... Sensory Assessments at the Museum: Evaluating Sensory Features in Exhibits for Community Accessibility Patia Hunt May 2022 A capstone project submitted in partial fulfillment for the requirements of the Doctor of Occupational Therapy degree from the University of Indianapolis, School of Occupational Therapy. Under the direction of the faculty capstone advisor: Dr. Taylor Gurley, Assistant Professor Abstract Experts and current literature suggest that sensory stimuli affect accessibility and participation in varying environments; however, studies presented limited understanding of what and how sensory stimuli within an environment might pose as barriers compared to educational and immersive experiences. I partnered with The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis to produce quantitative and qualitative assessment tools specific to the museum-setting to identify sensory features within exhibits. We collaborated to develop a quantitative tool (M-SEAT) and qualitative tools (exhibit and interactive ASI appraisals) based on literature, expert opinions, education, and clinical experiences to identify characteristics of sensory stimuli in environments that may present differences in accessibility for those with sensory-related difficulties, as well as provide more awareness for museum evaluators regarding the designs of the exhibits. Each tool is anticipated to provide different interpretive information to support knowledgeable exhibit design, preparation, and community accessibility and promote The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis as a role model for accessibility and inclusion. Keywords: sensory, accessibility, museum, occupational therapy, assessment tool, children, pediatrics, community, sensory processing, sensory integration, emerging practice, The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis, immersive experience, exhibit, environmental design Introduction The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis (TCM) provides unique opportunities for families to learn, play, and interact via exhibits and events within the community setting. TCM partners with many community initiatives and organizations to serve as a role model and support their visitors and neighboring communities. Interested parties may visit the museum in many ways, but TCM strives to ensure the best experience for all its visitors, such as families, children or adults with disabilities (mobility, vision, hearing, developmental, etc.), foster families, or school groups. Although TCM is a non-profit organization and utilizes grant funds for initiatives pursuing inclusive and accessible environments, universal design and maintaining the integrity of artifacts may not allow for true accessible features (Carron, 2015). Teams of staff members work to make the best environment and experience while maintaining their goals of safety, family learning, inclusion, and valuable visitor experience. These teams often include representatives from several departments: exhibit development and design, marketing, operations, research and evaluation, interactive programming, collections, production, visitor and public relations, security, graphics and technology, finance, specialists, and others, as indicated. Each member in the development and maintenance phases of an exhibits lifetime at TCM is responsible for considering how exhibit elements may affect visitor experience, which reflects onto the museum as a whole. Within recent years, TCM received a grant from the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) to support budgeting renovations of the Dinosphere exhibit, the largest and longest lasting exhibit at TCM (The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis, n.d.). Portions of the IMLS grant heavily focus on goals related to accessibility and inclusion to elicit innovation to museum exhibit design and visitor experience, and TCM fully supports this reimagined perspective. In the past, TCM developed a few resources, collaborated with advisors and families, and held specialized events for those with differing accessibility needs in order to access the museum. With the Dinosphere renovation and support from this grant, TCM is pushing accessibility and inclusion boundaries to surpass universal design and ADA standards when able, while also maintaining collections concerns and building restrictions. As indicated, not all pieces of immersive experiences or collections items may be accessible, and we still weigh the options for what the general population might benefit from and how we might accommodate experiences that do not feature universal design recommendations. As my doctoral capstone project for occupational therapy, I worked at TCM under the Operations Project Manager and Accessibility Coordinator and alongside the Director of Research and Evaluation to develop methods that evaluate an environment (in this case an exhibit) for sensory stimuli characteristics to promote awareness for how sensory elements may affect accessibility and the learning environment. In doing so, TCM staff could assess their exhibits on which sensory stimuli are present, to what degree they are present, if the stimuli are varied or concentrated, or any other features that might interconnect with access. Background Sensory processing and self-regulation are key elements of how individuals experience life and form a foundation for other developmental milestones (Cho, n.d.-a; Cho, n.d.-b; Kranowitz, 2005; & STAR Institute, n.d.). Each individual utilizes eight senses to coordinate their body, surroundings, and decisions: five external senses auditory or sound, gustatory or taste, olfactory or smell, tactile or touch, and visual or sight; and three internal senses interoception or internal body awareness like hunger or heart rate, proprioception or muscle sense like movement, and vestibular or head position in space and balance (Kranowitz, 2005; Parham & Mailloux, 2020). Using these, a person collects information through different sensors or structures, transports the information across neural pathways to the brain and spinal cord, processes it for understanding, and makes a decision regarding the sensory input, determining if it signifies a threat and if, or perhaps how, to acknowledge the information (Kranowitz, 2005; Parham & Mailloux, 2020) Through exposure, practice, and social interactions, an individual may develop and refine their sensory processing and regulation skills throughout life; children often have more difficulty honing these skills due to naivety and dependency for exposures (Kranowitz, 2005). Frequently, people experience occasional, minor difficulties processing and regulating sensory stimuli while developing and mastering skills; this is anticipated and not indicative of a sensory-related issue. On the contrary, some individuals may demonstrate more prominent signs and symptoms of sensory-related problems, such as tantrums, significantly reduced focus, unnoticed or excessively noticed features within the environment, and other behaviors; parents or educators may consult with therapists to address notable issues when they impact daily functioning: retaining an inappropriate behavior pattern for an extended period of development; severe, disrupting, potentially harmful, or destructive behaviors; behavior bouts last a long time before recovering, or behaviors that occur frequently (Cho, n.d.-a; Dunn, 2007; Kranowitz, 2005; & Parham & Mailloux, 2010). Jane Ayres, an occupational therapist highly prominent around the 1970s, studied this phenomenon to create the foundation for sensory integration research and therapy interventions to mediate these behaviors (Cho, n.d.-b; Parham & Mailloux, 2010; & Parham & Mailloux, 2020); since then, others like Winnie Dunn have evolved upon these concepts to appreciate how sensory processing and regulation affected children, how environments posed sensory stimulation that might promote or limit occupations based on a childs skills, developed assessment tools to quantify and recognize sensory-related needs, and suggested varying methods and specialties for therapeutic considerations (Cho, n.d.-a; Dunn, 2007; Kranowitz, 2005; Parham & Mailloux, 2010; & Parham & Mailloux, 2020). Researchers hypothesized these concerns may stem from a neurological reason, such as underexposure or misalignment with what is considered socially appropriate behaviors, may be associated as symptoms from other diagnoses, or may be both and considered as comorbidities (Kranowitz, 2005: Parham & Mailloux, 2020). Foundational leaders categorized observable sensory processing symptoms based on these areas of difficulties: modulation (sensory seeking, avoidance or defensiveness, and low registration), sensorimotor (motor control, balance, coordination, body awareness), and discrimination or the ability to differentiate between types of sensory input and processing (Kranowitz, 2005). Sensory processing disorder (SPD) is not a recognized medical diagnosis because of its complexity and lack of formal research; however, SPD is commonly acknowledged in pediatrics and OT as an association of sensory-related problems, as described in the above categories, interfering with daily occupations (Kranowitz, 2005). Literature supported the notion that sensory-related issues might precede and exacerbate other diagnoses and symptoms, including but not limited to autism spectrum disorder, attentiondeficit/hyper-activity disorder, behavioral challenges, anxiety, sleep complications, learning deficits, family dynamics and social interruptions, and digestion and mealtime complications (Blanche et al., 2016; Bodison & Parham, 2018; Cahill & Beisbier, 2020; Carpenter et al., 2019; Kirby et al., 2015; Kirby et al., 2019; Vasak et al., 2015; Woo & Leon, 2013; & Zobel-Lachiusa, et al., 2015). Additionally, Bodison and Parham (2018) stated that sensory-related challenges in children increased over the last 20 years; unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic with isolation and mask mandates presents an increased risk for sensory deprivation to this generation of children. Therefore, integrating sensory-related design features into a positive community-based, interactive environment promotes the exposure and practice with sensory integration and processing required for skill development. Sensory integration intervention researchers recommended increased exposure in occupation-based, multi-faceted, and engaging methods as best practice for this area of skill development (Cho, n.d.-a; Kranowitz, 2005; Parham & Mailloux, 2020; Reynolds, et al., 2017; & STAR Institute, n.d.). As play and education are childrens main occupations, the museum provides an intentional atmosphere to incorporate skill development through occupations appropriate for this age (American Occupational Therapy Association, 2020; & Carron, 2015). Researchers also suggested that sensory exposure to all individuals, regardless of client factors, demonstrated benefits to skill development, and this skill refinement might transfer into other areas of performance, promoting the versatile use of sensory-informed decision making (Blanche et al., 2016; Cahill & Beisbier, 2020; Smart et al., 2018; & Woo & Leon, 2013). My intention for this project is to enhance TCM staff members knowledge regarding sensory stimulation and accessibility, so that they may be more intentional and aware about the sensory features their exhibits possess. The partners and author required methods to quantify and acknowledge the sensory features present within the exhibit experience to provide accessible exhibits and promote sensory-related skills, as the museum strives for unique experiences and learning. Individuals must learn through sensory information, being told, shown, or engaged in learning materials; therefore, literature recognized that sensory-skill advancement corresponds with improved educational skills (Dunn, 2007; Kranowitz, 2005). As an extension to this, researchers hypothesized that sensory-skill refinements may also lead to diminished risks for maladaptive behaviors, symptom severity, and development of other disorders in the future, as well as improve sensory skills that form the foundation for other development skills such as social skills, coping efficiency, memory and cognition, occupational performance, physical functioning and efficiency, and mood (Baroncelli, et al., 2010; Blanche, et al., 2016; Carpenter, et al., 2019; Cho, n.d.-b; Clark & Hasse, n.d.; Kirby, et al., 2019; Mandolesi, et al., 2017; Scholz, et al., 2015; & Vasak, et al., 2015). In turn, these children may be better prepared for success and full engagement. Foundational Basis Based on the Person-Environment-Occupation-Performance (PEOP) model, Dunns Model of Sensory Processing, and the Sensory Integration (SI) frame of reference, I will negotiate how to develop tools to acknowledge the dynamic relationship between a person, an environment and its sensory features, the occupation or activities, and their performance. The PEOP model endorses the creation of an enabling environment in which an occupation occurs, such as play and informal education, to promote skill development (Bass, Baum, & Christiansen, 2017; Baum & Christiansen, 2005; Brown, 2014; & Christiansen, Baum, & Bass, 2011). In this case, awareness of the sensory stimulation or opportunities of sensory enrichment in an exhibit increases various types of exposure for sensory processing, regulation, and integration skill practice or may prevent those with sensory sensitivities from access or successful and engaging participation. An environment that facilitates this practice changes components of the occupations, as well, requiring occupants of the space to adapt their methods and performance. The anticipated response to the innovative exposure transpires into sensory integration and adaptive behaviors. Similarly, the SI frame of reference and Dunns Model of Sensory Processing identify methods to interact with lifes experiences by developing sensory processing skills and the dynamic relation between exposure, person, and occupational performance (Cho, n.d.-a; Cho, n.d.-b; & STAR Institute, n.d.). Environmental exposure, teaching adaptive behaviors, practice, and sensory input and integration promotes improvements in occupational performance due to the ability to interpret and reason through stimuli to foster an appropriate response. Sensory stimuli alter our life experiences, making this development crucial (Cho, n.d.-a; Cho, n.d.-b; & STAR Institute, n.d.). The most common areas of sensory processing difficulties involve tactile touch, proprioceptive body movement, and vestibular body position input, all of which must occur for an individual to function within occupations (Cho, n.d.-b). The PEOP model, Dunns Model of Sensory Processing, and the SI frame of reference bolster these claims in terms of motivation, skill development, an enabling environment, occupation-based intervention, and sensory-related focus (Bass, Baum, & Christiansen, 2017; Baum & Christiansen, 2005; Brown, 2014; Cho, n.d.