Student Radar

Evidence and limits

Student Radar Sensory Profiler: evidence and limits

The Sensory Profiler is a non-diagnostic planning aid for school staff. It organises reported patterns and offers cautious classroom ideas. It cannot diagnose a child or prove that a strategy will work.

Its strategy catalogue and citations are curated. The model is instructed to adapt summary and strategy wording only; it receives pre-selected strategy IDs, not the citation library.

Evidence library
38 sources
Strategy catalogue
75 strategies
Library check
Evidence library last reviewed .

How this tool is grounded

The Sensory Profiler is informed by Dunn’s sensory processing framework, Ayres-informed occupational therapy literature, school participation research and emerging interoception literature.

It is not an online version of any proprietary assessment. The seven-domain split is a practitioner-friendly extension for school staff, not a diagnostic model.

The domains are visual, auditory, tactile, vestibular, proprioceptive, interoceptive, and olfactory or gustatory.

Patterns follow Dunn’s four quadrants: Seeking, Avoiding, Sensitive and Registration.

Registration is distinct: a child who does not notice input is not the same as one who actively seeks more, even if both can look "switched off until suddenly not".

Strategies are pre-curated, linked to sources that inform them and labelled by source tier. The model is instructed to adapt summary and strategy wording only.

The request contains no child name, school, SEND status, year group, setting or free text. It includes anonymous observations, pre-selected strategy IDs and curated base copy, but no citation text.

Citations are added after generation from this curated list.

Before display, generated text is checked for the supplied strategy IDs and a defined list of citation-like and diagnostic terms.

One curated strategy intentionally discusses diagnostic wording and is exempt from that diagnostic-term check.

If a structural or lexical check fails, the tool uses template-generated prose with unmodified strategy copy. The curated strategies and citations remain the same in both paths.

These structural and lexical checks reduce known failure modes; they do not establish semantic accuracy. Staff must review every profile before using it.

What the evidence labels mean

A source’s tier and quality do not, by themselves, prove that a classroom strategy is effective. They show how cautiously a source should inform the wording.

Conceptual sources explain a framework. Association studies can show relationships, but not cause or intervention effects. Professional guidance sets practice expectations.

Intervention-effect evidence tests whether a defined approach changes outcomes. Its relevance still depends on the population, setting, dosage, comparator and outcome.

Three tiers of evidence

Tiers describe the source material and guide claim strength. They do not grade a classroom strategy’s effectiveness.

  1. Tier 1

    Higher-quality or authoritative

    Established conceptual work, systematic reviews, comparative studies, trials and professional position statements sit here. The tier describes the source, not proof that every linked classroom strategy works.

  2. Tier 2

    Practitioner consensus

    Scoping reviews, qualitative and association studies, practice texts, theory and neuroscience can inform cautious framing. They do not, as a group, establish intervention effects.

  3. Tier 3

    Emerging or contested

    Pilot, feasibility and contested sources identify emerging questions or caution. They should not be presented as proof that a linked strategy is effective.

Full source list

38 sources currently informing the tool and 75 strategies in the curated catalogue. The list grows as the strategies library expands.

Tier 1: Higher-quality or authoritative

  1. Dunn, W. (1997). The impact of sensory processing abilities on the daily lives of young children and their families: A conceptual model. Infants & Young Children, 9(4), 23–35.

    Foundational conceptual paper introducing the four-quadrant model of sensory processing that underpins much of school-based sensory practice.

    doi:10.1097/00001163-199704000-00005Informs 8 strategies

  2. Dunn, W. (2001). The sensations of everyday life: Empirical, theoretical, and pragmatic considerations. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55(6), 608–620.

    Mature statement of Dunn’s framework: patterns are different responses to ordinary sensory experience, not simply “more” or “less” sensory need.

    doi:10.5014/ajot.55.6.608Informs 0 strategies

  3. Dunn, W. (2007). Supporting children to participate successfully in everyday life by using sensory processing knowledge. Infants & Young Children, 20(2), 84–101.

