Systematic review of interruption and redirection procedures for autistic individuals
Interruption and redirection alone trims repetitive behavior only modestly and fails to lift communication or last across settings.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Ledford et al. (2023) hunted every study that used interruption and redirection (IR) with autistic people.
They screened hundreds of papers, kept the ones with real data, and pulled out how well IR cut repetitive moves and boosted talking or play.
What they found
IR gave only a medium drop in hand-flapping, rocking, or lining up toys.
It did almost nothing for speech, eye contact, or joining games, and the gains vanished once the adult stepped back.
How this fits with other research
Branch et al. (1981) got big, lasting drops in stereotypy with spaced-responding DRL and social behavior rose too.
Dowdy et al. (2020) saw the same with DR-without-extinction in a pool: problem behavior plunged and stayed down.
Those older and newer studies show that when you add reinforcement for something else, stereotypy falls further and lasts longer—IR alone misses that piece.
Leaf et al. (2021) warn that weak methods fill the autism literature; the IR papers they reviewed echo that worry with skimpy follow-ups and no generalization checks.
Why it matters
If you run IR now, pair it with a reinforcer for replacement behavior or plan for poor carry-over.
Pick DRL, DR, or NCR first if the goal is durable change that spreads to new places and people.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a spaced-responding DRL or DR component to your IR plan and probe the behavior in a new room without prompts.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
AbstractInterruption and redirection (IR) procedures involve systematically disrupting an undesirable behavior and prompting an individual to engage in an alternative behavior. These procedures have been frequently assessed for reducing repetitive behaviors for autistic individuals. The primary purpose of this review was to assess IR interventions to determine whether outcomes vary according to intervention characteristics, dependent variable types, design quality, or publication status. A secondary purpose was to assess the extent to which generalization and maintenance outcomes were measured and whether characteristics of these conditions were related to outcomes. IR interventions were moderately successful for reducing repetitive behaviors but less effective for improving corollary variables such as appropriate vocalizations and functional engagement. Generalization and maintenance outcomes, when measured, were poor. Results indicate the need for alternative or augmentative procedures that focus on engagement in meaningful interactions and activities.
Behavioral Interventions, 2023 · doi:10.1002/bin.1905