-a; Christiansen, Baum, & Bass, 2011; & STAR Institute, n.d.). Therefore, combining these theoretical foundations, TCM remains interested in the skill development and educational opportunities, as well as barriers to access and participation, for children in a fun environment in which their main occupations occur. Therefore, the museum actively engages a population at-risk for developing sensory problems by incorporating sensory stimuli into exhibits and making efforts to notify visitors with various needs of these features for visit preparation. Project Sensory stimuli are difficult to quantify individually, and what someone qualifies as loud or overwhelming or calm varies per person. Additionally, for exhibit development, exhibit teams are estimating what types of interactive opportunities exist, and how many stimuli are present. With collaboration of the exhibit teams, and consulting with outside sources for feedback about use, interest, success, accessibility, and any other topics to navigate decision-making, as indicated, exhibit developers and designers chose which, what, and how to incorporate elements into the exhibit. Therefore, with an ambitious goal of being accessible, inclusive, educational, and experiential, TCM looks for better ways to evaluate designs and spaces and ways to make adjustments for standard operating and sensory-friendly modes, when applicable. Considerations What should a sensory tool(s) that evaluate(s) the accessibility of an exhibit incorporate? The project began with the consideration of making an assessment tool to identify sensory characteristics. Originally, I intended to make one assessment tool that could evaluate any environment for sensory characteristics and quantify them. I labeled this original project the Sensory-Environment Assessment Tool (SEAT). On this basis, I wanted this tool to be userfriendly for any person to utilize, such as an organization, an OT, or a parent, in any space that might present any barriers to access or occupational performance. Upon my first independent trial, a second collaborative trial of the broad assessment tool, and discussion with other professionals and the museum, a more site-specific quantitative perspective was considered to be more feasible for research means. Additionally, museum advisors and exhibit teams requested the option for a simplified qualitative tool, anticipated to be more heavily utilized by the exhibit teams. Ideally, I expected the tools to be efficient and require minimal training, as well as provide multi-use options; this included the idea of only evaluating one sense, one exhibit area, or perhaps one interactive, as indicated by the evaluators interests. As designed by TCM in their sensory signage and maps, some senses were combined; therefore, I reflected this to place proprioceptive and vestibular elements into a section labeled movement. Each tool should be user-friendly for museum personnel to read the manual and complete the evaluations, any other criteria involved in the design elements may be contrived from clinical experiences and museum initiatives. Design of the Quantitative Tool For a quantitative measure, teams might benefit from further development, such as ranking elements of the characteristics based on how stimulating they are as a general population might interpret them, and then formulating a general consensus of what that means or a broad interpretation. First, I studied the Child and Adult/Adolescent Sensory Profile 2 for formatting and general aspects of content that can be characteristic of an environment. Then, I formed a base model for the tool. The assessment tool should consider each sense individually, since not every environment has all the senses receiving input, and they should be specific to museum immersive exhibit opportunities. If a stimulus is not present, it should not be considered in the scoring. The tools should be supported by research as much as possible; however, due to the lack of formal research covering specifics of this topic or how to quantify levels of stimulation, clinical reasoning, experience, expert opinions, and case studies may aide in this aspect. The content in each section needs to be as detailed as possible with clear differences, with examples to aide in decision-making. The process for use should be concise, but thorough, and the format should be available to be printed and online, if possible. Additionally, feedback from trial testing and other related reports from advisors and families who visit TCM may be used to revise and appropriately distinguish differences between levels of classification. The tools should also consider the weight of descriptive choices and ranking, as some aspects of stimuli are more noxious than others, such as very loud, startling noises or ability to navigate a pathway. Lastly, the tool should evaluate an exhibit during typical activity or standard operating modes, but may be used to assess different modes. This measure was labeled the Museum Sensory-Environment Assessment Tool (MSEAT), with an assessment form like a spreadsheet, a scoring sheet, and a manual. For each sense, characteristics of that sense are listed in rows with ranked descriptive choices increasing in broad stimulation progression. An evaluator will determine whether each characteristic is present or not present in the exhibit, and if it is present, select the best matching choice describing its features. Afterwards, the evaluator would score the sensory section based on the weight of the stimulation and identify where it falls into scoring ranges for that sense. Design for the Qualitative Tool For the exhibit teams purpose using the qualitative measure, evaluators desired a onepage checklist of independent sensory and accessibility characteristics to quickly assess the overview of an exhibit, exhibit area, or an interactive. In partnering this tool for sensory stimulation and accessibility and use by the exhibit teams, we chose a non-scoring or interpretation approach, so that exhibit teams may collaborate to interpret the sensory features marked present and determine if the results met expectations or if they might consider adjustments. Making one for an exhibit assessment and one for interactives, I labeled these as the exhibit and interactive accessibility, sensory, and inclusion (ASI) appraisals. For the interactive ASI appraisal, I identified several characteristics that key or highlighted interactives are recommended to possess, based on museum initiatives, experience, evidence, and visitor feedback. Likewise, I created a manual for this assessment option. Implementation of the M-SEAT Beginning with the original SEAT, my TCM mentors and I each individually trialed the tool in a known problematic exhibit space. Between the three users, we all chose the same descriptive choices on seven of the forty-one characteristics (17%), and two of the three evaluators agreed on average about fourteen times (34%). We all met in the space and discussed the results, noting possible issues might include that I had observed during a slightly different operating mode, one evaluator frequently did not choose only one answer, and the tool seemed to be attempting to capture too many variables that did not pose attributes easily recognizable for a museum exhibit. Following this discussion, I determined to narrow the tool for museum exhibits as the setting and museum staff as users, as it was expected to resolve some issues. Following the revolution to a museum-specific tool, we individually trialed the first draft of the M-SEAT in a well-established exhibit without known problems on the same afternoon. This strategy was used to minimize environmental changes between evaluator trials. Results of this trial attempt produced the following: all three evaluators matched on 40% (15/37) characteristics and two of the three evaluators matching about 56% of the time (20.7/37) on average. Each section classification for each evaluator was assessed, and all evaluators scored into the same category of low, moderate, or high stimulation for three of the four sensory sections assessed (olfactory omitted). In the visual section, individual answers varied, but we each totaled to 18. One evaluator frequently scored higher than others in three of the four categories, as well. Following discussion, I initiated revisions for clarifying descriptions between choices, defining what movement and tactile meant, and instructions when stuck between two choices. Additionally, due to the extent of content in what is considered visual, I subcategorized visual content to exhibit overall, objects, and labels. On the second trial of the M-SEAT, we revisited the same exhibit to compare trial one from trial two with the noted revisions. Additionally, we had collectively been in the assessed exhibit together identifying sensory elements, then completed the assessment individually at a later time. All three evaluators matched on 70% (26/37) characteristics and two of the three evaluators matched choices 79% of the time (29.5/37) on average. For this trial, all three evaluators chose a different answer on only one characteristic, meaning only one item had no matches. All evaluators exactly matched throughout the auditory section. The score ranges per sensory section were relatively narrow and only one evaluator in one sensory section had scored mildly outside the classifications of the other evaluators. Furthermore, evaluators provided feedback stating that this trial was much faster and seemed easier, and that the suggestions for revisions felt more obvious about what pieces to clarify. For the final trial, all three evaluators individually attempted the third draft at the same time in a sensory immersive exhibit, as to challenge the tool. During the evaluation, we grouped to discuss what was considered an object for the visual section based on the special exhibits content. All three evaluators matched on 57% characteristics (23/40) and two of the three matched on average 40% of the time (17/40). This was the first trial of the olfactory section, which was another reason to assess this exhibit. Lastly, I consistently scored higher on every section, but within narrow scoring ranges as the other evaluators. Evaluator feedback from this trial concluded that there was much less confusion, a mention of getting used to a stimulus the more time spent in the exhibit perhaps rating the choice lower, and only four characteristics with all evaluators choosing different options and not matching. Implementation of the ASI Appraisals First trials involved my TCM mentors and I utilizing the appraisals individually in a designated exhibit and interactive on the same afternoon to minimize outstanding variability. On the exhibit appraisal, all three evaluators checked 12 of the 55 boxes, with 18 extra characteristics also marked by at least one evaluator, resulting in 30/55 marked boxes total. For the interactive appraisal, all three evaluators checked 7 of the 45 boxes, with 6 other boxes checked by at least one evaluator, resulting in 13/45 boxes marked total. This first trial coincided with the first draft of the M-SEAT in the same exhibit on the same afternoon. I revised the appraisals based on feedback and discussion, clarifying meaning of each characteristic item, ensuring independence among characteristics, and considering subcategories similar to that performed in the visual section for the M-SEAT. On the second draft, all evaluators completed the exhibit and interactive appraisals together with discussion on the same exhibit as the first trial, but chose a different interactive within the exhibit. We agreed to mark 28/55 boxes for the exhibit appraisal and 19/42 for the interactive appraisal. We collaborated on revisions regarding more clarifications and adding elements such as Are there any? to some sensory sections to better quantify elements present. For the third and final trial of the ASI appraisals, each evaluator completed the assessment individually, coinciding with the same timing from the same challenging exhibit as the final trial of the M-SEAT. All three evaluators marked 15/56 boxes for the overall exhibit, and 14/56 other boxes were marked by one or two evaluators, resulting in 29/56 total boxes marked. On the interactive appraisal, all three evaluators marked 6/42 boxes, and 8 additional boxes were marked by one or two evaluators, resulting in 14/42 boxes marked overall. Based on discussion, I added boxes for acknowledging if the sensory element was not present with the interactive-related content and whether the interactive would benefit from the addition or if the interactive seemed to function well without it. Project Outcomes For each document (assessment forms, scoring sheet, appraisal forms, and manuals), I requested feedback on the final drafts from both TCM mentors. Following their responses, I completed the revisions for an official final draft of each document. TCM mentors and I, who collectively developed these tools throughout the process, recommend future assessments be performed by multiple evaluators to compare and interpret results, as one persons choices may be slightly subjective or only one perspective based on a moment in the exhibit. Additionally, more experience with an interactive, an exhibit, or the tools being used might influence the results. Overall, the revisions and data supported the preliminary utilization of these foundational tools and consider the average comparison rather than individual points, specifically for the MSEAT. As methods to make broad generalizations, these tools highly elicit increased awareness and consideration for sensory elements within an exhibit and how they might impact access or occupational performance, as this may occur in positive, negative, or neutral means. Summary After creating two separate types of tools, TCM staff voiced interest throughout the development about anticipated use of the tools and how to utilize the information for exhibit design and adjustments. Interested TCM staff received a dissemination lecture in varying degrees based on connection and department regarding the purpose and use of the tools and how to trial them or receive further information. My TCM mentors took responsibility for future distribution of the materials and the intentional use of the tools within an exhibits lifetime, implementing them into the developmental and maintenance protocols. Conclusion Through trial and revision, TCM staff anticipates to utilize these tools to become more aware of their exhibit designs and how it might affect their visitors experiences. Though these tools are foundational, TCM may benefit most from the characteristic descriptions from the MSEAT tool or the ASI Appraisals for planning, post-production, and remedial phases to continuously reflect on sensory elements. Additionally, TCM staff might utilize these tools in combination with prototyping and advisor feedback to coordinate future accommodations or adjustments, such as defining sensory-friendly operating modes, scheduling the timing for various operating modes, event planning, accommodations planning, advertising, and coordinating to advise the sensory signage and maps for exhibit descriptions and visitor planning. In the future, other museums, community attractions, or researchers might benefit from this conceptual movement in evaluating sensory elements within an environment and how they impact the social and physical dynamics for people. More research to support or evaluate this topic could provide more direction for future initiatives in community engagement, accessibility, or skill development. Reference List American Occupational Therapy Association. (2014). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process (3rd ed.). American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(Suppl. 1), S1-S48. Baroncelli, L., Brasche, C., Spolidoro, M., Begenisic, T., Sale, A., & Maffei, L. (2010). Nurturing brain plasticity: Impact of environmental enrichment. Cell Death and Differentiation, 17, 1092. doi:10.1038/cdd.2009.193 Bass, J. D., Baum, C. M., & Christiansen, C. H. (2017). Person-Environment-OccupationPerformance model. In Hinojosa, J., Kramer, P., & Royeen, C. B., Perspectives on human occupations: Theories underlying practice (2nd ed., pp.161-174). F. A. Davis Company. Baum, C., & Christiansen, C. (2005). Person-Environment-Occupation-Performance: An occupation-based framework for practice. In C. Christiansen & C. Baum (Eds.), Occupational therapy: Performance, participation, and well-being (3rd ed., pp. 243268). SLACK Incorporated. Blanche, E. I., Chang, M. C., Gutierrez, J., & Gunter, J. S. (2016). Effectiveness of a sensoryenriched Early Intervention group program with children with developmental disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 70, 7005220010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2016.018481 Bodison, S. C., & Parham, L. D. (2018). Specific sensory techniques and sensory environmental modifications for children and youth with sensory integration difficulties: A systematic review. