Sensory integration theory elucidates the relationship between the human nervous system’s capacity to process and integrate sensory sensations and behaviour. The Estonian setting required the adaptation of trustworthy evaluation instruments and terminology in order to deliver evidence-based sensory integration interventions. The objective of the research was to define Estonian sensory integration terminology derived from adaptations of the Evaluation in Ayres Sensory Integration, Sensory Profile 2, and Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile tests, thereby establishing a theoretical foundation for professional sensory integration interventions in occupational therapy services. The research was conducted as a multiphase study. The selection of key terms from all the assessment tools was determined by the adaptation process of the aforementioned tests. Functional outcomes were prioritised over literal equivalence in the formulation of Estonian terms. The research group developed Estonian terms in accordance with the record structure as a component of the occupational therapy term foundation, utilising the Estonian terminology database Ekilex. Phrased terms were chosen based on their overlap and frequency of occurrence in the assessment tools as well as the research group’s experiences with terms that are specific but presently used with ambiguity. 48 prevalent terms with examples were incorporated into Ekilex and are publicly available as a result of the adaptation process of the Evaluation in Ayres Sensory Integration, Sensory Profile 2, and Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile. The adaptation of the tests provided the possibility of establishing the basis for a functional and professional sensory integration theory terminology in Estonian.
1. Bundy, A. C. and Lane, S. J. Sensory Integration: Theory and Practice. 3rd ed. F. A. Davis, 2019.
2. Engel-Yeger, B., Palgy-Levin, D. and Lev-Wiesel, R. The sensory profile of people with post-traumatic stress symptoms. Occup. Ther. Ment. Health., 2013, 29(3), 266–278.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0164212X.2013.819466
3. Walbam, K. M. The relevance of sensory processing disorder to social work practice: an interdisciplinary approach. Child Adolesc. Soc. Work J., 2014, 31(1), 61–70.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-013-0308-2
4. Smith-Roley, S., Bissell, J. and Clark, G. J. F. Occupational therapy for children and youth using sensory integration theory and methods in school-based practice. Am. J. Occup. Ther., 2015, 69(Supplement_3), 6913410040p1-6913410040p20.
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2015.696S04
5. Creek, J. A standard terminology for occupational therapy. Br. J. Occup. Ther., 2006, 69(5), 202–208.
https://doi.org/10.1177/030802260606900502
6. Attard, E., Musallam, A., Vaas, K., Chaney, T., Fortuna, J. and Williams, B. Health literacy in occupational therapy research: a scoping review. Open J. Occup. Ther., 2021, 9(4), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1832
7. Sousa, V. D. and Rojjanasrirat, W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross‐cultural health care research: a clear and user‐friendly guideline. J. Eval. Clin. Pract., 2011, 17(2), 268–274.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
8. Ayres, A. J. Southern California Sensory Integration Tests. Western Psychological Services, Los Angeles, 1972.
9. Dugas, C., Simard, M.-N., Fombonne, E. and Couture, M. Comparison of two tools to assess sensory features in children with autism spectrum disorder. Am. J. Occup. Ther., 2018, 72(1), 7201195010p1–7201195010p9.
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2018.024604
10. Brown, C. and Dunn, W. Adolescent/Adult Sensory Profile. Therapy Skill Builders, Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, 2002.
11. Mailloux, Z., Parham, L. D., Smith Roley, S., Ruzzano, L. and Schaaf, R. C. Introduction to the Evaluation in Ayres Sensory Integration® (EASI). Am. J. Occup. Ther., 2018, 72(1), 7201195030p1–7201195030p7.
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2018.028241
12. van der Linde, J., Franzsen, D. and Barnard-Ashton, P. The sensory profile: comparative analysis of children with Specific Language Impairment, ADHD and autism. S. Afr. J. Occup. Ther., 2013, 43(3), 34.
13. Critz, C., Blake, K. and Nogueira, E. Sensory processing challenges in children. J. Nurse Pract., 2015, 11(7), 710–716.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2015.04.016
14. Brown, C., Tollefson, N., Dunn, W., Cromwell, R. and Filion, D. The adult sensory profile: measuring patterns of sensory processing. Am. J. Occup. Ther., 2001, 55(1), 75–82.
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.55.1.75
15. Kamath, M. S., Dahm, C. R., Tucker, J. R., Huang-Pollock, C. L., Etter, N. M. and Neely, K. A. Sensory profiles in adults with and without ADHD. Res. Dev. Disabil., 2020, 104(2), 103696.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103696
16. Brown, C., Karim, R. and Steuter, M. Retrospective analysis of studies examining sensory processing preferences in people with a psychiatric condition. Am. J. Occup. Ther., 2020, 74(4), 7404205130p1–7404205130p11.
https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2020.038463
17. Collaborative for Leadership in Ayres Sensory Integration (CLASI). Getting to Know the Evaluation in Ayres Sensory Integration (EASI).
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/65d848d2a79890353ca414ea/t/661531e44309717442c99cee/1712665065692/Getting%2Bto%2Bknow%2Bthe%2BEASI_interactive%2Bfinal%2B.pdf(accessed 2024-09-27).
18. International Test Commission (ITC). ITC Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests. 2nd ed.
https://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_adaptation_2ed.pdf (accessed 2024-09-07).
19. Schuster, C., Hahn, S. and Ettlin, T. Objectively-assessed outcome measures: a translation and cross-cultural adaptation procedure applied to the Chedoke McMaster Arm and Hand Activity Inventory (CAHAI). BMC Med. Res. Methodol., 2010, 10(1), 106.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-106
20. Ponce Gea, A. I. and Serrano Pastor, F. J. The cultural element in the adaptation of a test: proposals and reflections on internal and external influences. Educ. Sci., 2022, 12(5), 291.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050291
