Further evaluation of response interruption and redirection as treatment for stereotypy.
RIRD quickly lowers stereotypy and can boost good speech, even with brief or imperfect use.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team tested response interruption and redirection (RIRD) on kids with autism. They tried two kinds: motor RIRD and vocal RIRD.
Each time a child showed stereotypy, staff stepped in, stopped the behavior, and asked for quick tasks like touching nose or saying "cat." They counted if stereotypy dropped and if good talking rose.
What they found
Both styles cut stereotypy. Vocal RIRD also bumped up useful words and likely worked as a punisher.
The gains held while the study ran, showing the tool is worth more looks.
How this fits with other research
Cassella et al. (2011) ran a near-copy test the same year. They also saw big stereotypy drops, but the kids did not use more words and the skill did not carry to new rooms or new teachers.
Toper‐Korkmaz et al. (2018) later trimmed RIRD to just one demand plus toy removal. Stereotypy still fell, proving you can save time and effort.
Colón et al. (2019) pushed fidelity down to 50%. Stereotypy still dropped, so perfect staff performance is not required.
Why it matters
You now have a low-tech way to cut stereotypy and lift useful speech. Start with vocal RIRD if talking is a goal; one clear demand is enough. Track if the skill moves to new places and staff, and keep fidelity above 50%. If it slips, do not panic—keep going.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one learner, watch for stereotypy, and run three one-demand vocal RIRD trials—note if it drops.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The effects of 2 forms of response interruption and redirection (RIRD)-motor RIRD and vocal RIRD-were examined with 4 boys with autism to evaluate further the effects of this intervention and its potential underlying mechanisms. In Experiment 1, the effects of motor RIRD and vocal RIRD on vocal stereotypy and appropriate vocalizations were compared for 2 participants. In Experiment 2, the effects of both RIRD procedures on both vocal and motor stereotypy and appropriate vocalizations were compared with 2 additional participants. Results suggested that RIRD was effective regardless of the procedural variation or topography of stereotypy and that vocal RIRD functioned as a punisher. This mechanism was further explored with 1 participant by manipulating the schedule of RIRD in Experiment 3. Results were consistent with the punishment interpretation.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2011 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2011.44-95