Clients' preferences for situations and stimuli were collected from exposure to a number of different environments before their responses were collected from the presentation of sensory stimuli. The aim of the study was to discern which novel stimuli were preferred by individual clients. Six clients with moderate learning disabilities were presented individually with a selection of sensory stimuli in a specially equipped multisensory room. Results showed the specific preferences of individual clients as well as overall stimuli preferences across clients. The systematic presentation of sensory stimuli to this client group enabled an objective evaluation of clients' preferences and facilitated clear feedback of information to keyworkers and care managers responsible for these clients.
LongAPHaigL.How do clients benefit from Snoezelen? An exploratory study. Br J Occup Ther1992; 55 (3): 103–106.
3.
WillcocksS.Snoezelen in elderly care (conference report). Br J Occup Ther1994; 57 (6): 242.
4.
HutchinsonR.The Whittington Hall Snoezelen project: a report from inception to the first twelve months. Chesterfield: North Derbyshire Hearth Authority, 1991.
5.
JacksonM.From work to therapy: the changing politics of occupation in the twentieth century. Br J Occup Ther1993; 56 (10): 360–64.
CunninghamCCHutchinsonRKewinJ.Recreation for people with profound and severe learning difficulties: the Whittington Hall Snoezelen project. Chesterfield: North Derbyshire Health Authority, 1991.
8.
HaggarLHutchinsonR.Snoezelen: an approach to the provision of a leisure resource for people with profound and multiple handicaps. Ment Handicap1991; 19: 51–55.
9.
TriggJ.The Snoezelen room and sensory garden. Botley's Park Hospital, The Journal (Frances Harrison College, St Luke's Hospital, Guildford) 1991; Spring (2): 7–10.
10.
FavellJECannonPR. Evaluation of entertainment materials for severely retarded persons. Am J Ment Deficiency1976; 81: 357–61.
11.
PaceGMIvanicMTEdwardsGLIwataBAPageTJ. Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. J Appl Behav Anal1985; 18: 249–55.
12.
WackerDPBergWKWigginsBMuldoonMCavanaghJ.Evaluation of reinforcer preferences for profoundly handicapped students. J Appl Behav Anal1985; 18:173–78.
13.
GreenCWReidDHWhiteLKHalfordRCBrittainDPGardnerSM. Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. J Appl Behav Anal1988; 21: 31–43.
14.
ThompsonSBNGittinsDK. Using a pethna to increase the independence in feeding of a woman with profound mental handicap. Int J Rehabil Res1986; 12 (2): 204–207.
15.
DormandyKvan der GaagA.What colour are the alligators? A critical look at methods used to assess communication skills in adults with learning difficulties. Br J Disord Commun1989; 24 (3): 265–79.
16.
ThompsonSBNGittinsDK. Finding the right incentive. Therapy Weekly1989; 16 (18): 8.
17.
HutchinsonRHagarL.The development and evaluation of a Snoezelen leisure resource for people with profound and multiple handicaps. Chesterfield: North Derbyshire Health Authority, Chesterfield, 1991.
18.
HaigL.Spotlight on activating the senses. Therapy Weekly1990; Feb 1: 4.
19.
RobinsonM.Going Dutch with sensory stimulation. Therapy Weekly1990; Feb 1: 4.
20.
ThompsonSBNMorganM.Occupational therapy for stroke rehabilitation. London: Chapman and Hall, 1990.
21.
ThompsonSBN. Eating disorders: a guide for health professionals. London: Chapman and Hall, 1993: 194–239.
22.
Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority. Preference assessment: assessment form. Southampton: Department of Speech and Language Therapy, SSWHHA, 1991.
23.
ThorntonP.Edge of dreams, new world classics. Compact disc. Halesworth, Suffolk: GRG Music, 1986.
24.
NumanG.Cars, No. 1 Classics of the 70s. Compact disc. London: PolyGram Special Products, 1991.
