Response interruption and redirection: current research trends and clinical application.

Bigham et al. (2013) wrote a narrative review. They pulled together every RIRD paper they could find. They listed how each study did the interrupt-and-redirect steps.

The authors did not run new kids or collect new data. They simply mapped what was known and pointed out where procedures differed.

No fresh numbers were reported. The paper is a map, not a scoreboard. It shows RIRD parts that change from lab to lab.

The review warns that small changes—like how many demands you give—might change results.

Saini et al. (2015) tested one of the review's open questions. They compared one-demand RIRD with the classic three-demand style. One demand worked just as well and saved time.

Barszcz et al. (2021) added generalization data. After the review called for it, they showed RIRD effects move to new rooms faster than they first appeared.

Callahan et al. (2023) packaged RIRD inside multiple schedules. The combo cut stereotypy quickly and held in new activities, going beyond the basic procedure the review described.

You can treat the 2013 paper as a checklist. Pick the leanest version—single demand—unless data say otherwise. Add generalization probes early; Barszcz shows they take less time than you fear. If stereotypy is high, try Callahan's multiple-schedule wrap-around for faster suppression. Always measure the whole session; DeRosa et al. (2019) show counting only post-interrupt minutes can hide real gains.