Identifying specific sensory modalities maintaining the stereotypy of students with multiple profound disabilities.
Block or swap the exact sense and stereotypy disappears.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Six students rocked, flapped, or rubbed for hours. All had profound ID and no speech.
The team ran short FA sessions. They masked vision or touch with goggles or gloves. They also let kids choose between stereotypy and a sensory toy.
These tweaks showed which sense was fueling the behavior.
What they found
Every student’s stereotypy dropped when the matched sense was blocked. Visual stims fell with dark goggles. Tactile stims fell with gloves.
When the kids could pick a toy that gave the same buzz, they left the stereotypy alone.
How this fits with other research
Mantzoros et al. (2022) pooled 34 studies and found big cuts in vocal stereotypy when kids got interactive play or self-management. Jung-Chang shows the first step: find the exact sense before you treat.
Kleinert et al. (2007) proved rating scales catch more quirks than one tool. Jung-Chang adds that FA tweaks catch the sensory quirks the scales miss.
Wehman et al. (2014) say motivating operations drive escape behavior. Jung-Chang shows sensory input is another MO that can be masked or matched.
Why it matters
If your FA is flat, add goggles, gloves, or a toy choice. You will see which sense feeds the stereotypy in minutes. Then you can replace it with matched sensory play and cut the behavior without punishment.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Bring cheap swim goggles and soft gloves to session. Run five-minute test with and without them.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In Experiment 1, analogue functional analyses were conducted to identify the functions of stereotypy for six students with multiple profound disabilities. Results indicated that stereotypy (a) occurred across conditions, (b) occurred primarily when alone, or (c) occurred during all sessions except in the Control condition. Experiment 2 analyzed stereotypy while masking visual, auditory, or tactile sensory consequences. Results showed that stereotypy was maintained by visual stimulation, tactile stimulation, or was undifferentiated across conditions. In Experiment 3, we showed that stereotypy could be reduced by providing competing sensory stimulation. In Experiment 4, stereotypy that was undifferentiated in Experiment 1 was analyzed using a concurrent operants procedure. Results showed that stereotypy was not multiply determined, but occurred to produce visual sensory stimulation. Our findings are discussed in terms of the sensory and social reinforcers that maintain stereotypy, assessment procedures used to identify those reinforcers, and the interpretation of assessment results.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2003 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2003.02.001