    Translates Dunn’s framework into everyday participation and support planning. Useful for adult-response framing in school settings.

    doi:10.1097/01.IYC.0000264477.05076.5dInforms 14 strategies

  4. Dunn, W. (2014). Sensory Profile 2 user’s manual. Pearson Assessments.

    Proprietary standardised assessment that operationalises the four quadrants (Seeking, Avoiding, Sensitivity, Registration) for caregiver and teacher report. Referenced as inspiration, not reproduced.

    linkInforms 6 strategies

  5. Dunn, W., Little, L., Dean, E., Robertson, S., & Evans, B. (2016). The state of the science on sensory factors and their impact on daily life for children: A scoping review. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 36(2 Suppl.), 3S–26S.

    Broad scoping review of how sensory factors relate to daily occupations and participation in children.

    doi:10.1177/1539449215617923Informs 0 strategies

  6. Ismael, N., Lawson, L. M., & Hartwell, J. (2018). Relationship between sensory processing and participation in daily occupations for children with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review of studies that used Dunn’s sensory processing framework. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72(3), 7203205030p1–7203205030p8.

    Systematic review confirming that sensory patterning matters because it affects participation in everyday activity.

    doi:10.5014/ajot.2018.024075Informs 1 strategy

  7. Tomchek, S. D., & Dunn, W. (2007). Sensory processing in children with and without autism: A comparative study using the Short Sensory Profile. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(2), 190–200.

    Heavily cited comparative study establishing prevalence and pattern distinctions in autistic children.

    doi:10.5014/ajot.61.2.190Informs 0 strategies

  8. Ausderau, K. K., Sideris, J., Furlong, M., Little, L. M., Bulluck, J., & Baranek, G. T. (2014). National survey of sensory features in children with ASD: Factor structure of the sensory experiences questionnaire (3.0). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(4), 915–925.

    Important for heterogeneity: supports the principle that combinations of sensory patterns matter rather than any one quadrant.

    doi:10.1007/s10803-013-1945-1Informs 0 strategies

  9. Little, L. M., Ausderau, K., Sideris, J., & Baranek, G. T. (2015). Activity participation and sensory features among children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(9), 2981–2990.

    Links sensory features to real-world activity participation, supporting participation-focused strategy framing.

    doi:10.1007/s10803-015-2460-3Informs 1 strategy

  10. Little, L. M., Dean, E., Tomchek, S., & Dunn, W. (2018). Sensory processing patterns in autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and typical development. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 38(3), 243–254.

    Important for use with mixed neurodevelopmental profiles: sensory patterns differ across autism, ADHD, and typical development.

    doi:10.1080/01942638.2017.1390809Informs 0 strategies

  11. Baranek, G. T., David, F. J., Poe, M. D., Stone, W. L., & Watson, L. R. (2006). Sensory Experiences Questionnaire: Discriminating sensory features in young children with autism, developmental delays, and typical development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(6), 591–601.

    Foundational source for observable behavioural items in sensory assessment with young children.

    doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01546.xInforms 0 strategies

  12. Ben-Sasson, A., Hen, L., Fluss, R., Cermak, S. A., Engel-Yeger, B., & Gal, E. (2009). A meta-analysis of sensory modulation symptoms in individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(1), 1–11.

    Confirms sensory modulation symptoms (over-responsivity, under-responsivity and seeking) are common and heterogeneous in autistic children.

    doi:10.1007/s10803-008-0593-3Informs 0 strategies

  13. Ben-Sasson, A., Carter, A. S., & Briggs-Gowan, M. J. (2009). Sensory over-responsivity in elementary school: Prevalence and social–emotional correlates. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(5), 705–716.

    Prevalence and impact of sensory over-responsivity in primary-aged children, including social–emotional correlates.

    doi:10.1007/s10802-008-9295-8Informs 10 strategies

  14. Miller-Kuhaneck, H., & Watling, R. (2018). Parental or teacher education and coaching to support function and participation of children and youth with sensory processing and sensory integration challenges: A systematic review. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72(1), 7201190030p1–7201190030p11.

