Stereotypic Behaviors and Feeding Difficulties in Adults With Developmental Disabilities
NCT ID: NCT06920615
Last Updated: 2025-04-15
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
RECRUITING
NA
8 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2025-04-08
2030-08-26
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Effects of Animal-assisted Therapy on the Physical Function and Communication of Adults With Autism
NCT04859998
Optimizing Dimensions of Reinforcement
NCT07137273
Examination of Differential Valuation of Leisure Items and Attention as Reinforcers in Children With Autism
NCT03152383
Motivational Refinements for Facilitating Reinforcement Schedule Thinning
NCT05790668
Assessing and Addressing Behaviors in Children With Hearing Loss
NCT02423746
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Feeding disorders are common in both children and adults with DD. Among the most serious of these is the total refusal to consume food and liquid, which may present a life-threatening or severely debilitating condition. The evidence base for interventions for adults with DD and food refusal is severely limited or lacking to my knowledge. One notable exception is a study by Kitfield and Masalsky (2000), who treated a woman aged 22 using a behavioral intervention consisting of negative reinforcement in the form of escape from food as well as to other areas, which resulted in impressive weight gains during treatment and follow-up. The lack of empirically supported treatment for food refusal in adults with DD may be because food-related issues usually have an early onset and are, therefore, more often diagnosed and treated in children. Additionally, some treatments may be viewed as more invasive when applied to adults. For example, escape extinction is the most empirically supported treatment component for food refusal and selective eating among children with DD. However, implementing escape extinction in an adult may be ethically questionable because of its invasive nature, which is practically challenging or dangerous, especially when other problem behaviors are present.
In a study by Hagopian et al. (1996), total food and liquid refusal in a 12-year old boy with autism was treated with backward chaining, fading, and activity reinforcement, which successfully resulted in drinking from a cup generalized to his living unit. Fading and differential reinforcement may have an ethical and intuitive appeal when treating food and liquid refusal in adults with DD and may therefore be accepted by caregivers and adults with DD. This is because it involves gradual re-introduction of oral intake and the use of positive reinforcement. In addition, research has demonstrated that stimulus fading may render escape extinction unnecessary. Therefore, there is a need to extend the use of such procedures to adults with food and/or liquid refusal.
Study 2: A behavioral intervention of slow eating in adults with DD
Individuals with DD often require considerably more time to complete tasks of daily living than their neurotypical peers do. When slow responding becomes excessive, it may be a barrier in daily living as self-care, and finishing meals in time before scheduled events may lead to missed activities or services, family stress, and logistical challenges. Such slowness has been hypothesized to result from neurological impairments causing a slow motor response, a secondary symptom of obsessive compulsive disorder, or as a primary feature, an operant modifiable by its consequences.
Slow responding has been the subject of three empirical investigations in the behavioral literature, with two children and one adult. In all cases, the researchers utilized positive reinforcement to accelerate slow responses. Fjellstedt and Sulzer-Azároff (1973) used a differential reinforcement of low response latencies (DRL) for the following five different types of instructions to perform tasks, resulting in a substantial improvement in the speed of response. Tiger et al. (2007) increased the slow response of an adult male with Asperger's syndrome with a DRL, which resulted in a clinically significant increase in the response to two tasks. Girolami et al. (2008) utilized differential reinforcement of high rate (DRH) to increase the rate of independent bites by a child participant with ADHD and several medical issues. This procedure results in an increased rate of self-feeding. We plan to systematically replicate a DRH procedure for adults suffering from slow-feeding difficulties, with modifications involving the use of changing criteria for reinforcement.
Study 3: A behavioral treatment of debilitating stereotypy in adults, comparing response interruption with redirection and chained schedules
Stereotypy refers to behavior topographies in individuals with autism and DD that are invariable, repeating, meaningless, or out of context. These topographies can present a considerable amount of distress for the individuals and their family members as it may be a barrier for habilitation, independent living and learning. Because the majority of researched stereotypi in individuals with autism have automatic reinforcement as its function, a new strategy for functional analysis (FA) of stereotypi involves pre-treatment screening for automatic reinforcement.
