SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ergoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi / 2014 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of tactile preferences in children with pervasive developmental disorder and normal developing children

Yaygın gelişimsel bozukluğu olan ve normal gelişim gösteren çocukların taktil tercihlerinin karşılaştırılması

Babak Kashefi MEHR
Hülya KAYIHAN
Meral HURİ
Onur ALTUNTAŞ
Pages
21–28
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results: Group I choose hard objectssignificantly more than soft objects (r:0,823, p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: The aim of the study is to compare the tactile preferences of normal developing children and childrenwith pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) and investigate the relationships between tactile preference andsomatosensoriel perception.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and methods : 15 normal developing (Group I, n = 15 ) and 15 (Group II, n = 15) child with pervasive developmental disorder were asked to identify their tactile preference by Tactile Stimu-lus Preference Test and somatosensoriel perception was assessed with somatosensory subsets of SouthernCalifornia Sensory Integration and Praxis Test.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results: Group I choose hard objectssignificantly more than soft objects (r:0,823, p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the study is to compare the tactile preferences of normal developing children and childrenwith pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) and investigate the relationships between tactile preference andsomatosensoriel perception. Material and methods : 15 normal developing (Group I, n = 15 ) and 15 (Group II, n = 15) child with pervasive developmental disorder were asked to identify their tactile preference by Tactile Stimu-lus Preference Test and somatosensoriel perception was assessed with somatosensory subsets of SouthernCalifornia Sensory Integration and Praxis Test. Results were compared. Results: Group I choose hard objectssignificantly more than soft objects (r:0,823, p

Özet

Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı; yaygın gelişimsel bozukluğu (YGB) olan çocuklar ile normal gelişim gösteren çocukların taktil tercihlerini karşılaştırmak ve bu tercihleri somatoduyusal açıdan incelemektir. Gereç ve yöntem: Çalışmamızda yaşları 3-5 yıl arasında değişen; YGB tanısı ile takip edilen (Grup I; n:15) ve normal gelişimgösteren (Grup II; n:15) toplam 30 çocuğun taktil tercihi; Taktil Uyaran Tercih Testi ile; somatoduyusal algısı;Güney Kaliforniya Duyu Bütünleme ve Praksis Testi somatoduyusal algı alt testleri ile değerlendirildi. Sonuçlaristatistksel olarak karşılaştırıldı. Sonuçlar: YGBli çocukların istatistiksel olarak anlamlı şekilde sert objeleredokunmayı tercih ettikleri tespit edilirken (r:0,823, p

🔖

Cite This Article

MEHR, B. K., KAYIHAN, H., HURİ, M., ALTUNTAŞ, O. (2022). Comparison of tactile preferences in children with pervasive developmental disorder and normal developing children. Ergoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 1, 21–28. https://ajindex.com/articles/504577

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Ayres, A. J. (1972). Types of sensory integrative dysfunction among disabled learners. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. Ayres, A. J. (1972). Improving Academic Scoresthrough Sensory Integration. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5 (6), 338-343.
  2. Azouz, H. G., Khalil, M., Ghani, H. M. A. E., Hamed, H. M. (2013). Somatosensory evoked potentials in children with autism. Alexandria Journal of Medicine. Curry, J., & Exner, C. (1988). Comparison of tactile preferences in children with and without cerebral palsy. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 42 (6), 371-377.
  3. Cascio, C. J. (2010). Somatosensory processing in neurodevelopmental disorders. Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders, 2 (2), 62-69.
  4. Casenhiser, D. M., Shanker, S. G., & Stieben, J. (2013). Learning through interaction in children with autism: Preliminary data from asocial-communication-based intervention. Autism, 17 (2), 220-241.
  5. Clayton, K., Fleming, J. M., & Copley, J. (2003). Behavioral responses to tactile stimuli in children with cerebral palsy. Physical & occupational therapy in pediatrics, 23(1), 43-62.
  6. Engel-Yeger, B., & ziv-On, D. (2011). The relationship between sensory processing difficulties and leisure activity preference of children with different types of ADHD. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32 (3), 1154-1162.
  7. Eliasson, A. C., Forssberg, H., Hung, Y. C., & Gordon, A. M. (2006). Development of hand function and precision grip control in individuals with cerebral palsy: a 13- year follow-up study. Pediatrics, 118(4), e1226-e1236. Green, S.B., Salkind, N.J., Akey, T.M. (2000). Using SPSS for Windows analayzing and undestanding data. 2nd. Ed.Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 208-232.
  8. Greenspan, S. I. (1992). Infancy and early childhood: The practice of clinical assessment and intervention with emotional and developmental challenges. International Universities Press,
  9. Inc. Kientz MA, Dunn W. A (1997). Comparison of the performance of children with and without autism on the Sensory Profile. Am J Occup Ther. 51:530-537.
  10. Kjellmer, L., Hedvall, Å., Fernell, E., Gillberg, C., & Norrelgen, F. (2012). Language and communication skills in preschool children with autism spectrum disorders: Contribution of cognition, severity of autism symptoms, and adaptive functioning to the variability. Research in developmental disabilities, 33(1), 172-180.
  11. Meyer, A., & Sagvolden, T. (2006). Fine motor skills in South African children with symptoms of ADHD: influence of subtype, gender, age,