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72, 7201190040. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2018.029413 Brown, C. (2014). Ecological models in occupational therapy. In Boyt Schell, B., Gillen, G., Scaffa, M., & Cohn, E. (Eds.), Williard & Spackman's occupational therapy (12th ed., pp. 494-504). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Cahill, S. M., & Beisbier, S. (2020). Practice Guidelines Occupational therapy practice guidelines for children and youth ages 5-21 years. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(4), 7404397010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2020.744001 Carpenter, K. L. H., Baranek, G. T., Copeland, W. E., Compton, S., Zucker, N., Dawson, G., & Egger, H. L. (2019). Sensory over-responsivity: An early risk factor for anxiety and behavioral challenges in young children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 47(6), 1075-1088. doi:10.1007/s10802-018-0502-y Carron, C. G. (2015). Creating Extraordinary Learning Experiences with the Power to Transform. The Best in Heritage. https://presentations.thebestinheritage.com/2015/Childrens-Museum-of-Indianapolis Cho, M. (n.d.-a). Dunn's Model of Sensory Processing. OT Theory. Retrieved on Feb. 14, 2022, from https://ottheory.com/therapy-model/dunns-model-sensory-processing Cho, M. (n.d.-b) Sensory Integration frame of reference. OT Theory. Retrieved on March 11, 2021, from https://ottheory.com/therapy-model/sensory-integration-framereference#:~:text=The%20Sensory%20Integration%20(SI)%20frame,child's%20learning %20and%20adaptive%20behaviors. Christiansen, C., Baum, C., & Bass, J. (2011). The Person-Environment-Occupational Performance (PEOP) model. In E. Duncan (Ed.), Foundations for practice in occupational therapy (5th ed., pp. 339-370). SLACK Incorporated. Clarke, B., & Hasse, K. (n.d.) Benefits of Sensory Rooms. The Sensory Center. Retrieved on Jan 27, 2022, from https://thesensorycenter.com/benefits/ Dunn, W. (2007). Supporting children to participate successfully in everyday life by using sensory processing knowledge. Infants & Young Children, 20(2), 84-101. Doi: 10.1097/01.IYC.0000264477.05076.5d Kirby, A. V., Little, L. M., Schultz, B., & Baranek, G. T. (2015). Observational characterization of sensory interests, repetitions, and seeking behaviors. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69, 6903220010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2015.015081. Kirby, A. V., Williams, K. L., Watson, L. R., Sideris, J., Bulluck, J., & Baranek, G. T. (2019). Sensory features and family functioning in families of children with autism and developmental disabilities: Longitudinal associations. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 73(2), 7302205040. Kranowitz, C. S. (2005). The Out-of-Sync Child. Skylight Press. Mandolesi, L., Gelfo, F., Serra, L., Montuori, S., Polverino, A., Curcio, G., & Sorrentino, G. (2017). Environmental factors promoting neural plasticity: Insights from animal and human studies. Neural Plasticity, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7219461 Parham, L. D., & Mailloux, Z. (2010). Sensory Integration. In J. Case-Smith, & J. C. OBrien (Eds.), Occupational Therapy for Children (6th ed., pp. 325-372). Elsevier Incorporated. Parham, L. D., & Mailloux, Z. (2020.) Sensory Integration. In J. C. O'Brien, & H. Kuhaneck (Eds.), Case-Smith's Occupational Therapy for Children and Adolescents (8th ed., pp. 516-549). Elsevier Incorporated. Reynolds, S., Glennon, T. J., Ausderau, K., Bendixen, R. M., Kuhaneck, H. M., Pfieffer, B., Watling, R., Wilkinson, K., & Bodison, S. C. (2017). The Issue Is Using a multifaceted approach to working with children who have differences in sensory processing and integration. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71, 7102360010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2017.019281 Scholz, J., Allemang-Grand, R., Dazai, J., & Lerch, J. P. (2015). Environmental enrichment is associated with rapid volumetric brain changes in adult mice. Neuroimage, 109, 190-198. Doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.01.027 Smart, E., Edwards, B., Kingsnorth, S., Sheffe, S., Curran, C. J., Pinto, M., Crossman, S., & King, G. (2018). Creating an inclusive leisure space: Strategies used to engage children with and without disabilities in the arts-mediated program Spiral Garden. Disabilities and Rehabilitation, 40(2), 199-207. Doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1250122 STAR Institute. (n.d.). Understanding Sensory Processing Disorder. Retrieved on March 15, 2021, from https://sensoryhealth.org/basic/understanding-sensory-processing-disorder The Children's Museum of Indianapolis. (n.d.) Press Releases. https://www.childrensmuseum.org/about/press-room/press-releases?&offset=1 Vasak, M., Williamson, J., Garden, J., & Zwicker, J. G. (2015). Sensory processing and sleep in typically developing infants and toddlers. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69, 6904220040. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2015.015891 Woo, C. C., & Leon, M. (2013). Environmental enrichment as an effective treatment for autism: A randomized controlled trial. Behavioral Neuroscience, 127(4), 487-97. Doi: 10.1037/a0033010 Zobel-Lachiusa, J., Andrianopoulos, M. V., Mailloux, Z., & Cermak, S. A. (2015). Sensory differences and mealtime behavior in children with autism. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69, 905185050. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2015.016790 Appendix Table of Contents M-SEAT Manual M-SEAT Assessment Form M-SEAT Scoring Sheet ASI Appraisals Manual ASI Appraisal Forms DCE Weekly Planning Guide April 2022 Museum SensoryEnvironment Assessment Tool (M-SEAT) Manual Patia Hunt, OTS University of Indianapolis | OTD May 2022 Ball State University | Exercise Science 2019 Personal Contact Info: patiadh96@gmail.com Developed in partnership with: The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis and University of Indianapolis OVERVIEW The Sensory-Environment Assessment Tool (SEAT) was an original project to build a foundation for an assessment tool to help users evaluate an environment for sensory stimuli. While the SEAT continues to require more work to be broad and encompassing for all environments and user-friendly utilization, the Museum Sensory-Environment Assessment Tool (M-SEAT) was developed as a more specific product to evaluate museum exhibits and their sensory features. In every physical environment, sensory stimuli are present in varying degrees and are often multi-faceted and difficult to isolate. A persons ability to take in and process sensory information determines how they experience life, how they describe a moment, how they emotionally respond, and how they learn or adapt. While some environments are relaxing or natural, others may be adventurous or overstimulating. Since museum exhibits tend to vary across museum types, topics and interaction objectives, sensory stimulation based on exhibit design and programming features tend to vary respectfully. This tool was developed specifically for The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis; however, other childrens museums or interactive museums might benefit from use or consideration of features noted within this tool, as well. Development of the M-SEAT focused on capturing as many sensory features and their varying degrees of stimulation to provide an objective insight into what an exhibit might portray for visitors and how it might compete with potential access or participation to certain populations. For this setting in particular, low and high stimulation does not correlate to positive or negative attributes, but rather an awareness and consideration for how the topic, environment, activities, and exhibit goals and main messages complement one another. An occupational therapy (OT) student designed this tool as a doctoral capstone project to be user-friendly for museum staff, predominantly exhibit developers and designers and those in the research and operations departments, to assess the level and characteristics of sensory stimulation present within an exhibit during the post-production, remedial, and maintenance phases. This tool may be used in individual sensory sections, targeting each sense of interest or as they apply, or as a whole. This may also aid in the creation of a more or less stimulating environment, adjusting what types of stimulation features are present, or how many stimuli are represented. ABOUT THE TOOL THE SENSES Understanding each sense is important to defining what is being evaluated within a given environment. A person utilizes the eight (8) senses to experience the world and interact throughout life (Kranowitz, 2005; Parham & Mailloux, 2020). The five commonly known senses are considered external senses, referring to sensory input retrieved from outside the body: auditory (sound), gustatory (taste), olfactory (smell), tactile (touch), and visual (sight). The less common senses are considered internal due to the stimulation occurring within the body: interoception (internal body awareness like hunger or breathing rate), proprioception (muscle sensations related to body position and movement), and vestibular (head position in space, related to balance). Occupational therapist Jane Ayres jumpstarted research and therapy regarding the senses and sensory integration skill development in the 1970s, establishing the foundation for understanding and addressing sensory experiences and behaviors (Parham & Mailloux, 2020). Scaffolding off her initial work, Winnie Dunn and others specialized in the interest areas of sensory processing and environmental contexts and developed theories and frames of references to utilize for people in the humanities departments, such as OT, to address behavior and development (Parham & Mailloux, 2010). Sensory information is the foundation for lifes interactions. Every day, living things like people, plants, and animals utilize sensory means to gather knowledge and make decisions based on this reciprocal relationship with our environments. We take in sensory information through different means, as described above, process the information to decipher its meaning (threat, educational, experiential), and then react to this information or stimulus (Kranowitz, 2005; & Parham & Mailloux, 2020); then, through time and practice, individuals refine their sensory skills to develop socially appropriate behaviors, such as ignoring noisy neighbors, noticing a body language adjustment during a conversation as if a person is irritated by your response, or primal and learned instincts to threats like fight, flight, or freeze, i.e., evacuating a building during a fire alarm. However, sensory-related skills are refined through life experiences, making individuals unique with their own preferences. Without exposure, practice, education to social constructs, and optimally functioning neurological systems, people may differ in their sensory needs, such as procuring avoidant or seeking behaviors, higher or lower threshold for tolerable sensory stimulation, inappropriate behaviors, and difficulty learning or participating in activities, like social engagement (American Occupational Therapy Association, 2020; Kranowitz, 2005; & Parham & Mailloux, 2020). For these reasons, this tools development promoted the need for those with different educational and employment-based backgrounds to address sensory-specific accessibility features of museum exhibits. For The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis, every exhibit team pairs an exhibits topic and main messages with a target audience and different interactive opportunities to foster a positive, unique learning experience. The main purpose of this tool is to allow for an evaluator, particularly a museum exhibit team member, to characterize an exhibit for multiple levels and types of sensory stimulation. Each aspect of the tool is intended to target people of varying groups within a general population; however, this tool presents broad generalizations. Not all people interact with sensory information the same, which is expected and supported. This tool simply quantifies the sensory information and quantifies it as most people are anticipated to interact with them. Researchers also suggested that sensory exposure to all individuals, regardless of client factors, demonstrated benefits to skill development, and this skill refinement might transfer into other areas of performance, promoting the versatile use of sensory-informed decision making (Blanche et al., 2016; Cahill & Beisbier, 2020; Smart et al., 2018; & Woo & Leon, 2013). Therefore, for an environment that is generally available to the public, sensory stimulation is considered beneficial to skill development, engagement in the experience, and crucial to learning. However, the general public also incorporates outliers who might benefit from more of fewer sensory features or accessibility measures, which frequently interconnect in a dynamic relationship. These all highlight why sensory-specific accessibility should be part of a museum exhibit teams planning and development process. TOOL STRUCTURE Assessment Form Sensory sections: *Olfactory, Auditory, Movement, Tactile, and Visual. *Olfactory is listed first on the M-SEAT tool as the perception may overlooked or altered during the evaluation of other sections. Each sensory section has a list of characteristics (represented as rows) labeled in a lefthanded column. Each characteristic has descriptive choices along the same row. The descriptive choices are listed in a ranked order from 1 (less stimulating) to 5 (very/highly stimulating). Many choices also have examples in parentheses and italics in their corresponding boxes. The visual sensory section has subcategories within it to help isolate different visual content. At the bottom of each section, there are two rows with fill-in boxes for scoring. These rows will produce a space to calculate the raw scores, weighted scores, and total score for each sensory section. Scoring sheet Each sensory section has its own scoring table. Within each scoring table there is a fillin box to place the total sensory section score and the classification the exhibit or exhibit area falls into based on its scoring range. There are also different environment examples per stimulation classification for broad reference. Each sense involved in a sensory section of the M-SEAT is listed below with a general description, reasoning of importance or use, expected reactions, and common populations who might be at-risk for having complications with the sense. Not all senses are listed, as some are often not incorporated into museum exhibits (gustatory - taste) or cannot be objectively-integrated features of an exhibit (interoception - internal body awareness). OLFACTORY Description: Smell; dependent on the nose and respiration; discrimination skills; helps identify or locate environment contents; crucial to components of taste Use: Survival, socialization, engagement, mood, and self-esteem Expectations: Identifying a threat in an area such as a gas leak; provoking interest in food; deterrent; creating an atmosphere or mood; smelling bodily odors relevant to socialization and threats At-Risk: ASD, eating or digestive disorders, migraines, anxieties, trauma, respiratory disorders, allergies, and sensory processing needs (Kranowitz, 2005, pp. 16, 18, & 53; & Parham & Mailloux, 2020). AUDITORY Description: Sound, dependent on intact hearing; can develop discrimination and comprehension skills Use: Communication and socialization; locate stimuli; a primal sense associated with determining threats; processing movement (balance, flexibility, coordination, and vision), respiration, selfesteem, and academic learning Expectations: Turning head toward