Student Radar
BESA Awards 2026 — Start-up of the Year shortlist

Research foundation

How the Sensory Profiler is grounded. Every strategy points to a source listed here; nothing in the output is invented by the language model.

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 (visual, auditory, tactile, vestibular, proprioceptive, interoceptive, olfactory/gustatory) is a practitioner-friendly extension of the standard four-quadrant model, useful for school staff rather than for diagnostic work.

Patterns follow Dunn’s four quadrants: Seeking, Avoiding, Sensitive, and Registration. Registration matters as a distinct presentation — a child who doesn’t notice input is not the same child as one who actively seeks more of it, even if both can look "switched off until suddenly not".

Strategies are pre-curated, tagged with the research and practitioner sources that inform them, and labelled by evidence tier. A language model writes the profile summary and adapts strategy wording to the context (year group, primary setting, self-advocacy). The model is locked out of generating strategies, citations, or research claims. Citations are added after the model has finished, from this curated list, so the model cannot confabulate a source.

If the model produces anything that resembles a citation, or any diagnostic language the tool deliberately avoids (such as "sensory processing disorder" or "SPD"), the output is rejected. If two attempts both fail validation, the tool falls back to template-generated prose with unmodified strategy copy — the strategies and citations are correct in both cases.

Three tiers of evidence

Sources are tiered so the language of each strategy matches the strength of its evidence base.

Tier 1

Evidence-based

Peer-reviewed research with reasonable consensus, systematic reviews, RCTs and comparative trials, and position statements from RCOT, AOTA, AAP, and NIHR. Strategies drawing on these sources are stated confidently.

Tier 2

Practitioner consensus

Scoping reviews, qualitative work, influential practice texts, and theoretical or neuroscience pieces that inform practitioner framing without being decisive on efficacy. Strategies are stated with appropriate hedging.

Tier 3

Emerging or contested

Pilot and feasibility studies where clinical enthusiasm has run slightly ahead of the evidence, cautionary statements, and contested theoretical claims. The tool flags these explicitly with an inline caveat on each strategy.

Full source list

39 sources currently informing the tool. The list grows as the strategies library expands.

Tier 1 — Evidence-based

  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. 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.

    Practitioner-oriented synthesis of vestibular, proprioceptive and tactile system function and how sensory integration acts on functional difficulties.

    doi:10.3390/brainsci9070153Informs 0 strategies

  18. 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. Occupational Therapy International, 2021, 9991344.

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

    doi:10.1155/2021/9991344Informs 3 strategies

  19. 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 stability balls did not improve on-task behaviour, academic achievement, or discipline referrals as a whole-class solution.

    doi:10.5014/ajot.2015.014258Informs 1 strategy

  20. 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

  21. Piller, A., Bowdrie, K., Fingerhut, P. E., Lee, C. C., Roush, J. M., Stoeger, J., & Tona, J. L. (2025). Systematic review of sensory-based interventions for children and youth (2015–2024). American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79(2), 7902185100.

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

    doi:10.5014/ajot.2025.050924Informs 17 strategies

  22. 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

  23. American Occupational Therapy Association. (2024). Sensory integration approaches for children and youth within occupational therapy practice (Official document, 2023). American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 78(Suppl. 2), 7812410010.

    AOTA position locating sensory integration approaches within occupational therapy scope of practice, not as a general-purpose classroom approach.

    doi:10.5014/ajot.2024.78S2010Informs 0 strategies

  24. Acuña, V., Bustamante, V., & Schaaf, R. C. (2025). Ayres sensory integration® with children ages 0 to 12: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79(3), 7903205020.

    Recent systematic review of RCTs, reaching more favourable conclusions for Ayres-style sensory integration when individualised goals are the outcome.

    doi:10.5014/ajot.2025.050930Informs 2 strategies

  25. Schaaf, R. C., Mailloux, Z., Benevides, T. W., Pfeiffer, B., Bodison, S. C., & Coleman, G. (2025). A comparative trial of occupational therapy using Ayres sensory integration® and applied behavior analysis interventions for autistic children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79(4), 7904205010.

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

    doi:10.5014/ajot.2025.050936Informs 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, S. E., Bjornson, K., & Engel, J. M. (2025). Interoception and its application to paediatric occupational therapy: A scoping review. British Journal of Occupational Therapy.

    Recent scoping review of paediatric OT interoception literature — promising, relevant, still thin in places.

    doi:10.1177/03080226251309877Informs 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., Robinson, A. C., Williams, A., Cannings-John, R., Warren, G., Kovshoff, H., Ahuja, A., Warren, F., … 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/RBWT9907Informs 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. J., Hample, K., Jones, C., Sensenig, J., Thomasco, P., & Hilton, C. L. (2022). Impact of an interoception-based program on emotion regulation in autistic children. Occupational Therapy International, 2022, 9933579.

    Small school-based study suggesting interoception-focused work supports emotion regulation in autistic children — promising but not definitive.

    doi:10.1155/2022/9933579Informs 9 strategies

  6. Mahler, K. J., Wagner, C., Knox, S., Lybarger, C., Yang, S., & Hilton, C. L. (2024). An interoception-based intervention for improving emotional regulation in children in a special education classroom: A feasibility study. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1336249.

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

    doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1336249Informs 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:10.1080/19411243.2020.1743220Informs 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, write to any pupil record, or store the inputs you make.
  • 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 →