Krasileva, K., Bookeimer,
TX: Harcourt Assessment. S. Y., & Dapretto, M. (2015). Neurobiology of sensory over-
Elwin, M., Ek, L., Kjellin, L., & Schröder, A. (2013). Too much or responsivity in youth with autism spectrum disorders. JAMA
too little: Hyper- and hypo-reactivity in high-functioning autism Psychiatry, 72(8), 778–786. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychi
spectrum conditions. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental atry.2015.0737.
Disability, 38(3), 232–241. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250. Hazen, E. P., Stornelli, J. L., O’Rourke, J. A., Koesterer, K., & McDou-
Elwin, M., Schröder, A., Ek, L., & Kjellin, L. (2016). Development gle, C. J. (2014). Sensory symptoms in autism spectrum disor-
and pilot validation of a sensory reactivity scale for adults with ders. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 22(2), 112–124. https://doi.
high functioning autism spectrum conditions: Sensory Reactiv- org/10.1097/01.hrp.0000445143.08773.58.
ity in Autism Spectrum (SRAS). Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis.
70(2), 103–110. San Diego, CA: Academic. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164953.
*Elwin, M., Schröder, A., Ek, L., Wallsten, T., & Kjellin, L. (2017). *Hilton, C. L., Babb-Keeble, A., Westover, E. E., Zhang, Y., Adams,
Sensory clusters of adults with and without autism spectrum con- C., Collins, D. M., et al. (2016). Sensory responsiveness in sib-
ditions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(3), lings of children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of
579–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2976-1. Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(12), 3778–3787. https
*Ermer, J., & Dunn, W. (1998). The Sensory Profile: A discriminant ://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2918-y.
analysis of children with and without disabilities. American *Hilton, C. L., Harper, J. D., Kueker, R. H., Lang, A. R., Abbacchi,
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52(4), 283–290. https://doi. A. M., Todorov, A., et al. (2010). Sensory responsiveness as
org/10.5014/ajot.52.4.283. a predictor of social severity in children with high functioning
*Gabriels, R. L., Agnew, J. A., Goldson, E., Ledbetter, J. C., & Cuc- autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmen-
caro, M. L. (2005). Repetitive behaviors and sensory profiles in tal Disorders, 40(8), 937–945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1080
children with autism spectrum disorders. In Poster session pre- 3-010-0944-8.
sented at the international meeting for autism research, Boston. *Hochhauser, M., & Engel-Yeger, B. (2010). Sensory processing
Gabriels, R. L., Agnew, J. A., Miller, L. J., et al. (2008). Is there a rela- abilities and their relation to participation in leisure activities
tionship between restricted, repetitive stereotyped behaviors and among children with high-functioning autism spectrum disor-
interests and abnormal sensory response in children with autism der (HFASD). Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4(4),
spectrum disorders? Research Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2, 746–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2010.01.015.
660–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2008.02.002. Ismael, N., Lawson, L. M., & Hartwell, J. (2018). Relationship between
*Gal, E. (2006). An investigation of the relationship of sensory dif- sensory processing and participation in daily occupations for
ferences and intellectual level to stereotyped and self injurious children with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review of
movements in children. Master’s Thesis, Griffith University, studies that used Dunn’s sensory processing framework. Ameri-
Australia. can Journal of Occupational Therapy. https://doi.org/10.5014/
Glod, M., Riby, D. M., Honey, E., & Rodgers, J. (2015). Psychologi- ajot.2018.024075.
cal correlates of sensory processing patterns in individuals with Ikuzawa, M., Iwachidou, S., & Oogami, R. (2001). The guide of
autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. Review Journal Kyoto scale of psychological development. In M. Ikuzawa, Y.
13
Matsushita, & A. Nagase (Eds.), Kyoto Kokusai Shakaifukushi reflex in autistic children. Autism Research, 7(1), 94–103. https
Center, Kyoto. ://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1337.
*Joosten, A. V., & Bundy, A. C. (2010). Sensory processing and ste- Marco, E. J., Hinkley, L. B., Hill, S. S., & Nagarajan, S. S. (2011).
