A Transdisciplinary Team Model for School-Based Sensorimotor Programming

PURPOSE: This qualitative research study examined a transdisciplinary collaborative approach to implementation of proactive sensorimotor programming for students with moderate to severe autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and/or intellectual disabilities (ID) at a special education center. Our research questions were as follows: What are the components of a productive collaborative team? What are the barriers to a productive collaborative team? What are the key features of a productive proactive sensorimotor curriculum?

BACKGROUND: Between 1997 and 2008, the prevalence of ASD skyrocketed by 289.5%; additionally, developmental disabilities, which include ID, increased by 17.1% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). Sensory processing deficits are a prominent area of need for individuals with ASD and ID that require specialized interventions including occupational therapy. Recent research has supported proactive “exercise” programming in school as an evidence-based practice to address sensorimotor deficits (Lang et al., 2010, 2011; Nicholson, Kehle, Bray, & Heest, 2011). In best practice, services are delivered by a collaborative team, often consisting of an occupational therapist (OT), speech–language pathologist (SLP), behaviorist, teacher, and legal guardians (Lytle & Bordin, 2001). However, presently, there is a lack of an empirically supported model for OTs collaborating as members of a transdisciplinary team focusing on sensorimotor program implementation in school-based practice. This research proposes a service delivery model for OTs.

DESIGN: Our research used a qualitative research design, grounded theory, with interview methods. Our participants were all recruited from a convenience sample of professionals at a special education center in northern California.

METHOD: We conducted one-on-one interviews with the following team members: OT, SLP, behaviorist, and three special education teachers. We additionally conducted a focus group in which all of the professional team members participated. All sessions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis was conducted via the constant comparison method using Dedoose software (Hermosa Beach, CA). Our research team identified distinctive categories in the data. Quotes that exemplified distinct categories were coded. This research was conducted under the Dominican University of California institutional review board, and all participants signed informed consent.

RESULTS: Our preliminary analysis has revealed some key themes and subthemes related to our research questions. (1) What are the components of a productive collaborative team? Initial findings included professional actions (e.g., daily face-to-face meetings, planned formal meetings beyond the individualized education program, emails), beliefs (e.g., respect for and understanding of other professionals’ expertise, shared understanding regarding the importance of sensorimotor programming and student achievement), and roles. (2) What are the barriers to a productive collaborative team? Themes included limited time, limited professional knowledge and awareness, and lack of administrative support. (3) What are the key features of a productive proactive sensorimotor curriculum? Findings included having necessary sensory and motor tools, strategies for daily classroom implementation, a means to measure student outcomes, and a collaborative approach.

CONCLUSION AND IMPACT STATEMENT: Existing literature indicates that collaboration is essential to successful service delivery in the school setting but also highlights inconsistencies between that belief and actual implementation of a collaborative model. The results from this research will inform a service delivery practice model that will broaden occupational therapy services in school-based practice for students with ASD and ID.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Developmental disabilities: Key findings: Trends in the prevalence of developmental disabilities in U.S. children, 1997–2008. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/developmentaldisabilities/features/birthdefects-dd-keyfindings.html

Lang, R., Koegel, L. K., Ashbaugh, K., Regester, A., Ence, W., & Smith, W. (2010). Physical exercise and individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4, 565–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2010.01.006

Lang, R., Kuriakose, S., Lyons, G., Mulloy, A., Boutot, A., Britt, C., . . . Lancioni, G. (2011). Review: Use of school recess time in the education and treatment of children with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5, 1296–1305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2011.02.012

Lytle, R. K., & Bordin, J. (2001). Enhancing the IEP team: Strategies for parents and professionals. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(5), 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990103300506

Nicholson, H., Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., & Heest, J. V. (2011). The effects of antecedent physical activity on the academic engagement of children with autism spectrum disorder. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20537