When I was training and looking at the range of neurodevelopmental approaches available, I had a decision to make about where to invest my time, commitment, and trust. There are many methods in this field, and practitioners working within each of them will have their own reasons for the choices they have made. These are mine.
I chose INPP and Tomatis because they share something I could not compromise on: a long, well-documented research base, a rigorous training pathway, a requirement for ongoing accountability, and an insistence that every programme is built around the individual child rather than a generic template. They are not quick solutions, and they were not quick to learn. That, for me, was part of the point.
Why the Research Base Matters
There are approaches in this field that are relatively new, with training available over short periods and limited published research behind them. I do not doubt the intentions of practitioners using them. But when families come to Think Thrive, often after years of trying to understand what is going on for their child, I need to be confident that what I am offering is rooted in something substantial.
INPP was founded in 1975 and has over 45 years of peer-reviewed published research behind the method. The Tomatis method has over 70 years of development. Both have been studied in independent trials, in school settings, across specialist populations, and across different countries and cultures. That longevity and breadth of evidence matters to me. It is not the only thing that matters, but it is a foundation I am not willing to work without.
The INPP Licentiate: A Rigorous Training
The INPP Licentiate is the gold standard practitioner qualification in INPP reflex integration. It is not an introductory workshop or a short certificate. It is a substantial, multi-year training programme that I chose precisely because of the level of rigour it demands.
The Tomatis Level 2 Qualification
The Tomatis method was developed by French ear, nose, and throat specialist Dr Alfred Tomatis from the 1940s onwards. It is a structured, well-researched auditory stimulation approach with a formal four-level practitioner training programme. Level 2 is a more advanced qualification within that framework. Having completed Level 1, I then went on to Level 2, building real depth in the method before working independently.
Individual Programmes, Not Generic Ones
One of the things that drew me to both INPP and Tomatis is that neither of them offers a standard protocol. Every child who comes to Think Thrive receives a programme that is built around their specific profile, their particular reflex pattern or listening curve, their developmental history, and the pace at which their nervous system is able to work.
This matters more than it might sound. Nervous systems do not respond well to being rushed. The reason that INPP review appointments are spaced six to eight weeks apart is not a scheduling convenience. It is because that gap is the time the nervous system needs to do its work. Compressing that process does not accelerate progress. It undermines it.
Between formal reviews, I keep in regular contact with families by phone. These check-ins are not charged. They are part of how I monitor whether the programme is sitting well, whether anything needs adjusting, and whether the nervous system is moving at a pace that feels right. A programme that is not being monitored is not being properly managed.
Why Being Held to Account Matters to Me
I chose approaches that require me to be accountable because I believe that is what families working with their children's neurological development deserve. That means a training pathway with formal examination, not just attendance. It means supervised practice before working independently. It means annual case review and supervision as a condition of registration. It means an enhanced DBS check, professional liability insurance, and practitioner registration that can be verified.
None of this is bureaucracy for its own sake. It is what being a responsible practitioner in a field that is not yet formally regulated looks like in practice. I take it seriously because the families who come to Think Thrive are trusting me with something that matters enormously to them.
What to Look for When Choosing a Practitioner
If you are researching neurodevelopmental support for your child, these are the questions worth asking anyone you are considering working with:
| Question | What to look for |
|---|---|
| What is your specific qualification? | A named credential from a recognised training body, with the level of training clearly stated. Ask how long the training took and what it involved. |
| Is your training ongoing? | Reputable approaches require continued professional development and supervision. Ask what that looks like and whether it is a condition of their registration. |
| Do you carry out a formal assessment before designing a programme? | A properly individualised programme should begin with a thorough assessment of your child's specific profile. A generic starting point is not the same thing. |
| How is progress monitored between appointments? | Ask how often contact happens and whether there is flexibility to check in if something is not sitting well. Monitoring is part of responsible practice. |
| What does the research evidence look like? | Published peer-reviewed studies, ideally over many years and across different settings. Ask where you can read it yourself. |
| Do you hold an enhanced DBS and professional liability insurance? | Both should be standard for anyone working with children. Do not hesitate to ask. |
I am always happy to answer any of these questions directly about my own practice. If there is anything about how Think Thrive works, what the training behind it involves, or what a programme with us would actually look like, please do ask before making any decisions. That is exactly what I am here for.