Effects of sensory integration therapy in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
SIT gives small-to-medium boosts in motor and daily skills, yet evidence for balance and sensory processing remains weak.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Park et al. (2026) pooled 23 randomized trials of sensory integration therapy (SIT).
Kids had autism, ADHD, or other developmental diagnoses. Therapists used swings, trampolines, and tactile play to boost motor and daily skills.
What they found
Motor skills and daily-living goals improved, but balance, drawing, and sensory scores did not.
In short: SIT helps kids move and cope a little better, yet it does not fix core sensory issues.
How this fits with other research
Wan Yunus et al. (2015) called sensory evidence “inconclusive.” The new meta adds eight years of stricter trials, so the picture now tilts positive.
MacFarland et al. (2025) ran one of the 23 trials. They saw equal gains from 30 hours of SIT or ABA. The meta mirrors that: small wins, no magic bullet.
Gao et al. (2026) also found medium motor gains, but with video games instead of swings. Movement helps; the toy you use may not matter much.
Why it matters
You can offer SIT for motor or self-care goals, but do not expect it to erase sensory seeking or balance woes. Pair it with ABA or physical play to cover more ground, and track each goal separately so families see real progress.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add one SIT motor activity to your session, measure the exact skill, and graph it weekly.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Sensory integration therapy (SIT) has been widely applied to address difficulties in daily performance resulting from inefficient processing of sensory information. AIMS: This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effects of SIT in children based on evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Twenty-three RCTs out of 1406 articles were included. Meta-analyses were performed for proximal outcomes (motor skills, balance, visual construction, and sensory processing) and distal outcomes (daily functioning and individualized goals). OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: SIT produced significant improvements in motor skills (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.03-0.89). Furthermore, SIT enhanced daily functioning (SMD = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.16-1.08) and individualized goals (SMD = 1.71, 95% CI = 0.80-2.62). Balance, visual construction, and sensory processing did not demonstrate statistically significant effects. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: SIT is an effective intervention for improving motor functions and for supporting better performance and participation in everyday occupations among children.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2026 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2026.105269