Risk factors associated with self-injurious behaviors in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorders.

Duerden et al. (2012) asked parents of 241 children with autism to fill out a survey. The survey looked at what might predict self-injury such as head-hitting or skin-picking.

They checked traits like sensory quirks, need for sameness, language level, and sleep issues. Then they ran stats to see which traits linked most strongly to SIB.

Two risk signs stood out above the rest: odd sensory responses and insistence on sameness. Kids who lined toys up or hated loud noise were more likely to hurt themselves.

Other factors like poor sleep or low talk showed weaker links. In short, sensory and sameness red flags gave the clearest SIB signal.

Granieri et al. (2020) looked at even younger kids with broad developmental delay. They also saw more SIB, but they stressed early age itself as the key driver. The two studies agree that SIB is common; G et al. narrow the focus to sensory and sameness within autism.

Shmaya et al. (2017) used sensory scores to predict meal-time problems, not self-injury. Their data show sensory issues ripple into many daily challenges, backing G et al.’s call to screen sensory profiles first.

Antezana et al. (2019) add a twist: girls with autism show more sameness and SIB than boys. This supports G et al.’s link and tells clinicians to weigh gender when judging risk.

Rooker et al. (2020) mapped injury severity to SIB function. They found automatically maintained SIB (often sensory based) causes the worst wounds. Their functional lens dovetails with G et al.’s sensory correlate and urges teams to watch sensory-driven SIB closely.

You can add two quick items to any intake: a sensory checklist and a sameness scale. If either score is high, plan deeper SIB assessment and start sensory-based prevention early. The move costs five minutes and may spare months of injury.