    Systematic review supporting adult coaching and education as one of the stronger pillars of the evidence base for school-based sensory work.

    doi:10.5014/ajot.2018.029017Informs 4 strategies

  15. Bodison, S. C., & Parham, L. D. (2018). Specific sensory techniques and sensory environmental modifications for children and youth with sensory integration difficulties: A systematic review. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72(1), 7201190040p1–7201190040p11.

    Systematic review of specific sensory techniques and environmental modifications. Useful for setting evidence-tier expectations on individual classroom tools.

    doi:10.5014/ajot.2018.029413Informs 3 strategies

  16. Case-Smith, J., Weaver, L. L., & Fristad, M. A. (2015). A systematic review of sensory processing interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders. Autism, 19(2), 133–148.

    Central review of the overall intervention landscape: stronger support for Ayres-style sensory integration than for piecemeal sensory-based interventions.

    doi:10.1177/1362361313517762Informs 0 strategies

  17. Ouellet, B., Carreau, E., Dion, V., Rouat, A., Tremblay, E., & Voisin, J. I. A. (2021). Efficacy of sensory interventions on school participation of children with sensory disorders: A systematic review. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 15(1), 75–83.

    Systematic review centring school participation as the primary outcome for sensory interventions. It supports the participation-focused framing of this tool.

    doi:10.1177/1559827618784274Informs 3 strategies

  18. Fedewa, A. L., Davis, M. A. C., & Ahn, S. (2015). Effects of stability balls on children’s on-task behavior, academic achievement, and discipline referrals: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69(2), 6902220020p1–6902220020p9.

    Randomised controlled trial finding similar overall on-task behaviour and academic achievement between groups, alongside a descriptive decrease in discipline referrals in treatment classrooms. The referral result was not inferentially tested, and the authors judged whole-class provision an impractical use of resources.

    doi:10.5014/ajot.2015.014829Informs 1 strategy

  19. MacPhee, F. L., Merrill, B. M., Altszuler, A. R., Ramos, M. C., Gnagy, E. M., Greiner, A. R., Coxe, S., Raiker, J. S., Coles, E., & Pelham, W. E. (2019). The effect of weighted vests and stability balls with and without psychostimulant medication on classroom outcomes for children with ADHD. School Psychology, 34(4), 391–401.

    Trial finding limited additive benefit of weighted vests and stability balls over medication and standard care for ADHD classroom outcomes. Useful counterweight to claims for these tools.

    doi:10.1037/spq0000308Informs 2 strategies

  20. Piller, A., McHugh Conlin, J., Glennon, T. J., Andelin, L., Auld-Wright, K., Teng, K., & Tarver, T. (2025). Systematic review of sensory-based interventions for children and youth (2015–2024). Frontiers in Pediatrics, 13, 1720179.

    Central modern review. Reports strong evidence for deep-pressure tactile input and caregiver training; moderate evidence that alternative seating does not improve attention; and a lack of evidence for sensory environmental modifications.

    doi:10.3389/fped.2025.1720179Informs 17 strategies

  21. Royal College of Occupational Therapists. (2026, March). Using sensory integration therapy, sensory-based interventions and sensory approaches with children and young people: An informed view.

    UK professional position. Participation-focused, plain about evidence limits, and advises against treating SPD as an independent diagnosis.

    linkInforms 1 strategy

  22. American Occupational Therapy Association. (2023). Position statement: Sensory integration approaches for children and youth within occupational therapy practice. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 77(Suppl. 3), 7713410230.

    AOTA position locating sensory integration approaches within occupational therapy scope of practice, including appropriately selected individual, group, and classroom applications.

    doi:10.5014/ajot.2023.77s3004Informs 0 strategies

  23. Acuña, C., Gallegos-Berrios, S., Barfoot, J., Meredith, P., & Hill, J. (2025). Ayres sensory integration® with children ages 0 to 12: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79(3), 7903205180.

