Fidgets are everywhere. From small sensory stones and putty to poppers, spinners, cubes and increasingly elaborate sensory toys, there seems to be an endless choice of tools marketed to help children concentrate, regulate and stay focused.
For some children, having something to quietly manipulate with their hands can be genuinely helpful. For others, the fidget itself can become the distraction.
So, as an occupational therapist, one of the questions I would encourage parents and teachers to ask is not simply:
“Does this child need a fidget?”
But:
“Does this particular fidget help this particular child participate in this particular activity?”
That small change in thinking is important.
Why might a child benefit from a fidget?
Fidgeting is not necessarily a sign that a child is not listening or paying attention. For some children, particularly children with ADHD, movement may form part of how they regulate their arousal and maintain attention during cognitively demanding activities. Research has suggested that motor activity may sometimes act as a compensatory mechanism that supports attention in children with ADHD (Sarver et al., 2015).
This does not mean that every child who fidgets needs a fidget toy. It also does not mean that giving a child something to move will automatically improve their concentration. The important question is what purpose the movement is serving.
A child might be seeking:
- Tactile input through their hands
- Resistance or proprioceptive input
- Repetitive movement
- Something predictable and calming
- An outlet for excess movement
- Sensory input that helps them maintain an appropriate level of alertness
- Something to occupy their hands whilst listening
For another child, however, the movement might be a sign that they need to move their whole body, rather than something to manipulate with their fingers. This is where individualised assessment and clinical reasoning become important.
A fidget is not automatically a sensory intervention
There is a tendency to assume that because something is described as a “sensory tool”, it will improve attention or regulation. The evidence does not support such a simple conclusion.
Research examining sensory interventions in school settings has found that outcomes vary considerably depending on the intervention and the characteristics of the child. There is therefore a need to avoid treating sensory interventions as universally effective (Ouellet et al., 2021). Occupational therapy evidence also emphasises the importance of individualised assessment, clinical reasoning and monitoring whether an intervention is actually improving participation (Piller et al., 2025).
In other words, a fidget should have a purpose.
We should be able to ask:
“What are we hoping this fidget will help this child do?”
If the answer is simply “keep them busy” or “stop them fidgeting”, it may be worth looking a little deeper.
Not all fidgets are classroom fidgets
This is particularly important when we think about the school environment. A fidget can be perfectly appropriate for use at home or during a therapy session but not be appropriate during a whole-class lesson. Why? Because the sensory characteristics of the fidget matter.
Consider a child who enjoys a popper. The repetitive popping may provide satisfying tactile and auditory feedback. However, during a classroom lesson, the noise may attract the attention of the child using it, as well as the children sitting nearby. Similarly, a brightly coloured spinner or visually interesting moving toy may be fascinating to watch. If the child’s eyes are following the fidget rather than the teacher, it may be working against the intended goal.
This does not mean these are “bad” fidgets. It means they may not be the right fidget for that context.
Think about the “attention cost”
One concept I find particularly useful is the idea of attention cost. A classroom fidget ideally provides the sensory input a child needs without demanding too much additional attention.
For example, a small piece of putty might provide resistance and tactile input whilst remaining relatively visually unobtrusive. A smooth sensory stone might provide tactile input without making a noise. A silicone ring might allow repetitive finger movement without requiring the child to look at it.
By contrast, a toy that lights up, spins, clicks, pops, changes shape or makes an interesting noise may require considerably more attention.
The question becomes:
“Is the child using the fidget, or is the fidget using the child?”
That distinction can be surprisingly helpful.
The research on fidgets is mixed
It is important not to overstate the evidence. There are studies suggesting that certain fidget tools may support on-task behaviour for some children. For example, one small study involving three children with ADHD reported increased on-task behaviour when fidget spinners were used during language arts lessons (Mulligan et al., 2022).
However, other research has found the opposite.
A classroom study involving 60 young children with ADHD found that using fidget spinners was associated with poorer attention (Graziano et al., 2020).
More recently, Danckaerts et al. (2023) examined fidget spinners and bouncy bands in normal classroom conditions. The researchers found an overall detrimental effect on academic performance with fidget spinners and an overall negative effect with bouncy bands. There was some indication that bouncy bands might be helpful for mathematics in children with higher levels of inattention, but the authors specifically advised against using these tools as universal classroom interventions.
Research into a commercially available Fidget Cube also found that providing it did not improve academic outcomes for three children with perceived attention difficulties (Rapp et al., 2022).
So the evidence does not support the idea that:
“Children with ADHD need fidgets.”
Nor does it support:
“Fidgets don’t work.”
Instead, the research points towards a much more nuanced conclusion:
“A particular tool may be helpful for a particular child in a particular situation, but fidgets should not be treated as a universal classroom solution.”
The most interesting fidget may not be the best one
This is where we need to be particularly careful about the influence of social media and marketing. Fidgets can become trends. A particular toy or brand suddenly becomes hugely popular, and children may understandably want the same one their friends have.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with buying a fun fidget because a child enjoys it. But if the purpose is supporting classroom participation, popularity should not be the deciding factor. A child might desperately want the latest trending fidget, but that does not necessarily mean it will meet their sensory needs.
Before buying it, consider:
- What sensory input does this fidget provide?
- Is the child seeking touch, movement, resistance or sound?
- Can they use it without looking at it?
- Is it silent?
- Does it attract attention?
- Is it likely to distract the child?
- Could it distract other children?
- Can the child use it appropriately and independently?
- Does it actually improve their participation?
