Journal of Research in Rehabilitation Sciences

The Effectiveness of Sensory-Motor Integration on Clumsiness in Children with Nonverbal Learning Disabilities

Document Type : Original Articles

Authors

1 PhD Student, Department of Psychology, School of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Psychology, School of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

3 Professor, Department of Psychology, Institute for Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, School of Psychology, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

10.22122/jrrs.v12i4.2695

Abstract

Introduction: One of the most important problems of children with nonverbal learning disabilities is clumsiness and poor coordination. This issue prevents children’s academic achievement and socio-emotional development. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of sensory-motor integration on clumsiness in children with nonverbal learning disabilities.Materials and Methods: The present study was performed through pre-test and post-test. For this purpose, 7 children with nonverbal learning disabilities (4 boys and 3 girls) in grades 2 to 5 of elementary school in Tehran, Iran, were selected using non-random sampling method. The Lincoln-Oseretsky motor scale was completed before and after the intervention and the data were analyzed using Wilcoxon test.Results: Sensory-motor integration had a positive significant effect on balance (P = 0.017), rough motor skills (P = 0.018), fine motor skills (P = 0.016), bilateral coordination (P = 0.012), and total clumsiness score (P = 0.016).Conclusion: The results showed that sensory-motor integration caused a significant difference in clumsiness in children with nonverbal learning disabilities and improved their motor skills in the four areas of balance, rough motor skills, fine motor skills, and bilateral coordination.

Keywords

  1. Antshel KM, Joseph GR. Maternal stress in nonverbal learning disorder: a comparison with reading disorder. J Learn Disabil 2006; 39(3): 194-205.
  2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). 5th ed. Washington, DC: APA; 2013.
  3. Davis JM, Broitman J. Nonverbal learning disabilities in children: Bridging the gap between science and practice. New York, NY: Springer; 2011.
  4. Boardman AG, Roberts G, Vaughn S, Wexler J, Murray CS, Kosanovich M. Effective instruction for adolescent struggling readers: a practice brief. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction; 2008.
  5. Parhon K, Pushanae K, Mahvash A, Ghafouri M. The effectiveness of rehabilitation sensory integration on the symptoms of children with non-verbal learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 2016; 6(2): 132-9. [In Persian].
  6. Bradley MC, Daley T, Levin M, O'Reilly F, Parsad A, Robertson A, et al. IDEA National Assessment Implementation Study. Final Report (NCEE 2011-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education; 2011.
  7. Nabizadeh R. What is non-verbal learning disorder? Journal of Exceptional Education 2005; 44(1): 42–5. [In Persian].
  8. Hands B. Changes in motor skill and fitness measures among children with high and low motor competence: a five-year longitudinal study. J Sci Med Sport 2008; 11(2): 155-62.
  9. Polatajko HJ, Mandich A. Enabling Occupation in children: The cognitive orientation to daily occupational performance (Co-Op) approach. Ottawa, ON: CAOT Publications ACE; 2004.
  10. Humphry R. Young children's occupations: explicating the dynamics of developmental processes. Am J Occup Ther 2002; 56(2): 171-9.
  11. Glennon TJ. Sensory integration and praxis test. In: Volkmar FR, editor. Encyclopedia of autism spectrum disorders. New York, NY: Springer; 2013. p. 2791-5.
  12. Ayres AJ. Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests (SIPT). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services; 1988.
  13. Goel R, Agarwal A, Shabbir A, So JB, Pasupathy S, Wong A, et al. Bariatric surgery in Singapore from 2005 to 2009. Asian J Surg 2013; 36(1): 36-9.
  14. Case-Smith J, O'Brien JC. Occupational therapy for children. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013.
  15. Schaaf RC, Miller LJ. Occupational therapy using a sensory integrative approach for children with developmental disabilities. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 2005; 11(2): 143-8.
  16. Case-Smith J. Variables related to successful school-based practice. Occup Ther J Res 1997; 17(2): 133-53.
  17. Smith T, Mruzek DW, Mozingo D. Sensory integrative therapy. In Jacobson J, Foxx R, Mulik J, editors. Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities: Fad, fashion, and science in professional practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005. p. 331-50.
  18. Razavieh A, Shahim S. A short form of the Wechsler preschool and primary scale of intelligence for use in Iran. Psychol Rep 1992; 71(3): 863-6.
  19. Ahadi B. Compare the performance of students with learning disabilities and students without learning disorders Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children [MSc Thesis]. Shiraz, Iran: University of Shiraz; 1994. [In Persian].
  20. Bialer I, Doll L, Winsberg BG. A modified Lincoln-Oseretsky Motor Development Scale: provisional standardization. Percept Mot Skills 1974; 38(2): 599-614.
Journal of Research in Rehabilitation Sciences
Volume 12, Issue 4 - Serial Number 4
September 2016
Pages 210-215