Talk:Sensory processing disorder

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kolby Arnold, Sjandreau17. Peer reviewers: Msouza224, Sarah1124, Cushmank, Morris116084.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge Sensory integration dysfunction into Sensory processing disorder
I propose that Sensory integration dysfunction be merged into Sensory processing disorder. As is, there is contradictory information in the two articles, as well as duplication, that should be resolved. Since there is more content in the SPD article, and the authors seem to indicate that it is the term of choice at present, that should be the destination article. The SID article is of small size so that the merging will not cause problems with the SPD article size. Popsup (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. And it would be great if you would manage the problems with the contradictory information!  Lova Falk     talk   09:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. It's the same topic despite some minor contraditions. Merge it. 04:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Researchers and clinicians are moving away from the language of SID, as SPD language was created to be more clear. This is necessary not only for research and clinical work, but more importantly to make the topic more understandable for the layperson.Soontobephd (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. It is important to merge this two categories since they are the same. Sensory Integration was changed to Sensory Processing to avoid confusion with the already existing term of Sensory Integration in the Neurology field which means a completely different thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chibs007 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. I have edited and copied the information from the Sensory Integration Dysfunction article, so I think the pieces are ready to merge. Sensory Integration Dysfunction should be deleted. However, I read the merging help and it is a little out of my league, specially since there is much to save from SID's talk page. Chibs007 (talk

HAS BEEN MERGED! Thanks everyone!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chibs007 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Tag for merge proposal has been added. Chibs007 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Merged Sensory Integration Dysfunction again. Page will likely be generated again by interest groups like Ayres Sensory Integration Chibs007 — Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal of another merger
I propose that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_Integration_Dysfunction be merged in as well. It is a very badly formed article (has a dead link to itself?) and differs in name from the previously merged article simply by capitalization. Bobprime (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know the latest thoughts on this, but see this section of the SID article. Seems like a candidate for a merge but not a clear cut case. More discussion needed. SageRad (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Where does this matter stand? The first sentence of this page directly states that Sensory Processing Disorder and Sensory Integration Dysfunction are the same thing.  It seems to me that the two pages should either be merged, or that the first sentence of the SPD page has to be changed and the SPD page should include some clarification of the way(s) in which SPD and SID are different.Regutten (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a Wikipedia article titled Sensory Dysfunction Disorder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_dysfunction_disorder). Should or could parts of that article be integrated here?

Kolby Arnold (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Kolby Arnold


 * Relating the suggested merger, indeed it has been discussed for years now, but since currently in the OT field there seems to be a bias from associations linked to different universities and theoreticians, the former page, SID has been created several times by members of one of those groups. If you can find neutral senior editors to judge over the matter it would be great. User:Doc James is a great option either as a judge or someone who can suggest.

Chibs007 (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Finding a neutral senior editor?

Obviously, I'm not particularly senior or experienced at dealing with these kinds of issues. As I mentioned elsewhere, I found my way to the pages when researching the topic for a friend. My initial reaction was that it was simply weird to have the two pages, particularly when one refers to the other as a page that discusses the same disorder. Given how long this issue has been sitting there, it seems time for some kind of decision to be made about the two pages. I'll consult with someone I know with a lot of experience dealing with WP issues. Thanks.Regutten (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added the merge tag on the Sensory Integration Dysfuntion page. However, I believe it will be better if someone else that is not me does the merge, since I did the one before. Chibs007 (talk) 00:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge Sensory Defensiveness into Sensory Processing disorder
Sensory Defensiveness is a subtype of Sensory Processing Disorder, and currently the Sensory defensiveness article only duplicates the content of the main Sensory processing disorder article. dolfrog (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support!  Lova Falk     talk   14:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support! User:Chibs007 — Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Improperly sourced

 * 1) cite_note-Fads-67

ISBN 9781317623830

A 2015 review of research on Sensory Integration Therapy (SIT) concluded that SIT is "ineffective and that its theoretical underpinnings and assessment practices are unvalidated", that SIT techniques exist "outside the bounds of established evidence-based practice", and that SIT is "quite possibly a misuse of limited resources".

From what I can tell this is not a review but a book with an ISBN, moreover from what I can tell there is a version from 2005, so this entire section is misleadingly sourced. Gamma1138 (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)