Date Presented Accepted for AOTA INSPIRE 2021 but unable to be presented due to online event limitations.
Incarceration exposes individuals to a negative combination of sensory deprivation and sensory overstimulation, which has serious health consequences. The Sensory Profile (SP) was administered to 345 men and women residing in a corrections facility and who participated in OT programming. This presentation will illustrate how the SP data discriminate and then discuss the implications for using the SP in justice settings and designing appropriate intervention based on SP data.
Primary Author and Speaker: Sandra Rogers
Additional Authors and Speakers: John White
PURPOSE: Mass incarceration in the US has propelled millions of people into a system that gradually eliminated many avenues for rehabilitation that, prior to the 1980's, existed as a critical part of the justice system. Incarceration exposes individuals to a negative combination of sensory deprivation and sensory overstimulation, which has serious health consequences, including post-incarceration. It is crucial to have humane and efficient rehabilitation for those who are incarcerated and to prevent extraneous testing. This requires the use of contextually valid assessment tools. Occupational Therapists have antidotally hypothesized that incarcerated persons have different and more extreme sensory profiles. The Sensory Profile (SP), a reliable and valid tool, has substantial data supporting use with a wide range of populations with health conditions. Only one study has documented or validated the use of the SP with individuals who are incarcerated.
DESIGN AND METHODS: We collected both descriptive and discriminative data using the Sensory Profile which was administered to 345 men and women, from the ages of 18-56 (mean age = 32) who were residing in a community corrections facility and who were participating in occupational therapy programming. The resultant data set was analyzed for patterns of responses and these data were paired with interviews of correctional officers, managers, care providers and administrators. This presentation will report the sensory profile data from these individuals and discuss the implications for designing and implementing intervention based on the data from the sensory profile and qualitative data. As a measure of an individual's sensory trait, the Sensory Profile brings greater understanding about why individuals engage in particular behaviors and why they prefer certain environments and experiences. The results provide an increased awareness and understanding of sensory processing preferences not only for the client but also for the therapist, team members, family members, and others who are close to the individual. Profile results also enable more informed intervention planning, which takes into account an individual's particular preferences. Clinically, we hypothesized that if the sensory profile could discriminate in a similar manner for those who are incarcerated, then it would allow OT practitioners to provide more specified services to those who are incarcerated. Chi-Square tests measured non-parametic correlations between variables.
RESULTS: Men had significantly different, and clinically relevant, higher scores in sensory seeking and sensory sensitivity than a healthy population and to incarcerated women. As a contrast, women had significantly different, and clinically relevant, higher scores on low registration, sensory seeking, and sensory sensitivity when compared to a healthy population and men who are incarcerated.
CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of the data established clear patterns of sensory processing that and it is hoped that understanding the relevance of sensory profiles can improve rehabilitation and resilience to those incarcerated. Establishing a relationship between sensory processing preferences, may allow us to 1) validate the assessment of sensory processing alongside other assessments; 2) offering individualized intervention planning to offer training in management of the sensory environment and strategies to cope with sensory information; and 3) fostering hope and quality of life for clients who are incarcerated.
IMPACT STATEMENT: It is essential that we utilize reliable and valid measures to establish clinically relevant conditions with individuals who are incarcerated to provide humane and essential intervention, thus maximizing quality outcomes.
References
Brown, C., Tollefson, N., Dunn, W., Cromwell, R., & Filion, D. (2001). The adult sensory profile: measuring patterns of sensory processing. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55(1), 75-82. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.55.1.75
Engel-Yeger, B., & Dunn, W. (2011). Exploring the relationship between affect and sensory processing patterns in adults. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(10), 456-464. https://doi.org/10.4276/030802211X13182481841868
Muñoz, J., McTish, J. T., Ruggeri, J. M., Phillips, G., & Catalano, A. (2017). Occupational Therapy's Role in the Criminal Justice System: A Scoping Review. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71, 162-162. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2017.71S1-PO6129
Pfeiffer, B., Brusilovskiy, E., Bauer, J., & Salzer, M. S. (2014). Sensory processing, participation, and recovery in adults with serious mental illnesses. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 37(4), 289-296. https://doi.org/10.1037/prj0000099
