Understanding Repetitive Verbal Behavior in Children with Autism

When a child with autism asks the same question over and over, it’s easy to assume they want the answer. But what if the real payoff is something else entirely? This study explores why some children repeat questions or requests—and how identifying the true function can lead to more effective, respectful intervention. For clinicians working with repetitive speech, the findings offer practical guidance on assessment and treatment.

What Is the Research Question Being Asked and Why Does It Matter?

This study asked a simple but important question: when a child with autism keeps asking the same question or making the same request repeatedly, what is actually maintaining that behavior?

In real life, these statements can sound like normal requests for an item or an answer, so staff often respond by giving the item or answering again. But if the child is repeating the same thing many times, the “real payoff” might not be the item or the answer.

This matters because the best treatment depends on the true function. If the child repeats questions because they want attention, giving more answers may accidentally reinforce the repetition. If the child repeats because they truly need the information, ignoring could be unfair and harmful to communication. Clinicians need a way to tell the difference so they can reduce the repetitive pattern without shutting down useful communication.

The study focused on three elementary-aged children with ASD whose repetitive speech looked like mands for information (two children) or mands for tangibles (one child). The words sounded appropriate, but the pattern wasn’t working well in the classroom. The goal was to identify what consequence was maintaining the repetition and then teach a better way to meet that same need.

What Did the Researchers Do to Answer That Question?

The researchers ran a functional analysis (FA) with five brief conditions: one where the child’s question produced the specific thing it seemed to ask for, an attention condition, an escape condition, an ignore condition, and a control condition. Sessions were 5 minutes, and they measured repetitive verbal responses per minute. For the “information” cases, they limited answers to only the first time the child asked during a session.

The FA showed the highest rates of repetitive verbal behavior in the attention condition for all three children. In that condition, the therapist looked away and then responded to repeated questions with brief reprimands like “I already told you” or “Don’t ask again and again.”

The repetitive speech was not highest when the child could get the item or the information. This suggests the repetition was being reinforced by adult attention—even when that attention sounded negative.

Next, they tested a function-based treatment. They taught each child a short functional communication response (FCR) to request attention (for example, “Can I talk to you, please?”). They used prompting and prompt delay to teach the phrase. Then they ran functional communication training (FCT): the FCR produced 20 seconds of adult attention, and the repetitive verbal behavior was placed on extinction—except they still answered the first instance to avoid fully suppressing a possibly appropriate request.

They compared baseline (where repetitive speech still contacted attention) to FCT (where attention came from the FCR instead). For all three children, repetitive speech dropped near zero during FCT and returned when baseline returned. The FCR increased during FCT and decreased when baseline returned, confirming the treatment effect matched the FA result.

How You Can Use This in Your Day-to-Day Clinical Practice

When a learner repeats the same question or request, don’t assume it’s maintained by the item or information just because of how it sounds. “What it looks like” and “what is working for the learner” can be different.

Watch what happens right after the repetition and be honest about what staff typically do. If adults often correct, remind, reassure, or argue with the learner after the repeated question, that attention may be the payoff.

Consider adding an FA or structured functional assessment when repetitive “mands” are a major barrier. This study used short, clear test conditions that many school-based clinicians can adapt with good planning and consent. The goal is not to label the speech as “bad,” but to identify what the learner is getting from it.

If you can’t run a full FA, you can still test small changes safely—like adjusting how adults respond—but treat conclusions as tentative unless you have clear patterns.

Pay special attention to reprimands. The attention delivered in this study was mostly “don’t do that” language, and it still reinforced the repetition. For daily programming, this means telling staff to stop using repeated warnings, lectures, or “I already answered” statements if those keep the cycle going.

If the function is attention, reprimands are still attention. A practical staff rule: if you’re talking to the learner about the repetitive question each time it happens, you might be paying for it.

If the data suggest attention is the function, teach a simple, polite attention request that fits the learner’s language level and the setting. The FCR in the study was short, clear, and usable across activities.

In your practice, you might teach “Talk to me,” “Excuse me,” “Can you listen?”, or a button/AAC message that means the same thing. Make sure the learner can access attention in a dignified way that doesn’t require them to annoy others first.

Reinforce the new attention mand quickly and clearly at the start. In the study, the FCR earned about 20 seconds of adult attention right away.

Plan what “attention” will look like so it’s consistent and doable for staff. Keep it realistic: a brief conversation, a comment about what the learner is doing, a shared joke, or a short check-in. Avoid making the reinforcer so big that it disrupts instruction, but make it strong enough that the learner will choose it over the repetitive loop.

Use extinction for the repetitive pattern carefully and respectfully. In this study, they didn’t fully ignore every instance—they answered the first question once and then didn’t respond to repeats.

That’s a practical approach when the content could be a real question sometimes. In many classrooms, a “first one gets an answer, repeats do not” rule is easier to train and less likely to feel punitive. It also avoids the ethical problem of never responding to a learner who may sometimes need real information.

Plan what staff should do during extinction so it isn’t vague. “Ignore it” is hard to do consistently unless you script the replacement action.

A usable plan might be: give the answer once, then shift your body away, stay neutral, point to the learner’s FCR cue card, and wait. When the learner uses the FCR, respond right away with the planned attention. This keeps the learner from being stuck with no path to success.

Expect the need for generalization work. In the study’s social validity notes, classroom staff reported that one child didn’t use the new FCR consistently in the classroom and wanted more training for carryover.

Don’t assume that a new FCR learned in a quiet teaching room will show up during group instruction, transitions, or with different adults. Program practice with multiple staff, across activities, and at times when the learner usually repeats questions.

This study didn’t test long delays or denials of attention. In real settings, staff can’t provide 20 seconds of attention every time.

After the learner is using the FCR, plan gradual schedule thinning or a “wait” plan so the learner learns to handle “not yet” without returning to repetitive speech. Teach a simple waiting response (like “wait” with a timer or a card) and reinforce tolerance in small steps, while continuing to protect the learner’s right to request attention.

Finally, be cautious about who this applies to. This was three children in a school setting, and the repetitive speech was maintained by attention in this small sample—not automatically and not by tangibles or information.

Some learners repeat questions because they’re anxious, unsure, seeking predictability, or truly missing the information, and those cases may need different supports. Use this study to guide your assessment and first treatment ideas, but let your data and the learner’s context decide the plan.

Works Cited

Thakore, A. H., & Kettering, T. L. (2025). Functional analysis and treatment of repetitive verbal behavior in children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 41, 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-024-00208-4