Revisiting “Sensory reactivity and intolerance to uncertainty: What characterises demand avoidance behaviours in children and adolescents with pathological demand avoidance?”

(Rai, A. et al. (2026) ‘Sensory reactivity and intolerance to uncertainty: What characterises demand avoidance behaviours in children and adolescents with pathological demand avoidance?’, Research in Autism, 131. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S3050656526000301?__cf_chl_tk=zH_BqQ8_J1a4RebkPkPALpQ6qQd8vMT9LI6peeJmw2g-1778269928-1.0.1.1-M9gZbg.Q6C0wQcrCf35QEryvUVuluZtUOt.GiIdLhAE (Accessed: 08 May 2026))

So I’ve been returning to this paper, still wondering just how it came to a conclusion that diverges so strongly from the reported (anecdotal) lived experience of PDAers.

Ultimately it comes down to the nature of the statistical procedure used. I’ve studied a fair amount of stats at Cardiff University, in my DipHE (and am returning to this in my OU studies). However, hierarchical and linear regression are methods we didn’t cover at undergraduate level – which poses a challenge. The crux is: is this a correlational or causational method?

So I’ve done a google search, checking over a number of different resources. I also asked my friend with a masters in astrophsyics. From what I can ascertain, regression analyses are correlational (but if anyone out there knows better, please let me know!)

This matters, because if the relationship between the variables is correlational, then one can not be said to cause the other. So this paper states that sensory sensitivities predict scores on the extreme demand avoidance measure, in PDA children: ” Finally, the dimensions of tactile sensitivity, Taste/Smell, and UR/Seek sensation significantly predicted EDA in the Autism + PDA group (F(7, 467)= 23.84, p < .001, R²= .26).” (Rai et al, 2026). But if this isn’t causational, then sensory sensitivity can’t be framed as the cause of demand avoidance behaviours in PDA children – something that is very easy to miss within this paper.

So it does seem that what they’ve picked up on, is that we have far less capacity to “meet demands” when also overwhelmed by our senses. The other thing they noted was that EDA-Q scores lessened by age, which I suspect means that measure is better at detecting demand avoidant behaviour in younger children, personally.

I feel the main benefit of this piece of research is that it evidences the need for PDAers to have sensory accommodations. However, I feel it is very easily interpreted as evidencing that PDA demand avoidance is underpinned by sensory overwhelm – which is a different proposition! I would have appreciated if the discussion had made this clearer. Overall, it leaves me with the feeling of an “outsider perspective” on our experience.

Note: regarding the language “significantly predicted” – In Null Hypothesis Significance Testing, we look to see if our observed result is less than 5% likely to have happened by chance – p < 0.05. As such, “significant” doesn’t mean important/large/meaningful as it usually would. It means, there was less than a 5% likelihood that the findings occurred by chance.