Importance: Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) are twice as likely as their peers without disabilities to have had a physical exam in the past year; however, as a result of challenging behavior during office visits, they are significantly less likely to have received recommended health screenings. Challenging behaviors in clinical settings have been identified as a barrier to providing adequate care for this population. Objective: This scoping review examined the within-session effects of multisensory environments (MSEs) on people with IDD to determine the clinical utility of MSEs for this population. Data Sources: Studies published between January 1, 2000, and August 1, 2018, were identified using Summon and Google Scholar. Study Selection: Studies were included in the review if they systematically collected and reported data on within-session effects of an MSE intervention on people with IDD. Findings: Thirteen studies met criteria for this review: 4 with Level I evidence, 2 with Level II evidence, 3 with Level III evidence, and 4 with Level IV evidence. Studies examined the effects of MSEs on maladaptive behaviors, positive behaviors, distress and discomfort, activity and alertness states, and cost of care for people with IDD. Conclusion and Relevance: Preliminary support was found for the use of MSEs in clinical settings to reduce anxiety and challenging behaviors in patients with IDD during clinical care. Further research is needed to determine the efficacy of MSEs for producing the effects described in this review. What This Article Adds: The findings support the potential of MSEs as a tool that occupational therapy practitioners can use to support their clients with IDD who have sensory sensitivities in clinical settings. This article also highlights a multidisciplinary approach whereby medical providers and occupational therapy practitioners could work together in nontraditional ways to support this population.

OBJECTIVE. The Child’s Challenging Behavior Scale, Version 2 (CCBS–2), measures maternal rating of a child’s challenging behaviors that compromise maternal mental health. The CCBS–2, the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) were compared in a sample of typically developing young Australian children. METHOD. Criterion validity was investigated by correlating the CCBS–2 with “gold standard” measures (CBCL and SDQ subscales). Data were collected in a cross-sectional survey of mothers (N = 336) of children ages 3–9 yr. RESULTS. Correlations with the CBCL externalizing subscales demonstrated moderate (ρ = .46) to strong (ρ = .66) correlations. Correlations with the SDQ externalizing behaviors subscales were moderate (ρ = .35) to strong (ρ = .60). CONCLUSION. The criterion validity established in this study strengthens the psychometric properties that support ongoing development of the CCBS–2 as an efficient tool that may identify children in need of further evaluation.

Sensory processing is a personal trait that can contribute to challenging behavior. Protective factors, such as resiliency, can support children in managing their behavior, yet little research has addressed the contribution of sensory processing to protective factors. Therefore, in this cross-sectional study we aimed to determine the contribution of sensory processing (using the Sensory Profile–2) to challenging behavior and protective factors (using the Behavior Assessment System for Children, 2nd ed., Parent Rating Scales) in a sample of 51 children ages 6–11 yr from the general U.S. population. The results indicated that sensory avoiding predicts externalizing behaviors, depression, resiliency, and adaptability. In addition, sensory seeking is related to depression and resiliency, whereas sensory sensitivity is related to externalizing behaviors. Implications for occupational therapy research and practice are discussed.

OBJECTIVE. In this article, we evaluate psychometric properties of the Child’s Challenging Behaviour Scale, Version 2 (CCBS–2) with mothers of young, typically developing children. METHOD. A cross-sectional mail survey with Australian mothers (N = 337) included the CCBS–2, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales, and the Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status scale. RESULTS. Internal consistency was good, and no gender differences in CCBS–2 scores were significant. Significant results included differences between CCBS–2 scores: among children grouped according to age, among children grouped according to pre– and post–school entry, among mothers grouped according to extent of any symptom type, and between this sample and a previously collected age-matched sample of children with disabilities. CONCLUSION. Of the properties tested, results support sound psychometrics. The CCBS–2 can be used to differentiate children according to age, school entry, and disability as well as to identify families for potential services in behavior management and mental health.