A response-restriction analysis of stereotypy in adolescents with mental retardation: implications for applied behavior analysis.
Run a quick item-removal test to spot which stereotypy forms emerge, then fold those into your DR plan.
01Research in Context
What this study did
McMillan et al. (1997) worked with teens with mental retardation. They took away one set of leisure items at a time. Then they watched how stereotypy changed.
The goal was to see which items triggered which repetitive movements. This quick test is called a response-restriction analysis.
What they found
When a favorite set was gone, stereotypy did not just drop. It shifted to new forms. The changes were different for each teen.
The authors say this unpredictability means you must run the test before you plan treatment.
How this fits with other research
Cerutti et al. (2004) took the idea further. They paired the same restriction with reinforcement for toy play. Stereotypy stayed low and appropriate play rose.
Staats et al. (2000) showed why this matters. They found that similar-looking stereotypies can serve different functions. You need the restriction test to pick the right function before you teach a replacement.
Coe et al. (1997) published a sister paper the same year. Instead of removing items, they logged what was happening when stereotypy spiked. Both brief probes aim to guide later DR plans.
Why it matters
Next time you see varied stereotypy, spend ten minutes pulling one leisure set at a time. Note which movements pop up. Build those topographies into your DRA or DRD so you reinforce true replacements, not new stereotypy.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Remove one preferred toy set for five minutes, tally new stereotypy forms, add the strongest one to your DRA contingency.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The behavior of 4 adolescents with severe or profound mental retardation was evaluated in the presence of four sets of materials during periods of unstructured leisure activity. Functional engagement with the materials, stereotypic engagement with the materials, stereotypy without interaction with the materials, and other aberrant behaviors were recorded. Across a series of experimental conditions, the number of sets of materials was reduced from four to one by eliminating the set most frequently manipulated in each preceeding condition. In the final condition, four sets of materials were again made available for manipulation. The procedures replicated Green and Striefel's (1988) response-restriction analysis of the activity preferences and play behaviors of children with autism. In general, the results of the present experiment replicate those of Green and Striefel in that reallocation of responding was idiosyncratic and unpredictable as sets of materials were removed. Nevertheless, the results provided insight into how responding might be reallocated if it were restricted through behavioral interventions rather than by restriction of access. Thus, the results are discussed with respect to how response-restriction analyses may be useful in identifying topographies of behavior that could be included in differential reinforcement contigencies that are designed to affect stereotypic behavior and in the selection and arrangement of environmental stimuli to minimize the presence of evokers of stereotypy.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1997 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1997.30-485