Effects of thioridazine and visual screening on stereotypy and social behavior in individuals with mental retardation.
Brief visual screening after each stereotypic instance can cut repetitive movements in adults with profound ID better than thioridazine alone.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Researchers compared two ways to calm repetitive body movements in adults with profound intellectual disability. One group got visual screening: staff covered the person's eyes for two seconds after each stereotypic bout. Another group got the antipsychotic thioridazine at two doses. A third group got both pill and screening. The team used an alternating-treatments design so each adult experienced every condition.
What they found
Visual screening alone produced the biggest drop in stereotypy. The low-dose pill helped a little; the high-dose pill helped slightly more. Adding the drug to visual screening did not beat screening by itself. Social behaviors stayed low in all conditions.
How this fits with other research
McGonigle et al. (1982) first showed that brief eye-covering cuts stereotypy in children with ID. Their effect was large and lasted months. Hansen et al. (1989) later found the same big drop using the same method. The 1993 study now mirrors those results in adults, but the drop is smaller. The pattern stays consistent: blocking the visual field right after the behavior is the active ingredient.
Tyrer et al. (2009) tested another 'block-plus-pill' combo. They paired response interruption and redirection (RIRD) with sertraline for vocal stereotypy in autistic kids. Like the 1993 paper, the behavioral part did all the work; the drug added nothing. Together these studies build a line of evidence that brief sensory interruption, not medication, drives the change.
Callahan et al. (2023) and Gould et al. (2019) extend the idea further. They replace eye-covering with RIRD and still see sharp stereotypy reduction plus generalization to new toys and rooms. The core principle—stop the response momentarily—remains the same while the tools evolve.
Why it matters
If your functional analysis is unclear, try visual screening before adding or increasing antipsychotics. It takes two seconds, needs no prescription, and in this study outperformed thioridazine. You can start Monday: cover the client's eyes for two seconds immediately after each stereotypic bout, collect data for one week, and compare to baseline. If it works, you have a low-risk plan; if not, you can still consider meds later.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Use a two-second eye-cover after every stereotypic bout for one week and graph the change.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Thioridazine and visual screening procedures are effective in reducing the stereotypic behaviors of individuals with mental retardation. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study, using alternating treatments within a multiple-baseline across subjects design, was conducted to assess the effects of two doses of thioridazine (1.25 and 2.5 mg/kg/day) and visual screening, alone and combined, on stereotypy and social behavior of three individuals with profound mental retardation. Functional analyses did not show demand, alone, social attention, or differential reinforcement conditions to maintain the subjects' stereotypy. Thioridazine was effective in producing modest reductions in stereotypy and minor increases in social behavior across subjects. The higher dose of thioridazine (2.5 mg/kg/day) was slightly more effective than the lower dose (1.25 mg/kg/day), and thioridazine plus visual screening was more effective than thioridazine alone. The most effective treatment was visual screening when used in the absence of thioridazine. This study demonstrates a method for assessing the impact of psychopharmacological and behavioral interventions in individuals for whom a behavioral treatment cannot be easily derived from a functional analysis of the maintaining conditions of the target behavior.
Research in developmental disabilities, 1993 · doi:10.1016/0891-4222(93)90028-i