In response to ongoing discussions on social media, in peer groups, and on modules, with a most noticeable concern posted on LinkedIn (https://lnkd.in/ecA9MxPK) about Sensory Processing Disorder (SPD), we want to share the position of ASI Wise & Sensory Project clearly and responsibly.
We provide evidence-informed education for Occupational Therapists (OTs), Physiotherapists (PTs), and Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) across the UK and Ireland. Our approach aligns with current national frameworks, international best practice, and ethical, function-focused care principles.
Do we teach how to diagnose SPD?
No, we do not.
And neither do the therapists who learn with us.
Why not?
Because SPD is not a recognised diagnosis in the UK or Ireland, it is not included in the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) or the ICD-11 (International Classification of Diseases). Consequently, the NHS, HSE, education authorities, or tribunal systems do not recognise it.
This is consistent with the Royal College of Occupational Therapists (RCOT) 2021 Position Statement, which clearly states:
“Occupational Therapists in the UK do not diagnose ‘Sensory Processing Disorder’ or related terms.”
A Note on the “New Nosology” and the Origins of SPD
Sensory Processing Disorder (SPD), previously called sensory processing dysfunction, gained traction in the early 2000s. It emerged from a proposed classification system, a ‘new nosology’ (or naming system), put forward by Miller et al. (2007). It attempted to categorise sensory challenges into:
- Sensory Modulation Disorder
- Sensory Discrimination Disorder
- Sensory-Based Motor Disorder
These categories, however, have not been validated through rigorous peer-reviewed research. To date:
❌ No large-scale studies confirm these as distinct, clinically meaningful diagnostic entities
❌ There is no consensus in the scientific community to support their use as standalone diagnoses
❌ These patterns lack reliability and do not meet diagnostic criteria for inclusion in formal classification systems like DSM-5 or ICD-11
As a result, the SPD framework remains a hypothesis, not a clinically supported or internationally accepted diagnostic structure.
Related Terms That Should Not Be Used as Diagnoses
As per the RCOT and wider guidance by consensus, UK-based OTs should not describe or recommend a diagnosis using related terms such as:
- Sensory Modulation Disorder (SMD)
- Sensory Over-Responsivity (SOR) / Under-Responsivity (SUR)
- Sensory-Based Motor Disorder (SBMD)
- Sensory Discrimination Disorder
- Or the umbrella term “SPD” itself
What Do We Recommend Instead?
We recommend using accurate and defensible language that describes a person’s strengths and differences in sensory integration and processing, and how these impact function and participation.
At ASI Wise & Sensory Project, we teach therapists how to:
- Assess sensory integration and processing using internationally respected, evidence-informed tools.
- Describe functional impact in clear, goal-oriented language aligned with education, health, and legal frameworks.
- Plan and deliver sensory-informed interventions within their scope—whether occupational, movement-based, or communication-focused.
- Support participation and self-regulation without reliance on unrecognised diagnostic terms.
- Collaborate with families to co-create goals that enhance daily life and inclusion.
Why This Matters
We are deeply concerned by the ongoing misinformation that suggests families need a formal “SPD diagnosis” to access support.
Too often, families are:
- Told they must have a sensory diagnosis to receive educational or therapeutic input
- Directed toward expensive private assessments that use outdated or unrecognised terminology
- Left feeling confused and disempowered when those assessments are not accepted by schools, healthcare services, or tribunals
This delays access to appropriate support and causes unnecessary stress for families already navigating complex needs.
Our Position Is Clear
At ASI Wise & Sensory Project, we support practice that is:
✅ Ethical and family-centred
✅ Aligned with national standards and international consensus
✅ Focused on real-world function and participation
✅ Informed by sensory integration theory, neuroscience and occupational science
✅ Empowering both families and professionals
Working Together
Let’s move forward as a profession, grounded in science, respectful of national frameworks, and focused on what truly matters: enabling people to participate fully in life.
We encourage all professionals to use the term “sensory integration and processing” to describe the underlying differences and to frame their reports and interventions around the impact on participation, rather than labels.
#AyresSensoryIntegration #OccupationalTherapy #SensoryIntegration #EvidenceInformedPractice #SPD #NewNosology #RCOT #ParticipationNotLabels #FunctionNotDiagnosis #EthicalPractice #EmpoweredFamilies