A Response‐restriction Analysis of Stereotypy in Adolescents With Mental Retardation: Implications for Applied Behavior Analysis

Abstract

The behavior of 4 adolescents with severe or profound mental retardation was evaluated in the presence of four sets of materials during periods of unstructured leisure activity. Functional engagement with the materials, stereotypic engagement with the materials, stereotypy without interaction with the materials, and other aberrant behaviors were recorded. Across a series of experimental conditions, the number of sets of materials was reduced from four to one by eliminating the set most frequently manipulated in each preceeding condition. In the final condition, four sets of materials were again made available for manipulation. The procedures replicated Green and Striefel's (1988) response-restriction analysis of the activity preferences and play behaviors of children with autism. In general, the results of the present experiment replicate those of Green and Striefel in that reallocation of responding was idiosyncratic and unpredictable as sets of materials were removed. Nevertheless, the results provided insight into how responding might be reallocated if it were restricted through behavioral interventions rather than by restriction of access. Thus, the results are discussed with respect to how response-restriction analyses may be useful in identifying topographies of behavior that could be included in differential reinforcement contigencies that are designed to affect stereotypic behavior and in the selection and arrangement of environmental stimuli to minimize the presence of evokers of stereotypy.

A Component Analysis of “Stereotypy as Reinforcement” for Alternative Behavior

“…Koegel et al suggested that the results reflected response covariation in which altered consequences for one response affected the probability of another response. Results obtained in both the Koegel et al study and the present study also are consistent with those reported by McEntee and Saunders (1997), who showed that when one stereotypic response was restricted by removing relevant materials, individuals simply reallocated their responding to other materials.…”

Response‐restriction Analysis: I. Assessment of Activity Preferences

“…Neither Green and Striefel (1988) nor McEntee and Saunders (1997) reported the total number of sessions conducted or the total RR assessment time for each participant; therefore, it is not possible to compare the efficiency of the assessments, given previously described restriction rules and those used in the current study. However, the rules used in the current study allowed items to be removed following two (rather than a minimum of four) sessions, and a condition was never conducted for more than seven sessions (a 10-session criterion was often used in the Green & Striefel and McEntee & Saunders studies).…”

“…Subsequently repeating the assessment after removing the most preferred activity from the pool of available items would overcome problems associated with exclusive preference. Responserestriction (RR) analyses of this type have been used with both nonhumans (Lyons & Cheney, 1984) and humans (Bernstein & Ebbeson, 1978;Green & Striefel, 1988;McEntee & Saunders, 1997) to develop models that predict which of two or more alternative responses will emerge when other responses are restricted. The procedures differ along a number of dimensions, but all involve the measurement of response allocation among several concurrently available activities under conditions in which responding is progressively restricted to fewer and fewer options.…”

“…Green and Striefel (1988) described several rules for determining when to change assessment conditions (i.e., when to restrict the array by removing an activity). These criteria also were adopted by McEntee and Saunders (1997) and required that an activity be restricted when (a) interaction with one activity was observed for a larger percentage of session time than that observed for other activities across three sessions, and (b) the percentage of time allocated to that same activity in the subsequent (fourth) session was within one standard deviation of the mean percentage of allocation to that activity observed for the previous sessions. If these criteria were not met, the item with the largest overall percentage of time allocation was removed after 10 total sessions.…”

Effects of Three Types of Noncontingent Auditory Stimulation on Vocal Stereotypy in Children With Autism

“…Because stereotypy may occur at high rates during unstructured time (McEntee & Saunders, 1997), interventions that reduce stereotypy during free time are an important part of effective programming for children with autism. Effective interventions for vocal stereotypy in individuals with developmental disabilities include differential reinforcement (e.g., Taylor, Hoch, & Weissman, 2005), response interruption and redirection (e.g., Ahearn, Clark, MacDonald, & Chung, 2007), and noncontingent auditory stimulation.…”