One of the problems in understanding sensory issues is that sensory sensitivities are very variable, among individuals and within the same individual. A person can be hyper-sensitive in one area (like hearing) and hypo-sensitive in another (like touch). One person can have a marked olfactory sensitivity and another might not be affected at all in that sense. Complicating matters even further, on a day-to-day basis, in the same individual, the sensory sensitivities can change, especially when the person is tired or stressed. These many and constantly shifting variables make it difficult to design research studies to test therapies to treat sensory sensitivities. So professionals will loudly make assertions such as "There is no research to support sensory integration therapy with individuals with autism"--tacitly suggesting the therapy is ineffective. The absence of clinical research does not mean sensory therapies are not viable for children or adults. It simply means research has not been done to date.

Furthermore, with the variable nature of sensory issues in autism, we must look at research with a slightly different slant. If twenty children are put in a study and four benefit from the therapy, while sixteen don't, is it ethical to deem the therapy ineffective? It really worked on four children. Four children's lives are now markedly different; their world is no longer hellish to live in. A better approach in situations like this is to delve deeper into why it works for some, and not for others, to continue to explore what is going on in their brains by doing follow-up research between the responders and non-responders, rather than arbitrarily dismissing the therapy altogether.