Volume 10 -
MEJDS (2020) 10: 95 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Haghighat Zadeh R, Ghamarani A, Yarmohamadiyan A, Faramarzi S, Malekpour M. Sensory Processing on Executive Functions in Primary School Girls with Dyslexia. MEJDS 2020; 10 :95-95
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1486-en.html
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1486-en.html
Rahele Haghighat Zadeh1 
, Amir Ghamarani * 1, Ahmad Yarmohamadiyan1 , Salar Faramarzi1 , Mokhtar Malekpour1
, Amir Ghamarani * 1, Ahmad Yarmohamadiyan1 , Salar Faramarzi1 , Mokhtar Malekpour1
1- University of Esfahan
Abstract: (2294 Views)
Background & Objectives: Dyslexia is among the main factors a low academic achievement in primary school students, and 80% of learning disorders are related to reading disorder. A person with such a disorder, in spite of benefiting from conventional education, sufficient intelligence, and socioeconomic facilities, experiences difficulty in reading. Considering the recent high incidence of dyslexia in children in Iran as well as the defects in their sensory processing, interventions based on sensory processing useful for other children with special needs are also effective for students with dyslexia. Thus, the current study aimed at investigating the effect of sensory processing training on executive functions among primary school girls with dyslexia.
Methods: The study sample consisted of 30 students with dyslexia referring to the Learning Disabilities Treatment Centers in Isfahan City, Iran in the academic year of 2018. The study subjects were selected through convenience sampling method; then, they were randomly assigned into two groups of 15, including the experimental and control groups. The total number of sessions was decided to be 10, each lasted for 60 minutes and applied twice a week. The program was designed to enhance the sensory processing of students with dyslexia and consisted of 4 distinct units each for activating various aspects of sensory processing, as follows: 1. sensuality (sand play, dough play, ball game, massage); 2. Muscular strength and tolerance (throwing balls, throwing rings, jumping and sitting); 3. Attention and accuracy (puzzle game, housebuilding, the identification of differences and similarities, target searching images), and 4. Gentle moves (puzzle game, pattern practice, house–building, coloring, dancing). The experimental group received 10 on–hour sessions of sensory processing instruction individually, while the control group received no interventions. The research tool was the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (Parent Form), completed by the students' parents in the pretest and posttest stages, and the Wechsler Intelligence Test. In this study, the results of the students' executive functions were completely confidential and there was no compulsion for their attendance. At the end of the research, therapeutic intervention was provided to the control group. The obtained data were analyzed by SPSS using the Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) and Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) to compare the executive functions in the study groups.
Results: The statistical results indicated that the mean scores of subscales of executive functions in the experimental group was higher than those of the control group in all subscales. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test result revealed that they were not significant. Therefore, the data had a normal distribution. Additionally, Levene's test results suggested that all subscales of executive functions were not significant. Thus, equality of variances was established. The statistical results revealed a significant difference between the experimental and control groups regarding the general scores of executive functions and the scores of executive function dimensions (response inhibition, working memory, emotional control, attention, task initiation, planning, prioritization, organizing, time management, goal–orientedness, flexibility, metacognition) (p<0.001).
Conclusion: The sensory processing method significantly impacted the abilities of the executive functions of the experimental group and increased their score in its dimensions (response inhibition, working memory, emotional control, attention, task initiation, planning, prioritization, organizing, time management, goal–orientedness, flexibility, metacognition). Therefore, executive functions with the ability in learning process are of particular importance. These abilities help children to evaluate their performance, remove possible obstacles, and rate their progress. Processing exercises require a child to follow predefined patterns in the game, and in the event of repetition and practice, the content to improve memory scales, especially active memory is provided. Repeating an order in a rhythmic and sensory motion enables children to predict what would happen next; in other words, with the help of active memory and perception, they predict the next components of a move. Sensory processing practices could be used as a way to improve the executive functions of students with dyslexia in schools and health centers.
Methods: The study sample consisted of 30 students with dyslexia referring to the Learning Disabilities Treatment Centers in Isfahan City, Iran in the academic year of 2018. The study subjects were selected through convenience sampling method; then, they were randomly assigned into two groups of 15, including the experimental and control groups. The total number of sessions was decided to be 10, each lasted for 60 minutes and applied twice a week. The program was designed to enhance the sensory processing of students with dyslexia and consisted of 4 distinct units each for activating various aspects of sensory processing, as follows: 1. sensuality (sand play, dough play, ball game, massage); 2. Muscular strength and tolerance (throwing balls, throwing rings, jumping and sitting); 3. Attention and accuracy (puzzle game, housebuilding, the identification of differences and similarities, target searching images), and 4. Gentle moves (puzzle game, pattern practice, house–building, coloring, dancing). The experimental group received 10 on–hour sessions of sensory processing instruction individually, while the control group received no interventions. The research tool was the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (Parent Form), completed by the students' parents in the pretest and posttest stages, and the Wechsler Intelligence Test. In this study, the results of the students' executive functions were completely confidential and there was no compulsion for their attendance. At the end of the research, therapeutic intervention was provided to the control group. The obtained data were analyzed by SPSS using the Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) and Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) to compare the executive functions in the study groups.