reotypical and repetitive behavior in children with autism and Sensory processing in autism: A review of neurophysiologic
intellectual disability. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, findings. Pediatric Research, 69(5 Pt 2), 48R–54R. https://doi.
57(6), 366–372. https: //doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2009.00835 org/10.1203/pdr.0b013e3182130c54.
.x. *Matsushima, K., & Kato, T. (2013). Social interaction and atypical
Kanner, L. (1943). Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous sensory processing in children with autism spectrum disorders.
Child, 2(3), 217–250. Hong Kong Journal of Occupational Therapy, 23(2), 89–96.
Kargas, N., López, B., Reddy, V., & Morris, P. (2015). The relation- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hkjot.2013.11.003.
ship between auditory processing and restricted, repetitive *Mattard-Labrecque, C., Amor, L. B., & Couture, M. M. (2013).
behaviors in adults with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Children with autism and attention difficulties: A pilot study
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(3), 658–668. https:// of the association between sensory, motor, and adaptive behav-
doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2219-2. iors. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adoles-
*Karhson, D. S. (2014). Association between sensory reactivity and cent Psychiatry, 22(2), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/01942
neural activity of orienting and cognitive control in Autism Spec- 638.2017.1390809.
trum Disorders. Doctoral Dissertation, Tulane University School Matsubara, T., Fujita, K., Maekawa, H., & Ishikuma, T. (2005). Tan-
of Science and Engineering, Los Angeles aka–Binet intelligence scale (V). Tokyo: Tanaka Institute for
*Katz-Zetler, N., Gal, E., & Engel-Yeger, B. (2017). Sensory process- Educational Research.
ing in Autism Spectrum Disorders. Unpublished raw data. Mazurek, M. O., & Petroski, G. F. (2015). Sleep problems in children
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman brief intelligence with autism spectrum disorder: Examining the contributions of
test–second edition (KBIT-2). Circle Pines, MN: American sensory over-responsivity and anxiety. Sleep Medicine, 16(2),
Guidance Service. 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2014.11.006.
*Kern, J. K., Garver, C. R., Carmody, T., Andrews, A. A., Trivedi, Mazurek, M. O., Vasa, R. A., Kalb, L. G., Kanne, S. M., Rosenberg,
M. H., & Mehta, J. A. (2007). Examining sensory quadrants in D., Keefer, A.,…, & Lowery, L. A. (2013). Anxiety, sensory
autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 1(2), 185–193. over-responsivity, and gastrointestinal problems in children
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2006.09.002. with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Abnormal Child
Kern, J. K., Trivedi, M. H., Garver, C. R., Grannemann, B. D., Psychology, 41(1), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1080
Andrews, A. A., Savla, J. S., et al. (2006). The pattern of sen- 2-012-9668-x.
sory processing abnormalities in autism. Autism, 10(5), 480–494. *McCormick, C., Hepburn, S., Young, G. S., & Rogers, S. J. (2016).
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361306066564. Sensory symptoms in children with autism spectrum disor-
*Kirby, A. V., White, T. J., & Baranek, G. T. (2015). Caregiver strain der, other developmental disorders and typical development:
and sensory features in children with autism spectrum disorder A longitudinal study. Autism, 20(5), 572–579. https: //doi.
and other developmental disabilities. American Journal on Intel- org/10.1177/1362361315599755.
lectual and Developmental Disabilities, 120(1), 32–45. https:// McIntosh, D. N., Miller, L. J., & Shyu, V. (1999). Development and
doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-120.1.32. validation of the short sensory profile. In W. Dunn (Ed.), Sen-
*Lane, A. E. (2017). Sensory processing and autism spectrum disor- sory Profile manual (pp. 59–73). San Antonio, TX: Psychological
ders. Unpublished raw data. Corporation.
Lane, S. J., Reynolds, S., & Dumenci, L. (2012). Sensory overrespon- Miller, L. J., Anzalone, M. E., Lane, S. J., Cermak, S. A., & Osten, E.
sivity and anxiety in typically developing children and children T. (2007). Concept evolution in sensory integration: A proposed
with autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: Cause or nosology for diagnosis. The American Journal of Occupational