Function-based treatment of automatically maintained stereotypy is particularly challenging because reinforcers are not easily manipulated or extinguished. Physically preventing stereotypi in adults may be practically challenging, especially because it may elicit emotional or aggressive behavior. For example, response blocking has been documented to reduce automatically maintained pica but increase aggressive behavior. Research has shown that when stereotypi are both blocked and redirected toward an ongoing behavior, aggressive behavior does not increase. A treatment procedure for automatically maintained stereotypi, called response interruption with redirection (RIRD), involves interrupting each instance of stereotypi and redirecting behavior to an ongoing task or appropriate behavior. RIRD has received extensive empirical support from child participants for reducing stereotypi, but has not been researched in adults. Another treatment procedure that has recently received increased attention in behavioral literature is chained schedules (CS), often contrasted with multiple schedules (MS), both of which are different procedures for programming stimulus control over stereotypi. MS involves the use of discriminative stimuli (SD/S+ vs. SΔ/S-) for different treatment components, where in one phase, all instances of stereotypi are blocked in the presence of S- (e.g., at red card), while in the presence of S+ (e.g., a green card), all instances of stereotypi are allowed. However, no reinforcement contingency was programmed. On the other hand, CS also involves blocking stereotypi in the presence of S-, but providing contingent access to stereotypi from one component (red card/ S-) to the other (green card/ S+) contingent upon the absence of stereotypi. Therefore, alternation between the two components depends on the performance of one of the components. When compared to MS, most empirical demonstrations favor CS, both in terms of the reduction of stereotypi and an increase in adequate item engagement. As pointed out by Sloman et al. (2022), autism advocates view access to "stimming" as a means for individuals with autism to self-sooth and regulate emotions, and may therefore be more preferred. However, the CS procedure is more complicated than the RIRD procedure (see below). In addition, the RIRD does not program a differential reinforcement of alternative responses. CS may, therefore, be preferred by adults and caregivers in that it targets increasing adaptive responses. However, some treatment settings may favor RIRD over CS because of its ease of implementation. An interesting question is whether caregivers and clients provide different answers to these questions. Therefore, the current research question concerns a) the efficacy of RIRD as compared to CS, both in terms of behavior reduction and treatment duration, b) client vs. caretaker preference for either treatment procedure, c) extension of these two empirically supported treatments to adult participants, and d) generalization to the most problematic settings in daily life.
\[PP2\]Hope this clears it up
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
NON_RANDOMIZED
SEQUENTIAL
TREATMENT
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Intake refusal
Intervention
Fading and chaining combined with differential reinforcement
Intervention Treatment will involve backward chaining, fading and differential reinforcement.
Slow pace of self-feeding
Intervention
Differential reinforcement of high rate
This will be identical to baseline, except a DRH will be introduced: The participant will be instructed to complete his whole meal within set time criteria to receive an identified reinforcer.
Debilitating stereotypi
Intervention
Response interruption with redirection
RIRD involves physically blocking a movement from occurring using the least amount of physical contact for max 3 s, and then redirecting behavior to an ongoing activity or movement. Stereotypi that is verbal or not possible to block physically will involve a demand to answer a verbal question or a motor task that sufficiently interrupts the behavior and then redirecting.
Chained schedules
The following procedures are based on Slaton et al. (2016): At the start of each session, the candidate or therapist will hold up the red card, prompt the participant to touch the card, while saying "we are in red now, time to work". The participant will have to perform age- or function appropriate tasks without stereotypi to gain access to the green phase. Demand will be designated with a token economy, where each token represents completion of a certain amount of task-related responses. The participant will not be prompted to perform the tasks. If the participant makes an error in a task (e.g. answer a math question incorrectly), this will lead to an error correction and no token will be presented. If stereotypi occurs, it will be blocked for up to 3 s, and then all demands will be reset by removing all earned tokens.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Fading and chaining combined with differential reinforcement
Intervention Treatment will involve backward chaining, fading and differential reinforcement.
Differential reinforcement of high rate
This will be identical to baseline, except a DRH will be introduced: The participant will be instructed to complete his whole meal within set time criteria to receive an identified reinforcer.
Response interruption with redirection
RIRD involves physically blocking a movement from occurring using the least amount of physical contact for max 3 s, and then redirecting behavior to an ongoing activity or movement. Stereotypi that is verbal or not possible to block physically will involve a demand to answer a verbal question or a motor task that sufficiently interrupts the behavior and then redirecting.