Results: The statistical results indicated that the mean scores of subscales of executive functions in the experimental group was higher than those of the control group in all subscales. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test result revealed that they were not significant. Therefore, the data had a normal distribution. Additionally, Levene's test results suggested that all subscales of executive functions were not significant. Thus, equality of variances was established. The statistical results revealed a significant difference between the experimental and control groups regarding the general scores of executive functions and the scores of executive function dimensions (response inhibition, working memory, emotional control, attention, task initiation, planning, prioritization, organizing, time management, goal–orientedness, flexibility, metacognition) (p<0.001).
Conclusion: The sensory processing method significantly impacted the abilities of the executive functions of the experimental group and increased their score in its dimensions (response inhibition, working memory, emotional control, attention, task initiation, planning, prioritization, organizing, time management, goal–orientedness, flexibility, metacognition). Therefore, executive functions with the ability in learning process are of particular importance. These abilities help children to evaluate their performance, remove possible obstacles, and rate their progress. Processing exercises require a child to follow predefined patterns in the game, and in the event of repetition and practice, the content to improve memory scales, especially active memory is provided. Repeating an order in a rhythmic and sensory motion enables children to predict what would happen next; in other words, with the help of active memory and perception, they predict the next components of a move. Sensory processing practices could be used as a way to improve the executive functions of students with dyslexia in schools and health centers.
Type of Study: Original Research Article |
Subject:
Psychology
References
1. Mayes SD, Calhoun SL. Frequency of reading, math, and writing disabilities in children with clinical disorders. Learning and Individual Differences. 2006;16(2):145–57. [DOI]
2. Hutzler F, Kronbichler M, Jacobs AM, Wimmer H. Perhaps correlational but not causal: no effect of dyslexic readers’ magnocellular system on their eye movements during reading. Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(4):637–48. [DOI]
3. Berninger VW, Nielsen KH, Abbott RD, Wijsman E, Raskind W. Writing problems in developmental dyslexia: Under-Recognized and Under-Treated,. J Sch Psychol. 2008;46(1):1–21. [DOI]
4. Seidman LJ. Neuropsychological functioning in people with ADHD across the lifespan. Clin Psychol Rev. 2006;26(4):466–85. [DOI]
5. Anderson VA, Anderson P, Northam E, Jacobs R, Catroppa C. Development of executive functions through late childhood and adolescence in an Australian sample. Dev Neuropsychol. 2001;20(1):385–406. [DOI]
6. Tops W, Callens C, Cauwenberghe EV, Adriaens J, Brysbaert M. Beyond spelling: the writing skills of students with dyslexia in higher education. Read Writ. 2013;26(5):705–20. [DOI]
7. Brocki KC, Eninger L, Thorell LB, Bohlin G. Interrelations between executive function and symptoms of hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattention in preschoolers: a two year longitudinal study. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2010;38(2):163–71. [DOI]
8. Swanson HL, Jerman O. The influence of working memory on reading growth in subgroups of children with reading disabilities. J Exp Child Psychol. 2007;96(4):249–83. [DOI]
9. Sesma HW, Mahone EM, Levine T, Eason SH, Cutting LE. The contribution of executive skills to reading comprehension. Child Neuropsychol. 2009;15(3):232–46. [DOI]
10. Barkley RA. Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Handbook for Diagnosis and Treatment. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2006.
11. Parham DL, Mailloux A. Sensory Integration. In: Case-Smith J, Allen AS, Pratt PN. Occupational Therapy for Children. Mosby; 2001. pp:307–55.
12. Kirby AV, Boyd BA, Williams KL, Faldowski RA, Baranek GT. Sensory and repetitive behaviors among children with autism spectrum disorder at home. Autism. 2017;21(2):142–54. [DOI]
13. Cheung PPP, Siu AMH. A comparison of patterns of sensory processing in children with and without developmental disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2009;30(6):1468–80. [DOI]
14. Leekam SR, Nieto C, Libby SJ, Wing L, Gould J. Describing the sensory abnormalities of children and adults with autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2007;37(5):894–910. [DOI]
15. Wechsler D. WISC-III: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children : Manual. Psychological Corporation; 1974.
16. Shahim S. Meghyas tajdid nazar shode hooshi wechsler baray koodakan [Revised Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children]. Shiraz: Shiraz University Publication; 2008. [Persian]
17. Dawson P, Guare R. Smart but Scattered: The Revolutionary “Executive Skills” Approach to Helping Kids Reach Their Potential. New York: Guilford Press; 2009.
18. Ebrahimi A, Abedi A, Yarmohammadian A, Faramarzi S. Psychometric Properties of the Behavior Rating Inventory for Executive Functions (BRIEF-P) among Preschool Children. Scientific Developmental Pscychology. 2016;12(48):439–427. [Persian] [Article]
19. Leisman G, Melillo R. Effects of motor sequence training on attentional performance in ADHD children. International Journal on Disability and Human Development. 2010;9(4):276–82. [DOI]
20. Kaplan RS, Steele AL. An analysis of music therapy program goals and outcomes for clients with diagnoses on the autism spectrum. J Music Ther. 2005;42(1):2–19. [DOI]
21. Van de Winckel A, Feys H, De Weerdt W, Dom R. Cognitive and behavioural effects of music-based exercises in patients with dementia. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18(3):253–60. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