coexistence? American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66(5), Therapy, 61(2), 135. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.61.2.135.
595–603. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2012.004523. Miller, L. J., & Schoen, S. A. (2012). The sensory processing scales
Leekam, S. R., Nieto, C., Libby, S. J., Wing, L., & Gould, J. (2007). inventory: Sensory over-responsivity (SenSI: SOR). Greenwood
Describing the sensory abnormalities of children and adults with Village, CO: Developmental Technologies.
autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(5), Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA
894–910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0218-7. Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews
Lewin, A. B., Wu, M. S., Murphy, T. K., & Storch, E. A. (2015). Sen- and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6(7),
sory over-responsivity in pediatric obsessive compulsive disor- e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
der. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Pet-
37(1), 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-014-9442-1. ticrew, M.,…, & Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thou- for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P)
sand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1.
Liss, M., Saulnier, C. A., & Fein, D. (1998). The sensory survey. Uni- Mullen, E. M. (1995). Mullen scales of early learning. Circle Pines,
versity of Connecticut. MN: AGS.
*Liss, M., Saulnier, C., Fein, D., & Kinsbourne, M. (2006). Sensory *O’Brien, J., Tsermentseli, S., Cummins, O., Happe, F., Heaton, P.,
and attention abnormalities in autistic spectrum disorders. & Spencer, J. (2009). Discriminating children with autism from
Autism, 10(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361306 children with learning difficulties with an adaptation of the Short
062021. Sensory Profile. Early Child Development and Care, 179(4),
*Little, L. M., Dean, E., Tomchek, S., & Dunn, W. (2018). Sensory 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430701567926.
processing patterns in autism, attention deficit hyperactivity dis- O’Donnell, S., Deitz, J., Kartin, D., Nalty, T., & Dawson, G. (2012).
order, and typical development. Physical and Occupational Ther- Sensory processing, problem behavior, adaptive behavior, and
apy in Pediatrics, 38(3), 243–254. https: //doi.org/10.1080/01942 cognition in preschool children with autism spectrum disorders.
638.2017.1390809. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66(5), 586–594.
Madsen, G. F., Bilenberg, N., Cantio, C., & Oranje, B. (2014). https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2012.004168.
Increased prepulse inhibition and sensitization of the startle
13
Ota, A., Tsuchida, R., & Miyajima, N. (2002). Japanese sensory inven- Disorders, 46(5), 1590–1601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1080
tory-revised (JSI-R): Data of a National sample. Japanese Jour- 3-015-2367-z.
nal of Sensory Integration Dysfunction, 9, 45e64. *Talay-Ongan, A., & Wood, K. (2000). Unusual sensory sensitivities
Parham, L. D., & Ecker, C. (2007). Sensory processing measure (SPM). in autism: A possible crossroads. International Journal of Dis-
Torrance, CA: Western Psychological Services. ability, Development and Education, 47(2), 201–212. https: //doi.
*Provost, B., Crowe, T. K., Acree, K., Osbourn, P. L., & McClain, C. org/10.1080/713671112.
(2009). Sensory behaviors of preschool children with and with- *Tavassoli, T. (2017). Sensory symptoms and Autism Spectrum Dis-
out autism spectrum disorders. New Zealand Journal of Occu- orders. Unpublished raw data.
pational Therapy, 56(2), 9–17. ISSN 1171-0462. *Tavassoli, T., Hoekstra, R. A., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2014a). The
Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1990a). Coloured progressive sensory perception quotient (SPQ): Development and vali-
matrices. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. dation of a new sensory questionnaire for adults with and
Raven, J. C., Court, J. H., & Raven, J. (1990b). Standard progressive without autism. Molecular Autism, 5(1), 29. https : //doi.
matrices. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. org/10.1186/2040-2392-5-29.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statisti- *Tavassoli, T., Miller, L. J., Schoen, S. A., Brout, J. J., Sullivan, J.,
cal computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, & Baron-Cohen, S. (2018). Sensory reactivity, empathizing and
Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. systemizing in autism spectrum conditions and sensory process-
*Reynolds, S., Bendixen, R. M., Lawrence, T., & Lane, S. J. (2011). ing disorder. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 29, 72–77.
A pilot study examining activity participation, sensory respon- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2017.05.005.
siveness, and competence in children with high dysfunctioning *Tavassoli, T., Miller, L. J., Schoen, S. A., Nielsen, D. M., & Baron-
autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmen- Cohen, S. (2014b). Sensory over-responsivity in adults with
tal Disorders, 41(11), 1496–1506. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s1080 autism spectrum conditions. Autism, 18(4), 428–432. https://
3-010-1173-x. doi.org/10.1177/1362361313477246.
*Rogers, S. J., Hepburn, S., & Wehner, E. (2003). Parent reports of Tomcheck, S. D., & Dunn, W. (2007). Sensory processing in children
sensory symptoms in toddlers with autism and those with other with and without autism: A comparative study using the Short
developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Sensory Profile. American Journal of Occupational Therapy,
Disorders, 33(6), 631–642. https: //doi.org/10.1023/b:jadd.00000 61(2), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.61.2.190.
06000.38991.a7. Tomchek, S. D., Little, L. M., & Dunn, W. (2015). Sensory pattern con-
Rogers, S. J., & Ozonoff, S. (2005). Annotation: What do we know tributions to developmental performance in children with autism
about sensory dysfunction in autism? A critical review of spectrum disorder. American Journal of Occupational Therapy.
the empirical evidence. Journal of Child Psychology and https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2015.018044.
Psychiatry, 46(12), 1255–1268. https : //doi.org/10.111 Tseng, M. H., & Cheng, T. J. (2008). Sensory profile—Chinese version.
1/j.1469-7610.2005.01431.x. Taipei: Chinese Behavioral Science Corporation.
Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford Binet intelligence scales (5th ed.). Itasca, *Van Etten, H. M., Kaur, M., Srinivasan, S. M., Cohen, S. J., Bhat, A.,
IL: Riverside Publishing. & Dobkins, K. R. (2017). Increased prevalence of unusual sen-
Roid, G. H., & Miller, L. J. (1997). Leiter international performance sory behaviors in infants at risk for, and teens with, Autism Spec-
scale-revised (Leiter-R). Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting. trum Disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
*Sabatos-DeVito, M., Schipul, S. E., Bulluck, J. C., Belger, A., & 47(11), 3431–3445. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10803 -017-3227-9.
Baranek, G. T. (2016). Eye tracking reveals impaired atten- Van Wijngaarden-Cremers, P. J., van Eeten, E., Groen, W. B., Van
tional disengagement associated with sensory response patterns Deurzen, P. A., Oosterling, I. J., & Van der Gaag, R. J. (2014).
in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Gender and age differences in the core triad of impairments in
Disorders, 46(4), 1319–1333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1080 autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
3-015-2681-5. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(3), 627–635.
*Saulnier, C. A. (2003). Sensory reactivity in children with and without Veritas Health Innovation. (2018). Covidence (computer software).
autism (Doctoral Dissertation) University of Connecticut. Dis- Melbourne: Veritas Health Innovation. http://www.covidence.
sertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and org.
Engineering, 63(10-B), 4923. Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the meta-
*Schaaf, R. C., Benevides, T., Miller, L. J., Brett-Green, B., & Schoen, for package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://
S. (2006). Sensory dysfunction in children with autism. In Poster doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03.
presented at the American Occupational Therapy Association *Watling, R. L., Deitz, J., & White, O. (2001). Comparison of Sen-
conference, Charlotte, NC. sory Profile scores of young children with and without autism
Schauder, K. B., & Bennetto, L. (2016). Toward an interdisciplinary spectrum disorders. American Journal of Occupational Therapy,
understanding of sensory dysfunction in autism spectrum dis- 55(4), 416–423. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.55.4.416.
order: An integration of the neural and symptom literatures. *Watson, L. R., Patten, E., Baranek, G. T., Poe, M., Boyd, B. A.,
