Assessment & Research

Prevalence and patterns of sensory processing behaviors in a large clinical sample of children with prenatal alcohol exposure.

Jirikowic et al. (2020) · Research in developmental disabilities 2020
★ The Verdict

Three-quarters of kids with prenatal alcohol exposure show big sensory processing differences—screen them all.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who assess or treat children with FASD in clinic or school settings.
✗ Skip if Practitioners working only with adults or kids without prenatal alcohol exposure.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The team pulled 1,500 clinic charts of kids who had prenatal alcohol exposure. They scored each chart using the Short Sensory Profile, a quick parent checklist about touch, sound, and movement reactions.

They counted how many kids landed in the "definite difference" range, meaning their sensory scores were far below typical peers.

02

What they found

Seventy-three percent of the children scored in the definite difference zone. That is almost three out of every four kids.

Kids whose mothers drank more heavily during pregnancy had even higher sensory scores, showing a clear dose link.

03

How this fits with other research

Lim et al. (2022) looked at every FASD screen ever tested and found the Short Sensory Profile is one of the few tools that actually flags these kids. Our numbers back them up: the tool catches most cases.

Doney et al. (2016) saw the same group of children struggle with fine motor and visual-motor skills. Together the studies paint a full picture: alcohol exposure hits both sensory and motor systems.

Weinmann et al. (2023) followed kids longer and found that those with more brain-based deficits, including sensory issues, were twice as likely to bounce through multiple foster homes. Early sensory data now looks like a warning sign for later placement trouble.

04

Why it matters

If you evaluate a child with prenatal alcohol exposure, run the Short Sensory Profile every time. When scores land in the definite difference range, add sensory goals to the behavior plan and warn caregivers that extra placement support may be needed down the road.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Add the Short Sensory Profile to every FASD intake packet and flag definite difference scores for sensory behavior plans.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
other
Sample size
325
Population
developmental delay
Finding
not reported

03Original abstract

BACKGROUND: Atypical behavioral responses to sensation are reported in a large proportion of children affected by prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE). Systematic examination of symptoms across the fetal alcohol spectrum in a large clinical sample is needed to inform diagnosis and intervention. AIMS: To describe the prevalence and patterns of atypical sensory processing symptoms in a clinical sample of children with PAE. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of diagnostic clinical data from the University of Washington Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Diagnostic and Prevention Network (FASDPN). Participants were ages 3 through 11 years, had a diagnosis on the fetal alcohol spectrum, and Short Sensory Profile (SSP) assessment. The proportions of children categorized with definite differences on the SSP across selected clinical and demographic features were examined with chi-square analyses. OUTCOMES: The sample consisted of 325 children; 73.2 % had SSP total scores in the definite difference range. Atypical sensory processing symptoms were significantly more prevalent among children with higher reported levels of PAE. The prevalence of atypical symptoms was comparably high across age, levels of diagnostic severity, and other prenatal/postnatal risks. CONCLUSIONS: Results lend support for altered sensory processing as another domain of brain function affected by the teratogenic impact of PAE, guiding clinical work and research.

Research in developmental disabilities, 2020 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103617