we did ot for 2 years and it workd for us on both gross motor and fine motor.
Why?

Part of the reason was personality. my child was not going to push himself in areas he did not excell. The one-on-one of OT was where he was able to get lots of new skills. It was also a good education for mom. I would sit quietly and watch and figure out what types of activities calmed him down, where was the physical challenge, how to foster new skills.

In essence, it provided him with a good environment to do the work required to gain certain new skills - so he was ready to learn how to draw, so he was ready to learn how to write letters. He was at an excellent daycare, but many of the activities were choice based and he would avoid activities were he did not have the basic skills. The power struggle of doing the same exercises with mom or dad would have been awful. That said - i would supplement with gymnastics, swim class .......but those activities only worked because he was getting one on one coaching on core fundamentals.

A child that is perhaps more compliant would have gotten the same benefits in a group learning environment. So, whether OT works for a child (or is necessary for a child) can be a matter of personality and general environment. In reflection, a daycare that was not choice centered might have been better but could have been a disaster if he felt too much pressure.

PP, if your kid was just a "late bloomer" why were you consulting "several scientists and psychologists?" Why are you posting here at all if your kid was a "late bloomer" and not special needs? Something fishy in Denmark.


In response to this - you cannot tell that your DC is a late bloomer until they have bloomed. Our preschool had an OT come in to test kids and she told us DC badly needed OT. ... I did not even know what that meant, so I researched it by talking to various contacts I have in psychology, research science, teaching, and a number of parents of older children who had been through OT. We decided (much like the PP M.D.) that the test our DC had received to assess the OT needs had never been scientifically validated, that no evidence supported OT working for a DC in our child's position, and all the anecdotal information from parents who had "been there, done that" was that they honestly did not know whether the OT had any effect at all .... or if their DCs had just matured into better motor skills. So you see - this is not "fishy." --- This is what we do when someone suggests a course of treatment for our DCs that will be expensive, a strain on limited resources of time and money, etc.

Years. Several OTs. Saw improvement in needed skills (writing, scissors, etc.), balance, sensory, etc. but at some point it just his a plateau and then we called it a day. I'm sure they would have kept DS for another year or two working on "regulation" and the like, but we had just maxed out. And at that point insurance coverd 0.

My DC 4 yr old ASD went to Private OT for 5 months. I didn't see any improvement. None at all. None of the Steps in the treatment plan were followed. Paying more than $115 for 45 min seemed waste. We terminated the services. Now, DC gets 30min/wk OT in PAC and also goes to life changing fitness center every week. Seems like both of these are helping now. Still not perfect, but slowly getting there. We also use some materials from Lakeshore learning at home for pre-writing and pre-cutting skills. They are very helpful. DC is delayed in Fine Motor.

Anonymous wrote:And sometimes OT is baloney and a child is just not ready with fine motor skills of a particular variety but will grow into them just fine. The emergence if the skills will happen without OT - there is no correlation or causation there. (DC was just a late blooming leftie, no OT was actually required though it was pushed on us .... ) Research the scientific validation of some of these purported OT tests .... let me know if you find any because, as far as I can tell after consult with several scientists and psychologists, the "field" and common practices are not based on any credible evidence supporting the efficacy or usefulness of OT commonly provided to young children. My two cents? Time and money are better spent teaching most kids a sport the requires motor control, like tennis, squash, fencing, batting, you name it. Less money and they end up with something useful.

PP, if your kid was just a "late bloomer" why were you consulting "several scientists and psychologists?" Why are you posting here at all if your kid was a "late bloomer" and not special needs? Something fishy in Denmark.

We do PT and OT but school provided in IEP. After a little over two semesters, DC is caught up/met all goals so will no longer require PT or OT. We used to do private OT but quit after about six months b/c it was for vague sensory issues Neither I nor his teachers ever saw.

The school OT and PT was for very specific fine and gross motor skills such as pencil grip, zippers, scissors, etc for OT and for climbing stairs and playground equipment, hopping on either foot, etc for PT.

These type of post are the very reason I have been hesitate to start OT in the first place. I am a MD, and there just doesn't seem to be any real science behind it. Yes, DC has poor gross motor skills compared to peers (fine motor skills are fine) so we do gymnastics, swimming and are thinking of starting karate. All of these put together are less expensive than OT, and he gets to be with other kids and have fun.

We did OT for a year and I called it. I asked OT for an updated treatment plan and when she dragged her feet I told her we were ending. She agreed at that point it was time to end.

3.5 years and OT ended it, but I think she could have gone longer.

I could have written your post although we've *only* been in OT 3 years. I feel like we're never going to graduate and am wondering if we should just stop even though his fine motor skills leave a lot to be desired. We've seen a lot of progress over the years, but I do wonder how much is due to OT and how much he would have developed on his own without any type of help.

And sometimes OT is baloney and a child is just not ready with fine motor skills of a particular variety but will grow into them just fine. The emergence if the skills will happen without OT - there is no correlation or causation there. (DC was just a late blooming leftie, no OT was actually required though it was pushed on us .... ) Research the scientific validation of some of these purported OT tests .... let me know if you find any because, as far as I can tell after consult with several scientists and psychologists, the "field" and common practices are not based on any credible evidence supporting the efficacy or usefulness of OT commonly provided to young children. My two cents? Time and money are better spent teaching most kids a sport the requires motor control, like tennis, squash, fencing, batting, you name it. Less money and they end up with something useful.

Six years of OT and counting. Sometimes it is what it is.

OP here. We are going on 4 years in private OT. At the end of yr 1, we (DH and I) knocked it down to 1xweek. We just could not afford 2xweek and insurance didn't cover a cent then. Now, insurance does cover a little, but still...it's been 4 years. They keep telling me he has almost caught up to his peers but not quite. Honestly, I'm thinking of pulling him and finding a new OT.

Mine is in 6th grade and still receiving OT. Not weekly like before but he still gets an hour per month via his IEP. Now it is more about organization than motor skills. It is one of the reasons we stay public.

If you have a child in OT, how long has he/she been in it? When did it end (months, years...)? Did you end it or did the OT end it?

My OT, I think, is stringing us along. DS has made strides and they are now focused on fine motor (unlike before when it was almost solely gross motor then a mix). I know my DS needs more fine motor help. I can see how it helps him. I'm just wondering when it ends. It can't go on for years and years. I've heard of some kids doing OT for 4+ years.