    Systematic review finding that fidelity-measured Ayres Sensory Integration can support individualised goals for autistic children aged 0 to 12. It found no benefit for behaviours of concern and insufficient evidence for other populations.

    doi:10.5014/ajot.2025.051023Informs 2 strategies

  24. Schaaf, R. C., Ridgway, E. M., Jones, E. A., Dumont, R. L., Foxe, J., Conly, T., Sancimino, C., Yi, M., Mailloux, Z., Hunt, J. M., Kirschner, L., Leiby, B. E., & Molholm, S. (2025). A comparative trial of occupational therapy using Ayres sensory integration and applied behavior analysis interventions for autistic children. Autism Research, 18(10), 2120–2134.

    Comparative trial showing improvements in individualised goals for both arms over no-treatment controls.

    doi:10.1002/aur.70099Informs 3 strategies

Tier 2: Practitioner consensus

  1. Jones, E. K., Hanley, M., & Riby, D. M. (2020). Distraction, distress and diversity: Exploring the impact of sensory processing differences on learning and school life for pupils with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 72, 101515.

    Qualitative work giving practitioner-friendly language for distraction, distress, anxiety, and participation barriers in school.

    doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2020.101515Informs 5 strategies

  2. Kinnealey, M., Pfeiffer, B., Miller, J., Roan, C., Shoener, R., & Ellner, M. L. (2012). Effect of classroom modification on attention and engagement of students with autism or dyspraxia. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66(5), 511–519.

    Classroom-environment modifications around sound and lighting; cautious wording warranted given study scope.

    doi:10.5014/ajot.2012.004010Informs 4 strategies

  3. Lane, S. J., Mailloux, Z., Schoen, S., Bundy, A., May-Benson, T. A., Parham, L. D., Smith Roley, S., & Schaaf, R. C. (2019). Neural foundations of Ayres sensory integration. Brain Sciences, 9(7), 153.

    Theoretical and neurobiological context for vestibular, proprioceptive and tactile system function in sensory integration.

    doi:10.3390/brainsci9070153Informs 13 strategies

  4. Kilroy, E., Aziz-Zadeh, L., & Cermak, S. (2019). Ayres theories of autism and sensory integration revisited: What contemporary neuroscience has to say. Brain Sciences, 9(3), 68.

    Bridges Ayres’ classic theory and contemporary neuroscience evidence on autism and sensory integration.

    doi:10.3390/brainsci9030068Informs 0 strategies

  5. Bogdashina, O. (2016). Sensory perceptual issues in autism and Asperger syndrome: Different sensory experiences, different perceptual worlds (2nd ed.). Jessica Kingsley.

    Practitioner-oriented framework on autistic sensory experience and phenomenology. Useful for language, not for efficacy claims.

    Informs 21 strategies

  6. Goodall, E. (2022). Interoception and mental wellbeing in autistic people. Jessica Kingsley.

    Practitioner reference for interoception in school contexts: accessible framing, not a substitute for efficacy evidence.

    Informs 4 strategies

  7. Clark, E., Brown, T., & Yu, M.-L. (2025). Interoception and its application to paediatric occupational therapy: A scoping review. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 72(1), e12997.

    Scoping review of an emerging paediatric occupational therapy practice area; evidence supporting current interoception assessments and interventions remains limited.

    doi:10.1111/1440-1630.12997Informs 5 strategies

Tier 3: Emerging or contested

  1. Randell, E., Wright, M., Milosevic, S., Gillespie, D., Brookes-Howell, L., Busse-Morris, M., Hastings, R., Maboshe, W., Williams-Thomas, R., Mills, L., Romeo, R., Yaziji, N., McKigney, A. M., Ahuja, A., Warren, G., Glarou, E., Delport, S., & McNamara, R. (2022). Sensory integration therapy for children with autism and sensory processing difficulties: The SenITA RCT. Health Technology Assessment, 26(29), 1–140.