Chained schedules
The following procedures are based on Slaton et al. (2016): At the start of each session, the candidate or therapist will hold up the red card, prompt the participant to touch the card, while saying "we are in red now, time to work". The participant will have to perform age- or function appropriate tasks without stereotypi to gain access to the green phase. Demand will be designated with a token economy, where each token represents completion of a certain amount of task-related responses. The participant will not be prompted to perform the tasks. If the participant makes an error in a task (e.g. answer a math question incorrectly), this will lead to an error correction and no token will be presented. If stereotypi occurs, it will be blocked for up to 3 s, and then all demands will be reset by removing all earned tokens.
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* be 18 years or older,
* have a DD, autism spectrum disorder or a PDD-NOS diagnosis
* and be referred to the specialist habilitation service for adults.
Exclusion Criteria
* a reasonable possibility that the referred problem is caused by medical variables
* if the client participant receives communal care services and if those are not in accordance with Norwegian standards of services for individuals with DD.
* This could include inappropriate staff-to-client ratio,
* lack of stimulating activities,
* or if on-site training is insufficient.
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Oslo Metropolitan University
OTHER
Oslo University Hospital
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Petur Ingi Petursson
Principal investigator
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Petur I Petursson, MS, BCBA
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Oslo University Hospital
Sigmund Eldevik, PhD, BCBA-D
Role: STUDY_CHAIR
Oslo Metropolitan University
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Department of Neurohabilitation, Oslo University Hospital
Oslo, Oslo County, Norway
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Williams, E.W., Seiverling, L.J., & Field, D.G. (2014). Feeding problems. In: P. Sturmey & R. Didden (Eds.), Evidence-Based Practice and Intellectual Disabilities (pp. 198-213). Wiley Blackwell.
Volkert, V.M., Patel, M.R., Peterson, K.M. (2016). Food refusal and selective eating. In: Luiselli, J. (ed) Behavioral Health Promotion and Intervention in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Evidence-Based Practices in Behavioral Health. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27297-9_7
Ratnasuriya RH, Marks IM, Forshaw DM, Hymas NF. Obsessive slowness revisited. Br J Psychiatry. 1991 Aug;159:273-4. doi: 10.1192/bjp.159.2.273.
Kitfield EB, Masalsky CJ. Negative reinforcement-based treatment to increase food intake. Behav Modif. 2000 Sep;24(4):600-8. doi: 10.1177/0145445500244007.
Association of Professional Behavior Analysts. (2009). The use of restraint and seclusion as interventions for dangerous and destructive behaviors. www.apbahome.net/Restraint_Seclusion%20.pdf
Kazdin (2021). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. Oxford University Press.
Jarness, M., Petursson, P.I. & Eldevik, S. (2019). Trening av verbale operanter og differensiell forsterkning fører til økning i passende vokalisering og reduksjon i upassende vokalisering: Et kasus studie basert på en funksjonell analyse. Norsk Tidsskrift for Atferdsanalyse, 46, 71-83.
Iwata BA, Dorsey MF, Slifer KJ, Bauman KE, Richman GS. Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Summer;27(2):197-209. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197.
Hagopian LP, Kurtz PF, Bowman LG, O'Connor JT, Cataldo MF. A Neurobehavioral Continuum of Care for Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities with Severe Problem Behavior. Child Health Care. 2023;52(1):45-69. doi: 10.1080/02739615.2021.1987237. Epub 2022 Jan 25.
Hagopian LP, Farrell DA, Amari A. Treating total liquid refusal with backward chaining and fading. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Winter;29(4):573-5. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-573.
Grinblat N, Rosenblum S. Why are they late? Timing abilities and executive control among students with learning disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2016 Dec;59:105-114. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2016.07.012. Epub 2016 Aug 12.
Fjellstedt N, Sulzer-Azaroff B. Reducing latency of a child's responding to instructions by means of a token system. J Appl Behav Anal. 1973 Spring;6(1):125-30. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1973.6-125.
Fisher W, Piazza CC, Bowman LG, Hagopian LP, Owens JC, Slevin I. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 1992 Summer;25(2):491-8. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491.
Borrero, C. S., Schlereth, G. J., Rubio, E. K., & Taylor, T. (2013). A comparison of two physical guidance procedures in the treatment of pediatric food refusal. Behavioral Interventions, 28, 261-280. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1373
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
25/05900
Identifier Type: OTHER
Identifier Source: secondary_id
830334
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.