296 May/June 2009, Volume 63, Number 3

Invited Commentary on “Sensory Sensitivities of Gifted Children”

KEY WORDS•  gifted, child•  interpersonal relations•  mental processes•  problem solving•  sensation

Winnie Dunn, PhD, OTR, FAOTA, is Professor and Chair, Department of Occupational Therapy Education, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Kansas City, KS 66160; wdunn@kumc.edu

This commentary provides an analysis of an article by Gere, Capps, Mitchell, and Grubbs (2009) about sensory sensitivities of gifted children. The article reports that children who are gifted are more sensitive to sensory expe-riences. Researchers hypothesized that children’s sensitivities contribute to their excellent problem-solving skills and might contribute to their challenges with social interaction. The coexistence of a helpful and challenging characteristic that may be related to sensory sensitivity suggests the need for additional intervention paradigms that support all aspects of children’s participation. The Gere et al. (2009) study invites occupational therapists to consider broader perspectives about who would benefit from services and how we might provide services in a school context. This article offers suggestions that would strengthen future studies with gifted children and outlines strategies for evidence-based practice that include children who are gifted.

Dunn, W. (2009). Invited commentary on “Sensory sensitivities of gifted children.” American Journal of Occupational

Therapy, 64, 296–300.

Winnie Dunn

Gere, Capps, Mitchell, and Grubbs (2009) present an interesting study in which they apply concepts of sensory processing to the gifted population. By studying

a group of 80 children classified as gifted, the authors illustrate how to apply occu-pational therapy knowledge to everyone, not just to those who are classified with specific disabilities. In doing so, they invite us to think expansively about our con-tributions to research, knowledge development, and practice.

Gere et al. (2009) provide a brief but informative literature review that points out some of the critical issues that arise when serving children who are gifted. They describe children who are gifted as more sensitive and responsive than others, lead-ing to greater perceptual processing; some authors have concluded that this sensitiv-ity contributes to gifted children’s superior performance (e.g., Helmbold, Troche, & Rammsayer, 2006; Li, Jordanova, & Lindenberger, 1998). Other authors (e.g., Roedell, 1984; Silverman, 1997) have suggested that intense sensitivity to the environment might also create a vulnerability resulting from an overload of infor-mation that can contribute to challenges with their social interactions. Gere et al. (2009) hypothesize that knowing more about gifted children’s sensory-processing patterns might contribute to understanding the factors that facilitate superior prob-lem solving or that interfere with socialization.

The Study’s DesignAs with any study, some aspects of design would make the study stronger. Researchers weigh these factors each time they create and conduct a study. We might wonder why researchers do not include design features that would make their studies stronger, but many legitimate reasons exist. For example, a change in study design might make the study too long to carry out within particular time contraints, or the cost of an alternate

The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 297

study design might be prohibitive. Researchers might also not have access to cohorts of participants. Sometimes, the expertise or tools needed to complete the alternative design are not available. In some investigations, additional design features might distract from a primary study question or, in the case of preliminary work, might be premature. Science builds sys-tematically, and several small and effective steps can be more helpful to knowledge development than one large study that risks obscuring the core investigation. With all these factors in mind, and with full understanding that the Gere et al. (2009) study has made a good first-step contribution to knowledge about both education and occupational therapy, I offer some considerations about what would make future studies like this one stronger.

Selecting the Comparison Group

The researchers compare their group of 80 children to the Sensory Profile’s (Dunn, 1999) normative sample. Using the normative sample is a practical strategy because the cut scores (which are based on the standard deviation points above and below the mean) can easily provide an indication of whether a group of children is more like or different from their peers. If a particular group (in this case, children who are gifted) clusters between 1 and 2 standard deviations from the mean, we document that the group pattern indicates that they engage in certain behaviors more than their peers.

