2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2009.08.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Multi-sensory rooms: Comparing effects of the Snoezelen and the Stimulus Preference environment on the behavior of adults with profound mental retardation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
53
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 51 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
1
53
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the fourth concept related to private centers we made a comparison to the research of Fava and Strauss (2010) who showed that sensory intervention decreases disruptive behaviors only in individuals with autism, while Stimulus Preference increases pro-social behaviors only in participants with profound mental retardation with co-occurring poor motor and linguistic abilities. Nevertheless, the existence of private centers with sensory rooms should be state financed and thus beneficial for the persons with ID.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the fourth concept related to private centers we made a comparison to the research of Fava and Strauss (2010) who showed that sensory intervention decreases disruptive behaviors only in individuals with autism, while Stimulus Preference increases pro-social behaviors only in participants with profound mental retardation with co-occurring poor motor and linguistic abilities. Nevertheless, the existence of private centers with sensory rooms should be state financed and thus beneficial for the persons with ID.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The levels of reliability attained may have been constrained by our procedure (the primary observer coding live, the second from a video recording), but may also suggest that our behavioural definitions were not sufficiently comprehensive or precise; our definition of engagement, for example, did not include any definition of the level of attention or alertness required for engagement to be recorded. Fava & Strauss (2010) have recently demonstrated interactions between client characteristics (presence of autism and language and motor abilities) and type of sensory intervention (traditional MSE versus structured exposure to preferred stimuli) differentially affecting aggressive and self-injurious behaviours, stereotyped behaviours, social behaviours and levels of interaction with stimuli. Recent research suggests that the internal consistency and inter-rater and test-retest reliability of the FACT are comparable to those of the QABF (Zaja et al 2011).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Martin et al (1998) examined the relationship between positive response to the MSE and a measure of likely non-social function for the behaviour as assessed by experimental functional analyses, and found no evidence that the MSE had a greater specific impact on non-socially reinforced behaviours. Finally, Fava & Strauss (2010), examining short-term carry-over effects of 25-min sessions in a MSE or in a session with more structured engagement with individually assessed preferred stimuli ('stimulus preference environment'), reported reductions in aggression only for participants with autism following MSE sessions, reductions in stereotyped behaviours for participants with autism and those with profound intellectual disabilities and limited communication and mobility skills following MSE sessions, and increases in active behaviours towards sensory stimuli only for participants with profound intellectual disabilities with limited mobility and communication skills, and increases in prosocial behaviour towards caregivers only for participants with profound intellectual disabilities but with mobility and communication skills, following stimulus preference sessions. Finally, Fava & Strauss (2010), examining short-term carry-over effects of 25-min sessions in a MSE or in a session with more structured engagement with individually assessed preferred stimuli ('stimulus preference environment'), reported reductions in aggression only for participants with autism following MSE sessions, reductions in stereotyped behaviours for participants with autism and those with profound intellectual disabilities and limited communication and mobility skills following MSE sessions, and increases in active behaviours towards sensory stimuli only for participants with profound intellectual disabilities with limited mobility and communication skills, and increases in prosocial behaviour towards caregivers only for participants with profound intellectual disabilities but with mobility and communication skills, following stimulus preference sessions.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…The word "snoezelen" is a composite of the Dutch words "snuffelen", which means to seek out or to explore, and "doezelen", meaning to relax [2]. Snoezelen ® rooms contain materials and equipment for sensory exploration, such as radios, sounds of animals or the sea, projectors, mirror balls, bubble columns, aromatherapy oils, rocking chairs, water beds, optic fiber bundles and other tactile stimulation objects [3,4].…”
Section: Snoezelenmentioning
confidence: 99%