A review of response interruption and redirection: 2007–2021

Ryan, Joseph P.; Rosales, Rocío; Rowe, Emily

doi:10.1002/bin.1886

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As in previous reviews (Mantzoros et al, 2022;Martinez & Betz, 2013;Ryan et al, 2022), the current review found limited reports of social validity data. Given behaviors maintained by automatic reinforcement are often selected based on the acceptability of those behaviors in the individual's given environment, it may behoove researchers and clinicians alike to collect social validity data on the goals and procedures across settings where the behavior occurs and intervene only where warranted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Response interruption and redirection: A scoping review of its procedural permutations and participant pools.

Breeman,

Vladescu,

Sidener

et al. 2024

Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behaviors maintained by automatic reinforcement pose unique challenges for behavior analysts because identifying and controlling the maintaining consequence variables can be difficult or even impossible. Response interruption and redirection (RIRD) is an evidence-based procedure to reduce such behaviors (Dowdy et al., 2020). While this intervention approach has been reviewed, those previous reviews of the literature have not analyzed the various methodologies across RIRD applications or identified whether RIRD has been applied to a diverse sampling of participants. The purpose of this scoping review was to code RIRD experiments across additional dimensions from previous reviews and include applications to several topographies of behaviors maintained by automatic reinforcement across studies and individuals. Across four databases, peer-reviewed articles were included for review if they were published in English, reported individual participant data (including baseline), and manipulated RIRD as an independent variable. The search was completed in April 2022. A total of 43 articles, for a total number of 123 participants, were included. We found that, while target participants and dependent variables often overlap, RIRD procedures varied across experiments. Our findings suggest that RIRD experiments would benefit from evaluation of different procedural variations. Limitations are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Mantzoros et al (2022) reviewed the literature for vocal stereotypy and emphasized the efficacy of RIRD as a solitary procedure. Most recently, Ryan et al (2022) conducted a review of RIRD applications between 2007 and 2021 that included categories for several important considerations, such as inclusion of maintenance data and social validity measures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Response interruption and redirection: A scoping review of its procedural permutations and participant pools.

Breeman,

Vladescu,

Sidener

et al. 2024

Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Response interruption and redirection 4 procedures were used to reduce SIB while data tracking was completed. Parent's attempts to put goggles or mitts on the patient or block SIB attempts resulted in patient and parent injury.…”

Section: Christina Low Kapalu Phdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing Self-Injurious Behavior in the Medically Complex Child: Identifying the Root Cause vs Blocking Resulting Behavior

Kapalu

Krasaelap

Nyp

2022

J Dev Behav Pediatr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CASE:Gillian is a 7-year-old nonverbal, internationally adopted girl with significant visual impairment (sees shadows and objects with high contrast), moderate-severe hearing loss, autism spectrum disorder, profound intellectual disability, and a seizure disorder. She resided in an orphanage until age 4 years when she was adopted by her mother. She is referred to the multidisciplinary team in developmental-behavioral pediatrics by her gastroenterologist, who is managing her constipation, for evaluation and management of selfinjurious behavior that occurs before bowel movements.Gillian's adoptive mother reported that Gillian has a history of repetitive and self-injurious behavior including hitting her head with the palm of her hand and poking her eyes. The head-hitting behavior has resulted in consistent bruising to her forehead and nasal bridge. The eye poking is of significant concern because of the possibility of resultant injury including corneal abrasion or retinal detachment. Eye poking occurs exclusively during the hour before stooling, at home and school, and is accompanied by screaming, pacing, and increased aggression toward her mother/teachers. Mother typically responds by blocking the eye poking, redirecting Gillian to the toilet, providing prompts to use calming strategies (e.g., deep breathing), or providing sensory input by rubbing her arms/back. Teachers respond in a similar way at school. Gillian's mother has tried to place goggles over Gillian's eyes during eye poking, but this resulted in increased aggressive behaviors.Gillian is not fully bowel trained but will sit on the toilet to urinate when prompted. She completes toiletsits at home/school 5 to 7 times daily. Gillian passes small, soft bowel movements 2 to 4 times daily on a bowel management regimen consisting of polyethylene glycol 3350 17 grams twice daily and liquid senna 8.8 mg daily. Seizures are reportedly well controlled with an antiepileptic medication managed by her neurologist. Previous medical evaluation by otolaryngology, ophthalmology, neurology, and gastroenterology did not identify a source of pain or other cause for the eye poking. Physical examination reveals normal bowel sounds and a mildly distended abdomen but is otherwise unremarkable. What are your next steps for evaluation and treatment?

show abstract

“…Response interruption and redirection (RIRD) has been shown to be an effective behavioral treatment for stereotypy (e.g., Ahearn et al, 2007; Athens et al, 2008; Cassella et al, 2011), although most evaluations have targeted vocal stereotypy (Ryan et al, 2022). This procedure involves the interruption of stereotypic responses by presenting contingent instructions that prompt the individual to engage in vocal or motor responses.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of task preference in the effectiveness of response interruption and redirection

Sloman,

Torres‐Viso,

Edelstein

et al. 2024

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Response interruption and redirection (RIRD) is a common treatment for automatically reinforced vocal stereotypy; it involves the contingent presentation of task instructions. Tasks that are included in RIRD are typically selected based on caregiver report, which may affect the efficacy of RIRD. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the role of task preference in the efficacy of RIRD for four participants who engaged in vocal stereotypy. We conducted task‐preference assessments and selected tasks of varying preferences to include in RIRD. For three out of four participants, the results showed that RIRD with higher preference tasks was not effective at reducing vocal stereotypy, whereas RIRD with lower preference tasks was effective for all participants.

show abstract

A review of response interruption and redirection: 2007–2021

Cited by 3 publications

References 82 publications

Response interruption and redirection: A scoping review of its procedural permutations and participant pools.

Response interruption and redirection: A scoping review of its procedural permutations and participant pools.

Addressing Self-Injurious Behavior in the Medically Complex Child: Identifying the Root Cause vs Blocking Resulting Behavior

The role of task preference in the effectiveness of response interruption and redirection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About