This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women scientists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Bibliographies: Science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bibliographies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bibliographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibliographiesWikipedia:WikiProject BibliographiesTemplate:WikiProject BibliographiesBibliographies articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Science Taskforce (assessed as Low-importance). United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I will remove the tag stating that this article does not cite sources because it clearly does, although it seems to rely somewhat heavily on one source. If anyone disputes this decision, just add the tag back and explain why. -- Qmwne _{2 3 5} 01:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi. Just to settle the question of sourcing (the page is currently on my watchlist following my response to a CSD tag here), I did a google book search and have added information from several books related to Ms. Ayres. It seems plenty more material is available there. I've also removed the notability tag I added, as that search confirms to me that the subject meets our notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Whether her theory is controversial or not, it is "an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources". -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello! I am a relative of Jeanie Ayres and am currently trying to aquire some photos and family information. If there is something specific I should look for feel free to let me know. -- Sanitized

Clearly notable, thanks to some recent work. That said, she is notable for her work on one diagnosis. The polarized opinions about that diagnosis probably should at least be mentioned. As it now stands, the article seems to indicate that she developed the theory, the diagnosis was accepted and she was lauded as a hero. The reality is far more complicated. I'll try to include something fairly balanced on this and would appreciate a few other sets of eyes on it. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 15:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Yikes! I just took a look at Sensory Integration Dysfunction. Looks like there is a lot of work to do there as well. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 15:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I'm not familiar with the concept, really, aside from having heard a passing mention a few years ago in connection to an autistic child. But the article does indicate "According to Group Dynamics in Occupational Therapy (2005), Ayres' theory and conclusions remain controversial." I haven't research it deeply enough to know why. :) -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The basic argument seems to be that a few occupational therapists were using "Sensory Integration Therapy" as an "alternative therapy" to treat autism/aspergers until someone cried foul. Then the diagnosis of "Sensory Integration Dysfunction" was born. More than a few in the psych field thought something smelled rotten. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 19:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Interesting! Seems like it would be worth the time to dig up some references and drop that particularly in the main article, with some smaller references here as well. I've only just skimmed the primary article, but at a glance I didn't see that in there. You mention other eyes--are you concerned that your efforts to bring balance might be reverted by POV-pushers, are you just generally wanting feedback on your first round of changes? I ask, because it makes a difference the level & length of watching. :D -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Yeah, POV pushers are always a potential problem, but I don't have a particular concern with that here.

More likely is my own proximity to the subject. I haven't specifically read anything reliable on the issue. I've really just heard collegues groaning about it. As a result, I'm probably a bit too eager to "set this right". As a result, I'm holding off on adding anything about it until I have something solid and am fairly certain that I've worded it fairly. I can't put my hands on anything at the moment, and PubMed came up pretty much empty. I'll have to ask around for something published. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 20:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

All righty. It's still on my watchlist, so if you want another opinion after you come up with something, I'll be happy to chime in. :) It's pretty far removed from my professional field, so I should be able to give you some "uninvolved" feedback. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, I was just passed a copy of an article from The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, "Separating Fact from Fiction in the Etiology and Treatment of Autism". Mostly it's a meta analysis from MCP Hahnemann. Here's what they have to say:

Controlled studies have found little support for the efficacy of SIT for treating children with various developmental disabilities. Mason and Iwata (1990) found SIT ineffective for treating self-injurious behaviors in three patients with mental retardation, although the problematic behaviors were later reduced through behavioral interventions. Furthermore, self-injurious behaviors paradoxically increased in one 3-year-old patient when treated with SIT. Iwasaki and Holm (1989) found no difference between the SIT and control condition (described as informal talk and touch) in decreasing stereotypic behaviors in young children and adults with mental retardation. Jenkins, Fewell, and Harris (1983) found no differences between young children with mild-to-moderate motor delays who received either SIT or small group therapy for 17 weeks. Finally, Densem, Nuthall, Bushnell, and Horn (1989) found no differences between SIT and no-treatment control conditions for children with learning disabilities. In fact, in their review of the literature Hoehn and Baumeister (1994) concluded that controlled studies of SIT demonstrate no unique benefits for the treatment on any outcome areas in children with learning disabilities.

Dawson and Watling (2000) recently reviewed studies that used objective behavioral measures in investigating the efficacy of SIT for autism. Only one of the four studies had more than 5 participants and no study included a comparison group. In the study with the largest sample size, Reilly, Nelson, and Bundy (1984) used a randomized, ABAB counterbalanced design to compare SIT with tabletop activities (e.g., puzzles and coloring). Eighteen children with autism received an hour of SIT and tabletop activities each. The authors reported that verbal behavior was superior in the tabletop as compared with the SIT condition because children spoke more during the fine motor activities. Nevertheless, the brevity of treatment, lack of specific training in SIT for the therapists, and failure of the researchers to assess verbal behavior outside the experimental condition limit the conclusions that can be drawn.

Other single-case studies comparing SIT with no-treatment baseline among autistic children have reported beneficial results (Case-Smith & Bryan, 1999; Linderman & Stewart, 1999). However, these designs cannot demonstrate that the benefits were produced specifically by SIT. As Reilly et al. (1984) demonstrated, simple tabletop activities actually appeared to result in benefits superior to SIT in their study. Green (1996a) pointed out that although children may find SIT activities enjoyable, this does not provide evidence of any significant, long-lasting benefits in the child’s behavior or in any underlying neurological deficits. Furthermore, applying brushes of increasing firmness to the arms of autistic children, a common SIT activity, may help to desensitize them to certain tactile stimuli, but such benefits are most parsimoniously explained by well-known behavioral principles (e.g., habituation) rather than anything specific to SIT (Seigel, 1996). In conclusion, the general null effects for SIT relative to control conditions in treating other developmental disabilities, combined with the results of the Reilly et al. (1984) study with autistic children, suggest little benefit of SIT for autism.

I'll look for an online copy and try to get something up, unless someone else wants to take a crack. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 20:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply

If you haven't already, I'll take a look at it this afternoon. Busy work time at the moment, cutting into my true calling. :D -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I found it online and have incorporated a reference from it to the lead. It probably warrants inclusion in more detail in the parent article, but I may leave that for those more familiar with the field. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Looks pretty good to me, we'll see what anyone else has to say, of course. Thanks. - Mdsummermsw ( talk) 13:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I have supplied a large reference list of additional sources regarding Dr. Ayres subject matter of sensory integration theory in order to allow the public to have access to published work on the topic. I will re-post. I would like to state that my affiliation with the Ayres family is solely of a professional nature. I reached out to the representatives of the Ayres trust to confirm biographical facts regarding Dr. Ayres life and to get the copyright for additional pictures of her. That is the extent of the relationship. My goal was to accurately and without bias represent Dr. Ayres life, work, and the resulting theory that is still in practice today. I am also interested in citing published research that represents all sides of the issue of sensory integration, including more current intervention studies. With the help of this online community, we can credit Dr. Ayres with her work in sensory integration theory and practice factually and with regard to what is and what is not sensory integration theory and practice. -- ASI2020 Vision|(talk) 21:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

August 2014: Lead section: I shortened the lead section to the essential information and converted the rest of the article into the "main part". I know the original literature as well as the controversial literature. I added the different views and controversies to balance the article. Also added lots of references into the article. I hope you find this improves the article! (Was an afternoon worth of work.) ElDelRey1 ( talk) 00:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Article is a bit disorganized/repetitious: professional life and personal life needed to be better separated, and personal life could be expanded on. For example, what are the symptoms she experienced as a child and how did they affect her as a child? Also, some unnecessary repetition as the article proceeds. - lpchoplin