Frontiers in Neuroscience, 10, 268. https: //doi.org/10.3389/fnins Freuler, A., et al. (2011). Differential associations between sen-
.2016.00268. sory response patterns and language, social, and communication
*Schupak, B. (2014). Electrodermal activity as an indicator of sensory measures in children with autism or other developmental disabili-
processing in typically developing children and children with ties. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54(6),
autism spectrum disorders. Submitted in partial fulfillment of 1562–1576. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0029).
the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Health Wechsler, D. (1989). WPPSI-R: Wechsler preschool and primary
Sciences, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ. scale of intelligence—Revised. San Antonio: Psychological
Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D., & Cicchetti, D. (1984). Vineland adaptive Corporation.
behavior scales. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Wechsler, D. (1991). WISC-III: Wechsler intelligence scale for chil-
*Stewart, C. R., Sanchez, S. S., Grenesko, E. L., Brown, C. M., Chen, dren: Manual. Psychological Corporation.
C. P., Keehn, B., et al. (2016). Sensory symptoms and process- Wechsler, D. (1997). Technical manual for the wechsler adult intel-
ing of nonverbal auditory and visual stimuli in children with ligence test—Third. San Antonio: San Antonio Psychological
autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Corporation.
13
Wechsler, D. (2002). Wechsler primary and preschool scale of intel- Spectrum Disorders, 6(3), 1234–1246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ligence. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. rasd.2012.03.012.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler intelligence scale for children–fourth Zimmerman, I., Steiner, V., & Pond, R. (2002). Preschool lan-
edition (WISC-IV). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological guage scale (4th Ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological
Corporation. Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2011). WASI-II: Wechsler abbreviated scale of intel- *Zobel-Lachiusa, J., Andrianopoulos, M. V., Mailloux, Z., & Cermak,
ligence. PsychCorp. S. A. (2015). Sensory differences and mealtime behavior in chil-
*Wiggins, L. D., Robins, D. L., Bakeman, R., & Adamson, L. B. dren with autism. American Journal of Occupational Therapy.
(2009). Brief report: Sensory abnormalities as distinguishing https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2015.016790.
symptoms of autism spectrum disorders in young children. Jour-
nal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(7), 1087–1091. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-0711-x. jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
*Woodard, C. R., Goodwin, M. S., Zelazo, P. R., Aube, D., Scrimgeour,
M., Ostholthoff, T., et al. (2012). A comparison of auto-
nomic, behavioral, and parent-report measures of sensory
sensitivity in young children with autism. Research in Autism
13
Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders is a copyright of Springer, 2019. All Rights
Reserved.

Meta Analisis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meta Analisis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Meta Analisis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders (2019) 49:4974–4996

Update of a Meta‑analysis of Sensory Symptoms in ASD: A New

Published online: 9 September 2019

Keywords Autism spectrum disorders · Sensory symptoms · Sensory profile · Meta-analysis

Introduction to as impairments in sensory modulation in which an indi-

to TD groups. Furthermore, we expected to find moderating

Literature Search Methods

This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for

Table 1 Study characteristics

Ermer and Dunn (1998)i ASD 38 3–13 SPa

Watson et al. (2011)i ASD 72 4.36 (1.38) 52.68 (30)1,13d 2 85 SEQ-1e

DD 44 4 (1.83) 111.5 (13)7 57

TD 58 6.7 (2.4) 3–11 78

viIQ computed from MA by authors or by us

is needed to identify moderators for SOR. Potential can-

Table 2 Effect size of sensory Author SOR SUR SEEK

Rogers et al. (2003) 0.15 [− 0.37, 0.67] − 1.35 [− 1.87, − 0.84]

At the review level we aimed to reduce risk bias through Conclusions

References Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(1), 1–11. https​://doi.

You might also like

References Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(1), 1–11. https://doi.