The study would have been stronger if Gere et al. (2009) had used an exact comparison group. With raw scores from each group, calculations of difference would have allowed a more exacting comparison. Gere et al.’s (2009) first analysis compared the means of the two study groups. When research-ers compare only mean scores, loss of consideration for the sample’s variability results. For example, two samples can have the same mean score but different variability (as represented by the standard deviations of each distribution). Many groups of children with disabilities are heterogeneous even though they have the same overarching diagnosis, and yet their wide range of performance distinguishes them from children with-out disabilities, who tend to be more homogeneous on the sensory-processing variables considered in this study. Comparing samples on raw scores provides the opportunity to calculate both the mean and the standard deviation, which enables researchers to know both the central tendency and the variability of each sample. For some samples, the variability is what marks them as different from a typical population.

Considering the Sources for Inclusion Criteria

Gere et al. (2009) used school records to determine children’s eligibility for the study. This example is a practical design decision because some scientists would require separate test-ing to verify the children’s gifted status. If we consider that

the researchers wanted to characterize the sensory-processing patterns in a group of gifted school-age children, their deci-sion to accept the school’s designation may be reasonable. As therapists, we work in many public schools that have dif-ferent populations and criteria for selecting children; studies that situate themselves in that context ought to reflect the public school milieu. Would the study have been technically stronger by controlling the assessment of giftedness? Yes. Was it necessary for the findings of this preliminary study? I would argue that it was not. The researchers found signifi-cant differences even with less control, so one might look back on this study and say that the findings are more gener-alizable because they reported but did not control all of the factors that might influence the study findings.

Implications of the FindingsI have a multifaceted positive experience when I see interdis-ciplinary colleagues reporting their findings in an occupa-tional therapy journal. This action suggests that they have used the occupational therapy literature to inform their work and value perspectives unique to occupational therapy. Gere et al.’s (2009) submission to the American Journal of Occu­pational Therapy is an acknowledgment that we would find their study informative to our work as well. I hope their con-tribution serves as an invitation to all readers to find related research in interdisciplinary journals (don’t you want to know what else these authors have been finding?). Let’s consider what meaning this study may have for occupational therapy practice and interdisciplinary research in the future.

Sensory-Processing Patterns Reflect a Human Experience, Not a Disability Experience

The cut scores on the Sensory Profile (Dunn, 1999) were established on a national sample of children without dis-abilities, using the standard deviations as the cut scores for each subtest. This approach suggests that we would expect to see approximately 68% of the population perform in the midrange of any subtest (i.e., −1 standard deviation to +1 standard deviation). It also suggests that even in the typical population, some children will engage in the behaviors on the Sensory Profile more than do their peers (i.e., their scores will be >1 standard deviation from the mean score). We experience this occurrence in our everyday lives when we encounter family or friends who are overly sensitive to sounds, spend more time seeking out touch experiences, or avoid movement—or when we have these characteristics ourselves. The fact that some people can experience sensory events more intensely than others and that the Sensory Profile scores can document their significant differences sug-gests that a “more-than-others” score alone is not enough to

298 May/June 2009, Volume 63, Number 3

indicate a disorder. In addition to having differences in sen-sory processing patterns from the majority of people, people must have sensory experiences that interfere with their every-day lives for their behavior to be considered maladaptive.

When we consider the data provided by Gere et al. (2009), we see that the children who are gifted have many “more than others” scores than the national sample. This study’s findings are consistent with the observation in the literature that children who are gifted tend to have more intense sensory experiences than their peers. With these data alone, however, we cannot know how their sensory-processing patterns affect their everyday lives. To address the need for the connection between sensory-processing patterns and par-ticipation in everyday life, Gere et al. (2009) suggest two possible links. First, there may be a link between the social skills challenges and the intense sensory-processing patterns in children who are gifted. This possible link is also discussed in studies of other groups that have sensory-processing dif-ferences, such as children with Asperger syndrome, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or autism (Ben-Sasson et al., 2007; Dove & Dunn, in press; Dunn, 2007; Ermer & Dunn, 1998; Kientz & Dunn, 1997; Myles et al., 2004; Tomchek, 2007). Another possible link to participation resides in the hypothesis that gifted children are able to produce “gifted” responses because their intense sensory- processing patterns enable them to perceive and solve prob-lems more effectively than their peers. We have been less likely to consider the affordances that sensory-processing patterns create, and so this idea extends our thinking.

