Examining stereotypy in naturalistic contexts: Differential reinforcement and context‐specific redirection

Abstract

This study examined stereotypy in naturalistic classroom contexts (i.e., academic programming, leisure skill acquisition) with differential reinforcement of contextually appropriate behavior (DRA). When stereotypy was problematic, redirection to the ongoing activity was provided. Contextually appropriate behavior and stereotypy were measured across all contexts prior to redirecting stereotypy to contextually appropriate behavior. Low levels of stereotypy were observed during the DRA in at least 2 contexts for all 5 participants. Context-specific redirection was added to the DRA if stereotypy persisted, and decreased stereotypy in 9 of the 10 evaluations. The results suggest that stereotypy might not be problematic in all contexts when DRA is present and redirection to contextually relevant appropriate behavior is an effective strategy.

A review of response interruption and redirection: 2007–2021

“…Figure 2 shows the percentage for each topography of collateral behavior evaluated in the studies reviewed. Topographies included appropriate vocalizations (62.96%, 17/27 studies which assessed collateral behavior), play (11.11%, 3/27: Boyd et al., 2011; Cividini‐Motta et al., 2019; Saini et al., 2015), on‐task behavior (7.40%, 2/27: Barszcz et al., 2021; Gibbs et al., 2018), holding objects (3.70%, 1/27: Boyd et al., 2011), heart rate (3.70%, 1/27: Frewing et al., 2015), vocal stereotypy (3.70%, 1/27: Pastrana et al., 2013), trashcan disposal of inedible items as an alternative to pica (11.11%, 3/27: Hagopian et al., 2011; Schmidt et al., 2017; Taylor, 2020), vacuuming inedible items as an alternative to pica (3.70%, 1/27: Schmidt et al., 2017), functional engagement in cooperative leisure activities (3.70%, 1/27: Steinhauser et al., 2021), flexible behavior (3.70%, 1/27; a loose definition of appropriate behaviors to increase alongside inflexible behaviors in Kunze et al., 2021), and correct responses to teacher provided discriminative stimuli (3.70%, 1/27: Tullis et al., 2020). Most studies (85.18%, 23/27) measured collateral responses that were matched to the form of stereotypy or undesirable target behavior (e.g., appropriate vocalizations for vocal stereotypy, or discarding items for pica (Martinez & Betz, 2013); while the rest assessed unmatched collateral behavior (e.g., appropriate vocalizations for motor stereotypy).…”

“…Future reviews may wish to conduct an analysis of the RIRD literature using criteria that quantitatively assess the quality of the reviewed studies (Lydon et al., 2013). Third, a few potentially valuable aspects of the RIRD literature were unaddressed in this review, which may be valuable areas of future research and literature reviews, including: use of mastered versus non‐mastered tasks during RIRD; differing criteria for when to end the RIRD sequence; whether compliance with RIRD tasks is prompted or unprompted and whether independent compliance is required to end the RIRD sequence; whether the RIRD interval is response‐based or time‐based; and whether the tasks in RIRD are arbitrary or contextual to ongoing activities (e.g., Steinhauser et al., 2021).…”

“…Ahrens et al, 2011;Frewing et al, 2015;Steinhauser et al, 2021). One study assessed a combination of motor/ object stereotypy for five participants who largely engaged in perseverative touching and ordering of objects(Boyd et al, 2011), and one study assessed a loose definition of stereotypy, labeled as inflexible behavior, which included responses such as whining, aggression, repetitive movements, and repetitive play behaviors(Kunze et al, 2021).…”

Treatments for automatically reinforced vocal stereotypy for individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A literature and meta‐analytic review

“…Although it is positive to see so many articles measuring an alternative behavior, it is important to note that this does not mean that all the interventions programmed for the increase of alternative behaviors. When selecting an appropriate intervention, it is equally as important to consider the preferences of the individual, as well as determine how to increase or maintain contextually appropriate behaviors that support an individual's social inclusion and functional engagement in each environment (Lanovaz & Sladeczek, 2011; Steinhauser et al., 2021). Not only is this a matter of ethical behavior on the part of the interventionist, but it is also of clinical importance as engagement in socially significant behaviors is the goal of intervention (Baer et al., 1968).…”

“…When considering whether VS is a behavior of concern that warrants intervention, it is important to evaluate the context in which the VS is occurring. High rates of VS that occur within structured environments may interfere with an individual's academic or vocational functioning (Shillingsburg et al., 2012; Steinhauser et al., 2021). As individuals with ASD often struggle to acquire academic and functional living skills, permitting excessive VS may negatively impact the learning environment, making acquisition of these key skills more difficult.…”