↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review and evaluation of response redirection as a treatment for challenging behavior in individuals with developmental disabilities

Overview of attention for article published in Research in Developmental Disabilities, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A systematic review and evaluation of response redirection as a treatment for challenging behavior in individuals with developmental disabilities
Published in
Research in Developmental Disabilities, October 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.ridd.2013.06.010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sinéad Lydon, Olive Healy, Mark O’Reilly, Anna McCoy

Abstract

Response redirection is widely used in clinical practice as a treatment for repetitive behavior or stereotypy in persons with developmental disabilities. However, to date the procedure has received comparatively little empirical evaluation. The current review sought to examine the literature describing the efficacy of response redirection alone, response interruption and redirection (RIRD), and multi-element treatment packages incorporating response redirection, as interventions for challenging behavior in individuals with developmental disabilities. Additionally, the status of response redirection, and RIRD, as evidence-based practice was evaluated in accordance with Reichow's (2011) recently developed criteria. Results indicated that interventions involving response redirection or RIRD typically led to large decreases in challenging behavior but did not result in behavioral suppression. On the basis of the current literature and in accordance with Reichow's criteria, interventions incorporating response redirection do not yet constitute evidence-based practice. The implications of these findings, for both research and practice, are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 18%
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 5 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 31 43%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 13%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Arts and Humanities 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 11 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2015.
All research outputs
#9,275,637
of 12,074,882 outputs
Outputs from Research in Developmental Disabilities
#1,116
of 1,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,250
of 138,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research in Developmental Disabilities
#33
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,074,882 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,729 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 138,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.