Snoezelen multi-sensory environments: Task engagement and generalization

Reducing challenging behavior through structured therapeutic intervention in the controlled multi-sensory environment (Snoezelen). Ten case studies

“…Although the results are encouraging and corroborate prior research findings (26,27,(31)(32)(33), further research is obviously required to understand fully the impact of Snoezelen as a therapeutic intervention and to solve such questions as the potential effect of Snoezelen on self esteem, participants' empowerment, and the contribution of individual interactions. All these should be fully explored applying accepted and appropriate research methods as described above.…”

“…Over the past 25 years, only 28 articles have been published regarding the implementation of the CMSE with individuals with intellectual disabilities as found through an intense literature search. Of those 28 articles, only 20 were investigative projects (25)(26)(27)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47). The number of participants in those research interventions ranged from 1 to 20, averaging at around seven participants per intervention.…”

“…In addition, various outcome measures were applied. Most publications dealt with challenging behaviors, whereas a handful of articles examined other more functional outcome measures, such as concentration and responsiveness (25,32,35), engagement in a functional task (33) and FOS skills (Foundation Outcome Statement (36)). …”

Snoezelen: A controlled multi-sensory stimulation therapy for children recovering from severe brain injury

“…Once inside this environment, there are opportunities for stimulation of all senses. Currently, Snoezelen has been most commonly utilized for individuals with severe sensory impairments, autism, severe developmental and/or learning disabilities, severe and profound mental retardation, dementia, chronic pain and burns [25][26][27][28]. In 1992 in the US, 'Snoezelen' became a registered trademark of FLAGHOUSE, Inc.…”

Effects of Multisensory Environments on Stereotyped Behaviours Assessed as Maintained by Automatic Reinforcement

“…Singh et al (2004) compared levels of aggression and self-injury displayed by 45 individuals with severe intellectual disabilities during sessions in a multisensory environment with those observed during Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Vocational skills training sessions and also evaluated any more extended effect of exposure to a multisensory environment by comparing levels of these problem behaviours in sessions held before and after multisensory sessions. Kaplan et al (2006) reported beneficial effects of MSE exposure both on engagement in tasks immediately following MSE tasks and on the overall daily frequency of challenging behaviours (crying or biting) for two adults with profound intellectual disabilities, autism and high rates of engagement in behaviours apparently maintained by sensory reinforcement, and presenting problem behaviours assessed as maintained by escape from task demands and gaining of tangibles, but not for a third participant with a moderate intellectual disability presenting problem behaviours assessed as maintained by task avoidance and contingent attention. Levels of aggression observed in the multisensory environment were lower than those observed in both of the other conditions, levels of self-injury in the multisensory environment were lower than those in ADL training sessions, and self-injury in sessions following multisensory sessions was significantly lower than in sessions preceding multisensory sessions, indicating some degree of positive 'carryover' from exposure to the multisensory environment.…”