Sensory processing of institutionalized children versus children living with their families. Effects of the institution on the child's development

Authors

Keywords:

institutionalization, minors, sensorial processing, sensorial profile

Abstract

This paper investigates whether the sensory development of children living in welfare institutions, and therefore in an unfamiliar environment, processing and consequently have a different sensory profile of children who show that they operate in an environment family. Were selected for 51 children belonging to portuguese child protection centers, and 87 who lived with their families, all in the vicinity of the 4 years of age. Therefore, the total sample was composed of 138 individuals. Given the young age of the children did not respond to the questionnaires themselves, but were concerned adults who facilitated this information, educators in the case of smaller centers, and parents in the other case. Moreover, in all cases also responded to questionnaires educators in schools that were studied. Instrument was used as the ‘Sensory Processing Measure’ Parham, Ecker, Kuhaneck, Henry and Glennon. The results indicate the reliability of the instrument used, and that institutionalized children are within normal positions at all scales in the context of home or institution, as to most of the questions their responses are normal, but for with regard to school context, there are problems in social participation, touch, and planning and ideas. Results are discussed and proposed the creation of programs that promote the proper development of institutionalized children in school settings.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ayres, J. (1979). Sensory integration and the child. Los Angeles:Western Psychological Services.

Ayres, J. & Marr, D. B. (1991). Sensory integration and praxis test. In A.G. Fisher, E. A. Murray & A. C. Bundy (Eds), Sensory integration: theory and practice (p. 203-229). Philadelphia: F.A. Davis.

Dunn, W. (1991). Sensory dimension of performance. In C.Christiansen & C. Baum (Eds.). Occupation Therapy: overcoming human performance deficits (p. 232-253). Thorofare: Slack Incorporation.

Dunn, W. (1994). Performance of typical children on the Perfil Sensorial: an item analysis. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48 (11), 967-974.

Dunn, W. (1999). Sensorial Profile. California: The Psychological Corporation.

Dunn, W. (2000).Habit’s: What’s the brain got to do with it? The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 20, 6-26.

Dunn, W. (2001). The sensations of everiday life: theoretical, conceptual and pragmatic considerations. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55 (6), 608-620.

Grieve, J. & Gnanasekaran, L. (2008). Neuropsychology for Occupational Therapists: cognition in occupational performance. New York: Blackwell Publishing.

Lin, S. H., Cermak, S., Coster, W. J. & Miller, L. (2005). The relation between length of institutionalization and Sensory Integration in children adopted from Eastern Europe. The American Journal of OccupationalTherapy,59 (2), 139-147.

Macedo, R. (2010). Da protecção à inclusão.Cidade Solidária, SCML, 23, 50-55.

Parham, L.D.; Ecker, C.; Kuhaneck, M.S.; Henry, D. & Glennon, T. (2007). Sensory Processing Measure: Professional manual. USA:WPS Publishiers.

Parham, L.D. & Mailloux, Z. (2005). Sensory Integration. In J. Case-Smith, Occupational Therapy for children (5ª ed.) (356-411). St. Louis: Elsevier Inc.

Published

2012-06-30

How to Cite

Clemente, M., Risso, A., Ferreira, I., & Gandoy, M. (2012). Sensory processing of institutionalized children versus children living with their families. Effects of the institution on the child’s development. PsiqueMag, 1(1), 1–10. Retrieved from https://revistas.ucv.edu.pe/index.php/psiquemag/article/view/94

Issue

Section

Research Articles