Habit reversal treatment of tic disorders: a methodological critique of the literature.
Habit reversal looks helpful for tics, but most studies skip basic quality checks, so copy the fixes that later papers proved work.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Fine et al. (2005) read every habit-reversal paper for tics. They graded each one for scientific rigor.
They looked for random groups, blind raters, treatment fidelity checks, and inter-rater agreement.
What they found
The papers say habit reversal works, but most skip basic safeguards. Few used coin-flip group pick or hidden raters.
Without these checks, we cannot be sure the tics really dropped because of the treatment.
How this fits with other research
Austin et al. (2005) wrote the same year and also call habit reversal 'efficacious.' They looked only at kids, yet they praise the method while E et al. warn about weak proof. The gap is scope: John et al. trust the data; E et al. doubt the data quality.
Ellingsen et al. (2014) later showed why tics keep coming back. They proved tics are kept alive by negative reinforcement—kids tic to escape the pre-monitory urge. E et al. wanted better studies; R et al. delivered one by testing the urge mechanism in lab conditions.
Heinicke et al. (2012) compared two other behavioral tricks—DRO and response-cost—and found big tic drops with solid controls. Their tight design is exactly what E et al. asked for, moving the field from hopeful stories to clean experiments.
Why it matters
Before you run habit reversal, add the missing pieces: film sessions, have a second coder score tics blind, and track urges. Use the urge-relief insight from Ellingsen et al. (2014) to teach kids how to kill the pre-tic itch, not just replace the movement. Finally, borrow the DRO or response-cost plan from Heinicke et al. (2012) if pure habit reversal stalls.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a second blind observer to score 25% of your tic sessions and plot pre-monitory urge levels alongside tic counts.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
One of the most commonly reported and successful behavioral interventions for tic disorders is habit reversal (HR). Several narrative literature reviews have adequately summarized the outcomes of these studies. The purpose of this article was to review studies that used HR to treat tics in terms of their methodological characteristics and rigor. Guidelines developed by the Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures were used to evaluate the state of the literature. From an initial database that included 29 studies, 12 were included in the final analysis. Results indicate that although research has been conducted in this area for almost three decades, the majority of studies contain considerable methodological shortcomings. Based on the Task Force guidelines, the existing literature on the use of HR to treat tics can currently be classified as probably efficacious, and it almost meets the criteria for the well-established classification. Directions for future research are discussed.
Behavior modification, 2005 · doi:10.1177/0145445505279238