direction of sounds, reacting to volume, tone, pitch; engaging in communicative or social interactions At-Risk: ASD, ADHD, DD, hearing disabilities, trauma, neurological disorders, vertigo and migraines, anxieties, and sensory processing needs (Healthwise Staff, 2020; Kranowitz, 2005, pp. 16, 18, 53, 176-177, & 186-190; Noise Quest, n.d.; & Parham & Mailloux, 2020). MOVEMENT (PROPRIOCEPTION & VESTIBULAR) Description: Movement and body position; joint compression, muscle contraction or stretch; body parts and head position in space, balance, movement through space, and relation to other body segments; precision, coordination, and efficiency of movement; ability to orient or upright self; ability to detect threats; heavily incorporates vision, hearing, touch, and internal awareness to provide skilled kinesthesia or body awareness and refinement of movements Use: Daily functions, play, socialization, engagement and participation, self-esteem; fine and gross motor skills such as coordination, balance, motor praxis, planning, and control; handwriting, sports and physical activity (heavy work); ability to tolerate different positioning or right oneself Expectations: Engagement in movement opportunities that require varying amounts of total body involvement, intensity, duration, frequency, and skill; leisure activities or hobbies that involve movements opportunities; ability to right self or orient self to environment; willingness to move through environment At-Risk: ASD, CP, DD, ADHD, migraines, anxieties, arthritis, respiratory disorders, neurological disorders, difficulties with sensorimotor or sensory discrimination, mobility deficits, trauma, vision or hearing disabilities, car/movement sickness and vertigo, and retention of primitive reflexes Proprioceptive refers to body movement qualities Vestibular refers most often to head position and balance (Kranowitz, 2005, pp. 54, 113-114, & 136-138; & Parham & Mailloux, 2020) TACTILE Description: Touch, direct contact through the skin across the whole body; of the most predominant senses; input relates to light touch, deep pressure, skin stretch, vibration, movement, temperature from contact (not internal temperature), and pain; discrimination skills Use: Daily functioning as items contact or change components of skin and receptors; provides information for developing skills of interoception and proprioception, visual discrimination, language, academia, emotional security, and socialization Expectations: Exploration through hands most commonly; comfort and preference in textures, temperatures, physical contact; ability to immerse in environments or wear variety of clothing at preferences; means of learning At-Risk: ASD, CP, DD, ADHD, anxiety and phobias, burns, vision disabilities, trauma, neurological disorders, allergies, and sensory processing needs (Kranowitz, 2005, pp. 17, 52, 82-83, 91-101, & 108; & Parham & Mailloux, 2020). VISUAL Description: Sight; any visual content in an environment that can be observed through the eyes; dependent on intact vision and the presence of light (shadows, white & black, colors), acuity and motor skills are separate from sensory skills, such as discrimination, contrast, edges, and movement; plays role in vestibular skills and eye-hand coordination Use: Daily functions interacting with elements of environment, defines space; identify components within a space; ability to defend against threats, guide or direct movement Expectations: Visually scan environments, detect navigation options and items to otherwise interact with, determine distances or qualities of objects or the environment, socialization, leisure, reading and learning At-Risk: ASD, DD, ADD, ADHD, migraines, anxieties, vision disabilities, trauma, neurological disorders, car/movement sickness and vertigo, and sensory processing needs (Archtoolbox, 2021; Hill, 2011; Kranowitz, 2005, pp. 15-16, 18, 53, 155-161, 169-173; Parham & Mailloux, 2020; & Peterson, 2020). CONSIDERATIONS 1. Evidence-based practice, literature, other assessment tools, clinical experience, and staff and visitor feedback at The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis advised the development of this tool and quantifying characteristics stimulation levels. 2. This tool assesses an exhibit and the common visitor expectations of an exhibit, not to assess individual behavior. Data from prior exhibit evaluations and objective general observations may influence some choices, but individual cases should not. 3. This tool does not necessarily incorporate social environment, such as staff members who may have received specific training. However, regular programming is included, such as regular announcements or sound and light programs, as part of the anticipated and physical exhibit characteristics. 4. This tool may be used to assess one exhibit area or the exhibit as a whole. An evaluator is expected to walk about the exhibit or exhibit area when assessing; however, if the exhibit is very large and difficult to assess as a whole (i.e., cannot see outer walls of exhibit from most points within the exhibit, or the exhibit areas may have their own subsections), it would be recommended to assess area by area to compile an overview of the exhibit. 5. This tool may be used to assess various operating modes. The evaluator should comment on the mode setting during assessment and other noteworthy features that may alter the assessment. 6. This tool may be used in sections or as a whole, meaning that not all sections of the assessment may be relevant or of interest for every exhibit or exhibit area being assessed. 7. This tool does not specify that any level of stimulation is good or bad or preferred over another. Rather, the classifications may inform an evaluator of the qualities and quantities of stimulation present, as to perhaps compare the assessment results with design expectations. 8. Descriptive choices may be structured in accumulative, progressive, independent, or interval choices. This is intended to best match characteristic options to exhibit features and takes into account the significance of the sensory stimuli descriptive ranking. For example, in the visual section, the average movement of visuals characteristic has 3 descriptive choices in a gradual, progressive order, but the average ability to navigate characteristic has three interval-like descriptive choices. This indicates that the ability to navigate an exhibit is more essential, stimulating, and/or disorienting than the movement of lights or screens. INSTRUCTIONS This tool may require slight subjective judgment and outside knowledge, such as exhibit target population age range, but objective perspectives are recommended. 1. Get familiar with the M-SEAT materials and each characteristic. An evaluator should be generally aware of which features they should be noting during an assessment. Ideally, more than one evaluator should individually assess an exhibit or interactive using these appraisals to receive multiple versions of feedback. 2. Identify the operating mode and/or visitor expectation (weekday crowd versus peak) to select the best representation of the exhibit needing evaluation. 3. Fill out the header information on the M-SEAT assessment form, noting the exhibit title, operating mode, including crowd or day/time (weekday at 4 PM vs Saturday at 10:30 AM), target age group, date, and evaluator information. 4. Walk through the exhibit or exhibit area with the M-SEAT assessment form in hand. Make notes in the designated sideline boxes as appropriate; list the interactives, any audio present, the objects/structures, lighting, etc. 5. Begin filling out the assessment form: a. First, identify whether the characteristic is present or not present within the exhibit environment. Place an X in the coordinating box. If the characteristic is not present, move to the next row (next characteristic); do not select a ranked choice for a characteristic that is not present. If the characteristic is present, proceed to the next step (b.). If unsure, read the descriptive choices provided along the same row. If the exhibit environment does not match any components listed, the characteristic is likely not present. b. A characteristic that is present requires a ranking. Along the same row as the characteristic, read the descriptive choices provided and choose one descriptive choice/box that best matches the stimulus of the exhibit. Mark the best matching descriptive by circling, marking with an X, or highlighting your selected choice. i. For many items, the characteristic defines an average of any features that are present. If stuck between two options, choose the option that best describes the average or overall state of the exhibit, or the ranking number that best seems to match the characteristics stimulation level (1 being less stimulating, 5 being highly stimulating). Avoid the impulse to allow one time outliers to influence decisionmaking; consider the most common or appropriate stimulation level. c. Repeat a. and b. through all characteristics for each section being assessed, identifying them as not present or as present and associated with a descriptive ranking choice. SCORING Two rows at the bottom of each sensory section on the assessment form are designated for scoring purposes. These identify how many characteristics are present in the assessed environment and how stimulating the sensory features are for each section. Each section completed will result in a total score for that sensory element. The scoring sheet is used for interpreting the classifications for each section. On the assessment form: 1. Calculate the characteristics present. Sum the total number of characteristics marked as present and write the number into the corresponding box for each sensory section assessed. 2. Calculate the raw scores per column. For each ranking column (labeled 15), count how many descriptive choices were chosen and write that number into the first row of scoring boxes to determine how many characteristic descriptive choices were selected per stimulation ranking. 3. Calculate the weighted scores by column. Per column, multiply the raw score (numbers from step 2) by the number indicated by the column (as instructed in the next row of boxes under the raw scores, e.g., Multiple above score x2). Write the weighted score in these boxes per column. 4. Sum the weighted scores for a total score per sensory section. Add each weighted score (from step 3) together for a total score and write this number into the corresponding box to the left. On the scoring sheet: 5. Transfer the total scores for each sensory section on the assessment form to the corresponding boxes on the scoring sheet. 6. Identify the classification per sensory section using the score ranges. Write the identified classification in the corresponding box at the top of each section. Interpretation Based on the environment assessed, these classifications may resemble comparisons to other settings and likewise may promote consideration for types of activities that occur in such settings. These are not indicative of all environments and should be used as a general reference. Based on the interpretation, evaluators may recommend adjustments to the environment to better suit the target audiences, activities to be performed in these spaces, and goals or objectives of the exhibit or experience. Low stimulation This environment is comprised of few, simple, and/or calming stimuli demonstrating consistency. This environment is often proposed for activities requiring focused, sustained attention, reducing stress, or leisure activities. This level of stimulation tends to be associated with sensory-reduced or sensory friendly environments. Another way to consider this is having a less stimulating passive environment, such as lighting and audio, with some voluntary active stimulation through movement, tactile opportunities, or choice participation such as pressing buttons that provide sensory feedback. Moderate stimulation This environment is an ideal compromise for most activities and audiences as an overall just-right challenge for general population seeking engagement, such as community attractions. Low-moderate mixtures of sensory stimuli is most recommended for exposure and practice for general population or those with minor sensitivities; for this purpose, it is most beneficial when an exhibit has a variety of sensory stimulation types and levels that match the interactive activities and exhibit main messages. High stimulation This environment may aid in the development or advancement of sensory skills like self-regulation and processing given this stimulation scenario. This environment is not ideal for those with sensory sensitivities, and may be considered overwhelming and more difficult to attend to details. This level of stimulation may also be advertised as an immersive experience. However, those with low registration or sensory seeking needs may benefit from the varying amounts of sensory stimulation and opportunities for engagement. If the classification does not meet previous expectations, such as being ill-matched with the target audiences, activities or interactive opportunities, or exhibit goals, evaluators and exhibit teams are recommended to reflect on the characteristic descriptive choices from the assessment form to alter the exhibits or exhibit areas sensory stimuli to more or less stimulating options, as the assessment form may elicit a progressive gradient. Generally speaking, if an individual or group has a sensitivity to sensory stimulation or a specific type of sensory stimulation, a lower amount of that stimulation is recommended. (i.e., lowering bright lights, swapping out bright colors and visuals, reducing loud or highly contrasting sounds) For a group with seeking behaviors or low registration, more stimulating opportunities is recommended to meet or fulfill the higher input thresholds. (i.e., providing more movement opportunities, louder sounds or greater sound variations, brighter colors and more engaging or complex visuals) For mixed groups or the general population, it may be recommended to vary the sensory types and levels of stimulation across the exhibit to provide holistic exposure and engagement, especially for children. One way to tend to both audiences of seeking and sensitivities is to tend to those with sensitivities in the passive environmental features, such as dimming lights and modifying or reducing sounds, and tend to those with seeking needs in the active or voluntary methods, such as many differing movement or interactive opportunities. (i.e., chances to press buttons to receive auditory or visual feedback for seekers) If one sense is impaired, a person may have more advanced skills in other areas to fulfill the experience through other means. (i.e., someone who is blind may have more advanced hearing skills, rely on audio descriptions, or seek more opportunities through tactile opportunities, like ridging on objects or vibrations.) (Blanche et al., 2016; Bodison & Parham, 2010; Clarke & Hasse, n.d.; Dunn, 2007; Kranowitz, 2005; Lussenhop, et al., 2016; Parham & Mailloux, 2010; Parham & Mailloux, 2020; & Silverman & Tyszka, 2017) Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following for their contributions to this project. University of Indianapolis Dr. Taylor McGann | Assistant Professor for providing the OT and university and capstone requirement lens and being primary investigator/capstone advisor for this experience and project. Dr. Christine Kroll | Assistant Professor and Occupational Therapy Doctoral Capstone Coordinator for helping form the foundation of the project prior to the doctoral capstone experience. The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis Betsy Lynn | Operations Project Manager and Accessibility Coordinator Susan Foutz | Director of Research and Evaluation for being the primary forces to assist the shaping and trialing of the original SEAT and M-SEAT through its developmental phases. Tim Scully | Intern Program Manager Exhibit Core Teams, Research and Evaluations department, Operations department, and other associated staff and partners for supporting this project, consistently requesting or integrating accessibility concepts into planning and maintenance phases of exhibits, and interest in final products and utility for future museum implementation. On behalf of The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis as IMLS grant advisors: Roger Ideishi | Program Director of Occupational Therapy and Professor of Health, Human Function, and Rehabilitation Sciences | The George Washington University Leigh Ann Mesiti Caulfield | Strategy and Communication Manager for the Learning & Research Division | Museum of Science, Boston for meeting with Betsy, Susan, and myself to discuss utility, accessibility, and other logistics for tool development. Reference List American Occupational Therapy Association. (2020). