The design and implementation of a CBT-based intervention for sensory processing difficulties in adolescents on the autism spectrum.
A short CBT group helped autistic teens talk about sensory stress but did not move test scores.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Edgington et al. (2016) built an 8-week CBT group for autistic teens who struggle with noise, lights, or touch. The teens met once a week to learn how to spot sensory triggers and calm themselves.
The team ran the group in a clinic and asked parents and teens for feedback. They also gave standard sensory and anxiety tests before and after the sessions.
What they found
Teens said the group helped them notice their sensory feelings sooner. Parents told stories of fewer meltdowns at home.
Yet the before-and-after tests showed no big jump in scores. The numbers stayed flat even though the teens felt better.
How this fits with other research
Menezes et al. (2024) ran a 12-week Behavioral Activation group for autistic teens and saw clear gains in mood and anxiety scores. Both studies used the same pre-post design, but Michelle’s group met one-on-one and added reward-based action plans.
Dudley et al. (2019) tested the EASE program, a 16-week mindfulness group that also taught self-regulation. Like Louise, they saw teens report better coping, but EASE also showed measurable gains on emotion-regulation checklists.
Bottema-Beutel et al. (2023) reviewed all pilot studies for transition-age autistic youth and warned that most small trials miss real change because their tools are too wide. Louise’s flat scores fit this warning: the teens may have improved, but the tests were not sharp enough to catch it.
Why it matters
If you run groups for autistic teens, expect them to say they feel better even when your data stay flat. Use narrow, sensory-specific probes or daily diary apps instead of broad anxiety scales. Keep the group short and add take-home practice so teens can test skills in real places like cafeterias or buses.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a daily 0-10 sensory rating sheet to your teen’s homework and review it next session.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Unusual reactions to sensory input now form part of the diagnostic criteria for autism. These features are common and can have an often-devastating impact on autistic individuals and their families. Yet there are few validated interventions that help to remediate or support autistic individuals' adverse sensory experiences. To date, both measurement of sensory experiences and the resulting interventions have been based on assumptions of neurological sensitivities and largely ignored the role of cognition. This study therefore sought to assess the feasibility of a new 8-week CBT-based group intervention for self-regulation of sensory processing difficulties. METHOD: Seven cognitively able adolescents diagnosed with autism aged 11-16 years from one mainstream secondary school received the 8-week intervention. Measures of sensory reactivity, anxiety and repetitive behaviours were taken at baseline, post-intervention and follow-up, 8 weeks after the intervention had ceased. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were also conducted with adolescents and their parents to examine further the acceptability of the intervention. RESULTS: The results showed that the intervention itself was feasible - both in its implementation and its acceptability to participants. Qualitative analysis clearly showed that the intervention was effective in raising meta-conscious awareness and self-regulation in these autistic adolescents. Analysis of outcome variables showed no significant change over the intervention period, although effect sizes were moderate-to-large. CONCLUSIONS: These preliminary results are encouraging and should inform the design of a future pilot randomized controlled trial to test its efficacy with a larger group of participants.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2016 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2016.09.004