Optimizing participation of children with autism spectrum disorder experiencing sensory challenges: A clinical reasoning framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Remedial sensory interventions currently lack supportive evidence and can be challenging to implement for families and clinicians. It may be timely to shift the focus to optimizing participation of children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) through accommodation and self-regulation of their sensory differences. PURPOSE: A framework to guide practitioners in selecting strategies is proposed based on clinical reasoning considerations, including (a) research evidence, (b) client- and family-centredness, (c) practice contexts, (d) occupation-centredness, and (e) risks. KEY ISSUES: Information-sharing with families and coaching constitute the basis for intervention. Specific strategies are identified where sensory aversions or seeking behaviours, challenges with modulation of arousal, or sensory-related behaviours interfere with participation. Self-regulatory strategies are advocated. The application of universal design principles to shared environments is also recommended. IMPLICATIONS: The implications of this framework for future research, education, and practice are discussed. The clinical utility of the framework now needs to be tested.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".