A comparison of <scp>RIRD</scp> within chained and multiple schedules in the treatment of vocal stereotypy
Try a chained RIRD schedule first, then probe which parts each client truly needs.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Sloman et al. (2022) compared two ways to run RIRD for vocal stereotypy.
They used a chained schedule and a multiple schedule.
Two participants took part.
The team watched which schedule cut stereotypy more.
What they found
One child did better with the chained schedule.
The other child improved with both schedules.
The study showed each learner may need different parts of the plan.
No single setup worked best for both.
How this fits with other research
Barszcz et al. (2021) already showed plain RIRD lowers vocal stereotypy.
Sloman adds schedule rules to that base.
Slaton et al. (2025) later built on the chained idea and got strong gains in three autistic students.
Their large effects now partly replace Sloman’s mixed ones.
Saini et al. (2015) found one-demand RIRD saves time.
Sloman keeps RIRD short, too, but asks when to deliver it inside a schedule.
Why it matters
You can borrow the chained schedule first, yet stay ready to test parts.
Run a quick component analysis: drop one piece, watch the data.
If stereotypy rises, that piece was needed.
This keeps your RIRD lean and learner-specific.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Start RIRD in a chained schedule and remove one link tomorrow—if stereotypy jumps, you found a key piece.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Slaton and Hanley (2016) compared the effects of multiple and chained schedules on stereotypy and item engagement for 2 individuals who exhibited automatically maintained motor stereotypy. Contingent access to motor stereotypy (i.e., chained schedules) was more effective than time-based access (i.e., multiple schedules) at reducing motor stereotypy, increasing item engagement, and establishing stimulus control for both participants. We systematically replicated Slaton and Hanley with 2 participants by a) targeting vocal stereotypy, b) including response interruption and redirection as a treatment component across conditions, c) conducting sessions in the natural environment with teaching assistants as change agents, and d) conducting an analysis of the effective treatment component(s). Chained schedules were more effective for 1 participant, whereas both treatments were effective for the other participant. The component analysis showed that different components were necessary for effective treatment for each participant.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2022 · doi:10.1002/jaba.906