Sensory features in autism: Findings from a large population-based surveillance system.
Anne V Kirby, Deborah A Bilder, Lisa D Wiggins and 6 others
PMID 35040592WHAT IT FOUND
Sensory features were documented in 74% of 25,627 autistic children.
These features co-occurred with motor, attention, sleep, and eating challenges, but not with cognitive scores. Documentation was lower for girls, Black children, and Hispanic children, suggesting missed cases rather than true absence.
Key findings
01Sensory features were documented in 74.0% of the total sample, with a prevalence of 70.1% in 4-year-olds and 74.5% in 8-year-olds.
02In the multivariable model, sensory features were significantly associated with motor development, hyperactivity/attention, emotional states, aggression, fear, sleep, and eating/drinking problems, but not with cognitive scores.
03Male children had 1.20 times greater odds of documented sensory features than females, while Black, non-Hispanic and Hispanic children had significantly lower odds than White, non-Hispanic children.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study relied on a single binary variable ('odd responses to sensory stimuli') from record reviews rather than a validated sensory assessment tool, which limits the ability to distinguish between over-responsivity, under-responsivity, or sensory seeking. Absence of documentation did not necessarily mean absence of the feature; records may be incomplete or biased. High rates of missing data for key variables (e.g., 45% for adaptive behavior, 32.7% for maternal education) were retained as a separate category, which may introduce bias. The cross-sectional design prevents causal inferences about the relationship between sensory features and co-occurring challenges. Disparities in documentation (lower rates for girls and minority groups) likely reflect identification biases rather than true lower prevalence, meaning the reported 74% may be an underestimate.
Declared interests
Funded by the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities. No other specific conflicts of interest were detailed in the provided text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the lower documented prevalence in Black, Hispanic, and female children as evidence that these groups have fewer sensory issues. The authors attribute this to disparities in identification and access to services, suggesting that sensory features are likely under-diagnosed in these populations.