<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ASD and Sensory Sensitivities</title>
	<atom:link href="http://yourtherapysource.com/blog/index.php/2009/03/17/asd-and-sensory-sensitivities/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://yourtherapysource.com/blog/2009/03/17/asd-and-sensory-sensitivities/</link>
	<description>Pediatric Occupational and Physical Therapy Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Nov 2010 17:11:53 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://yourtherapysource.com/blog/2009/03/17/asd-and-sensory-sensitivities/comment-page-1/#comment-173</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yourtherapysource.com/blog/2009/03/17/asd-and-sensory-sensitivities/#comment-173</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve tried sparking debate on this topic several times, most recently at http://abctherapeutics.blogspot.com/2008/12/empirical-vs-innate-knowledge-in.html&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The problem with the concept of sensory processing disorder, if it exists, is that there is little clinical utility in the designation.  We don&#039;t have sophisticated enough tools to tease apart sensory from behavioral characteristics of other disorders.  &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The tools that we DO have are being used to make bigger statements than I professionally feel comfortable making.  I don&#039;t think we can talk about percentages of kids having some unique disorder when kids with other &#039;known&#039; disorders are shown to also score poorly on the test.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;In my opinion, this makes for a weak foundation from which to develop a position for diagnostic inclusion of SPD.  Unfortunately, not many people want to have an open debate about it - on the web at least.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Our science in this area is in a very nascent stage of development.  Admitting that is not heresy - or even nay saying.  It is just reflective of an expressed interest to move it forward at a logical pace and in an unbiased direction.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve tried sparking debate on this topic several times, most recently at <a href="http://abctherapeutics.blogspot.com/2008/12/empirical-vs-innate-knowledge-in.html" rel="nofollow">http://abctherapeutics.blogspot.com/2008/12/empirical-vs-innate-knowledge-in.html</a></p>
<p>The problem with the concept of sensory processing disorder, if it exists, is that there is little clinical utility in the designation.  We don&#8217;t have sophisticated enough tools to tease apart sensory from behavioral characteristics of other disorders.  </p>
<p>The tools that we DO have are being used to make bigger statements than I professionally feel comfortable making.  I don&#8217;t think we can talk about percentages of kids having some unique disorder when kids with other &#8216;known&#8217; disorders are shown to also score poorly on the test.</p>
<p>In my opinion, this makes for a weak foundation from which to develop a position for diagnostic inclusion of SPD.  Unfortunately, not many people want to have an open debate about it &#8211; on the web at least.</p>
<p>Our science in this area is in a very nascent stage of development.  Admitting that is not heresy &#8211; or even nay saying.  It is just reflective of an expressed interest to move it forward at a logical pace and in an unbiased direction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.249 seconds -->