By making two hypotheses about the meaning of their data, Gere et al. (2009) introduce us to the possibility that everyone’s sensory-processing patterns provide both challenges and affordances. We think a lot about how “definite differ-ence” scores interfere with school and home activities. How might the definite difference patterns help a child? For exam-ple, Baranek (2002) reported that boys with Fragile X syn-drome who had an aversion to touch were more independent in their self-care skills than other children in their study. It is more common for professionals to identify challenges associ-ated with aversions to touch—and there certainly are chal-lenges for children, parents, and teachers—however, in the case of self-care, these boys’ need to prevent others from touch-ing them may have motivated independence in self-care. Perhaps we need to expand our thinking about the impact of sensory-processing patterns on everyday life to include the positive possibilities for independence and problem solving.

Provide Services Based on Participation Needs, Not Diagnoses

This study introduces an interesting paradox for providers. If the very characteristic that makes it possible for a child who

is gifted to respond with complex problem solving is also the characteristic that could be interfering with the child’s social-ization, then what do we do with that information? We are linking their sensory-processing patterns to participation, but in one case that link affords better performance (i.e., problem solving), and in the other case that link might interfere with performance (i.e., social development). This paradox demands that we act as good stewards of what we know about children and consider carefully what we do with the information. We would not want children who are gifted to be less sensitive if diminishing their sensitivities would also diminish their “edge” for problem solving. Yet, we certainly want to support more adaptive social development.

Gere et al. (2009) report that children who are gifted may be more likely to have intense sensory-processing pat-terns. Alternatively, children who are gifted may have height-ened language abilities that enable them to be a great source of insight about how to manage intense sensory patterns in everyday life. Perhaps we need to interview and observe these children to identify how they are using their sensory process-ing to solve problems and to socialize, given that it seems that the same underlying characteristic (i.e., intense sensory-processing patterns) may be helping in some ways and inter-fering in others.

We have profited from other personal experiences being given a voice; for example, Temple Grandin (2008) has spoken and written eloquently about her intense sensory experiences as a person who has autism. She is a cherished colleague in animal husbandry because she designed an inno-vative method for keeping cattle calm. She based her design on her early experiences trying to manage anxiety and using deep pressure to calm herself. Her descriptions of what it feels like to have intense sensory experiences have informed people, families, and professionals who serve people with autism. In this example, we find the same paradox: Grandin’s intense sensory patterns were both beneficial to and interfer-ing with her life. Perhaps we need to recast our thinking to consider both affordances and barriers regarding sensory-processing patterns before we embark on an intervention program set to change individual sensory patterns.

Grinker (2007), speaking about his daughter, said, “Her sensitivities didn’t go away, they just lost their grip on her” (pp. 277–278). What can we do in our intervention pro-grams to ensure that the interfering factors “lose their grip” on the people we serve and their families while preserving the person’s unique perspective and experience? This ques-tion invites us to use our expertise by supporting engagement rather than by focusing on repairing the person’s challenging sensory experiences.

Gere et al.’s (2009) study helps us see the delicate nature of our wisdom about sensory processing. Because

The American Journal of Occupational Therapy 299

these children are highly capable, it is easier to understand how they use their characteristics to engage throughout the day. Perhaps these children could help us understand how it feels to be an intense sensory being; perhaps their intense sensory view makes it easier to see options in problem solving.

But intense sensory-processing patterns also interfere with everyday life. For children who are gifted, sensory- processing knowledge may help everyone understand how they might get tripped up in social situations. Therefore, we can help them in social skills by understanding their intense sensory-processing patterns without trying to change their patterns of sensory processing (which they may need to solve problems). We can gain insights from their adaptive skills and unique ways of looking at the world. We can also help them use their unique perspectives to navigate social situa-tions they find challenging. In this scenario, we are making sure that their intense sensory experiences lose their grip on their social development.