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process (4th ed.). American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(Suppl. 2), advance online publication. https://www.aota.org/~/media/Corporate/Files/Secure/Practice/OfficialDocs/Guid elines/OTPF4_FINAL_for_web.pdf Archtoolbox. (2021). Recommended Lighting Levels in Buildings. Retrieved on Feb. 10, 2022, from https://www.archtoolbox.com/materialssystems/electrical/recommended-lighting-levels-in-buildings.html Blanche, E. I., Chang, M. C., Gutierrez, J., & Gunter, J. S. (2016). Effectiveness of a sensory-enriched Early Intervention group program with children with developmental disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 70, 7005220010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2016.018481 Bodison, S. C., & Parham, L. D. (2018). Specific sensory techniques and sensory environmental modifications for children and youth with sensory integration difficulties: A systematic review. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72, 7201190040. http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2018.029413 Cahill, S. M., & Beisbier, S. (2020). Practice Guidelines Occupational therapy practice guidelines for children and youth ages 5-21 years. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(4), 7404397010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2020.744001 Clarke, B., & Hasse, K. (n.d.) Benefits of Sensory Rooms. The Sensory Center. Retrieved on Jan 27, 2022, from https://thesensorycenter.com/benefits/ Dunn, W. (2007). Supporting children to participate successfully in everyday life by using sensory processing knowledge. Infants & Young Children, 20(2), 84-101. doi: 10.1097/01.IYC.0000264477.05076.5d Hill, M. (2011). Young children and their perception of colour: An exploratory study (Bachelor's thesis, Avondale College, Cooranbong, Australia). Retrieved from https://research.avondale.edu.au/theses_bachelor_honours/59/ Healthwise Staff. (2020). Harmful noise levels. University of Michigan Health: Michigan Medicine. Retrieved on Jan. 25, 2022, from https://www.uofmhealth.org/healthlibrary/tf4173 Kranowitz, C. S. (2005). The Out-of-Sync Child. Skylight Press. Lussenhop, A., Mesiti, L. A., Cohn, E. S., Orsmond, G. I., Goss, J., Reich, C., Osipow, A., Pirri, K., & Lindgren-Streicher, A. (2016). Social participation of families with children with autism spectrum disorder in a science museum. Museums & Social Issues, 11(2), 122-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/15596893.2016.1214806 Noise Quest. (n.d.) Noise Basics. Retrieved on Jan. 21, 2021, from https://www.noisequest.psu.edu/noisebasics-basics.html Parham, L. D., & Mailloux, Z. (2010). Sensory Integration. In J. Case-Smith, & J. C. OBrien (Eds.), Occupational Therapy for Children (6th ed., pp. 325-372). Elsevier Incorporated. Parham, L. D., & Mailloux, Z. (2020.) Sensory Integration. In J. C. O'Brien, & H. Kuhaneck (Eds.), Case-Smith's Occupational Therapy for Children and Adolescents (8th ed., pp. 516-549). Elsevier Incorporated. Peterson, N. (2020). Recommended Foot Candle Chart. LED Lighting Supply. Retrieved on Feb. 10, 2022, from https://www.ledlightingsupply.com/blog/recommendedfoot-candle-chart Silverman, F., & Tyszka, A. C. (2017). Supporting participation for children with sensory processing needs and their families: Community-based action research. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71(4), 1-9. doi:10.1054/ajot.2017.711004 Smart, E., Edwards, B., Kingsnorth, S., Sheffe, S., Curran, C. J., Pinto, M., Crossman, S., & King, G. (2018). Creating an inclusive leisure space: Strategies used to engage children with and without disabilities in the arts-mediated program Spiral Garden. Disabilities and Rehabilitation, 40(2), 199-207. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1250122 Woo, C. C., & Leon, M. (2013). Environmental enrichment as an effective treatment for autism: A randomized controlled trial. Behavioral Neuroscience, 127(4), 487-97. doi: 10.1037/a0033010 Exhibit: Target Age Group for Exhibit: Mode/Details (standard, sensory-friendly, weekday, peak, special event, program setting) : Date: Evaluator Name: Credentials/Title: 1. For each charactertistic, place an X in the corresponding box regarding whether it is present or not present in the space being evaluated. 2. If the characteristic is present, choose one (1) descriptive choice per characteristic to define the stimulus in the space. Mark the best matching descriptive (circle, mark with an X, or highlight one box per row). If stuck between two options, choose the option that best describes the average or overall content, or the ranking number that best seems to match the characteristic in the environment. (Examples are noted in italics in parentheses under the ranked descriptions.) Characteristics OLFACTORY Exists in Environment NOT Present; present (rank) Classification Descriptives 1 2 1. Strength Mild scent (light, some may not recognize; environmental) 2. Familiarity Daily, typical (cleaning, natural smells, food) 3. Range of scent Distinct when near source Scoring Transfer olfactory score to scoring sheet (box B6 ) AUDITORY 1. Directional 2. Sound bleed and competing sounds 3. Volume 4. Type of noise stimulus Moderate; distinct (most will notice the presence of a scent; air freshner in a bathroom; may seem unnoticeable after spending time in space) New, unfamiliar (experimenting chemicals, oddities) Notable within intentional exhibit space; some-moderate range from source 3 Strong; multiple smells; smell may not seem unnoticeable regardless of time spent in space (may be considered headache inducing for some, perfumes or strong candles) * would recommend minimizing or removing this level of stimulus Notable throughout exhibit; may be smelled at entrances/exits NOTES: 4 Notable from outside exhibit or in neighboring areas _________/3 characteristics present ______/3 ______/3 ______/2 _____/1 Total score for olfactory: Multiply above score x1 Multiply above score x2 Multiply above score x3 Multiply above score x4 __________ (0-9) Sum of weighted scores __________ (0-3) __________ (0-6) __________ (0-6) __________ (0-4) 1 2 NOT present Present, (rank) 3 Directional sounds; more dramatic changes; large mix of directional, surround, and audio points like interactives Person or one-point of sound (alternates positioning of sound production output; multiple sounds from (audio from an interactive point or Surround sound or overhead varying directions or overlapping an up-close program) (ambient modes, mic'd programs ) corssover from interactives) indiscernable overlapping sounds 2 sounds, minimal overlap; 2-3 sounds moderate overlapping from within or outside the exhibit, (one sound within the exhibit, the noted while in exhibit difficult to focus attention to other externally; or music/ambient (from within or outside exhibit, isolate on one, distracting overhead with a nearby audio interactive audio is (may have sound bleed within interactive) louder/highlighted) exhibit and from external) Low/Quiet (leaves rustling, whisper ~30dB Fluctuates or conversational library, soft radio broadcast ~30- ('quieter' on slow days, Moderate 40dB small conversations, talking at 3 (average exhibit crowd and average home noise 40dB) feet) exhibit noise) Programming or multiple Slightly more intense noises in interactives provide fluctuating background noise, or moderate levels of noise crowd noise May have minor startle or radio (may also include constant signal-like elements Constant, background, ambient ambient noise with additions of (may also include lower (birds chirping, fans, white noise) other types of noise) descriptive qualities) 4 Loud (higher crowd noise, event arenas, alike a busy office, automatic hand dryer or toilets) Sudden, alerting (thunder, sirens, balloons popping may be in addition to lower descriptive qualities) 5 Exceptional (peak and peak+ noise, theater or programming sound effects) NOTES: Familiar; daily; with purpose; timely; occassionally present (providing instructions at pace pairs with other mild stimuli, i.e. visuals, programming activities) <30 seconds (pronounciations or instruments, announcements, news broadcast ) 5. Purposeful, anticipated familiarity (more than ambient or overhead songs) 6. Average audio duration from interactives or programs 30 secs - 2 mins (interactives, Up-Close programs) Has a few elements that may be considered higher pitch or noxious/ an irritant, otherwise, mostly lower/standard tones Low to treble/moderate (various instruments, nature with (bass, subtle nature, most bugs and birds, audio with some speaking tones, most fans) low-moderate sound effects) Understandable to target Minor discrepancies in sound audience clarity; slight differentiations of (matches accent or ennunciations instructions (<25% of reduced of audience spoken clarity) universal "return to main menu" (mostly clear with a few points of option; reading full instructions; mumble or other noise that may consistent) lead to confusion) 7. Pitch of purposeful audios, operating modes, interactives (higher or lower tones; contrasting noises) 8. Clarity of spoken words via recording or presenter in announcements or interactives Scoring Transfer auditory score to scoring sheet (box B13 ) MOVEMENT #1 pertains to fine motor movement. All others pertain to gross motor movement. 1. Different types and skill/complexity of fine motor movement opportunities 2. Different types of gross motor movement opportunities Respectfully familiar; recognizable or associative in nature to items in movies or daily activities (audio recording with time period, culture-specific, or situationGrossly new; unfamiliar specific elements, education (dinosaur roars, new instruments topics covered in school) or languages) 2:30 - 5 mins (AI or short S&L shows) 5 - 20 mins (longer shows or activity programs) Highly varied between pitches, fluctuates (birds chriping, some higher pitched sound effects like dings) Constant high (metallic, automatic dryers, bird songs or whistles) > 20 minutes (theater shows) Clarity varies between 25-40% of audio content (pronounced accents or content muttled via radio static noise) _________/8 characteristics present Total score for auditory: ______/8 Multiply above score x1 ______/8 Multiply above score x2 ______/8 Multiply above score x3 ______/4 Multiply above score x4 ______/2 Multiply above score x5 __________ (0-30) Sum of weighted scores __________ (0-8) __________ (0-16) __________ (0-24) __________ (0-16) __________ (0-10) NOT present Present, (rank) 1 Simple handwriting skills; ageappropraite for target audience (tracing, writing, drawing, or coloring) 3. Average gross motor skill required (endurance, coordinaiton, balance, understanding) 1 type of movement acitivty (climbing wall, or cranking gears) Some movement, some balance for minor climbing or surfaces; preschool-aged developmental milestones (nondirectional, free play; interaction with space or objects) 4. Average % body involvement (gross motor) <25% Involvement (one limb, one hand; writing) 5. Average effort required Low force required (rolling a ball, pulling <10lb item across non-friction surface) 2 Some more precision, reaction speed, or dexterity required (putty manipulation, some sculpting; adjusting knobs or small items for specific positioning; may or may not also have handwriting opportunities available) 2 different types of movement activities (imaginary play cooking and operating large levers; building a sizeable puzzle and steering interactive) Multiple options in low-moderate categories (some speed, coordination, balance combination required, climbing around simple playground) Multiple options in low-moderate categories (imaginary/free play) Multiple options in low-moderate categories (body-weight activities like crawling over surfaces) 3 4 5 More advanced fine motor skills like reaction time, speed, precise movements or pressure (painting, precision shading, timed typing; may or may not have components from lower descriptives) 3 options of different activities (balance activity, free play, and dig site) Moderate movement skills; 7-9yo developmental milestones (directional, themed play; shooting basketball activities; agility running, balancing on small or less stable surfaces) 25-50% Involvement (multiple limbs; running; kicking around a soccer ball) Moderate force required (some effort or intensity, jumping jacks, may produce perspiration) 4 options of different activities (maze, rearranging a room or doll house, riding carousel, and crawl 5+ different types of movement spaces) activities Requires some complex or more coordinated movements (scrimmage games, tumbling, althetic advanced skills) Average between moderate-high categories; portions require >50% involvement (basketball scrimmage) Some vigorous movement is predictable (speed of play, resistive or moderate-vigorous work) High coordination; 12yo milestones, advanced skills & complexity (organized sport or instructions; form; competitive; juggling) >50% Involvement (upper and lower body/trunk invovlement; climbing; gymnastics) Vigorous force required (climbing agaisnt gravity, heavy work, results in perspiration or heavy breathing) NOTES: List the different gross motor movement opportunities: 6. Average duration and purpose of movement (average movement interaction per interactives in exhibit, may correlate to success via goal achievement) Voluntary choice of duration or end; most interactives are childdriven interactions without specific stopping points (seconds to a couple minutes; imaginary play) Simple task or common play movement pattern (jumping, common sports, climbing over surfaces; instructed, imaginary, or free play) 7. Average familiarity with movement 8. Vision change 10. C hange in contextual/surface levels 11. Physical coordination and movement along a pathway (passive ride or simulations, or active movement) Scoring Transfer propprioceptive score to scoring sheet (box B20 ) There are no dynamic floor surfaces, rides, or simulations present Some securement or supports (harness, some back or side supports, seatbelt, dual-railings) Most interactives present an endgoal determining success (may take a couple minutes to achieve success and finish task; may also be replayable) New movement patterns; goaloriented (or multiple common movements Between low-moderate categories in a new pattern) Vision reduced; on one or more interactive opportunities (darkened space in environment that elicits vestibular sense resulting in moderate change in head position or feeling of positional movement; airplane simulations) Hearing reduced; on one or more interactive opportunities (muffled by headphones; helmets on racetrack) May be opportunities of large positional changes; jumping/climbing between surfaces of >6" at a time Proceeding up/down ramp or or head changes distance in stairs; incremental surface space moderately changes of lesser heights (<6" at (tilting, rocking; change from lying a time) to standing; see-saw, jump/crash (low balance beam; smaller surfaces, climbing walls or climbing