Pilot study on comparison of parent mediated SI therapy versus parent mediated behavioral techniques on sleep in autism spectrum disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. To compare the effectiveness of behavioral and sensory integration (SI) techniques on performance and sleep in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Methodology. Participants (mean age = 6.2 years; 9 males and 3 females; all diagnosed with ASD according to DSM-5 and functioning at a mild-to-moderate level) were divided into three groups (A, B, and C), each consisting of four participants. Group A received parent-mediated SI interventions, including deep pressure, swinging, brushing, joint compression, and vestibular input activities. Group B received parent-mediated behavioral interventions. Group C served as the control group. Outcomes were measured using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire (CSHQ). Results. Group A demonstrated significantly greater improvements in CSHQ and COPM subscales compared to Group B (behavioral therapy) and Group C (control) (p < 0.05). Group A scores for sleep difficulty were consistently lower, while performance and satisfaction scores were higher, reflecting superior outcomes. Pre-to-posttest analysis confirmed that Group A showed significantly better results than Group B (p < 0.05), particularly in sleep onset delay and performance scores. Group C showed no significant changes. One-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey’s test confirmed that Group A outcomes were significantly better than those of Group B and C, with assumptions of normality (Shapiro–Wilk) and homogeneity (Levene’s test) met. Conclusion. Sensory integration therapy was more effective than behavioral therapy in improving sleep habits and occupational performance in children with ASD. The findings highlight the importance of parent-involved sensory-based interventions in pediatric therapy. Further studies with larger samples and longer durations are needed to validate and expand these findings.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".