Everyone Can Get Help With Participation

If we embrace the idea that children who are gifted may also profit from the expertise of occupational therapy, we must consider a paradigm shift in our thinking. Being gifted is not a disability; therefore, we would have to think more broadly about how to apply our craft. A diagnosis would no longer be the ticket into occupational therapy services. We could shift our emphasis toward people who have participation challenges as those who receive occupational therapy. What would our practices and our profession look like if we said that a participation need was the ticket to eligibility for occupational therapy services? Although it is true that diag-noses currently provide access to funding for services, per-haps studies like this one illustrate the need for us to provide leadership to change this policy. In schools, occupational therapists could serve as members of a school community the way that counselors do, being available to any student or teacher who needed assistance to make the learning environ-ment and experiences more friendly to a wide range of stu-dents. Anyone who works in public schools has entered a classroom and seen possibilities for service that extend beyond the students who are assigned on a caseload based on diagnostic eligibility.

SummaryGere et al. (2009) present interesting preliminary data on the sensory-processing patterns of gifted children. They report that these children have more intense sensory experi-ences than the children in the Sensory Profile’s national

sample. They hypothesize that intense sensory patterns may be linked to both the children’s good problem-solving abili-ties and their awkwardness in social situations. The study invites us to consider several ways to expand our thinking about providing services. First, we must consider expanding our thinking about who we serve and for what reasons. Children who are gifted are not disabled, yet they might profit from the expertise of occupational therapy. Second, we must consider both the positive and the negative impact of any sensory-processing pattern on participation. If intense sensory-processing patterns enable a child who is gifted to solve problems better than other children, then we would not want to make the intensity go away. However, Gere et al. (2009) also suggest that intense sensory processing might interfere with socialization; perhaps good problem solving can serve as a tool to help these children gain insights about their ways of responding in social situations. Gere et al. (2009) have given us much to think about to advance the knowledge and practices in our profession. s

ReferencesBaranek, G. (2002). Sensory processing correlates of occupational

performance in children with Fragile X syndrome: Preliminary findings. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56(5), 538–546.

Ben-Sasson, A., Cermak, S., Orsmond, G., Tager-Flusberg, H., Carter, A., Kadlec, M., et al. (2007). Extreme sensory modulation behaviors in toddlers with autism spectrum disorders. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(5), 584–592.

Dove, S., & Dunn, W. (in press). Sensory processing patterns in learning disabilities. Occupational Therapy in Early Intervention, Preschool, and Schools.

Dunn, W. (1999). Sensory Profile user’s manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Dunn, W. (2007). Supporting children in everyday life using a sensory processing approach. Infants and Young Children, 20(2), 84–101.

Ermer, J., & Dunn, W. (1998). The Sensory Profile: A dis-criminant analysis of children with and without disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52(4), 283–290.

Gere, D. R., Capps, S. C., Mitchell, D. W., & Grubbs, E. (2009). Sensory sensitivities of gifted children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64, 288–295.

Grandin, T. (2008). The way I see it: A personal look at autism and Asperger’s. Arlington, TX: Future Horizons.

Grinker, R. R. (2007). Unstrange minds: Remapping the world of autism. New York: Basic Books.

Helmbold, N., Troche, S., & Rammsayer, T. (2006). Temporal information processing and pitch discrimination as predic-tors of general intelligence. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 294–306.

Kientz, M. A., & Dunn, W. (1997). Comparison of the perfor-mance of children with and without autism on the Sensory

300 May/June 2009, Volume 63, Number 3

Profile. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51(7), 530–537.

Li, S., Jordanova, M., & Lindenberger, U. (1998). From good senses to good sense: A link between tactile information pro-cessing and intelligence. Intelligence, 26, 99–122.

Myles, B. S., Hagiwara, T., Dunn, W., Rinner, L., Reese, M., Higgins, A., et al. (2004). Sensory issues in children with Asperger syndrome and autism. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39(4), 283–290.

Roedell, W. (1984). Vulnerabilities of highly gifted children. Roeper Review, 6, 127–130.

Silverman, L. (1997). What we have learned about gifted children? Retrieved February 26, 2009, from www.gifteddevelopment.com/What_is_Gifted/learned.htm

Tomchek, S. D. (2007). Sensory processing in children with and without autism: A comparative study using the Short Sensory Profile. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(2), 190–200.