Cross-sectional analysis reveals moderate awareness and positive attitudes in speech language pathologists, suggesting a need for better training and resources.
Sensory Processing Disorder (SPD) is a complex neurological condition that significantly affects emotional, social, and cognitive development. Its diverse manifestations can disrupt communication and learning, presenting notable challenges for clinical intervention. Despite its relevance, SPD continues to be under-recognized within the domain of speech language pathology. The present study assesses the awareness, knowledge, and attitudes toward sensory processing and its disorders among practicing Speech Language Pathologists (SLPs) in Maharashtra and examines how these vary based on factors such as educational qualification, work setting, area of expertise, and years of experience. A cross-sectional descriptive research design was employed. Data were collected via an online survey using a validated questionnaire, where 100 SLPs with a minimum of six months’ clinical experience completed the survey. Participants demonstrated moderate levels of awareness and knowledge, coupled with a generally positive attitude toward SPD. Neither educational background nor years of experience significantly influenced these domains. However, notable differences in knowledge were observed across workplace settings, with SLPs employed in hospitals and private clinics reporting higher knowledge scores. The area of expertise was also found to influence awareness levels. Enhanced knowledge in hospital and private practice settings suggested that exposure to diverse clinical cases and interdisciplinary collaboration may be critical for developing clinical competence in SPD. Despite strong positive attitudes, limited implementation suggests gaps in training and resources. Higher awareness among adult-focused SLPs challenges common assumptions, highlighting the need for practical, interdisciplinary training to bridge the gap between knowledge and application.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mahatha et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: