Current estimates indicate that 5% to 16.5% of the general population [1, 2] have symptoms associated with sensory processing challenges and these estimates are higher for clinical populations such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) [3] and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) [4]. Sensory processing is part of normal development and reflects one’s ability to interpret and respond to daily sensory experiences [5]. The integration of sensory information contributes to successful functioning in daily life reflected in our ability to self-regulate, interact socially [2], and develop adaptive behavioral skills/abilities [6].Thus, sensory processing is only considered a problem when it interferes with functioning in daily life. In fact, the autism literature has been recently characterized as a form of atypical sensory processing that enhances daily life called enhanced perception linked to superior sensory acuity [7]. However, some subtypes of sensory processing have been associated with impairments in activities of daily living [6] and with other kinds of behavioral problems [8]. An increase in recognition of sensory processing challenges [7] supports the need to articulate patterns of dysfunction and associated functional deficits across clinical populations. Clinically meaningful descriptions will facilitate increased understanding of the clinical presentation, which can provide more specificity for guiding intervention and greater homogeneity of samples for research. Interest in understanding and defining the patterns of sensory processing dysfunction has been prevalent since Ayres first developed the Southern California Sensory Integration Tests [9], followed by the Sensory Integration and Praxis Tests [SIPT] [10]. With the publication of the sensory profile [11], responsivity patterns characteristic of individuals with sensory modulation challenges were included. Davies and Tucker [12] summarized the evidence from 1986 to 2006, and they found that the literature was limited by the specific assessment tools used because no single study included a comprehensive assessment of sensory function and sensorybased motor performance. Thus, it is difficult to arrive at a consensus regarding factors or cluster groups across studies due to the varied constructs evaluated by different assessment tools, as well as due to heterogeneity and comorbidities in the samples studied [13].