portions, stairs) structures) Mixed; some linear & rotatory, corners or twists and turns Linear, clear, wide (simulated car rides, relay races, (swings, most walking paths, requires some visual wayfinding scrolling screens) and planning) 9. Auditory change 12. Stability options for dynamic floor surfaces or simulations (floor mats, balance or moving surfaces, surfaces that might move underneath your foot, require balance, or a ride with movement or simulations) May have objectives but no specific end goal; some interactives are free play and some have specific end-goals (seconds to a couple minutes; repeatable interactions or replayable; multi-optioned, may have successful tasks leading to an abstract end-goal which may not be achieved) Limited supports; optional use of railing, netting, post, or other hand hold; requires active grasp/activation from participants Complex movements/patterns (requires concentration/memory and practice; asymmetrical jumps) Vision occluded; on one or more interactive opportunities (in space that elicits vestibular sense; darkened spaces on rollercoasters) Significant auditory distractions; headphones with extra or different stimulus; on one or more interactive opportunities (loud music while on rollarcoaster; carnival rides) Rotatory, physical obstacles, narrow winding path (carnival rides, spinning, or mazelike movement through path) Dynamic surface/simulation exists without presence of intentional supports (nearby wall or use of another person) _________/12 characteristics present Total score for movement: ______/10 ______/12 ______/10 ______/6 ______/5 Multiply above score x1 Multiply above score x2 Multiply above score x3 Multiply above score x4 Multiply above score x5 __________ (0-47) Sum of weighted scores __________ (0-10) __________ (0-24) __________ (0-30) __________ (0-24) __________ (0-25) TACTILE Contact with the skin, applies pressure feedback at skin NOT level, temperature felt via skin present Indoors, rather stable 1. Climate climate Present; (rank) 1 Indoors, simulated climates (simulated, i.e. greenhouse, or controlled labs) 2 Outdoors, rather stable climate (i.e. sunny and 70) 3 Outdoors, weather conditions (high wind, rain, cold <50 or hot >85) 4 5 NOTES: List the different tactile opportunities: List the different tactile opportunities: 2. Average % body involvement Felt with hands (clay, climbing hands and feet with shoes on, water table) 3. Average duration of tactile interactions 30 seconds - 1 minute (intentional touch interactions) 4. Average familiarity & comfort of tactile content 5. Number of different material types/tactile opportunities (about the number of different options, not the examples providing the types per box) Commonly interacted with during daily activities (blankets, blocks, stuffed animals, plastic food, chairs, buttons) 1-3 different types (i.e. hard plastic toys for free play and 2 different glass touchscreens = 2 tactile opportunities) Scoring Transfer tactile score to scoring sheet (box B27 ) VISUAL Slightly more immersive, hands + forearms, knees, feet, or face (wearables, climbing over stable surfaces on hands and knees) Tactile input via moving through environment contents; immersive surroundings interact with half or more of the body (malleable surfaces like soft cube pit, ball pit, dig sites) > 5 minutes interacting with tactile elements (interactive station/area with free play) Averaged between moderatehigh; uncommon; often avoided by those with sensitivities or Less common; can be connected sought out by seekers; specific through associations; more interactions or relative to sensitive stimuli concepts like those presented in (adaptive seating, tactile puzzles, movies putty, specific clothing, tactile (heavier weighted items, soft balance disks) cube foam pits, slimy) Extraordinary, very uncommon associations, has not experienced except at museums or like-institutions (dinosaur scale replicas, fossils) Average between 1-3 minutes 3-5 minutes (some family learning, quick play) (dig sites, sculpting) Rather typical but may not be daily; or averaged between lowmoderate (fake grass, slightly weighted items, matted flooring) 4-6 different types (i.e. soft and hard plastic toys, >6 different types stuffed animals, adaptive seating, (sand, hard and soft plastics, and playing on the carpet) wood, water, metals, fabrics) ________/5 characteristics present Total score for tactile: ______/5 Multiply above score x1 ______/4 Multiply above score x2 ______/5 Multiply above score x3 ______/2 Multiply above score x4 ______/2 Multiply above score x5 __________ (0-20) Sum of weighted scores __________ (0-5) __________ (0-8) __________ (0-15) __________ (0-8) __________ (0-10) NOT present Present; (rank) Whole Exhibit Environment Entire visual scene: entry/exit spaces, designated areas, built environment, wall content, objects, lighting, interactives, etc. 1. Lighting 1 Universal design; simple; consistent throughout exhibit (ambient; avoid shadows on labels, halogen lights, workshop activities) 2. Average ability to navigate (visually identify paths or direction; "wayfinding") Spatial openness along paths; commonly easy to navigate (arrows, open visual of path across most of exhibit, open navigation ability) 2 Comfortable mood lighting, mildly changes through exhibit areas (daylight cycles; lower lighting overall or in some spaces of exhibit) 3 Varied lighting across exhibit areas; spotlights; flourescent lights (mild S&L shows, blue lighting) 4 Multi-setting modes; varies from bright and dim lightings (haunted houses, heavy gobos) Most visitors navigate around obstacles while moving through space; may have visual distractions/obstructions (some obstacles in visual path; may have slight confusion on flow or end points through exhibit) Components of both slow and moderate movements (one or two visuals have some moderate speed components, such as faster transitions or scrolling, zooming in or out, or rotatory or cyclic features; otherwise movement of visuals is slow or limited) 3. Average movement of visuals (lights, video screens, simulations) Movement of visuals is slow or limited (scrolling video, consistent slow tracing/path of lights or screens, mild disco ball) 4. Average spatial spread of visuals (structures, displays, objects, interactives) Mixed between standard displays and creative representation of objects or structures in the exhibit Common expectation of setting, (abstract outlines, a wall case relatively open display with curvy, protruding display cases or signs on walls at edges; may otherwise have visible level for target audiences common or standard boxed (cane detection) cases and familiar sizes) Difficult to navigate; multiple narrow pathways or corners; visually obstructed (mazes, crowds) A handful of visuals moving at moderate speed; may be paired/expected with other stimuli (changing colored lights aimed at consistent points, action movie on a screen, stop and go elements, zooming in/out; may also have lower descriptive elements) Some crowding of objects or structures in visual space, visuals may consist of floor to ceiling; multiple structures to navigate; spatial variations (hanging objects, creative display case structures, built across a wall, to ceiling height, or into floor) 5 Highly varied location of visuals at multiple levels; immersive experiences (built-environments like houses you can enter, caves, tunnels) NOTES: 5. Cohesion, clarity, and complexities of visual scene overall Objects Creative structural features, items made be production team, collections items, interactives Bright, happy, or vibrant colors; some patterning, consistent idea, A standard theme, consistent, interconnected theme Small space, simple some mix of colors; generally (design theme, elicits theme/content exhibit, soft or clear how things interconnect and mood/atmosphere, areas simple color palette; simple common smoothly transition or have patterns, visual clarity of content (park, country/state-themed obvious separation between (display cases, workshop spaces, events, easy to understand areas, might require some focus small corner exhibits) painting or mural, all areas match) to identify details) 1 2 7. Familiarity with objects Few structures or objects grouped in same space (display cases or object is along Mixed qualities of lower and wall or as center pieces) moderate descriptions Between associatively common and novel descriptions; free or imaginary play without education would be generally feasible and accurate (some new toys or interactive types mixed with known Objects are generally known or interactive methods; living in easily associated to audience's different culture or time period known objects in daily life that has associative features like (toys, tools, paintings) clothing, games, or artifacts) 8. Average size of objects Common/expected to slightly uncommon; anticipated variations of object/visual sizes (may be proportionally smaller or larger replicas, "life-sized" objects within shared space) 6. Average spatial placement of objects 9. Average lighting on objects Labels Object labels, instructions, interactive labels, donor labels, fun facts, and other signage for the exhibit 10. Location of labels 11. Sign, label, and text legibility 12. Lighting Mixed qualities of lower and moderate descriptions (average between common and uncommon sized items; interactive playhouses) Objects are lit based on Objects are well-lit, without glare, environment (natural light or not distorting visitor's space exhibit light suffices) or to (spotlight does not overcast onto highlight key objects or specific visitor or shine into visitor's eyes) features of an object 1 2 Labels for exhibit are placed at reasonable height for accessible viewing and paired with objects or at entry ways Labels are limited in numbers Labels are moderate in number or while describing necessary placed at varying heights or information disances; labels are sequential 3 Moderate spatial density of objects in display cases or other structure location in exhibit (more intentional effort required to scan & notice each item, multiple structures to navigate through space; slight crowding of objects or structures) Contrasting, mixed colors; vague or overarching theme and patterning; more vague clarity of visual content (abstract art, multiple areas of different topics; different areas are not clearly separated nor have same content/idea) 4 Mixed qualities of moderate and heavier descriptions (a few wall-sized or immersive structures requiring effort to scan; other elements may comprise of lower descriptive qualities) 5 NOTES: Dense grouping of objects in space, requires heavy scanning, items may be missed; immersive elements (floor to ceiling objects or structures, overlapping content, slightly hidden objects) Once in a lifetime experience; immersive or in-person experience/simulation; about 50% of content is novel experience (living in different culture or time period) Varying sizes within an environment, adds to immersive feeling; uncommon; highlight pieces (life-sized dinosaurs; wall-sized murals; carousel, giant snowglobe) Objects are not well-lit to emulate an immersive environment or other context (may be an oversight, or nonspecific piece) 3 Labels are dense or missing, placed in percarious locations which may not be beneficial to most audiences Greatly varied legibility based on fonts, sizes, colors, spatial presence; portion of target audience may identify meaning due to context; anticipate difficulty for some audience members to interact/understand content Varying signage with some legible (language translations, may be and some less legible missing some descriptions; large (some signs are less consistent in presence of hieroglyphics or legibility due to font, size, colors, other language symbols meant spatial presentation) for decoration or decoding) Legible; following universal design; may have simple/consistent visual symbols paired with language (standard/common font size and colors) Labels are well-lit and do not cast shadows or glares; do not reflect back onto visitor; or intentionally Mixture of lighting on labels as lit Label is in dark location, has lit or not lit to match and legible or difficult to read due shadow cast over it, or produces atmosphere/mood to lighting glaring 4 5 NOTES: Scoring Transfer visual score to scoring sheet (box B34 ) _________/12 characteristics present Total score for visual: ______/12 Multiply above score x1 ______/11 Multiply above score x2 ______/12 Multiply above score x3 ______/4 Multiply above score x4 ______/2 Multiply above score x5 __________ (0-43) Sum of weighted scores __________ (0-12) __________ (0-22) __________ (0-36) __________ (0-16) __________ (0-10) Exhibit Label: Target Age Range for Exhibit: Exhibit Mode/Details: Date: Evaluator Name: Credentials/Title: Olfactory Score: Classification Low Stimulation Moderate Stimulation Heavy Stimulation Notes: _________/9 Olfactory Classification: ________________________ Score range Example environments 0-3 outdoors, homes 4-6 stores, homes, restaraunts 7-9 bathroom after using bleach Auditory Score: Classification Low Stimulation Moderate Stimulation Heavy Stimulation Notes: _________/30 Auditory Classification: ________________________ Score range Example environments 0-12 library, park, quiet classroom 13-20 classroom, typical store 21-30 concerts, shows/events Movement Score: Classification Low Stimulation Moderate Stimulation Heavy Stimulation Notes: _________/47 Movement Classification: ________________________ Score range Example environments 0-15 classroom play, free play 16-30 playground, sports 31-47 organized sports, heavy work Tactile Score: Classification Low Stimulation Moderate Stimulation Heavy Stimulation Notes: _________/20 Tactile Classification: ________________________ Score range Example environments 0-6 library, classroom, home 7-13 home, park/playground 14-20 outdoors, events, attractions Visual Score: Classification Low Stimulation Moderate Stimulation Heavy Stimulation Notes: _________/43 Visual Classification: ________________________ Score range Example environments 0-20 natural environments; classrooms; home 21-32 community locations 33-43 museums, concerts April 2022 Exhibit & Interactive Accessibility, Sensory, and Inclusion (ASI) Appraisals Manual Patia Hunt, OTS University of Indianapolis | OTD May 2022 Ball State University | Exercise Science 2019 Personal Contact Info: patiadh96@gmail.com Developed in partnership with: The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis and University of Indianapolis OVERVIEW During the development of the Museum Sensory-Environment Assessment Tool (MSEAT) as a quantitative assessment tool, museum staff and advisors showed interest in a short-and-sweet qualitative assessment measure, one for an exhibit overview and one for individual interactives. The result became one-page appraisals using qualitative descriptions regarding accessibility, sensory, and inclusion (ASI) features that The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis had started identifying as a way to audit exhibit and interactive design and remediation. The appraisals were structured with a checklist-type design of independent features to show what an exhibit or interactive does or does not have as it applies to visitor access and participation. An occupational therapy (OT) student designed this tool as a doctoral capstone project to be user-friendly for museum staff, predominantly exhibit developers and designers and those in the research and operations departments, to assess the level and characteristics of sensory stimulation present within an exhibit during the post-production, remedial, and maintenance phases. This tool may also aid in the creation of a more or less stimulating environment, adjusting what types of stimulation features are present, or how many stimuli are represented. ABOUT THE APPRAISALS THE SENSES Understanding the senses is important to defining what is being evaluated within a given