Artifactual effects of sensory-integrative therapy on self-injurious behavior.

The team ran a functional analysis on a child who was getting sensory-integrative therapy for self-injury.

They wanted to see if the therapy really helped, or if something else explained the drop in hits.

Sensory sessions looked good at first, but the behavior bounced back once the FA showed the true pay-off.

Only a behavior plan that removed the real reinforcer gave lasting relief.

Chan et al. (2005) later reported mixed results for multisensory rooms, noting mood gains yet no drop in aggression or stereotypy. Their data line up with A et al.—pleasant rooms feel nice, but they do not cut serious behavior.

Putnam et al. (2003) pushed the same FA message to toddlers. In thirty preschoolers, a quick FA found the pay-off in most kids and led to function-based treatment, proving the rule works even at very young ages.

Dawson et al. (2025) now layer extra checks—self-restraint tests, competing items—before writing an adolescent’s plan. They treat the 1990 warning as step one: verify the function first, then build the package.

Before you add weighted vests, brushing, or swing time to a behavior plan, run an FA. If the sensory item is merely paired with the real reinforcer, the gains will wash out and you will chase ghosts. Pin the contingency, write a function-based fix, and save hours of pointless sensation sessions.