The most expensive or popular fidget is not necessarily the most effective. In fact, the best classroom fidget might be the one that nobody else even notices. “Quiet” does not necessarily mean “appropriate”.
It is also worth remembering that noise is only one part of the equation. A fidget can be completely silent but still highly distracting. For example, a child may spend several minutes watching a silent spinner, repeatedly changing the shape of a tactile toy or visually inspecting a textured object. So when choosing a classroom fidget, think about visual and cognitive distraction as well as sound.
A useful classroom fidget may be something the child can manipulate almost automatically whilst directing their visual attention towards the teacher, book or task. This is particularly relevant when the child’s goal is to listen. If the child has to watch their hands to use the fidget, we need to consider whether the visual attention required is worth the sensory benefit.
Sometimes the child needs movement, not a fidget
This is another reason why understanding the underlying need matters.
Imagine a child who is constantly rocking in their chair, getting up, leaning against the desk and moving their legs. Giving them a tiny object to squeeze might occupy their hands, but it may not meet their need for movement.
For that child, alternatives might include:
- Standing to complete some work
- Movement breaks
- Classroom jobs involving carrying or pushing
- Changing working position
- A standing workstation
- Opportunities to stretch
- Planned movement between activities
- An agreed way of moving whilst listening
This is consistent with occupational therapy approaches that emphasise understanding the child’s sensory needs within their everyday environments and occupations, rather than simply trying to eliminate sensory behaviours (Piller et al., 2025). Sometimes the best “fidget” is actually permission to move.
What makes a good classroom fidget?
There is no single perfect classroom fidget, but I would generally look for something that is:
Quiet
It does not create an ongoing sound that attracts attention.
Visually unobtrusive
It does not require the child to watch it.
Small
It can be used without taking over the workspace.
Simple
The child does not need to think about how to use it.
Predictable
It provides consistent sensory feedback.
Purposeful
It meets an identified sensory or regulation need.
Individualised
It is appropriate for that particular child, rather than simply being popular.
Functional
Most importantly, it helps the child participate.
A Simple OT Test: Is It Helping?
Rather than deciding that a fidget is “good” or “bad”, try observing what happens when the child uses it.
Before
What is the child finding difficult?
During
What happens when they use the fidget?
After
Are they more engaged, regulated or able to participate?
Look at the actual occupation. Can they:
- Listen?
- Complete their work?
- Remain engaged?
- Follow instructions?
- Participate with peers?
- Stay regulated?
If the answer is yes, the fidget may be serving a useful purpose. If the child spends more time playing with, watching, talking about or sharing the fidget than engaging with the task, it may be time to reconsider the choice.
This is not about taking away something that a child enjoys. It is about finding a better match between the tool, the child and the environment.
Fidgets should support participation, not conformity
One final point is particularly important.
The aim of a fidget should not be to make a child look like everyone else. Children do not need to stop moving simply because movement looks different from their peers. If a child quietly moves their fingers, taps their foot or manipulates an object whilst successfully listening and participating, we should be careful not to assume that the movement itself is a problem.
The occupational therapy question is not:
“Does this child look still?”
It is:
“Is this child able to participate in a meaningful activity?”
That is a much more useful measure. A sensory strategy should help a child access their occupations and their environment, rather than simply encouraging them to suppress behaviour that adults find noticeable.
So, what’s the best fidget?
There isn’t one. The best fidget is the one that meets the child’s individual sensory needs while supporting their participation in the activity and environment.
Sometimes that might be a small piece of putty. Sometimes it might be a tactile stone. Sometimes it might be a quiet ring. Sometimes it might be a movement break. And sometimes, the child may not need a fidget at all.
So before buying the latest trending sensory toy, stop and ask:
“What does this child actually need?”
Because when it comes to classroom fidgets, the best one might just be the one you barely notice.
A note about the evidence
The evidence base for commercially marketed fidget tools is currently limited and mixed. Studies have produced different findings depending on the tool, child and context. Similarly, research into sensory-based interventions in schools does not support a one-size-fits-all approach.
This means we should be cautious about claims that a particular fidget will “improve concentration”, “reduce ADHD symptoms” or “help all autistic children regulate”. These claims are considerably stronger than the current evidence allows.
An Occupational Therapist can help by looking beyond the product itself and considering the child’s sensory preferences, arousal, motor needs, attention, environment and occupational demands. Strategies can then be trialled and monitored to establish whether they are actually improving functional participation.
References
Danckaerts, M., et al. (2023). Tools or toys? The effect of fidget spinners and bouncy bands on the academic performance in children with varying ADHD-symptomatology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 75, 102214.
Graziano, P.A., Garcia, A.M. & Landis, T.D. (2020). To fidget or not to fidget, that is the question: A systematic classroom evaluation of fidget spinners among young children with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 24(1), 163-171.
Mulligan, S., et al. (2022). Effects of fidget spinners on the classroom behavior of children with ADHD. Journal of Occupational Therapy, Schools, & Early Intervention.
Ouellet, B., et al. (2021). Efficacy of sensory interventions on school participation of children with sensory disorders: A systematic review. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 15(1), 75-83.
Piller, A., et al. (2025). Sensory-based interventions in occupational therapy for children and youth: A systematic review. American Journal of Occupational Therapy.
Rapp, J.T., et al. (2022). Effects of a commercially available fidget device on academic performance in children with attention difficulties. Journal of Behavioral Education.
Sarver, D.E., et al. (2015). Hyperactivity in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Impairing deficit or compensatory behavior? Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 43, 1219-1232.
by Nicola Van Zyl