environment. Sensory information is the foundation for lifes interactions. Every day, living things like people, plants, and animals utilize sensory means to gather knowledge and make decisions based on this reciprocal relationship with our environments. We take in sensory information through different means, as described above, process the information to decipher its meaning (threat, educational, experiential), and then react to this information or stimulus (Kranowitz, 2005; & Parham & Mailloux, 2020). A person utilizes the eight (8) senses to experience the world and interact throughout life (Kranowitz, 2005; Parham & Mailloux, 2020). The five commonly known senses are considered external senses, referring to sensory input retrieved from outside the body: auditory (sound), gustatory (taste), olfactory (smell), tactile (touch), and visual (sight). The less common senses are considered internal due to the stimulation occurring within the body: interoception (internal body awareness like hunger or breathing rate), proprioception (muscle sensations related to body position and movement), and vestibular (head position in space, related to balance). Often times, sensory-related features within an environment may bar those with varying needs or disabilities from accessing or participating in activities and experiences. OT and accessibility efforts often advocate for the need for an enabling environment to support the activities that a person participates in, and the museum is a great place for leisure, social participation, education, play, and community engagement (American Occupational Therapy Association, 2020). For these reasons, the ASI appraisals promoted the need for those with different educational and employmentbased backgrounds to address accessibility features, highly motivated by sensory elements, of museum exhibits and interactives. For The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis, every exhibit team pairs an exhibits topic and main messages with a target audience and different interactive opportunities to foster a positive, unique learning experience. The main purpose of the exhibit and interactive ASI appraisals is to allow for an evaluator, particularly a museum exhibit team member, to characterize an exhibit for multiple elements of sensory stimulation. Each component of the appraisals is intended to target people of varying groups within a general population; however, this tool presents broad generalizations of accessibility and inclusion features that might be note-worthy or problematic in a museum exhibit or an interactive opportunity. There is no target number, as the majority of the points are up for evaluator and exhibit team interpretation; however, on the interactive ASI appraisal, some elements are highlighted as recommended features for the big-ticket interactives. Researchers also suggested that sensory exposure to all individuals, regardless of client factors, demonstrated benefits to skill development, and this skill refinement might transfer into other areas of performance, promoting the versatile use of sensory-informed decision making (Blanche et al., 2016; Cahill & Beisbier, 2020; Smart et al., 2018; & Woo & Leon, 2013). Therefore, for an environment that is generally available to the public, sensory stimulation is considered beneficial to skill development, engagement in the experience, and crucial to learning. However, the general public also incorporates outliers who might benefit from more of fewer sensory features or accessibility measures, which frequently interconnect in a dynamic relationship. These all highlight why sensory-specific accessibility should be part of a museum exhibit teams planning and development process. APPRAISAL STRUCTURE AND FEATURES Exhibit ASI Appraisal Sections: Auditory, Visual, Movement, Tactile, and Other. Some sections have subcategories (Auditory, Visual, and Other) Each sensory section has a list of characteristics under their respective columns. Each characteristic should be thought of an independent from the others, although they may seem to overlap. In the Tactile section, there are definitions to aid in comprehension. Interactive ASI Appraisal Sections: Auditory, Visual, Movement, Tactile, and Other. The content structure is almost identical to the exhibit ASI appraisal. Characteristics that are bolded, italicized, and have a double-box feature are recommended features for any highlighted (key or showstopper) interactives. Each sense involved in a section of the ASI appraisals is listed below with a general description, reasoning of importance or use, expected reactions, and common populations who might be at-risk for having complications with the sense. AUDITORY Description: Sound, dependent on intact hearing; can develop discrimination and comprehension skills Use: Communication and socialization; locate stimuli; a primal sense associated with determining threats; processing movement (balance, flexibility, coordination, and vision), respiration, selfesteem, and academic learning Expectations: Turning head toward direction of sounds, reacting to volume, tone, pitch; engaging in communicative or social interactions At-Risk: ASD, ADHD, DD, hearing disabilities, trauma, neurological disorders, vertigo and migraines, anxieties, and sensory processing needs (Healthwise Staff, 2020; Kranowitz, 2005, pp. 16, 18, 53, 176-177, & 186-190; Noise Quest, n.d.; & Parham & Mailloux, 2020). VISUAL Description: Sight; any visual content in an environment that can be observed through the eyes; dependent on intact vision and the presence of light (shadows, white & black, colors), acuity and motor skills are separate from sensory skills, such as discrimination, contrast, edges, and movement; plays role in vestibular skills and eye-hand coordination Use: Daily functions interacting with elements of environment, defines space; identify components within a space; ability to defend against threats, guide or direct movement Expectations: Visually scan environments, detect navigation options and items to otherwise interact with, determine distances or qualities of objects or the environment, socialization, leisure, reading and learning At-Risk: ASD, DD, ADD, ADHD, migraines, anxieties, vision disabilities, trauma, neurological disorders, car/movement sickness and vertigo, and sensory processing needs (Archtoolbox, 2021; Hill, 2011; Kranowitz, 2005, pp. 15-16, 18, 53, 155-161, 169-173; Parham & Mailloux, 2020; & Peterson, 2020). MOVEMENT (PROPRIOCEPTION & VESTIBULAR) Description: Movement and body position; joint compression, muscle contraction or stretch; fine and gross motor skills; heavily incorporates other senses for efficiency of movement Use: Daily functions, self-esteem; fine and gross motor skills such as coordination, balance, motor praxis, planning, and control; ability to tolerate different positioning or right oneself Expectations: Engagement in movement opportunities that require varying amounts of total body involvement, intensity, duration, frequency, and skill; leisure activities or hobbies that involve movements opportunities; ability to right self or orient self to environment; willingness to move through environment At-Risk: ASD, CP, DD, ADHD, migraines, anxieties, arthritis, respiratory disorders, neurological disorders, difficulties with sensorimotor or sensory discrimination, mobility deficits, trauma, vision or hearing disabilities, car/movement sickness and vertigo, and retention of primitive reflexes Proprioceptive refers to body movement qualities Vestibular refers most often to head position and balance (Kranowitz, 2005, pp. 54, 113-114, & 136-138; & Parham & Mailloux, 2020) TACTILE Description: Touch, direct contact through the skin across the whole body; of the most predominant senses; input relates to light touch, deep pressure, skin stretch, vibration, movement, temperature from contact (not internal temperature), and pain; discrimination skills Use: Daily functioning as items contact or change components of skin and receptors; provides information for developing skills of interoception and proprioception, visual discrimination, language, academia, emotional security, and socialization Expectations: Exploration through hands most commonly; comfort and preference in textures, temperatures, physical contact; ability to immerse in environments or wear variety of clothing at preferences; means of learning At-Risk: ASD, CP, DD, ADHD, anxiety and phobias, burns, vision disabilities, trauma, neurological disorders, allergies, and sensory processing needs (Kranowitz, 2005, pp. 17, 52, 82-83, 91-101, & 108; & Parham & Mailloux, 2020). CONSIDERATIONS 1. Evidence-based practice, literature, other assessment tools, clinical experience, and staff and visitor feedback at The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis advised the development of these appraisals for accessibility, sensory features, and inclusion. 2. These appraisals do not necessarily incorporate social environment, such as staff members who may have received specific training, at this time. However, regular programming is included, such as regular announcements or sound and light programs, as part of the anticipated and physical exhibit characteristics. 3. These appraisals may be used to independently of each other, as indicated. An evaluator is expected to walk about the exhibit or interactive area when assessing. 4. When using the exhibit ASI appraisal form, if the exhibit is very large and difficult to assess as a whole (i.e., cannot see outer walls of exhibit from most points within the exhibit, or the exhibit areas may have their own subsections), it is recommended to assess area by area to compile an overview of the exhibit. 5. The exhibit ASI appraisal may be used to assess various operating modes. The evaluator should comment on the mode setting during assessment and other noteworthy features that may alter the assessment. 6. These appraisals are for sole purpose of identifying accessibility, sensory, and inclusion features, not labeling as stimulating or otherwise. The appraisals should only be used as a form of more objective characteristics as part of the exhibit or interactive. Exhibit teams should collectively interpret these characteristics and how they match their expectations, goals, and target audiences. INSTRUCTIONS These appraisals may require slight subjective judgment and outside knowledge, such as what might be considered bright or loud and results from prototyping, but generally objective perspectives are recommended. 1. Get familiar with the ASI appraisal materials and each characteristic. An evaluator should be generally aware of which features they should be noting during an assessment. Ideally, more than one evaluator should individually assess an exhibit or interactive using these appraisals to receive multiple versions of feedback. 2. Identify the operating mode and/or visitor expectation (weekday crowd versus peak) to select the best representation of the exhibit needing evaluation. 3. Fill out the exhibit and/or interactive details on one side of the form, noting the exhibit and/or interactive title(s), operating mode, including crowd level or day/time (weekday at 4 PM vs Saturday at 10:30 AM), target audience age, date, and evaluator information. 4. Walk through the exhibit or interactives area. Participate in the interactive as it has been designed to and/or how a visitor would be anticipated to. 5. Fill out the appraisal form(s). Check or mark the boxes adjacent to each characteristic if the description matches the exhibit or interactive features. Select all that apply. Complete only one appraisal at a time. For the exhibit ASI appraisal, consider changing locations within the exhibit while completing the form. a. Each item is independent from others. If there are some instances that have few text labels and some with moderate text labels, check both and write notes/evidence. b. Remember to consider the subcategories under each section, i.e., exhibit overall, interactives on average, Are there any? 6. Collaborate results with other team members to determine if there are any actions the team would like to take. Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following for their contributions to this project. University of Indianapolis Dr. Taylor McGann | Assistant Professor for providing the OT and university and capstone requirement lens and being primary investigator/capstone advisor for this experience and project. Dr. Christine Kroll | Assistant Professor and Occupational Therapy Doctoral Capstone Coordinator for helping form the foundation of the project prior to the doctoral capstone experience. The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis Betsy Lynn | Operations Project Manager and Accessibility Coordinator Susan Foutz | Director of Research and Evaluation for being the primary forces to assist the shaping and trialing of the original SEAT and M-SEAT through its developmental phases. Tim Scully | Intern Program Manager Exhibit Core Teams, Research and Evaluations department, Operations department, and other associated staff and partners for supporting this project, consistently requesting or integrating accessibility concepts into planning and maintenance phases of exhibits, and interest in final products and utility for future museum implementation. On behalf of The Childrens Museum of Indianapolis as IMLS grant advisors: Roger Ideishi | Program Director of Occupational Therapy and Professor of Health, Human Function, and Rehabilitation Sciences | The George Washington University Leigh Ann Mesiti Caulfield | Strategy and Communication Manager for the Learning & Research Division | Museum of Science, Boston for meeting with Betsy, Susan, and myself to discuss utility, accessibility, and other logistics for tool development. Reference List American Occupational Therapy Association. (2020). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process (4th ed.). American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(Suppl. 2), advance online publication. https://www.aota.org/~/media/Corporate/Files/Secure/Practice/OfficialDocs/Guid elines/OTPF4_FINAL_for_web.pdf Archtoolbox. (2021). Recommended Lighting Levels in Buildings. Retrieved on Feb. 10, 2022, from https://www.archtoolbox.com/materialssystems/electrical/recommended-lighting-levels-in-buildings.html Blanche, E. I., Chang, M. C., Gutierrez, J., & Gunter, J. S. (2016). Effectiveness of a sensory-enriched Early Intervention group program with children with developmental disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 70, 7005220010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2016.018481 Cahill, S. M., & Beisbier, S. (2020). Practice Guidelines Occupational therapy practice guidelines for children and youth ages 5-21 years. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(4), 7404397010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2020.744001 Hill, M. (2011). Young children and their perception of colour: An exploratory study (Bachelor's thesis, Avondale College, Cooranbong, Australia). Retrieved from https://research.avondale.edu.au/theses_bachelor_honours/59/ Healthwise Staff. (2020). Harmful noise levels. University of Michigan Health: Michigan Medicine. Retrieved on Jan. 25, 2022, from https://www.uofmhealth.org/healthlibrary/tf4173 Kranowitz, C. S. (2005). The Out-of-Sync Child. Skylight Press. Noise Quest. (n.d.) Noise Basics. Retrieved on Jan. 21, 2021, from https://www.noisequest.psu.edu/noisebasics-basics.html Parham, L. D., & Mailloux, Z. (2020.) Sensory Integration. In J. C. O'Brien, & H. Kuhaneck (Eds.), Case-Smith's Occupational Therapy for Children and Adolescents (8th ed., pp. 516-549). Elsevier Incorporated. Peterson, N. (2020). Recommended Foot Candle Chart. LED Lighting Supply. Retrieved on Feb. 10, 2022, from https://www.ledlightingsupply.com/blog/recommendedfoot-candle-chart Smart, E., Edwards, B., Kingsnorth, S., Sheffe, S., Curran, C. J., Pinto, M., Crossman, S., & King, G. (2018). Creating an inclusive leisure space: Strategies used to engage children with and without disabilities in the arts-mediated program Spiral Garden. Disabilities and Rehabilitation, 40(2), 199-207. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1250122 Woo, C. C., & Leon, M. (2013). Environmental enrichment as an effective treatment for autism: A randomized controlled trial. Behavioral Neuroscience, 127(4), 487-97. doi: 10.1037/a0033010 Exhibit Appraisal Post-Production Exhibit: ________________________________________________________ Date: _______________ Operating Mode: _________________________________________________________________________ Target Audience Age: _____________________________ Evaluator: _______________________________ Credentials/Title: ________________________________ Notes: SELECT ALL THAT APPLY to the exhibit/space as a whole (comment why you checked boxes if some seem contradictory; aka most were __, a few were __): Auditory Exhibit Overall Visual Exhibit Overall Times of loud audio during shows, music, or interactives Area has low or dimmed lighting, follows a subtle color palette, or softer tones of light Audio in overall exhibit has startling features Substantial ighting changes across area and/or multiple variants of color scheme Frequent contrasting sounds in pitch or competing tones of sounds Expected to be a louder area on busy/crowded days Audio consists of lower or softer sounds, relatively quiet or natural About half or more of exhibit space has noted sound-bleed from outside exhibit About half or more of exhibit space has noted sound-bleed within exhibit Interactives On Average Interactives do not have audio (N/A) Audio consists of clear voice recording Audio consists of varying accents (compared to proximal geographic region), radio static, or other elements that may alter understanding or clarity Instructions are provided in a clear, concise manner with good timing in sizable chunks Audio has multiple features, such as voices, nature, and sound effects Area has bright lights and bright colors Lighting or other visuals (screens) have fast movement or flashing elements Videos or spotlights project notable light or shadows into viewing space Natural light present Structures or Objects Object theme is consistent throughout space Object types, sizes, and locations/placements vary greatly Scenes, structures, or objects are generally easy to scan Scenes, structures, or objects require some focus to notice details Scenes, structures, or objects are heavy on details and require keen attention Labels Few signs or labels per square footage with minimal detail Movement ARE THERE ANY...? Other Accessibility, Sensory, & Inclusion Fine motor activities (such as drawing with utensils, sculpting, manipulation) Braille present on major labels or signs (titles, start) Gross motor activities that are replicable of a general sport or ordinary movement Braille present on informative texts Gross motor activities that require advanced skills or greater participation or force Ability to operate (buttons, levers, slides) or navigate (move objects through space) Opportunity to passively ride or moderately change position in (interactives) (i.e. tiltable chairs) Opportunity to climb over moderately difficult surface, climb up a 5ft + wall, or climb into (over a ledge, etc.) Tactile Touchables that present as supplementative or a new learning opportunity and conveys information ARE THERE ANY...? Educational touchables that can be manipulated with the hands (clay, dolls, etc.) Educational touchable objects that are fixed in position (bronze dino) Touchables that are 'loose parts' (toy trains, dolls) and add to the educational experience or free play Other languages are represented (Greek, hieroglyphics, Spanish) Different populations are represented (disabilities, ethnicities, genders, religion or politics) Audio descriptions are available Scripts, text, or captioning is readily, consistently available Sensory signage is present upon entering Purposeful/intentional added smells (room freshner, simulated foods, swampy) Interactives provide immediate feedback (audio/visual triggered, etc.) Most interactive(s) have obvious affordance from a visitor's perspective, or their presence suggests that there is an interactive opportunity Multiple interactives provide multisensory content delivery opportunities (3+ paired: audio, visual, text, tactile, and/or movement) Main messages for exhibit learning are presented repeatedly Environmental Moderate text, signs, or labels per shared space that may require additional reading time Objects are weighted Raised outlines/tactile edges Environmental smells (cleaners, chlorine, food where food is present) Large amount(s) of text, signs, or labels that require longer stops for reading Temperature-altered (cold or warm) Area is accessible (ramps, railings, ADA and universal design width/reach) Instructions are visually provided in a clear manner, adequate sized portions, and good timing Wearables (clothing-like objects) Immersive items (water, sand, noodles, digs) *TOUCHSCREENS OR BRAILLE DO NOT QUALIFY AS A TACTILE ELEMENT Area has some inaccessible or challenging spots for accessibility (steps, narrow, crawl spaces) Interactive Appraisal Post-Production Exhibit: ________________________________________________________ Date: _______________ Interactive: _________________________________________________________________________ Target Audience Age: _____________________________ Evaluator: _______________________________ Credentials/Title: ________________________________ Notes: SELECT ALL THAT APPLY for the interactive piece: *Double-boxed, bold/Italicized elements are highly recommended for showstopper exhibit pieces (10). Auditory Audio has startling features Audio has contrasting sounds in pitch or competing tones of sounds Audio consists of clear voice recording Audio consists of varying accents (compared to proximal geographic region), radio static, or other elements that may alter understanding or clarity Interactive's space has noted sound-bleed competing with the interactive's audio Instructions are provided in a clear, concise manner with good timing in sizable chunks Audio has multiple features, such as voices, nature, and sound effects Not applicable (interactive has no audio; does not seem to need any) Interactive has no audio and might benefit from the addition Visual Interactive space has low or dimmed lighting, follows a subtle color palette, or softer tones of light Movement Fine motor activities (such as drawing with utensils, sculpting, and/or manipulation with the hands) Tactile Touchables that present as supplementative or a new learning opportunity and conveys information Lighting or other visuals have fast movement or flashing elements Gross motor activities that are replicable of a general sport or ordinary movement (balancing, shooting basketball) Educational touchables that can be manipulated with the hands (clay, dolls, etc.) Educational touchable objects that are fixed in position (bronze dino) Videos or spotlights project notable light/glares or shadows into viewing space of interactive Gross motor activities that require more advanced skills or greater participation or force Touchables that are 'loose parts' (toy trains, dolls) and add to the educational experience or free play Few signs, text, or labels within interactive space (not including instructions on screen) Moderate signs, text, and labels that may require additional reading time (in space or on ineractive screens) Ability to operate (buttons, levers, slides) and/or navigate (moderately move objects through/across space) Interactive space has bright lights and/or bright colors Interactive's visual content (space, screens, etc.) is generally easy to scan Interactive's visual content (space, screens, etc.) requires some focus to notice details Interactive's visual content (space, screens, etc.) is heavy on details and require keen attention Instructions are visually provided in a clear manner, adequate sized portions, and good timing Interactive has no visual instructions (does not seem to need any) Interactive has no visual instructions and might benefit from the addition Opportunity to passively ride or moderately change position in (i.e. tiltable chairs) Opportunity to climb over moderately difficult surface, climb up a 5ft + wall, or climb into (over a ledge, etc.) Objects are weighted Raised outlines/tactile edges Temperature-altered (cold or warm) Other Braille present on major labels or signs (titles, start) Braille present on informative texts Other languages are represented (Greek, hieroglyphics, Spanish) Interactive is accessible (ramps, railings, accessible or universal design width/reach) Interactive has some inaccessible or challenging spots for accessibility (steps, narrow, crawl spaces) Audio descriptions are available Wearables (clothing-like objects) Scripts, text, or captioning is consistently readily-available Immersive items (water, sand, noodles, digs) Interactive provides immediate feedback (audio/visual triggered, etc.) *TOUCHSCREENS OR BRAILLE DO NOT QUALIFY AS A TACTILE ELEMENT Interactive has obvious affordance from a visitor's perspective, or their presence suggests that there is an interactive opportunity Interactive provides multisensory content delivery (3+ paired: audio, visual, text, tactile, and/or movement) Main message for learning/exhibit are inferred or obvious Week 1 (1/111/16) DCE Stage (orientation, screening/evaluation, implementation, discontinuation, dissemination) Orientation Weekly Goal 1) Complete physical orientation by end of week 1 2) Assigned 2-3 exhibits for recommendations, sensory development, and understanding exhibit lifetime/design Objectives Tasks Meet with Intern Manager, Site Mentor (accessibility coordinator), and Director of Research & Evaluation to introduce and collaborate on project and experience for the 14-week placement. Security and orientation walk-through; virtual new staff orientation Develop usability and understanding of sensory-enriched environment assessment tool (SEEAT) plans with mentor(s). 2 (1/171/23) Orientation; screening/evaluation 1) Collaborate on SEEAT outline & expectations 2) Review literature & expand search on sensory and Observe 3 exhibits as a model for sensory & accessibility recommendations where lacking or noted problem areas for tool development Date complete 1/15/22 Gallery walk-through with mentor(s) on 3 exhibits Receive resources to begin orienting to 3 exhibits, research, and exhibit design Complete orientation paperwork, badging; determine need for Teams & TCM email accounts Determine weekly meeting times with mentor(s) Begin formatting options and feedback meeting with mentor(s) for tool development Finalize MOU & IRB expectations 1/21/22 accessibility features 3) Join exhibit Teams and meetings Gather and review research articles for sensory stimulation Develop content for tool Review museum resources for goals, project development, research & evaluation process Begin sitting-in on team meetings and introducing to staff 3 (1/241/30) Screening/evaluation 1) Revisit tool expectations 2) Advocate for tool to exhibit development teams 3) Receive feedback on soft 1st draft of tool for content & structure Revise MOU timeline & IRB considerations Become efficient at describing the expectations and need for tool to team members Utilize resources provided for tool design Meet with faculty mentor to discuss project progress Meet with faculty mentor & review all project updates, gain feedback & share considerations Establish a direction with tool content, direction, scoring, and use/manual Present tool purpose and status with teams as indicated 1/28/22 4 (1/312/6) 5 (2/72/13) Screening/evaluation Implementation 6 (2/142/20) Screening/evaluation; Implementation 7 (2/212/27) Screening/evaluation 1) Revise tool based on feedback and research 2) Develop 1st hard draft of SEEAT Design tool for userfriendly environment evaluation Revisit research and perform continued literature search to bolster tool and its elements Receive mentors feedback on tool, scoring, manual, and utility st 1) Utilize 1 draft tool Visit museum to to evaluate an perform soft trial established exhibit evaluation on one newer/established 2) Use tool outcomes exhibit to provide recommendations Meet with Yvonne in UIndy IRB to 3) Establish IRB determine project status status 1) Discuss SEEAT Revise tool as with TCM grant indicated advisors Discuss goals and 2) Revise plan and objectives of project tool(s) with with mentors mentors 1) Revise SEAT Revisit literature for nd materials for 2 qualitative objectives draft Set-up a date & exhibit to trial evaluate 2/4/22 Discuss tool during weekly site mentor meeting Revise tool as indicated Schedule days onsite for exhibit evaluations 2/8/22 Research museum objectives for designated exhibits & brainstorm recommendations Build foundations for additional tools (museumspecific qualitative documents; one during schematic phase and one for postproduction/remedial) Schedule meeting with exhibit designers/developers to 2/18/22 2/23/22 Revise SEAT materials 8 (2/283/6) 9 (3/73/13) Screening/evaluation; Implementation Implementation 2) Outline for qualitative documents (ASI appraisals) 1) Begin development Discuss qualitative of ASI appraisals project with exhibit developers/designers 2) Finish 2nd draft of all SEAT materials Revise SEAT manual for 2nd draft 1) Trial and revise SEAT 2) Preliminary ASI appraisals 10 (3/143/20) Screening/evaluation; Implementation 1) Start M-SEAT drafts 2) ASI appraisal 1 drafts Reconsider SEAT vs museum-specific version (M-SEAT) Formatting of first draft ASI appraisals Develop outlines for M-SEAT and appraisals st create qualitative documents Request feedback for 2nd draft SEAT forms Schedule onsite days for SEAT use to evaluate problematic and new exhibits 3/7/22 Start formatting qualitative documents Trial SEAT in problematic exhibit to assess tool capturing sensory features Discuss conceptual formatting and design of appraisals Discuss SEAT trials Outline for M-SEAT version Exhibit ASI appraisal outline Interactive ASI Appraisal outline 3/11/22 3/22/22 11 (3/213/27) Implementation 1) Trial 1st drafts of M-SEAT and ASI Appraisals Trial each tool/form and prepare tools for training/use by other users 2) Reformat manuals for each tool Identify exhibit and interactives to assess via tools 3/25/22 Identify user populations for manuals Complete trials and data analysis 12 (3/284/3) 13 (4/44/10) 14 (4/114/17) Implementation Implementation; Discontinuation Discontinuation; Dissemination 1) Revise M-SEAT materials for 2nd draft 2) Revise ASI Appraisals for 2nd draft 1) 2nd trials of MSEAT and ASI Appraisals 1) Revisions for 3rd drafts 2) Trials with 3rd drafts 3) Dissemination planning for site Collaborative revisions to improve efficiency and clarity of tools Discussion meeting with all evaluators for revision brainstorm 3/31/22 Draft 2nd drafts Trial all tools again to comparatively analyze among evaluators and between 1st and 2nd trials progress Improved connectivity and limited further revisions Quick turn-around for 3rd trials that would assess every sensory section, challenging Revisit literature Schedule trials for collaborative appraisal trials Create timeline for MSEAT trial, data analysis, and 3rd drafts/trials Dissemination planning for research & evaluation working group; accessibility & inclusion working group Final drafts timeline Revise for 3rd drafts 4/7/22 4/19/22 Identify exhibit for final trials 15 (4/184/24) Discontinuation; Dissemination 1) Disseminate DCE 2) Finalize drafts for tool materials 3) Provide site mentors with final drafts for future use Present to each working group Timeline for revisions on final drafts Finalize end of DCE Shared Google Drive with site mentor for all resources Encourage TCM staff to collaborate with mentors for access and training/use Doctoral Capstone Experience and Project Weekly Planning Guide 4/24/22 ...