    NIHR-funded RCT. Sensory integration therapy did not show clinical benefit above standard care and was more costly, though some goal-based signals were of interest.

    doi:10.3310/tqge0020Informs 1 strategy

  2. Miller, L. J., Anzalone, M. E., Lane, S. J., Cermak, S. A., & Osten, E. T. (2007). Concept evolution in sensory integration: A proposed nosology for diagnosis. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(2), 135–140.

    Historically influential proposal for a sensory processing disorder nosology, not universal diagnostic consensus, and contested in current practice guidance.

    doi:10.5014/ajot.61.2.135Informs 0 strategies

  3. Rogers, S. J., & Ozonoff, S. (2005). Annotation: What do we know about sensory dysfunction in autism? A critical review of the empirical evidence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(12), 1255–1268.

    Sobering critical review of sensory dysfunction claims in autism, included as a reminder that enthusiasm and evidence don’t always travel together.

    doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01431.xInforms 1 strategy

  4. Zimmer, M., Desch, L., & Section on Complementary and Integrative Medicine and Council on Children with Disabilities, American Academy of Pediatrics. (2012). Sensory integration therapies for children with developmental and behavioral disorders. Pediatrics, 129(6), 1186–1189.

    AAP policy statement: SPD should not be used as a stand-alone diagnosis, and evidence for sensory-based therapies was limited at the time.

    doi:10.1542/peds.2012-0876Informs 1 strategy

  5. Mahler, K., Hample, K., Jones, C., Sensenig, J., Thomasco, P., & Hilton, C. (2022). Impact of an interoception-based program on emotion regulation in autistic children. Occupational Therapy International, 2022, 9328967.

    Teacher-reported interoception and emotion-regulation scores improved after the programme; the small, uncontrolled school-based study is preliminary.

    doi:10.1155/2022/9328967Informs 9 strategies

  6. Mahler, K., Hample, K., Ensor, C., Ludwig, M., Palanzo-Sholly, L., Stang, A., Trevisan, D., & Hilton, C. (2024). An interoception-based intervention for improving emotional regulation in children in a special education classroom: Feasibility study. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 38(3), 636–650.

    Feasibility study for an interoception-based intervention in special education: school-relevant, emerging.

    doi:10.1080/07380577.2024.2313527Informs 3 strategies

  7. Hample, K., Mahler, K., & Amspacher, A. (2020). An interoception-based intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder: A pilot study. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention, 13(4), 339–352.

    Pilot study of an interoception-based intervention for autistic children: early-stage evidence.

    doi:10.1080/19411243.2020.1743221Informs 1 strategy

What this tool isn’t

  • It isn’t a web version of Sensory Profile 2 or any other proprietary assessment. SP2 inspired the four-quadrant pattern logic; nothing else is reproduced from it.
  • It isn’t a diagnostic instrument. The Royal College of Occupational Therapists and the American Academy of Pediatrics both advise against using "sensory processing disorder" (SPD) as a stand-alone diagnosis. The tool uses the language of "sensory processing differences" instead.
  • It isn’t a replacement for an occupational therapy assessment. Where a profile points to significant impact on participation, refer.
  • It doesn’t generate an EHCNA or write to any pupil record. Working answers stay in this browser tab, and generated output is held in an in-memory server cache for up to 10 minutes rather than being persisted to the Student Radar database.
  • It doesn’t treat any of the frameworks as settled. Where evidence is mixed (alternative seating, weighted items, generic sensory objects, interoception-based programmes), the tool flags it inline and on the strategy card.

Corrections welcome

If a citation is wrong, a source is misrepresented, or a strategy needs revising, email stuart@armley-jones.co.uk. Each correction is logged and the page updated.

Back to the profiler →

Student Radar SEND

Turn SEND guidance into joined-up action

Student Radar brings the SEND register, provision, plans, reviews and outcome evidence into one workspace for SENCos and school teams.

Request demo accessRequest a 30-minute walkthrough
Explore SEND capabilities