Measuring Sensory Reactivity in Autism Spectrum Disorder: Application and Simplification of a Clinician-Administered Sensory Observation Scale.

Tavassoli et al. (2016) tested a short clinician checklist for sensory issues in kids with autism. They watched kids do five quick tasks like touching sticky paper or listening to whistles. Then they compared scores to the full Sensory Profile completed by parents.

The goal was to find the smallest set of hands-on tasks that still spot sensory differences between autistic and neurotypical children.

The five-task subset matched the parent report well and cleanly split the ASD group from the TD group. Using these five items plus the parent Short Sensory Profile gave a fast, valid screen for sensory reactivity.

Simpson et al. (2019) later used the parent SSP-2 in 271 autistic kids and found two sensory subtypes: one globally elevated, one high only in avoiding/sensitivity. Their work extends Teresa’s screen by showing which quadrants to check first after the quick flag.

Fernández-Andrés et al. (2015) had already shown teachers rate sensory and praxis problems higher than parents do. Teresa’s call to pair brief clinician tasks with parent SSP echoes that same rater-discrepancy warning.

Stichter et al. (2009) used a longer Chinese Sensory Profile to separate ASD from TD kids but could not separate ASD from ADHD. Teresa’s shorter tool keeps the ASD vs TD gap while saving time.

You can now screen sensory reactivity in under ten minutes. Run the five observation items, hand the parent the SSP, and you have a valid picture. If scores are high, dive into the avoiding and sensitivity quadrants first—Kate’s subtypes tell you where to look. Always ask both parent and teacher, because Inmaculada’s data show they see different things.