Monitoring our progress
I’m really excited to be able to share the preliminary review of our online course Sensory Processing with GriffinOT. I was able to present these results at the Royal College of Occupational Therapist’s Children and Families conference on October 1st 2021. A huge thank you to Sue Allen for helping to review the data and compile the report. On this page you will find
Monitoring our progress
I’m really excited to be able to share the preliminary review of our online course Sensory Processing with GriffinOT. I was able to present these results at the Royal College of Occupational Therapist’s Children and Families conference on October 1st 2021. A huge thank you to Sue Allen for helping to review the data and compile the report. On this page you will find
Background to the review
Sensory processing differences impact children’s school participation (1) and ability to engage in meaningful occupations (2). Sensory strategies are one way to support participation in meaningful occupation (3).
Online sensory training courses can provide an immediate and easily scalable, universal support to educators and families. In line with RCOT guidelines (4), it can build capacity among those supporting children with Special Education Needs, and extend the profession’s reach to the maximum number of children. To help more educators and parents understand and support these children, Kim began providing online sensory training in 2017. She currently offers a free introduction and a longer course – Sensory Processing with GriffinOT.
Aim of the review
To audit the impact of online sensory training on participant’s knowledge, confidence and practical application of sensory regulation strategies when supporting children at school and home.
Methods
Participants could complete optional anonymous pre and post evaluation questionnaires during each Level of the sensory training. The questionnaires collect information that tracks changes to participants’ knowledge, confidence, use of sensory supports, and their satisfaction with the training overall.
This page (and poster below) presents a preliminary analysis of the data from participants who have consented to the sharing of anonymised data.
Who answered the questions?
Most of the people who completed the questionnaires were educators. This diagram shows the participants from Level 1. Education support staff are the largest group on the training (45%), with qualified education staff being the next largest group (24%). Parents/guardians make up the next largest group (19%) and other professionals, like occupational therapists also join the training (12%). The demographics on the paid courses are similar, but slightly more teachers and professionals completing Levels 2 and 3
Experiences of sensory processing before the training
Most participants had some experiences of using sensory strategies before they did the training (91%) and many reported having access to sensory equipment (85%).
91% use sensory strategies
85% have sensory equipment
Previous access to sensory training
One number Kim was sad to see, but not surprised by, was that despite nine in ten participants reporting that they use sensory strategies, only 26% report having attending any training. It is this figure that motivates Kim to keep providing affordable online resources make this training more accessible to everyone.
Only 26% of participants had previous sensory training
Changes to knowledge and confidence
It was great to see that participants’ knowledge scores increased after each Level. This was tracked using multiple choice questions which they could answer at the start and end of each Level of the course.
Confidence was measured using a ten point rating scale from 1-10. Participants were asked to rate their confidence identifying sensory needs and using sensory supports after each Level of the training. For example, how would you rate your ability to use sensory strategies/supports correctly and safely? There was a large increase in reported confidence scores after the first hour of training. This continued to increase as participants progressed through the Levels. In the future Kim would like to review the changes in confidence for different groups completing the training.
Total confidence scores
It is important to Kim that she is measuring the impact of the training she offers. It’s clear from the results that there is a lack of sensory training available and that training can help to increase confidence. Those completing the full course also report very positive outcomes for the children they are supporting.
Impact of training on practice and outcomes
At the end of Level 3, 69 participants gave information about how they have been using the information they learnt in the training. They reported making significant changes to their practice (median score is 8/10). Participants also feel these changes have been helpful for the children they are supporting (median score 9/10).
How much have changed your practice?
How helpful are supports for children?
What participants said
Participant’s feedback is summarised on this word wall. Participant’s when they were asked to describe what they thought they have changed after completing the training. Understanding and sensory were the most common words used. If the words child, children and pupils were combined, then this would be the most common word. The word understanding was often coupled with behaviours. Participants frequently mentioned the words strategies and aware.
How would you rate the training?
Participants were asked to rate the content and quality of the training out of 5. The average score for content was 4.52/5. And, the average score for quality was 4.47/5. There were no scores for 1 or 2 and very few scores for 3 in the ratings.
Average rating for content in the course
Average rating for quality of the course
Would you recommend the training?
When asked if they would recommend the training to others, 82% of participants rated the likelihood of recommending as 8 out of 10 or higher.
